201. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104600 by Logicel on December 29, 2007 at 1:43 am

The only difference I can see between a deluded paranoid who believes she/he is being followed by a non-existent entity and the Pope is that the latter wears funny clothes and a ridiculous hat.

Humans have enough of real problems on their hands, and this leader of a prominent and powerful organization wants us to waste our time fretting about his fantasies of devils and loss of faith in superstitions? Get a real job, Ratty.

202. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95442 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:48 am

Steve, Apology accepted (thank goodness my trained eyes did not skip over your latest comment, teehee). I am not a polite person, and that's just me also.

203. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95440 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:45 am

Northern Bright, You beat me to the punch, and, yes, sometimes it is necessary to go OT to get back on topic (so to speak). But we all need to nudge each other when the topic is getting hijacked, for goodness sakes.

204. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95435 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:41 am

Diacanu, Point taken, and some of us have tried and GAVE UP. I have been posting at this site for about a year, and I have seen and identified this pattern. If that is what the majority wants, then who am I to fight it almost single handedly? I got better things to do with my time.

205. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95434 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:39 am

Northern Bright Now it is your turn to have lost me. I am just reiterating what coretemprising said. My strong feelings are coming from the reality that atheists are encouraging the derailment of topics so they can dilly dally with theists. That is not the reason why I spend time here. Theists are a dime a dozen. The forums are there for such atheists to go the full hog with theists if they so desire.

206. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95431 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:28 am

Northern Bright, debating opposing views relevant to the topic at hand is fine regardless of their religious/secular nature; it is when the topic is no longer being discussed and is being derailed by an atheist/theist debate that has nothing to do with the discussion related to the posted article. That kind of discussion has a welcome home in the forums here--all the interested parties have to do is set up a forum topic and go for it.

207. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95428 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:14 am

Coretemprising, good stuff, and I agree completely. The atheists who indulge ad nauseam in polite 'debate' with theists can tickle themselves to death by DOING SO IN THE FORUMS. They should not derail these discussion threads on the front page.

As far as Steve goes, I find his worshiping politeness to be weird, and I skip (because there is no ignore button at this site) over his predictable, formulaic comments because, yes, surprise, surprise I find them boring.

BTW, coretemprising, there are many other excellent atheist sites that you can read and comment at (which I am doing). I am only breaking my moratorium on posting here to let you know that I agree with you. As you said, there are many different viewpoints from all the atheists posting from all over the world, and to think that we need 'fresh blood' from a bunch of tired, flatulent theists, is not appreciating the diversity that atheists are bringing to this site. And any 'debating' with theists can be done off the front page and in the forums which are set up for off-topic discussions.

208. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89181 by Logicel on November 20, 2007 at 12:28 am

There goes the comments relating to the totally irrelevant aspect of Ayaan being pretty again. It has been pointed out by other female posters the sexism that often surfaces in these threads. I was able to keep my cool during the ridiculous emphasis and 'relevancy' of Kelly O'Connor's breasts, but I am unable to do so any more. I will spend my time and energies with another group of people who can see that we are first human, and then second female.

And Brian, you disgust me. You humans, who regard themselves male first, can flounder about being unemotional, but I am outta here.

Goodbye, and thanks to all the great posters that taught me stuff.

209. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89006 by Logicel on November 19, 2007 at 1:13 pm

I hear you, Josh, and thanks for relegating Appleby's crapola to the alternate comment thread--what a creep. And some of the comments here sickened me also so much, that I am seriously considering not posting here anymore.

210. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88908 by Logicel on November 19, 2007 at 6:46 am

Keith, you need to kill time more often. Thanks for the belly laughs.

211. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88902 by Logicel on November 19, 2007 at 6:39 am

Appleby wrote: I wonder if we'll also be obliged to finance the protection of every other Muslim who stands up against Islam or is it just the pretty ones?
_____

Is it her fault that she is pretty? Does her prettiness have such a power on her supporters that they are oblivious to her courage and intelligence?

212. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88894 by Logicel on November 19, 2007 at 6:19 am

Appleby wrote: If she gets assassinated, I will consider her a martyr and know that her sacrifice will inspire many more to stand up for their rights and not be intimidated to live in fear.
______

You think? How about that they crap in their pants and forever stay mute from fear? YOU WANT HER TO BECOME A MARTYR!!! I am getting old so maybe my eyes are failing, let me check your words again, oh yes, you do desire her TO BECOME A MARTYR INSTEAD OF ENSURING HER LIFE! Keep on commenting, bud, and you will put me in the poorhouse, as every one of your creepy comments are making me increase my contributions to keeping her safe and sound.

213. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88889 by Logicel on November 19, 2007 at 6:03 am

Damn, I read another comment from Appleby, and I upp my contribution to Ali by a certain percentage yet again. I see a vid with her like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3tgY_eI_P0

and I upp the percentage a bit higher.

I am betting there are folks lurking who are contributing to her defense and don't need to discuss it and don't need to mention that they have contributed. So for her supporters, don't lose heart--the vocal ones always sound louder and more represented than they really are.

214. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88681 by Logicel on November 18, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Saerain, Welcome! (Lovely avatar!)

I am an American who has lived abroad around 20 years, very happy not to be living in America. Though a good opportunity has presented itself for us to re-locate back to America, we won't be doing that, not until there is evidence that the corrosion done to the Constitution has been mended.

Whether to stay or to fight is a tough decision, and I admire your family that they are thinking about the severity of the American situation and what is best for them. I wish your family the very best.

215. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88679 by Logicel on November 18, 2007 at 1:33 pm

V wrote: Busy fingers typing need to have other occupations to ameliorate the desire to answer drivelling posts from DG.
____

I would suggest self-masturbation to keep those fingers busy. It is more pleasurable than watching Dianelos masturbate continually discussing his self-centered goo.

216. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88669 by Logicel on November 18, 2007 at 12:51 pm

In the event that money remains after these costs have been met, it will be used to encourage and protect other dissidents in the Muslim world.
_____

I support this; this is important, put your money where your mouth is.

217. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88643 by Logicel on November 18, 2007 at 8:17 am

In choosing Behe as a means to implement his 'wedge strategy,' Johnson would have been better served by choosing Emma Bovary's hubby, Dr. Charles instead. IDiots can't surmount such ineptitude with mere 'misspoking' (euphemism for simple, old fashioned lying).

Bonsell mutters about how he just wanted to return to his community the good things it had given him, supposedly by 'misspeaking' frequently, and by not recognizing that his good fortunes in life will not be possible for his children if teaching of science is diluted with nonsense. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic people--Bonsell, Buckingham, Robertson, Johnson. Yuck.

The Christians who fought for evolution are so problematic for me, including the scientist, Ken Miller. Just because they can compartmentalize the cognitive dissonance from embracing both religion and science, does not mean others can do it. And as long as these 'moderates' cleave to faith as a virtue, the ones that can't compartmentalize will be encouraged to do something they can't handle--belief without evidence.

Anyways, kudos to these religious believers who did fight against the inanity which is ID.

218. 'Growing Up in the Universe' now available free online

Comment #88526 by Logicel on November 17, 2007 at 11:35 am

From what I can make out, the baby in the front row was planned to elucidate and expand upon the famous quote which Dawkins used: What is the use of a baby? which was brilliantly and sensitively done by Dawkins. I kept on thinking when he tenderly handles and caresses the baby all the nonsense about him being cold, aloof, and strident. Oh, please.

219. Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

Comment #88507 by Logicel on November 17, 2007 at 6:55 am

...the punishment was not reduced but increased to 200 lashes
_____

I don't have the stomach right now to research my own questions, so I will muse out loud: when does such a punishment of lashings become a death sentence? Is there medical treatment given after the lashings or is she sent to her cell without any treatment? Is it a male that lashes her, and is she partially or completely unclothed while being lashed?

Friggin' sadistic control freaks--try educating your men how to control their desires for sexual power and domination, and leave their victims out of the punishment equation.

220. Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

Comment #88496 by Logicel on November 17, 2007 at 5:40 am

When she appealed, the judges said she had been attempting to use the media to influence them.
_____

More like publicity was causing the judges discomfort--f'cking bastards.

221. For the glory of God

Comment #88495 by Logicel on November 17, 2007 at 5:27 am

RSP123 wrote: ...but let's also look after those whose ideological homes we bulldoze.
_______

RAmen. A very important point--not that secularism should replace religious beliefs, but that we need to be welcoming to the de-converted. This site does a bit in that direction, in the forums, there is an official welcoming feature. I encourage everyone here to welcome newcomers to our discussions. It matters.

222. Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

Comment #88493 by Logicel on November 17, 2007 at 4:46 am

These religious 'scholars' seem to understand what satirical humor directed against Religion can do, and they don't like the implications so they focus on conflating religion dogma to free thinking and associated satirical humor.

Since these 'scholars' negatively regard such atheist attempts as pulling the sacred down into the banal level, then that is what their own religion does? A little logic with these folks is dangerous; they just continually get the wrong end of the stick.

223. 'Secular Believers'

Comment #88491 by Logicel on November 17, 2007 at 4:37 am

Enjoyed this one, especially Copley's idea of what RE is and what it can accomplish (though I do not like the tie-in with McGrath's emphasis on atheistic believers). And viewing McGrath again, I can only marvel at the man's consistently floating waffling with amazement.

I added Atheist Media to my Google RRS. Seems like a good source for relevant info and news.

224. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88476 by Logicel on November 17, 2007 at 1:05 am

Yaweh wrote: I doubt Stein personally believes in ID. He's part of a circle of conservative thinkers who feel the masses need mom, apple pie, and God. They believe benevolent centralized power is best for all concerned.
_____

I have stumbled across some financial articles written on the Net by Stein starting about a couple of years ago, and I was dismayed on two counts: his blindly following often challenged financial 'wisdom' as if it was the only truth for all people, and his mistakes/errors, especially involving Math. I stopped reading him after coming to the conclusion that Stein is stunted by his rigid conservative framework and stuffed with mediocrity.

Then this nonsense with Expelled, and I researched his bio, and found out that he has had one successful career after the other (political/financial writer, lawyer, actor), and concluded that the guy is like a lucky drunk who misses getting run over by traffic as he is wandering drunkenly in the middle of a street. With Expelled, the stunted and stuffed Mr. Stein might find out that he is pushing his luck too much in this case, and he will get steamrolled into a flat pancake because of his involvement with these nuts. Think you made a bad decision, here, Mr. Stein, because as Conservatives are unwinding their hedged bets made with the religites because of the changing political climate in the States, you are getting more involved with them. But then, you do suck in financial matters.

225. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87584 by Logicel on November 12, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Dr. BARIum enema, what a little constipated sh't you are! What a joyless, pinched, blocked-up piece of overbearing crap you are! Take your Sharia law and shove it up your ass.

Ship his sorry ass out of your country.

I haven't felt this angry and alarmed in a long time.

226. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87414 by Logicel on November 12, 2007 at 3:58 am

Krisking wrote: ...whether an atheist suffers feelings of guilt which blight her life...
________

Guilt is a good mechanism to help us learn from our mistakes and to assume responsibility for our actions. What religion focuses on instead is shame, all encompassing shame for our lack of perfection. We are just highly evolved and successful primates, not fallen angels--though passive-aggressive nutters like ADH, are smitten with the notion, that once, in our distant past we were, and we fell from grace, and in order to return we must grovel on our bellies in front of his God so we can return to perfection--barfcity. So guilt is fine, shame sux.

EDIT: As I pointed out to ADH, you may want to use the following site as a tool to learn more about atheism, you can ask questions and a stable of atheist writers will answer (some of them post regularly here, at the Dawkins site, also the asktheatheists site includes a searching feature as the list of questions are now quite long):

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions

227. Bill Moyers interviews Jonathan Miller

Comment #87402 by Logicel on November 12, 2007 at 3:26 am

He is like fine wine, he gets better with age. Though he may don the garb of a mild mannered guy, he does not mince his words ever, he always gets to the core of what is important.

228. Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

Comment #87388 by Logicel on November 12, 2007 at 2:36 am

Simply superb writing in general, fave bits are:

But this does not mean that we must stare into the abyss all the time. (Only religion, oddly enough, has ever required that we obsessively do that.)
_____

RAmen. And religious believers then wonder what we are doing since we are NOT staring into the abyss!!! Mucho stuff, baby.

and

Some of them would argue that religion is so much a part of our human or animal nature that it is actually ineradicable. This, for what it may be worth, is my own view. We are unlikely to cease making gods or inventing ceremonies to please them for as long as we are afraid of death, or of the dark, and for as long as we persist in self-centeredness. That could be a lengthy stretch of time. However, it is just as certain that we shall continue to cast a skeptical and ironic and even witty eye on what we have ourselves invented. If religion is innate in us, then so is our doubt of it and our contempt for our own weakness.

________

Terse summation covering a lot of important ground. I also applaud his gracious inclusion of agnostics. This may be a book in which I will violate my initial choice approach to consumerism.

229. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87157 by Logicel on November 11, 2007 at 11:06 am

krisking wrote: ...so it's not all meaningless.
______

Goodness no. Life is full of the meaning which you make for it. I, too, have a wonderful husband with whom I genuinely share living.

230. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87155 by Logicel on November 11, 2007 at 11:02 am

So, we live and we die.
______

At present, that is our human reality. Perhaps in the future it will be different.

Religious beliefs have seriously impeded progress in how we cope with our mortality. Rather then honing our emotive/cognitive skills to handle our mortality, we fiddle them away, weakening their power to comfort and problem solve for us, embracing instead a bunch of superstitions. That to me, is monstrous. It is like letting a child go out and play in the glorious wintry sunshine, naked, with no defense against the brutal cold.

231. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87120 by Logicel on November 11, 2007 at 8:46 am

krisking wrote: Russian tried to impose atheism on its society..

as did China....

how well do you think they did?
_______

Your word, impose, says it all. As C. Hitchens is fond of saying, show us a society that follows Hume, T. Paine, etc, one that follows reason, that has self-destructed. Atheism is just the conclusion when one reasons. You reason first, and then you accept the high improbability of the existence of the supernatural, including the western world's favorite brand, Christianity. There is no imposition involved.

232. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87119 by Logicel on November 11, 2007 at 8:40 am

krisking, here's an excerpt from the following wikipedia Sweden article:

According to the most recent Eurobarometer Poll 2005,[70] 23% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god", whereas 53% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 23% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

233. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87073 by Logicel on November 11, 2007 at 6:26 am

krisking wrote: But I don't think the account tells us that Isaac was aware of the situation.
_______

Well, think again as Dr. B pointed out:

22:9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

Not so much a liar--though liars for Jesus are commonly found--as much as a Christian that needs to read his own holy book. Furthermore, krisking thought his faulty explanation would be adequate, without anticipating the problem of his 'reasoning' that Dr. B caught, that if it was not a practical joke played on Issac, it was at least played on Abraham. But it turns out, that the Bible gives us the evidence to convict God on both counts of some seriously vicious joking.

234. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86963 by Logicel on November 10, 2007 at 5:02 pm

#392 comment by Dr B is excellent.

Hmmm, ADH does seem to be morphing into the wee flea. Perhaps it is an experiment of some kind of his? LOL.

235. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86889 by Logicel on November 10, 2007 at 11:26 am

Dvespertilio wrote: It is impossible for them to acknowledge that they are wrong, because to do so would literally destroy their whole world view and conception of themselves. That is a process that is simply too painful for most "believers" to endure.
_________

ADH replied: Dvespertilio, could precisely these words not apply to the atheist "fraternity"? I get the impression that that is one of the reasons for the emergence of communities like this one: "Happy band of brothers". The wind of Truth can be chilly - you have to draw close together for warmth, fellowship and mutual support. And indulging in these fidephobic orgies does one a power of good!
_______

The wind of Truth? Your Truth? Your protean squishing of a particular brand of religion into your liking?

Fidephobic? Phobia connotes an irrational fear; being fearful of beliefs without evidence is therefore not a phobia, as being fearful of non-evidential belief--a real danger--is wise. And without faith, you religious believers don't have a leg to stand on. Therefore you protect faith and cling to it, trying to conflate your grasping of non-evidential faith as the same as atheists embracing reality and facts.

Surrounding myself with logical thinkers, people who joyfully court reason is also a smart activity to do. It is a privilege to partake in this community at this site, so again, thanks for noticing what we are doing, and we will continue our dastardly rejection of religious faith, learning all the time via conversing with people all over the world. Oh pity us, such a tiny cloistered group of people frightened of the power of faith and suckered into demanding only evidence!

236. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86820 by Logicel on November 10, 2007 at 8:10 am

To sum up what I learned from reading ADH, is that he is miffed that we do not believe despite all the wonderful 'evidence' and reasoning to which he is privy. He entertains the notion that is true because we are willful in rejecting the reality of God and our joyful submitting to God. I agree with Dr B that such an idea is a dangerous one. ADH is particularly smitten with that idea, and that is a bit unsettling.

237. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86815 by Logicel on November 10, 2007 at 7:58 am

coretemprising, I agree with your assessment pretty much--conversing with ADH is not my idea of delight either. I see no real difference between the puffed-up inanity of his reasoning than from any other religious believer with whom I have conversed. Though he might have stayed so he could answer questions which his appearance on this site triggered, he did choose to make his appearance in the way he did, which was far from delightful--I do agree with your describing him as a passive-aggressive nutter (with manners and some polish, of course).

However, this is a wonderful site where we can discuss uncensored just about anything. I would not want to change that for anything, and by the very fact that ADH was given so many questions (once he rather explosively appeared), belies his implication that we do not allow discussion with religious believers and conduct our evisceration of their commonly known and held beliefs in isolation.

As far as ADH being more tolerable than the Wee flea or Dianelos, well, how could ADH not come out ahead as those two set the bar so low?

238. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86699 by Logicel on November 10, 2007 at 2:04 am

more fascinating info, thanks flying goose!

239. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86688 by Logicel on November 10, 2007 at 1:06 am

Sapient, thanks for the info on RSS and reposting.

Kelly, Mean, lean, and clean writing!!!

D'Souza is such a pusher of his religious drug of choice. He encourages us to join his little sordid party, enticing us with make-believe, but he can't compete with the mind-blowing beauty of the science/factual Grand Ball that is being danced all around him.

240. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86683 by Logicel on November 10, 2007 at 12:29 am

eric.malitz wrote: related note- I recently listened to Francis Collins POI interview. Just disgraceful really. This is a very focused geneticist who actually does have a limited knowledge of current evolutionary theory.
_____

Francis Collins whose religious apathy was stirred when as a medical doctor, he was approached by a patient in a life and death situation (I might not have recalled the details properly) in which he felt so inadequate at coping with that person's anguish, that he was encouraged to finally embrace fully Christian dogma to get himself over that psychological hump.

This aspect of Collins is similar to ADH being so moved by what he regards as the transformative power of Jesus/God love that enabled a Irish Catholic and an Irish Protestant to do a truce and not kill each other (conveniently not emphasizing that their respective religious brands played a role in their hateful division in the first place).

My point is that the power of emotional perceptions are great and they must be understood. As I am fond of saying, we are born without an operation manual and we must not outsource it to the unproven divine.

241. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86679 by Logicel on November 10, 2007 at 12:10 am

Cartomancer, if you are reading this thread, I would appreciate some feedback to ADHs comment #243, especially this excerpted bit:

Literature and art, not to mention music, are choc-a-bloc with thi deep, mysterious nostalgia, this hankering after a long-lost paradise, a golden age that elludes us but enticingly beckons us inward. That c"nostalgia" can of course be crippling and disabling. It's what happened to the Romantics in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Scripture does not encourage that nostalgia. On the contrary, it points us realistically towards the world as it now is. It engages us as workers in every conceivable field of endeavour to ply our art and skill to the best of our ability, for the betterment of our planet and our fellow-creatures. That was actually one of the consequences in Europe and America of the Reformation. That's why so much science grew out of the Reformation. It grew out of a Biblical understanding of our duties as Gods "co-workers", as explorers of "the Garden" under his mandate.

242. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86675 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 11:58 pm

ADH wrote: People accuse us believers of inventing God because we need a "blanket", a psychological crutch. Could we not say that atheists have repressed their instinctive awareness of the Divine because of a deep seated fear that there might actually be Someone there to whom they will have to give account?

_______

There you go again, rationalizing as fast and repeatedly as bunnies copulate, with some conflation thrown in for added spice.

Psychology which has developed from our very real ability to observe and collect data on observable people and their reaction to events is being conflated with theology, where theologians discuss and come to conclusions regarding an entity and events that can't be observed, and whose personal revelation can't be collaborated.

Self-responsibility does not go out the window if one does not embrace the perspective which you do, that we are willfully rejecting the God to whom we must be responsible (Why should we submit to this unproven entity? Oh, because it is a possibility, like that pesky teapot orbiting around earth).

243. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86504 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 12:28 pm

flying goose, fascinating stuff.

ADH wrote: ...mysterious nostalgia, this hankering after a long-lost paradise, a golden age that elludes us but enticingly beckons us inward.
_____

Sounds like just a sense of aloneness that is difficult to accept, so religion pitches in and gives us a perfect anchor, that we are not just floating in our aloneness but we are connected to something bigger and better.

Reading ADH describing his particular knack in coping with this aspect of being a conscious human, the image of Tom Hanks in Cast Away comes to mind: He is in a cold, dark cave with the howling wind outside (and this howling wind is allowed all its terrifying splendor because the director did not add any background music), talking to a coconut, on which he placed imitation hair and drew a face on it.

