Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Shuggy


351. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42802 by Shuggy on May 19, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Canuck#1 wrote:

My attitudes towards nature include ... well being in its peacefulness

You don't live in earthquake country, do you? And how well would your being have been in coastal South East Asia on Boxing Day 2005?

352. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42798 by Shuggy on May 19, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Azven wrote:

Perhaps we are soft-wired to find causes not necessarily look for them. If a cause is not immediately evident then make one up!

This is similar to the intentional stance (TGD, p 182): "When you see a tiger, you had better not delay your prediction of its probable behaviour. Never mind the physics of its molecules, and never mind the design of its limbs, claws and teeth. That cat intends to eat you... The quickest way to second-guess its behaviour is to forget physics and physiology and cut to the intentional chase."

In the same way, most of the time it doesn't matter if A causes B, so long as the sequence is consistent enough to make it predictible. (It makes for efficient - and profitable - repairs: replace the part most likely to be faulty, then the next most likely....)

353. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42792 by Shuggy on May 19, 2007 at 4:06 pm

And let's face it: how many Jews support "metzitzah b'peh," a disgusting act committed by very few ritual circumcisers that involves sucking off the foreskin with the mouth!
FXR is right, you can always pick your way around religious claims, finding people who do good in spite of them. That does nothing to nullify the evil of the claims. Metzitzah b'peh was standard practice for 1800 years. (But from the baby's point of view and that of the man he grows up to be, is it as disgusting than the act committed by all circumcisors, ritual and medical, of cutting off the foreskin with the knife?)

Even the title of this article gets it badly wrong:
Hitchins to God: drop dead
Hitchins has nothing to say to God, because there isn't any.

354. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42682 by Shuggy on May 19, 2007 at 3:51 am

But, of course, religion is man-made. Men build the temples, write the prayers, organise the rites and offer the oblations and sacrifices. That does not mean that there is no divinely inspired and true religion.
True, nor that there is. But since men (and some women) build such a variety of temples, organise such a variety of rites, etc., that does mean that if there is a divinely inspired and true religion, it hides itself very well among all the man-made and false ones. Why should that be?
It means that it is not always immediately self-evident and clear which is the true religion
Anyone else think this man thinks he knows which one that is? And that he thinks all the others are false?
and it means that those who have opted for the sterile, sad path of "freethinking," which is simply to inhabit a particularly wearisome set of prejudices,
Why do these snarlwords fail to move me? Could it be because he doesn't provide an iota of evidence to back them up?
have simply lost patience in trying to discern the truth of the matter.
No, actually, the truth of the matter interests me very much. I have pretty well closed the door on intelligences and purposive agencies above and beyond the material world (which seem to be a particular fascination of his), but the number of possibilities that remain is vast, and we are only beginning to explore them.

355. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42219 by Shuggy on May 18, 2007 at 12:01 am

God, they say, is love, but the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died May 15, hit the jackpot trafficking in small-minded condemnation.

So if christianity makes people better than they would otherwise be, what kind of monster would Falwell have been without his christianity?

And if christianity doesn't make people better than they would otherwise be, what earthly use is it? (I say "earthly" advisedly. There would be something unhealthy, wouldn't there, in a religion that fitted people for Heaven at the expense of an even more deplorable life on earth?)

And please don't tell me Falwell wasn't a real christian. If he wasn't, and got to where he did, the christian system for filtering out the real from the unreal, whatever it is, doesn't work very well.

356. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42218 by Shuggy on May 17, 2007 at 11:55 pm

Devolved wrote:

An uncreated, Creator explains a very great deal.

Certainly. It explains everything in this universe. It would also explain a universe entirely filled with chocolate blancmange, or one filled with rows and rows of polkadotted red and green ferrets going "Dwibble dwibble dwibble" with their little paws on their little lips, or any other universe that you or I could think of, or that we couldn't.

That's the trouble with it as an explanation, not that it explains too little, but that it explains too much. And having said "Goddidit", what then? Believers like to say their God gives meaning to life, but what kind of meaning is "His whim"?

357. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41764 by Shuggy on May 16, 2007 at 10:03 pm

vigorous onanistic exertions, of which all religions take a dim view?
All religions? (Whenever I see a wild generalisation I want to challenge it.)

Catholicism, certainly. To some extent the other Abrahamic religions. Buddhism probably feels it risks increasing attachment to the material world, but then it might argue that abstention did so more. Anyone know what other Eastern religions think?

358. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41762 by Shuggy on May 16, 2007 at 9:56 pm

34. Comment #41581 by KRKBAB on May 16, 2007 at 11:01 am


My neighbors are Jehovah's Wintnesses.
A typo, I think; you meant "Witlesses". (Sorry, couldn't resist. Not that they are without wits, but their religion forbids them to use them.)
However, they once commented that they noticed how environmentally aware my wife and I were. Then they said they were "concerned" also, but that god ultimately was calling the shots or something to that effect.
Yes, everything is grist to their mill. The environment was just a springboard to them. You see, they were Witnessing to you when they said that, and doing it somehow relieves their anxiety. (If they Witness enough, they get into the elect, or some such, but nobody knows how much enough is, so no amount is enough. JWs are supposedly prone to depression. I wonder if they suffer more obsessive-compulsive disorder too, because "never enough" {handwashing, crack-stepping, ornament-straightening, etc} is a feature of that too?)

359. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41349 by Shuggy on May 16, 2007 at 1:21 am

The Lynchburg Ministerial Association in a prepared statement concerning its April 5 meeting attacked the use of the word "Christian" in connection with the private schools which exclude Negroes and other non-whites. The allusion apparently was in reference to the newly formed corporation, the Lynchburg Christian Schools, which plans to build a private school exclusively for white students...

- Daily Advance, Lynchburg, April 13, 1967, quoted in God's Bullies by Perry Deane Young.

360. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41346 by Shuggy on May 16, 2007 at 1:09 am

Don't forget

I believe that God answers the prayer of any redeemed Jew [one who believes in Jesus] or Gentile and I do not believe that God answers the prayer of any unredeemed Gentile or Jew
- quoted in Jerry Falwell, an Unauthorised Biography by Bill Goodman and Jim Price.

Falwell had been asked if he agreed with Bailey Smith, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who in 1980 said, "With all due respect to those dear people ... God does not hear the prayer of a Jew." (NB Falwell apparently believes God does hear them.)

Whether this consitutes actual anti-Semitism or just orthodox Christianity we should perhaps leave the followers of those beliefs to discuss among themselves, but a later remark suggests Falwell's mindset:
I know a few of you here today don't like Jews. And I know why. He can make more money accidentally than you can on purpose.
- at an "I love America" rally in Richmond, Virginia.

361. Among the Disbelievers

Comment #40657 by Shuggy on May 14, 2007 at 4:30 pm

7. Comment #40513 by Thor on May 14, 2007 at 11:36 am

Oh My God - if you will forgive the expression.

The penultimate paragraph is such a stellar example of left-wing propaganda for collectivist thinking, it's frightening. Not that I would expect anything less from the Nation!

Just read this nonsense:
"Hence, 'my life is meaningful' is itself meaningful only to the degree that other people view it as such and see their own lives the same way. Hence, meaning can be achieved only via a collective act of self-creation in which humanity creates new conditions for itself so that humanity as a whole can flourish."

My life is meaninful only if other people view it as such!? What the hell!?

This moronic concept of "I am nothing without a greater whole" is just as dangerous as most of the theist nonsense we often see around here - and notice the smiliarities between this neo-marxist propaganda ("creating new conditions [...] humanity can flourish" - where have we heard that before? )and religious dogma that prescribes inclusion in a greater community of believers.


Oh dear, Ayn Rand at war with Engels! A plaque on both your houses!

Of course human beings need to interact with other human beings to have meaningful and fulfilling lives. (Every so often a hermit dies leaving writings, which the world reads with interest, so I guess that's a meaningful life, but fulfilling? Anyway, it's very rare.) No man is an island, OK?

What both Lazare and Thor get wrong is imagining that everyone has to find the same meaning in their lives. When RD says "my way includes a good dose of science", well, it would, wouldn't it. It doesn't mean that everyone else's has to also.

362. Christopher Hitchens - God is Not Great

Comment #40205 by Shuggy on May 13, 2007 at 8:34 pm

Interesting that both of them, when condemning religion's condemnation of sex, use euphemisms to say what they're talking about: 35 mins in
Adams; "hanky-panky"
Hitchins; "birth canal"
If they'd noticed what they were doing, I'm sure they'd have been more explicit.

363. Christopher Hitchens - God is Not Great

Comment #40203 by Shuggy on May 13, 2007 at 8:20 pm

I think the point about religious architecture, art and music is an interesting one. Without religion we might not have Chartres or St Pauls (but you'd almost think Il Sagreda Famiglia [sp] in Barcelona was being built regardless of religion) or St Matthew's Passion or the Pietá, but who knows what wonderful things we might have instead? It's hard to believe that if they weren't inspired by religion, creative people would stop being creative.

