1. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163403 by John Done on April 18, 2008 at 9:56 am

I never tire of these articulate counters to the claims of cdesign proponentists. It cuts straight to the matter at multiple points: why we shouldn't believe something confounding to be magic, the way in which evolution accounts for complexity (and hints to the orgins of life itself), how the idea of god(s) fails to constitute as an answer, the hogwash of theology, and the obviously misleading tactics of the ID movement. Were this to be known to those self-cloistered individuals only exposed to religiously-inspired misleading materials, the matter of religion and science, and religion itself, would surely be resolved sooner than the most hopeful predictions.

2. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150388 by John Done on March 26, 2008 at 8:08 pm

My sincerest best wishes regarding your successfully living through another cycle around the sun, Dr. Dawkins. Here's to many more solar cycles of promoting science and eroding religious faith!

3. Fleabytes

Comment #129981 by John Done on February 19, 2008 at 8:54 pm

A wonderful and precise article. I've been waiting for a review like this for quite a while.

Viel Danke.

4. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128564 by John Done on February 17, 2008 at 11:51 am

Great article. It's time we started to get serious about dealing with these pompous postmodernist pricks and their support for segregation under the banner of multiculturalism.

5. The argument from oranges

Comment #128291 by John Done on February 16, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Okay, this isn't offending, it's just funny.

6. The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in 'Expelled'

Comment #128176 by John Done on February 16, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Intelligent Design cannot have any applications, as it makes no predictions on anything. It merely nullifies the applications of evolutionary theory and says "the foundation of the universe a being unlike anything conceivable" which effectively nullifies all science and rationality. No basis of reality could be found in such a world. You'd just have to not think about it and essentially let the world around you run as it would without making any sense of it or interacting with it. And that's madness.

Ben Stein really hasn't a clue what he's talking about, and he doesn't seem to much care. All of this secrecy will only cement his popularity amingst the hardcore creationist crowd, and exclusive group which can only expand with the children it indoctrinates. The film will undoubtedly alienate everyone else willing to look at the evidence, and inspire suspicion in those not yet analyzing their own worldviews rationally. No converts, no groundbreaking revelations, just conflict and humiliation.

This film should not be taken seriously. However, its adherents should, as that's the only way to adequately address the issues that stimulate these conflicts between heartfelt beliefs and fact-finding rationality.

7. Virus immunity 'created in lab'

Comment #127916 by John Done on February 15, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Seriously? Immunity? I knew biotech would get us somewhere! My bet is, it'll take us many other places in the near future.

8. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117382 by John Done on January 28, 2008 at 5:58 pm

World Net Daily? No comment. No need.

C'mon! Look at the cover! Total flea.

9. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116006 by John Done on January 25, 2008 at 9:04 am

So ignorance is the ultimate sin? Everyone who's never heard of Jesus is doomed to eternal suffering? Everyone? I guess that means it's just a hit-or-miss deal.

The idea that you have to evangelize to everyone, even that little girl who's too young to know what you're talking about, that would just destroy all normal life. *Everyone* would have to listen and accept the come-to-Jesus talk before anything else could happen. And the thing is, some Christians believe that once that happens, there is no normal life, it's the end of the world. Again, it's just a horrible hit-or-miss situation. We're apparently supposed to accept a life-changing set of ideas entirely based on the power of the threat of eternal suffering.

Well you know what? A lot of people are offering the same deal. *A lot*. Multiple promises of personal salvation all saying that the other promises will lead to damnation. How are we supposed to decipher which one is true? Trying to see if they're telling the truth won't help, because everyone *really* believes what they're saying. None of the spiritual experiences help. There's always a holy book you can read; it doesn't help. And even if you find something that seems to make sense, you're only using human standards, not God's, so all of your experience, earthly or spiritual, DOES NOT MATTER. It's all completely random and meaningless.

OR:
You can use your senses, feelings, and reasoning, everyhting that you are and have, to see the world around you, accept it as it is, search for greater knowledge and wisdom, and not have to invest in promises of eternal salvation or damnation that make no sense and have no meaning in the real world.

