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

Comments by 601


1. Fleabytes

Comment #132230 by 601 on February 24, 2008 at 1:47 pm

@Richard Morgan RE: If that's her "friendly" tone, "unfriendly" must be really spectacular!

This sort of provocation could be dangerous and arbitrary "pull quotes" out of context won't diminish Paula's sweet disposition.


Is the concept of life without a god of any kind really so impossible for a believer to get his head around? Apparently so.

Finally, he claims to find Christian claims "wonderfully liberating" (from what, I wonder?) and that they "best fit the facts as far as I can see them". It would seem unkind to question his eyesight, but less so to ask for his evidence for that assertion. None is given, however.

Being made in the image of God wasn't that much of a safeguard against Christian-inflicted barbarity after all, it would seem.

Well, I don't find a universe without ultimate purpose to be soulless (except in the strictly literal sense), cold OR depressing, so perhaps David Robertson shouldn't project his fears of meaninglessness onto others. And he may well find his version of the universe more comforting - but he has yet to give us any evidence whatsoever to suggest that it's a reflection of reality.

The God you believe in is simply impossible. This won't stop you believing in him - but the simple fact of your belief does not constitute any kind of argument against the impossibility of its being based in reality.

But then, a page is a long time in Christian apologetics.

2. Fleabytes

Comment #132198 by 601 on February 24, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Ok, I finally got chance to finish Northern Bright's Paula Kirby's tome, and it only got better.

My favourite aspect is the way Paula delivers viciously cutting wit with such a friendly tone. She understands the emotional challenges of the faithful, and doesn't laugh at them, but instead tries to gently lead them to objective reality.

So you MUST write a book, maybe entitled "Safely Releasing the Fear of God." I'll pre-order a copy once you get an advance from a publisher.

3. Fleabytes

Comment #130022 by 601 on February 19, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Excellent Work.

Write a book, you can reach further into the target audience than most.

4. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88140 by 601 on November 14, 2007 at 11:04 pm

"But officer, I don't understand the law of evolution."

"Ignorance is no excuse."

5. The Psychology Behind Cults/Religion

Comment #87215 by 601 on November 11, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Although invoking the supernatural is not critical for a cult, it sure comes in handy. An afterlife is priceless, and so far no one has tried to get a refund. A quick test of cult status is what happens if you quit.

A film version, "Ticket to Heaven" (1981) http://imdb.com/title/tt0083201/

Plot Summary: David is a young man seduced by a religious cult that uses starvation, exhaustion, and brainwashing to mold recruits into money hustling disciples of a messiah-like leader. Chronicles David's chilling transformation into a gaunt, mindless shadow of his former self...and his ultimate salvation when friends and family launch a plan to kidnap and deprogram him.
This film left me even more immune to recruitment and cynical about donations to street profits. I especially enjoyed the complexity of the deprogramming effort.

6. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #81655 by 601 on October 25, 2007 at 2:16 am

Science began with a few axioms (true/false, sets, etc.) added a few principals of logic and the scientific method (think, test, rinse, repeat).

One might consider this much an act of faith. But after trying it a few billion times and getting spectacularly useful results, the experience becomes the evidence, and the faith unnecessary.

There is still of course the meta jump (to the supernatural), we can't disprove that a hacker from CE 3001 built a sub-quantum computer simulation to preserve the universe digitally and then set the clock back to see if history would repeat itself.

7. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81622 by 601 on October 25, 2007 at 1:25 am

Our largest challenge is the emotional basis of faith and religion. No amount of logic and reason can overcome a profound mortal fear.

Most theists feel it is unsafe to thoughtfully consider (even hypothetically) the absence of the supernatural. Nature is amoral and dangerous, but denial is a way to cope.

