351. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73408 by Logicel on September 25, 2007 at 1:21 am

I would warm up even more to this article if it was titled: Why are we humans so self-destructive?

We humans fan those destructive fires when we believe without any evidence and then act on those said beliefs. Hence, this author is not going to douse those destructive flames by her continuing to embrace faith and to regard faith as something positive and life-enhancing.

However, I do accept that she is not only trying to maintain the 'lovely' illusion that so nourishes her, she is, no matter how selfishly (and perhaps that is the only valid way to affect change), working towards the moderation of her religion to the benefit of all, including atheists.

352. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72593 by Logicel on September 21, 2007 at 8:04 pm

When I chance upon the comments of Christians here at this site, and they go on and on to the best of their ability waxing lyrically about their beliefs, all I do is translate their hard work into the following concise and hilarious summaries of their belief systems:

1) From an unknown source: 1)... therefore, 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.

2) PZ Myers: There is this old myth about a god who has sex with his human mother to give birth to himself, who grows up to be killed (but not really), and this depreciated sacrifice somehow means everyone else gets to go to heaven when they die. If they believe it, that is; otherwise they go to hell and suffer for eternity.

Forgive us, if we can't take your heart-felt discussions seriously. Because the above 2 descriptions encapsulate the meaning of your beliefs!

353. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72251 by Logicel on September 20, 2007 at 3:12 pm

This article reminded me of the cheery advice commonly given: When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

Skinner's version, when belief in God is challenged (lemons), make your own favorite pitcher of Godade--well diluted, with lots of sugar, to ease away the cognitive dissonance caused by those acidic critics of religion.

Faith and the belief in belief powerfully resists reason; the more reason is directed at faith-heads, the stronger their faith or their need to continue to believe becomes. Their twisting the situation to feed their addiction become craftier and more creative. Skinner needs not only to do that for himself, but he needs to reach out and encourage others to make up nice big refreshing pitchers of Godade. He apparently is concerned that his fellow believers might go thirsty.

354. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #71588 by Logicel on September 19, 2007 at 4:51 am

Yorker wrote: WE NEED MORE ATHEISTS OF AVERAGE OR EVEN BELOW AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE; WE HAVE ENOUGH CLEVER PEOPLE ALREADY!
____________

*IRONY WARNING*

Using all caps obviously shows your lack of intelligence.

*END OF IRONY WARNING*

Agree completely with your comment. Intellectuals are fun to visit, but I wouldn't want to live with one! LOL.

355. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71209 by Logicel on September 18, 2007 at 3:41 am

Nefrubyr wrote: Let the religious-minded have their Quorn, but let no one forget that those without any religiosity also exist, filling their secular lives completely without any church-shaped gaps.

Excellent, astute analogy!

Humanism is the bottom line. Why make a fuss about it? Each human can practice it the best way they deem possible--they can try new stuff, evaluate it, reject/adopt it, etc.

Though I have no need of what Epstein is so keen on offering, it is much better that Epstein is a humanist chaplain than a religious one. I have often wondered what will those people do, the ones that have the 'talent' or push for 'ministering.' I applaud that Epstein found a non-religious way to fulfill his occupational interest.

356. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70538 by Logicel on September 16, 2007 at 12:22 am

RRS mode of operation in on the ground and front lines of the confrontation against theism. It operates in the most religious of all the developed, industrial countries in the world. Its projects, like The Blasphemy Challenge, appeal to the religites' favorite group for indoctrination--the young. It is an understatement that this focus is something the religites will not tolerate sitting down. Hence, a Christian group is claiming that RRS violated their copyright so as to cramp RRS style and mode of reaching out to the young.

Sapient, in particular, has a unrelenting style--when the religites dish out their crap to the RRS, he may serve up a fast-food plate to sling right back at them, but it always contains solid and nourishing logic and reality.

RRS may be very in-your-face, but they are consistent in their emphasis on the irrationality/dangers of religion.

357. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #70333 by Logicel on September 15, 2007 at 1:29 am

Splendid, marvelous, terrific news! Though many charities leave me cold, the mission statement for this one, emphasizing education, research, and promotion of science does not. This is an idea whose time has come.

Congrats to all who worked hard at getting charitable status approval.

358. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69832 by Logicel on September 13, 2007 at 1:15 am

Every since I first heard of Haidt's research back in May when CJ started this forum discussion thread (http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15021&sid=c32b44f8d179c6e53cfa60f7905c8fe9),
I was troubled by his approach. Harris has done an excellent job of cutting through the wonkiness of Haidt's viewpoint.

