1. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89435 by carnitine on November 20, 2007 at 5:40 pm

While I agree that Romney should have to answer all these questions, the belief around here that Mormonism is any more absurd than any other religion is itself absurd. Sam Harris' recent argument that it is by definition more idiotic because it is simply Christianity + more stupid stuff is equally ignorant.

Mormonism solved some logical conundrums that the Catholic church is still struggling with after 2000 years. This doesn't make it a better religion than Catholicism, but it means that Harris' version of mathematics is void, from a purely logical standpoint.

Romney mustn't be elected, and his religion is part of the reason, but Mormonism is no worse than most religions.

2. Darwin or Design

Comment #57643 by carnitine on July 20, 2007 at 11:54 am

For anyone who is still reading this, I am engaged in a really long debate with Jason and will likely be posting about it on my blog in the near future.

http://secularskeptic.blogspot.com/

3. Darwin or Design

Comment #57551 by carnitine on July 19, 2007 at 6:57 pm

Not really. If there were evidence for alien seeding we could just as easily believe that's how we got here. If there were evidence for green mystery goo mutating us into our present form after dumping onto some amino acids, we could accept that too.

We just accept the evidence, rather than trying to force the evidence into a preexistent paradigm.

4. Darwin or Design

Comment #57539 by carnitine on July 19, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Because "skeptic" implies an unwillingness to take something on faith, and a desire to explore the evidence before coming to a conclusion. That is exactly the opposite of what evolution deniers do. They deny evolution on faith, despite all the available evidence. There's a reason why evolution denial is found exclusively (or close enough) among the faithful.

5. Darwin or Design

Comment #57531 by carnitine on July 19, 2007 at 4:40 pm

"your use of the term "evolution denier" is an allusion to the concept of Holocaust Denial."

That seems like a bit of a leap. Is "global warming denier" also a hitlerian reference?

6. Darwin or Design

Comment #57521 by carnitine on July 19, 2007 at 3:42 pm

I can't let this one go:

"No doubt. But of course you would no doubt get annoyed at the claim that atheists are completely amoral and evil. After all, to many theists the idea of a moral atheist is absurd. I assume as a result you would consider such claims to be entirely reasonable from that persons POV. If not, then your comparison above is unreasonable as well. Choose one way or the other, but no double standards."

Again, there's this little thing called evidence. If we were arguing in a vaccum, that might be a fair point. We're not, however, so it's not.

religionists can consider the idea of a moral atheist to be absurd all they want, but the evidence suggests that atheists are at least as moral as the average Christian.

You tried to use Christian bigotry as a defense, only to find it added to the list of unfounded delusions people like you believe. Sad, very sad.

7. Darwin or Design

Comment #57411 by carnitine on July 19, 2007 at 8:57 am

Jason, didn't you get enough of a beat down last time you were here? Are you ever going to respond to any of those earlier points? I know that you're incapable of doing so intelligently, so it's probably better that you don't try.

"Do you think it somehow strengthens your position to invoke absurdities?"

Your vacuous non-theory is at least as absurd as fairies, pink-unicorns, or teapots. The only reason you can't recognize it is because you've been trained to think that god is a reality. If you could approach the topic with an open mind, you'd recognize that.

Why do you think that science is deliberately telling lies and misleading people? Do you think that all the scientists of the last several hundred years are involved in a giant conspiracy to ignore all of the great evidence for god? Are they all possessed by Satan? Or is it the whole concept of "evidence" that you have a problem with?

IDiots like yourself present absolutely nothing. You steal the scientific concepts that jive with your childish beliefs, and then add "but god did it," as if that explains anything.

If you want to believe that some sort of divine being is involved in the process, I actually don't have a problem with that. However, you must understand that if you submit this personal belief to scientific scrutiny it is going to get absolutely destroyed. It is not science, and I think even you would recognize it if you were honest enough to think about it for even 1 second.