364. Christopher Hitchens - God is Not Great

Comment #40181 by Shuggy on May 13, 2007 at 3:23 pm

I'm sure she has too much to do with being head of the C of E and the Church of Scotland, as well. Or has she?

I think it cuts the other way; the church interferes in the life of the royal family. If the monarch was not also Defender of the Faith, Edward VIII could have married Mrs Simpson and the Duke of York would never have become George VI. Ignoring that, Princes Margaret could have married Peter Townsend and probably been a lot happier and more productive, and Charles could have married Camilla instead of Diana, who would probably still be alive, albeit unknown, and his (plain) sons would be Catholic.

There may have been other interferences between 1936 and Henry VIII without which the present day royal family (if any) would be unrecognisable.

365. Unintelligent Design

Comment #40054 by Shuggy on May 12, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Comment #40019 by Russell Blackford

Some kind of elitist theory that claims that there are certain truths which are only for an intellectual elite may well be true, for all I know! It's pretty insulting to everyone else, of course, but the fact that it's insulting doesn't make it false.


That depends what you mean by "for". Is that an "is" or an "ought"? If an ought, it turns science into a kind of gnostic wisdom that only those who have passed through degrees of enlightenment may be vouchsafed. Einstein, don't forget, was a patent official who would not attain your elect.

I think one of the great merits of science is that with sufficient diligence, anyone may understand it. I don't think the same can be said of religion.

366. Unintelligent Design

Comment #40012 by Shuggy on May 12, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Science is not particularly well-suited to deal with problems of human existence that have no enduring logical and or factual solution, such as...overcoming loneliness, finding love...

I met my husband on a dating website. I give praise and thanks to Alan Turing every day.

367. The Debate: Can We Live by Reason Alone?

Comment #39754 by Shuggy on May 11, 2007 at 9:19 pm

Contrary to the psychologist, I didn't hear RD say a good god would want people to love Him(/Her/It). That sounds most improbable. Why should He(/She/It)? He might have said something about a god-meme being more stable if it "wanted love" (just as it's more stable if you go to Hell for not believing), but that's very different.

368. The Debate: Can We Live by Reason Alone?

Comment #39751 by Shuggy on May 11, 2007 at 9:09 pm

I didn't find the interviewer to be an idiot, I just thought he was standing back and letting RD talk, as a good interviewer should (but as maybe few US interviewers do).

I think the imam has an interesting point about the 3% who would save their pants rather than a drowning child, but I would want to interrogate their values further: where did they learn to value their pants more than a child? Parents who whopped them for dirtying their Sunday Best??

The woman talks about "a good religion" but what does she judge a religion against?

369. French Muslim women opt for hymen surgical cons

Comment #39750 by Shuggy on May 11, 2007 at 9:02 pm

Bonzai said:

I don't think these women do this to fool themselves.

I was looking at this:
"I'm glad I had it done," said the woman, "I wanted to reconstruct part of my life, to reconstruct myself so that I could feel better about myself."

She seems to think she has really turned herself back into a virgin.

It's pretty tragic all round, since not only is virginity a state of mind (a raped woman may be more virginal than a nun), but its correlation with an intact hymen is partial at best.

370. French Muslim women opt for hymen surgical cons

Comment #39721 by Shuggy on May 11, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Very sad. Note that it isn't all religious. But the culture that prizes virginity has its roots in a religion. Are there cultures that prize virginity that don't? (I guess prizing virginity is really about guaranteeing fatherhood, so it's an aspect of patriarchy.)

Edit: the previous message was posted while I was writing.

We should maybe draw a distinction between the women who do it to fool their husbands into thinking they are virgins (and always have been), and those who do it to fool themselves that they are virgins "again". The first is practical, the second is self-deception. I think the second is sadder.

371. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39497 by Shuggy on May 11, 2007 at 12:59 am

IQHQ:

doesn't it make any of you jealous that they are so happy? The guy especially so; he is fired up for the Lord!!!

Like I'm jealous of someone who's high on heroin.

Perkyjay, Cromwell may have been a Puritan. He was certainly not a Quaker.

Rexella (Is that her name? It sounds like something you put in your dishwasher) sounds like a Playboy bunny (or a magician's assistant).

As for "The fool in his heart..." that's just a personal attack. It had some merit when they thought god/s was/were responsible for lightning and rainbows, but it has none now.