One of the questions on the morality quiz was if I would be disgusted if tomato ketchup was mixed with ice cream. At first, my disgust registered, and then reason kicked in. I realized that the ketchup was not blood, and though I doubt that such a culinary mixture would be pleasing, I certainly would eat it if I was very hungry. That realization drove home the value of reasoning and information. That question I would suppose was to see if I leaned toward the purity basis of morality. I found myself doing that with that type of question found on his quiz, as soon as disgust was triggered, I used facts and reasoning to counter the triggered disgust--it was very liberating.

Haidt seems to me to have a set opinion and is misusing/twisting data to support it. Like several other atheists participating in the above-mentioned forum thread, I leaned towards justice and concern for harm to myself and others as the basis of morality. Yet, what I consider to be the instinctual impulse to avoid contamination based on empirical information available to my ancestors, I was able to go a step further, and challenge the effectiveness of that instinctual push, making better and INFORMED decisions. Reason and facts go a long way against blind following of authority and ungrounded fears.

359. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69625 by Logicel on September 12, 2007 at 1:20 am

I am thinking of her competitors, sitting in the audience, quietly fulminating and uttering to themselves, "F*ck you, Jesus, for not letting me win."

I liked the suck it comment, probably because I am an uncouth native New Yorker.

I signed the petition that someone on the first page of this thread presented, mostly because I am saying suck it to Donahue.

And I agree that whether or not one may regard her comment as being funny, the real issue is to confront the censorship based on the nonsensical notion that her comment is hate speech. That bloated fool, Donahue wants her to apologize!

360. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68895 by Logicel on September 9, 2007 at 3:22 am

Regarding the difficulty of communicating with the religious with their lapse in rationality, when I have one-to-one discussions, I will focus on what we both have in common.

Some commenter here recently on another thread (perhaps it was 601) mentioned that it furthers the discussion with a moderate, if their rationality is emphasized (this commenter's comparison was the similar focusing on an alcoholic's sober times instead of the drunken sprees), in the sense that they are half-way there to the goal of rationality, that they have the tools for rationality, they just need to use them more effectively.

This approach certainly does not iron out all the snarky wrinkles in said discussions, but it is a handle that works enough to keep a discussion not turning into a ugly/stressful confrontation.

In the circle of cognitive psychology aficionados with whom I frequent on the web, one pointed out that in order for our brains to embrace something new, we need to focus on what is already familiar to us contained within this 'new' element. And rationality is something most humans use at some point.

I will also focus on commonly shared morality, atheists say that we get it from evolution, religious folks will say they get it from God. But, in the end, the morality is the same, even if we differ in crediting its origins.

I will often translate into my own secular terms what the religion person is embracing. One religious acquaintance asked me to stop taking Jesus Christ's name in vain (and at that time I really did have a habit of doing that, now, I have no desire to mention Jesus). I had explained that it was a habit, and that I will try not to do it because I appreciated that it will be equivalent if she would mention the name of my husband every five minutes, it would upset me too!!! The look on her face was priceless--it was relieved and suspicious at the same time, struggling with doubting my sincerity. And I was sincere.

Often, during these threads discussed at this site, I will wonder if atheists have what it takes to consistently embrace the humanity of religious folks, of never forgetting that religion is deeply embedded within human culture, and that such religious affiliation does not make believers less human.

361. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68873 by Logicel on September 9, 2007 at 2:05 am

Should we help them out or just sit back, amused, and watch their linguistic antics?
Any suggestions?
______

Deflators of faith
Busters of belief
Crushers of creed

362. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68790 by Logicel on September 8, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Jonathan Dore, Northern Bright, and Corylus, good posts, I enjoyed reading them.

Northern Bright wrote: How to fend off any loss of faith that might result? Easy: just don't go there.
_____

This sentence brought to my mind what my devout Catholic mother would say nearly everyday during my childhood, that her faith was akin to a fabulous, precious, astoundingly gorgeous jewel which she keeps protected and safe from would-be thieves--thieves being anyone that would rob her of faith. In this way, she regarded herself as being an one-woman fortress, secure and safe as long as she dismissed without any intellectual (and she was one smart lady) consideration of arguments challenging the notion of faith.

This ability was formidable; in her later years as the moat around her fortress dried up a bit, and the thick stone walls crumbled somewhat, she came up with this tactic: Faith's detractors might be correct, and if they are, it does not matter, because it is necessary to embrace faith even if it is false. If God does not exist, it does not matter, He would be created by humans anyway.

The extent that faith-heads go to sustain their addiction is beyond belief, and equally unbelievable is how mental health professionals hardly ever challenge the drawbacks represented by embracing faith.