Take evolution, random mutation is the ultimate basis for a "fear of the unknown." And natural selection is as much (or more) about death than life.





faithfulFEAR > REASON
agnosticFEAR = REASON
atheistFEAR < REASON

8. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78783 by 601 on October 14, 2007 at 11:30 pm

I was struck by the spontaneous and enthusiastic response from the audience which often followed one of Richard's key points. I had gotten used to a tense anticipation of the nonsensical retort by a religious fanatic. It was very gratifying to see Richard rewarded for his wisdom.

And I like the new hijack frame.

Faith = Emotionally Inspired Willful Ignorance

9. Is 'Do Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes?

Comment #72496 by 601 on September 21, 2007 at 9:51 am

But many societies around the world do in fact behave as if loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity are moral concepts,...
This was unexpected, but may explain why the RWA*'s appear to me to feign moral outrage, when in fact they are sincere.

*Right Wing Authoritarians - see research shrink "Bob Altemeyer" and his free online book http://www.theauthoritarians.com

10. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70178 by 601 on September 14, 2007 at 8:54 am

...Dawkins's fact-based approach. And religion is hard to fit in to that agenda, for it simply isn't about facts.
This has to be my favourite flea review to date. This shows we have gotten a foot in the door, and the house of cards is teetering.

11. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #69015 by 601 on September 9, 2007 at 1:47 pm

@Russell Blackford

Deodefenestrators?
My un-ID'd cafe-dioxide system failed when I read this. I am imagining the lead float in the Atheist Pride Parade, with a giant window frame, a stack of bibles and a catapult.

But I have always thought we need a better word, something positively framed which implies confidence. We aren't certain know-it-alls, just statistically confident.

If you toss a thousand coins in the air, I am not certain, only confident that they will not be all "heads." But for the absolutists, even this much uncertainty is scary.

12. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68869 by 601 on September 9, 2007 at 1:35 am

@Northern Bright

What other ways might there be? [of getting through to theists - at least the deists are friendly!]
I have been pondering this on and off for years. The first principle of consensus is common ground. I have tried to map atheist axioms to theist axioms, and that seems to be where the trouble starts.

My first Axiom is the pair of opposites (true/false, yin/yang, left/right, on/off), add a few more simple concepts from logic and maybe sets {0} and you get all of math and most of science.

Xians start with god the trinity, which is one and three at the same time, like a quantum state or something. They have already completely lost me.

The real danger is that if the religious cannot fundamentally accept sharing the planet with "others", conflict is inevitable. History to date is not encouraging, but I suppose it could be a lot worse.

13. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68829 by 601 on September 8, 2007 at 10:09 pm

@Russell Blackford

Actually, it's not quite so simple if they are also inflicting those "truths" on innocent children,...
Simple would be an understatement. Although we do have some rules regarding the treatment of children, the right to religiously indoctrinate ones own child is a time honored tradition. Especially in the USA, with a fanatical (and often ironic) devotion to the concept of Freedom.

Also, since programming during childhood is the most important marketing tool that those in the religion business have, they will consider an elementary school "Religions of the World: an Objective History" class (i.e. "teaching the controversies") to be an existential threat.

14. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68799 by 601 on September 8, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Apparently, god's light reflecting off the pages of TGD reveals an image different from when enlightened naturally.

However, I have been unable to reproduce this phenomenon experimentally, despite a deluge of anecdotal evidence.

..., Dawkins fails completely to understand how powerful myth is - not in terms of factual, historical truth - but in terms of emotional, spiritual truth.
Firstly, I expect Dawkins does completely understand. In any case, this statement is a complete surrender of the rational debate, as if to say:

  • "I know I'm wrong, but I feel right."

    • I'm just repeating myself, but the religious moderates are not attuned to the rational frequency, they listen to the music without hearing the words.

    15. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

    Comment #68528 by 601 on September 7, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    @Northern Bright: I enjoyed the YouTube link, and imagined a sign outside the conference room "This presentation follows the 20 slides @ 20 seconds each pecha kucha principle."


    To be clear, I would divide the audience into three groups:
    1. Fanatical fundamentalists
    2. Religious moderates
    3. Quiet atheists and agnostics
    4. Atheists who too often don't count

    The good doctor D has focused TGD and now the OUT campaign at the third quiet group, to encourage them to make some noise. And the four horsemen are doing well in this critical effort.