372. Supporters of abortion have no future in Church, Pope tells faithful

Comment #39080 by Shuggy on May 10, 2007 at 12:21 am

respect for life from the moment of conception

But it isn't a moment. It takes hours. And when one conception results in twins, how many souls do they have?

373. God . . . in other words

Comment #39077 by Shuggy on May 10, 2007 at 12:12 am

Something smells fishy to me. Is it at all possible that Dawkins is now trying to present a softer image after taking so much criticism for his attitude towards God and religion? Forgive my scepticism, but from all that I've seen of Dawkins, this interview just seems very atypical.

Wrong again, BD. It's atypical because the interviewer is atypical. She's thoughtful and she listens, and RD responds in kind.

374. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39075 by Shuggy on May 10, 2007 at 12:03 am

"The crisis is mostly, however, about active homosexuals in the priesthood. Anyone (including an archbishop) who does not admit this is simply part of the problem."

"the media prefer not to treat homosexual behavior as the issue. Still, it is the issue, and if the hierarchy does not root it out—if it takes the easy approach of instituting "new procedures" for dealing with abuse only after it has occurred—then the devastation is going to continue."

The only reason you hear more about priests molesting little boys than little girls is that the girls' parents have more sense than to leave them alone together. If there were altargirls ...

375. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #38383 by Shuggy on May 8, 2007 at 12:06 am

The video is no longer available at the links given. Is it still up somewhere else?

376. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38337 by Shuggy on May 7, 2007 at 4:36 pm

What is "New Atheism"? How does it differ from Old Atheism? (Do we disbelieve in New God(/dess/es)?) Who coined the term and why?
Seems to me it's just a sneer, or does it link in with the meaning "socially engaged" as in "New Scientist" and "New Republic"?

377. Atheists go on the political offensive in God-fearing US

Comment #38122 by Shuggy on May 7, 2007 at 3:09 am

Bizarro:

his hyper-dogmatic vitriol

Evidence (quotes) please.

378. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #38004 by Shuggy on May 6, 2007 at 3:59 pm

The story of "Misha" has reached Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18366778/site/newsweek.
They write

Richard Dawkins, the Oxford don, noted atheist and author of "The God Delusion," posted Misha's story on his Web site. Dawkins was irate, calling Misha's father's intentions "religiously inspired child abuse."

For the record, the story was first posted in the Forum on January 22:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6965


And for the record, the list of celebrants of Jewish naming ceremonies without genital cutting is at
http://www.circumstitions.com/shalom .

379. The God Delusion

Comment #36960 by Shuggy on May 3, 2007 at 12:05 am

Scot said:

if it is all subjective then anything goes.

That reminds me of the theists who say "but if you don't have God to give you morality, then anything goes - how could you say Hitler was wrong?"

Seems to me the same argument applies here. Namely, if you already think Hitler is wrong before you bring in God - and you know you want to - then look at why you do so now, and use that. Seems to me it gets back to the Silver Rule, "I wouldn't like that done to me." About as subjective as you can get.

380. The Damned

Comment #36959 by Shuggy on May 2, 2007 at 11:55 pm

Comment #36868 by kaffir on May 2, 2007 at 2:56 pm

I took this name when I saw the Channel 4 documentary, Undercover Mosque, on this site.

I think the word you want is kafir with one f, meaning "unbeliever". "kaffir" is an abusive South African word for black people, roughly corresponding to "n!gger". It may have branched off from the first word, a very long time ago.

381. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #36958 by Shuggy on May 2, 2007 at 11:48 pm

6. Comment #36836 by Glacian on May 2, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Multiculturalism is bunk; wrong is wrong, crime is crime;

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. "Our" culture (white, western, male, heterosexual, able-bodied) is not unmarked/neutral/always right and our laws are not perfect. Other cultures have a lot to teach us (think food), maybe even Islam, maybe even Christianity (I don't know what, but maybe).

It seems to me that we should maybe state some bottom-line trans-cultural values (in particular those protecting women and children from abusive cultural practices), but then encourage cross-pollination so we can all gain the best of all worlds.

382. The God Delusion

Comment #36576 by Shuggy on May 1, 2007 at 3:42 pm

she only disagreed with altruism in terms of it's original definition: that you must serve others by placing their interests above your own; that you must live for others, that you must serve humanity.

That's not "its original definition". There's no "you must" about altruism, it's about wanting to.

