1. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #157874 by Kingasaurus on April 9, 2008 at 4:41 pm

To be fair, anybody who thinks a President John McCain working with a Democrat Congress gets right-wing evangelicals all excited is dreaming.

Despite McCain courting the usual suspects, they really don't like him and don't expect their agenda to be enacted if he wins.

2. Beware the Believers

Comment #151994 by Kingasaurus on March 29, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Hey, Wallace:

You unbanned from Pharyngula yet, or can you only post your mindless drivel over here?

3. Beware the Believers

Comment #151989 by Kingasaurus on March 29, 2008 at 10:07 pm

"More importantly, when untangled, these lyrics are actually pretty good. This isn't "Love Me Do"; this is historical hat-tips, challenging juxtaposition, slick rhymes and fast paced exchanges."


I agree, which is why I find it unlikely to originate from the pro-ID people. In the past they've never shown any inkling that they can get their point across without being exceedingly ham-fisted, literal-minded and humorless - and without an ounce of cleverness, I might add.

I'll tip my cap if those knuckleheads are actually responsible for this, but I doubt it.

Too many knowing nods for them to be the culprits:

Democritus vs. Aristotle, Hume vs. Paley, Huxley vs. Wilberforce, the use of the word "framing", Darwin's seasickness, PZ's squid hat, etc.

It's someone who paying a lot of attention to the science vs. religion debate (especially on the internet), enough so that they are familiar with PZ's penchant for cephalopods and his arguments about framing with the tiresome Nisbet.

There are potentially ID people who fit that bill, but I don't see evidence for the sense of humor and cleverness needed to pull something like this off.

What are we to say about a supposed pro-ID viral video which is arguably much more creative, subtle and multi-layered than the actual lame film it is potentially designed to promote? I'm not buying that theory.

4. Beware the Believers

Comment #151740 by Kingasaurus on March 29, 2008 at 9:36 am

Count me in as someone who finds this hilarious, well-made, and pro-science. What creationist would be clever enough to write rap lyrics where Paley is called a "watch-dog"? "Took Wilber by force..."?

No way. This is completely over the head of people like Mathis and his ilk.

Favorites include "Pimp Daddy" Dennett and Chuck D "raising the roof" near the end. Hitch's "I love booze" headband.

One thing on my mind was the question about how RD would react, considering he finds the backwards ballcap irritating in and of itself. Gangsta-rap satire might be too much for him. ;)

5. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80304 by Kingasaurus on October 21, 2007 at 8:50 am

"Secondly the time factor is against the idea - humans who live 60-80 years just simply can't grasp millions of years instinctively"

This is definitely part of it. Tell an average person (even one who accepts evolution a priori) that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and they sort of understand that it's a long time. But the word "million" simply rolls off the tongue easily without much comprehension most of the time. Tell the same person that the dinosaurs died out 650,000 centuries ago, and they get a better grasp of the immensity of time. The word "century" is accessible to them, because a human being never lives much longer than that.

As an experiment, calling it "650,000" centuries instead of "65 million years" really blows their mind and actually gets them to think hard about how long a period we are discussing.

6. Another view

Comment #66179 by Kingasaurus on August 29, 2007 at 7:35 am

Dawkins also talks about alternative medicine relying on the placebo effect. If that were true - which I don't think it is - it still wouldn't make homeopathy invalid. Under the right circumstances, people get great results. I was in practice for 20 years, and I wasn't treating idiots.

7. Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

Comment #65901 by Kingasaurus on August 27, 2007 at 9:47 am

This is all the fault of the Saudis anyway. If you are going to put a Koranic verse or the name of your god on your nation's flag, you have to expect that the flag is going to be reproduced and printed elsewhere in a wide variety of contexts: The Olympic Games, atlases, dictionaries, encyclopedias - not to metion a thousand others.

The last time something of this sort happened, the Saudis were offended when McDonald's printed the Saudi flag (amongst fifty others) on their paper bags as a promotion for the Olympics. The Saudis were mad that Allah's name, printed on these bags, would be thrown in the garbage when people were finished eating.

This sort of hyper-sensitivity is utterly ridiculous, especially since THEY created this potential problem in the first place. They CHOSE to put their god's name on a flag, and nobody forced them to do it. The idea that they now expect the whole world to tiptoe around their sensibilities on this matter is completely absurd.

You don't like it? Change your freaking flag. You can't be expected to have worldwide control over how an image of such a thing is reproduced and disseminated.

This is so backward, there's no doubt in my mind that we're in it for the long haul with these people. These sorts of medieval attitudes don't disappear overnight.

8. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64731 by Kingasaurus on August 21, 2007 at 1:35 pm

What drives me crazy about "journalism" like this is that the central problem never seems to be dealt with. Atheists say there's no proof. Religious rebutters say they have faith and don't need the proof. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

Furthermore, in addition to making it look like atheism is just adolescent rebellion, the way the piece is constructed makes it look like the religious have scored some kind of debating points on the atheists by claiming they were taught at a young age that you can't prove god - and these silly, unsophisticated atheists are telling them something they already know well. I also bristle at the suggestion that since we don't know everything, that supposedly gives you intellectual carte blanche to believe anything you like.

Just once, I'd like a story which deals with the central question: that religious faith is a fundamentally unreliable method of properly distinguishing fact from falsehood. It should be rejected for that reason alone, since very few people deliberately want to believe in something false. This is NEVER discussed in any mainstream media coverage of atheism, and the only place I hear it robustly talked about is when non-believers talk amongst themselves.

9. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61483 by Kingasaurus on August 5, 2007 at 10:33 am

I'm not sure I see the benefits of refusing to call certain kinds of nonsense exactly that, simply because of a kind of strategic concern that some of the nonsense-believers might think you're dogmatic.

The claims psychics, homeopaths and astrologers are either bogus, or they're not.

I can't see why stating out loud that their claims are bogus is a bad idea.

10. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46094 by Kingasaurus on May 30, 2007 at 7:38 am

"If you saw ten men walking towards you late at night, would you be relieved to learn that they were coming from a Bible study meeting?"

Yes (as far as a "yes" goes here), but it's also worth mentioning that immediate, physical danger to your person is not the only type of destructive behavior that we should frown upon or try to avoid.

Maybe these guys are unlikely to mug me, but let's say they are young-Earth creationists. Anybody here who doesn't think those type of beliefs will strongly retard the long-term progress of our culture, even if these guys have little interest in stabbing me or stealing my wallet?

11. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34200 by Kingasaurus on April 23, 2007 at 1:49 pm

"So it was only meant to serve the tautological function of saying "what chimps do is what chimps do," and not meant to validate the notion that we can get a particular morality without God giving it to us?"

The point was our closest living rlatives have acomplex set of social rules that emerged, bottom up, from an evolutionary context. ther's no good reason to think we get our rules in some supernatural, top-down fashion.

Humans aren't a blank slate, our brains are conditioned to prefer certain things over other things. Society is based on that, generally.

12. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34149 by Kingasaurus on April 23, 2007 at 11:05 am

Oh, by the way...

Can someone please tell me when the Great Chimp Lawgiver came down from the mountain with those stone tablets? You know, the ones that tell the chimps exactly which rules they have and how to enforce them within their social structure.

I'd really like to know when that happened, because we all know chimps have these rules where they do things like sharing food, mutual grooming, and much more - while at the same time punishing anyone in the group that misbehaves, for example takes more than their share of food, etc. Quite a complicated social structure with a lot of reciprocal altruism, you know.

And since rules like that can only come from some invisible super-intelligence, the chimps must have been completely wayward, lawless and anarchical before this super-intelligence decided to communicate through the Great Chimp Lawgiver and his stone tablets.

Maybe if someone could get back to me on that?

13. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34136 by Kingasaurus on April 23, 2007 at 10:21 am

Person A: "The God I believe exists tells me not to kill anyone, ever."
Person B: "The God I believe exists tells me to kill, and specifically when and how. Those non-believers especially. Every chance I get."

Person A and Person B are both "appealing to something higher than themselves," but that obviously doesn't settle the issue, does it? Both believe in unproven, invisible gods who tell them to do contradictory things in a specific situation.

This is why god-based morals don't have the advantage over secular ones. The supposed "higher standard" of religious morality only works if you're willing to buy into the idea that a particular god is actually the real thing and not some fantasy - and that this being's opinion of what's "for your own good" is actually hypothetically superior to your own opinion. And there's simply no good reason to do that other than the say-so of certain human beings. Many of whom have been dead for centuries and leave us only hearsay.

If people like Burly Gates aren't willing to accept the say-so of a bunch of human beings ("society", in this case) about how people should behave, why is he supposedly willing to buy into the say-so of human beings that tell him there's some invisible, unproven super-being who will tell us how to behave? And exactly why should I buy into HIS particular deity instead of the beliefs of his Muslim or Hindu neighbor?

Like I said earlier, we're always sitting in the same boat, even if the religious pretend that we aren't in the boat at all simply by adopting their way of thinking.

14. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33519 by Kingasaurus on April 20, 2007 at 1:20 pm

" Significance is a value we place on our existence, so it is very much a human construct."

