1. Robert Winston criticises dangerous 'science delusion'

Comment #247958 by zenmite on September 15, 2008 at 10:52 am

"What Dawkins says is, 'if you don't believe in the fact that religion is a nonsense then you're deluded'. I think that is a very dangerous message because I think actually it is irresponsible. I think it poo-poos other people's views of a universe about which none of us know clearly or absolutely."

Substitution test:

'if you don't believe in the fact that astrology is a nonsense then you're deluded'.

'if you don't believe in the fact that leprachauns is a nonsense then you're deluded'.

'if you don't believe in the fact that homeoppathy is a nonsense then you're deluded'.

'if you don't believe in the fact that crystal healing is a nonsense then you're deluded'.

Wouldn't all these assertions (and countless similar ones) also poo poo other people's view of the universe? Isn't a psychiatrist curing a schizophrenic's delusive ideas also poo pooing his view of the universe? Isn't chrisitian's insistence that there is a god also poo pooing the athiest view of the universe?

2. Supernatural science: Why we want to believe

Comment #235210 by zenmite on August 22, 2008 at 2:39 pm

"People who practice religion are typically encouraged not to believe in the paranormal"

This isn't my experience. While the christians I know are encouraged not to actually 'practice' paranormal or new age stuff...astrology, seance, palmistry...nearly all do believe in all sorts of supernatural garbage. Most believe in ghosts, many think astrology works too, but suspect if comes from satan. They readily accept the possiblity of aliens or bigfoot but tend to put a christian spin on the claims. I don't know any who are exactly sceptical or rationalist. How could they be and still buy into all the miracles and supernaturalist claims?

A christian I debated once told me I was biased against the supernatural. I thought that was funny. Something like; you're just biased against false claims.

3. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232173 by zenmite on August 17, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Rational G and space penguin, there's an excellent book edited by Dan Dennett and Douglas Hofstadter called "The Mind's I" that explores these issues in an interesting way.

Thinking of these things, it is common to say the activity of my brain's neurons 'caused' me to think x and say x. This seems to be a remnant of dualism though. My thinking and my 'will' isn't caused by neural acivity (determinism) nor is my will disconnected or free from brain activity (freewill). If dualism is false, isn't 'my will' just another description of the action of those neurons? There is no inner homonculus or soul to either exert control or be controlled. I am that neural activity itself. So the article's conclusion that if we have freewill, then even subatomic particles have free will is entirely consistent. They are the same thing.

4. The Afterlife for Scientologists

Comment #229636 by zenmite on August 13, 2008 at 9:38 pm

"What a load of wank. That some people are - on the face of it - able to believe this gibberish, is risible."

You know what's funny? There are lots of fundie christians and muslims who feel the same way about Scientology. A few weeks ago an assistant (baptist) pastor was relating to my wife what he'd learned about mormonism from a mormon. He thought it was so absurd that mormons could believe such rubbish.

Now, walking on water, talking donkeys and demon-infested pigs...THAT'S all rational, I suppose. Why are so many people blind to the equal absurdity of their own belief system while readily seeing the stupidity of other's beliefs?

5. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #223224 by zenmite on August 1, 2008 at 8:36 pm

"Buddhism requires no God or Gods. But it is still a religion in almost all forms because it requires a believe in the supernatural."

I guess it depends on how you define buddhism or who defines themselves as such, but I've been practicing zen for over 30 years and I'm not aware of holding any supernatural beliefs. Nor have I been told of any 'required' beliefs. I believe Susan Blackmore is of similar pov. Same with Sam Harris, though he does hold some questionable views on reincarnation and esp. Like professor Dawkins, I question whether buddhism (at least in some forms) should be classified as a relgion at all.

6. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222758 by zenmite on July 31, 2008 at 9:39 pm

"As a matter of fact, the suggestion that nothing can naturally fluctuate into everything sounds a lot like a faith statement on a par with belief in God."