EDIT: My silent response to my mother's tactic of regarding faith as a jewel was to regard faith as something not worthwhile if you had to be worried about its safety all the time. As a budding, but in-the-closet atheist, I would regard both faith and jewels as things generally not worth the bother!

363. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68692 by Logicel on September 8, 2007 at 7:03 am

Tumara Baap wrote: When asked to explain a choice made, we reach out for cerebral tools that graft a reasonable sounding explanation for a position already reached at a gut level.
______

Obviously, we are not born with a manual describing how to handle our complex, delicate emotional/cognitive machinery. In addition, we do not learn how to either through education. We are disciplined like parrots--we often just imitate such behavior, without honing the skills to be able to filter our emotions through practiced cognition.

Often, at this site, commenters will mention that critical thinking is a neglected subject. I would add that the challenge of being human, of being of both a rational and emotional make-up, is also not given the attention required in order for us to be comfortable with and within ourselves.

Religion, both the Eastern and Western approaches, rely on depriving/punishing the body, in the mistaken belief that this is the best, and perhaps the only, way to control the mind. We need to get away from this focus and use the knowledge which cognitive/evolutionary psychology and neuroscience are providing to understand humanity more effectively, so any cerebral tools which may be chosen brings out the best in us emotionally.

364. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68233 by Logicel on September 6, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Instead of professional misinterpretation, I prefer habituated misinterpretation.

There are many problematic levels presented by religious experience: the rabid, murderous extremism, the obsessive/compulsive following of unproven and non-evidential beliefs to the letter, the indoctrination of children, the sloppy, but well cherry-picked dabbling of the moderates--all of these problems are encouraged through the silence of the majority of mental health professionals regarding the mentally/emotionally unhealthy aspects of religion. They, like the rest of society, have been habituated to be silent in their criticism and confrontation with religion.

The more religion is challenged, the more it will be possible to conduct helpful studies regarding it, without being handicapped with the fear and taboo of stepping on religious toes.

365. India to charge writer Nasreen with 'hurting Muslim feelings'

Comment #67646 by Logicel on September 4, 2007 at 5:29 am

captain underpants, thanks for the link to the petition, which I have signed (though I certainly agree with Russell B that the language was a bit wonky at times).

Humans get their morality from the same source--we evolved to feel empathy. Hence, people who happen to be Muslim are moral. So, I would say that the majority of Muslim practitioners are probably just fine people. However, religion is known to enable good people to do bad, and Islam in its present rabid form, can cause such good people to do terrible things, hence the heavy criticism directed at Islam, including the criticism voiced by Nasreen.

Several lawmakers and members of a conservative Muslim political party threw flowers and other items at her and called for her death.

_________

Apparently, the custom is to provide flowers before the actual death?

366. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67392 by Logicel on September 3, 2007 at 8:10 am

steve99, You are correct. Dawkins emphasizes that the labeling of children as being full fledged members of a religion before they can decide for themselves is child abuse, not the teaching to children the religion of their parents.

When a child in the fifties, I was labeled as a Catholic, and I do regard that labeling as abusive, just as abusive as being label weak and not so smart because I just happened to be a female. Raising consciousness is what Dawkins is advocating and not state intervention. Labeling children as full fledged members of a religion fosters division among their peers, and in my case, confusion regarding my identity (which was atheistic, though of the closet form).

It is apparently not enough that religious parents can teach/brainwash their children, they also demand the disgustingly selfish right to label little tots. I was, also, unfortunately, like many others, victim of the more classical form of child abuse, and despite that fact, I do not regard Dawkins' referring to the labeling of children as being full-blown members of a religion as being over the top. I agree with his assessment, and I applaud him for doing so.

367. In God we doubt

Comment #67379 by Logicel on September 3, 2007 at 7:02 am

Cartomancer, I, too, think romantic love is a joke and the notion of universal love even funnier.

Love is many different things to as many different people, so in that less than stellar manner, it does resemble God belief. I remember being asked by a fellow psychology student to reply to her research study question, "What does love mean to you." She was most impatient and displeased with my response, calling it a cop-out. My reply was, Love is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. She wanted me to spit out some absolute value for love--swear allegiance to its potency and great value.

As for what it is to my eye, it has varied (surprise, surprise!) I have been--and still am--in a 20 year relationship, and I have seen my notion of love change and almost disappear! I think those old-time arrangers of marriage knew more about successful pairings than us modern love addicts know. My relationship is based on familiarity, respect, and knowledge of my partner's strengths and weaknesses. Love really has nothing to do with it in the long run. In the beginning, yes, the excitement fueled by rampaging hormones, is what lots of people regard as love. But what was deeply layered in and around that chemical reaction was my pattern recognition skills--identifying the pattern of behavior shown by my partner and understanding that it fit me for the most part, and that he would add to the quality of my life, and that I could add to his.

