1. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #181440 by ignored_ethos2 on May 17, 2008 at 8:33 am

To comment #87291, truth & light:

I believe many people simply believe in belief. Dennet did a good presentation on this but I can't find it at the moment.

2. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #119398 by ignored_ethos2 on January 31, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Happy Birthday Josh and thanks for all you do here!

-Mark

3. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108247 by ignored_ethos2 on January 6, 2008 at 10:02 am

None of this would work with the theists that I know, most of which I would say are typical representations. To any and all they would simply answer:

"Ah but you are trying to reason about something which is beyond reason..." and other such nonsense.

If someone has given up their rational mind and decided that their god is beyond our understanding then a rational, common sense list of reasons not to believe is not very effective.

4. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104351 by ignored_ethos2 on December 28, 2007 at 11:09 am

annabanana:

I am disgusted to hear people simply dismiss the voices of reason of our Founding Fathers.

This is how I feel when I see people heap praise on people that were really just a bunch of capitalist opportunists (at best). The wisdom of the founding fathers is real, the effects are real, their motives, however, were not the least bit altruistic. We can praise the outcome and we can praise the (positive) results of their actions without praising the men or their motives.

Please go back to U.S. History and American Lit. and brush up a bit, then try again.

I fear you mean well but are simply a victim of the American propaganda, education system. History is (mostly) written by the victor. Again, I would suggest reading Zinn's History of America.

Also, saying that the U.S. is more or less "free" than other countries that have many freedoms (like those in Europe and Australia) is silly. Please let me know when you have devised some sort of formula or device for measuring the exact degree of freedom and then we'll talk.

There exists at least one "freedom index", probably more. I would think the U.N. probably also publishes a similar list. There are several ways to calculate which countries are the most free, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise though when you consider that if you have enough data points, mathematically, you can rank anything.

5. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104088 by ignored_ethos2 on December 27, 2007 at 9:23 pm

I agree with gkkalai to a point. Anyone who has read Howard Zinn knows that this country was founded by a powerful oligarchy bent on power and profit.

"...They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership..."

A People's History of the United States of America, 1492-Present,

Howard Zinn, p.59

What they didn't know is that this legal unity, I believe, has the power to transcend its less than noble ambitions and aspire to be something more than a power play by the wealthy; it may even some day live up to its promises of liberty, just so long as we keep the same powers that bore it from controlling it in perpetuity.

6. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #102282 by ignored_ethos2 on December 22, 2007 at 8:33 am

"Epicurus and Democritus had brilliantly discovered that the world was made up of atoms, but who cares about a mere fact like that when there is miraculous oil to be goggled at by credulous peasants?"

This just about says it all! Hitch is right on target again. I was referred to this story from the avclub story and I am so glad I took the time to read this story first. I came here for context but got so much more.

7. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96663 by ignored_ethos2 on December 10, 2007 at 8:01 pm

The father seems to be trying to get Dawkins to admit that atheist are just as bad as the theists.

Of course, he is completely wrong for all of the reasons that have already been mentioned but to me I can't help but think that even if he were to succeed what kind of victory would that be?

In my experience you only see one side trying to elicit a mutual concession of wrongdoing when they are obviously at a disadvantage or just completely losing.

The tide is turning.

8. The art of the soluble

Comment #95832 by ignored_ethos2 on December 9, 2007 at 9:59 am

Yes, this is an excellent idea. There was discussion about this previously, and it may have lead to the 'debating points' topic a while back. However, that did not result in what you should suggest.. something like a numbered list of links to explanations.

Yes, I'd keep it in a database for easy updating and have a front-end of some sort to allow searching, browsing and to catch the occasional dead-link and allow it to be reported.

The database could even be cross indexed so that related subject matter could be easily referenced.

9. The art of the soluble

Comment #95829 by ignored_ethos2 on December 9, 2007 at 9:46 am

The problem is that many highly respected physicists consider Stenger wrong about this. I believe the way we deal with this issue is not to (even with the best intentions) cherry-pick the physicist who has the most convenient view, but to point out the logical fallacy of assuming that even if the universe is a highly improbable bit of fine tuning, this is in no way any kind of argument for a supernatural 'first cause' God.

Point taken, and I honestly wasn't aware of that. I guess I need to take my own advice and catch up on some reading. I think Stenger's explanation, even if controversial, is far more probable than an argument of a supernatural 'first cause'.

Though, I also agree that it is a fallacious argument in any respect and needs an official rebuttal on my aforementioned list.

10. The art of the soluble

Comment #95822 by ignored_ethos2 on December 9, 2007 at 9:33 am

In Reply to Comment #95800 by steve99
Indeed. It would be interesting to know what constitutes "substance" and "evidence" for theologists.