    However, the strategy for the moderates must be different. I would propose to leverage their religious doubt with "relax, you are halfway to peace and freedom, it is safe to keep going in this direction." The key here is the emotional component, as they are likely immune to rational argument.

    There is an interesting and successful technique for counseling addicts, where you discuss only their sober times, to avoid any reinforcement of the bad habit.

    16. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

    Comment #68354 by 601 on September 7, 2007 at 1:06 am

    I do not know if you are interested in advice, but I will be shameless and offer it.

    At first most of your challengers where sincere, in as much as their perceived conflict between your logic and their emotions interested them into asking for clarification.

    With the popular success of TGD however, the game changed. Having essentially passed a peer review (of the rational scientific flavour), your more determined critics were left with few weapons.

    The most vital target is the emotional terror associated with losing faith amongst their audience, and can be leveraged with appropriate prose, regardless of the integrity of the argument (as in £1 for 5 minutes). Out of context quote mining and such are just the tools of the trade.

    To suggest your critics are mendacious is essentially irrelevant (not to us of course, but for them and theirs).

    The strongest response will be ALL positive (just leave out denials and contradictions) and focus on your message. Beware the fool who lowers the debate to his level, and then wins with experience.

    For example: In response to the "child abuse" canard, you could say the most frightening fact is that of those who have experienced both kinds of abuse, some claim the indoctrination was worse. And that if the critic is insisting that the religious indoctrination of young children is good for them, then the critic is in need of education in child psychology.

    And again, my apologies for the presumption.

    17. In God we doubt

    Comment #67870 by 601 on September 5, 2007 at 3:40 am

    @Northern Bright

    Thanks for taking the lead and documenting this new initiative. You might consider trying to start a forum thread before we all lose track of this blog entry.

    Some religious people will be swayed through an appeal to truth and reason, and it's absolutely central to our case.

    We must be very careful with the "truth." A cult classic pre-emptive defense is "Believe the capital-T Truth of the book / revealed-something / [whatever], and beware of others so-called truth."

    It may not be a safe word as a result. We need one word which means: conclusions based on statistical analysis of independently repeatable, peer reviewed empirical observations (SARPREO). Is that not what we really mean by truth?

    ...media might be harnessed...

    How about "From Faith to Freedom, a journey through doubt finds peace." Seven people from all walks of life, face challenges of conflict, confusion, friends and family to become happy, healthy and wealthy. Ok, maybe wealthy is too much, how about wise?

    ...emerge slowly from within, as the result of an introspective process,...

    This is the only way. It's like the old joke, how many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, but it takes a long time, and the light bulb has to want to change.

    18. In God we doubt

    Comment #67479 by 601 on September 3, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    He quotes Augustine: theology is "faith seeking understanding" – which means you get your faith first and then try to make sense of it. [emphases mine]
    This is the keystone issue, and why debating delusionists is so frustrating. Assuming you could discredit every rational reason for belief, they will simply fall back to their emotional foundation. If you try to crack this foundation you face (as Northern Bright mentions) "...alone without her favourite teddy bear. It's more than protest: it's sheer terror."

    "God is Love" (and also "God is Fear") is spot on. That is how god is experienced by the faithful. As recent game theory suggests, love is necessarily irrational. I suspect that atheism just doesn't have a soft enough security blanket.

    Is it true that changing religious dogma is much easier than abandoning it?

    19. The Fear Factor: When the Brain Decides It's Time to Scram

    Comment #66867 by 601 on August 31, 2007 at 9:56 pm

    @Richard Morgan: I think you are splitting hairs, and wrong as well. "Neurology for Dummies", chapter 4, describes regions of the brain where neurons cooperate to hold information to both recognize and respond to stimuli. And fMRI is about nothing more than identifying these regions.

