1. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #171178 by Aaron on April 28, 2008 at 10:54 am

I for one welcome our new orangutan overlords.

2. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154583 by Aaron on April 3, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Frankus1122 on April 3, 2008 at 11:51 am

Aaron I like this idea but does it lend legitimacy to the Bible just by allowing it to be studied?

What about the Koran?
What about other 'sacred' texts?

3. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154509 by Aaron on April 3, 2008 at 11:40 am

Kern was cheered Wednesday when she told the crowd at the state Capitol that their support affirmed the rights of conservative Christians "who want to stand up for the truth of God's word."

4. Beware the Believers

Comment #151514 by Aaron on March 28, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Werd

5. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146070 by Aaron on March 18, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Religious believers are like children around a fire on a cold evening. They lean in to benefit from its warmth. They stare at the flame, wonder at the power and elegance and begin to contemplate eternity. We atheists and skeptics are the unforunate parents who must tend the fire and keep it from spreading. Maybe believers are more content than we atheists because while they are benefitting from the fire we are trying to keep the entire world from burning.

6. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #138021 by Aaron on March 3, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Dr. Dawkins, please...for the love of science, COME TO SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI!!!!!!!!!

7. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124186 by Aaron on February 8, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Teratornis,

Although zebras and lions share a common ancestor they haven't evolved to rely on each other's cooperation in society. We have. There's the difference.

8. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124109 by Aaron on February 8, 2008 at 11:35 am

Copernic,

When most people think of fittest in the context of evolution they think of the fastest cheetah that is more apt to catching and eating animals.

We need to start stressing that in the context of evolution of social animals fit means the best adapted to the society which in part means being moral and good.

I agree with you. Instead of tapdancing around a valid term we need to stress the importance in this other context to give people a better understanding of what it means.

9. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124102 by Aaron on February 8, 2008 at 11:14 am

I think Darwin matters because the theory of evolution gives humans something in common that can unify us all. The fact that we all share a common ancestor and evolved into a social species that relies on evolved morality to perpetuate a peaceful society can be something that we can all know and understand equally. We cannot get that from religion. One believer's god is slightly different than the god of his neighbor and very much more different than the god of his neighboring country. Believers are never on common ground even when they sit in the same church pews.

We have the ability to say morality is not what is deemed by the god of one's choosing but and evolved sense of what benefits individuals by creating a healthy environment in which we and our offspring can survive. We just need to keep saying it...they'll listen eventually.

10. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117554 by Aaron on January 29, 2008 at 5:26 am

Reading this diatribe of strawmen and other logical fallacies actually made my nonbelief in god(s) stronger. Thanks, Vox Day! Keep writing nonsense and RD.net will keep posting it for our amusement.

11. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116070 by Aaron on January 25, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Ian Bamlett and Deepthought,

I was in the military. I don't give a fuck about a flag. We put the American flag on our postage stamps which are licked, fondled, burned, scribbled on, etc. Flags are useless. When I was in the military I had an allegience to something much more powerful and dear to me: the defense of the Constitution.

I didn't want to hurt anyone. I just wanted to make sure what is written on that piece of paper isn't ignored.

12. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115506 by Aaron on January 24, 2008 at 9:04 am

There is a minutia that is commonly lost in the details with opinions like this. Sure Darwin saw his theory as an explanation of why success differs between species (and maybe even races). He was making a judgment based on the information available to him at the time. Lucky for us science isn't static. It changes as new information is gleaned and thus judgments based on current information is constantly changing. The discovery of genes and DNA completely moved this issue from fitness of species and races to species of genes. Of course Tony Campolo probably doesn't know this because he doesn't care to inform himself.

Based on all current relevant information there is no biological basis for racism. Period. Actually, the study of our DNA and genetics shows how incredibly similar we are underneath our differences.

Maybe someone like Richard Dawkins or Jared Diamond should write a book on this topic as well as the evolutionary sources of morality. I'd definitely read it!

13. Life-Forming Chemicals Found in Distant Galaxy

Comment #114503 by Aaron on January 22, 2008 at 10:36 am

Methamphetamine??? Get me on a rocket ship right...oh wait. Nevermind.