She never, as far as I am aware, said that philanthropy was a bad thing

I think she supported a Victorian-style charity, where the rich, of their benevolence, bestow some of their plenty on the poor.

or that you shouldn't make any concessions to the existance of other human beings.

Blow up a building rather than let others use it, because someone compromised your Grand Design?

If you have read Rand, then you are either interpreting her wrong (on this point) or you agree with the above definition

Umm... But actually, I have only tried to read Rand. (And I watched The Fountainhead. It was rather a hoot - between the speeches.)

383. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #36567 by Shuggy on May 1, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Greg 23:

Deutsch - paints one h*ll of a picture of the universe and the contribution of knowlege.
What do you think would happen if you spelt "hell" in full?

384. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #36563 by Shuggy on May 1, 2007 at 3:13 pm

There is truth in Shakespeare but it is not scientific truth. We can find explanations in Julius Caesar as to why Caesar falls, or in Hamlet as to why Hamlet is in an agony of indecision, or in King Lear as to why Lear ends up a penniless outcast - but these are not scientific explanations. The explanations in religious belief are much more like this than scientific explanations - and we need such explanations better to understand all sorts of truths about being human. This is why a research scientist will work in the lab all day and in the evening go to see A Winter's Tale
- and not to his local church to hear an uplifting sermon.

I'm trying for the life of me to think of one explanation that supernatural religion has ever offered that has helped me better to understand any sort of truth about being human.

385. The God Delusion

Comment #36394 by Shuggy on May 1, 2007 at 3:14 am

3. Comment #36384 by christianjb on May 1, 2007 at 2:57 am

Yes, let's replace God with Ayn Rand's nutty philosophy.

That's the hidden meaning of this review- in case you're wondering.

Agreed.
he will need an ethics every bit as rigorously grounded as his science, and a vision of human purpose and possibility more compelling than that provided by mystics. Happily, most readers of this magazine will know where to turn for that.

Guess where?

"Philosophy" is Objectivist code for "Objectivism".
"Collectivism" is Objectivist code for "making any concession to the existence of other people."
"Mystics" is Objectivist code for - anyone who disagrees with a word of Objectivism?

And from a search engine:
The Atlas Society and The Objectivist Center--the world's most respected independent source of information about Ayn Rand
www.objectivistcenter.org/

Oddly he misses snarling at "altruism", which Objectivists seem to feel is some kind of evil compulsion.

386. Convention ends with Satan and immigrants

Comment #36237 by Shuggy on April 30, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Crazy resolutions often get thrown up in the last hour of a conference, when many people have left - and are often appalled to read in the paper next morning at home what "they" have passed.

That's why we have quora.

387. 'god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' by Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36234 by Shuggy on April 30, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Doesn't "preaching to the choir" mean "saying nothing new and worth staying for" (since the choir is a captive audience)? It does sound as though this is more of an incoherent rant than TGD, and as these fora attest, there is plenty more to be said.

I would like to see:
1. A detailed critique of the more sophisticated versions of God espoused by Tillich, etc.
2. A detailed analysis of the role of religion in creating masterworks of art, music and architecture (and their role in generating religious feelings regardless of religious belief), and how these might be replaced in an atheist world.
- two things TGD failed to deliver.

388. 'god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' by Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36231 by Shuggy on April 30, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Hitchens' book lacks any definition of religion more intellectually ambitious than the just-cited "fear of death, and of the dark," etc. Fellow atheists Daniel Dennett, David Sloan Wilson, Marc Hauser and others — touched on glancingly or not at all in this book — have found the very religious durability that so frustrates Hitchens a fascinating and legitimate challenge for evolutionary psychology.
A name is missing from that list (and I've never heard of Marc Hauser before). I wonder why? Doesn't RD go into the evolutionary psychology of religion more than those?

389. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #36043 by Shuggy on April 30, 2007 at 3:33 am

if we evolved, then sin is not an issue, because selection favours selfish traits.

Whoa! At the gene level, not the individual or species level. Why do you think RD's book is not called "The Selfish Individual"? The concept of "Sin" is much better dealt with at a memetic level than a genetic one.

390. New Noah's Ark ready to sail

Comment #36041 by Shuggy on April 30, 2007 at 3:27 am

Oh, and a refrigeration unit for the polar bears and penguins

...which had to travel from literally the ends of the earth, and find their way back afterwards.

391. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #36037 by Shuggy on April 30, 2007 at 2:52 am

In 1984, when Benedict headed the Vatican's doctrinal enforcement body as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he said he was "personally" in favour of scrapping the 13th-century notion, which he termed a mere "hypothesis."


