201. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103601 by gr8hands on December 26, 2007 at 9:26 am

al-rawandi, you are, in fact, in error about this. But it is a common mistake, so here's some video to assist. It is of bottlenose dolphins. They bond for life. Monogamous.

http://www.godhateshomophobes.com/video-homosexual-dolphins.php

(See AtheistJon? This is an example of evidence.)

In fact, monogamous homosexuality in mammals appears to be as frequent as monogamous heterosexuality -- some species do, some don't.

202. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103598 by gr8hands on December 26, 2007 at 9:14 am

AtheistJon, I just need to point out a few little things in regards to your posts.

This is the official Richard Dawkins website, "a clear-thinking oasis" -- one of the reasons we come here is to avoid muddy thinking, such as making unsubstantiated claims.

For instance, you claim Bill Clinton is a rapist -- without providing any evidence. When called on that, you give a name of someone who alleges a rape occurred. That is not evidence.

Allegations are not evidence.
Heresay is not evidence.
Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence.
Personal revelation is not evidence.
Anecdotes are not evidence.
Rumors are not evidence.
Wild speculation is not evidence.
Wishful thinking is not evidence.
Illogical conclusions are not evidence.
Disproved statements are not evidence.
Logical fallacies are not evidence.

So, when you make unsupported statements about Bill Clinton being a rapist -- without providing evidence about where he was arrested for rape, tried for rape, convicted for rape, presented to a grand jury for rape, or anything from any official agency stating that the allegations are based on reality in any way --- well, we have to conclude your statement is as valid as claims about Big Foot or Santa or god.

I'll ignore the whole "fan of Ayn Rand" issue -- you probably should have said that you are a fan of the books you've read, but don't know or care about anything else she may have said outside of her fiction.

Now, about your misinformation about homosexuality, you are being inconsistent in how you describe your beliefs. You go way beyond merely finding it not your orientation, but go to "disgusting" and "gross" -- and you even claim that it is "natural" to do so.

Wrong. The evidence is overwhelmingly against you. Every mammal species demonstrates homosexuality, as do the birds. It is even 'natural' for some to change gender from male to female, or female to male (see clownfish, those cute stars from Finding Nemo).

In NO case do the other mammals/birds show any revulsion towards the homosexual members of their group. Ergo, it is not 'natural' because it does not appear in nature.

(If you have any evidence to the contrary, this is where you would supply it.)

That kind of "disgust" is strictly from a human society point of view. You do not tell us your theological background in this thread, but it is likely that you come from a religious upbringing, or in a modern society that had a religious majority, and therefore an ingrained prejudice against homosexuality which has lingered.

Psychologists tell us that self-confident heterosexual males are not "disgusted" by homosexuality, only those who are inhibiting their own internal homosexuality.

You are not just holding an opinion, you believe that it is a threat to your "innocent children". How? Again, provide the evidence for your statement. Where is the evidence that having your children view gay parades is harmful in any way?

No, AtheistJon, it appears that you are suffering from internalized homophobia (you not only find public displays of gay affection to be disgusting, but even a parade), and should just 'come out' and be happier! We'll welcome you with open arms. (Please don't insult us with protestations of how straight you are, claiming a wife and children as evidence -- my gay partner was married 27 years and has 2 sons, and I was married and have a son.) You just don't like to be called on it.

Paula Kirby and others are incorrect when they assert that

But with the exception of the Ancient Greeks, homophobia seems to have been pretty much the norm throughout human history.

This is not historically accurate, but revisionist history made by the dominant religions. I'm sorry that far too many people have been taught this, but the education process continues. I suggest people read John Boswell's Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe as a start.

So, AtheistJon, feel free to continue posting, but realize that without legitimate evidence, your statements are not going to be considered valid. Also, they will be scrutinized and compared -- because an evaluation of them reveal you to be more than merely opinionated, but already dangerously close to discriminatory action (if you haven't already gone over that line). The inconsistencies are easy to see, and we are able to draw conclusions about that.

Personally, I don't find your statements disgusting, only sad. I tend to think atheists are able to use reason better, but I find that people let me down in this regard all the time.

203. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98831 by gr8hands on December 14, 2007 at 2:14 pm

David Blackwell, you err again when you write

The priest, Jonathan Morris, was contrasting religion (of the sort he favours, of course) with atheistic ideologies (e.g. Marxism),

You keep missing the point that there is no such thing as an 'atheistic ideology' so you can't be giving an example of one -- Marxism is not an 'atheistic ideology'. That is central to the issue.

Read my Comment #98415 with the bit of math in it. Substitute "belief that 1+1 does NOT = 5" for atheism and put back into your statement. Observe how silly it is.

The priest was contrasting something that exists (religion) with something that doesn't exist (atheistic ideology). You can't go forward from there without looking silly.

Edit: Here's another way to think of it. It's not an entirely apt analogy, I'll admit that up front.

"Vegetables are not meat."

That is a simple statement of fact. It could also be phrased "there is no evidence that vegetables are meat."

Now, does this mean I'm a vegetarian? That I'm anti-meat? Does this require me to attack meat eaters, burn down slaughter houses, or boycott businesses that serve meat?

Would anyone who claims to be a vegetarian also claim that this statement is the reason they are? Would that be sane? Would it be logical?

Is it particularly reasonable to throw into a discussion contrasting carnivores, omnivores and vegetarians?

It's not an apt analogy because everyone agrees that vegetables are not meat -- there's nothing supposedly supernatural on either side of the equation. However, the questions above are definitly applicable.