14. Stop House Resolution 888

Comment #107781 by Aaron on January 5, 2008 at 10:26 am

We need a coalition of the willing to liberate America and cause a regime change. This is getting ridiculous.

15. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107479 by Aaron on January 4, 2008 at 3:32 pm

I watch these debates as much as possible and I'm open to the idea that one of them might contain a convincing argument from the theist point of view but I'll damned if I've yet seen one.

16. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102635 by Aaron on December 23, 2007 at 10:42 am

"Babies are vulnerable, more helpless initially than any of the animals...So too was the son of God, but every birth inspires hope, even when it is only hope against hope."

Wait a second. Is this dude saying there was a chance little baby Jesus could have died from some natural cause associated with being born in the bronze age? Doesn't that contradict what the bible says about god sending Jesus specifically to die on the cross?

17. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100098 by Aaron on December 18, 2007 at 8:36 am

I have to disagree with Dr. Dawkins on his theory that altruism towards strangers is a misfiring of our moral mechanisms.

I think an argument can be made that the process that articulates morality within the brain starts with senory information about the state of being of any individual and when that state of being is made better our reward centers fire and reinforce the act of making the state of being better for other individuals and that the genes that code for this mechanism and process have been selected because they promote a healthy environment for their propagation within offspring. This means the rule by which this mechanism functions would state something like "Increase the well being of individuals within your environment to ensure it is safe for your offspring."

This idea maintains the selfishness of genes and gets rid of the idea disliked by many (including me) that morality towards strangers is a malfunction of some kind.

18. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96615 by Aaron on December 10, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Father Johnathan,

As punishment for this nonsense you are to write the following on the chalkboard until you understand it:

Evolution can explain morality without invoking god(s). Normal people are born moral. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc were not normal. Also, I belong to an organization that allows priests to have sex with little boys. That's fucked up.

19. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #95408 by Aaron on December 8, 2007 at 9:37 am

Is Scott Atran seriously trying to say the recent terror plots should be blamed on soccer?

20. The Pagan Christ

Comment #94988 by Aaron on December 7, 2007 at 5:48 am

I don't mean to just espouse the middle of the road stance here but couldn't it be that Jesus actually existed and well after his death many of the attributes of the pre-Christian gods were applied to his legacy to strengthen his character as a spiritual leader?

I second Edanator's remarks. I listened to the Infidel Guy interview with Bart Ehrman yesterday. He has said himself he's an agnostic. That coming from a former evangelical to me means he's an atheist. He provided Paul's letters in Galatians which are known to be authentic in which Paul mentions in an off-handed fashion that he met with "James the brother of the lord". To that my atheism replies "Who cares?" There is still zippo for evidence that supports the supernatural claims of his existence.

21. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #92227 by Aaron on November 30, 2007 at 5:21 am

I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali's most enlightening point of view deserved much more than three minutes on this topic. Hopefully she'll get more attention here in the states soon.

22. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91386 by Aaron on November 28, 2007 at 7:46 am

I hope the judge can distinguish between human values (equality, justice, honesty, altruism, etc) and religious values (oppression, indoctrination, division, etc). If he (being in Mulsim Turkey the judge is almost guaranteed to be a man which proves my point) can make that distintion I hope he would find the publisher guilty of insulting religious values and championing human values.

23. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #83220 by Aaron on October 29, 2007 at 10:10 am

Science and religion have a common origin: human curiosity. Where they part ways is in the carefulness of their methodologies. Science strives to eliminate human bias and confusion from its process of investigation, an act in which religion places no value.

24. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #82808 by Aaron on October 27, 2007 at 6:17 pm

First, Hitler was probably not an atheist but for the sake of this argument I'll consider him as one...it doesn't matter.

The argument has to be followed logically backward before it can be dealt with logically forward. The claim "the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were because of the atheism of those dictators" depends on the argument "without god(s) anything is permissible". This argument, of course, does not work because we know throughout the evolution of our species as we've become more and more social the individuals we have been forced to become more and more moral. This means all people share a sense of morality which varies to different degrees based on a combination of environmental and psychological factors.