As for universal love, we need instead to encourage and reward the following of just law/order, factual knowledge and its dissemination, education, etc. The pushing for universal love is misleading and wastes our precious time. Universal love and a few bucks will buy you a Latte at Starbucks.

368. In God we doubt

Comment #67364 by Logicel on September 3, 2007 at 6:03 am

Can't see any new angle that is presented by this author--just the same old rehashing of hackneyed opinions in the direction of it does not matter if religious belief is true or not, it does good (sometimes), and that is what should be focused on.

What has really changed for these religious believers since atheism has gotten vocal and positive about its Godless image? Nothing. They can do exactly what they were doing via their religious beliefs prior to the development of the so-called new atheism. It boils down to the entrenched position of religious believers expecting respect, admiration, and tacit approval for their non-evidential beliefs.

Apparently, religious believers, either in the throes of their addicted state of embracing fully the unproven or perhaps just doing the dabbling game spiced with doubt for an extra frisson of bittersweet angst though still cleaving to the notion that humanity was created for a purpose, want not to be told that their romp in the spiritual realm is not all what it is cracked up to be. They can initiate doubt, but they sure do not like doubt taking the outside form of atheist's strong arguements against the practicality and effectiveness of theism.

369. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67165 by Logicel on September 2, 2007 at 10:44 am

The content of this article, being the mere air-brained fluff that it is, made me rise from my chair involuntarily--luckily I had a pile of about 10 of Dawkins' books nearby, so I piled them neatly in my lap which weighted me down nicely, thereby preventing a concussed meeting with the ceiling which could have resulted in my seeing stars and perhaps an angel or two. Standing up, I felt dizzy and rushed to my doctor's, who diagnosed sudden onslaught diabetes. She asked if I have mega-dosed on any sweet stuff lately, and I described this article. And she said, ok, fine, you do not need to go on a special diet or take pills, just do not ever again read anything written by Salley Vickers.

And yes, Ms Vickers, atheists are discourteous and polemical. We are no longer being silent about the obvious inanity of religious superstitions. You, of course, can believe in your religious superstitions. However, you cannot demand respect for your unfounded, non-evidential beliefs just because they are religious in nature.

Northern Bright, delicious food review!!!

370. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66610 by Logicel on August 30, 2007 at 3:30 pm

They also reveal a woman who was surely suffering from run-of-the-mill depression,...
_______

Yup, her words do indicate depression, and the dangerous fools that were her superiors let her suffer for 40 years in this so-called faith 'crisis.'

371. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66608 by Logicel on August 30, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Richard Morgan, Are the following words, full of adoration and gooey-eyedness, permissible?

Oh, Richard M, You always get to the bottom of what really counts, with such aplomb and preciousness--I scour these threads, hoping I will find your words of perfection and insight.

One person's gooey-eyedness is another's compliment.

372. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66581 by Logicel on August 30, 2007 at 1:55 pm

We have been served with a steaming heap of Swedish meatbull.

Truly pathetically 'reasoned' article. He plods through his reading of TGD in the most boring and uninspired way, and then just meanders along his own little, private way--his conclusions show he dutifully read it without comprehending it.

373. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65856 by Logicel on August 27, 2007 at 6:25 am

102. Comment #65421 by MonkeyMonkMan on August 24, 2007 at 6:07 am
avatarby the way, since i am new to this, can someone tell me how to respond to a specific writer?
________

MonkeyMonkMan, not sure what you are asking. If you are new to this, make sure you check out guidelines for posting comments, which is close to the area where you log onto this site.

374. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65838 by Logicel on August 27, 2007 at 2:51 am

Hey, Mother T, I want my dish/tea towel back! Take it off your head, right now.

375. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65832 by Logicel on August 27, 2007 at 2:09 am

Ewan D, Sandals in the Bin, hmmm, just yummy sarcasm!!!

Corylus, I come from a long line of mini-Mother T's--my mother and maternal grandmother, both devout and frenzied Catholics, sentisized me to that personality type--and when it appeared, full-throttle in the form of a shrunken, pinched, dessicated old hag, I instantly recognized it with great dismay and disgust, especially since such bizarre behavior was embraced by many as being wonderful and potently beneficial.

Abbe Pierre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbe_Pierre), a French, male, devout Catholic driven by his faith to focus solely on poor, disadvantaged people is a nice foil to Mother T. The gender difference is telling us something. I don't think it is possible to have a male version of Mother T.