Didn't this guy say he was a physicist? Hasn't he heard of vacuum fluctuations? Obviously the 'nothing' that is empty space isn't really an absolute nothing. Likewise, the universe arising out of this nothing 'before time' certainly implies some existing change or movement, whether you choose to call it time or not. Why do vacuum fluctuations require faith? Is one pair of particles arising out of 'nothing' any less amazing than many such pairs (the universe) arising from nothing?

7. When too much Rapture is barely enough

Comment #204745 by zenmite on July 5, 2008 at 4:44 pm

3) The origins of monotheism (the "one god" belief) did not originate with the JC God, you need to move over to the East a few thousand miles and go back in time about 1,000 years to find that event in the Zoroastrian Azura Mazda God.

The exact date that Zoroastrianism began is in some dispute, with most scholars putting it around 1200 to 1300 BC. This puts it very near Moses' time. Technically, Zoroastrianism is more of a dual-god system. There's Ahura Mazda, but he is opposed by the evil god Angra Manyu. I think it's more likely monotheism originated in Egypt with Akhenaton (as another poster suggested) and this cult influenced Moses and early Hebrew religion. But Zoroastrianism does seem to be the source for the later development of Satan / the devil within the Hebrew tradition and perhaps the doctrine of resurrection as well.

8. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #179793 by zenmite on May 13, 2008 at 6:46 pm

"Pantheists consider somethings sacred, and worthy of more than just awe and reverance"

I'm not sure where you get this. It might be more accurate to say pantheists consider everything sacred rather than 'some' things. But even that is problematic since to consider something sacred you must also consider something else non-sacred or mundane. Saying that everything is sacred is like saying everything is up. But in my view, saying 'everything is god' amounts to the same thing. Might as well say; 'Everything is everything.'

9. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172548 by zenmite on April 29, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Surely Stalin's purges, including his execution of orthodox priests and nuns, and Mao's attempts to eliminate Buddhism count for something, no?

Mao's attempt to eliminate buddhism is an interesting point. The vast majority of buddhists do not believe in god of any sort. Even when it embraces other questionable supernaturalist ideas (such as rebirth) Buddhism is still an essentially athiest belief system like marxist communism. Given this, where are all the atrocities committed in the name of (atheistic) Buddhism? If it is non-belief in a sovereign god that causes people to commit genocide shouldn't the history of Buddhism itself be chock full of mass murder?

10. America: slouching towards the Enlightenment

Comment #137326 by zenmite on March 2, 2008 at 4:49 pm

"So we're growing fast, but our children have a significant chance of 'backsliding' into some religion later in life. I suspect that is a consequence of the fact that most non-religious households will not provide any specific training in beliefs (I know I didn't!) and godlessness is often presented as simple disbelief without a body of associated positive values. We need to change that."

I agree. My father was an athiest. I haven't believed in any sort of personal diety since age 19, but my daughter met a preacher's son and married him. She became a born-again soon thereafter. When she was a child I never tried to actively talk with her about religious subjects or athiesm and she attended church occasionally with her grandmother. I didn't want to indoctrinate my kids the way religous parents do. I didn't count on the surrounding culture / peer group doing it. I feel I failed my daughter by not teaching her to think for herself. There is great (psychological) distance between us now, though we were very close when she was growing up.

I've seen this phenomena occur over and over. A child grows up in one religion (or with no religion) then marries someone and eventually adopts their spouse's belief system. Living in the bible belt (as I do) makes it much more difficult to remain free of religious dogma...probably like trying to be a nonmuslim in Saudi Arabia.

11. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108679 by zenmite on January 7, 2008 at 12:17 pm

"3 in 10 could not find the Pacific Ocean on a map.
Only 89% could find the United States on a world map.
Most could not find New Jersey. (Who could blame them though.)

I think it's because U.S. Americans and such don't have enough such maps so they can help South Africa and such be better countries...

12. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106993 by zenmite on January 3, 2008 at 8:05 pm

If you live in a muslim nation and the election is between a believing muslim that supports a secular government vs an islamist that is bent upon transforming your nation into an islamic theorcracy, I think it makes sense to support the lesser of two evils and vote for the supporter of secular government, even if they are personally a believer. The same holds true for the US, imo. In recent years the republican party has been dominated by evangelical christians, most of whom seem intent upon pushing the country in the theocratic direction or at least eroding any wall between church and state. I would not support a theocratic party no matter what nation I lived in.

13. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106906 by zenmite on January 3, 2008 at 4:54 pm

I told my wife a couple of weeks ago; I like Mike Huckabee, and that scares me. It scares me because that may mean he has more of a chance at actually winning the nomination or even the presidency. Unlike Bush, Huckabee can put two sentences together and he has a certain degree of self-depracating charm, even clintonesque in some ways. He appeared on Bill Maher a few weeks ago and seemed to charm that (presumably) hostile audience. Remember, in america, it's all about the charm and confidence...the guy / gal you'd feel comfortable having a beer with, etc. Never mind any substance.

Don't get me wrong. I'd be horrified if Huckabee wins. I disagree with him on nearly everything. But he shouldn't be taken lightly.

14. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105407 by zenmite on December 31, 2007 at 1:14 pm

"This is no surprise to monotheists who believe that all of us, whatever we believe or do not believe, have been created in the image of God"

Theists often try to have this both ways. Humans are unable to judge good and bad or capable of behaving ethically without an objective moral code (coincidentally the one contained in their holy books). AND we aren't surprised to find people without this objective morality still behaving ethically...because they're made in god's image. Which is it? Do we have an innate inner moral compass or don't we? They can't seem to make up their minds.

15. Russia prohibits denial of Santa

Comment #103941 by zenmite on December 27, 2007 at 11:21 am

I think there are parallels between children discovering there's no santa and adults discovery there's no god. The two were similar for me. I figured out on my own about santa when I was 7. It took me until 19 to finally see all the way thru the god idea.

I know at least one christian (baptist) couple that insist they'll never tell their children about santa claus at all. They don't want to make them believe in imaginary characters or lie to them. Ha! Ha! Given what I experienced, this is probably a smart choice if they want their children to have a better chance of remaining brainwashed.

16. Man and God

Comment #103352 by zenmite on December 25, 2007 at 8:54 am

"Were not the two greatest monsters of the 20th century, Hitler and Stalin, both driven by what they believed a "scientific" ideology: the purging of "healthy" races from dangerous impurities, in Hitler's case, or Stalin's violent attempt to reconstruct society according to a flawed understanding of genetics?"

The key words to me here are believed to be a scientific ideology and flawed understanding of genetics.

This is precisely why such doctrines as creationism, belief in resurrection and miracles are also just as delusional as Hitler's or Stalin's. They are myths "believed" to be scientific ideology and are based upon a "flawed" understanding of cosmology, physics, biology and geology. I don't really have a problem with those who continue to call themselves believers but understand all those sorts of things as myth or metaphor. That direction heads toward the Einsteinian god that RD makes plain he has no issue with.

"It would deny as unscientific the spiritual dimension that is as truly Darwinian in its evolution and persistence as patterns of behaviour or genetics."

In the 4 Horsemen video I think all four authors made it very clear that none of them deny the spiritual dimension or it's persistence. The writer here seems to insist upon a very narrow definition of the word spiritual as pertaining only to the supernatural or magical realm. By that criteria, belief in animistic spirits, kami or fairies would be spiritual.

"Above all, an ideology – for atheism is an ideology..."

Is atheism an ideology? Is non-belief in astrology an ideology? Is lack of belief in homeopathy an ideology? This is the same old game of calling lack of belief just another belief. If you don't think too much about it, it sounds good and seems to make sense. Those militant athiests vs those militant religionists, all the same. Seems to make you evenhanded and fair.

I've studied world religions for over 30 years and consider my grasp of the subject a little better than "someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is The Book of British Birds". Yet I find no problems with the views set forth in Prof. Dawkins or Sam Harris's books. Apparently the only people qualified to comment upon religion are those who've drank the kook-aid themselves. Only those who actually embrace phrenology should be qualified to criticize or comment on it. Only believers in fairies are qualified to understand whether they are real.

17. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102436 by zenmite on December 22, 2007 at 6:56 pm

A better term might be dogmatic atheist rather than fundamentalist atheist. I think fundamentalist originally referred to very specific tenets within christianity, a pamphlet putting forth "the fundamentals" by some preacher years ago. The term has now been expanded to include other religions like islam. Since atheists have no set of basic fundamentals, I don't see how you could say one was a fundmentalist atheist without being logically incoherent.

It is certainly possible for people to be indoctrinated into some form of belief that includes non-belief in diety (communism, for example)and that would be dogmatic atheism rather than atheism as a product of rational inquiry.

Living in the rural south, I've had many forms of christianity aggressively pushed upon me and my family. I've yet to encounter a single atheist going door to door handing out copies of The God Delusion and spreading the good news of atheism. Nor have I seen atheists on the street corner or at movie theaters condemning believers and preaching atheism. If and when this sort of thing begins to happen, I'll readily admit that there is a problem with dogmatic or evangelical atheism. I see no evidence of anything remotely like this however.

Christians seem to regard the mere writing and publishing of books or daring to speak in public, even by invitation, as some form of aggressive atheism. Simply saying "I disagree and see no evidence for god" is apparently being militant. Yet going to people's homes uninvited and approaching them in public is considered acceptable if you're pushing religious belief.

18. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101320 by zenmite on December 20, 2007 at 8:19 am

"I know of at least one couple who went into the military not particularly religious and came out Fundamentalist Christian, if that tells you anything."

The same happened to my nephew when he joined the marines a few years ago. He went in an atheist and within 6 weeks or so had embraced fundamentalist xtianity. I was floored. Peer pressure brainwashing.

19. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #87674 by zenmite on November 12, 2007 at 6:54 pm

I'm from georgia and this crap is just embarrassing, but very widespread. Years ago my father walked into his business and found an employee on his knees praying for god to 'heal' a piece of faulty equipment. Why not? It makes as much sense as praying for rain.

20. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80216 by zenmite on October 20, 2007 at 7:30 pm

Or quantum theory? It seems counterintuitive to the nth degree. My own limited experience suggests that most fundamentalists don't have any better grasp of the rudiments of these theories than they do of evolution. Some few even think relativity theory is somehow connected to moral relativity or situation ethics!

21. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79937 by zenmite on October 19, 2007 at 7:04 am

Issac Asimov was much more than just a great science fiction writer. He had a phd in chemistry and wrote great science articles and books too. I grew up reading his essays in the old "Science Digest" magazine.

Here's an article of his regarding Atheism called "The Reagan Doctrine".

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/asimov.htm

I recall watching D. James Kennedy back in the 80's. He was one of the first hard-core christian dominionist theocrat types I'd ever seen or heard.

22. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79382 by zenmite on October 17, 2007 at 6:12 am

McGrath says: Can we imagine God saying to someone;'Go and do violence to this person.'?

This was amazing. Has he not read any of the jewish scriptures (Old Testament)? God says this sort of thing on a regular basis. This sort of thinking isn't confined to ancient times either. Besides the obvious example of muslims who believe god has commanded them to kill infidels, we have president Bush who seems to believe his god guides his actions. So, god ordered the invasion of Iraq.

I do think McGrath's point about ideologies in general being the problem is valid. Though some are more harmful, toxic or extreme than others.

I think Hitchens contention might be more accurate if he stated that ideology poisons everything. Nationalism, racism, sexism, & religion all are poisons imo. Like an alcoholic that quits drinking and takes up shooting heroin, Stalin simply swapped one poison for another. I wonder what would have been different had Marx stated that (all) ideology or all 'isms' are the opiate of the people? Some would probably have made that idea into an ideology too..non-ismism. I think this is the danger Sam Harris is pointing out re the label of atheism.

23. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76929 by zenmite on October 7, 2007 at 8:40 pm

"Now about the difference made during the last 200 years. Maybe, just maybe, it's because of colonization of Asia and all the missionaries? Or how about that major conflict, which brought many Christians for a few years of whom many stayed after it?"

Another possible explanation I read years ago from a Korean buddhist is that before WWII the Japanese imperial army invaded and occupied Korea for a number of years. Most Koreans naturally resented this occupation. This resentment lingered long after the Japanese withdrew. This created a sort of disillusionment with Buddhism itself since many of the Japanese invaders were also Buddhist. To the Koreans, the white Christians were seen as the liberators and the Asian (japanese) buddhists were their oppressors. This pov was probably reinforced during the Korean conflict as primarily christian westerners pushed the northern communists back and again liberated the Koreans. This time from the threat of communism. Thus, South Koreans tend to see Christians as 'the good guys'. At least that was the hypothesis of the article.

24. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76814 by zenmite on October 7, 2007 at 11:03 am

I read a book called "The Mind's I" by Dan Dennett and Douglas Hofstadter nearly 20 years ago. I enjoyed the book so much that I went on to read everything I could find by both authors. Just bought Hofstader's "I am a Strange Loop". I was also intrigued by one of the essays in 'The Mind's I' by a scientist called Dawkins. This led me to read his works as well. I still love Dennett's writings, especially his firm stand against mind-body dualism / cartesian theatre thinking. Great tribute.

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

Comment #76425 by zenmite on October 5, 2007 at 7:56 pm

revcort; Here's a link to a site with lots of info about the human footprint / dino footprint:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm

As for the many mentions of dragons from different cultures, the most likely explanation imo is that bones or skulls of dinosaur skeletons have been found over the years. These need not have been dug-up by ancient paleontologists. They could have been exposed via erosion.

26. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76339 by zenmite on October 5, 2007 at 2:52 pm

In reply to Comment #76288 by Teratornis

"It seems reasonable to suspect that Stalin might have been less likely to become a murdering despot if he had been successfully raised in the Amish religion. There are some religious traditions which haven't produced a lot of tyrants, and it may not be just a statistical fluke."

"Stalin" by Evard Radzinsky is an excellent biography of the dictator. It seems Stalin had a very religious upbringing and indoctrination, not amish of course. Stalin, or Sosa as he was then known, attended a church school as a child and then went on to attend a seminary with the intent of becoming a priest. It was while attending (Tiflis) Seminary that he & many of his friends encountered Marxism. He soon rejected christianity for his new, secular religion.

Just as food for thought, here are some excerpts from Radzinsky's work:

(Speaking of young Stalin and his friends, Radzinsky writes:) "They longed for a different sort of education, one that would allow them to enjoy life's pleasures while satisfying the thirst for sacrifice, for some higher purpose, which the reading of holy books and the noble dreams of youth had implanted in them. And they found such a creed. The older boys spoke of certain illicit organizations, whose proclaimed purpose was that of the first Christians--service, martyrdom even, for the good of all mankind."

"On his fiftieth birthday he (Stalin) could pause to sum up his achievments....He composed a modest reply "to all the organizations and comrades who have congratulated me...I regard your greetings as addressed to the great Party of the working class which bore me and reared me in its own image and likeness."

The use of biblical language---"in its own image and likeness"---was deliberate. So was the statement that he was born not of woman, but of the Party. As he became tsar he resolved also to become a god. A Bolshevik Trinity, a triune godhead, was emerging."

"Marxism quickly conquered the Tiflis Seminary. Many of alumni would become revolutionaries. The seminarists readily absorbed the Marxist teaching. Self-sacrifice in the service to the poor and oppressed, the protest against an unjust society, the promise of a Kingdom of Righteousnessand the enthronement of a new Messiah--all these ideas seemed to coincide with those implanted by their religious upbringing. Only God was superceded."--- Edvard Radzinksy

27. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75495 by zenmite on October 2, 2007 at 8:08 pm

88. Comment #75459 by kerrleau:
"There is clearly a logical path from atheism to evil deeds. Atheists recognize no moral authority over themselves, so whatever they wish to do is an acceptable option, including selfish acts causing suffering to others."

