301. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83707 by Logicel on October 31, 2007 at 2:29 am

Teapot_Believer wrote: Catholics tend to use logic and argumentation to support their views; at least they do it more often than Evangelicals.
_________

Catholics use rationalizations; they start off with a premise they deem to be true and then go through mental contortions to find 'reasons' for their beliefs. They fool no one who has critical thinking skills. As the Net is influencing discourse more and more, I am noticing that the Papal diarrhea is getting more prevalent.

The veneer that Catholics are reasonable is just that, scratch that veneer a little bit, and the virulent pus will easily bubble up.

302. AAI 07

Comment #83523 by Logicel on October 30, 2007 at 10:12 am

Despite efforts by the centrists to ease the polarity a bit, the polarists are in full terrier mode, they just keep shaking their heads furiously, with their rhetoric firmly in teeth.

Instead of discussing the merits of ideas, like giving a hand versus a handout, we are getting emotional posturing that is not helpful.

Way back, when I studied pacifist techniques so as to assist in keeping the Vietnam War protesters cool, I learned that besides distracting the ones hell bent on tearing each other hair out (by dropping a pencil in front of them, commenting, does this belong to you?), there was really nothing else to do but to walk away. Trying to reason with emotionally charged folks is impossible.

303. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83476 by Logicel on October 30, 2007 at 6:07 am

coretemprising wrote: Ok, but how about we just take the money and specifically use it towards problem solving,...
________

you mean like all the conservative think tanks do? LOL.

304. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83472 by Logicel on October 30, 2007 at 5:39 am

Welcome, Futtilitardus!

I hear you, coretemprising. I used to think that it was silly to spend all that dough on space exploration with all the problems we have on earth, until that dastardly cool-headed husband of mine managed to convince me otherwise. Many wonderful technological advances that we do use and have used to make life better on earth came from the scientific advancements that space exploration triggered. Also, all the money in the world, even if we had our friggin' priorities in place, would not solve them. As Hitch is fond of saying, our adrenals are too big, our frontal lobes too small (think of the failed attempts to get adequate, donated food to starving people because of the damn guerrillas that sabotage the transportation).

The scientific knowledge and technology resulting from space exploration could help us in understanding and working with our human limitations.

305. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83419 by Logicel on October 30, 2007 at 2:05 am

Thus far, Donahue's blanket mailing to media and other religious groups of his exhaustive 30-page brochure titled "The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked" seems to have done little more than help promote the film.
______

Oh, you silly Billy goat, thought you religites realized from Da Vinci Code that your best approach is to channel such publicity into an opportunity to indoctrinate further rather than promoting the opposition's viewpoint? Off to the confessional for your sin!!!

Have I said lately that Catholicism sux? No? It sux.

Trying to pinpoint the unpalatable essence of this particular brand of religious lunacy (in which I had the misfortune of being raised therefore being nauseatingly familiar with its revolting nuances), I have come up with the following: Catholicism could teach schizophrenics a thing or two by focusing on how one can make unreality appear realer than real. And of course, they also could show narcissists how to do narcissism with such panache that one can be so happily deluded to actually regard themselves as being the opposite, i.e., as selfless creatures pining for something bigger than their tiny selves.

Perhaps, Billy goat does not like that others can do the Catholic thing even better?

Here's a tidbit from my upbringing: a particularly bonkers nun during a several hours long religious instruction class to 10 year olds, drew a soul with original sin on the blackboard (it was a roundish blob with a chalk smear representing the sin). She then encouraged us to decide what form the mark should take: a cross, a circle, a triangle, etc. An hour then followed where the overcrowded baby boomer class, one after the other offered their choices, while I sat there thinking to myself, hell, wtf, what is this nut going about, I never have seen a soul, so forget about imagining what friggin' marks would be on it? After wringing the creativity dry from her young class, she then proceeded with a malicious flourish, to eliminate the class' creative output via a vigorous wiping clean of the blackboard. She then gloated at our shock, stating the soul is invisible as is the mark of original sin, so don't look for it as it can't be seen. However, God can see it and know the real truth of your blemished state. So this unreality was transferred onto a presence bigger than anyone, therefore giving reality to the fantasy. What manipulating, pathetic a*holes.

coretemprising, yes, hundreds of millions of dollars, does seemed a bit over the top, though the film industry does generate jobs, etc., and at least the film can be seen again and again. Films can be part of evolving morality. But, in our household, we would have like such a pile of money to be channeled into something equally as fantastic, that is to explore outer space.