I'm constantly struck at the absurdity of this entire situation. That you guys haven't already been relegated to wacko status in mainstream society (like you have among scientists) is depressing.

8. Darwin or Design

Comment #56680 by carnitine on July 16, 2007 at 11:09 pm

"And that at the very least PZ's position falls into category 4, there is nothing unreasonable about the use of the word dogma to describe his position. Dictionary.com is your friend for future reference."

Before presuming to teach me the definition of a word with which I am quite familiar, perhaps you should consider the context in which it is used.

You are using the word in the pejorative sense, just as "cult" is used almost exclusively in the pejorative. If you insist on using the most mundane of definitions, all religions, political parties, sports teams, and corporations are cults, and any miniscule piece of trivia is dogma. You were obviously not using the term in this way.

Talk about linguistic sleight of hand.

9. Darwin or Design

Comment #56678 by carnitine on July 16, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Yes I realize you used Darwin to create a cute, alliterative title. It is nonetheless a mischaracterization.

Please explain how my words were "linguistic sleight of hand." Atheism is not, in fact, synonymous with metaphysical naturalism, but even if it were, which I will even grant you in this case to see where you're going with it, how does that change anything? There's the same amount of evidence for non-divine supernatural elements as there is for the divine -- none.

10. Darwin or Design

Comment #56673 by carnitine on July 16, 2007 at 10:53 pm

"Atheists like PZ are the most dogmatic people I have ever encountered."

Again, only if you change the definition of "dogmatic" so much as to make the word meaningless.

11. Darwin or Design

Comment #56672 by carnitine on July 16, 2007 at 10:52 pm

"Seems like characteristics of a religion to me"

And you're completely wrong. Atheism is the natural result of rejecting things that are not supported by evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. If that's dogmatic, then so be it, but that means we're also dogmatic about insisting the sun will rise and that water will evaporate if subjected to sufficient heat. That being the case, you've changed the meaning of the word to the point that it would need not have any particular connection to religion.

I'm sure what you wrote makes sense to you, but that's because of your deficiencies brought on by religious indoctrination, not because it is logically sound.

Even the premise of your show is flawed.

Darwin or Design? For one thing, that's a false dichotomy. If evolution is ever proven false (which it won't be; I feel I must emphasize this is hypothetical given current company) it would be because a better, more explanatory theory is found, not because science found Jesus.

The premise is also flawed because "Darwin" is not synonymous with evolution. Darwin got the ball rolling and that is all. He is not an authority, as science has none. If he were magically resurrected today and were yet possessed of the same knowledge he had when he died, he would not even be an expert (Nothing against Darwin, obviously, as I'm sure he'd catch up quickly, but I think my point is clear).

And of course the premise is also flawed because it sets the two alternatives on equal ground. Evolution vs Creationism is no more a controversy than is Gravity vs Magic Juju power.

Your interview with PZ was just another in a long line of pointless attempts to try to transfer responsibility away from those making the claim.

It is you who are making a positive claim, although it's unclear what your claim even is, and it absolutely clear that you have no evidence to back it up. Why is it anyone else's job to give you an idea of what evidence for creationism would look like? Why don't you tell us? It would represent a huge breakthrough for your pathetic little movement if you could do that much.

12. Darwin or Design

Comment #56667 by carnitine on July 16, 2007 at 10:08 pm

His own religion? How can you feign objectivity when you obviously have such a poor understanding of the basics? PZ doesn't have a religion-- he's atheist. If you think that atheism is a religion, you're simply not smart enough or well-informed enough to participate in the discussion.

Of course, your belief in Creationism is evidence enough of that already.

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

Comment #56202 by carnitine on July 14, 2007 at 12:57 pm

"I thought Hedges won that debate hands down."

Wow! I can't even imagine what kind of prejudices you'd have to have to think that. Hedges was a disaster in that debate. I went in wanting to like him, as I liked his book, but man he got destroyed.

14. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53307 by carnitine on June 30, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Don't get me wrong here, but Hitchens needs some more practice.

