251. MySpace: No place for Atheists?

Comment #118396 by SPS on January 30, 2008 at 4:25 pm

This is not at all surprising. MySpace.com is owned by News Corp, headed by founder, and ultra-conservative, Rupert Murdoch. The same company owns Fox News and now the Wall Street Journal, among many many other companies and media outlets. This company also owns beliefnet.com. According to Wikipedia: The "Largest online faith and spirituality network."

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

252. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117441 by SPS on January 28, 2008 at 8:14 pm

If the arguments are so rock solid in this book, then bring 'em. Where are these irrefutable arguments from the theists? Where are the words and the proofs that will convert us all? Why are they always conspicuously absent? I suspect they are casting insults from behind the apron of pseudo-science, wanting to at once rail against and lay claim to scientific progress. Like so many other theists I expect they offer a lot of insults, word games, and misrepresented "facts". As far as his atheists' "sign of desperation" comment, it's a very common tactic to portray your opponent as the exact thing that you yourself are. It's odd that people who claim to have the corner on values are such eager practitioners of deception and the purveyors of thinly veiled hate.

253. Belief in Belief

Comment #117351 by SPS on January 28, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Good article. Modern day religionists seem to be willing to go to any degree of trickery and deceit, including self-deceit, to hold onto their beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary. If I remember my bible right, you can pretty much do anything and get "forgiveness". This is a questionable and troubling path to morality given religion's myth as reality anchor.

254. The Mind of the Market

Comment #115158 by SPS on January 23, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Hi. I'm still learning about it myself. A committee or council wouldn't always be populated by the same people, and no one would hold an empowering position for an extended period of time, except under certain rare circumstances. These councils would also be populated by the people they directly effect. Balanced job complexes would also be key in preventing coordinator class rule. The balance entails each individual having both empowering jobs and also doing a certain amount of rote or grunt work. This is a quote from the site at the second link I posted:

"In a participatory economy (1) consumption is according to effort and sacrifice, (2) jobs are balanced for empowerment and desirability, and (3) self managing councils of workers and consumers propose and revise what work and consumption they will do until other workers and consumers agree that the proposals are equitable and make efficient use of society's resources through a procedure called "participatory planning.""

255. The Mind of the Market

Comment #114710 by SPS on January 22, 2008 at 3:47 pm

A lot of the questions regarding parecon can be answered here:

https://zcommunications.org/zparecon/qabjcs.htm

As far as it concerns management or those who may gain power, parecon would eliminate the "coordinator" class, and would have balanced job complexes.
As far as Stalin being from the working class, I don't see that as being related to parecon at all. It's about empowering people, not particular individuals or elite classes of people. Most of us are from the working and not the privileged class. I see no reason to support elite class rule.
I'm no expert in the field, but capitalism seems to have it built in that many people must lose in order for the few to win, and for those few to retain and grow the power and wealth they've accumulated.

256. The Mind of the Market

Comment #113644 by SPS on January 20, 2008 at 9:25 am

A much fairer economic system is a parecon.

http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm

Shermer's book may be worth a read. However, I don't see how evolution is escapable regardless of the system involved. There is mention of 'free market', but naming something 'free', or any other pleasant sounding word does not make it so, unless you're religious, a politician, capitalist, or any variety of manipulator.

257. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112251 by SPS on January 16, 2008 at 4:16 pm

This is my take on him and the quote from his book:
A sense of purpose is not the sole ownership of religion. The very argument for atheism speaks to that. Having a purpose to our existence does not require that we are created for a purpose. The religious person will relate meaning and purposefulness to their lives, not because it was imparted to them by a creator, but because it makes sense to them within the context of their lives. The atheist will do the same, but does not need to place fictional characters, arguments, or commandments in place of reason. Let's be clear - we give things meaning, not the other way around. Religion can not be argued as fact or reasonable, because it is based on faith. There is simply nothing to grasp onto. Having watched his debate with Dan Dennett, I think this is why Mr. D'Souza speaks the way he does, in a rapid fire, 'I'm going to question the questioner instead of answering the question' manner, so as not to give
too much time to the audience for rational thought. He poses questions in a way to give the appearance of rationality, but it is within a fictional framework with faith based assumptions that he poses as fact. I get the impression Mr. D'Souza's motivation comes more from his own ego than from a desire to argue for truth.

258. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111496 by SPS on January 14, 2008 at 7:51 pm

We need good people like yourself. Good luck and get well soon. Thank you.

-Steve

259. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102791 by SPS on December 23, 2007 at 4:42 pm

It think we should have a dedicated forum for debunking each argument made by debaters like D'Souza. Each comment could be listed with a chance for posters to respond to each, and maybe with an official response. I found some excellent responses to assertions made by D'Souza in his book and this debate in the negative reviews of his book at amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1596985178/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_pop_hist_1/102-0527059-1124165?%5Fencoding=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar

It's clear that people like Dennett are interested in the truth, while people like D'Souza are only interested in selling you something. His arguments were wholly unsatisfying, and while intended to persuade, actually proved nothing.

260. A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #102438 by SPS on December 22, 2007 at 7:22 pm

My question is if there were a god, a perfect god, then would god have any choice or will? Choice implies the measurement of one thing against another, and then proceeding with what appears best. It also implies that one could be influenced toward one choice or another. But, if god were omniscient and all powerful, then doubt and being influenced is not possible. Then, how is choice possible? If there is an inability to choose, wouldn't that preempt intelligence and will? Would god therefore be a part of nature and not a being actively "deciding" on anything? It seems the idea of god as a willful sentient being is self-contradictory.

261. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #88727 by SPS on November 18, 2007 at 5:26 pm

It could be that empathy doesn't have an age limit. There's an evolutionary advantage to recognizing and responding to suffering and the potential for suffering. I think this is especially the case if it appears unwarranted. After all, we could be next.