I know you all feel my pain when I say I tire of repeating myself, so much so, that I seldom do anymore. However, sometimes I get in the mood to do it one more time. We need some sort of list, a set of rules or guidelines for discussion. I would suggest somewhere at the top it would have some sort of directive like this:


#5 - Theology is not a proper subject, please make no references to any apparent lack of a theological argument. Also see: #12 -'The Courtier's Reply'


Then we could just write our comments in some sort of numerical format:

See, #2, #4, #17 and don't forget #221

11. The art of the soluble

Comment #95814 by ignored_ethos2 on December 9, 2007 at 9:19 am

In reply to Comment #95773 by ADH
Someone was commenting on how so many just do not read, apparently this is the case here as well. This has been dealt with so, so many times this argument is not only down but about six feet under. There is an entire section in Victor J. Stenger's excellent book that deals specifically with this question and does so in a way that is, in my personal opinion, the best I've yet seen.

ADH: The next time you are in your favorite local bookstore I suggest you flip through this:

God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

12. Jesus Camp: A scary movie that should frighten us all

Comment #86133 by ignored_ethos2 on November 8, 2007 at 8:09 am

konquererz - What exactly where you doing when you were speaking in tongues? Is it just self-delusion or some sort of hypnotic trance?

My mother does this and I always wondered if she knows she is faking it or if even she believes it herself.

I never spoke in tongues as I had pretty much broken the spell by the time I was old enough to have been expected to do so. In fact, the existence of this "phenomena" (for lack of a better word) helped me break the spell for good.

I remember listening very closely and not being able find a pattern. There are no actual words that can be consistently translated though many similar sylables are often repeated.

I would sometimes write down or try to remember the preacher's claimed inspired translation to compare to future translations. It didn't always happen but I remember the preacher trying to make it very dramatic.

I was repeatedly told not to question it, something that has never gone over well with me.

I also remember thinking how extremely bizarre it was that all these adults were pretending to speak another language, everyone knew it was pretend, and no one would admit it.

I asked my mother if they have ever had a linguist come in and try to capture this new, unknown language and she accused me (for the first time) of blasphemy.

13. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69967 by ignored_ethos2 on September 13, 2007 at 11:57 am

To grossly over simplify the article that Sam is responding to would be to say that it is more of the same "I don't agree with them either but we should respect them and their beliefs anyway" argument.

I disagree.

14. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65480 by ignored_ethos2 on August 24, 2007 at 12:36 pm

I posted the following:

I believe that in this modern world there is no longer any excuse to maintain a world view that is dependent on faith. In fact there is no reason whatsoever to accept anything based on insufficient evidence. Though I believe we owe our natural proclivity toward faith to evolutionary origins it can no longer be seen as a quality but is indeed nothing more than a character flaw and we should strive to leave it in the Bronze Age where it belongs.

15. Diamonds unlock secrets of early Earth

Comment #65479 by ignored_ethos2 on August 24, 2007 at 12:28 pm

I wonder what effect this will have on moon origin theories. Maybe collision theory dating is off or maybe earth actually cooled very quickly or?

16. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62565 by ignored_ethos2 on August 10, 2007 at 6:20 am

Mr. Lawson is wearing rose colored glasses when he views religion, funny how he can see other forms of charlatanry perfectly clearly without any tint or hue. The problem here is that he is simply wrong. It is a common problem. The apologists always seem to redefine god and/or religion as something that is ultimately a net positive, or at least benign, but that simply isn't the fact,
especially if you live in America or any Islamic state.

The whole of the article is somewhat of a straw man as it attempts to first tell us what religion (actually) is (as if we don't live in the same world) and then chide us for having the audacity to think it is the same as those homeopathy clowns.

This fallacy is a cousin to the "No True Scotsman" argument in that, like all the other apologists, we apparently don't know the "real" religion or the "real" god.

-Mark

17. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62464 by ignored_ethos2 on August 9, 2007 at 8:17 pm

There is one customer comment now on the Amazon site. Not exactly a best seller. I'm sure you can guess what the "customer" rated it.

Also, I found this comment interesting:

My copy of this book came shrink wrapped, and I was surprised that the cover is bound upside-down, which must be a joke about the village idiot/atheist mindset.

Yeah, either that or it is just a crappy publisher.

18. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59504 by ignored_ethos2 on July 29, 2007 at 9:18 am

I like this campaign but these shirts are just not my style. I'd like it to be a more subtle message. It can still be effective without being so large. Just look at the "W" sticker campaign, that was, unfortunately popular.

I'd design something with whatever is the closest universally acceptable "official" symbol for atheism but I'd make it small and tasteful. On the back of the shirt I'd have the Richard Dawkins.net Logo

-Mark

19. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58259 by ignored_ethos2 on July 24, 2007 at 7:06 am

BMMcArdle - Your post amused me because I am currently reading "Consciousness Explained" and having a very tough time of it. I think I'm gonna start again but this time I'm taking notes. Take a look at this book and if you still think consciousness is a simple subject you are far smarter than I

ie

20. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #56006 by ignored_ethos2 on July 13, 2007 at 7:44 am

gr8hands - I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding but I am in no way granting the possibility that it could ever be true and I am only stating, as you did:

"In order for Wilson to "have a good argument" ALL of his suppositions would have to be true (god exists, created the world/mankind/morality, has all the characteristics as described in the bible)"

However, I did not go to the trouble of spelling it all out as you did. I never implied that it was possible. As a matter of fact I very plainly stated that this was not the case.