I agree. There seems to be an issue where people think it's a really big problem if the cosmos is indifferent to us. But why is it a problem? How does it practically affect us in our day to day interactions with others? It just doesn't. Should I just kill myself now because the cosmos is indifferent, or because ten thousand years from now nobody around will remember that I was even alive? Does anyone really take a suggestion like that seriously?

Religious-based moralities are just as subjective and contingent as non-religious ones, even though religious adherents falsely claim otherwise. So no matter which alternative you choose, we're still in the same boat we were in before.

15. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33485 by Kingasaurus on April 20, 2007 at 10:30 am

----2. For Darwinists who disagree with Provine and think that the life and death of a human being is more significant than the life and death of an animal, what is the basis for your disagreement? What are the grounds, consistent with Darwinism, for saying that the life and death of a human being is ultimately more significant than the life and death of a mosquito?----

I object to your word "ultimately". Humans care more about humans than they do about mosquitoes simply because we ARE humans. It matters more to US, and that's what matters. Maybe if we were mosquitoes, we'd care more about them. But our brains have a certain behavioral toolkit in which most of us feel a level of empathy for other humans, which we don't feel generally at the same level for non-human animals. We care more when organisms of high-level consciousness are snuffed out than we do when insects drop like flies.

There are some animal rights people who convince themselves that lobsters have the same right not to be eaten as people do, but very few people actually feel that way. Interestingly, there is usually a sliding scale of empathy based on how "close" (so to speak) the organism is to us. People tend to have a gut reaction against torturing chimpanzees, where they might not have the same feelings at the same levels when it comes to mice. People cringe more if they see a cow being slaughtered than if they step on an ant. These are natural reactions based on our evolutionary history, if you will.

The "divine cosmic justice" theory doesn't make these issues settled, as many religious people think. "God" doesn't make you more valuable, simply because you might believe that "God tells me every human being has worth." Why? Because your next door neighbor might believe that "God wants me to kill everybody not exacly like me, starting with you over there." You have absolutely zero basis for telling your neighbor he's wrong, since you both have faith-based beliefs. How do you know God isn't actually talking to your neighbor and telling him what to do?

16. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33285 by Kingasaurus on April 19, 2007 at 7:38 pm

I don't believe "objective" morality the way Christians define it exists anyway. The basic view is that there is this particular incredibly powerful invisible being, who we can't prove exists nor convince a majority of other Earthlings that he exists (as they believe in different "gods" than we do). We have, however, convinced ourselves (without proof) that he somehow amorphously "helped" certain ancient people write this old book, and because of that we know objectively how we should behave.

This despite the fact that we ignore or explain away a good chunk of what the book says because we find it morally problematic to modern ears. We "don't do that stuff anymore" (see: slavery, etc). But it's objective because we say so and this unproved, invisible being we believe exists is really powerful, knows a lot more than us, and therefore anything he commands must be good - well, just because.


Now can someone tell me exactly what's "objective" about all that?


Edit: Douglas, you don't need a "corporate nervous system" for intelligent, language using social animals (who dislike enduring pain and suffering almost universally), who live in groups and derive benefits from doing so, to decide amongst themselves that they are going to try to minimize such things in their "society". That's about as "objective" as we're going to get and we shouldn't wail and gnash our teeth because a supernatural "objectivity" isn't around to concretize our rules.

There's a reason nearly all human societies outlaw things like murder and theft within the group, because anarchy results if such things are allowed and societally unpunished. Society collapses and the benefits people derive from living in that society disappear. None of this has anything to do with any supernatural order.

17. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33262 by Kingasaurus on April 19, 2007 at 6:23 pm

Gee, I don't know, Mr. Wilson.

Do you seek out injury or enjoy having it inflicted upon you? Do you know anyone who does?

Do you gravitate towards painful situations and experiences? Do you know anyone who does?

Would you like your neighbor to jump the fence and kill you? Do you know anyone who would?

Not sure why you need the cosmic rubber-stamp to tell you these things are generally considered "bad".

18. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33154 by Kingasaurus on April 19, 2007 at 1:48 pm

We'll see how this goes. O'Reilly had tough questions for Sam Harris a while back, but was generally polite and not as combative as I expected. He's a bit tough to figure in that he seems to have little love for fundamentalism, but thinks religion in general is extremely important for society and highly beneficial.

O'Reilly has called Dawkins a "pinhead" on his radio show as recently as a few weeks ago, though I doubt that will get a mention. :)

19. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33136 by Kingasaurus on April 19, 2007 at 12:45 pm

" I think it's great that Mr. Robertson and Mr. Wilson have dropped by here, and I hope we can all invite them to talk. If we're right, then what are we afraid of?"