(Actually, since I've read it reported that Hitler was a vegetarian, perhaps the good Father will want the Dalai Lama to apologize for the evils that another vegetarian committed.)

204. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98761 by gr8hands on December 14, 2007 at 8:23 am

Diacanu, you're making the very point I got ridiculed for earlier, which started what you erroneously call a 'soap opera'. So my opinion is clearly not uncommon.

Riley, prior to your 1) in Comment #98449, there were a few posts that I had every reason to believe you were responding to (I explained this already in Comment #98401).

When you didn't correct me, that seemed tacet acknowledgement that my presumption was correct (the burden is on YOU to correct any misunderstanding I have, not on ME to read your mind).

As for your 2), I attempted to get clarification with my response which immediately followed your post. It was a question seeking clarification.

Between your 2) and 3) you've conveniently left out posts.

Your 4) is irrelevant and already dealt with in Comment #98401. If you were not directing your comment to me, you should have said so. Again, the burden is on you to clear up misunderstandings.

Your 5) sentences contradict each other, and they were dealt with in Comment #98401.

Your 6) is simply incorrect. You may have had some validity if you had written "You yourself seem to have no problems using the implications of my words by using my actual words." Of course, that would be communicating the exact opposite of the erroneous statement you made.

I give this exchange as evidence of your difficulties in using correct logic, which supports the statement you have trouble with, wherein I question people's ability to reason.

Diacanu is right, this exchange also makes me nauseous.

205. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98438 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 3:36 pm

Bonzai, if there are a million bombs lying around, and only 1 person picks 1 up and takes it to a building and blows it up -- wouldn't that mean that if there had been no bombs in the first place the building wouldn't have blown up by that person in that way?

Of course, there may be a zillion other mitigating factors, but that changes nothing about the above question.

Which is, of course, the point behind the poster. The poster does not say religion is the SOLE reason. It just says "Imagine a world without religion" -- the individual viewer brings their own baggage.

206. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98422 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 3:17 pm

steve99 -- I love the Foundation reference!

207. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98415 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 3:07 pm

the great teapot, if this hypothetical absolute power wielding atheist does anything -- ANYthing -- it is not because of their atheism. Even if it is to say the words "I am an atheist." Even if they say "I'm doing this because I am an atheist."

Atheism does not force you to do anything, believe anything, act in any way, do any action.

It is unrelated to every other action, because it is like believing that 1+1 does NOT equal 5. It doesn't cause anything else to happen. Imagine how silly you'd be to say "I'm killing christians because 1+1 does not equal 5."

If anything else happens, it is for other reasons, but not because of atheism. It is not logical to say "he wouldn't have done that if he weren't an atheist." Nope. Sorry. Wrong.

"He's an atheist, so it is responsible for XYZ happening." Nope. Sorry. Wrong.

208. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98401 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Riley, you're clearly not being serious, going into the "implications" of what I wrote rather than what I actually wrote. (If I were snarky, I would ask if spoon bending would be your next trick.)

Stop doing that. It just causes difficulties.

I did not call you (or imply that you are) stupid, retarded, mentally defective, dull, thick, an idiot, brainless, dense, doltish, dopey, dorky, dumb, fatuous, half-witted, mindless, oafish, obtuse, senseless, simple, slow, thickheaded, unintelligent, vacuous, weak-minded, witless, feebleminded, retarded, simpleminded, foolish, idiotic, an imbecile, imbecilic, moronic, ignorant, illiterate, lowbrow, uneducated, uninformed, untaught, unthinking, absurd, asinine, balmy, cockeyed, crazy, cuckoo, daffy, daft, dotty, harebrained, insane, kooky, looney, lunatic, mad, nonsensical, nutty, preposterous, sappy, screwball, unwise, wacky, zany, or fallacious -- or any other word that might be slightly related to or share a partial definition with what I wrote.

So do not reconstruct what I wrote, or argue about the "implications" of what I wrote. I have really good command of English, and write using the words I want, to convey the message I want. When you choose to alter that, YOU are creating a problem.

I have nothing to apologize for in this matter.

As for showing you where you accuse me, are you serious? You quoted it yourself. I made a comment, you wrote about that comment -- using logic, I could deduce it was directed at me, so I responded to you. If it was not directed at me, you should have said so. By not saying so, it is tacet agreement that it was directed at me.

Once again, this is a problem that you have created by changing what was written, adding in extra, putting something to an (illogical) extreme, and then trying to argue it. Please stop.

209. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98376 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Bonzai, re-read my posts on this thread. Then produce the Comments/quotes which you feel "amount to a repeated mantra that 'religion = evil'. I'll explain them to you.

I'm not being insulting, but as I felt the original posts were already cogent, I'm not sure where you're not following me, or where I need further explanation/clarity, so I need you to point it out. However, it's getting on to suppertime here, so I might not be able to get back to it until tomorrow.

210. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98338 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Riley, thank you for admitting that I did not actually use the word you accused me of using.

You are right, "This is a perfect example of the kind of disagreements we've had on this thread." However, the problem stems from you changing the words I've actually used, to something else.

Please stop doing that. Then, observe the result. I'll make a bold prediction that it will eliminate a great majority of the disagreements. At least try it and see.

211. World History

Comment #98306 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Vaal, it's 144,000 who will go to heaven with Jehovah (they misunderstood the part in Revelations about 12,000 male virgins from each of the 12 Jewish tribes). The rest of humanity that followed Jehovah's commands with the right faith will have the 'hope' of the resurrection into a newly re-created Earth.

