1. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #182690 by Rob3fm on May 20, 2008 at 9:24 pm

Wow, some of you are pretty rough on that first-poster. Seemed harmless to me.

2. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136855 by Rob3fm on March 1, 2008 at 9:39 pm

I listen to Maher's show every week as a podcast (it's free on iTunes--and probably elsewhere--in case any of you don't get HBO and want Bill for free), so I miss whatever pleasures the video may have to offer.

But anyway, I enjoy his show a lot. I laugh and enjoy the conversations, but it still can be infuriating to listen to. His monologues are sometimes embarrassingly bad, and he can be REALLY hypocritical and inconsistent with his logic. And I can see the misogyny charge that Pentecost is making. There have been several just plain mean jokes that were clearly not tongue-in-cheek. One thing that sticks out in my mind right now is a rant he did about mothers breastfeeding in public. He boiled the issue down to mothers being self-righteous about how their status as divine mothers or something can't be criticized, and he said something like "wow, you made a baby--something a monkey could do." I'm totally paraphrasing off the top of my head. Anyway, it really pissed me off, as he totally missed the point of what it can be like to have babies and really want to occasionally go out and feel like a normal human participant in society while caring for a newborn--which can be really stressful, Bill! You ass. (Love your show!)

3. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97123 by Rob3fm on December 11, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Have you read how Jesus responded when his disciples asked him to teach them to pray?

4. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96618 by Rob3fm on December 10, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Oh, and everyone, click [comment posting guidlines] above the posting form, it tells you how to do all the tags.

5. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96588 by Rob3fm on December 10, 2007 at 6:28 pm

"To say that it's like our having to look at Christian displays is ridiculous to me. They're not saying that our worldview is responsible for a horrible terrorist attack when they put up a cross, for Christ's sake!"

---No, they are saying we will all burn in hell for all eternity if we do not convert to their faith and accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior. It's perfectly benign and humane.---


"Can we show a litte humanity, my fellow atheists?"

---Are you kidding? How is it "inhumane" to put up a sign? I'll be happy to shut up as soon as religionists stop trying to convert everyone to their dangerous irrational beliefs, stop interfering in the progress of science, and stop interfering in the running of my country. Until then, sorry.---

I don't mean it's inhumane to put up the sign. I'm all for the occasional provoking to make a point. Nor am I even saying that their level of offense is justified. I'm simply saying that I think we should understand when religious people don't make the connections that we do between their "harmless" faith and the horrific acts of fundamentalist terrorists. Sure, many of them believe horrible things about us, but I still don't see how displaying Christian symbols that atheists have to look at is in any way equivalent to a provocative poster like this one.

To clarify, I think it's a great poster. It makes our point in a piercing and meaningful way. But I think some religious people have a right to take offense. I don't think we need to insult people for being upset when we lump all religion in with violent fundamentalism. Again, not all religious people see the connection when they themselves are peaceful people.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to quote previous posts like everyone else does. Can someone tell me how you do that, please?

6. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96413 by Rob3fm on December 10, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Frankly, I think we're all being a little mean in our responses here. It IS an upsetting poster. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, but it's provocative.

To say that it's like our having to look at Christian displays is ridiculous to me. They're not saying that our worldview is responsible for a horrible terrorist attack when they put up a cross, for Christ's sake!

If we started seeing signs of bodies of Holocaust victims with the caption, saying "If Hitler followed Christ, would he have done this?" that would be a little more comparable. No, I'm not buying the idea that Hitler was an atheist and did what he did because of that. I'm just saying that it's understandable that religious people who would never harm anyone are upset when we say that their beliefs are somehow responsible for 9/11.

Can we show a litte humanity, my fellow atheists?

7. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90173 by Rob3fm on November 23, 2007 at 8:58 am

"...how sure are that this was properly controlled? It could be one of those social science "experiments" where the over eager researcher sort of gives the answer away non-verbally. Maybe the babies felt that they were expected to choose a certain shape."

I m a sientist who wurkd on the studee. Dont wurry, I am super smart. But wut exactlee do you meen by "controlled" now? We were definitly in control if thats wut you meen.

8. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #81514 by Rob3fm on October 24, 2007 at 9:18 pm

This is one of the better points that theists make, actually. It isn't convincing as an argument for God's existence, but at least it gives an atheist a better understanding of what it's like to believe something that's "in one's heart" that just can't be proved to someone else. Ultimately, there are certain things we just have to trust about each other--to a degree.

In order to say we believe or don't believe in God, we must first define what God is, and it's the same with love. In order to tell someone I love him or her, we must agree on what love means. Maybe someday we will agree on the brain activity that correlates to the feelings we call love, but the feeling itself is something we must assume is the same, much like our assumptions about color looking the same to two different people. Based on the similarities in human construction and behavior, it's a reasonable assumption to make that we can trust each other about what love is. If we agree on what the feeling of love is, and the recognizable patterns of behavior are there, then it's a reasonable assumption. If my wife believes that I love her, that's not blind faith based solely on a feeling. Contrary evidence could sway her belief in my love for her. Certainly a cunning person could convince someone else of his or her (false) love for another with appropriate behavior. Or someone could tell someone he or she loves another unconvincingly. My point is, people's feelings could be wrong in some situations, but in most cases the recognizable patterns of behavior are convincing enough to be safely "believed."

9. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53524 by Rob3fm on July 1, 2007 at 11:14 pm

I just hope I get to see flying dogs in my lifetime.

10. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45979 by Rob3fm on May 30, 2007 at 12:06 am

I've read your book Mr. Dawkins (well, not just one), and I've seen many of your interviews, and I'm convinced you do get it. I think many people want you to preface every criticism you have with something nice--probably because what you have to say is unpopular. I think you've found a proper middle ground: you've never seemed mean or personal in your attacks, yet you come across harshly enough to make an impression and maybe get some people to think a little harder.

11. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #39069 by Rob3fm on May 9, 2007 at 11:05 pm

In regards to the moral relativism argument: if morality exists anywhere outside of our minds, does Rev. Sharpton think that there was morality before humans were here? Were dinosaurs good or bad? Did God just invent morality for us? I would guess it doesn't apply to fish or lions or birds. If it does, I know some animals who are very evil.

12. If they preach the cause of the poor, they're my people

Comment #16038 by Rob3fm on January 4, 2007 at 8:27 am

Sounds a bit like a religious person masquerading to make a point. Not that I really think that, just sounds a bit like it.

Yeah, I think he makes a few irrational statements that other posters have pointed out, but I don't think we should completely dismiss his point (as he strangely does Dawkins' TGD. Did he even read it?) about the dominance by religious groups in areas of service to others. Granted, there are plenty of good arguments against the overall value of the "good" that religions do, but I don't think it serves us well to just talk about how bad they are.

On that note, has anybody read "Secular Wholeness" by David Cortesi? Interesting, succinct book about what's good about religion, and secular alternatives. It's more on a personal level than a social one, but it still relates to this topic.

13. Letter From America: Atheists throw down the gauntlet

Comment #16032 by Rob3fm on January 4, 2007 at 8:12 am

Like "dpieper" up there, I don't like to think in terms of our being at war with religious people. If we must use "war," I'd rather think of the ideas themselves being at war. That's the approach that allows frank criticism without being personally disrespectful. I'm always happy to defend my ideas with someone who disagrees with me, as long as I don't feel personally attacked.