He eventually lost this coconut face on his attempt to escape the island and his facial expression was one of both sadness and joy--he realized he no longer needed to project his abject isolation onto a coconut. Now if he was unable to return to civilization, he most likely would have been the founder of the coconut religion--his descendants would speak wisely and adoringly of the ways of the coconut face, how one is never alone without the Coconut God, which of course is just psychological projection.

EDIT: My recall of the plot was mistaken and it was not a coconut but a volleyball he named Wilson.

244. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86479 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 11:37 am

ADH wrote: Don't close your minds so readily to seemingly unscientific (stress on the word seemingly) and non-empirical routes to truth.
________

I don't want to have my mind so open that my brains fall out as you have done.

245. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86438 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 8:17 am

Yes, ADH, please answer Bonzai's question per his comment #215.

246. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86397 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 6:23 am

ADH wrote: Hell will be populated by ex-humans - the ashes, so to speak, of the humanity that they once had and could still have had if they had so chosen. Heaven is a flourishing of our humanity, as it will be restored to its proper submission to God while Hell will be the "self"-inflicted destruction of humanity.
______

WTF is an ex-human? I wish to be a cat, hope your God will oblige.

So you will flourish SUBMITTING yourself to God? Sounds kinky.

I get an image of a weaker animal groveling on their belly in front of another animal with sharper claws and teeth. I watch this kind of submissive behavior when hanging out with my cats, and muse about how us primates have this aspect also. But it takes a theologian to translate this fact of our evolution, that we try to placate the aggressor, with this astoundingly ridiculous scenario that in order to maintain our humanity we need to grovel and submit. You can't make this stuff up--oh, wait a minute, you just have!

247. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86360 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 4:19 am

ADH wrote: ...please remind me of what they are. I'll be happy to answer them as best I can.
________

ADH, yes, please answer this excerpt from my comment #25:

Faith, for me, means belief without evidence. Therefore, with faith, you can believe in anything, even beliefs that can lead to violence, murder, etc. How do you impart to your children the dangers of believing without evidence? How do they identify the kind of faith that will not do themselves and others harm?

248. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86345 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 2:46 am

ADH wrote: There have been other times since then when I have seen the transformative love of God bringing forgiveness where there had only been bitterness and hatred.
______

And I have experienced times when I have seen the transformative love of a good hot meal, well prepared, bringing forgiveness where there had only been bitterness and hatred.

249. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86338 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 2:14 am

ADH, perhaps you might find the following site interesting:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions

You can formulate questions, and a stable of atheist writers will answer, without legions of them challenging you. It is a site where people can learn more about how atheists think. Some of the writers are from here, the Dawkins site.

As for wondering if I am wrong about my atheism, whenever a theist points out a gap in our knowledge, I am filled with excitement and anticipation of us trying to figure out the problem. So, not doubt, just enthusiasm and interest in our continuing efforts to grasp our reality. At this point, unless proven otherwise, religion no longer provides much oompf in that direction--it once did, before science was developed.

And I have never heard God speak to me; and such God speech that others have claimed to have heard, has never been proven. My efforts in praying has only resulted in hilarious laughter on my part.

250. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86328 by Logicel on November 9, 2007 at 1:51 am

...if it is true that indifference to God has eternal consequences, that it results in eternal separation from God (whether conscious separation or by virtue of ceasing to exist), then I believe that it would be a serious case of child abuse if I did NOT make that very clear.
_______

I have heard this rationalization many times from religious believers. Some say if they knew that a building would be bombed, that they would warn others, etc. Conflation of reality with unreality yet again (rationalizing as fast as you can so you can keep the wheels of your cognitive dissonance oiled enough that you do not become deaf from its clanging).

Buildings, bombs, factual knowledge are certainly the admirable basis for warning folks of danger. Hell, God, there is no proof of their existence, with the improbability of their existence being quite high. Your obsession with warning your children about something that does not exist is similar to a paranoid bloke going on and on about someone following them. Your premise is wonky; you do not focus on that aspect. Who cares if your chosen action makes sense--warning your children of danger--if your premise is founded on no factual knowledge. Sigh.

As previous discussions with religious believers show, ADH will continue to oil his clanging machinery with rationalizations as fast and as repeatedly in a circular oiling frenzy as he can.