No rapture, but after Armageddon comes the re-creation. No one knows if they will actually be resurrected -- they only have 'hope'. If not, then at least there is no hell.

212. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98296 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Riley, please provide the Comment # in this thread where I've used the word 'stupid'. (Fact check: I haven't used it since a post on October 3rd, and then once back in July.)

Please provide the Comment # in this entire forum where I've suggested that

the only explanation for a disagreement is that the other person must be stupid and as such deserving of personal attacks and insults.

You will not find any such examples -- and that is not an 'opinion' but a fact.

That, by the way, is what I would call 'evidence'.

Also the fact you ignored two very important parts of my short post: the first word, 'is', along with the question mark at the end -- denoting a question, rather than a statement.

Please provide the evidence that

You trust yourself as the final arbiter of what is logical in a very complex argument.

You appear to have the nasty habit of making statements without backup. Edit: Actually, you appear to make statements which contradict or do not arise from the backup, which is one way I would define a problem with logic.

213. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98272 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 11:59 am

USA_Limey, that opinion might have validity if this were any generic forum. However, as I wrote in my previous post, I heard Richard Dawkins speak about this new website at its creation, and he was clear that it was going to be an oasis of reason amid the nonsense, and a beacon for civil discourse. He had high hopes for high standards.

That is why I came to this forum, not just any forum. It was to be a forum set apart, with higher standards than say the Dilbert blog. It is not my view of what it should be, but how Richard Dawkins himself said it was created to be. Any other 'point of view' would be in error.

I believe it has evolved over time into something that he may be less proud of, because it has become dominated by so much of the junk filling other forums. I do not believe it is living up to the ideal it was created with -- but we can all take responsibility (as you put it) of our posts and work for that higher standard.

214. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98262 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 11:44 am

Riley, is that what you assume? Not me. I just wait for the evidence to make itself known.

215. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98260 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 11:43 am

USA_Limey -- let's see, Dawkins has made only 2 posts all this month, 3 all last month, 8 all the month before... only 102 total in over a year. (compared with over 9 pages full of posts from you) But I suppose that could be construed as "quite frequently" by some, so I stand corrected. I should have written "It is also exactly why Richard Dawkins himself doesn't bother posting on every topic, or every day, or in response to every question directed to him."

You are also in error when you state "we are all grownups here" as evidenced by the childish exchanges.

As for taking my own advice, I do. I try to be careful when I post, providing links when I can, checking the accuracy before posting, admitting an error when I make them (reports that I claim or believe I am perfect are in error), and try to stick on topic.

For others, I do not need to be welcomed to the Internet, having been involved in its predecessor. I did, however, expect the standards to be higher on the Richard Dawkins website, because I thought he attracted a higher caliber of discourse.

I had hoped there would be more people involved in the sciences, in technology, in the application of reason, in the desire to expand knowledge rather than merely trying to score points.

I believe Richard Dawkins expressed such hopes himself, when announcing the creation of this website. So, you are also accusing him of lecturing.

216. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98232 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 10:14 am

David Blackwell, you are confused when you link dialectical materialism, and atheism. They are not synonymous, not equivalent, and not mutually interdependent.

You are confusing Marxism with atheism. Again, they are not synonymous, not equivalent, and not mutually interdependent.

You are also confused that Dawkins is saying that Stalin's/Hitler's ideology is not to blame for their actions -- he is saying that 'atheism' is not to blame for their actions, and was not their ideology.

You continue to be confused by suggesting there is an 'atheist philosophy'. No such thing exists.

Your complaint would have merit if anyone had committed atrocities in the name of atheism. But they didn't. They did them in the name of some other ideology or for some other reason. Atheism does not advocate, demand, require or 'inspire' any action. If any action happens, it is for other reasons.

217. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98205 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 9:02 am

FatherMike, you did not respond to my post: 309. Comment #97515 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 8:30 am

I am surprised, as it was certainly not insulting, and answered your specific question, while asking serious questions that really do need to be answered before we could progress.

You asked about the AAI. Well, from their website http://www.atheistalliance.org/ it states:

The Atheist Alliance Inc. (AAI) is a democratic association of independent, autonomous atheist societies.

That seems pretty clear. Independent. Autonomous.

But they don't claim to represent all atheists, only those atheists who join their organization. They do not represent me, and I am not a member. (I am part of the Secular Coalition for America lobbying effort, however, because it is more broad based, and I personally know the lobbyist.)

There are atheists who believe in astrology.
There are atheists who believe in astral projection.
There are atheists who believe in UFO abduction.
There are atheists who believe in homeopathy.
There are atheists who believe in telepathy.
There are atheists who compose church music (John Rutter, for instance)
There are atheists who attend church every Sunday.
There are atheists who believe in pyramid power.
There are atheists who believe in magnet therapy.
There are atheists who believe they should never tell anyone they are an atheist, and bristle at the thought of self-identifying as an atheist.
There are atheists who never vote.
There are atheists who teach theology at seminaries.
There are atheists who do missionary work in foreign countries.
There are atheists who believe homosexuals are evil.
There are atheists who believe religion is a good thing.

You see, FatherMike, there is really no common ground among atheists -- not even whether to call themselves 'atheist' or 'non-theist' or 'free thinker' or 'Brights' or 'secularist' or 'humanist' or not to have any name whatsoever.

