1. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58972 by VinceMcD on July 26, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Wow!...Just ...Wow!

2. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58695 by VinceMcD on July 25, 2007 at 8:20 pm

His blind embrace of American imperialism and disregard for the rule of law makes him no better than the apologists for radical Islam and Christianity he seeks to discredit. His moral certitude and arrogance are no different. The consequences are as dangerous.

I give up?

What is Hedges talking about?

3. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58167 by VinceMcD on July 23, 2007 at 7:42 pm

I don't think the point is to debate the "dangerous ideas" here; however the author raises a great point.

I believe that discussions about these topics need be happen no matter how outlandish. It first serves to debunk those ideas based in horse shit, secondly it will educate and expose others to reason so that we understand why an idea is crap, and not just dogmatically regurgitating what we heard on a sound bite or the moron next door told us.

Idealistic tangent: if more people practiced this type of discourse we may just make some headway and open a few minds.
[taps shoes together 3 times and hopes]

4. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #58032 by VinceMcD on July 23, 2007 at 3:56 am

Comment #57998 by Friend Giskard
As DV82XL points out, this lecture is just another sad case in the rising tide of attacks against the lanthanide community. When will it end?

[smirk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmium

Too funny. Please allow me to retort:

I was magnetically drawn to your argument at first but in light of the obvious typo am repelled by it now.

We should be more noble and not go on ad caesium ridiculing someone's keyboard miscue.

5. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #57985 by VinceMcD on July 22, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Comment #57976 by PeterK
Just another bloke preaching to his choir;

Courtesy of Monty Python:

Let us praise God.
O Lord...
Ooh, You are so big...
So absolutely huge.
Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.

6. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #57970 by VinceMcD on July 22, 2007 at 5:35 pm

This "rebuttal" is simply the rehashing of quasi arguments.

Midgley gives 4 basic argumets:

1. Dawkins is seting up a 'Straw Man' since the story of creation isn't the only reason to belive.

What RD does in TGD is lay out why there is no reason at all to believe in god. He illustrates the overwhelming evidence for evolution versus absolutely none in favor for design. His thesis is not however that religious belief hinges only on this point. The good reverend missed that I guess.

2. Dawkins gives us a false choice. Why can't god be not only in the gaps.

Hmmm....OK but this doesn't offer any more reason to subscribe to religion. If you want to tell me that water boils at 100 degrees because god deemed it to be so, OK fine, but you still give no REASON to believe this. This falls under the infinite regression column.

3. Dawkins has a lack of humility. Throughout history many theories we believed to be true were later overturned through 'radical theory change'. Dawkins should be more humble.

The reverend would almost have half a point...EXCEPT RD is not proffering a theory AT ALL about god. Dawkins et al are merely saying that there is no reason WHATEVER to believe in god. If Midgley was referring to evolution then first I would remind him that Dawkins did not actually come up with that one.

4. Dawkins falsely accuses religious faith as being 'blind faith'. Christianity has never advocated belief in the absence of evidence.

WWWWWWHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTT?????
Clearly reverend Midgley was suffering from some sort of hypoglycemic event here having droned on for such a long bit. He even cites the story of Jesus allowing Thomas to probe his wounds as encouraging a healthy sense of doubt. The fundamental problem with this argument is that Thomas had the benefit(according to the story) of being provided with physical evidence to assuage his doubts and give him a reason to believe that his good buddy was indeed resurrected. Lucky him. The rest of us BY DEFINITION are expected to have faith since no evidence has been so presented to us and nor is any forthcoming.

Midgley states that "Dawkins admits science will never be able to disprove the existence of god".

Someone tll the poor reverend about the FSM!

He fails to see that the burden of proof is on THEM to prove what they claim not on us to disprove it.

In all, none of the "arguments" are new, or particularly cogent.

7. Face to faith

Comment #57845 by VinceMcD on July 21, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Comment #57835 by Bonzai

Why is it wrong to explore the role of religion from the stand point of culture and society?

The repeated mantra that "religion is false" and therefore not worth studying is ignorant, shallow and tiresome. Yes, religion is factually false but so are the writings of Shakesphare. Would people dismiss literary and theatre scholarship just because "they are all stories"?

It is not wrong to study religion from a stand point of culture and society at all. I don't think any of "the trinity" as you call them would disagree with me. The problem is that it is first necessary to put religion on the same level as any other mythology and then by all means study your heart's content. None of us would look down our academic noses at a professor of Greek Mythology at all. We would think him quite off his pot however, should he start praying to Zeus daily. (and more dangerously, believing Zeus is communicating with him)

From a sociological and anthropological point of view the truth or falsity of religion is perhaps the least interesting aspect of it.

