401. 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.

402. 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.

403. 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.

404. 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.

405. 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.

406. 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.

407. 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.

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

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

Classy!!!!

409. 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.

410. 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.

411. 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

412. 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.

413. 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.

414. 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.

415. 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.

416. 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.

417. 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

418. 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.

419. 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.

420. 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.

421. Face to faith

Comment #57795 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 4:26 am

jonecc, It was heartening to hear Dawkins say in his talk at Kepler's book store in CA (http://one.revver.com/watch/334799 --hat tip to Pharyngula), that his Foundation, once they are given charitable status, wants to conduct sociological studies regarding religion. The one potential study he mentioned was to determine if there is any correlation between a particular academic discipline and religious beliefs.

EDIT: That mention of the possibility of sociological studies done by Dawkins' Foundation may have been said in the Q&A--I can't remember for sure. Here's the Q&A vid: http://one.revver.com/watch/334799

422. Face to faith

Comment #57783 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 2:17 am

Yep… these theists should be ashamed of their believes,

LeeC, belief(s) is the noun form for the verb, believes. Though not wanting to be an obnoxious stickler for grammatical detail, I, myself, often wondered why I was allowed to walk around for minutes with my skirt jacked into my panties/bloomers before someone had the decency to inform me of my state. I have encountered this particular grammatical error often on this forum, so I have finally decided to open my big mouth. Forgive me.

423. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #57778 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 1:49 am

Common sense delivered with punchy humor. Starts off with a bang and keeps exploding religious nonsense non-stop to the end. Listen to that enthusiastic applause shortly after the beginning of the audio, greeting the comic's plea, "Can the rest of us have our planet back?" We are fed up and sickened by religious believers. Not only has Brigstocke read TGD, he has UNDERSTOOD it. Not a small feat, as the academic, lofty likes of McGrath was unable to pull that off.

Some fave bits:

precious, petulant, pugnacious pricks

If you want a ring that tells everybody that you are not having sex, get married like the rest of us.

find a cure for James Blount

put on a Cat Stevens' record and chill out

Brigstocke's revealing, with distinctive, preemptory flair, what criticism will most likely be directed at him, cleverly deflates the self-righteous, indignant sails of religious believers before they can even puff them up.

And Brigstocke even covered the ground that moderates occupy in silently encouraging extremists.

424. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57594 by Logicel on July 20, 2007 at 4:54 am

Beachbum wrote: My question is: When we infer or imply either directly or inadvertently that religious people are stupid, do theologians or apologists, in their heart of hearts, feel this a good thing or a bad one?
_________

That theologians and apologists either want or regard the mass of religious believers to be stupid, well, at least as not as smart as them?

Psychology, relating to religion, has a ways to go in order to shed meaningful light on the psychological mechanisms involved in religious beliefs, including the relationship dynamics between religious leaders and followers, mainly because religious beliefs have been so long given protection from critical examination.

From the many articles posted here by theologians and apologists who vehemently oppose/reject the conflating of religious believers with stupidity, I would offer that theologians/apologists clearly regard such labeling of religious believers as a bad thing.

More interesting, is why they would? Is it because such labeling would trigger self-righteous indignation at being so labeled--or even self-doubt, resulting in their followers learning more about the atheism/theism debate, therefore encouraging and allowing the replacing of theist beliefs with factual knowledge, or even worse, embracing critical thinking?

If the religious relationship between leaders and followers is regarded as a power structure, then the knowledge base (knowledge and access to it is empowering) needs to held by the leaders, while any such shifting the knowledge base towards the followers would be discouraged. So stupid followers are not necessary. Making access to knowledge difficult is more an effective way to keep the power structure intact.

However, starting from the printing press leading up to the present instantaneous global communications, it is impossible to keep knowledge hidden from the masses easily. Perhaps, we will find that religions will eventually focus on folks with less than average intelligence to become their flocks! LOL. Churches need smart folks, who can earn good bucks, to keep the religious coffers filled to bursting.