306. AAI 07

Comment #83107 by Logicel on October 29, 2007 at 1:13 am

djgw201 wrote: Nobody ever said it was "free", only free at the point of use so that people are not given treatment based on their ability to pay. (A quite sick idea when you really think about it trained doctors turning away those in need.)
_______

My husband (who is as critical of corporations as much as he is of government) prefers the British National Medicine system over the French (though the French system is considered the best to which I would agree based on my experience of being quite sick in all the three countries where I have lived) because the British system requires that you do not pay anything when visiting a doctor which cuts down a lot of bureaucratic paper pushing.

When presented with Chapman's implication that universal health coverage prevents the religious bug from infecting folks, my husband seemed very open to that idea. It is not that he is against education/health care for all, just that the way that it is done causes as many problems as it solves, and he regards humanity and our grasp of technology to be sufficient enough for us to do better in solving these problems.

Yes, of course, there are folks that know that nationalized medicine is not 'free', but my once sloppy grasp of considering it to be 'free' was to elucidate the sloppiness of thinking. My husband has been able to cut through a lot of that 'feel good sloppiness' of mine: many popular ideas sound much better than than are actually in practice, eg. recycling certain stuff is actually less environmentally beneficial than burning it, graduated income tax actually protects the rich, etc.

I really hope that your not one of these people who think the rich are rich because they work harder
_______

The rich have vested interests, and they have the power to influence so these vested interests are protected. However, the wealth generation antics of some of these rich people are admirable, I am sorry, but they are, because they involve a great deal of practical creativity like the fed ex guy that figured how to use the space that was being wasted on commercial flights because of cancellations. As long as the not rich has access to investing, owning property, getting rich based on merit, then America will probably keep rolling on. However, as even the Economist has pointed out, the meritocracy in America is being eroded: vested interests, who you know, etc. is carrying more and more weight in America. If this trend continues, the not rich in America may very well rebell. Americans do not mind the rich as long as it is really possible for the not rich to have a crack at being so.

As for all the Presidential candidates for the American elections, including Ron Paul, we consider all of them to have some severely wonky ideas to be dismayed at all of them.

Libertarians can be like atheists, in the sense, that they are all very different. The founder of Wikipedia is actually a card carrying member, and he was right on to go with the wisdom of the crowds idea that turned out to be such a force for getting knowledge out, that he needs to be in hiding so as to protect his family (as he says, there are apparently people who really resent his opening of knowledge to others).

Instead of name calling posters who have such leanings, I am just recommending to try to unearth any ideas and approaches that are not despicable.

307. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #83002 by Logicel on October 28, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Schuermannator, regarding your question concerning whether or not it makes any sense that teachers who have such a misunderstanding of science and a resistance to understanding it because of their religious beliefs, to be allowed to teach evolution as it would be nonsensical to think they could ever overcome their resistance. Well, at the very least, the SA school boards need to stay on top of this situation and keep monitoring it. And if the teachers can't comply then they should not be teaching.

EDIT, and miseducation and lack of education both suck.

308. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #82998 by Logicel on October 28, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Schuermannator, ah, once she was educated by me, she no longer had that bit of ignorance--she thought that the uterus was connected to her heart by a series of wide tubes. Guided by her description, I was able to introduce the concept of separate organs being fed by a vascular system. She easily understood my explanation. Is the erasing of this particular ignorance suitable for her becoming eventually a mother? I have no idea, but I have been known to take occasional umbrage at people who say that motherhood is natural, good, beneficial, blah, blah, blah, a women has the right to have children, blah, blah, blah.

Teachers and mothers, they do such important work, we seem to have some kind of structure to determine the worthiness of teachers, but not for mothers/parents (before they become parents, that is, afterwards, there is a quite a lot of meddling that is encouraged by the government).

309. AAI 07

Comment #82991 by Logicel on October 28, 2007 at 1:08 pm

My husband is beyond Libertarian, in the sense that he can't abide labeling himself in any way. He grew up in a socialist country (Great Britain), lived for awhile in the US, and now lives at present in another socialist country, France.

He astutely criticizes the horrendous governmental bureaucracy that posits themselves as caretakers for the general good, but who in a large part, are looking just to keep their sinecure jobs. Sarkosy is trying to dissolve the idiotic special regimes at the moment (workers of certain fields, that were once dangerous, like the railroad industry, etc., can retire at full pension at age 50 despite the fact that modern technology has eased the former dangerous burdens of their jobs and that they live to a much older age). France will most likely be encumbered by striking because of his attempt. However, the Nordic countries seemed to have been able to do socialism in a more mean and lean fashion.