Acceptable option? Acceptable to who? Since I don't see myself as out of control, I see no need of imposing any authority 'over' myself. It seems only someone that perceived themselves as basically evil or selfish would suggest that they need some objective moral authority to keep them from running amuk. Sort of like a serial killer pleading with the police to stop him from killing again.

This sort of reasoning has always struck me as similar to someone who asserts that without government imposed laws we would all gleefully rape, kill and steal. To individuals of such low moral development it is incomprehensible that anyone would avoid doing these things if there were no legal punishment threatened. I see both this assertion as well as those like kerrleau's as a case of simple psychological projection.

They assume others think, feel and relate to people just as they do. Just as the criminal mind can't conceive of other people not killing or stealing without the threat of legal punishment, the theist often can't seem to conceive that others wouldn't necessarily commit all sorts of atrocities without the threat of supernatural punishment or hope of eternal reward.

This is made more pronounced imo by the christian emphasis on the innate sinfulness of man. If people are basically evil or corrupted by original sin they would universally need some "authority" to impose a sense of right and wrong from outside...their much vaunted 'objective morality'. But this is reasoning based purely upon their own assumptions and worldview. Similarly, the new-agey idea that people are all good at heart would seem to negate the need for any sort of outside authority, legal or otherwise. In my own view, the truth isn't so black and white. People aren't innately either good or bad. Yet, it is possible for most to develop empathy and compassion to some degree that transcends and at least partially negates the need for moral authority imposed from outside. Just as a child hopefully grows up and at some point doesn't need the threat of punishment by her parents in order to avoid playing in the street.

Finally, it amazes me when people proclaim that we shouldn't trust our own mind and it's ability to make ethical choices, but must rely upon some set of laws or ideas written in a book. Doesn't the christian "decide" to accept the bible as the ultimate moral authority? Doesn't he use his own mind to judge whether the bible should be trusted or not? It seems we have no choice but to trust our own mind and decisions on some level...even if this decision and judgement is "Don't trust your own judgement, only trust god or the bible."

28. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74837 by zenmite on September 30, 2007 at 7:42 pm

This might give you an idea of what some christians are like in korea itself and how they relate to the buddhists living there.

http://www.buddhapia.co.kr/eng/tedesco/2.html

29. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72591 by zenmite on September 21, 2007 at 8:00 pm

Shouldn't they also teach the demon-possession theory of disease alongside the narrow, limited theories of modern medicine? Maybe the flat-earth theory of geography should be included alongside traditional spherical-earth theory too.

30. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #70707 by zenmite on September 16, 2007 at 5:09 pm

Here's an interesting link discussing the 'virgins in paradise' teachings:

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA7401

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

Comment #66639 by zenmite on August 30, 2007 at 6:22 pm

lane wrote:
"Even if you don't believe in God, I encourage everyone who comes here to read the story of Job in the Bible. I think it will clear up your confusion about what Mother Teresa was going through. God loves us and wants the best for us. But like any father sometimes he directs us in ways we don't like or don't understand at the time."


Interesting. My son-in-law & I were just having a discussion a couple of weeks ago about the book of Job. My contention was that reading it should dissuade anyone from believing in such a god. The lesson from the story seems to be 'might makes right.'

You're a father. Suppose your children were kidnapped and kept from you for years. When you were finally reunited they refused to believe that you were their father. Can you imagine yourself punishing them for their unbelief by sending them to eternal torment? For disobeying you? For refusing your love? I submit that you are probably a much better father than your god is.

32. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64122 by zenmite on August 17, 2007 at 8:44 pm

"I'm sure you've heard, "What would it take to convince you that God exists?"


I've been asked this question several times over the years as well.
My usual answer is: "A lobotomy."