Abbe Pierre's only problem with his faith, was his sexual desire, not his faith in God's love and connection with God. His faith was very quiet, he never talked about it much. Really, unless you knew, you would not have known that he was deeply religious. Also, he was a dynamic figure, who saved people from the Nazis during WW2 and set up a non-profit organization that gave goods and employment to needy people. He had visual style (boots and a dashing cape). In addition, he used technology, as he did during the fifties, when he used the radio to broadcast that homeless people were dying in the freezing cold in Paris, in the streets. The response to his broadcast was pronounced. So, he did make a difference, and he did raise others' consciousness in understanding and recognizing the plight of desperate people. In great old age, he made a few gaffes, specifically regarding holocaust denial, which was very odd, considering his role in saving people from the Nazis. This faith-head, quiet in his faith, apparently is not being considered for sainthood.

Regarding the psychology exhibited by my mother and grandmother--they were very self-centered, they regarded themselves perfect in their humility and sacrifice, in their self denial. They gorged themselves with their piety, believing that killing their selves meant they were pure and able to decide for/and manipulate others, who were in need of their guidance. Such gorging, paradoxically, caused the opposite to happen, they became bloated with hubris. They trusted their intuition and beliefs completely. They considered themselves living saints (are there more female saints than male?). Such cleaving to superior morality, is a power game. However, my mother, did constantly feel isolated from God, like Mother T. Of course she would, she lived in a world, completely dominated by males--males who would not and could not treat her as an equal.

When I was a teenager, I asked my mother's brother, my uncle, did he consider my mother and his mother saintly. His reply was that his mother certainly was (so he bought the hype), but my mother certainly was not (so apparently saintliness is diluted through the generations!) Interestly, he said that though his mother could be so gentle and sweet, wow, she could switch on a dime, and become mean and nasty. Hmmmm.

I think that males project their need/attraction for absolute purity onto females. In this way, they can eat and have their cake at the same time. I mean, we all know, that females, when doing their bidness, their excrement comes out, wrapped in saran wrap, sterile and pure. LOL.

376. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65770 by Logicel on August 26, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Pissinintothewind, I hope you realize my comment #51 was the height of sarcasm?

heathen2, In 1989, I remember almost causing a devout Christian to fall off her chair when I called Mother T a monster (this was after the Christian went blathering about how amazing it is that Mother T is accomplishing so much good, all from her simple, loving heart).

As despicable as Mother T was, and they don't get much worse than that wretched woman, I find it equally despicable that so many people fell for the baloney.

And the sickening Vatican, with its heartless manipulating of the masses, has only, yet again, like countless times previously, sealed their commitment to idiocy and malignancy with their inane notion of making a saint out of this weirdo.

377. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65753 by Logicel on August 26, 2007 at 10:22 am

Crisis has an acute element to it. A crisis lasting forty years is no longer an acute episode, especially since human lives don't last that long! So I looked up antonyms to crisis, since being in such a prolonged state is the opposite of being in a crisis and got the following:

ease, easiness
safety, security
assurance, reassurance
insignificancy, triviality
calm, harmony, peace, rest--LOL, Mother T, REST IN PEACE.

378. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65748 by Logicel on August 26, 2007 at 9:25 am

Here's mine (been a real joy reading others' comments):

Unlike faith-heads, I have been clean and sober the 57 years of my life--though for the first eighteen years I had to pretend to be addicted to faith in order to survive severe religious indoctrination.

Religious faith is wastefully useless at its best and dangerously deluded at its worst. Happily, people of reason are openly criticizing the silly notion of religious faith being virtuous and necessary for the advancement of humanity.

And one of the most important reasons for such overt criticism is because supporters of religious superstitions grabbed pieces of the political pie and are continuing to pig-out by stuffing their faces with unrelenting gluttony.

379. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64627 by Logicel on August 21, 2007 at 3:38 am

Paul E wrote: I want to try a change of tack here, because I am being so overrun by criticisms of my theistic approach that it is hard to keep up with responses.

and

My point is simple, and could be summed up in a much smaller book:

"The morality delusion"
________

Firstly, it is not our fault that your simple point is bound with theism! LOL.

Secondly, your 'simple point' which is that without God there is no morality has been responded to by several posters. We do understand your point. We just don't agree with it.

Your 'concise' book puts those atheist responses at the cutting edge of understanding how your absolute approach to morality gets its stuffing knocked out when it is not presented with alignment with the unproven God hypothesis, and perhaps shows on your part a lack of understanding regarding the significance of those responses to your presentation.

Perhaps Catholicism was removed from you, but the Catholic is still alive and well without it. The religious people that I do know, tend to fall in the category of you and Dianelos--Catholics, who discard what they don't like or agreed with regarding the religious infrastructure/organization and then just insist that their version of God is as real as the churches, except their approach is more uplifting and productive. You folks are a dime a dozen in my experience. Though that may sound derisive, and in part it is, many moral people like you, who have great empathy and have an impossible time of accepting reality, that injustice and cruelty is part of life, you go through contortions to protect yourself from reality. The truly simply approach is to accept reality, with its negative and positive aspects.