After nearly 20 years together, I am getting closer to my husband's world view, and in many ways, his educating me was similar to letting go of religion. He had quite a task to disabuse me of regarding socialist medicine as 'free.'

When he first came here, our next door neighbor regarded him as the lowest of the low, the meanest of the mean despite my efforts to inform him that my husband was kind, considerate, empathetic, etc., who has committed himself to working in community-based projects (which he chose because of his interests) in every country he has lived in. Our neighbor soon found that out for himself, and my husband's fair and just behavior based on enlightened self-interest won the neighbor over and probably caused a few doubts in that neighbor's almost blind adherence to socialism as the only way to improve our lot.

Though I can't be sure, I would give scooter similar leeway (though my husband can't regard insurance as anything else other than an elaborate con game). As scooter himself said, a handout is different from extending a helping hand.

310. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #82984 by Logicel on October 28, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Sigh.

When just a wee nursing student decades ago, I encountered a beautiful, young, and very pregnant African American who came to the NYC public hospital for an abortion (this was right after when abortion became legal). She had ignorantly thought that the abortion procedure would be in the form of a sharp metal object thrust up her, and that it could pierce her heart (apparently wearing a tampon was a great stress for her also, as she thought she ran the chance of it 'floating' into her heart). I was able to teach her the facts, and her great anxiety eased away (her willingness to submit herself to this misconceived notion of the actual procedure showed how much she wanted an abortion!).

Anyway, her depth of ignorance matches that of these SA teachers, except she wasn't a teacher. This program is a step in the right direction, but they will have their hands full disintegrating such ignorance.

311. AAI 07

Comment #82713 by Logicel on October 27, 2007 at 9:56 am

crafty wrote: so, how is someone who made the 'bad decision in life' to get sick, for example, able to pursue happiness when saddled with crippling health care costs? I'm glad I live in the UK where, fortunatley, the government does provide decent support for people.
_______

And I am glad I live in France for that same reason.

312. AAI 07

Comment #82712 by Logicel on October 27, 2007 at 9:54 am

agki, the film to which the elderly gentleman referred is The Contender (with the very talented Joan Allen playing the senator)

http://imdb.com/title/tt0208874/plotsummary

313. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82262 by Logicel on October 26, 2007 at 12:58 am

Perhaps theists need not be labeled by the ones who do not believe in God because there is no evidence. A better description for theists are ones who believe without evidence. That's aesthetically symmetrical and appealing to me.

I am no longer going to label people who believe in God despite the fact there is no evidential proof as theists. So there. Not only am I not going to give ammunition to those who believe without evidence by labeling myself as an atheist, I am not going give credibility to their position by referring to it by a label, geesh, I am doing publicity relations for them every time I utter the word theism.

314. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #81714 by Logicel on October 25, 2007 at 4:56 am

Excellent article, and we need more journalists, politicians, and celebrities to rally to the plight of ex-muslims.

Is this author implying that instead of tolerance, the politically correct squad is really tacitly racist?

315. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81136 by Logicel on October 24, 2007 at 8:21 am

The hosts of the debate did a good job, and I enjoyed its give and take structure. It was very lively, and probably one of the better debates I have seen on the topic of Christianity versus atheism.

Hitch held his own excellently, and D'Souza, despite his obvious enthusiasm and passion for his unfounded beliefs, is an intellectual pipsqueak compared to Hitchens. D'Souza, as Hitch noted, really has swallowed Christianity, line, hook, and sinker.

Hitch called out obvious errors in D'Souza's thinking twice: 1) Einstein was not a theist, and 2) Regarding Fascism as an outcome of secular politics is wrong.

I enjoyed the simplicity and calmness of Hitch's approach: Christianity is creating a mystery where one does not exist (Hitch's words paraphrased).

What gave me immense satisfaction is that D'Souza does clearly identify what atheism is attacking in theism, but in my mind, he failed miserably to defend the wonky Christian set of beliefs--he worked real hard but not very smart!!!

Keep in mind, this is what he was defending, a lost cause before he even started his feeble defense:

A cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father wants you to telepathically acknowledge him as your master so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that was put there when a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat the fruit of a magical tree.

Considering what he was up against, D'Souza deserves a tiny pat on his misguided back.

316. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80782 by Logicel on October 23, 2007 at 3:17 am

I have sent this article in to Josh, so it may get posted, but here's an interesting take on rehabilitating Jihadis done in Indonesia:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,22623960-28737,00.html

Is it possible that Hitchens/Ayaan Hirsi Ali would pooh pooh such a possibility of 'de-converting' the enemy as a feeble and ineffective focus? Basically, these jihadis were treated humanly (and not dehumanized as Hitchens sees these jihadis), and lo and behold, they responded favorably. Of course, some could/will doubt their sincerity (as I am sure some regular posters here would most likely proffer their behavior as an Islamic ploy to fool the infidel).

317. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80248 by Logicel on October 21, 2007 at 1:58 am

Diacanu, welcome!

I, too, happily found evolution to be the perfect answer to my uneducated musings (since my earliest memories) based on my observations that there were so many similarities between living things. In addition, everything was in motion, inexorably moving, being influenced by factors, shifting sands, wearing down of stream bed pebbles (I would collect rocks as a tiny tot, trying to get them to speak to me so they could tell me their secrets, what process they went through to arrive at their present state). And animals were lovely until I saw my first cat killing and eating a bird. Until I realized that someone else killed the chicken that I was eating on my plate which started me to grasp the bloody aspects of evolution.

Raised a Catholic, I would secretly wonder from whom God evolved and into whom God was evolving. Since evolution is intuitive for some (apparently a minority), I regard this difference in understanding and grasping evolution to be a worthy topic for study, and its possible role it may play in embracing religion or not.

318. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79716 by Logicel on October 18, 2007 at 10:03 am

Donald, a nicely clear post which I enjoyed immensely, but will be entirely wasted on The Wee Flea and Fides et Ratio (damg, I chuckle every time I encounter the ID of Fides et Ratio since the contents of that commenter's posts are drooling goo, but perhaps because said commenter exudes them in fairly infrequent, controlled rivulets of glop the commenter mistakes that style for reason?).

319. Dan Dennett award and speech at AAI 07

Comment #79667 by Logicel on October 18, 2007 at 5:33 am

Oudfreak in the comments under the youtube vid part one writes:

Hi,
the Turkish line "Her insan doğar, yaşar ve ölür" means
every man (human being) is born, lives and dies.

320. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79664 by Logicel on October 18, 2007 at 5:22 am

steve99 wrote: Indeed. This would make things easier for McGrath, as such a debate would, by the mere fact of its existence, prove him correct.
_______

Astutely on target, I applaud you.

321. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79656 by Logicel on October 18, 2007 at 5:07 am

Rtambree wrote: What about making it more fair and balanced - say versus Marcel Marceau, or the Postmodern Generator?
______

If it is going to be Marcel Marceau, it will need to be a Postmortem Generator (as the beloved creator of Pip is now deceased).

322. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79436 by Logicel on October 17, 2007 at 8:50 am

Coral Ridge Ministries is dedicated to combating atheist attacks on Christianity through our media ministry.
______

No one is attacking the right for Christians to be Christians. So, essentially you will be confronting criticism, just little old criticism, so you better hone up your intellectual skills, you lovable evangelists! (Hmmm, these protectors of the evangelist way are on rocky ground here, they, by embracing intellectual thought in the courageous process of trying to protect their offspring from the atheist onslaught, may become atheists themselves--I can't bear the irony, damned if they do, damned if they don't!)

323. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79429 by Logicel on October 17, 2007 at 8:42 am

"The new evangelists are atheists."
______

But you evangelists have set such clever examples in rounding up your sheepish flock, you only have yourself to blame!

baaaaaaaaa!

Seriously, the religites would be even more riled and apprehensive if they had the goodness-given ability to be discriminating intellectually. Because then they would really realize what the competition represents in daunting challenge. Atheists are not secular evangelists, we offer critical thinking skills, the ability to decide for yourself, etc. They can't compete. And yes, atheists were always around, but THAT WAS BEFORE THE NET. The playing field has changed, guys. You no longer can shield your kids from critical thinking like you once could.

324. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79354 by Logicel on October 17, 2007 at 3:26 am

RainDear, your comment 90 was a nice read, I enjoyed it!

coretemprising and V, regarding my describing McGrath's mannerisms as childlike, well, blame it on the fact that I saw just a bit of his waffle (the questions and answers spot) and that I had drunk many large cups of menthe Vervein herbal tea prior to the viewing, so I was slightly high so to speak (Vervein does that to me, and yes, I am a cheap date, just having a whiff of my date's alcoholic beverage makes me drunk, no, not just drunk, but completely hungover in an instant). However, being slightly less high at the moment, I will clarify my earlier comment and include your observations as to his acting by saying that if McGrath does act, he keeps it in character, he never breaks the act. The brilliant comedian who played Lathke (sp?) did this, he stayed in character all the time. I always wondered how such a comedian would handle this kind of acting cognitively and emotionally. Would he then become the character and such acting blurr into embracing the identity?

And I want to emphasize that an adult acting consistently childlike (and Lathke did this) comes off weird.

Referring to Russell B describing McGrath as being honest, with such cognitive dissonance raging within McGrath, I do not know if honesty is possible. McGrath towards the end of the answers and questions, reminded me of a child, stamping his feet, saying, I want that chocolate bar and I want it now (this was when he was saying that he believes what he believes, and that is all he is saying, except he left out the part that he is in a position of academic authority). More like a stubborn giver of tantrums, generously laced with self-deception and intellectual dishonesty. That kind of 'honesty' is pathetic.

I am trying with the help of Dennett's amusing Murky handle to diminish my snarkiness when confronted with moderate religites. However, I still hold that they are a big problem as they give respectability to the miserable and often dangerous notion of faith.

325. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79202 by Logicel on October 16, 2007 at 12:43 pm

coretemprising, now that I am using the amusing Murkie handle provided by Dan Dennett (if you haven't see the vid of Dennett's talk at the atheist shingdig, make sure you do, it's featured at the top of this page), I am able to watch him a bit longer than usual, and I am now struck by his childlike mannerisms: eye expressions of wonder, vocal inflections of innocent glee, that I missed entirely when viewing previous vids of this amusing Murkie. His Christianity drug of choice seems to be keeping him youthful! It is odd to see such childlike mannerisms exhibited by an adult.

I have broached this topic before, about how physical mannerisms do tell us a lot about a person, and that we all use those physical indications in trying to comprehend someone (including the sometimes prissy steve99), as a majority of our communication is non verbal. In addition, when one's content is so dim-witted as McGrath's is, it behooves us to notice the non-verbal aspects of his communication.

326. God Hates the World

Comment #79192 by Logicel on October 16, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Nate, It's great to have you commenting at this site!

327. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79171 by Logicel on October 16, 2007 at 11:34 am

Ok, I was able to see a bit of McGrath and I can, because of catching Dan Dennett's wonderful talk at the Atheist get together, describe McGrath as an amusing Murkie. No need to get angry at the poor sod. McGrath loves the fog, the quivering jelly of personalized interpretations of Christian beliefs, etc. How very amusing!!!

328. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79164 by Logicel on October 16, 2007 at 11:10 am

Hitch's speech was excellent: his delivery of his basic points of the immorality and indecency of Christian beliefs was sharpened by his saying at first that Christian belief is very hard to pin down and will try to do so with McGrath. Wow. I really appreciated that tack.

However, I could not take more than a few minutes of McGrath before I turned off the vid. Goodness forgive me, I am just allergic to McGrath.

I will skip him and catch Hitch's rebuttal and check out the questions and answers.

329. John Templeton's Universe

Comment #79036 by Logicel on October 16, 2007 at 12:38 am

Nicely snarky article, especially enjoyed this bit:

...to report that this Templeton-spawned group could probably not plot its way out of a paper bag.

Unlimited love and ubiquitous positive perkiness? Yuck. Are they trying to impose hell on us infidels before we even kick the bucket?

330. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78802 by Logicel on October 15, 2007 at 1:15 am

Wonderful acceptance speech, really enjoyed it. Congrats, RD!

331. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78714 by Logicel on October 14, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Tertornis wrote: You might not have been immediately successful, but I am pudding proof that the seeds of such seditious ideas can take root even in a faith-shackled mind, and eventually blossom into a verdant forest of doubt, with every bough sagging under the bounteous fruit of mixed metaphors.
_____

Wonderful stuff. Made me chuckle.

I find Jack R's comment to be refreshing and on target. Bish is yet another pathetic doofus in a position of authority. When rabid fundamentalists speak just a few words regarding their religious stance, I am struck by their complete lack of reason. When liberal, moderate faith-heads speak a few words, I am equally struck by their lack of reason. What's the difference, Bish? No difference whatsoever. In fact, the intellectual dishonesty of moderates disgusts me more than a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists give it to you straight, cruddy crap for sure, but they don't mince words, while Bish types drown in their inanity before first executing some wildly flailing (and failing) moves. Even if I would deign to throw them a life-saver, I doubt they would even recognize it, after all they are not drowning, Bish apparently regards himself the lifeguard patrolling the great beach of life.