I couldn't agree with this more. However I don't think it is the thesis of any of our revered writers. If you believe Dawkins "glossed over everything else" then perhaps you missed the main point of the book. He didn't include a chapter on anti-retroviral medication research either. Do you think Dawkins thinks this an unworthy pursuit as well?

We all know fictions and mythologies are false, that is a given, but there is much more we can say about them.

While we ALL may know fictions and mythologies are false, MOST people, in the United States anyway, approach religion not as an interesting sociological or anthropological topic, but rather from a position of reverence and dogmatic belief. Therein lies the problem.

8. Face to faith

Comment #57802 by VinceMcD on July 21, 2007 at 6:31 am

I think that Dawkins, Dennett, et al have make sufficient argument to support the case against religion's veracity. Why is it necessary to "engage previous works" as Lynch puts it.

Once I prove witchcraft is bunk, do I need to pick apart works such as Wendy the Good Witch's Guide to Great Spells or 7 Bad Spells You Can Learn in 30 Minutes a Day?

I think not.

9. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57714 by VinceMcD on July 20, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Incidentally, the good thing about a purely private marriage is that, if you don't tell anyone, you avoid a lot of nonsense. No stuffing dollars in g-strings at a bachelor party. No wedding gifts, or need to wear uncomfortable clothes. No caterer, though a falafel sandwich after the notary signing does hit the spot.

So..............to review..............dollars in g-stings .......a bad thing????............hmmmm.............let us agree to disagree sir.

hehehehe

10. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57691 by VinceMcD on July 20, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Fedler,

Thanks. Learn something new everyday!

11. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57683 by VinceMcD on July 20, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Barbara : I agree. However, by reciting the pledge as it should be written is an expression of patriotism without a proclamation of faith. I love my country. I don't always agree with the way it is run and I most certainly do not want it to become a theocracy. This was a small request to show support for our troops. Whether Mr Habecker is for or against the war I do not know. But our troops deserve the support of their country.

______________
You bring up another point, IMHO the "supporting our troops" movement has been given the same special privileges that religious beliefs are.
I think it is the ULTIMATE support of our country to stand up to this coercion. Why do Americans need to lie prostrate at the feet our our government/military and make devotional utterances such as "I support our troops" this vacuous statement does nothing to support anything.( To be brutally honest we do support our troops every waking moment in the form of taxes. This financial support is all that they truly need is it not. How many "well-wishes" and yellow ribbons protect our troops against IED's? Body armor costs money.)

I empathize with those soldiers who are in harm's way and I do believe we have an obligation to for lack of a better word, care for them. But empty statements like "I suport our troops hoo rah!" mean nothing. In my opinion it is our responsibility to question that which is wrong and unjust and "unamerican" and speak out against it. Or else, we cheapen the sacrifice that those who have died in our service have made.

12. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57677 by VinceMcD on July 20, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Rtambree,

I agree it can be as dangerous. However it becomes geometrically worse when you believe that god is on your country's side. This seems to be at the heart of at least some of our problems. The religious have infused their identity into what is considered "American".

This is precisely why we must rail against the creeping in of god and all the symbolism into our national identity. I would submit this is at least in part responsible for the backlash that atheists face in America. You are perceived as un-American if you don't love jesus (santa claus, the tooth fairy et al)

Tangent: what if you are about to testify in court and are asked to swear on a bible and you are an atheist? What do they do? Is your testimony automatically discredited? Just a thought.

13. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57668 by VinceMcD on July 20, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Barbara,

If he did that then he would be no better than the "liberal christians" who pick and choose what bits of the bible they lend credence to.

The point is this: any pledge of allegiance should be devoid of a proclamation of faith.

I applaud his stance.

14. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57650 by VinceMcD on July 20, 2007 at 12:25 pm

I remember watching that debate, and when those 3 hands went up, my hope in a secular country went markedly down.

How can we maintain any sense of dignity in the world community with a man (or woman) at the helm that says to himself, "Yeah I see all your fancy smancy science, Mr. Eggheads, but I'm gonna let old J.C. be my guide on this issue." ?

It's almost enough to make me wish I were Dutch!

Could we get Jillette nominated hehehe! It's about time we had a 6'6" pony tailed, nail polish wearing, outspoken, man of reason living at 1600 Pennsylvania ave.

15. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57209 by VinceMcD on July 18, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Thanks USA I couldn't hear the words; cursed real player!

16. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57185 by VinceMcD on July 18, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Anyone catch the enema comment? I think they censored it. Did anyone understand what Hitch said "give him an enema.....??????"

17. Is there an Artificial God?

Comment #57154 by VinceMcD on July 18, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Let's just hope we don't enter the 5th age of sand- where we 'de-volve' as a result of clash of religion with technology. Although this will 'clear the room' for those finicky dragons :-)