10. How Evolution REALLY Works

Comment #112578 by John Done on January 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm

I knew cdk007 would end up here one day. He has a whole collection of videos explaining these matters quite thouroughly.

11. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106348 by John Done on January 2, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Aside from the hypocricy, offensiveness, and lack of originality that just about anyone here can easily point out, these particular theists seem to overlook the significance of the Scarlet 'A' by simply replacing it with a 'C'. They forget that the very origin of the symbol comes from the scarlet letter of adultery (of "The Scarlet Letter" fame) and the shame that comes for those who bare it, though we use it as a way to stand in the face of redicule and persecution by using it as a symbol of pride. Simply inserting any letter you want makes the symbol lose its literary, historical, and societal significance, and like all other superstition merely cheapens another aspect of our lives.

12. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #99812 by John Done on December 17, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Any development in our understanding of the human mind and religion through empirical means is of great help to anyone who wants to literally see ethics in action. To not only be aware, but aware of how we are aware, can prove that happiness and understaning needn't come from faith, but from the study a material godless universe.

The other advantage of this development concerns Harris' public image. Now no one can say (although they probably will anyway) that he's simply an atheist author trying to cash in on a popular trend. When you quote Sam Harris and someone says "Who the hell is that and what does *he* know?" you can say "He's a qualified neurologist who's responsible for better understanding the inherent connection between belief and the brain. That's who he is. Who are *you*?"

13. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #99667 by John Done on December 17, 2007 at 9:22 am

Once when I was still a Christian, I bet someone that there would never be artificial life, that without a soul which humans can't create, organic material remains dead. It's a good thing nobody recorded that bet.

Whenever people caution against the advance of science, you'll find two reasons behind it. Either 1) they're warning against the potential of doing evil with it- a legitamite concern, but no reason to revert to primitivism- or 2) you're "tampering in the realm of nature", doing things humans were never "meant" to do. The motive behind the second motive is usually religious, because if there's a god he almost certainly has a plan for you and anything that you do on your own whim can only screw it up. Uncovering the workings of the universe is seen as another way of tampering in God's domain, and therein we see the God of the Gaps argument. God is supposed to explain something, but science doesn't leave him very much room and the idea becomes irrelevant (or at least it becomes obvious that it was always irrelevant). So when evolution came around, the religions declared "That can't be right" until eventually some said "Okay, we were wrong about evolution, but you CAN'T claim that the soul is really just the workings of the brain!" And once that's done they'll go on to say that you can't make life from scratch, but then they'll realize that we've already been there, done that.

Hopefully we won't have to wait until we master EVERYTHING ABOUT NATURE before people realize how meaningless the concept of God is.

14. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98151 by John Done on December 13, 2007 at 6:32 am

Regardless of the political significance of this decision, it is a clear indication of where the loyalty of most Americans is: not in Washington, but in a "kingdom not of this world". For such an otherworldly ideology it sure does have a lot of influence in real life. Anyone who says that religion is basically harmless is not only blatantly ignoring the reality of 9/11, but the very condition of American life, both in politics and everyday life. It is not because of an obsession with thoughtcrime that we concern ourselves with other people's beliefs, but because of the effects the mere use of the word "God" implies, even without a specific religious context. To be a theist in America is to say "I am special and you are not, and remember, I'm humble" whereas any atheist saying the same thing (apart from being a rare individual talking out of his ass) is immediately called out not only for that, but for simply not subscribing to any mythology or superstition.

Even if this vote is technically unimportant and changes nothing (or so I hope; there'd better not be anyone "enforcing" this in any way), it is a clear violation of he constitution. To mark any religion as special (simply for being the majority, the DUMBEST reason for ANY decision ANYWHERE,) implies that its subscribers are in some way superior or at least different politically from anyone else. Of course Christians have played an important role, if not particularly good because of religion; religious people are everywhere, and have the same abilities as everybody else. Why state the obvious? Selecting anyone for special notice violates the Establishment Clause, the FIRST THING MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

If anyone has any care for anything other than Jesus' satisfaction with their earthly lives, they should realize how dangerous this kind of political recognition could become. It had better be a harmless promclamation striken off as unconstitutional immediately. If not, the word "persecution" may become a very real thing in America.

15. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92422 by John Done on November 30, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Is the existence of atheism itself compatable with the existance of a loving God? I don't think so. If there is no God, then the religious are simply mistaken, many by psychological forces about which they'd have no knowledge of or be able to control. If there is a God, then the fact that people can live happily without God is a mystery, as atheists must therefore be either inherently evil and thus beyond the use of free will, or they are deceived by a natural world set up by a God that apparently wants people to just *guess* that he's there.

The argument that atheists are evil is as tired as the inverse, that religious people are good. Rejection of God or the Church is not inherently responsible for the rise of amoral nationalism. Perhaps we should find a more adequate explanation for Hitler's cruelty. (Remember him, Herr Ratzinger? The catholic who along with Mussolini endorsed the Church and allowed it to play a more powerful role in the post-war world? Who put "Gott mit uns" on every soldier's belt-buckle? You served in his army at one time, so while you may have been too young to be at fault for it, you should be able to remember where German catholics once put their faith.) Even Stalin's anticlerical campaigns had more to do with dogmatism than a rejection of the supernatural.

Maybe Herr Ratzinger should take at least *one look* at the Debate Points on this site. Anyone here could provide more knowledge and understanding than the entirety of the Vatican.

16. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88449 by John Done on November 16, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Why is Ken Miller played by a younger George Carlin?

Seriously, a great program.

17. Georgia gets rain, but it may not help

Comment #88446 by John Done on November 16, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Clearly, this is divine intervention! Only the God of Abraham would mock humanity's plea for help and smite innocent children. Glory be to his outrageous, self-absorbed, overtly destructive, child-endangering ways!

I still say that Ra and Thor should be given equal time when considering alternative theories, along with all of the other hundreds if not thousands of rain/storm/sky gods throughout history.

18. A third of adults believe God watches over them

Comment #87608 by John Done on November 12, 2007 at 3:12 pm

"Matthew Frost, its chief executive, said the report 'demonstrates the prevalence and potential of prayer' and he hoped that more people would pray about issues such as world poverty and climate change."

Yeah, that's it! We need to *pray* about these issues! Oh, wait! I just got a great idea! Let's DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ISSUES. For Ra's sake, can't these people think of something better to do than *wishing*? How about we just decide the fate of the planet on a coin toss? Heads, utopia; tails, total annihilation. If we lose the coin or it somehow lands on its side, then we shall consult the innards of a rabbit. At least then the superstition will actually take place in the open, as opposed to *inside our heads*.

19. Holy communion

Comment #86844 by John Done on November 10, 2007 at 9:40 am

Again, here's the prominent view in the media, even in the humanist media, that religious moderates have it right. The fact of the matter is that faith is the reason why fundamentalists and extremists believe strange and terrible things. And why do moderates and liberals believe not-so-strange things? Faith. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but when it comes to a common cause between two phenomena, isn't a more even-handed approach appropriate? I know that approaching the two kinds of believers themselves shouldn't be so generalized, but when the reason two unnecessary ideas exist is the same, we should say so.

Take Sam Harris, for instance. He's already spoken publicly about the dangers of an even-handed approach to religion. And yet this does not keep him from warning people off from religious moderates and categorizing himself in the "destroy religion" crowd. This is because while we identify what keeps religious moderates from extremism, we still acknowledge how it is unnecessary for these people to believe at all and how it makes it all the more difficult for us to deal with fundamentalists.

I still stand by Harris' evaluation that the position of the religious moderates and liberals is the most intellectually absurd; they betray both faith and reason for the sake of their own comfort. But this "I'm an atheist but" shit has to rank pretty high up there as a threat to the success of our heresy. It isn't helping. We will ally ourselves with moderates as we see appropriate for the situation, but we will not stop being honest with ourselves and others, and when people hold stupid ideas that may well provide cover for extremists, we tell them so.

