1. Giuliani To Regent University: 'The Amount Of Influence You Have Is Really, Really Terrific'

Comment #52818 by BlazingArrow on June 28, 2007 at 6:14 am

... Yeah ... I'm thinking he meant "terrific" in the truer sense of the word ... In that case, Bravo !! ....

2. Tome truths

Comment #49298 by BlazingArrow on June 11, 2007 at 12:28 pm

... Yes ... Excellent indeed ! ...

... Isn't some level of doubt intrinsic to belief itself ? ... Otherwise, we'd be speaking of facts ... That's why I'm hardpressed to understand how anyone can believe anything with absolute certainty as many religious people claim to ... But even those claims-to certainty don't mask the emotions that propel the pious to bash these books ... This article helps expose that insecurity ...

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

Comment #48980 by BlazingArrow on June 9, 2007 at 8:46 pm

26. Comment #48818 by BigJohn on June 9, 2007 at 6:04 am

Will S says "It's a good article, but he still can't face the fact that atheism is a belief: the belief that there is no God."

FALSE! Will, atheism is not a belief!!! Please read this article http://richarddawkins.net/article,1243,n,n

In the comments on that article I say, "Why is this such a difficult concept for so many people? When I tell people that I am an atheist(a rare occasion here, deep in the Bible Belt)I generally get a response like this, 'Oh, so, you believe that there is no god.'. I explain that this is not a correct statement. I say I do not believe, I have no faith. But no one can understand the difference between belief and lack of belief. They are so inured with the idea that one must believe in something, anything, that they cannot absorb the concept of non-belief."

That's my story and I am sticking with it.

... I'd hate to say it, but I don't even think elucidating the semantics will get you very-far here ... There seems to be a problem with many people not seeing atheism as a passive thing; almost as, like you said, one must believe in something in order to function ... There needs to be a greater clarity about passive disbelief vs. active belief; It seems to come-down to a perception of energy exerted: if you say you believe something, I think most people assume that to mean you carry that thought and implement it into your day-to-day life: almost mantra-like, but to say that you don't believe something is almost like dismissing it altogether: hinting at the indifference ... I think this is where people have trouble understanding the difference between the two; It's an incomprehension of a seeming indifference ... It's a natural reaction to the baffling ... I'm probably wrong about alot here; but hopefully it gets us thinking more about the nature of belief ... Just my $.02 ...

... On a similar note, I think it would behoove us to consider changing the way we speak about ourselves and each other ... I propose a lingual-shift from using the word "atheist" in it's noun form, to using the word "atheist" in it's adjective form ... I think many people would be less-quick to expect some sort of active belief against a god as opposed to a more passive non-belief in a god ...

"The universe operates according to orderly laws and yet some scientists claim that it functions without a law giver. How can they be so sure as to call themselves atheists?"


This is very strange reasoning. Mathematicians assume that maths operates according to logic and rationality, yet see no need for a supernatural mathematician who sets up the laws. They realize that mathematics can stand alone.

The same applies to most scientists. The existence of physical laws does not imply the existence of a law-maker.

... This cannot be stressed enough !! ... I think it would do-us-good to come up with many more analogies & examples of this phenomenon ... Too many people look-past this in their creation-based arguments ... The fact that we've observed order in the universe is contingent in the fact that we've observed [and basically created] a way of ordering ... Because I see three apples on a table doesn't mean that these three apples will be universally recognized; If I were a bacterium inside one of the apples, I'm sure things would seem much differently ! ... People seem to forget, we created laws themselves through our own historical perspective ... It is the goal of science to refine and advance these laws to an absolute truth; an absolute constant ...

68. Comment #48939 by darwin2 on June 9, 2007 at 4:43 pm

I agree that organized religions are divisive, dangerous, superstitious, illogical and extremely annoying at times. But I believe it is unrealistic and unscientific to use the atrocities and stupidities of organized religion as a proof against the existence of God. I disagree with Dawkins who proposed that the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that the possibility for the existence of God is very low, almost zero. I am perplexed that scientists can actually come to this conclusion. I believe the opposite of what Dawkins says is true and that the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that the odds are very high, almost 100% that God, the One Surpreme Being, Designer and Creator exists. Would a scientist conclude that the Space Shuttle, one of the most complicated aircrafts in existence, was made by natural selection. The obvious answer is that intelligence was behind its design and creation. The universe is infinitely more complicated that the Space Shuttle and must have had a Designer and Creator. So you atheists out there give me a break. Let's get scientific here and conclude that the probability that God exists is very high.

... No ... The space shuttle appears to be analogous because it's amazing design and creation took place within the [narrow] perspective of your lifetime; The universe affords us no such window ...