    Since current understanding of the brain is limited, and has evolved a lot recently, it can be difficult to choose what words to use to describe abstractions (not to mention even which abstractions are valid).

    20. The Fear Factor: When the Brain Decides It's Time to Scram

    Comment #66801 by 601 on August 31, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    I offer the following "dangerous" idea:

    The PAG region contains the "god-exists" notion, and is threatened (in an existential sense) by faith-doubt (uncertainty of the future, no purpose, etc.). This is reinforced by "slight shocks" (especially during youth) from authority figures.

    The vmPFC region contains the notions of social cooperation as related to the PAG-god (e.g. 10 commands, thy neighbor/thy self).

    When first approached at a distance, the theist will vmPFC-process the threat (somewhat reasonable discourse). But when confronted at close range (e.g. religion makes no logical sense), the PAG-process will trigger a fight-flight reaction, and the usual nonsense ensues.

    This might explain why, as Shermer tried to point out in "Rational Atheism" - point #2 - "...arguments don't work..." (to much commotion), that you can only debate through the vmPFC-process. Once you hit the PAG-process, literally all hell breaks loose.

    Is it going too far to suggest that religion is an anxiety / panic disorder?

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

    Comment #65710 by 601 on August 25, 2007 at 11:58 pm

    Discussions of doubt never seem to explain what happens next:

    1. My doubt grew into the best aspect of my faith, and I was enlightened into a comfortable Atheist (or at least agnostic).

    2. I joyfully embrace alternating delusion and disillusion?

    3. I force doubt from my mind by sheer willful ignorance!

    4. ...
    The third group causes the most trouble, since they can feel better if they convince others of their wisdom.

    22. God's Still Dead

    Comment #64753 by 601 on August 21, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    Shaking off the fantastic illusion... is something that any educated human can now do.
    In the abstract maybe, but the mortal fear that is to be alive won't easily cooperate.

    For "the least of us," the idea that this is all there is to life is unbearable. But educated and raised out of poverty and other insecurities, enlightenment has a chance to take hold. This is short lived however, because as conditions get better, and then boring, the search for "meaning" returns.

    Not to mention, superstition and religion (of All forms) are such handy tools for marketing control, it's unlikely "leaders" could forego them.

    23. The Politics of God

    Comment #64308 by 601 on August 19, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    "...the problem: the more a biblical faith is trimmed... the fewer reasons it gives believers for holding on to that faith in troubled times..."
    It could be that reason can only hold the middle ground. In conditions either too bad or too good, irrationality reigns.
    "When the urge to connect is strong, passions are high and fantasies are vivid, the trinkets of our modern lives are impotent Amulets against political intoxication."

    24. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

    Comment #61401 by 601 on August 5, 2007 at 3:42 am

    @Yorker, thanks for the rapidshare

    This was enjoyable, but I would hardly call it a "debate", and "complexity" was rarely mentioned.

    Regarding bottom up (evolution) vs. top down (design), the most important difference is intention.

    Building highly complex systems top down becomes exponentially more difficult, and I suspect, eventually impossible. In contrast, evolution manifests profoundly complex systems but what these systems do is unpredictable (short of providing a selection advantage).

    A simple example is a garden. A gardener toils to maximize beauty (or some designed goal). Left unattended, the garden will quickly maximize energy efficiency, but we can't predict how it will look.

    25. Philip Kitcher - Living with Darwin

    Comment #59916 by 601 on July 31, 2007 at 5:12 am

    RE: seals

    ...life really is hollow, meaningless and pointless!
    This is the inevitable conclusion that follows from rational analysis (especially evolution - which does NOT select for happiness, but does select for intense fear).

    Although profoundly liberating, this can be a difficult idea to accept. Kitcher makes a valid point, many are reluctant to trade their delusion (even when they know it is a delusion) for a fear of the unknown.

    In any case, your future is what you choose to make it (assuming free will - for which of course there is no evidence).