In addition, why would a belief in absolute morality not have given us the goods by now? We have had a couple of thousand years pushing this addictive absolute approach with no avail--our human reality is still present, warts and all.

Your 'concise' book seem to have gotten the protagonists incorrectly, instead of secularists, it would make more sense if you had meek and mild Christians, who would do anything for their God and not do the correct thing for their fellow humans, to replace the secularists.

380. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64417 by Logicel on August 20, 2007 at 3:12 am

When I was told as a child that I should do something, I either refused to do it, or I did it as a sham, just to get what I would get if I did what I should do. However, when the purpose or the reason for what I should do was given, then I perused the possibilities, could discuss the ramifications with the adults, and come to a compromise with them regarding my behavior. Really, why does some absolute 'shouldness' of morality be required to be conscious, learn from one's mistakes, and improve one's behavior? This approach of mine continues in my adult state.

Though I have read interesting philosophical tidbits on several threads at this site, they either gave me a good laugh or re-enforced why I don't use precious time wading through the philosophical perspective--philosophizing just does not give enough inspirational bang for my intellectual buck.

Being subjected to Catholicism until age eighteen--though I was an atheist at heart--did leave me with a somewhat wonky grasp of reasoning and critical thinking skills. My life partner, however, was raised in a secular home, and he has been able through the nearly 20 years we have been together to gently and consistently straighten out my crooked reasoning still dating back from that earlier indoctrination into the dogmatic, absolute way of regarding the practical process of living. He serves up reason and critical thinking skills as the bottom line each and every day. And I gobble it all up.

Paul E's--though much more practical and down-to-earth then Dianelos' is--approach still just leaves me cold. He is welcome to it, of course. Though I see much more contradiction in his approach then the supposed ones in the approach so deftly described by Corylus. The contradiction is that here is a guy who embraces intuitively the need and existence of objective morality and then does not grasp that his decision to embrace Christianity with its arbitrary interpretation of absolute morality comes with the crushing weight of that there is no evidence that this arbiter of absolute morality exists!!!!! Now that is a contradiction with which I could not live.

381. The Politics of God

Comment #64397 by Logicel on August 20, 2007 at 1:22 am

I appreciate Lilla's saying that in order to understand a topic which we consider so alien that we can't begin to get a handle on understanding it and providing solutions, that we need first to focus on what is familiar to us contained within this bizarre and frightening topic--a very handy tool in general for understanding and learning.

It was, however, unsettling/unfortunate, that Lilla used the word 'miracle' to describe the present American situation of a very religious country which has its wall of separation between government and religion intact (though some powerful religious people have been and are trying to crack through that wall). Hopefully, less vague language will be used to explain the American situation in the book.

This is the kind of sociological/historical/psychological work that we have been discussing needs to be done. And now, with religion no longer being protected under the tacit agreement that it can't be criticized, we will see more and more writing and studies done in this direction. In this manner, I do not consider Lilla's grasp of the situation to be depressing, but rather a direct confrontation with the truth--that despite all the horrors connected with Religion, its ubiquity and historical life has to be reckoned with in an enlightened, knowledgeable, and effective manner.

382. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62241 by Logicel on August 9, 2007 at 3:33 am

Black is white, sweet is sour, and bad is good. Did I get that right, Ms Phillips?

Since she has her religious head so far up her arse, she would/could not see reason even if it bit her on the arse. Therefore, she will continue spelunking the dank and dark crevices of her meandering and useless religious path dislodging at times huge, smelly (and silly) dumps.

What a waste of a human brain.

383. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #62128 by Logicel on August 8, 2007 at 9:22 am

I would not expect anything less than complete dismantling of McGrath's theist waffle by the writer of the Courtier's Reply (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php)

Poor McGrath, naked as a new born babe, but waffling as fast as he can with theology so he can pretend he is fully clothed in reason and good sense.

384. Religion is Hard

Comment #62037 by Logicel on August 8, 2007 at 1:47 am

Don't stop, Marcus. Keep going strong. Brilliant and timely content.

385. The Out Campaign

Comment #60026 by Logicel on July 31, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Though I am on my holiday in the Parc National des Ecrins in Southern France, I have managed to find some time between munching red currants and gooseberries fresh off the bush in our friends' sun-drenched, bursting-with-edible-goodness garden to chime in with:

Great article by RD and equally great comments. I have enjoyed all of them, especially Henri who cracks me up. Such a purist. Elli writes great stuff, always a joy to read her comments--wise, honest, and comprehensive.