332. 'Dirty War' priest gets life term

Comment #77880 by Logicel on October 11, 2007 at 1:59 am

There are two kinds of Catholics, the predator and the prey. This bastard was the predator type. Hopefully, these brave women who unrelentingly pursued bringing this bastard to justice can/will realize that the prey type of Catholic feeds and enables/encourages the predator type.

333. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77366 by Logicel on October 9, 2007 at 6:17 am

My recollection of philos' genre of posting here is the same as Bonzai's. In addition, I remember philos droning on about how he/she could not imagine not living next to religious folks. My diagnosis? philos is creepier than even religious moderates (sorry, Russell B, I have never yet met a moderate with whom I could work, perhaps in the future I will) for philos may not be addicted to religion (if his/her word can be taken to count) but is addicted to religious folks--he/she just ain't comfortable without have deluded, intellectually dishonest sheep about.

As for Sam Harris' point of contention: he may be taking himself or his grand plan of secularism too seriously. As it has been pointed out many times during discussions here, there are many ways to skin a cat, and honestly, Sam H's approach is beginning to sound pretty rigid to me. And his reference to atheists being a cult, I thought, was a lame attempt at humor. I could be wrong.

334. CBC Atheism and Humanism Documentary

Comment #77336 by Logicel on October 9, 2007 at 4:45 am

jagmarz wrote: Most of these kids aren't old enough to make Rational decisions
_____

Age of reason is seven years of age--these kids were at least that age. Coddling of kids, treating them as they can't be reasoned with, drives me up the friggin' wall. What a wonderful sight of that young girl saying I don't believe in God, and how envious I am that I was not allowed to do that many years ago when I was an atheist-in-the closet 7 year old.

STOP TREATING KIDS LIKE THEY ARE DUMB HUMANS JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE KIDS.

335. CBC Atheism and Humanism Documentary

Comment #77331 by Logicel on October 9, 2007 at 4:33 am

onlysky, check the comment Posting Guidelines (for using HTML code like for blockquotes) which are located right above the window for commenting.

336. CBC Atheism and Humanism Documentary

Comment #77329 by Logicel on October 9, 2007 at 4:29 am

Well done doc--I enjoyed the narrator's style and voice.

Dr. Khalid saying that he finally realized that God was like an elderly father to whom he needed to say goodbye was inspiring.

Khalid's wife and Harpur show how entangled religious belief becomes within a human, and how difficult it is to disengage the belief from the person without that person feeling overwhelmed, disheartened, and depressed--similar to a withdrawal from drugs, alcohol, etc. Better to prevent such entanglement from happening in the first place.

Harpur looked drugged to me, glazed eyes, monotone voice, etc. His saying that atheists have no proof there isn't a God shows how truly wonky his 'reasoning' is. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the faithful--which being the faithful there is no need for proof, they got faith, who needs evidence. So, Harpur was intellectually dishonest in that regard. In addition, Harpur knows in advance that he would consider life without God as being bleak--what do you expect from a guy that claims to know the mind and will of God without any evidence? He just knows. I found it very difficult not to throw up in my mouth listening to Harpur, reminds me of my reaction to McGrath's waffling description of his Christ addiction. Moderate Christians are creepy.

337. Searching for God in the Brain

Comment #77287 by Logicel on October 9, 2007 at 12:45 am

Though this article has some intriguing bits of info, for the most part it was irritatingly and sloppily written (this author would have a hard time being a trial lawyer):

as the nuns again recall an intense experience with another person and a deep (alleged, as a trial lawyer would refer to it) connection with an (unproven) God.

a time they experienced a profound connection with the (supposed) divine.

that were invigorated only during the nuns' recall of (supposed) communion with (an unproven) God.

a time they experienced a profound connection with the (unproven)divine.

Neural sparks there could be related to the visceral pleasurable feelings associated with connections to the (unproven)
divine.
____

Very interesting, visceral pleasurable feelings associated points to the addicting basis of religious belief.

(Although Beauregard had hoped the nuns would experience a mystical union while in the scanner, the best they could do, it turned out, was to conjure up an emotionally powerful memory of union with God. "God can't be summoned at will," explained Sister Diane, the prioress of the Carmelite convent in Montreal.)
_______

Sort of like the 'spiritual' frauds that James Randi frequently exposes.