Accepting a godless universe is the easy part; getting others to see this while still having to respect the validity of faith-based ideas is damn near impossible.

20. The Cancer From Within

Comment #86619 by John Done on November 9, 2007 at 6:00 pm

I have been hearing about the spread of evangelical Christianity through the American military and the government for months now. It is revolting for me to hear that this is what is being considered patriotic now. To serve this country's people is all that is required, and is more than we can ask. To serve not just a god, but *this* god, above all others, is not the business of our government. I hope that a new generation of Americans will be able to pull us out of this nonsense Governor Bush is getting us into, for our sake and for the sake of humanity.

21. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86604 by John Done on November 9, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Alright, here's a (fairly) simple rule to follow when determining whether or not an idea reflects *any* reality human beings can possibly care about:

1) Can this idea be reduced to any interaction with a particular sense or feeling? If no, then the idea is nonsense; it has no relation to yourself or anything that you interact with or to anything that interacts with what you interact with. If yes, proceed to 2.
(Comprehensive/Nonsensical)

2) Is this idea in any immediate relation to anyone or anything else? If no, then the idea is in your head, imaginary; it reflects you alone and should not and cannot be projected onto the world around you. If yes, proceed to 3.
(Realistic/Imaginary)

3) Does the idea stand up to all other available data you receive? If no, the idea may need to be adapted to reflect your reality. If all data is in direct contradiction to the very definition of your idea, it must be scrapped as false. If yes, then congratulations, you've adequately formed an idea about reality!
(True/False)

The Theory of Evolution (along with all other accepted scientific Theories) meets all three objectively realistic qualifications; it is comprehensive, realistic, and true as far as any human being can be concerned. The idea that the Earth is flat meets qualifications 1 & 2, but fails to hold up to conflicting evidence; it is comprehensive and realistic, but false. The idea of a soul that thinks and feels meets qualification 1, but has no relation to anything in the world other than the person having a spiritual experience; it is comprehensive, but imaginary. The idea that a God is a "necessary being" that somehow keeps reality in existence means nothing because we have no idea what could be necessary for something to exist rather than not exist; it is nonsensical.

Contrary to what D'Souza would have us think, we don't have to believe anything based on bad evidence or reasoning. Emotivism, subjectivism, pragmatism, relativism, postmodernism, and last but not least absolutism are all claimed to be substitutes for a "failed" philosophy that we haven't even tried to any significant extent: rational realism. Everything we think and do and feel is in this reality; we shouldn't miss our brief opportunity to take part in this world as conscious, rational beings.

I just made all of that up on the spot. What do you think? Is it pretty okay?

22. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86577 by John Done on November 9, 2007 at 4:33 pm

I'm trying to think of who it was who said "To say that a religious man is happier than a nonbeliever proves nothing more than stating that a drunk man is happier than a sober one". Saying that religion makes people happy answers next to nothing about whether or not it's true, or wise, or safe.

I'm sick of this insinuation in the media that religious moderates have it right. Maybe they need to be reminded of why we bring up fundamentalists at all.

I also have a concern for this indifference that's gripping the youth of the developed world; it mostly has to do with a combination of the spread of technology making things easier (and making people lazier), a disillusionment with contemporary religious and political ideas, and the influence of relativist and postmodern ideas of what truth is. I do see the need for something more active and positive for people to have greater meaning in their lives. However, a turn to old religion and reviving passionate spiritualism hardly seems to be the answer.

Perhaps we do need to support a positive belief. A secular form of spirituality that embraces true non-speculative science and doesn't include any metaphysical bullshit would certainly hook us all of the mystics (if you're into that sort of thing). But there are already a number of secular communities and organizations advocating science and reason to enhance human happiness and understanding; it seems almost everyone in the media chooses to ignore these groups to make this heretical trend seem like a movement of angry teenagers.