Since Mr. Robertson has been "dropping by" for several months under at least three different handles, he can hardly complain that people have been unwilling to engage him in discussion. He just doesn't like the answers he's been getting to his questions, as you might expect.

20. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32775 by Kingasaurus on April 18, 2007 at 8:31 am

Feder is the real thing, folks. I used to read his tripe years ago in the Boston Herald, and he hasn't improved a whit since then.

He has always basically argued that since the Jews have been around for a really long time and are still around today, there's something REALLY important and "true" about their theological opinions. There must be, right? How could such false beliefs last sooooo long and have so much influence?

I believe someone has mentioned the Chinese to him at least six billion times, but he seems to conveniently forget them when this so-called "argument" resurfaces.

He's just another guy who plows ahead and pretends not to hear his oppostion completely refute his really bad arguments.

21. The God Debate

Comment #29261 by Kingasaurus on April 2, 2007 at 9:59 am

"I think a lot more could have been said regarding Rick's vision of his god, what he looks like - old, young, tall short, fat, thin, bearded or not, male or female or both or neither. After all we are 'made in his image' according to them."

Reminds me of something Bill Shatner's character said on a recent episode of "Boston Legal". Asked what he thought God looked like, he said God "looks just like me, only thinner." :)

22. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27714 by Kingasaurus on March 26, 2007 at 9:54 am

I'm not sure I agree with this, gaijin51.

Why are large numbers of Europeans essentially secular if not outright atheistic in their outlook? Were they "appealed to on an emotional level" to give up religion themselves or not teach it with seriousness to their children?

How did that work, exactly? I'm leery of blanket proscriptive statements like "the application of reason/ridicule won't work in this situation."

23. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27373 by Kingasaurus on March 24, 2007 at 9:10 am

I think someone should ask Mr. Clarkson how a less literal reading of scripture is somehow more of the "core" of the faith than a fundamentalists' view of the same literary material? And what arguments would he use to compellingly support that?

I think this is another case of someone simply asserting that his liberal, inclusive faith is most likely the "real" thing, while making himself feel better by attacking out from the "middle" in both directions.


Harris doesn't want to just have the argument about good-fairies and bad-fairies. He doesn't see any demonstrable fairies and wants that particular piece of information to be an integral part of the discussion. "Join with me in attacking bad-fairy-belief" says Clarkson.

Pardon me if I find Harris more compelling.

24. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26436 by Kingasaurus on March 19, 2007 at 10:00 am

Look, don't bother with these people who claim they're suffering for faith.

The real definition of suffering is reading or contributing to that 18-page Christadelphians thread (which never seems to die), where you can get endless enjoyment tapping on the rock-hard skulls of Biblio-literal YEC's.

Fun for the whole family.

25. Kissing Hank's Ass

Comment #26173 by Kingasaurus on March 17, 2007 at 1:00 pm

I basically agree with Luthien:

"Karl" isn't really a stand-in for Jesus. He's a stand-in for anyone who claims to be an intermediary between "Hank" and potential believers. This includes all "prophets", priests, church officials (including those who codified biblical canon), scriptural authors of any kind, etc.

Basically, anyone whose pipeline to this "Hank" is claimed to be better than yours and can supposedly tell you something true and useful about him that you really need to know. This includes the God-spoke-to-me-last-Tuesday types, but isn't limited to them.

26. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23263 by Kingasaurus on February 27, 2007 at 8:56 am

---------------------------

I believe that ossuaries were only used for burial in this way by Jews up to about 70AD. If the ossuaries are genuine therefore (and I don't think thre is any claim to the contrary) then they must be about 2000 years old.

---------------------------

As with The James Ossuary, I doubt there will be much dispute about the actual age of the boxes. What's going to be contentious is the age and veracity of the inscriptions on the boxes and the other particulars surrounding this claim. My nonsense detector is in high gear on this one.

I heard some conservative talk show host complaining last night that the box didn't have actual bones in it, that you couldn't pinpoint this find to the biblical family anyway, and that people want to "disprove god" so that they can have fun and behave however they like.

That's is the kind of nonsensical, breathtakingly stupid reaction you can expect from certain quarters.

Whatever the legitimacy of this particular find, I'm more interested in observing the reactions of people and what they choose to say about it. It'll tell you a lot about them and how "open-minded" they really are. The circus is in town on this one.

27. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23150 by Kingasaurus on February 26, 2007 at 2:29 pm

The problem is Cameron and his buddies are theorizing that The James Ossuary is a missing coffin from this particular tomb. That conjecture won't make their new claims look very credible, as The James Ossuary is highly suspect and a potential forgery:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-03/bonebox.html

28. Faith

Comment #23095 by Kingasaurus on February 26, 2007 at 8:57 am

------------------------------------
"National Clergy Council president, the Reverend Rob Schenck issued this statement following a press conference that announced a new documentary claiming proof against the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:

"Over the years, Hollywood has attacked and mocked Christianity, providing only negative portrayals of people of faith."
------------------------------------

Apparently, this guy has never seen any films made between 1900 and 1970. The Hollywood of the 1950's was a practical orgy of reverential Biblical epics. You could argue that anything being produced now is simply equal time.

Although, considering how overly sensitive these people are to anything that doesn't follow their "correct" doctrine, I'm inclined to ignore these sort of complaints.

I remember the furor over Martin Scorcese's "Last Temptation of Christ." When I finally managed to watch it for myself, I said, "That's IT? All that fuss over THAT?"

If a film like that - which keeps the basic story and messes with details for thematic purposes - can get the fundamentalists THAT ornery, then there's no placating them no matter what you do.

29. Atheists come in last

Comment #22887 by Kingasaurus on February 23, 2007 at 8:21 pm

"I am very impressed with the poll that 45% would admit out loud that they would vote for a Presidential candidate who claimed to be an atheist."

Well, the wording of the poll was "if your OWN party nominated an atheist..." Basically, I still think its pretty sad that when faced with a non-believing candidate who agrees with you on the issues, and under all other circumstances would be preferable to the opponent, you STILL get more than half who would reflexively refuse to vote for that person, because the "atheist" label immediately drops the curtain.

Dawkins' "consciousness-raising" is a very important thing to undertake, considering these results. But you all knew that.

30. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22344 by Kingasaurus on February 14, 2007 at 11:02 pm

"...But he misses the big picture that Andrew is arguing, which is that there are spiritual needs that are met by religion. An argument against one of the principles does not fulfill the spiritual needs."

I hope you aren't saying that the "spiritual needs" of human beings require us to accept, in principle, unshakeable belief in things that have a very good chance of being completely illusory - and that the world is better off if countless millions of people adopt this mode of thinking.

"Andrew may still choose Christianity, but at least he will be shown that life without a god does not have to be morally reprehensible."

I would think that the existence of millions of non-religious "moral" people on Planet Earth right now would make such a thing perfectly obvious. Does Sullivan really need convincing?

31. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22098 by Kingasaurus on February 12, 2007 at 10:53 pm

What I think is funny is that Dawkins gives a very pleasant, positive interview and outlook on the subject, without a hint of abrasiveness.

Then John Roberts (the host) comes back and says "some eye-opening opinions..." Yeah, no kidding. The reason is the US media just isn't used to hearing this stuff. They hear criticism of religion somewhat, but only in the guise of someone on the political left attacking the "religious right" on this issue or that issue. What they never hear someone say is that "there's just nothing to all this 'god' business." So they're surprised when they actually do hear it. Shocks them a smidge.

32. The God Delusion

Comment #21738 by Kingasaurus on February 10, 2007 at 8:39 pm

"All the criticism focuses on how Dawkins did not address modern theology, but no theologians seems to want to say WHAT these modern theological arguments are! "

I was thinking exactly the same thing. What ARE the new and devastating theological insights which point towards god which Dawkins ignored?

I'm genuinely curious, because it seems to be all I hear about from liberal religionists who dislike the book. Examples, please?
I know the average pew-sitter cares nothing for these theological minutae, but I'm willing to be humored in the interest of getting all the cards on the table.

Anyone?

33. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21277 by Kingasaurus on February 8, 2007 at 11:46 am

It'll be fine. Four minutes of Richard is better than nothing, and not unusual.

Hitch is controversial these days because he's a tradional liberal defending interventionist foreign policy. No matter what you think about that, he's an excellent and erudite spokesman for unbelief and always has been. Anyone who gets Dennis Prager flustered to the point of raising his voice is OK with me.

I'm more curious about who they'll bring in to argue with him.

34. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21176 by Kingasaurus on February 7, 2007 at 10:05 pm

" But my main imnpression remains that the whole panel thing was a shambles - just plain lousy journalism - and that most people who don't already think like Hunter does would believe that she made a fool of herself. "

This was my impression also.

I am however gratified that a large response from annoyed people actually made someone at CNN sit up and take notice. Until the non-religious minority in America can be treated as regular people with rights and a simple difference of opinion on religious matters (which frankly shouldn't "scare" anyone), there will be more work to do.

35. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21037 by Kingasaurus on February 7, 2007 at 11:12 am

I'm less offended by CNN setting this up than I am simply by the opinions of the panelists. Paula Zahn's program introduces several different issues, and then their selected panelists give their opinion of each. This was not a program specifically about atheism, so I'm not shocked there wasn't a non-believer there for balance.

