1. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87232 by AppliedMootist on November 11, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Please read my original post. I stated unambiguously that Stenger's thesis was based on disproving the existence of a theistic god. Before you spout off you should at least read several detailed reviews of the book.

I extend my personal contempt to you and all others who drape themselves in the cloak of rational free-thinking but in practice stand on no firmer ground than the typical theist.

2. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87223 by AppliedMootist on November 11, 2007 at 2:11 pm

My intent in asking for assistance to understand RD's position was to solicit feedback from people who have actually invested the time and energy to read the book. It's disconcerting that those who haven't read the book would so cavalierly comment upon its content or efficacy. This is not behavior that I'd expect from a site based on informed rationality.

For those of you with a 15-minute attention span limited to short articles, Stenger's thesis is based on the idea that the existence of the Abrahamic god whose characteristics, behavior and abilities are enumerated in scripture is easily testable by current scientific methods of inquiry.

*** The privilege of option is earned, not pulled from any convenient orifice. ***

3. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87204 by AppliedMootist on November 11, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Why doesn't RD acknowledge that a proof of a theistic god is possible and has already been done by Victor Stenger in God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.


Am I missing some critical point that disproves Stenger's thesis? Someone give me a hand here.

4. Church row evolves over fossil boy

Comment #86556 by AppliedMootist on November 9, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Once again there is confusion between the rigorous requirements of a scientific theory and the general usage of theory as a synonym for an ungrounded "speculation." Note the relationship between scientific theory and fact.

From Wikipedia:
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

5. Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam: U.N.

Comment #80957 by AppliedMootist on October 23, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Advancing straw man arguments make you appear as ridiculous as the Pope. Attack the core of their faulty reasoning such as that the church is pursuing a systemic solution to Aids and that condom use is a band-aid, stop-gap measure which exacerbates rather than address root causes.

6. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80429 by AppliedMootist on October 21, 2007 at 7:43 pm

As Hitchens has pointed out many times, Martin Luther King did not develop non-violent protesting from his biblical values, but rather from Henry David Thoreau. Contrary to the both debaters, Henry David Thoreau derived non-violent protesting from the Sophocles' immortal play Antigone. Dinesh D'Souza is lucky that Michael Shermer is the anti-religion movement's great disappoint – apparently he wants desperately to liked at any cost. D'Souza won't be so lucky when he meets Hitchens is a real knife fight.

7. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76020 by AppliedMootist on October 4, 2007 at 11:26 am

I understand that Professor Dawkins does not want to "tote up" the casualties, but when the shopworn canard equating religion with morals was trotted out for yet another pathetic lap, he exhibited too much restraint.

Since the debate venue was in Birmingham, Alabama a quick summary of the Christian values associated with the American South was appropriate. With Biblical justification for three and a half centuries the good Christians of the South owned humans. The abolitionists were led by radical Quakers and the deist Transcendentalists, not mainstream Christians. After emancipation came the Christian-based KKK. In the early 1960's the good Christians of Alabama elected the separatist George Wallace as governor to maintain the system of Southern Apartheid. Not coincidently, the last institutions of the South to integrate, and never fully, are Christian churches.

As Sam Harris remarks, it was secular modernity, not religious tradition and scripture that has eliminated the greatest single blight in history. The great emancipator Charles Darwin proved scientifically that race, as traditionally interpreted, simply does not exist.

Dr. Lennox's response to any act performed by a theist that he found morally reprehensible was to state, "that's not my God." The true enemies of Dr. Lennox are not the handful of misdirected atheists but rather heretics clad in the guise of Christianity. However, we know that it is rare that a Christian attacks the acts or statements of other Christians. To do so is to confirm the obvious truth that at best Christianity is a zero-sum game in which every good deed done in the name of Jesus is offset by an evil deed justified by the same scriptures and dogma.

8. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #76019 by AppliedMootist on October 4, 2007 at 11:19 am

When the shopworn canard equating religion with morals was dragged out for yet another pathetic round, Professor Dawkins exhibited too much restraint.

Since the debate venue was in Birmingham, Alabama a quick summary of the Christian values associated with the American South was appropriate. With Biblical justification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham ) for three and a half centuries the good Christians of the South owned humans. The abolitionists were led by radical Quakers and the deist Transcendentalist, not mainstream Christians. After emancipation came the Christian-based KKK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan ). In the 1950's the good Christians of Alabama elected the separatist George Wallace as governor. George fought to maintain the system of Southern Apartheid. Not coincidently, the last institutions of the South to integrate, and never fully, are the Christian churches.

As Sam Harris remarks, it was secular modernity, not religious tradition and scripture that has eliminated the greatest single blight in history. Contrary to scripture, it was the great emancipator Charles Darwin that proved that race, as traditionally interpreted and applied, does not exist.

9. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #74986 by AppliedMootist on October 1, 2007 at 9:42 am

"Richard Dawkins' vocal insistence on the pre-eminence of science (he is nicknamed Darwin's Rottweiler) …"

In a general article that refers to Richard Dawkins as "Darwin's Rottweiler" without providing the historical context that the nickname is a tongue-in-check reference to Thomas Henry Huxley as Darwin's Bulldog is a sure sign that the author is a light-weight who has probably never read a book on Darwin or evolution.