Regardless of who's happier than who or who's scaring off potential converts, this kind of "well, atheists have problems too" shit isn't helping. We'll figure out what's *real* first, and then we'll decide what to do with ourselves.

23. Hello Again, Michael Behe!

Comment #86269 by John Done on November 8, 2007 at 10:02 pm

I am well aware of the intellectual ambiguity of mainstream believers. I want to figure a way to make theological discussion of anything impossible without adhering to a more objective, comprehensive code of reasoning that, when presented well enough, you'd have to be completely insane to decide to depart from it (literally, you'd be detached from all reality). The twists and turns of theological rationality (or lack thereof) and common religious experience are what intrigue me, and I want to better understand it so that I can deprive it of its flexibilty. I want to grasp belief and truth itself, as the believer sees it, whatever form it takes. That's why I brought up psychology. Also, to describe oneself as learned in theology at least takes away the claim that I hadn't looked into this and that I don't "understand".

24. Hello Again, Michael Behe!

Comment #86262 by John Done on November 8, 2007 at 9:29 pm

"Oh, I gotta get me one of them Mathematics PhDs. Then I can mix it with Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, A.C. Grayling, etc because I'll be so knowledgeable. Yay me!"


And I'll be sure to become learned in theology in order to truly understand that which Dawkins and the "New Atheists" cannot grasp!

No, I am seriously considering taking a course in theology. Because of my Catholic upbringing it's had a hold on my attention for some time, and it seems to be fairly useful when dealing with the faithful (or at least it *should* be, as some keep claiming). Don't worry, I will be studying philosophy and maybe psychology as well, in order to gain a professional understanding of something, you know, REAL.

25. Losing faith in Quebec

Comment #86261 by John Done on November 8, 2007 at 9:23 pm

Ah yes, the good old "Don't infringe on *my* right to force *my* religion down *my* children's throats" argument. That's like saying "It is a violation of my freedom of speech to keep me from depriving others of the freedom of speech. And no you can't use the same excuse for me, because you would be violating my freedom of religion as well!"

26. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #86204 by John Done on November 8, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Did anyone else see this article?:

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html

Apparently Flew didn't even write the book at all; Christian apologists put words in his mouth. If this is true, then the situation regarding the intellectual honesty of mainstream Christianity is even worse than I thought. It's sickening. I may have to show this to my mother (who gave me the book in the hope that I'd believe again) to show her that she needs to be more careful about where she puts her trust. That goes for everyone; we need to show the public just how many people are *lying* to keep this delusion alive.

27. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85414 by John Done on November 5, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Did Dalrymple just ignore how Harris mentioned the so-called thoughtcrime suggestions that he supposedly made in his book? Harris never suggested that we kill people for their beliefs. Ever. The closest thing I encountered was when he worried aloud (as he tends to do) about the nightmarish possiblity of using extreme methods to survive a murderous onslaught brought about by religious fanatacism. That Dalrymple continues to present this most deplorable of all strawmen to the general public is most dishonest, nearly insidious. What exactly was it that Harris admired in him again?

28. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85048 by John Done on November 4, 2007 at 5:13 pm

I can't believe that my mother actually handed me that book just now. She has no idea who Flew was, what he believes, or any other relevant circumstances. All she knows is that he was a "prominent atheist" who "changed his mind" and that the book'll somehow instantly convert me back to catholicism. If The Dawkins Delusion didn't do it (yes, she actually thinks McGrath has it right; she hasn't even read The God Delusion, says she "doesn't have to"), what makes her think that an aged intellectual I've barely heard of who was convinced by arguments from design possibly have any affect on me?

Any suggestions for dealing with my mother? I'm stuck here. I can't tell her that I've been visiting this site; that'll just confirm her belief that Dawkins is evil. That's really how powerful the Church's hold on some people is.

29. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84935 by John Done on November 4, 2007 at 9:46 am

My lack of God, how many strawmen do you think populate these books?