    26. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

    Comment #57844 by 601 on July 21, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    ...Bush signed an executive order Friday barring the CIA from using torture...
    This at least sounds like movement in the right direction, but why do we need this provision?
    In addition, the order forbids the degradation or humiliation of a prisoner's religious beliefs, practices or personal objects.
    Does this forbid the 2 + 2 = 5 humiliation?

    27. In the name of the Father

    Comment #51583 by 601 on June 23, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    ...because religion is such a crucial marker of identity, it can be used...
    To say religion is a first-order cause of unethical behavior is misleading.

    Most conflicts are based on basic human needs (from food and water through to minimal political sovereignty), but for pragmatic reasons are marketed with religion.

    "We should balance the distribution of wealth and power" as a battle cry will only gather a clutch of friendly pacifists.

    Whereas, "The ultimate universal creator commands we fight evil (and will fast-track enthusiasts into paradise)" mobilizes a formidable force.

    That said, for self preservation religious institutions will often promote nasty us/them campaigns, which I consider indefensible (and curiously almost always in conflict with their own principals).

    28. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

    Comment #36809 by 601 on May 2, 2007 at 11:41 am

    @devolved

    1. You believe evolution is a belief.
    2. I infer you do not accept the scientific method.
    3. You believe the data fits your beliefs.
    4. I infer you are delusional.
    5. You believe we are afraid.
    6. I infer you are paranoid.
    7. You believe you are sincere.
    8. I believe you are a troll.

    29. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

    Comment #36794 by 601 on May 2, 2007 at 10:49 am

    Thoughts on "Sermon 1"

    ...in inspiring Christians to fight for justice and confront oppression...
    So a few xians challenge what they otherwise generally accept, patriarchal inequality and tyranny by force, unimpressive.

    ...the Arts... - it doesn't depend on experiment.

    The reason Shakespeare is so popular is that he knows so much about the human condition.
    The difference between a hit and a flop is a scientific experiment.

    Christianity begins with Jesus Christ and his summons to discipleship. Everything else in the Christian religion flows from that.
    from the dictionary: discipleship
    4 : a machine part that receives motion from another part
    Antonyms: leader, independent

    30. The Religion Clause Divided Against Itself

    Comment #26467 by 601 on March 19, 2007 at 1:31 pm

    Steven Mading wrote:

    ...First Amendment has multiple interpretations...
    Certainly, and made even worse by the evolution of the language over the last two centuries.

    The bottom line is that there is no big money to be had in resolving this ambiguity.

    "When my views are that of the majority I like democracy, otherwise I support the minority rights in the Constitution."

    31. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

    Comment #26391 by 601 on March 19, 2007 at 4:41 am

    Andrew wrote:

    ...we have learned how to be human through religion. And how can we not be human? And who would want not to be human?
    I must admit that I don't like the sound of this. The implication is that atheists aren't human, and then as such not entitled to human rights?!?

    This is a perfect example of how moderates enable the fanatics.

    also:
    ...And what will save you then?
    Animals live in mortal fear of death. If we transcend that fear, is it then alright to consider religion pointless?

    32. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

    Comment #26310 by 601 on March 18, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Delusional, insincere, and boring.

    Theists cannot even hypothetically consider the non-existence of their favourite imaginary friend, their mortal fear of being without a benevolent shepherd prevents it.

    "To understand your adversary, you should walk a mile in her shoes. Now you are a mile ahead and he is barefoot."

    33. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

    Comment #26001 by 601 on March 16, 2007 at 3:40 am

    Let's assume for a moment prayer does work.

    If one prays for a bad outcome, can they be charged with assault, or would it just be an "act of god?"

    Sorry, this kind of rational perspective is useless against a mortal-fear child-abused faith-head, who can only process this issue emotionally.

    34. US Congressman Holds No God-Belief

    Comment #25368 by 601 on March 12, 2007 at 5:29 pm

    I sent this email of support

    Hi Representative Pete Stark,

    According to the "Secular Coalition for America" you have acknowledged your personal philosophy of non-theism. I will monitor your site http://www.petestark.com for conformation, and offer a contribution at that time.