We would like to [extend our work by] recruiting individuals who engage in Islamic and Jewish prayer as well as revisiting other Buddhist and Christian practices.
________

Very interesting, would that mean that if this supposed communion with God was taking place, that it would be with same God? Too funny, I bet the religites of different religions would take umbrage with this bit!!!

to speculate that localized electrical storms in the brain's temporal lobe might sometimes underlie an obsession with religious or moral issues.
______

Use of the word, obsession, is so refreshingly accurate!

For the nuns, serenity does not come from a sense of God in their brains but from an awareness of God with them in the world. It is that peace and calm, that sense of union with all things, that Beauregard wants to capture—and perhaps even replicate.
_____

Perhaps, this 'technique' could have been used for Mother Teresa, who 'lost' the ability to feel the presence of God. Why do a proper treatment of her depression, just stimulate those areas of the brain that will allow her to continue to be deluded.

And it is possible that some people's brains will simply resist succumbing to the divine.
______

Hmmm, maybe 10 to 20% of the population? Wonder who they would be?

338. Searching for God in the Brain

Comment #77279 by Logicel on October 9, 2007 at 12:02 am

VanYoungman, like bluebird, I have always enjoyed your avatar. However, the form of the A made by the branches eluded me until bluebird mentioned it. What a great story. Apparently the god of atheism is trying to communicate with you. Ha!

339. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76315 by Logicel on October 5, 2007 at 12:45 pm

I found this to be a very powerful lecture and agree wholeheartedly with Dawkins that Thompson delivered the goods. It seems that Thompson is working with the RDF, or at least approves of its aims to learn more about religion influencing our lives. If so, I find this very encouraging; we need psychiatrists to study how religion affects us, without tiptoeing around religious sensibilities.

Thompson rightfully credits great courage to Dawkins, and others, to confront religion and its negative influence, but equally well, Thompson, a professional trained in a field that is overwhelming tolerant of intolerance stemming from religious beliefs, is courageous in being so clear, outspoken, and consistent about religion's adverse effects on humanity. I am bowled over by him!!!

In addition, Thompson goes even further, and questions the wisdom of allowing men to be in the position to act out on their biology. I have certainly in my 57 years encountered mutterings about women being more peaceful, but never from a professionally trained psychologist who is actually saying that we implement this knowledge.

I know just a little about this topic, but it seems that one can have the mental gender, while not possessing the actual physical gender--males with female minds/cognition, and females with male minds/cognition. This could explain Thatcher; after all, men in power would only warm up and support females with male minds and reject the guys with female minds. So, to me, what is important, is to select people with the right mental gender for certain jobs.

As Thompson said, females certainly can commit violence, but it is not coming from the same evolutionary basis of spreading their seed, but in conserving/protecting the results of their fruition--offspring, family, etc.

Though Thompson seemed sympathetic to the idea that religious belief is a form of mental illness, he was very clear in that it does not share the same level as with schizophrenia--a very important distinction. However, religious beliefs do seem neurotic, but are given full reign because they are religious!

Thompson also drove home the point that children need to be protected from religious indoctrination.

Thompson musing about Atran's conflation with jihadis with football stars was perfect. It is really hard to take Atran seriously after 2003--he wrote valuable information until then and then got silly.

340. Christianity's Image Problem

Comment #76179 by Logicel on October 5, 2007 at 1:42 am

Forty-four percent found it (i.e. Christianity) confusing.
____

Really? Why would anyone find this succinct description of Christian belief as confusing?

A cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father wants you to telepathically acknowledge him as your master so that he can remove an evil force from your soul that was put there when a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat the fruit of a magical tree.

I remember as a kid, when scary fairy tales were read to me, I was relieved to find out the ghosts, demons, etc, did not exist, they were just stories designed to get an emotional response--fear, delight, etc.

To think that Christians are actually consoled by this nonsense makes me understand that we need to study how this happens. How we can reject the existence of some fairies, and then go full hog accepting others, and apparently loving and enjoying the horror of it!!! I just can't believe that humans really like this stuff, they are just trapped cognitively in doing so.

341. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75885 by Logicel on October 4, 2007 at 12:29 am

Russell, your comment 133 is excellent.

Regarding the challenging of wonky, irrational thinking and ideas without labeling them stupid: unfortunately with the hard-line folks, reasoning or calling their ideas stupid are equally ineffective. I tend to just ignore those folks, except in focusing on organizing to ensure that these 'adults' do not encroach on secularism.