Some atheists are almost dogmatic about there being no possibility that a god could exist, and would not accept any proof presented. Some atheists believe there has been no proof of god's existence, so there is no reason to believe god exists. Some atheists are actively seeking to disprove the existence of god through logic and reason. Some atheists have never given it a moment's thought.

FatherMike, all humans are born without a belief in god -- it has to be taught to them by their parents, family, society, etc. It is not pre-wired like sneezing or yawning. It is completely learned.

Some never received that instruction, and thus grew up without a belief, and it wasn't a conscious choice. Others have made the conscious choice based on observing the lack of proof. Some have rejected god after tragedy in their lives. Some have read good books, and come to realize the inconsistencies inherent within all religions and belief systems, and between all religions and belief systems, and arrived at the logical conclusion that it is more likely that none of them are right, and religion is clearly man-made.

I hope this cleared up some of your questions. My background includes seminary training as a theologian, so I have done extensive research into this subject, and am currently affiliated with a theological seminary (where they know I am an atheist).

You can, of course, message me privately if you do not wish your comments/questions to be public, and I will respect that.

218. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98184 by gr8hands on December 13, 2007 at 8:16 am

Well . . . I leave for the evening, and both Riley and Bonzai are no closer to realizing their flimsy arguments are not logical (and strain at gnats not particularly related to the thread), krisking is still able to distract the thread with a lot of newbie theist junk, and the BMMcArdle/Diacanu snarky exchange continues.

Sad. I had expected better. This is exactly why I don't involve myself more. It is also exactly why Richard Dawkins himself doesn't bother posting.

Aren't you people supposed to be able to use reason? It appears to be in short supply (those of you who have it, I'm not talking about you).

So much energy wasted on silly posts. Please take a good hard look at yourselves and what you're putting out for worldwide display. If it isn't something you'd be proud to put in your portfolio of best work, maybe you might not choose to submit it.

We all tend to look up to the quality of Dawkins' writing -- why? Not because it is rushed out full of typos and showing the sophistication of a teenager with too much Red Bull. We appreciate the depth, the accuracy, the scholarship and the high quality of the writing.

We should emulate that in this forum.

219. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97682 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 2:05 pm

krisking, please define what you mean by 'true christian'.

Please define what you mean by 'inspired by God.'

Please give an example of any part of the bible that may not 'have been written within the context of the times in which they were written.'

Presuming that jesus was god, wouldn't his 'interpretation' be the absolute authority on what it really meant?

Don't you see how silly this side-track of yours is becoming? It should be on another thread, as it is not about the poster.

220. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97671 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 1:56 pm

krisking, Baptists teach that you must accept jesus as your personal savior and be baptized in water in order to be saved and claim to be a christian. Presbyterians do not. Catholics teach you must be a catholic and be confirmed, no personal salvation required. Some evangelicals require that you accept jesus as personal savior, be baptized, and speak in tongues in order to claim to be a christian.

Those are just a few well known denominations which teach competing definitions about what it means to be a christian. Note how they are often mutually exclusive, meaning they can't all be right.

Jews and Muslims are certainly able to follow those three precepts, but they certainly would not christian.

You seem confused about all this.

221. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97664 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 1:50 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen, krisking also needs to remember that jesus is reported to have been guilty of assault with a scourge on people engaged in lawful activities -- beating them!

And breaking jewish laws against working on the sabbath, touching lepers without going through purification rituals afterwards (and thereby making everyone else he touched thereafter unclean and unacceptable to god -- according to god's dictation to moses). I could provide more examples of these kinds of immoral actions.

Not exactly a great role model, that jesus.

222. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97652 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 1:31 pm

steve99 -- I believe it is more difficult for any real progress to be made while there are still religious people in control, so you should do that first, and then the awful conditions would probably be tended to and solved by the humanitarian actions of the atheists.

Theists don't have the same incentive to make everything on earth as fair and equitable for everyone as atheists -- they're preparing for an afterlife, or they don't think non-theists (or those who don't belong to their denomination) deserve the same things they do. God should be blessing them specially for following him, you see. They deserve extra, or at least more than everyone else. Or they feel justified in taking something someone else has, because god told them to.

Get rid of the theism, solve that problem immediately.

223. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97644 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Bonzai, you have the comments from the person who actually put up the sign, telling us all their intention. You don't have to guess.

Unless you're going to accuse them of lying (and I hope you have good evidence to support that accusation).

Otherwise you're just showing irrational behavior.

224. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97638 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 1:06 pm

krisking, there is confusion about what 'act justly', 'love mercy' and 'walk humbly with your god' means. It is clearly different for different denominations.

That very confusion is another demonstration that the holy scriptures cannot be from a divine omniscient god.

225. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97631 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Bonzai, you're trying to weasel out of the fact that he was using doctrine rather than politics. It doesn't matter that it wasn't a 'specific doctrine'.

Politics alone doesn't say "do this for the glory of god." It takes doctrine, not necessarily a specific doctrine. But you can't accurately say it isn't based on doctrine even if it is not believed by the person saying it.

If an atheist tells a religious zealot to do something for the glory of god, and they do it, it still is due to doctrine -- that of the person doing it, not of the atheist.

Is that clear? So your comments about bin laden are not germane, because he didn't fly the planes into the towers. Those who did, did so for religious reasons.

I didn't miss your point, I simply point out that it is wrong.

226. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97619 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Bonzai, did you really write

In the 2007 beyond belief conference Scott Atran quoted Bin Laden in saying that even without Islam, the pagan gods would have commanded them to drive out the Americans. So it was politics, the specific doctrines probably played a much lesser role than you think.