Looks like when you get to be Pope, you can make up whatever rules you like (must be a great time to get back at your enemies), and as if Ratzo takes literally the line about "what you bind on earth is bound in heaven."

392. New Noah's Ark ready to sail

Comment #36029 by Shuggy on April 30, 2007 at 2:22 am

What's the biggest wooden vessel ever built? I seem to recall it was smaller than the Ark and it broke up in quite small waves. Wood is just not strong enough.

393. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35733 by Shuggy on April 28, 2007 at 4:09 pm

That comfort guy seemed to have something quite like an Aussie accent. I hope not, my country already has unleashed enough dickheads on the world.
Close, but no banana. He's - I'm ashamed to say - a New Zealander, but his accent is tempered by years of living in the US. My mother used to argue with him when he was a street preacher. She rather pitied him.
At least it wasn't the late Steve Irwin wrestling the banana and saying crikey, that banana nearly had me.
"Don't try this at home, this banana is roolly, roolly douaingerous."

The banana argument satirises itself. You couldn't make it up.

394. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #35617 by Shuggy on April 27, 2007 at 10:24 pm

A feature about the case has been published in The Oregonean.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1177644329102660.xml&coll=7&thispage=1
It looks as though the courts are taking it less seriously than we are, one judge comparing it to "cosmetic surgery" (which it is apparently OK to foist on a 12 year old against his will in the US).

395. Evolution Booklet

Comment #35581 by Shuggy on April 27, 2007 at 4:36 pm

I was prepared by your comments to be impressed, and was very disappointed by the big words, hodgepodge arrangement and general incoherence. EG: The pictures of Paley, Scopes and the judge were captioned as if they were Paley, a SCer and an IDer. What's that SwissArmyKnife-beaked bird supposed to prove? For high school kids it may be, but not for US high school kids outside a science stream.

396. Mormonism: A Racket Becomes a Religion

Comment #35576 by Shuggy on April 27, 2007 at 4:13 pm

ghostbuster wrote:

Isn't it interesting most of these religions arose at about the same time?

Isn't it interesting so many of them arose in the United States?
Mormons
Jehovah's Witnesses
Seventh Day Adventists
Christian Science
Scientology
and all the ones that didn't do so well.

Europe hasn't had a successful new religion since what - Methodism? and the European ones are much more close variants on mainstream christianity - or does it only look that way now? I know Methodism was considered very radical when it started.

397. Mormonism: A Racket Becomes a Religion

Comment #35565 by Shuggy on April 27, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Another couple of good books are "Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon" and "This is the Place: Brigham Young and the New Zion" by Ernest H. Taves. (Prometheus, of course)

The first one includes a textual analysis that shows the whole of the BoM was written by one person. What it doesn't do is compare that with something written by Joseph Smith.

What the two do together is show how the religion founded by Smith was very different from the one that Young took to Utah.

398. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34921 by Shuggy on April 25, 2007 at 3:10 pm

I don't know why I'm getting into the "debate" on evolution with devolved here on the page about Limbo, but,

First is the 'General Theory of Evolution' (GTE) defined as 'the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.'
I've never heard of "the GTE" before. Who defined that? Who says it happened only once? We are now fairly sure that eucaryotes are a symbiosis. Is there any consensus that the components have a single origin?

Second evolution is defined as a change in features over time. This is a much more limited use of the word evolution and is accepted by everyone.
You reckon? Only accepted by creationists within (undefined) "kinds". One of Darwin's many contributions was the realisation that there are no fundamental barriers between species (only reproductive barriers that evolved, usually after some physical separation), something creationists still deny.

399. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34909 by Shuggy on April 25, 2007 at 2:38 pm

"I find the title of 'The God Delusion' rather insulting," said Lord Winston, "I have a huge respect for Richard Dawkins but I think it is very patronising to call a serious book about other peoples' views of the universe and everything a delusion.
Trouble is "delusion" has a double meaning
  • any mistaken belief: "I thought X, but I was deluded."
  • A false (usually outlandish) belief induced by a psychiatric condition
Because religious beliefs are usually outlandish, Winston is taking RD's use of "delusion" for the second meaning, when it is only the first.

400. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34737 by Shuggy on April 25, 2007 at 3:14 am

Hes a practicing Jew, so he buy's into the god thing then.

Maybe. Some Liberal Jews have quite an Einsteinian God. Einstein, for one.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Next