The bigoted opinions that were voiced are what should be raising peoples' ire, not CNN's choice of panelists. Again, they were commenting on several different topical issues, and this was only one of them. Taking positives out of it, it does highlight the very hostile attitudes some religious people have about non-believers, even people who would consider themselves mainstream in other contexts. Maybe it will wake some people up. It proves the point of why many atheists feel marginalized in America, and therefore their numbers probably underreported.

The tenor of the question was "What's the problem with these atheists?" and the discussion subsquently proved that the "problem" lies elsewhere.

36. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21002 by Kingasaurus on February 7, 2007 at 8:39 am

Someone needs to tell Karen Hunter that freedom of thought and speech is just as important as racial equality. The fact that one "chooses" religious belief and doesn't choose skin color is a completely irrelevant comment and is a distinction that is completely meaningless in the context of this discussion.

The fact that you can change your mind about your religion and not your race DOESN'T MATTER. The principles of freedom and being treated fairly by the society at large are the same in both cases.

The irony is that it wasn't that long ago that a black woman couldn't be elected dog catcher. The fact that an honest atheist still can't be elected in America seems not to bother her one bit, and she can't see the parallels between the two situations. The differences between blacks and atheists in the context of what they are/were fighting for are meaningless details, but that's what she focuses on because the opinions of atheists are so incredibly foreign to her way of thinking.

Principles should transcend any particular difference of opinion you have with someone else. If you can't do that, look in the mirror.

37. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #20090 by Kingasaurus on January 31, 2007 at 10:14 am

-----My point here is to say that once you have conceded the possibility of a truth that is not reducible to empirical proof, you have allowed for the validity of religious faith as a form of legitimate truth-seeking in a different mode.----

I agree, this is horrible.

It's like saying that since your best tool isn't 100% effective all the time, you are justified in using other tools that have been historically shown to be demonstrably worse, and consider yourself justified.

"Since your sledgehammer isn't strong enough to break this boulder in half, I'm using a wet newspaper instead and I'm imagining in my head that the boulder is split in half...Presto! See? In some alternate manner, I've broken the stone, and my 'path' to breaking the rock is just as good as yours."

Hoo boy.

The solution, of course, is to get more people with sledgehammers or to work on it longer, or both. This however, doesn't seem to impress the people who favor the wet newspaper.

38. Richard Dawkins interview about 'Unweaving the Rainbow'

Comment #20082 by Kingasaurus on January 31, 2007 at 9:22 am

You can add me to the list of people who usually like the guests on this show a lot more than the hosts.

There are worse people than Charlie Rose, but he's the worst interviewer of all time. A normal interviewer asks a real coherent question, then stops talking and allows the guest to answer. The guest knows when to answer because there is a pregnant pause.

Charlie (on the other hand) usually makes stream-of consciousness statements which never seem to culminate in the end of a sentence, and he hopes the guest will know exactly the right time to jump in and start talking. Horrible. What kind of interviewer often refrains from asking questions and instead expects the other person to respond by helping finish his sentences? He's a notorious interruptor also, which adds insult to injury.

39. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20076 by Kingasaurus on January 31, 2007 at 8:53 am

----By posting videos saying "I deny the holy spirit" people are validating that their may actually something there to deny when in truth it is a non issue..----

I couldn't disagree more. The whole point is that they're so sure this god is imaginary and that the Bible is nothing special, that they are willling to say these things without fear. Nobody loses any sleep at night afraid they might have blasphemed the Greek pantheon, which is precisely the point. A similar lack of fear about blaspheming Yahweh means you think he's just as imaginary.

I don't see how this translates into the message that "there is something to deny."

There are places in America so steeped in Christianity that non-Christians don't seem to exist or be part of the paradigm in any way. In such cases, the idea that someone would willingly blaspheme to prove a point about the silliness of your dominant belief system is completely unheard of.

This kind of thing is like throwing cold water in someone's face. Sometimes that strategy is necessary in some situations and with some people. No one strategy is going to work in all cases.

40. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20068 by Kingasaurus on January 31, 2007 at 8:32 am

I have to agree with Sam here. This kind of thing isn't my bag, but I'm not dismissing it as infantile, either. There is something to be said for being confident in what you think and being willing to say so. Especially in a culture in which you are marginalized, insulted and misunderstood by a vast majority of people who don't know thing one about you.

The reason people sometimes try publicity stunts is that they are often effective, and the ideas that they are pushing desperately need publicity.

This type of "I'm not afraid" testimonial can have value. Wars are won on many fronts with many different strategies.