Do you not see that those two sentences contradict each other? Really?

Or are you saying 'the pagan gods' = 'politics'

227. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97611 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 12:30 pm

steve99, I agree with you, but don't forget that without religion no one would be royalty by 'divine right'.

No one would declare a race as being created inferior to another.

No one would tell you to endure suffering in this world in order to gain rewards in the next life.

No one would tell a wife that they were created to be in subjugation to their husbands.

No one would be killed for blasphemy, or heresy, or apostasy.

228. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97608 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Riley, thank you for quoting my request for an example and then supplying an example that ignores what I wrote in your very next sentence -- that demonstrates . . . well, perhaps you can fill in the blank.

You repeated

Like I said, terrorist attacks are neither a universal part of religion, nor are they limited to religion. So, apparently, another factor besides religion is necessary.

You appear confused that this was not about ALL terrorist attacks from any group, but about the specific twin towers attack by a religious group. Please stick to the point.

Riley, please show me a single example of a war fought without a single reference to god as part of the justification. If you can, then your comments might have some extremely slight merit.

Riley, perhaps you should study Jainism to know what they believe. Here's a quote from the opening screen of their website:

I bow to the Arahants, the perfected human beings, Godmen.
I bow to the Siddhas, liberated bodiless souls, God.

Yup, as I remembered. They believe in things that do not exist, and as such, are no different from any other religion in that they force you to suspend rational thought in order to accept their teachings. That alone makes them undesirable.

You should just strip out all the supernatural aspects of their religion, call it 'ethics' or 'morality' or 'philosophy' and we could agree that the world would be better off with it. But as long as there is the supernatural stuff in there, it is conflict with Science and reason, which makes it bad.

Which is the logical conclusion I said you would arrive at. Riley, is there a problem with your ability to make logical conclusions? I'm not being snarky, I'm just asking -- has anyone else noticed you have problems with this? If not, ignore me. If so, perhaps you do, and you should consider that.

229. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97541 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 9:47 am

HughCaldwell, sbernhoft made a slight error when he wrote about spe salvi containing a statement about Hitler being an atheist. It does not have such a statement in that document.

I believe he meant that Father Morris made the comment

Now Pope Benedict XVI — the same man who supported John Paul II's mea culpa — reminds the world that Christianity, and religious faith in general, does not have a monopoly on fanaticism. The totalitarian regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, among others, were intrinsically atheistic systems.

and put that together with the recently released encyclical.

230. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97534 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 9:27 am

Riley, if the tower suicide bombings were anything other than religiously motivated, why don't you ever see the videotaped last statements of the bombers talk about expressing political frustration? They only used religious phrases. I would say that evidence counters what you've been saying -- unless you claim to have evidence to know their real inner thoughts, or have access to other evidence to corroborate your claims.

You are clearly unaware that for Muslims, politics is religious and cannot be anything but fully grounded in and consistent with the teachings of Islam. There is religion without politics, but no politics without religion. This renders incorrect your statements suggesting politics-only actions.

You wrote:

If atheism is simply a non-belief, why are atheists asserting this "world without religion" utopian belief under the banner of atheism? Do we know for a fact that the world we imagine without Janism in it, would be a better world? That's quite an assumption.

It is not an assumption but a valid and logical conclusion. Reality is better for the whole world than delusion. (isolated temporary individual experiences may vary -- clearly the Inquisition was personally better for the pope than for the victims)

Better, show me a single example where delusion is better for the whole world than reality. (Not an isolated temporary individual example.)

231. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97528 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 9:03 am

walk -- you are in error in one point. Many of us (including Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, gr8hands . . .) are clearly advocating for a world without religion. Just like we are glad to have a world without believers in a flat earth.

That being said, I particularly agree with your last sentence. Well said.

232. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97517 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 8:33 am

For anyone who would argue that Hitler was an atheist even if he claimed to be a christian, I have to ask a simple question: Why would Hitler not announce he was an atheist -- do you think he was afraid of public opinion? Do you think he feared a negative reaction from the press?

233. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97515 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 8:30 am

FatherMike wrote:

I know most of you disagree with Fr Morris about religion, but do you condemn the evil actions of atheists who poorly reresent your views?

Yes, I condemn all evil actions by anyone. But you asked a more involved question. Let's break this question down:

'atheists who poorly represent your views' -- views on what? You weren't specific. Do I presume you mean my views on atheism? On what it means to be an atheist? On whether being an atheist means anything else? My views on the Middle East?

Do you imply that I might not condemn the evil actions of atheists who accurately represent my views? Or get most of them right, but not 100%? Or agnostics who poorly represent my views? Or agnostics who accurately represent my views?

'the evil actions' -- how are you defining 'evil'? For many theists, not being a theist is evil. Or not being an evangelizing christian. Or not tithing. Or not caring for the widows or orphans. Or breaking the 10 Commandments. For Muslims, leaving Islam (to them clearly an evil act) is punishable by death -- I would be against the punishment, not the leaving.

You'll have to define evil better to know if I would agree with your definition. I presume you mean obvious evils (rape, murder, theft, etc.). But I also am against the evil of religious oppression, religious domination, religious indoctrination of children, religious persecution of those not sharing the same belief, keeping people ignorant because Science contradicts church teachings -- and I don't know if you consider those 'evil' or not.