Since knowledge is now fairly accessible, the approach is to label certain knowledge as being inadequate, false, misleading, etc. The religious leaders rely upon their so-called divine connection to identify which knowledge is good/wise, thereby relegating critical thinking to the useless bin, or so they may think. However, critical thinking is so cool, so satisfying, so empowering, the arbitrary knowledge base on which religious beliefs rest, is getting a good shaking up.

425. Is there an Artificial God?

Comment #57377 by Logicel on July 19, 2007 at 4:08 am

This transcript is great. It has a similar, pleasing effect on my mental/emotional well being as doing a comprehensive brain teaser--every lobe in my brain was exercised.

426. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57351 by Logicel on July 19, 2007 at 2:29 am

I appreciated his delineating why the global response to the violence triggered by the Danish cartoons was shamefully wrong. And I adored his equating Liberation Theology with callow piffle, and saying that Liberation Theology, a contradiction in terms, bores him.

Other faves: pinched and flabby faces of the faithful and the ghastly tubby form of Falwell.

427. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57327 by Logicel on July 19, 2007 at 12:30 am

Here's an excerpt from a comment written by Jamie at the original site, summing up my opinion of this rant:

I agree with you, though, that it isn't my place to pipe up out of the blue and start telling everyone what I think they should think...nor should they do it to me. Where I disagree, though, is your statement about the anti-apologetics sites, etc. During my own deconversion I found (and still find) such sites invaluable. I needed them to help me find my way. I also needed them to help me in my defense, since as most ex-christians must know, I will have people who believe they need to 'reason' me back to the faith. (Come now let us reason together).

428. Phony Piety on the Far Right

Comment #57324 by Logicel on July 19, 2007 at 12:12 am

Among the most durable myths of American public life is that conservatives are more authentic in their religious faith than liberals and progressives.
______

More authentic? The conservative adheres to such a rigid interpretation of non-evidential faith, that the believer is bound not to keep all its rules, while the liberal has cherry-picked faith so thoroughly, it is unrecognizable as any collective code, being just a personalized worldview, again based on no evidence.

Is one liar more authentic than other?

Is one deluded person less deluded than the other?

But despite this fractured lens, through which the author is peering, it still was gratifying to have the hypocrisy and anti-Christian attitudes espoused by high-profile American Christians taken out to the cleaners.

429. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57238 by Logicel on July 18, 2007 at 4:10 pm

The titmouse has a headache still from that pile of red herring dumped upon its head. Nasty, stinky, "shut the fuck up" herrings are never a welcome gift.
________

Oh Tuffy, we can't have that, fly, fly, fly to the special beer birdbath I have placed in my balcony garden, next to the Morning Glories. We need you headache free so your poop-a-meter will be able to function optimally.

(Don't worry, the two cats are locked in the bathroom, chomping on the red herrings)

430. Convict sues God for broken contract

Comment #57174 by Logicel on July 18, 2007 at 1:08 pm

We can all file a complaint against religion via this site (I did about a month ago--I am asking 10,000 bucks in damages from my childhood Catholic parish church, which btw, I found was recently involved in the on-going child sexual abuse cases):

http://www.earthsgreatestlawsuit.org/

bluebird, I suppose sacrificial offerings could be food, flowers, and books (preferably The God Delusion)? Not all sacrifices need be bloody, I suppose, but still, reading the word, sacrificial, was a bit jarring.

431. Convict sues God for broken contract

Comment #56883 by Logicel on July 17, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Micera said that God had accepted his prayers and sacrificial offerings without providing any services in return.
______


Sacrificial offerings?

432. The New New Atheism

Comment #56736 by Logicel on July 17, 2007 at 4:41 am

the new new atheism
_____

The intellectually dishonest view of this author could be termed, the old old faith. The just plain old faith flourished because science was either absent or in its infancy, while the old old faith, so proudly embraced by this author, is characterized by its lethargic milling of the same old non-evidential/faith-based god-stuff despite the fact science is the reason why the standard of living for many is as excellent as it is.

