1. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79944 by chapstick08 on October 19, 2007 at 7:38 am

I've listened to the first 10 minutes of McGrath's speech and he still hasn't said anything.

2. The Religious Right's New Tactics for Invading Public Schools

Comment #77589 by chapstick08 on October 9, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Just noticed Quine's analogous point. Praise to all the Pastafarians!

3. The Religious Right's New Tactics for Invading Public Schools

Comment #77587 by chapstick08 on October 9, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Free thinkers in Texas should recruit students from the proud ranks of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to make daily speeches praising the Almighty's noodley appendage.

4. A force for good?

Comment #55461 by chapstick08 on July 11, 2007 at 7:22 am

"God is not to me a particular "being" at all, but rather the power of Being itself."

Does anybody here understand what this statement means? I suspect it may only be another piece of wonderful theological diatribe.

5. Germany imposes ban on Tom Cruise

Comment #52510 by chapstick08 on June 27, 2007 at 6:44 am

Another brilliant episode in Germany's half-measured protection of civil rights. Now we can add state-sponsored religious persecution to the their gross infringement of the people's rights to speak their own mind. Pitiful!

6. Supreme Court nixes suit over faith-based plan

Comment #52496 by chapstick08 on June 27, 2007 at 6:19 am

If this case is or was in fact as simple as laid out in this article, then Justice Souter seems to have no case whatsoever. And any reader who is concerned with fidelity to written law should feel absolutely detested by his remark:

The majority opinion "closes the door on these taxpayers because the executive branch, and not the legislative branch, caused their injury. I see no basis for this distinction."

I will simply quote the first few words of the First Amendment. "CONGRESS shall make no law respecting...." Now if congress is not involved whatsoever in this initiative then there can be NO First Amendment violation. Any such demonstration of blatant laxity and disregard to the words, i.e. what is actually written, what is actaully stated, of a given law by a Supreme Court Justice should be met with profound admonishment, especially a law so fundamental to a society's way of life. For this is the exact point where law breaks down and society turns to be governed by inclination and whim rather than objectified law.

Now of course I do not personally support any faith-based program by our government, but I recognize that written law transcends my own desires and aims, and if an action disagreeable to me does not expressly violate a stated law, I have no right to independently alter that law in serving my own dispositions (such as ignoring the words of the Constitution and declaring an Exectutive action can violate the First Amendment when the First Amendment only applies to Congress). I only wish Justice Souter and the rest of the Court genuinely shared this notion.

Souter would certainly have an angle if he were able to establish that Congress is at least indirectly involved in the initiative, say through power of the purse. But if he made no such attempt then his actions are as deplorable as the President's.

7. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52474 by chapstick08 on June 27, 2007 at 5:10 am

The United Kingdom! Freedom in the land of 5 million CCTV cameras, peering down at us at every moment of our waking lives while we are not restricting ourselves to our only private sanctuaries: our homes.

Love to agree with you; big brother just won't let me.

8. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #49110 by chapstick08 on June 10, 2007 at 11:30 am

I find this to be an excellent article. Everytime I hear on this site and throughout the media atheists equating the end of religion with the end of war and violence I shudder. To claim such is extremely presumptuous as well as unsupported by empirical data. Rather what was proposed in this article as the true culprit of diffused and widespread fighting seems to fit more neatly with reality, i.e. in/out groups, i.e. tribalism. Be it the true offender a simple philosophical solution could be offered: individualism.

9. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #46037 by chapstick08 on May 30, 2007 at 4:02 am

"To say that Stalin killing people is a discredit to Marxism would imply that Hitler killing people is a discredit to capitalism. Neither is true."

First of all communist ideology is to blame for the massacre of millions of people by the pre-Stalinist, Stalinist, and post-Stalinist Soviet regimes. Communism in one sense is simply the ultimate expression of the utilitarian ideal, in which what is good for society is the moral imperative. Therefore people's only duty is to serve this society and this society is in turn to treat human beings as means to its own interest. Rights are automatically void as the people living under such an ideology are no longer ends in themselves, but slaves to some higher purpose. And who is to decide society's interests? In communism, the answer is a completely centralized authority who must use appalling physical force to bend humans into submission to a life that is antagonistic to their very nature, that is, one entirely void of self-interest.

Secondly Hitler was not a capitalist nor did he ever advocate such a system. He advocated an economy based on fascist principles, that is, one under completely centralized authority where the government is given the power to decide who produces what, how much, and distributed to whom. Hardly a capitalist system, the fascist economy has instead much more in common with its supposed ideological opposite, communism.

10. Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier Than Thou With Christopher Hitchens

Comment #45075 by chapstick08 on May 26, 2007 at 6:03 am

Since Penn & Teller are not right-wing activists, it is hard to believe they were espousing right-wing ideology. They both consider themselves libertarians and therefore do not fit on the left/right political spectrum. Perhaps their show did deteriorate to the level of its appellation, I just doubt this to be one of the reasons.

11. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45065 by chapstick08 on May 26, 2007 at 4:50 am

I do not understand this preoccupation in the above posts with Gore's belief or disbelief in creationism, evolution, and god in gerneral. He is a politician on the left in the United States and therefore has to pander to both the religious and secular crowd. The least surprising find would be to uncover examples where Gore offered opposing statements to crowds on differents sides of the belief spectrum. Secondly, Al's purported love and dedication to the principles of science are nothing more than the results of constant self-promotion in the face of a personal political agenda. Were he to be so fond of objective scientific truth I doubt that he would se easily throw aside the accusations of scientific irregularities and exagerations said to be contained in his film. In science, comunication of truth is paramount, not fear-mongering, no matter what the objective.

12. Defenders of Marriage

Comment #40124 by chapstick08 on May 13, 2007 at 8:07 am

While I do sympathize with the Republicans on some issues, like small government (which in fact doesn't seem to be on the party platform any longer) I share at least some of your confusion. I am utterly confounded as to why the principles of small government and international unilateralism need go hand and hand with a crazed theocratic drive. The principles of limited government stem from a period in history which arguably housed the greatest revolution in progressive, rational thought, The Enlightenment. So why this political outlook is paired with Dark Age superstition I do not know.

Secondly, I do take issues with your characterization of taxes as a simple transaction. This they are not. Free trade, i.e. one not involving government intervention, occurs to the benefit of both parties. An absolute gain, in one sense, is actually experienced. Imposing a tax on a product decreases the amount of people able to benefit through a transaction of that product, thereby reducing the gains received. And these private losses are not simply transfered to the government. What economists call deadweight-loss occurs. Wealth is actually decreased. So already government is at a disadvantage. It has to make up for this unfavorable effect on overall economic health by providing the public with services that so far exceed what the private sector can possibly offer that this initial loss is remedied and overtaken. Sorry to go on this rant, but I just couln't resist.

13. Intellectual Diversity or Intellectual Insult?

Comment #39096 by chapstick08 on May 10, 2007 at 1:44 am

Thank you Harlon57 for your responses to the two preachers of intellectual/political monopoly. While I, just as everyone else here, deplore the idea of creationism being introduced into the science curriculum, I cannot help but criticize the lack of intellectual diversity provided in the humanity departments of American institutions. Debunked, insupportable theories, such as Marxism and strands of postmodernism, are taught with the utmost zeal while alternatives are not allowed to stand trial. Dogma in the form of political ideas, rather than religious, dominates campuses across the country. The liberal arts faculties, rather than providing their students a complete and rigorous intellectual experience, resort to the same indoctrination and inculcation that one finds at her nearest church, synagogue, or mosque. All I ask for here is a thorough education, or in other words, an unrestrained competition of ideas.