There have been far too many examples of religious people killing in the name of their god, at the direct order of their god (so they thought), and other atrocities supposedly for the good of the victims' souls -- done cheerfully because they truly felt they were doing something righteous and holy, regardless of the suffering being caused. Those people would definitely NOT think they were doing anything 'evil' (but I do) -- which is why you need to define the term better!

Do you see why it is not easy for us to have a conversation when you use words that have too many individual meanings for each party involved? We have to have common understandings about what each of us means, and not try to foist our definitions off on someone else.

234. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97501 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 7:54 am

krisking wrote:

There follows a huge misunderstanding of what this actually means. Jesus himself said that his Kingdom was not of this world. He was not here to set up a political kingdom on this earth. Those people who call themselves Christians who think that it is their job to bring in some sort of God's Kingdom on earth are completely mislead.

I think it would be more accurate to say 'jesus contradicts himself when he said that his kingdom was not of this world.' Perhaps you are confusing the jesus kingdom and god's kingdom (even though they are supposedly one and the same being).

But, of course, the people jesus was talking to would have understood the subtleties of what you're arguing, even though only some of the disciples would have been present at both events where jesus said the things you're mentioning -- certainly not the crowd.

Also, I would definitely say that "Those people who call themselves Christians who think that it is their job to bring in some sort of God's Kingdom on earth" who happen to number in the millions, would disagree with you, claim you are not a real christian if you believe and spread such lies.

krisking also wrote:

The only material thing which Jesus suggests we ask for is "our daily bread": ie sufficient for us to live by, not untold wealth."

I suggest krisking read Matthew 6 where jesus says "Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?"

Clearly this contradicts "the Lord's Prayer" -- it is also inaccurate, as you can see watching just about any nature show that has film footage of birds starving to death.

It also clearly contradicts John 10:10 where jesus says "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (Please don't insult us by suggesting this was allegory of some sort -- this was not part of some parable or midrash, just plain speaking with plain meaning.)

krisking, you further go on to write:

An important phrase here is "in my name".

So someone praying "I the name of jesus, god please heal my amputated arm." should get it healed if John 14:14 "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." is true? It either means what it says, or not. Adding a lot of 'what jesus meant was . . .' is silly. (of course, since there is no proof such a person a jesus existed, the whole conversation is merely a mental exercise)

That demonstrates the problems with trying to second guess the writings of a supposedly divine omniscient god -- it completely proves the opposite! If I, a non-divine human, want my child to give a message, I communicate that to him. If he gets it wrong, I explain it in a better way. If he still gets it wrong, I write it down for him. If he still gets it wrong, I write it in a more clear fashion. If he keeps getting it wrong, I may just decide not to give him the message. But if I were an omniscient god, who can see the future and all the possible mistakes of translation that might occur, I would certainly jump to the correct method first, rather than go through the enormous mess first. The fact this isn't what happened demonstrates to me that no "holy" writings come from a divine omniscient being.

235. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97132 by gr8hands on December 11, 2007 at 1:24 pm

krisking, the whole prayer thing starts with some ass-kissing by stating that god's name is hallowed -- just in case an omniscient being had forgotten that, or would care what a lowly human thought of its name.

Then it goes into a request that god's kingdom come, and god's will be done on earth, as it is in heaven -- regardless of consequences, and with the presumption that god's kingom and will are good things to be desired.

Then jesus tells them to beg god to provide a miracle of 'daily bread' -- please note it does not mention this as payment for hard work, or having earned it in any way. Seeing that many millions of people have starved to death, god clearly can choose not to honor this request.

Then we are to beg for forgiveness of our sins, pointing out that we have forgiven others what they've done against us (as if we had the power of forgiveness, like a god).

Then we beg not to be lead into temptation, because that is the kind of thing a loving god-parent might do to the children they love unless asked NOT to.

Then we beg to be delivered from evil, because again, god probably wouldn't otherwise do it.

Finally we do more ass-kissing about god's kingdom, power and glory now and forever.

Yup, jesus certainly taught them some worthwhile things when he taught them to pray.

236. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97001 by gr8hands on December 11, 2007 at 8:44 am

Atticus_of_Amber, I am duly impressed with your cogent, respectful, direct rebuttal -- this is not a common feeling for me, because so much written in this forum is not of the quality they would want to put in a portfolio of their best writing.

Your post is one of the reasons I keep coming back. I am always on the lookout for insightful prose, a poignant point of view, caustic wit displayed with linguistic flair, stellar intellect showing deep research -- in any combination. A good turn of phrase always makes me smile, and your post was chock full!

And you did it without getting snarky! Quite a feat.

(Although I might point out that John Paul II was a bit of an astrologer, as he firmly believed the biblical story of the star moving and showing the location of where jesus was -- clearly in violation of what we know from astronomy, celestial mechanics, etc. But that's a minor point.)

237. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96994 by gr8hands on December 11, 2007 at 8:24 am

Faith based initiatives -- I find offensive.

Automatic tax exempt status for any church -- I find offensive.

Religious printing on currency -- I find offensive.

Inserting 'under god' in the Pledge of Allegiance -- I find offensive.

Paid chaplains in the military and at the service academies -- I find offensive.

Having a taxpayer supported National Cathedral -- I find offensive.

Having religious monuments and displays put up on public property, court rooms, state/federal congressional chambers, etc. -- I find offensive.

Parents opting out of vaccinating their children for religious reasons, putting everyone else at risk -- I find offensive.

Being forced to provide welfare and other tax supported support for unwed mothers because the religious refuse to allow comprehensive sex education in schools -- I find offensive.