Science has proven itself for our well being, while religion has not, certainly not in the time-tested, results-oriented, scientific and factual way. Scientific theories have pronounced explanatory and predicting power, religion has none, just the blunt and dull edge of a defunct knife unable to cut the rational mustard, that humanity and the universe was designed by God for humans.

This guy's approach is beyond old; it is null and void.

433. The New New Atheism

Comment #56727 by Logicel on July 17, 2007 at 4:15 am

Profitability is not the only feature distinguishing today's fashionable disbelief from the varieties of atheism that have arisen over the millennia.
______

There is the implication here that the recent best-selling atheist authors KNEW--apparently through some atheistic revelation--that books on atheism would sell like hotcakes. However, Dawkins has frequently expressed his surprise at encountering the choir to whom he is directing his 'lucrative' product, as being much bigger and enthusiastic than he had thought.

Also, the market knows best: these writers are filling a demand.

434. The New New Atheism

Comment #56724 by Logicel on July 17, 2007 at 4:01 am

I agree, Philip, Tuffy, the glorious tufted titmouse, with its accurate poop-a-meter, keeps this site intellectually honest.

435. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56718 by Logicel on July 17, 2007 at 3:28 am

rokort wrote: ...perhaps showing compassion on an atheist basis might help. I say this because i got (and get) the impression lots of Africans are very sensitive to religion only because this way they are presented a "better" future and excuses for their hardship. Religious organisations are the ones building hopitals and schools for the needy.
______

This secular couple with their project,
http://www.freewebs.com/livingstonetheatreproject/thetheatreproject.htm

are focusing on local art and cultural traditions in Zambia to create an economic focus; in addition, they are working on improving the local school, all without, religion.

436. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56351 by Logicel on July 15, 2007 at 8:25 am

Idealistic theism? Sorry, it has no appeal whatsoever to me. I don't understand how it is possible to shove reality out of its all-encompassing, breathtakingly compelling picture longer than a millisecond in order to embrace a wonky and begging-the-question idealistic theism with its emphasis on humans being intimately connected to a God, who made us so we can be eventually fulfilled and be with It for eternity. Certainly, humanity thrives on improving themselves, but please, accomplish it within the finite reality in which humanity exists.

Also, I do not understand why it is even appealing--would we even recognize the Ideal if it bit us in the arse? How can one know good if good is the only thing that exists, how can one know joy without sorrow? The so-called absolutes of religion leave me cold, and I regard them as being vastly over-rated, sort of like sex (yeah, I know I am probably wrong holding that particular view!).

Not everyone reacts to narcotics like I do, but I would like to add this anecdotal bit to this discussion. Thanks to my particular biochemistry, being under the influence of a narcotic (prescribed for chronic/acute medical conditions) makes the Idealistic Theism discussed by some in this thread seem like a puny, wobbly, vague joke. However, despite the immense impact narcotics have on me, my brain was always able to inform me that what I was experiencing was my brain on narcotics, and that I was not truly and really an immortal being one with the perfect and infinite universe--though it certainly appeared and felt like that to me while under narcotics.

Idealistic Theism with its corresponding natural narcotics that the body most likely secretes under its influence, appears to be a clever, very diluted narcotic, that one can keep drip, drip, dripping into their needy, finite veins to feel better about something they just can't accept. It is loose and vague enough not to cause too much problem with reality, so no nasty withdrawal and extreme toxic effects will result. In that way, it is very dangerous, because it is mild enough to keep you drugged without your conscious recognition of that fact.

JUST SAY NO TO IDEALISTIC THEISM! LOL.

Regarding the comparative religion course that Paul teaches, sounds like an excellent and needed course.

437. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56330 by Logicel on July 15, 2007 at 5:12 am

16. Comment #56283 by Russell Blackford on July 14, 2007 at 6:25 pm
avatarZwartz is entitled to use passionate language, if he wishes, as we all are, but it seems a bit odd after such a rant to end up with the bit about reasoning together.
______

This is the aspect that gave me the chills--the usual logical fallacies, strawmen (lost count, but it must have at least reached three strawmen, which is the minimum number allowing Dr. Benway/Tuffy--the potent pooper of a tufted titmouse--to poop on this author with impunity), and ad homs are par for the course, so no surprise there. However, after not responding to atheists' arguments, but rather to the way they frame or in which style they present their opposition to religious superstitions, and/or shockingly misunderstanding atheist arguments, the author then suggests that the object of his rant needs to 'reason' with him and theists.

I have no intent or reason to communicate with this author or any other theist who does not make an effort to respond to the content of atheist arguments. Spending their time focusing on style/framing of the atheist argument, and/or mangling and twisting the atheist position beyond recognition, they mistakenly think this tactic will weaken the atheist argument and lessen the focus on the reality that non-evidential faith allows religious superstitions to support and encourage dangerous activities, that there is no significant evidence as to religion being true or doing anything particularly crucial for our well being, and that religion needs to be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other activity or belief.

However, I am sure that there are many other topics with which I could discuss with Zwartz and other theists, even if they are unable to respond with intellectual honesty to the atheist stance against religious superstitions.

438. American Taliban on the warpath against evolution

Comment #56212 by Logicel on July 14, 2007 at 1:58 pm

This post from Pharyngula says that this guy has been identified:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/colorado_kook_identified.php

439. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56139 by Logicel on July 14, 2007 at 1:48 am

Ayann Hirsi Ali is at the Aspen Ideas Festival also:

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

She is lovely, calm, and very meticulous in her observing skills regarding Europeans/Americans.

440. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #56135 by Logicel on July 14, 2007 at 12:59 am

Orthodox Jews, whose God is really OCD as far as I am concerned, need to be studied with this aspect in mind: does their many obsessive-compulsive activities ease anxiety (if so, what is causing this anxiety and is it treatable?), and/or is this OCD behavior attributed to genetic underpinnings (as there is a bit of inbreeding in orthodox communities).

When I bring this aspect up, I am usually told I am anti-semitic, but perhaps things have changed enough in terms of being able to criticize religion, that studies regarding the psychological aspects of religious practice will become more and more common.

As a teenager, I lived in a Brooklyn, NYC neighborhood which was close to a large, Orthodox Jewish community, and I would always think, if they did not have their distinctive dressing style to differentiate them, the whole lot of them would be treated for OCD, but no, behavior that is considered abnormal is excused for religious reasons once again.

As for the poles described in this article, they know where they can stick 'em.

Corylus, yes, the order of our posts, MINE FOLLOWING YOURS, THAT IS, is absolutely ACCIDENTAL.

441. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55955 by Logicel on July 13, 2007 at 3:05 am

Best interview with Hitchens so far that I have read. I had no idea about the founder of American Atheists having such an odd life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

I always learn some interesting tidbit from Hitchens.

Yes, I also have noticed the recent noting of being the first to comment--I would prefer to have the last word and post the last comments in all the threads!!! LOL

442. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55695 by Logicel on July 12, 2007 at 2:15 am

Wilson's last response was full-blown Christian preaching at its worse. And it was in that 'sermon' in which Wilson finally responded, however indirectly, to Hitchen's stating several times, believe what you want, but just leave me and other non-believers out of it. Wilson's response was but our news is so fantastic, so uplifting, so wonderful we must cram it down your throats every chance we get (and also have big tax-free structures which balk at being criticized and have the power to indoctrinate children to assist us in this unasked-for "helping.")

Wilson is the kind of a person that thrives on the authority, purity, and loyalty bases for morality. Change is a problem for him; it causes anxiety and doubt in him. It can only be accepted if it is regarded as an illusion where events and changes are filtered through the unchanging God lens. Change for Wilson is not really authentic change, but just the fulfillment of the absolute notion of Godliness.