41. CNN Sylvia Browne Fraud

Comment #19551 by Kingasaurus on January 28, 2007 at 8:50 am

"...I cannot possibly be 100% correct in each and every one of my predictions."

Ah, my favorite red herring.

No one is asking for 100%. We're asking for a better accuracy rate than simply guessing or engaging in cold reading where the subject inadvertently "helps" the "psychic" get closer to the right answer.

If Sylvia is using magic powers to get the hideously bad success rate that she's offering, then she's doing it the hard way.

42. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15760 by Kingasaurus on January 2, 2007 at 3:51 pm

----The first statement is true. The second is false.----

There seems to be little practical difference between the two points of view with regards to a small percentage of the population engaging in highly destructive behavior which is widely influential.

If that's the case, then the supernatural referent which would supposedly underpin morality doesn't seem to make much practical difference. If sociopaths will do what they do regardless of their religious opinions, why have a bug up your ass about the whole business?

43. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15739 by Kingasaurus on January 2, 2007 at 11:55 am

Look, you're the one claiming there can't be any "ought" without a supernatural referent. If people routinely abuse and take advantage of others whether they adhere to supernatural beliefs or not, I'm not sure what practical difference it makes.

What's the difference between "There's no god watching me so I can feel free to kill you" and "God told me he wants me to kill you?"

44. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15727 by Kingasaurus on January 2, 2007 at 9:42 am

Well, color me surprised.

Who knew that hideous, mass-murdering dictators only appeared after a few people decided there was no god to tell them how to behave?

I'm thankful that we only had benevolent, non-exploitative forms of government before people discovered atheism and its implications.

I'm still struggling to find the distinction between Stalin, who did whatever he liked because he supposedly feared no supernatural moral judge, and any of the horrible autocratic Czars who preceded him - who did whatever THEY liked because they were convinced that God himself and his natural order wanted them on the throne. Absolute dictatorial power was their god-given right, no? The idea of an absolute, transcendent moral principle and a supernatural being to enforce it didn't seem to control the societally destructive whims of these rulers. If everyone back then believed in God, why weren't these people more "moral" than Stalin?

45. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15187 by Kingasaurus on December 29, 2006 at 11:43 am

---My response would depend entirely on whether I have evidence that God exists. It would not depend on my observations of the positive or negative effects that belief in God has in society. Pretending that something exists just so we can all benefit is, in a word, a delusion. This is the sense in which duty and responsibility are mystical. They do not actually exist.---

I have pretty good evidence that people in a society will be happier if nobody in that society commits arson or murder or theft. That's why people collectively agree to prohibit such things. I'm not "pretending" anything by saying that. Nobody is saying "responsibility" is some mystical thing floating out in space. It's a descriptive term for a range of behaviors which we consider beneficial. Nobody wants their neighbor to arbitrarily jump the fence and kill them, so it is considered "responsible" if you (and everyone else) agree not to do it. You're trading off your ability to do whatever you like whenever you like for the benefits of living cooperatively with other people. When you ruin everyone else's fun by committing murder, you're "irresponsible". You're making your own life more problematic and difficult by pissing off the people around you - people from which you would normally receive cooperative benefits. I fail to see any connection with mysticism here.

46. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15174 by Kingasaurus on December 29, 2006 at 9:49 am

---I understand that my own actions can have negative social repercussions that may affect me in undesirable ways. But there is no need to posit the existence of mystical concepts such as duty, responsibility, evil, to fill the gaping hole that is left when we kick god out of the picture.---

I missed the part where duty and responsibility became "mystical concepts." If someone says "Look, we've all agreed not to commit arson so that the benefits people enjoy from living in cooperative groups will continue, and everybody in this society will be happier and better off if you agree not to commit arson, either." This is a form of duty and responsibility to the needs of others which sociopaths don't share, but most of the rest of us do. Explain to me how that qualifies as "mystical."

---My altruistic feelings, are just that, feelings and nothing more. I can, and often do, act in ways that go against my feelings.----

I missed the part where this was a huge revelation unknown to everybody else.

---I think I am smart enough to figure out when and how to dodge the worst of the possible repercussions of my choices.---

Scott Peterson probably thought that, too. Criminals often think they are too smart to be found out and punished. A percentage of them are. You're probably smart enough to avoid negative repercussions if you're stealing paper clips from the office. Murder or something of similar seriousness remains to be seen.

---In fact, the act of arson itself and the resulting fire are not the only pleasurable things. Transgressing social norms, breaking the rules has its own special thrill. If it wasn't forbidden, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun. As I said before, we all take risks.----

Right. The chimp takes a risk when he decides to steal a larger portion of the food or take his share too early. If the group kicks him out, maybe he thinks it wasn't worth the negative consequences and won't try it the next time. Chimps don't have "god", so how did these social rules among primates come about, if not from a biological basis?

47. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15099 by Kingasaurus on December 28, 2006 at 11:02 pm

-----As a species that has evolved in social groups, our genes are telling us that respecting the norms of social behaviour, in which competition is restricted by cooperative bounds, is essential to maximizing, on average, each individual's chances of survival. Actions that offend the sense of fairness do so because they violate that principle of reciprocity...---

Yes. It's also worth mentioning that if you are going to deny genetic/evolutionary influence in these areas, you're going to have to explain the behavior of large numbers of non-human social species, which have their own rules of behavior in which altruism is quite common - not to mention the ostracizing or punishing the non-conformist who engages in destructive behavior that makes life for the rest of the group more difficult.

If there is an evolutionary reason why the grouper doesn't devour the small cleaner fish once it finishes cleaning inside the grouper's mouth, it really isn't a big stretch to look for biological reasons why hypothetical societies which would allow anarchical murder and wanton, purposeless destruction just because its members "feel like doing it" just aren't going to be very successful.

48. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15047 by Kingasaurus on December 28, 2006 at 1:37 pm

I don't see what the big deal is. Humans on the whole have similar brains with a similar evolutionary toolkit. A social species has individuals in it who derive benefits from the exertions and labors of others in the group, and vice versa.

Humans agree to live by societal rules, which run the gamut from almost universal to locally specific. All societies are trial-and-error attempts by people to live socially with other people.

Asking about whether murder or theft is REALLY "wrong" or we just arbitrarily call it "wrong" misses the point. As Richard has said, words are our servants and not our masters.

If you can't think of a good secular reason why it might not be a good idea to burn down your neighbor's house (and by extension to live in a society which would find it acceptable and not punish it), I'm not sure what I can tell you.

If you CAN think of a good secular reason, then any reason with some cosmic imperative is superfluous.

49. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14972 by Kingasaurus on December 27, 2006 at 4:23 pm

---I think that there are many reasons why stealing could be considered advantageous.----

Would you like to live in a society where your neighbor could jump the fence and steal from you anytime he likes? Almost nobody else does, either. That's the point.

----The point I was making is that if you state the universe has no justice, fairness etc then at best you are only going to argue for a human construct which is temporary and changeable.----

You mean like god-believers finally deciding slavery was wrong after millennia of thinking it was fine and dandy?

----Interesting about monkeys and hard wiring. One assumes then that if morality is hard wired we have no choice in it and therefore we cannot be held responsible for what we cannot help? ----

Hard-wiring refers to "rules of thumb" (as Dawkins puts it) in the brain with an evolutionary history. It doesn't mean you're a robot or that nobody ever misbehaves. It does mean you will share many things with most other people. Most people prefer freedom to slavery, comfort to discomfort, safety to danger, life to death. People derive benefits from living in groups, and all societies are trial-and-error attempts to do this in the best way possible.

Latching on to ancient writings doesn't give you a "foundation" for anything - especially if you latch on for faith-based reasons. Your decision to follow Book A rather than Book B is an arbitrary decision made within yourself. What's foundational and transcendent about that? Claiming a transcendent foundation for morality is just that - a claim.

50. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14955 by Kingasaurus on December 27, 2006 at 8:31 am

---- As Dawkins so brilliant put is in The Blind Watchmaker - "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe had precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference". That is the atheist position – no good, no evil, just blind pitiless indifference. -----

David, this is truly pathetic. Just because the universe IS pitilessly indifferent to our well being (a fact which even cursory observation proves), doesn't mean there are no qualitative differences in the ways we decide to order our societies.

If you can't think of one good secular reason why a society which prohibits murder and theft is a better place to live than a society which allows these things, then your mind simply isn't functioning properly. I don't need a god to tell me that one of those societies is a preferable place in which to live.

Chimpanzees and other primates have complex social structures where there are sophisticated rules of behavior, inculding altruism and punishing the detrimental behavior of certain individuals. There is also the famous test where a monkey will starve itself when it realizes that taking food that is offered results in one of its fellow monkeys receiving an electric shock.

Now, are these non-human primates completely morally clueless, and then require a chimp Lawgiver to come down from the mountain with stone tablets before they can figure out how they are supposed to behave? Of course not. There's a lot of hard-wiring of our behaviors, and to pretend otherwise just isn't facing reality.

And if you don't think the universe is pitilessly indifferent, I'll throw a few tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and planet-killing asteroids your way. I'm sure there's some hidden "plan" going on there and you'll make out just fine.