33. Curriculum for Baptist School

Comment #62381 by zenmite on August 9, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Cartomancer said; Students about to graduate will come to understand the true nature of God, his divine vengefulness, transcendent sadism and incomprehensible caprice as they get turned down by every university they apply for through no fault of their own.

Nah. The U.S. will have become a theocracy and they'll go on to graduate from Regent University and get a nice job in some future version of the Bush administration like so many today.

34. God in the Military - The Pentagon and its Christian Embassy

Comment #61961 by zenmite on August 7, 2007 at 3:14 pm

Just more anecdotal evidence, but a few years ago my young nephew joined the US Marines. He was a liberal-minded atheist. After just a few weeks of basic training he called to inform us that he was now a born-again christian republican supporter of GW Bush. It sure smells like some form of indoctrination took place. Whether it was official coercing from above or simply peer pressure from his fellow soldiers I can't be sure. He's still in the military and still a christian. Sad and scary.

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

Comment #61924 by zenmite on August 7, 2007 at 12:18 pm

I was born, raised and now reside in the depths of the american south bible-belt. Nearly every christian I know also believes in other irrational ideas. Many embrace the writings of Nostradamus, astrology (as did Nancy Reagan), believe in ghosts and demons, esp, psychic healing and communication with the dead. And these are mostly pentecostal and baptist. I see no evidence that religious belief provides any immunity to falling for all this other b.s. The few other atheists I know reject both christianity as well as this other inanity.

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

Comment #56217 by zenmite on July 14, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Sam Harris accurately describes the folly, superstition, evil and irrational dogmas of organized religion. However these justifiable criticisms do not negate the existence of One True Chicken, The incubator and Egg which gave rise to our universe and all other universes that may exist.

However these justifiable criticisms do not negate the existence of Zeus who is the One True God, The Designer and Creator of our universe and all other universes that may exist.

However these justifiable criticisms do not negate the existence of Ralph, who is the One True God, The Designer and Creator of our universe and all other universes that may exist.

37. A force for good?

Comment #55200 by zenmite on July 10, 2007 at 8:39 am

"In his TV series about God Richard Dawkins sought out a Jew, Christian and Muslim who were, each one, wackos in anybody's book."

Apparently not in President Bush's book. Ted Haggard, one of the Christians interviewed, had frequent conversations with the u.s. prez before his recent problems with meth and gay prostitutes. I live in the U.S. bible belt, and the vast majority of christians I know are literalist / fundamentalist and would probably regard Vallely's views as pagan or heretical.

"Saying that believing in God is the same as believing in gnomes and pixies is an inexact analogy. You don't start believing in gnomes and pixies as an adult. But you can start believing in God. I did. Religion is embraced in adulthood by people with wide experience of life and with intelligence."

Maybe not gnomes or pixies, but I know many who started believing in astrology, homeopathy, alien abduction and other nonsense as adults. Does this mean these are credible? I strongly question the 'wide experience of life and intelligence' part too. There may be no correlation with IQ, since people can be intelligent but ignorant / uneducated. However there is a negative correlation between education and religiosity.

38. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46918 by zenmite on June 2, 2007 at 7:47 am

by Logicel wrote:
"Some Christians also haggle themselves out of that annoying clash of their supposed free will and the omniscience of their deity with the interpretation that though God may know what they will do and decide, they, the believers do not, that is they are not let into the God game/plan, therefore they do essentially have free will.
My brain hurts."

Christians argue that god's knowing what will happen is distinct from his causing it to happen, therefore there is freewill. I think they are confusing ignorance of what is determined with free will. IF everything that will ever happen CAN be known by god, this means that the future is set and determined...that events and decisions can not unfold in any other way. That is simple determinism. The individual may 'feel' like she is free when exercising the choice to believe or not, etc. But the illusion of freewill is not freewill.

However, I see little evidence of this pov in the bible itself. It seems clear that god himself believes that the future is not determined. After the flood, god is sorry he made man at all. There are countless comments like this that seem to indicate god is either not omniscient or that the future is not determined.

Of course all of this sort of discussion is rather like discussing what route the easter bunny takes when delivering eggs.