So how are the exceptions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc, explained? Well, if it isn't the subtraction of god(s) maybe it is the addition of other factors such as a history of abuse (Hitler and Stalin), being children of strict disciplinarian parents (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) or mental disorders (likely Hitler, less likely Stalin and/or Mao).

If that is not a convincing enough rebuttal:
The claim "atheism leads to monsters like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc" is clearly rebutted by facts. There have been millions of atheists throughout history and only 3 can be named as monsters.

25. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #82452 by Aaron on October 26, 2007 at 11:09 am

My response:
Religions are belief systems that are meant to guarantee a peaceful society. Therefore any religion is unacceptable if, as a result of it, enough people act violently enough to disrupt peace in our global society. Obviously Christianity and to a bigger extent Islam are examples of this. Since both the Koran and Christian Bible contain passages that promote violence, inequality, etc any society that follow either of those texts will contain some violence, inequality, etc. This means Christianity and Islam are unacceptable as belief systems if a peaceful society is the goal.

If it is argued one should blame the interpretations of the passages in the bible or Koran that promote violence, inequality, etc it should be pointed out that to not have violence, inequality, etc as a result is impossible since at least some people will tend to read things literally.

My snarky response:
As an analogy consider a recipe for brownies that contains only 1% feces. It's only 1%, a small minority compared to the rest of the 99% chocolatey goodness. Is it the feces or the recipe that is the problem?

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

Comment #82436 by Aaron on October 26, 2007 at 10:29 am

This is a bit of a strawman because no atheist needs proof of god(s)' existence...only evidence. The same goes for love. As an aside, someone demanding proof that their spouse loved them would be an act of insecurity and a demonstration of an inability to have a healthy relationship.

If the argument is reframed in the context of evidence, instead of proof, it can continue logically.

Evidence of someone's love for another is easily seen by the way the person in love interacts with the other (whether the other has reciprocating feelings or not).

As a secondary argument one could ask the opponent if there is evidence that a random stranger pointed out in an audience is in love with him or her. If the opponent says no and upon being asked why not says he or she doesn't even know the person in the audience he or she has proven there are prerequisites for love that can be used as evidence of its existence (familiarity with the person being one of them) and has proven the point for you.

27. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #81741 by Aaron on October 25, 2007 at 5:49 am

The typical response:
Religion does make scientific claims that can be tested, such as the power of prayer, etc.

My response:
If this were true all religious beliefs, past and present, would be able to be maintained untouched by science. Looking at the history of religious beliefs we can test this hypothesis and clearly see it is false. Take Christianity as only one example. The bible makes several claims that have been disproven by science. The universe and everything in it was not created in 7 days nearly 6,000 years ago, the earth was not created before the sun, the moon does not cast its own light, there was no global flood, humans are not unique from other animals as a result of being specially ensouled, etc.

A true example of non-overlapping magesteria would be a chef trying to use his or her culinary knowledge to describe why the Saint Louis Rams football team hasn't won a game yet this year.

The snarky response:
I agree science and religion maintain non-overlapping magisteria: Science deals with reality and religion deals with everything else.

or

I agree, science deals with what we can postively show to be true and religion deals with what we are biased to hope is true.

28. Ayaan Hirsi Ali at AAI 07

Comment #78554 by Aaron on October 13, 2007 at 3:11 pm

I have so much respect for that woman.

29. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76328 by Aaron on October 5, 2007 at 1:58 pm

It was so frustrating to hear the same tired arguments from Lennox equally frustrating to hear Dawkins' responses to some of them. Sure Dawkins handled the argument of design of life quite well because he's spent his entire life studying and understanding the complexities of life but it seems he hasn't made an effort to catch himself up the other arguments theists usually make. I think prior to the next debate in which Dawkins participates he should get some material from Steven Weinberg (physicist), Steven Pinker (evolutionary psychologist), Bart Ehrman (scriptural critic), Robert Price (biblical scholar), Daniel Dennett (philosopher), Jared Diamond (anthropologist), etc. There is going to be no single person who is going to fully win this debate when it is addressed from a single discipline.

