1. The camp that 'cures' homosexuality

Comment #262339 by dudenextdoor on October 8, 2008 at 11:04 am

"God loves you. God loves you so much and just wants to be inside of you. He wants to sow his seed in you. God watches you when you're alone, and he just wants to be a part of you."

Totally not gay.

---

On a more serious note, I've debated a cousin of mine on this and other issues; he's of the extreme conservative type. His solution to the whole problem is that everyone should just cry out to God until God answers and they believe.

...Then he'd say, routinely, that he tried to pray for at least an hour each day.

This whole issue may just well boil down to not understanding the meaning of futility, of any kind.

2. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208173 by dudenextdoor on July 10, 2008 at 4:59 pm

@ kaph.

I am sending snail mail. I'm saying this is insane because this is all over a cracker, not because standing up for free speech and sending snail mail is insane.

Just to clarify.

3. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208152 by dudenextdoor on July 10, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Sending snail mail. This is insane.

4. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201484 by dudenextdoor on June 29, 2008 at 6:19 pm

My guess is that he went to www.catholic.ie and learned a little too much of his religion there.

5. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200782 by dudenextdoor on June 28, 2008 at 8:27 am

Nova:

I agree to an extent. "Definite proof" aside as wording, there is no such thing in science as definite "verification." Definite falsifications, on the other hand, are quite common. Yes, Dawkins argues that the complexity of the God proposed renders him extremely unlikely. But as to the other prong, addressing proofs for God's existence, the way I viewed it is that Dawkins took all of chapter 3 just to line several older arguments up and knock them down one by one and then say, "So. What's left? Ah yes, the 747/watchmaker/painter/design/complexity argument." One of the reasons, as I understood it, that Dawkins argued that the question of God can lie within the realm of scientific reasoning is that all of these so-called arguments for creation or for God are themselves easily falsified. And if every "proof" of God is proven false so easily, it follows that there is no sufficient evidence or argument for the existence of God. The fact that Dawkins goes one further and says God would be so complex you would need an extraordinary amount of evidence to back such a claim is more reminiscent of Sagan to me than it is anything else, but it does fit nicely into the summary: "If God is this complex being you're claiming exists, you had better have some really good evidence to back that claim. Everything you have is easily shot down, and furthermore, we actually do have an alternate explanation as to how life evolved, and there is lots of evidence for that: natural selection."

At least, that's how I was reading it. Sorry for the length of the above paragraph.

6. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200580 by dudenextdoor on June 27, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Thing about the infinite regression argument is that it really only does disprove the "watchmaker" argument, that complex things need a complex designer. One has to go the next step and say, "If the designer of the universe doesn't need a designer, why does the universe need one?" It's not a definite proof there is no god, and that's why Dawkins is a 6.9 on his own scale of agnosticism. It's just that every argument that's been presented for the existence of god falls logically short (along with the watchmaker argument, there are the several he spends another chapter debunking, etc.), and it's also that if there were a god, as is also stated elsewhere, this would be a very different universe indeed.

7. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #190884 by dudenextdoor on June 9, 2008 at 7:52 pm

"Kono mo shoko mo mada da."

In Japanese, that's, "This too/also/additionally testimony too/also/additionally yet is." It's really bad Japanese grammar (about the only correct part is that the verb comes at the end of the sentence), but that "speaking in tongues" part could actually be read to be saying, "This, too, is yet additional proof."

Or maybe I'm reading WAY too far into it. XD

edit: My bad: the second "mo" is a "do." Which means "copper." ...So now it doesn't make any sense. So close, though!

8. Texas Megachurch Minister Busted in Internet Sex Sting

Comment #181552 by dudenextdoor on May 17, 2008 at 12:27 pm

I mentioned closing the church because I've seen an instance of a church closing before because of a scandal. It just wasn't nearly as large a church, is all. I do want to see how it plays out in a megachurch...

9. Texas Megachurch Minister Busted in Internet Sex Sting

Comment #181482 by dudenextdoor on May 17, 2008 at 9:30 am

*starts playing "Another One Bites The Dust"*

I'd actually be interested to see how this type of thing actually plays out; do they send an alternate pastor now, close the church, or what? Guess we'll have to wait and see.

10. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175073 by dudenextdoor on May 4, 2008 at 10:37 am

Chick tracts have to be some of the best entertainment for atheists out there.

I've never been handed one, at least, not that I can remember. Don't know what I'd do if I were handed one now, either. Kinda want to get into a religious debate just to know what all the "fun" I'm missing is. Jack R., I salute you for your handling of the missionaries at your door.

11. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144579 by dudenextdoor on March 16, 2008 at 11:10 am

I loved the show, and while I agree Alan Colmes is a doormat for Hannity on FOX, I did always think he was jewish until this interview; now I have a bit more respect for him.

Anyway, I liked how the more typical theistic arguments were brought up (and summarily debunked) on this show, but I did think the woman who phoned in asking about all the intellectual religious people she knows should have gotten a more complete response--particularly because her argument is a very common one.

I speak as the son of two doctors who are extremely religious; intelligence and faith do often go together, even when the atheist would say they do not. And it may be a general trend that the more educated people are, the less religious they are, but there really are a lot of very smart people in this world who believe the lies religion tells, and that needs to be addressed. It is totally possible to be intelligent and wrong, in other words, but other than the second caller (who was called "not-a-nutcase," the kindest compliment he could get), views were often dismissed rather than given reason for dismissal.

Good show, overall. I'm surprised I wasn't completely turned off by a FOX production, for once. And I do think Dawkins answers the criticisms I raise here in The God Delusion. But it is necessary to keep in mind that there are many smart people in this world who still believe something that simply is not true. And it must be kept at the forefront of the intellectual debate that being smart and being religious are two different things.

12. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107789 by dudenextdoor on January 5, 2008 at 11:08 am

I still say this is nothing new. Christians have long held it a key moral principle to be open about their faith with others, in the hopes of converting people. I don't know how many times I've heard in sermons, "Go forth and shine," etc.

The only thing about this particular campaign is that it seems to want to do this in a fashion that mimics atheists, which is not a normal strategy. Christians are usually told to base their practices off of those of Jesus Christ, not Richard Dawkins.

13. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106977 by dudenextdoor on January 3, 2008 at 7:25 pm

I think what they mean, I-am-a-7, is that they should go up to everybody who sins and say things like, "Don't do that; it's evil."

14. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106962 by dudenextdoor on January 3, 2008 at 6:45 pm

I thought Christians already had plenty of ways by which to show their faith through clothing. Whatever happened to crosses dangling from necklaces?