    In the mean time, I wish you the best, and hope you will stand firm. I have been waiting all my life for an elected representative to challenge non-religious discrimination.

    Cheers, 601

    35. Beyond Stones & Bones

    Comment #25304 by 601 on March 11, 2007 at 11:31 pm

    Sharon Begley also just wrote the book I'm reading "Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain." It's real science on neuroplasticity and is quite interesting. Curing many dyslexics ("Fast ForWord") by reprogramming neurons (the real problem was 'b' and 'd' sounded the same), and other non-chemical therapies to tune ones gray matter.

    36. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

    Comment #25067 by 601 on March 10, 2007 at 1:56 am

    RE: Carl S. Richardson

    * I don't say this to discredit the effect of faith on King however I think some theists go over the top when they make out how influential faith really was on certain people...
    I think the real situation is inside-out. For MLK (and other agents of change) his preaching provided protection from the other side. Even some of his worst opponents were inhibited by their fear of god, and this gave him enough room to reach the tipping point.

    37. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

    Comment #22456 by 601 on February 18, 2007 at 9:52 pm

    If I may be so bold, I would like to hear how Andrew and Sam would answer this question:

    How does faith inform judgment?
    Sometimes I think I'm crazy, and those are my lucid moments, but this has no effect on anybody else while it's kept to myself. It is only if (or when) it manifests as some action on my part that my delusions influence others. How may we expect judgments based on faith to differ from those based solely on reason?

    38. Is God a Delusion? Atheism and the Meaning of Life

    Comment #21980 by 601 on February 12, 2007 at 3:05 am

    Although tedious to listen to the whole thing, I was quite pleased. McGrath seems to be on the run, and the audience was not that supportive. A theologian enthusiastic to debate the existance of god is a clear defeat. Of course the cynic in me suspects he wants to debate Dawkins to promote his new book.

    39. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

    Comment #21215 by 601 on February 8, 2007 at 4:11 am

    RE: Sancus "Science is not a democracy at all."
    The are NO absolutes. At least I'm pretty sure?

    Herein lies the problem, all we have are observations and opinions, in fact you are observing an opinion right now. Science is built with theories upon axioms, which are all opinions; but many achieve consensus status. When the consensus is near universal we call it a scientific fact, and this is the best we can do in an open system like our universe.

    Even if everyone in the world voted on a resolution that pi is exactly 3, a circle's ratio would not change. In this sense you are absolutely correct (IMHO) that science is NOT a democracy.

    But the consensus gathering (peer review) of axioms, methodology and such is quite democratic and, I would argue, requires more than a simple majority.

    What distinguishes religion (and the super-natural) is that although they have plenty of opinions they lack any observations. Like a house of cards without a table to build on, at least science has a surface upon which to start.

    science = observations + opinions
    religion = feelings + opinions

    Moving back to your original points, replication of results can indeed be individual. It only requires that the individual do the experiment more than once. That leaves peer review and "vote" on quality, neither of which is relevant to an individual who's interested in keeping her knowledge private.
    I meant to imply "others replicating the results" as would be a normal part of a peer review, and relevant to publishing one's theory in hope of joining the consensus.

    40. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

    Comment #20699 by 601 on February 6, 2007 at 1:17 am

    RE: Sancus "Scientific truth is not determined by consensus."
    An original scientific theory, initial experiments, predictions, methodology and such can be individual. But peer review, replication of results, etc. "vote" on quality. If a super-majority (maybe 80%) agree with the process then the theory becomes accepted as part of the "Scientific Consensus."

    This differs from "normal" democracy in that a theory say, IF A THEN B, only the "IF A THEN" part is really judged, the implied conclusion is not a matter of opinion.

    So Sam is safe with:
    Consensus really is the gold-standard...Eventually, however, others will authenticate his/her results.

    41. The Ego and the ID

    Comment #19906 by 601 on January 30, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    Can we turn this around by advocating the teaching of ethics (psych/social science based) in schools at the publics expense.