Perhaps I could have made the point more clearly but I'd be surprised if that, in this forum, such verbosity was a necessity.

21. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55881 by ignored_ethos2 on July 12, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Wilson's argument seems to assume that the question of god's existence and the question of the origin of morals is already decided. His entire argument flows from this assumption and were it true he might even have a good argument. The problem is that it is not true, or at the very least we have no reason to believe that it is true. The ironic thing is that both Hitchens and Douglas (in reality) arrive at their moral decisions in exactly the same way, even when arguing over where morals originate. The truly sad thing is that only Hitchens is willing to admit to this.

Having said all that, I would not have even sullied myself to accept such a debate were I Hitchens. The question is not about the good or evil of religion, but of the existence of a supernatural entity. Having no reason to believe in such a being, the entire argument is moot.

22. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #53940 by ignored_ethos2 on July 4, 2007 at 9:37 am

Xenocratic, I'm finding myself agreeing with you as well. I would like to believe that for the most part Hitchens would also agree. Many on this forum want to blame religion for everything, and this works a lot of the time because, well, religion is to blame for so much that is wrong in the world but this overlooks many important factors, that are equally to blame.

Yes, our actions as a nation have consequences, consequences that we are now seeing everyday. Religion may at least be partly responsible but all these people (extremist, fundamentalist) need is a catalyst and the American government seems to be eager to play the accelerant role in the great arson of our society.

Keep on posting, maybe people will begin to do as Fanusi Khiyal suggests and "Dare to Know".

23. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #50461 by ignored_ethos2 on June 18, 2007 at 9:45 am

konquererz:

Warning: wild speculation…

At the risk of sounding elitist or perpetuating the common criticism that atheist are arrogant I have to say that my theory is that these types of conversions are possible due to a combination of intelligence and education.

I know it is true that many claim faith and are also very educated and intelligent so I qualify this by saying that I believe these to be merely sufficient factors for escaping Christianity and only a rough indicator not a perfect (or even precise) indicator of atheism.

However, sometimes I suspect, and I must stress that I do not believe this in all cases, that many of these intelligent, educated theist are not being honest either with themselves or with others. They may have ulterior motives for their beliefs or may have too much intellectual (or other) capital invested and cannot afford to be honest about their lack of belief.

I also know that it could be true that there are atheists that are uneducated people of only average (or lower) intelligence and that the fact that I have not ever met any is not a valid argument against their existence. Still, if they do exist I don't see this as something that invalidates my reasoning unless they existed in very large numbers because I would suspect their numbers would be small. If so, it would further support the following crazy assumption that I'm about to make.

I have absolutely no evidence to support my assertions (though some may exist) so take them with a grain of salt but I would not be surprised if it was found that intelligence and education is inversely proportionate to the chances that a person is a theist.

If anyone has any data related to this type of question I'd love to see it and it doesn't matter if it shows me to be completely wrong in every way because unlike the vast majority of Christians I sort of like being proved wrong. How else will I know when I'm correct?

-ie

24. In the know

Comment #50359 by ignored_ethos2 on June 17, 2007 at 7:12 am

pewkatchoo:

Can I have permission to use this:

"Now, let me explain the words you cannot currently use to describe atheism.

Militant, nope, no atheists bombing churches/mosques or even want to pull them down or anything like that.

Rabid, nope, not much in the way of mindless frothing at the mouth to be found there. Just calmly reasoned notions. The worst that they could be considered guilty of is extreme boredom with the intellectual paucity of the arguments of the devout.

Beliefs, nope, atheism is an absence of belief. We don't believe in anything. We do have hopes and aspirations, loves and desires. But no mindless beliefs.

Fundamentalist, nope, nope, nope. This is perhaps the most ridiculous charge laid at the door of the new atheist. There is no doctrine or dogma associated with atheism, so it is not a word that can even remotely be used to describe atheists. Anyone who uses it is a foolish ignoramus who really should buy a new dictionary.

Dogmatic, nope. If you bring me proof of god's existence, and I do mean proof, then I will be quite happy to accept it. I reserve the right to call god an idiot though."

I'd like to use it as part of a standard reply. It would save me some typing as I often get replies from creationist that have all of those words (and then some) in a single reply. I could just save it in a text file and copy/paste when appropriate.

Like you I get really tired or repeating myself so perhaps I'll save up these little gems of clarity and file them by offense. Using them when necessary and only editing them when appropriate for context.

thanks,
ie

25. Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

Comment #49644 by ignored_ethos2 on June 12, 2007 at 5:26 pm

"If anyone pulls the "evolution is only a theory" argument on me, I always ask them if they would like to go and test the "theory of gravity" by stepping off a tall building."

I have had the occasion of having this argument and I can tell you that you would not get very far before the theist states that it should be the "law of gravity". I know, I know but apparently many theists don't.

And in saying so, they inadvertently make a great argument for more effective science education programs in America. However, at this point, what's an honest atheist supposed to do?

I hate to admit it but I really don't argue with creationists/xians or much of anyone anymore.

Once upon a time, perhaps, but I am just about fed up with repeating myself.

I'm thinking of making flashcards and custom t-shirts to make it easier.