I focus on the reasoning with the younger ones. They are on the road on which we need to travel together to get to our desired location.

342. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #75351 by Logicel on October 2, 2007 at 11:39 am

My labor union buddy, who hails from a long line of labor unionizers, always made it a point to follow his grandfather's suggestion to ask at least five different people what they thought of a particular union meeting.

We got Bay's, Van Youngman's and Jack's. Three is not too shabby. Would welcome more if possible.

343. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #75347 by Logicel on October 2, 2007 at 11:32 am

The link to the vid (comment 306) done by leftoflarry was a nice mobile collage of the event.

I am sorry, but I just love the slogan I saw in the vid: Rational Response Squad: Can't fuck with it!

Why mince words, I am axing youse?

344. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #75339 by Logicel on October 2, 2007 at 11:21 am

Yup, Jack, excellent job.

345. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75258 by Logicel on October 2, 2007 at 6:47 am

Oh my, I do enjoy how Dawkins does snark.

346. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75221 by Logicel on October 2, 2007 at 4:26 am

Almost an hour spent measuring, beating, mixing, etc. down the drain. Thank you very much, Richard, for not allowing my cake to rise in the oven!

I, too, do not understand this infatuation with religious ritual as being a desirable activity lacking in the atheist camp. I had to endure that nonsense when growing up, and it was not enjoyable, interesting, or anything positive at all.

Atheists are free to come together in any manner they deem as desirable, interesting, and valuable. The ritual served up by the religites is mass-produced, cold, and congealed--totally unappetizing. I am fed up with the pretense that it is anything else.

A childhood friend of mine died last week. And her loved ones created most meaningful mourning/grieving activities. One was to decorate the simple, hand-built coffin which was placed in the center of her family's living room with hand-made art done by her friends. No priest, or minister was required, nor a group of religious folks either. In addition, we used the web to co-ordinate the scheduling of friends spending time with her during her hospital treatment, to inform others all over the world regarding her treatment and response to it, giving them the opportunity to leave comments.

347. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74795 by Logicel on September 30, 2007 at 1:27 pm

In the days leading up to the RRS debate with the banana boys, I cut and pasted a very good suggestion from a poster here (forgot the ID, sorry) to the RRS discussion on the up-and-coming Nightline debate.

The suggestion was used very well by Kelly (who made it her own, and was very comfortable in delivering it).

348. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74794 by Logicel on September 30, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Thanks, Crucifiction for the link. Liked those two cheery atheists chiming, we are good people, just not god people.

And, thanks VanYoungman and J. Rawlinson for giving us a sense of what the spirit at the atheist convention is/was like.

349. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74788 by Logicel on September 30, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Excellent comments on tempering anger with rationality (in a rush so can't give credit to the folks who commented on this angle).

Without emotions, including anger, we would be immobile, with not a shred of motivation, rooted in place, useless and trapped. Neuroscience studies have clearly demonstrated this aspect of our human reality with studies conducted with patients who suffered brain damage affecting cognitive/emotional regions of the brain.

I have had the pleasure of contributing to a very popular finance/trading blog with a large and varied readership, and the even more pleasurable experience IMing with this blogger who expressed interest in my atheist doings on the net, and I gave him this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QVbJnSPQE

He is a very savvy and successful blogger of about four-years duration, and he was bowled over at the number of views and comments that this intro to the Blasphemy Challenge garnered. In his experience, he never ever had encountered such a reaction to a vid (or as he referred to the vid, this bad boy). And I said, yeah, RRS is hot stuff, they know how to market their message and get it out there.

Sometimes, I think the RRS works too hard, and they need to take care of themselves better. And I worry much more about harm coming to them, then the other way around.

350. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74613 by Logicel on September 29, 2007 at 5:34 pm

After finishing this week's Economist coverage on Myanmar, I wondered when a journalist would focus on the religious/faith aspect of the Buddhist monks protest. Lo and behold, here is such an article.

This author must be a godsend to have when shopping in bargain basements, have him close by a particularly deep bargain bin, and he probably could successfully scrape its bottom and come up with a find--a bedraggled sweater unraveling at its hem that could keep you momentarily warm until it completely unravels and is rendered useless for its intended purpose.

It is, on the whole, not beneficial to be ruled by such heroes, but it is good to have them around when we need them.
____

And, pray tell, what do we do with the maniacs when we no longer need their rabid, unquestioning faith-based actions?