201. Daggers Drawn

Comment #23783 by Bremas on March 2, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Couldn't finish it. Too much gobblygook.
Kept wishing for Prof Dawkins to chime in.

On that note, Yorker said:
"This issue is about to be debated again by Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling vs. Neuberger, Scruton, Spivey; is the outcome in doubt?"

Any more info on this?

202. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23778 by Bremas on March 2, 2007 at 4:19 pm

alovrin,
I missed that also, even when I went back and reread it, it took several times for it to sink in. I think I have just been extremely desensitized to such things.
Another example for me of just how deeply religion is engrained in our culture here in the states.

203. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23762 by Bremas on March 2, 2007 at 2:16 pm

I will play devil's advocate here for a moment folks.

The problem isn't whether Falwell is or isn't qualified to speak on an issue.
The problem is that so many people believe that he is, and that he IS an authority due to his religious position.

204. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23748 by Bremas on March 2, 2007 at 12:22 pm

lpetrich
Your "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" link just ruined my day.
Up until now, I had been very skeptical that anyone could be that dim.
Now my skepticism on everything else in jeopardy.
Are we sure about this whole atheism thing folks.

205. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23657 by Bremas on March 2, 2007 at 1:22 am

Moderator, please don't "troll" Bizarro.

Just last week I was talking to someone that I met thru a mutual friend. I don't remember how it came about, but I mentioned I was an atheist.
They said that I was only the second atheist they had met in their entire life. Of course I responded that I thought the number was actually considerably higher than that, for obvious reasons here.
Point is, they were bewildered and perplexed, but couldn't stop talking to me.
My opinion is that most people just don't understand who we are.
If Bizarro (and company?) want to come here and try to spread the gospel (yes I'm snickering, as most here would understand). I say bring it.

206. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23643 by Bremas on March 1, 2007 at 11:31 pm

I'm right here Bizarro.

I wrote:
"Is it possible too have an overwhelming urge to laugh and cry at the same time."

Bizarro wrote:
"I see you're not big on making justified claims. Please, if you don't want to take the time to answer my arguments correctly, don't waste it making snide remarks. It only makes you look hyper-dogmatic, and I assure you it doesn't lend to your credibility. Nowhere have I been disrespectful to your beliefs, so I would appreciate the same attitude towards mine. You can disagree all you want, but do so in a civil manner, please."

I thought that my urge to do both at the same time was justified. I believe it was self evident, but please explain to me where I might have erred.
Further, I was under the notion that you didn't mind being snickered at (I reference the name Bizarro Dawkins on Prof Dawkins's website.) If your skin is not that thick please inform me and I will play more gently and kindly.

And further still, you state:
"Please, if you don't want to take the time to answer my arguments correctly, don't waste it making snide remarks."

"correctly"? I don't own your play book. I am oblivious to the book of science you are using.

But... if you are indeed serious about a cordial discussion, then please inform us further as to your faith in regard to science. As I just got done asking elsewhere on this site:
How old do you believe the earth to be? Do you believe in creation, ID, or evolution? And, do you believe that the bible is the absolute word of god or a manifistation of man or something else? Please explain to us and we can start from there.

207. Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Comment #23619 by Bremas on March 1, 2007 at 8:06 pm

We're doing science. We're doing science.
and then...... but BYU pays my salary.

"The correlation also mirrors studies that show the relationship between hostility and violent movies, music or video games. The key difference is that if scriptures are read as a whole and not taken out of context, the results can be the opposite, Ridge says, as the overall themes of the Bible, specifically, are peace and love."

Sounds a bit like an attempt at: we need standardized religious education, because look what happens when you don't.

Or maybe I'm just too jaded.

208. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23616 by Bremas on March 1, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Ran across a similar post at this conservative site while doing a google news search for Prof Dawkins.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/02/27/rational-evolutionary-hypothesis/#comments

Only nine comments, but several of them are from evolution backers doing a pretty good job of standing their ground. Okay who are you folks, I know you're here somewhere.

Anyway, sounds like a pretty good educational tactic to submit stuff for comment to sites like this and then rationally defend evolution.

209. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23574 by Bremas on March 1, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Hey tk post 31,

Next time you do that, could you get it on tape and send it to me.

Thank-you in advance.

210. Merkel wants EU to be vocal about Christian roots

Comment #23549 by Bremas on March 1, 2007 at 2:08 pm

This may be off topic, but in some way that I can't put my finger on I think it could apply.

The Book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond laid out a fascinating arguement for why certain societies succeed while others don't, and why the world is the way it is today. And, it had nothing to do with a common belief system.

I believe it should be required reading for all politicians. Without making a short story long, it was that book that led me to reading Dawkins.

211. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23539 by Bremas on March 1, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Anyone else remember the Bugs Bunny cartoon where Bugs is supposed to be Columbus and he tells the King of Italy(I think) that the world is round. The king pulls out a large wooden mallet, says "the earth is flat", hits Bugs over the head and continues "like your head".

I've had that scene going thru my head for months. Any psychiatrists out there....does that mean anything?

212. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23471 by Bremas on March 1, 2007 at 1:41 am

Okay 30mins later and I've finally finished reading Bizarro's Post(32). I was either laughing too hard or reading the same sentence over and over and over and over.

I still think Heatnzl summed up my thoughts on the subject pretty well, but I've got to highlight this gem.

"The fact of our existence is evidence enough for me, and I'm not an easy person to convince."

Is it possible too have an overwhelming urge to laugh and cry at the same time.

213. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23469 by Bremas on March 1, 2007 at 1:03 am

Heatnzl post 33

I'm still laughing.

Maybe I'm just glad to know that I'm not the only one who feels that way.

214. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23435 by Bremas on February 28, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Regarding Post 17 by DerrickB

I agree with you and have been thinking about that approach a lot lately.

Begin with the assumption that they buy into the most outlandish religious beliefs and then work your way up.

I've been trying it from the other direction (assuming a rational person to begin with) and have had little success (moving goal posts).

215. Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Comment #23269 by Bremas on February 27, 2007 at 11:12 am

I just went back and read the 4 Feb posting on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as I had skipped it the first time. It is fairly long.
That is an amazing lady, and I recommend reading it for anyone who missed it.

216. The joy of changing your mind

Comment #23187 by Bremas on February 26, 2007 at 4:53 pm

By nature I am a pretty stuborn person, and have said some fairly dogmatic things when pushed in arguments.
In hindsight on things that I have completely changed my mind about...It was usually in response to someone giving me a very casual but focused alternative view, and leaving it at that.

Or, if I knew the person and their intellect beforehand, laughing at me and walking away has worked also well.

Not that I'm am any good at using either of these approaches. Others on these threads appear much better at it.

217. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23160 by Bremas on February 26, 2007 at 3:02 pm

This one is starting to pick up steam. Just was on Fox News blog regarding the story. You can guess what most of the responses are like.
An example:

"No, this claim is not possible. I am a Christian and I know that my savior Jesus Christ lives. He died on a cross, was buried in a tomb and rose again on the third day. When he rose again, there was nothing left in the tomb. He now sits at the right hand of God our father in heaven and is returning soon to take those who believe in him and live for him, back to heaven. How do I know this? Because he said he is returning soon. The Bible says so." — Paul

True or not, I like watching the religious folks get up in arms about things like this. The next couple of weeks should be fun.

I also loved post #3.

218. Atheists come in last

Comment #22919 by Bremas on February 24, 2007 at 12:38 pm

BD is a Liberty University yokel. Where magic is considered science... and given a degree.

219. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22693 by Bremas on February 20, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Leaving my place right now to go see Prof Dawkins give a presentation a couple of blocks away.
Just wanted to say it.

220. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Comment #22266 by Bremas on February 13, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Former 2502/0602 myself, I suspect we know alot of the same people.

221. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Comment #22264 by Bremas on February 13, 2007 at 7:05 pm

Re 12. Comment #22262 by Harlon57 on February 13, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Glad to have you. I was at Pendleton from 94-98.

222. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Comment #22253 by Bremas on February 13, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Re 6. Comment #22238 by MelM on February 13, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Chuckling nervously.

I wonder how many of those emails from your second link are currently aimed at me.

223. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Comment #22251 by Bremas on February 13, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Some of you may have seen this before, but it really scared me. It's in regard to the recent "UFO" incident in Arkansas. Air Force A-10s were dropping flares during routine training, and were seen by a retired F-16 Colonel. The retired fighter pilot said:

"I believe these lights were not of this world, and I feel a duty and responsibility to come forward."

"I believe it's prophetic, something do with what's happening in the Middle East today, If this is some kind of event with visitation, it's entirely possible. When the anti-Christ comes into power, it's not going to be something we expect. The deception that is going to be attached to it is going to be so powerful, you're gonna have to go against your reason to reject it."

When the truth was pointed out to him, he further commented: "Because this event was explained does not change the fact that we live in perilous times – and we must still be awake, alert, and know that a great deception is still coming."

I still can't wrap my head around the fact that this was an experienced fighter pilot watching jet fighters (flares anyway), thinking it was the end of times.
We're not dealing with Billy-Bob down in the cabin.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53820
--------------
This was one of the few articles I could still find about the incident, obviously printed before the source of the lights were confirmed. Actually, rereading this one, I am now much more scared than I was just minutes ago.

I applaud Sam Harris and his effort.

224. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22247 by Bremas on February 13, 2007 at 5:11 pm

66. Comment #22219 by Jonathan Dore on February 13, 2007 at 3:06 pm

I believe you are exactly right, especially when it comes to my father. I've even tried pointing your points out to him. No luck.

225. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22204 by Bremas on February 13, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Well done Prof Dawkins.
It never ceases to amaze me how deep the idea of god runs in American culture.
Does anyone have any thoughts as to the best approach for getting "The Root of all Evil" on American TV. PBS?

I currently find myself in a debate with my father over the book "The God Theory" by a Bernard Haisch. I'm just starting my research, but if anyone has any salient info I'd love to hear it.
I've never seen the man step foot in a church or mutter the word god in my entire life. But he won't budge.

226. Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

Comment #22035 by Bremas on February 12, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Well that just ruined my day. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

"While still a graduate student, he appeared on a DVD arguing that intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism, is a better explanation than evolution for the Cambrian explosion, a rapid diversification of animal life that occurred about 500 million years ago."

I wonder, if asked, whether he would call ID yet a third paradigm?

227. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21503 by Bremas on February 9, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Thank-you to Roger Stanyard and Mark (aka psiloiordinary) for bringing that information to light.
I just got done going over the websites you guys provided. It wouldn't be scary, except that we've seen what has happened in the U.S.(and I'm sorry to say that I was not quick on the uptake on what's been going on the past few years).
Good luck in fighting it across the pond.

228. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21486 by Bremas on February 9, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Sat down in my favorite bar last night and mentioned this site to the bartender, who I know is a fan of The Selfish Gene. It wasn't more than a 10sec discussion. The guy to my right was visibly irritated…. squirming all around in his chair. Sure enough, within 15min he had struck up a conversation with me and immediately mentioned his religious beliefs. We talked about politics and sports for about an hour. I never once questioned any of his opinions. He finally gave up and left when I went to the restroom. It was actually a lot of fun.
I knew that he knew that I knew. But he didn't know that I knew that he knew. Or something like that. Maybe I'm just too easily amused.

Moral of the story. The name Dawkins really does make religious people squirm.

229. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21484 by Bremas on February 9, 2007 at 12:10 pm

@debaser71
"The way I see it is that these parodies do little other than compare Dawkins to God. I don't know how religionist / anti-Dawkins types think this is going to somehow help them."

I can almost get it. It goes something like this.. They "believe" in God. So, to compare somebody to god is an obvious way of... then my head starts to hurt.

Little help? Anybody?

230. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21326 by Bremas on February 8, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Has anyone heard if the CNN segment will air. I've got it on in the other room but was assuming it won't air tonight, and was about ready to head out.

231. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21324 by Bremas on February 8, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Ugh. This sucks, was hoping to be sitting in front of the tube watching Richard in action at this time.

Anna Nicole Smith?!?!
I'm going out for a beer.

232. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21316 by Bremas on February 8, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Just reread the top and a couple of links.
Now I'm a bit embarrassed by the fact that I found it funny.
I guess that's what happens when you tend not to take things personally.
I take that back, I still found it a little funny. :)

233. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21312 by Bremas on February 8, 2007 at 3:49 pm

It's such good satire, I can't tell which side of the debate these guys are on.
slimy custard man? I won't go there.

234. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21132 by Bremas on February 7, 2007 at 5:21 pm

@glittergulch Comment #21126
Good stuff.
I had a few more exchanges with her also that I havn't posted.
She is starting to strike me as:
1)a fundy
2)one who likes to hear herself talk in order to get a reaction.
And not necessarily in that order.

235. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21119 by Bremas on February 7, 2007 at 3:50 pm

OT
I ran across this discussion on another thread:
Possible politics behind what presentation RD gives. Right in the middle of his book tour he would flip flop to a presentation of "The strangeness of science".

I live in Hawaii and was pleasantly shocked the other day to find that RD would be here on the 20th. I will get there early with book in hand. (need to go buy a new one)
I was however disappointed to find that the discussion would not be on The God Delusion.
Hawaii is a blue state, very blue, but it is also very religious.
I suspect it is another example of the fact that red and blue, conservative/liberal, are not true indicators of religious beliefs.
The "problem" exists across the board.

If you asked her, I bet Ms. Hunter would call herself a Democrat. That's just a statement based on what I've seen of voting demographics, and I could be wrong.

P.S.
I love this site

236. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21113 by Bremas on February 7, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Just got a reply from Ms. Hunter:

HAHA. That's the best you can come up with?

My reply back:

Not sure what the HAHA was about.
I was hoping for your support in this noble endeavor.

---------
Maybe I'm just bored.

237. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21102 by Bremas on February 7, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Just sent Ms. Hunter this email:

Ms. Hunter, I am also an ardent proponent of school prayer and believe that all school children should be taught the proper way to pray to the creator, The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

For more information as to how to support our mutually beneficial cause please visit the following link.

http://www.venganza.org/

RAmen

238. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #20537 by Bremas on February 3, 2007 at 10:58 pm

Not really pertinent to this audio clip, but another example of the flip-flopping arguments that IDers and creationists use depending on the situation.

Pulled this off The Discovery Institute website arguing against the upcoming Darwin Day. (front page under Fellows' Articles titled "Churches Shouldn't Buy into Darwinists' Ploy" by Jonathan Wells, Senior Fellow) Says it's from the Yale Daily News.

"Despite their differences, both of these groups (IDers and Creationists) accept a central tenet of Christian theology: Human beings were designed and created in the image of God.

Darwinism denies this.

Darwin himself wrote that he could see "no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the winds blow." Although he could not "look at the universe as the result of blind chance," Darwin saw "no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of any kind, in the details." Thus, asserts Darwinist George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned." "


Isn't this the same group that RD and company just got done fighting when they (the IDers) used the argument that Darwin invoked god himself.

Does anyone have an example of The Discovery Institute arguing the other way. I would love to put them side by side. Even better would be an example of THIS guy arguing the other way, but I'm usually not that lucky.
I'm asking for an example because I didn't follow the fight all that closely, and it's just the impression I had.
You know I used to think that the real people behind all this were just a bunch of misguided rich folk. Now I'm replacing misguided with very sinister.

239. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #20516 by Bremas on February 3, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Couldn't bring myself to listen to the whole thing.

Interesting that their arguments keep changing. That debate was in 2002. I was on Ken Ham's website "answers in genesis" the other day, and the argument about continental drift is now attributed to the flood. They no longer deny it, they just found a method of mental gymnastics to make it fit the bible. At least for argument's sake.

I found it along with a lot of other "crafty" things about arguments that creationists "shouldn't" argue.

I've never understood the mindset.