Without change, society can't evolve in a positive manner--the bad needs to be taken along with the good. I regard Hitchens as doing an excellent job in debating this Christian, a Christian so wedded to absolutes that he can't see that they are the illusion. Accepting reality based on facts and scientific knowledge has been our best way to proceed forward and will continue to be so.

443. A force for good?

Comment #55411 by Logicel on July 11, 2007 at 3:33 am

66. Comment #55382 by Luis_Cayetano
________

Luis,Thanks for posting that comment; I really enjoyed it.

444. Praying to a milk jug

Comment #55405 by Logicel on July 11, 2007 at 3:09 am

I also am not a fan of the guy's voice. The tone, inflection, and other qualities of voice pack a hefty dose of information that is additional to the content of the words themselves.

His voice is a droning and almost fatigued one, reminiscent of a preacher's voice, but without the buzz of fire and brimstone. Preachers can often take the place of a cup of coffee in waking you up, this guy's voice made me want to take a nap, or just maybe slap him to wake him up. This voice reminds me of the voice of the guy that intoned the video about humans being just a bunch of monkeys, which is not one of my favorites either from the voice or content aspects.

445. Police plea on genital mutilation

Comment #55404 by Logicel on July 11, 2007 at 3:00 am

Let's see if the 'impure' lure of money can trump the need for enforcing 'purity' on dependent and helpless girls.

446. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54615 by Logicel on July 8, 2007 at 6:52 am

PaulEmecz, Corylus was referring to this discussion as being mostly civilized, a discussion primarily evolving Dianelos who believes in God, going on at present to 23 pages of comments--my link is to the last page at this moment:


http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews,page23#comments

447. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54612 by Logicel on July 8, 2007 at 6:48 am

PaulEmecz, Regarding your specific question for Dawkins: Do you think rape is wrong, and that no man should ever rape a woman?--Perhaps you are not aware of this feature:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php?c=9&sid=83e197f3eb106b06883c7f6d30d3f206

448. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54482 by Logicel on July 7, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Corylus, Thanks for letting us know about POMA. I am cracking up. The POMA approach is like a band-aid being applied to a gushing arterial rupture--maybe it will stem the spurting of atheist bloodletting, if we can make believe we have a solution in the form of a medicinal POMAde!!!!!!

And of course, Dr Benway's adorable avatar would change your plucked to pooped.

449. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54478 by Logicel on July 7, 2007 at 11:50 am

OT: bluebird, My avatar is indeed a morning glory (Ipomoea). Though I have tons of photos of morning glories since I once flanked the entire length of my forty-foot-long balcony, ten floors up from a major blvd, with zillions of morning glories, this public domain photo was gotten from this Flickr photographer:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/heartlover1717/227867562/

I was tempted to change my user ID to The Girl from Ipomoea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_from_Ipanema), but decided to stick with Logicel at this site. I am glad you find it nice; it calms me every time I see it. And your bluebird avatar was an indirect inspiration, as every time I saw it, I realized how wonderful the color blue is.

450. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54473 by Logicel on July 7, 2007 at 11:29 am

Have they no arguments?
______

The only real argument they have is faith, to take it on faith. And as the author of the article has clearly stated, people are too educated and sophisticated for the old messages which are primarily based on faith. Without faith, religion does not have a leg to stand on.

As for science not answering why questions, this author needs to focus on sophisticated folks being more interested in how questions; the why to it all--the meaning of life--these folks are ready and able to supply it themselves. Again, as it has been pointed out many times, evolution is not a chance happening because of the role of natural selection.

The pleading that church officials fight back the atheists better than the way they have been doing speaks volumes. And a large part of that volume is filled by the viral nature of religious criticism at present because of the Net, which is apparently quite a shock for some because religious believers have been isolated from critical confrontation for so long.

The clamoring for religious officials to fight back is so sad to me. This pleading is reminiscent of the shock and disappointment when a child finally grasps that their parents are just ordinary folks, and not gods. These religious believers are getting a similar wake-up call regarding their religious leaders who are only ordinary folks with no real connection to the supernatural and with no unique handle on meaning and truth.