Allowing intelligent design to be taught as science, or having to use taxpayer funds to fight legal battles at schools over the issue -- I find offensive.

Having the religious re-write history so that the Founding Fathers are portrayed as christians -- I find offensive.

Having 'faith' lauded and science denigrated, allowing all the woo-woo pseudoscience and pseudomedicine to flourish, wasting billions on useless treatments that only cause suffering -- I find offensive.

Allowing con artists to perpetrate public fraud by claiming supernatural powers of any kind -- i find offensive.

And, yes, giving religions ANY kind of taxpayer support, ANY kind of credibility, ANY kind of consolation, or ANY kind of free ride -- I find offensive.

238. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96583 by gr8hands on December 10, 2007 at 6:25 pm

The good father needs to read http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm because his information on Hitler is totally WRONG.

And his information on the Spanish Inquisition.

And his information on evolution.

And his information on . . .

239. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96550 by gr8hands on December 10, 2007 at 5:42 pm

Except that as an atheist, I do not have ANY holy days (which is what 'holiday' is short for), or 'holy' anything. It would be internally inconsistent and quite silly to have anything supportive about holidays on our signs. (Imagine how silly the phrase 'atheists for jesus' would be.)

Comment #96508 is absolutely right, our mere presence is offensive to the theists.

Riley, the theists keep trying to put Einstein in their camp (where he does not belong), and shoving Hitler into our camp (again, where he does not belong). Your suggestion is a little silly without clearly identifying them all as Atheists, which would itself be an offensive attack on theism (according to them).

You just can't get around the fact that there is no statement to put out that doesn't use the word 'holiday' (which is inaccurate), that isn't offensive to at least one major religion or all religions, and yet is still identified as a message from Atheists.

240. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96486 by gr8hands on December 10, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Riley wrote:

That ideology directly motivated Russians to brutally oppress the practice of religion.

Only some. (Much like the Republican platform is not agreed upon by all Republicans, let alone all Republican candidates.) The rest were 'following orders' or were under threat of punishment.

I would also gently suggest that you are confused about the definition of 'ideology' -- as presented, it is inaccurate. But that's beside your main point.

241. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96474 by gr8hands on December 10, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Riley, you are in error when you write:

it is not reasonable to link the brutal attempts to eradicate religion during the 20th century with all attempts to promote a world without religion,

You have fallen into the theist propoganda trap of thinking Stalin and others were atheists out to 'eradicate religion' when they were merely tyrants out to eradicate any other source of power in their country. They didn't start out against religion, but when the church became a supposedly safe meeting place for dissidents, it quickly changed to prevent that from happening.

However, I do agree that most people are unaware of that, and would erroneously perceive a link.

Where your analogy fails is that you cannot separate the terrorists who did the 9/11 attacks from their religion as it was entirely religiously motivated. It wasn't a political protest or an economic boycott. They were following God's Will, not the party platform ratified by majority vote, or the results of a poll, or the findings of economists. Bin Laden may have had other motives, but he didn't fly the planes into the towers. Those who did, did so for religious reasons. Period.

242. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96463 by gr8hands on December 10, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Here are some sign suggestions:

Did a pope invent Christmas? Was Jesus born on December 25th? Find out the truth by reading an encyclopedia.

or

When you're sick with bacteria, which is more effective: prayer or antibiotics? Find out the truth by asking your doctor.

or

Where in the Constitution is the word "God" located? Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, or nowhere? Find out the truth by reading the Constitution.

I'm sure you can all think of some other good signs. Why don't we make up some suggestions and post them?

243. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96450 by gr8hands on December 10, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Don_Quix is absolutely correct when he wrote:

And if "atheism is a religion", as many theists claim it is, wouldn't it be absolutely correct and proper for atheist symbols and sentiments to be displayed right next to the symbols and sentiments of other religions?

That, of course, will not happen. Theists are not interested in equality, because of the First Commandment (or its equivalent) forbids it. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Until I see a session of Congress opened with a "prayer" from a Satanist or a Wiccan, no theist has credibility saying there is religious equality in Congress. Until I see Satanist or Wiccan student groups in high schools, no theist has credibility saying there is religious equality in schools. Until I see a Satanist or Wiccan perform a ceremony at the Washington National Cathedral "a house of prayer for all people" -- there is no equality even among the religious.

If you're unsure, just ask a theist if they would mind? The response will be instructive.

Will this city allow a display by the Satanists or Wiccans, clearly identified as such? If not, then the hypocrisy of religious diversity is exposed.

How much better to have a sign that reads:

Check your encyclopedia -- jesus was not born on December 25th. Christmas is a man-made, manufactured holiday created by the pope. This message brought to you by those interested in reason and accuracy, to help you learn to think for yourselves. If you like all the modern conveniences of science, thank an Atheist.

244. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94092 by gr8hands on December 4, 2007 at 6:42 pm

The article was not accurately reposted. The fourth sentence in the first paragraph made no sense, so I looked at the original.

245. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93848 by gr8hands on December 4, 2007 at 10:03 am

Christmas? Yule? Winter Solstice?

I say we should celebrate as often as possible -- looking for ways to share love and joy, and work towards peace.

I love giving and receiving presents, inviting people over for meals, singing songs, making decorations. I make up special days. I celebrate victories (and even attempts that fell short of victory) for friends and family.

Life is far too short to limit ourselves to a tiny handful of Hallmerk-certified and religion sanctioned holidays!

246. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93845 by gr8hands on December 4, 2007 at 10:00 am

IanG, in Comment #93451 you wrote:

None of this refutes my argument that Atheism carries the seeds of tyranny just like any other idea.

Incorrect.

Atheism is merely not believing in god(s). It entails no actions, requires no actions, prompts no actions, encourages no actions -- therefore has no 'seed' for tyranny or anything else.

247. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93839 by gr8hands on December 4, 2007 at 9:40 am

ADH -- we welcome all people here in this forum who do so in a respectful way. However, if a theist tries to preach at us, or attempt a lambast of sin or hellfire, or suggest we try prayer or any other such tactic . . . well, we're not likely to respond very well.

Much like you wouldn't expect a Jew to respond favorably if you said "Just try the pork, you'll like it." Or telling a Catholic priest "Just ignore your beliefs, go ahead and get married." Or telling a Muslim "Just go ahead and draw that satire on Mohammed, and submit it for publication -- Muslims have great senses of humor about their Prophet!"

But it shouldn't take reading very many posts on any thread to see that there is no unanimity in this community about much, aside from no belief in god(s). We have no 'faith' to lose by thinking about it. Our beliefs require absolutely no action on our parts. We have no holy books, no sacred festivals, no prophets, no spokespeople (although we do have a lobbyist).

So of course we're going to have disagreements due to the variety of human perspectives choosing to participate in this forum. But. . . if you choose to play, you also choose to become a target, and have every comment scrutinized.

Not everyone can take that kind of heat. It isn't for the weak, or unprepared.

You'll do yourself a service (and help the discourse) if you provide links to anything you reference. If you make a claim, back it up with a named reference (book title, author, magazine, study, etc.) and a link. It's extremely easy to find them. If you can't provide proof, don't expect anyone here to take your word for anything.

Most importantly, don't parade any credentials you may have -- saying I know blah blah blah because I have a doctorate in blah from Blah Blah University means "because I said so" and nothing more. It will only get you ridiculed. You'd be surprised how many people posting here have a long string of letters after their names, and perhaps a Nobel prize on their shelves. We're not impressed with credentials, only facts (although I am always impressed by a good turn of phrase, and genuine comedy).

If you (and other theists) will join in accepting that we are not 'lost souls' seeking to be saved by your next post, eager to shed our logic for your theology, then we can probably have polite dialogue.

I'll admit that I can get snarky when someone ignores these simple concepts -- theist or not. My suggestion is always to check your references before posting them, or risk having your error pointed out across the Internet.

It isn't about one-upmanship, it's about being accurate. In this forum we care more about truth than walking on eggshells around a person's feelings, although we do try to be civil until provoked. But feelings aren't the most important thing in this forum. I stress that, because individually we are very caring people -- not for eternal rewards or because we're being watched 24/7 and will have to give an accounting before a divine presence. We care about people because we're caring people.

But in this forum, we're about ideas, facts, science, knowledge, understanding, and the actions/reactions to them. Most of the time, because there are some threads which are more geared towards feelings, and are clearly identified as such.

I don't mean to ramble, but part of science is to be complete and have everyone understanding what is going on. There is no special brotherhood, secret societies, or inner circle -- everything is out in the open and available for everyone to learn and know, test and evaluate, and repeat.

So, ADH, we wish you well, and hope that your journey allows you to interact with us and have everyone benefit from the experience.

248. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93355 by gr8hands on December 2, 2007 at 8:21 pm

Linker's article shows the dangers of getting your information from widipedia.

I'm surprised that no one pointed out his error

But, as we know from elementary logic, it is impossible to prove a negative:

It is quite easy for me to prove there are no 16 ton pink elephants in my nostrils. It is quite easy to prove that there are no two even integers that added together will produce an odd integer. The list goes on. Perhaps he forgot, or didn't actually take a course in logic, or took it from a theist who didn't know what he was doing, or wasn't paying attention in logic class.

I would have to say the University of Pennsylvania has lowered its standards. I hope he does not have tenure, but can easily be fired. He is showing he is not qualified to be a teacher.

249. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #92293 by gr8hands on November 30, 2007 at 8:41 am

Unless the boy had gone through the rigorous process to be baptized, (which involves intense verbal questioning of the witness teachings by the elders, to see if the candidate can provide the accurate answers with specific scripture references), he would not be subject to the threat of disfellowship. Only baptized witnesses are. The article did not mention whether or not he was baptized.

He was not old enough to legally drive a car, choose not to attend school, enlist in the military, enter into any legal contracts (even if he were earning millions as an actor or inventor), have his own credit card, legally drink alcohol, legally smoke cigarettes, or vote. Yet somehow he was deemed old enough to choose suicide based on religious beliefs that he had not even had for 4 years.

The judge should be removed from office, the guardians prosecuted for assisted suicide, and the witnesses as the cult they are prosecuted for conspiracy and coercion to commit manslaughter.

Oh, and for those thinking the kid believed he was going to paradise in an afterlife -- WRONG! Witnesses only have the hope of resurrection, no guarantees. No hell as punishment, only resurrection or nothing, but no guarantees.

250. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90931 by gr8hands on November 26, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Quine, you are right. I should have said "responsible, rational scientists who aren't also irrational theists, young earth geologists, templeton prize winners or such."

I must disagree that the responsibility to attempt to prevent spin is on the scientist -- their job is to do the best science they can. The media will spin (or blatantly lie) regardless of what the scientist presents.