30. A Table for One

Comment #70865 by Aaron on September 17, 2007 at 5:27 am

It seems the priest has a harder time accepting that Mother Teresa didn't believe in god than Mother Teresa did.

31. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68958 by Aaron on September 9, 2007 at 9:14 am

Is Collins the best representative of a scientist with faith? He actually makes me more of an athiest.

32. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63199 by Aaron on August 13, 2007 at 1:25 pm

darwin2,

The space shuttle design is the product of artificial selection process by people. The reason people designed space shuttles is because natural selection selected the genes that made our ancestors curious about their surroundings which increased their probability of survival. Working backward from there every step back to nothingness in the universe is quite understood by science and completely natural.

33. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55532 by Aaron on July 11, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Awesome I'm the first to make a comment! It's too bad I don't have one :(

Uh...there is no god and stuff.

34. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #45022 by Aaron on May 25, 2007 at 7:54 pm

I wish I knew the name of the author who wrote this so I could address him/her properly...

Dear Nameless Author,

You have proven you can trot out a straw man argument against atheists as well as a late night, public access, fundamentalist preacher, albeit I've never seen somebody get so angry at seeing what they believe are atheists angry at god. Thank you for the good dose of irony.

"I can only assume that at one point in his childhood, Hitchens was spanked too hard by a nun. Something happened that turned him against God, and whatever it was, he has decided to make the rest of us pay for it. Anger this strong cannot possibly be based in reason.

You know how atheists are. Grammy or Grampy or Fluffy dies, or Sister Mary hits them one too many times with the steel ruler, and God gains a lifelong enemy."

I personally have a serious problem with your interpretation of reality. The list of those who have been negatively affected by religion does not begin or end with atheists. It includes the children in Bosnia who are fatherless and missing limbs, children in the U.S. who are taught the universe and everything in it is 6,000 years old, the Palestinian and Israeli children, Sunni and Shiite children, and Catholic and Protestan children who were taught to hate each other from birth for no reason other than their dogmatic differences, the children who die because their parents don't believe in medicine, the children who die of trauma inflicted upon them in exorcism rituals, the children who's genitals are mutilated, the victims of honor killings...I could go on if you'd like. I'll bet out of everyone negatively affected by religion we atheists are a small minority...and we're the only ones who notice it.

We atheists can be hostile but it's not hostility towards god. It's hostility towards seeing a lie that may be the future cause of the end of humanity and feeling powerless against it.

35. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #40932 by Aaron on May 15, 2007 at 8:11 am

Did anyone catch how he snuck in saying "There is a God" at the end when they cut back to live broadcast? There's no better way to think you've won an argument than by making a claim without letting your opponent address it.

What a fucktard.

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

Comment #33157 by Aaron on April 19, 2007 at 1:50 pm

I cannot wait to see this! This will expose a whole new audience to Dawkins' ideas. Awesome!

37. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32733 by Aaron on April 18, 2007 at 6:05 am

I tried listening to a radio interview from a link on the book's webpage but I stopped listening after about 10 minutes of nonsense. Is this guy the biggest gun the Christians can muster?

38. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28688 by Aaron on March 30, 2007 at 11:52 am

I just listened to Francis Collins' interview on this same program the day after Dr. Dawkins was interviewed.

In response to being asked what evidence he had that supports his belief in God he said "I would certainly point to this knowledge of right and wrong that we humans uniquely have which asks us to behave in certain ways that sometimes are a absolute scandal to evolution…" and then went on to say "of course the evidences about the amazing fine tuning of the universe which seems to have been put there for some purpose so that we can exist as beings of complex chemistry".

Someone needs to inform him of the research that points to the evolution of morality (which is not unique to humans by the way) and that any life in any universe (which could sustain life) would fit that universe quite nicely as though that universe were made to contain it. It would be pretty difficult for life to arise in a universe where such life couldn't arise.

If this is the best case one can make for God it looks like theism is definitely on it's way out.

39. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28424 by Aaron on March 29, 2007 at 6:50 am

Congratulations, sir! Your accomplishment signals a hope for humanity.

40. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28134 by Aaron on March 28, 2007 at 5:42 am

Yorker,

Hawking made a mistake and admitted it. In science that's cause for celebration. Would you rather he had realized his mistake and kept it to himself?

41. The Silence That Kills

Comment #23802 by Aaron on March 2, 2007 at 8:33 pm

That was one of the best articles I've read in a very long time. Bravo.

I especially liked the poem. I don't know how it could have been said any better. On a lighter side it also sort of sounded like an Arab version of Jeff Foxworthy.

42. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23525 by Aaron on March 1, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Did Alvin Plantinga write all this to just show he read the book and didn't understand the arguments made in it? Maybe the next book Professor Dawkins writes should be a The Coloring Book Version of The God Delusion For Theists.

43. What a Friend We Have in Dawkins

Comment #20317 by Aaron on February 1, 2007 at 6:24 pm

"Why do we atheists care so much what happens to our religious neighbours? I thought we were cold-blooded, immoral, murderous, blaspheming infidels?"

Because when you admit to yourself that you base your morals on actually caring about human happiness and not the words of an incredibly old book and you realize how mind blowingly beautiful the universe truly is you tend to find more reasons to care about the happiness of others.

44. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13710 by Aaron on December 19, 2006 at 6:56 am

At the end the host states "There may be a god. There may not be a god. Why can't we leave it at that?"

Yeah sure. There are tons of questions whose answers could positively change the future of humanity forever. Ahh...why bother with them? I couldn't figure out the answer with an hour on TV!

What a bafoon!

45. Simon Mayo interviews Keith Ward about his book 'Is Religion Dangerous?'

Comment #13202 by Aaron on December 16, 2006 at 7:04 am

"I don't think religion has ever tried seriously to explain how the world is as it is..."

WHAT?!?!?! Somebody should tell Galileo the Vatican was just kidding. Aren't claims like "The universe is 6000 years old", or "Muhammed flew to heaven on the back of a unicorn" making empirical claims about the world? This guy is plain ignorant.

46. Simon Mayo interviews Keith Ward about his book 'Is Religion Dangerous?'

Comment #13201 by Aaron on December 16, 2006 at 6:50 am

"All religions are attempts to see if humans beings can be aware of a reality which is spiritual and good."

Sounds like he's admitting religion has been an experiment. Now he just needs to admit the experiment has failed and the religious should let the scientists do the experiments from now on.

47. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11404 by Aaron on December 4, 2006 at 12:35 pm

David Matthews,

I was going to respond to your challenge but decided doing so would be a waste of my time because you seem to be crazy. This judgment is based on what you have posted here on this thread since your initial post and the following, which is from your own website:

"I Honor All Religions, Praise All Forms of Religious Devotion, and Pray For God to Save Everyone.
The World is Filled with Too Much Sorrow to Withhold God's Mercy from Anyone."

By that quote alone one could judge that you believe you can wish your very own god into existence (because no god of any religion agrees with the beliefs stated in that quote) and you believe this because you're sad about the condition in which the human race finds itself.

I don't think it would be a good use of my time to explain my beliefs to someone who is confused about the difference between wishing and actually believing.

48. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11307 by Aaron on December 4, 2006 at 5:36 am

I gladly take your challenge, David Matthews. First, we must agree on a definition of a delusion. I got the following from www.dictionary.com:

a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact

Do you accept this definition?

49. Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

Comment #10658 by Aaron on November 28, 2006 at 7:23 pm

Just beautiful, Aussie.

50. Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

Comment #10598 by Aaron on November 28, 2006 at 1:36 pm

TimeLord,

You evaded my questions only to pose your own: "There is no evidence for evolution is there?" Which argument would you rather counter?
1) Intelligent Design is not a valid alternative to Darwinian Evolution? (which is the original topic)

or

2) There is no proof of Evolution? (something about which you seem fascinated)

I'll school you on either. Your choice.