Richard Morgan and Johan, I too live in a country where there is no need to promote atheism--France. However, I will wear the A-shirt (I especially like the url, I just wish it was BIGGER because this site is fantastic, and I love the opportunity to promote it), because Europeans need to be educated about the need for secularism outside their countries. Europeans also can't rest on their laurels and need to be vigilant for their own countries to keep them secular. I will use my A-shirt as a means to broach these topics. What good would any success in America have, if by the time American atheists have made their mark, they turn around and see a religion-ridden Europe?

Corylus, I agree with your psychological assessment of D. Robertson. However, as is the case with wonked-out individuals, they think they are JUST FINE. In fact, any comments pointing out that their well being is in question, are often ignored or misunderstood.

Oh, I am getting a hankering for red currants. Bye for now.

386. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59441 by Logicel on July 29, 2007 at 4:15 am

Did I die and go to heaven? What fun to be a walking billboard for a product that I know well, use all the time, and get so much from! The friggin' url should be bigger as far as I am concerned.

RICHARDDAWKINS.NET ROCKS BIGTIME!!!!!

As been pointed out by others, it also functions as a trigger for discussion. Using the Dawkins url encourages clarification of what the letter A is, while the Out url would not. In addition, the Out url is/can be linked from the Dawkins url.

The adultery/atheist correlation is delicious--I love it.

Hopefully there will lots of walking billboards so attired at the big atheist shindig coming up in the autumn.

387. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59230 by Logicel on July 28, 2007 at 12:27 pm

The new OUT Campaign website is a joy to behold. I am looking forward to see how the site develops.

388. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59226 by Logicel on July 28, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Classy!!!!

389. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59224 by Logicel on July 28, 2007 at 11:51 am

Northern Bright's comment #59050 clearly captured the believer's motivation--Faith is believing what you need to be true--and then proceeded to describe the myriad, individual beliefs shaped by that motivation, to believe in what you need to be true.

Her excellent comment deserves to be posted as an article for discussion.

Believers dangle a 'divine' carrot of their own making in front of their noses which keeps them trotting in the direction to a place where they believe will give them everything they need. This carrot has a Pinocchio quality. It keeps growing, by self-feeding itself by suppressing that awkwardness of which Northern Bright described as barely entering her consciousness while she was a believer--the awkwardness resulting from accepting extraordinary beliefs without equally extraordinary evidence. Perhaps, Northern Bright's carrot started to shrivel and dry up through such awkwardness surfacing to her consciousness, and it gradually and steadily lost its appeal in its shrunken state, and/or she got tired from the never-ending trotting after that dangling carrot.

In a way, this imagery for me is one of gluttony--stuffing yourself with non-evidential beliefs, a self-perpetuating feeding frenzy. Believers in non-evidential beliefs need to go on a diet and learn how to practice restraint in stuffing themselves in this manner.

390. How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Comment #59195 by Logicel on July 28, 2007 at 4:23 am

On this past Wednesday, I found myself on the same route as the pilgrims. As our bus was winding down the declining road, flanked with precipitous views, I faced my own fears regarding death and particularly any pain that would be involved. Trapped in a burning vehicle has to be one of the worst ways to die. My thought was that I would have been too occupied from trying to escape the burning bus to be concerned about anything else; my focus would have been all fight or flight.

I discussed with my husband as to the reasons for the crash--the bus did not have back-up breaks. He pointed out that our bus had 2 back-ups. The most important aspect of their deaths is that the crash only happened because the bus was not properly equipped for the voyage it undertook. What does God have to with it? With such a useless viewpoint, how would one focus on preventing such a crash? Religious folks focus on absolutely ineffective and unhelpful aspects.

391. Face to faith

Comment #58024 by Logicel on July 23, 2007 at 3:23 am

NMcC, Thanks, the Wikipedia article is now corrected and cited.

Dawkins referring to Stalin as 'a kinda of Marxist' is somewhat comforting, after all, he did not say he was a Marxist, just kinda of. LOL

392. Face to faith

Comment #58012 by Logicel on July 23, 2007 at 1:50 am

NMcC, Thanks for the quote. The quote used in Wikipedia was incorrect as I guessed. Can you give me a citation for the above, so I can correct the Wikipedia entry and cite it also?

I studied Marx via a basic Philosophy course, and was struck by his passion and Idealism. It is often stated, as my philosopher teacher did, that it is a shame that people are so digusted, rightfully so, by Communism, that they don't even consider any of Marx's philosophical works.

393. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #58010 by Logicel on July 23, 2007 at 1:09 am

The few times that I have seen Hirsi Ali speak, I perceived her to be outspoken and straightforward, but in a reserved, almost shy manner. So I do not see the 'snotty bitchiness'.

A phobia implies that it is a fear which is ungrounded in reality, in the sense that the object of the fear is harmful or dangerous, like fear of open spaces/red-painted toenails/clouds of a particular shape. To Ali, fear of Islam (the religion/belief system) is grounded in reality, that it is harmful/dangerous enough to fear it. Hence it is not a phobia. Therefore, there is no Islamophobia. However, there certainly are people who hate Islamic/Muslim/Arabic people, just like there are people who hate Japanese, Germans, Jews, Blacks, women, atheists, etc.

In that light, the way she regards Islam, then of course America would be the best, as America is the most focused on Islam as being a threat.

Here is an interview that shows Ali focusing on how Europe and America differ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Yo74YF14M

America, for me and my circumstances, is not the best country in the world. It is a decent country in which to live, but there are quite a number of other countries that fit the bill better for me, and for that reason, though an American by birth, I choose to live in another country.

394. Face to faith

Comment #57941 by Logicel on July 22, 2007 at 1:57 pm

NMcC, thanks for the info. I though the grammar was a bit wonky, so I was bit cautious after I noted that it was not cited.

This bit seemed a bit odd in its syntax, or am I just being dense: The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs to the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions. I do understand the meaning anyway.

395. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57930 by Logicel on July 22, 2007 at 11:50 am

test

EDIT: I used control/u to see the HTML code on this page to identify what code was used because my first attempt to close the italics with i failed and I could not remember alternatives--it was em.

396. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57905 by Logicel on July 22, 2007 at 5:40 am

I love metaphors/allegories. I use them in my writing and enjoy them in other's writings. Unlikely connections between known information can trigger a new angle from which to view, prompting deeper appreciation and understanding of a concept, fact, etc.

However, using God as a metaphor for mystery is dead on arrival. God supposedly is the glop that fills in all the gaps of knowledge. Once God enters the picture, mystery goes out the window.

If I correctly understand Bonzai's objections to his fellow atheists, here are his main points:

1) Many theists do not literally--cherry-picked or not--read holy books, they read them in a metaphorically/allegorical manner. Atheists at this site do not adequately address this aspect of religious beliefs.

2) Atheists at this site do not appreciate the important value of an individual interpreting and utilizing religion in the way she/he chooses.

3) Sociology of religion (NB: this is not theology) is an important topic of study because religion as a social entity is omnipresent in human history.

397. Face to faith

Comment #57840 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 2:03 pm

And the Wikipedia article (includes a bit on evolutionary psychology of religion) on Psychology of Religion:

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

398. Face to faith

Comment #57838 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Another excerpt from the Wikipedia article:

Religion, for Durkheim, is not "imaginary," although he does strip it of what many believers find essential. Religion is very real; it is an expression of society itself, and indeed, there is no society that does not have religion. We perceive as individuals a force greater than ourselves, which is our social life, and give that perception a supernatural face. We then express ourselves religiously in groups, which for Durkheim makes the symbolic power greater. Religion is an expression of our collective consciousness, which is the fusion of all of our individual consciousnesses, which then creates a reality of its own.

399. Face to faith

Comment #57837 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Here's the Wikipedia article on Sociology of Religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_religion

Interesting quote from Marx: To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs to the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of tears, the halo of which is religion.

Note that the quote is not cited.

400. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57805 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 6:48 am

Beachbum wrote: My point is that we need a tact that appeals to their religious (intellectual) vanity.
_______

Ah, advertising/publicity/persuasion is my weak point. Though I admire many commercials for their entertainment value and lessons in psychology, as very smart people work on them and their results are admirable, they have very little effect on me from a consumer's perspective.

I make a poor salesperson, because my only edge is: This product does this and here is some hazy 'evidence', and if you want what this product does, then buy it. But if the product is pricey and/or not crucial to your survival/fulfillment, be smarter than me and learn how to live without it and certainly find a better way of earning a living than peddling the stuff like I do. F minus for me in 'salespersonship'.

Each atheist can experiment and decide which approach(s) to use in terms of debating/conversing with which theist(s), and they can improve their approach(s) through time and learn from their mistakes. However, each approach, even different ones used by the same atheist, can be grounded within a consistent theme. Mine, is lack of evidence for religious beliefs. So, though my style may differ depending on the theist with whom I am conversing, my theme is solid and steady.

I like all your t-shirt slogans because they reflect your edge. However, keep in mind that an important aspect of edges is that they can become blunt through time or even obsolete if the context in which they are used changes significantly enough.