Obviously Sharpton is a twit, and his arguments are easily rebutted, but he does have a point that Hitchens would rather give us one of his cute little stories or examples than to answer the question that was actually asked. Especially on American TV, when you know you're going to be interrupted, just answer the question! Don't fall back onto a trite anecdote with the hope that you might be able to actually make a point eventaully before you're interrupted.

He also just loves to talk about the bad things done in the name of religion, which I find to be an incredibly weak line of argument.

This debate is just a less organized, more superficial rerun of their earlier debate

15. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52268 by carnitine on June 26, 2007 at 3:37 pm

This was one of my favorite arguments that he used vs Chris Hedges recently. His point is perfectly valid, and god-worship - witchcraft is perfectly analogous whether the god-worshipers will admit it or not.

16. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52254 by carnitine on June 26, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Sam Harris isn't terribly conservative. Sure, conservatives are willing to identify Islam as the problem in the middle east, which many liberals won't do, but that's born out of conservative bigotry more than logic.

I'm a social liberal but take the conservative view on that point, just like Sam Harris. That doesn't make either of us conservatives.

Fox News is a propaganda machine. CNN isn't great either, but comparing the best of Fox to the worst of CNN isn't an honest arguement.

17. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52185 by carnitine on June 26, 2007 at 12:44 pm

"I like Fox News..."

Uh... why?

18. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51924 by carnitine on June 25, 2007 at 2:54 pm

The talk was good, but I must take issue with the guy's question in part 2 concerning BYU.

He expresses dismay that it is still accredited, but provides no reason why he thinks it shouldn't be other than that he thinks Mormons are confused.

While I agree that Mormons are confused, BYU is an extremely rigorous school and provides a great education. Their law and business schools are both top 30ish in the nation, and their biology program emphasizes evolution. Anybody know who that guy is or what his point was?

19. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50536 by carnitine on June 18, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Harris does a bang up job here, but I'm extremely disappointed with Hedges. Most of his time in spent attacking positions which Harris has never taken, or working to obscure, and thereby immunize, his own positions from attack.

Hedges does make a few points and does a decent job of exposing some of Harris' biases, but not better than other people have before him.

Harris' opening statement is pure gold.

20. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48126 by carnitine on June 6, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Congratulation John Heard! You've won this year's "ya think?" prize. He dethrones last year's winner, the guy who explained that tornadoes are not caused by margarine.

21. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #47841 by carnitine on June 5, 2007 at 5:26 pm

I did in fact have some experiences that, at the time, I considered powerfully spiritual. Over time I realized that I was able to reproduce many of those powerful feelings through emotional response, and certain others I could chalk up to the power of will or even coincidence.

I never saw visions or heard the voice of God, so I didn't have to deal with any of that, but even those actually do seem to have more mundane explanations. Carl Sagan talked about hearing his father's voice several times after he died just because he wanted so badly to hear it, for example.

22. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #47553 by carnitine on June 5, 2007 at 12:10 am

Thanks for sharing James. It's amazing how many people have shared similar experiences with me either through email or the various comment threads about my post.

It gives me strength to hear of all those who had such a hard time giving up their faith despite being in circumstances that they considered to be more conducive to doing so. I can tell you that expressing your thoughts at all, even if in a Word file that no one will ever read, is extremely helpful. I am grateful that my version of it was appreciated by so many.

For anyone interested, I added a followup to the saga at http://secularskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/06/my-road-to-atheism-followup.html

23. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #47369 by carnitine on June 4, 2007 at 8:55 am

Thanks for all of the positive feedback guys. I'd been keeping my blog fairly impersonal and just ranting about various things so it took some working up to this one.

I just posted the 2nd and final installment of the story. You might be interested to know that my wife agrees with everything that I wrote in part 2, and we don't really agree on much when it comes to this stuff. I linked it in the article or you can find it at
http://secularskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/06/my-road-to-atheism-part-2-aftermath.html

This is all very therapeutic, so thanks for reading.

24. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46801 by carnitine on June 1, 2007 at 5:14 pm

I commented about Brownback this morning at
http://secularskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/05/brownback-supporter-comes-out-against.html
I even mentioned Ray Comfort, although it seems the connection is more obvious than I thought, as others have brought it up here already.

25. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45186 by carnitine on May 26, 2007 at 6:14 pm

"But this website/forum (as far as I understand it) is generally about science and reason and not about how great and wonderous Al Gore is at saving the planet."

Which obviously means we should only discuss the simple existence/nonexistence of God, even if it means distorting and deliberately misunderstanding people's arguments in order to get other discussions back "on topic." Awesome.

But seriously, Al Gore is an interesting topic for me. He at least pretends to be reasonable, and at least pretends to be pro-science. There is evidence both ways as to whether he actually is or not. I just find it interesting how there are so few topics that lead to mindless exaggeration more than Al Gore.

Why is nuance so hard? Why must Al Gore be the "savior of the world" or the "Creationist wacko who invented the internet zomg!"

Is this one of those topics where we turn off our brains and just believe what we want to believe about him, the same that some people do about God? Why, on RD.net, of all places, is it so difficult to find people willing to hold a rational discussion? Why is absolutism so tempting? Why must we either be a fan or an enemy of everyone/everything? Why can we not weigh the evidence before passing judgment, and in our judgment, why must we always be so high and mighty?

I disagree with many things that Gore has done and continues to do, and yet I choose not to demonize him. He's also done and continues to do many things that I think are good for America and the world, and yet I choose not to deify him. This seemed obvious to me.

26. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45145 by carnitine on May 26, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Combine_Dave:

"I must say I am surprised to see proponent of ID/creationism so heavily defended on this forum."

Again, calling him a proponent demonstrates your ignorance. Reality is nuanced, you are not.

27. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45119 by carnitine on May 26, 2007 at 12:35 pm

pewkatchoo:

Feel free to visit the link I posted earlier (post #4 in this thread). In it I throughly debunk the "Al Gore claims to have invented the internet" bollocks.

Anyone who uses "He invented the internet!" in an argument against Al Gore is either retarded or deluded. Take your pick.

28. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #44995 by carnitine on May 25, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Combine_Dave

The article you quoted isn't new news. Most of us commenting have already seen it, and if you'd read it carefully you'd see that it's still not clear what he meant in adding the Adam & Eve to his graph. It's certainly hokey, but is no basis for coming into a conversation late and speaking in absolutes.

29. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #44951 by carnitine on May 25, 2007 at 4:16 pm

I respect your personal opinions, and it sounds like they're similar to mine. However, until you gain a better understanding of the actual issues, it might be better to just read the words of others.

Saying that "atheism, science, and evolution are really true and religion is a lie" is also a gross oversimplification. Even though, again, I agree with you in principle, these are complicated issues that require a more nuanced approach.

30. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #44936 by carnitine on May 25, 2007 at 3:47 pm

You're really confused Mind_rebel.

Saying it's not logically sound is arguing a point that wasn't made. It's an absolute fact that many people believe in God and evolution.

Also, theistic evolution fits into the gaps nicely, and therefore is not directly falsifiable, like creationism.

Quit letting your views get in the way of the facts.

31. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #44925 by carnitine on May 25, 2007 at 3:32 pm

"...it's impossible to believe in god and evolution. That only leaves creationism or Lamarkism."

That's an absolutely indefensible statement. You're just completely wrong on that one.

32. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #44918 by carnitine on May 25, 2007 at 3:11 pm

I'm not convinced that he's actually a creationist. He does at least pander to creationists, however. I discussed this earlier this week at http://secularskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/05/al-gores-battle-for-reason.html

33. One side can be wrong

Comment #40707 by carnitine on May 14, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Brilliant as usual. This reminds me that I need to read "Climbing Mount Improbable." Shame about the 8 books waiting in line to read already. I'll get to it some day.

34. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39340 by carnitine on May 10, 2007 at 11:02 am

I suppose I would miss it a bit as well, but only because I wouldn't be able to have so much fun laughing at the fundies.

35. Cataloguing every species on earth

Comment #39335 by carnitine on May 10, 2007 at 10:47 am

It's projects like this that make me wish I had a couple billion dollars in the bank so I could donate.

12 million dollars is a teeny tiny budget for this kind of undertaking. I'm also worried about its "wiki" style of submission, unless they check credentials on every submitter. Either way this is very cool.

36. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #38507 by carnitine on May 8, 2007 at 12:04 pm

It's true. I have as of yet not been able to rid myself of the irrational love of BYU football, so I frequent a message board on the topic (BYU is owned by the Mormons, fyi), and Hitchens is a fan favorite on there.

I must say that Hitchens certainly is the source of some of the best arguments for the war, as could be expected from someone of his capacity. It's pretty funny how the far-right loves him for it, while being fully aware of his views on religion.

37. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #38496 by carnitine on May 8, 2007 at 10:50 am

Many of the opinions on here are odd. Assuming that any theist would go to war for God is retarded, and assuming that any atheist would automatically be a moral, logical person is also misguided. Let's not make simple-minded generalizations.

Hitchens's sentiment "I would vote for a pro-war, religious person over an anti-war atheist" is also very odd, unless we can assume by "pro-war" he's referring to "willing to bomb middle eastern countries that harbor terrorists," as "pro-war" could mean any number of ethically questionable things. I'd like to think that no one is "pro-war," at least outside of the Bush administration, so much as "pro-safety."

38. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36486 by carnitine on May 1, 2007 at 10:12 am

He certainly looked tipsy to me, and it's the first thought that I had. I think perhaps he just has a different style of response than RD does. RD comes prepared with responses to all the standard questions, which allows him to get a lot more words in.

Hitchens seems to just wing it, which is probably preferable in many situations, but when the goal of your interlocutor is to get cheap laughs (love Jon Stewart, but he's not an easy interview), not having canned responses prepared works against you. This could also be the reason why he seemed a bit mashed, as he stumbled and bumbled while searching for his words, rather than knowing what he was going to say already.

I'll likely pick up his book eventually, as he seems to be a great (if under-informed) writer, but his interview skills and personality traits make him a less effective representative of atheism in my opinion.

39. Mormonism: A Racket Becomes a Religion

Comment #35580 by carnitine on April 27, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Does anyone know of a resource for factual information that proves certain of Mormonism's doctrines false? I know of the Book of Abraham and Lamanite DNA issues, for instance, but would like to know more about them. It seems like all the mormon resources online mostly consist of the hatred of bitter ex-mormons without too much actual information.

I'd be appreciative.

40. Mormonism: A Racket Becomes a Religion

Comment #35562 by carnitine on April 27, 2007 at 3:51 pm

I haven't read much in the way of anti-mormon stuff, so I don't have any links to provide. I'm somewhat of an expert on Mormon theology and practice, having been one for more than two decades, and being the voracious reader that I am, so I'm just going off my personal experience here.

Mormon theology is pretty complicated, much moreso than your average Christian religion, but Hitchens didn't really delve into the actual doctrine in this excerpt. This one is just about origins and practice, so it seems odd that he'd get so many things wrong. I suppose it wasn't worth his time since mormonism makes up such a small portion of his book.

41. Mormonism: A Racket Becomes a Religion

Comment #35544 by carnitine on April 27, 2007 at 2:54 pm

While his points are almost all valid, I really wish he'd done more research. I noticed several facts he got wrong (Lephi instead of Lehi, a second set of plates being provided later, congregations receiving quotas of names, congregations meeting at temples at all, etc).

It is a wacky religion, but I find it be more sensible than most, actually. Hitchens missed an opportunity here.