    Maybe even require churches to explain "cult" techniques and such (full disclosure), and a precede services with a "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer to keep their tax free status?

    42. Arguing for Atheism

    Comment #19219 by 601 on January 25, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    ...often attributed solely to religion by atheists...

    Most conflicts are not caused by religion.

    However, religion is ideal for marketing and "rationalizing" putting hurt on others. It is all too easy to transform local injustice (political, economic, etc.) into a religious struggle. Fighting for justice isn't sexy, only wimps whine about injustice.

    43. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

    Comment #18443 by 601 on January 20, 2007 at 11:06 pm

    Brilliant, just brilliant.

    44. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

    Comment #18403 by 601 on January 20, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    Fear is the root of all religion, but love is the cure. Love and fear are antonyms.

    45. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

    Comment #18008 by 601 on January 17, 2007 at 11:25 pm

    Congratulations to both of you for your civility.

    We must teach by example how healthy people conduct a friendly argument. In moderation, emotion, sarcasm, jabs and such add a little spice to the debate, and thankfully (at least so far) we have not gone off the rails.

    It is critical to establish the common ground at the outset. However, I must admit, this kind of preface would be tediously boring for a TV format, unfortunatly vicious raging attracts the widest viewership.

    Best wishes to all.

    46. Copy of The God Delusion Purchased for $20,000

    Comment #17447 by 601 on January 13, 2007 at 7:58 pm

    My symbol (it made the finals) is based on a chromosome, as discussed here:

    http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17981&highlight=#17981

    Or for the original:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/freethought_symbology.php#comment-256905

    47. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

    Comment #17421 by 601 on January 13, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    Frosty - "...everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."

    Curiously, that IS exactly what I thought AnIT predicts.

    Balancing majority and minority rights is never easy, and what we teach the children is a keystone for the future. The stakes are high.

    Science Friendly Crowd: Teach the scientific consensus in science class, expect it to evolve over time.

    Religious Insecurity Crowd: All classes are theology, promote locally popular dogma, preemptively defend against challenges.

    48. Consciousness Without Faith

    Comment #16577 by 601 on January 7, 2007 at 12:33 pm

    My favourite theory of consciousness (I can't think of the source) is that we "think" about 10,000 thoughts simultaneously, and when a thought is replicated (via a natural selection like process) to a certain threshold (maybe >50%) it emerges as our "conscious" thought.

    A new stimulus (visual, a sound, a smell/taste, a touch) or a fledgling association will trigger the replication of a new thought, if it reaches the threshold it becomes our "next" conscious thought.

    Stretching further, meditation could be the "willful?" art of keeping all thoughts below the threshold, preventing a conscious thought and giving the sense of "selflessness". Curiously, by NOT having one focused thought we feel "one" with the universe.

    49. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

    Comment #15453 by 601 on December 31, 2006 at 12:20 pm

    A constructive dialog requires at least some common ground. In this debate there may not be the necessary minimum shared context.

    1. Universe: supernatural vs natural

    2. Judgement: absolute vs relative (good/evil vs better/worse)

    3. Existance: immortal soul vs mortal flesh

    4. Purpose: mysterious w/rules vs unknowable

    5. Truth: emotional faith vs logical reason

    Upon reflection, I'm surprised we get along as well as we do!

    50. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

    Comment #15112 by 601 on December 29, 2006 at 2:16 am

    I agree that "atheist" is an unfriendly moniker, but as the underdog in this contest, we can rarely set the frame of discourse.

    Fear is the prime mover for most people, and fear of death probably tops the list (no surprise, since fear of death is very "naturally selected" through evolution for obvious reasons).

    Challenging the faithful on their post-mortem fantasies is for them a psychological death blow.

    For example, if one tries to convert an atheist to a theology she could listen with interest, ask questions, and honestly consider the option.

    In contrast, even suggesting a sub-supernatural belief system to the believer evokes a fight or flight response.