1. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177655 by Ascaphus on May 9, 2008 at 12:25 pm

He said that young Muslims operated in a different environment. "Being religious is a way that you show you are different, that you are proud of your heritage. One of the ways young Muslims assert their identity is by being more observant than their parents."

So what we need to do is get them to have more pride in their intellectual heritage. Get them to identify more with the scientists of the past instead of the fanatics of the past. Then they could revel in being more rational than their parents.

Matt

2. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #177647 by Ascaphus on May 9, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Hooligan wrote:

So, the only 20% of Americans left who support him are basing their decisions solely on faith. Lovely...

But doesn't that make sense? To me, this is why religion is so dangerous! It is just practice in loyalty despite evidence. They practice this, value this, and are proud of this. Of course these are the people who remain 'with' Bush. They are proud that they can remain so no matter what atrocities he perpetrates, and they are well versed in brushing aside any information which might lead them to change their minds.

This is the training that they now want to introduce into science classrooms.

Matt

3. The emerging moral psychology

Comment #175646 by Ascaphus on May 5, 2008 at 7:19 pm

Jack said:

...The conclusion is that in general the more removed we are from the consequences of our moral decisions, the easier it is to make them. In some ways this is a good thing...

I remember from back in my TV days an episode of "The Twilight Zone." A couple is given a black box with a single button on top. The stranger giving them the box tells them that if they push the button, nothing will happen to them and nobody will ever know, but they will receive a million bucks and somebody they don't even know will die. If they don't push the button, the box will just be given to somebody else. The whole story is them agonizing about whether or not to push the button. Of course after they push the button and the stranger is now exchanging the box for the million $, they are told that the box will be given to somebody they don't even know!

I think you're right on about the weapons, also. Much has been written about the advent of remote weapons and its effect on moral compunctions.

Not much new here, but it's nice to see it getting press for a general audience. It's amazing how much of this people are unaware of. I get questions all the time from faith types "...but if morals don't come from god, how do we know right from wrong...?" and so on.

Matt

4. The Moral Necessity of Atheism

Comment #175142 by Ascaphus on May 4, 2008 at 3:17 pm

It's still there via the other links.

:)

5. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174947 by Ascaphus on May 3, 2008 at 11:12 pm

I don't think is justified in coming to an atheist website and looking down his nose (so to speak) at people who seize the opportunity to take a few jabs at people who might actually attribute something like this to the "grace of God". Especially when his screen-name is 'Bizarro Dawkins'.

Yes, quite funny. I also wondered if he noticed the irony between his screen name and the accusation. Somehow, he thinks it's the atheists who come here with a chip on their shoulders...

:)

6. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174946 by Ascaphus on May 3, 2008 at 11:04 pm

Would this be allowed for any reason other than religion? If the government recommended this, would there not be an uproar about the idiocy of government? If it was the country club, would anybody buy the argument that "it's all in good fun!" They mention that somebody actually suggested that it's good for the kids. If a medical organization prescribed this behaviour, they'd be laughed out of town, after being sued for everything they've got. But because it's religion, we stand by and make videos.

What a world.

7. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174567 by Ascaphus on May 2, 2008 at 5:47 pm

BillySands:

I believe some of the radio stations have daily god slots. Do any have daily godless slots?

But here's an interesting thought - everything that is not in the 'daily god slot' is already in the godless slot. I personally think that this is not emphasized enough. One of the reasons that people can continue to maintain the little walled-off portion of their mind to coddle the 'faith' idea is that they don't even realize that everything else they see/hear/learn/know is in direct opposition, and in some cases is only known because other people were willing to actually fight against stultifying religious ideas to gain the knowledge! I have an idea that most people think that the world has theistic ideas, atheistic ideas, and then most-everything-else in a big catch-all category. But that's not true at all! Everything that is not in that 'god slot' is an atheistic idea! And the theists, along with everybody else, seem to have no problem with that.

Maybe more people would be willing to finally abandon that last desperate grip on faith if they fully realized that even now most of what they think or believe not only comes from an atheistic world view but could only have come from that atheistic world view - it is not inspired by religious thought, and the stultifying effects of dogma would never have allowed the idea even if it were not proscribed.

So, there are lots of godless slots, and it's time that the faithful realized that, and that they're loving it!

Matt

8. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174518 by Ascaphus on May 2, 2008 at 2:46 pm

...some of the atheists on this site bash God on an article that is totally unrelated to the issue of His existence (or non-existence)...

But apparently references the other way are completely invisible to you, Bizzaro. What is the title of the article? If there is a point to Dawkins' outspoken atheism, it's that religious language and thinking permeates our culture, to the detriment of society and our thinking ability. What in tarnation is the word 'miracle' doing in the article in the first place? The atheists on this list are not the ones responsible for bringing it up.

Many of us think that it is indeed science that is amazing, and that whenever people see something wonderful it is always the result of science or the natural world itself, and that invoking 'miracles' or any reference to the supernatural is ignorant, rude to the people who worked hard on the real world solution, and fails to let people recognize or truly appreciate both nature and science, substituting comic-book ideas instead. The bottom line is, it's insulting to invoke 'miracle' for amazing things; and though you recognize the blatant insults hurled by the less than polite folks on the list, you completely fail to recognize the insult that is hurled by the title of this article, and by all religious types who fail to recognize the true source of wonder.

Matt

9. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #174149 by Ascaphus on May 1, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Simmons has posted comments about this debate at the Discovery Institute. After reading it I can see why they don't allow people to comment - it is pathetic!

Wait a minute! During the opening statements, didn't he insist, several times in a row, that he was not a christian, not a creationist, not pushing an ID or creation point of view, but merely questioning the science of evolution? And now folks on this forum are saying he's a senior, or at least a fellow, of the CI? I think some people lie so habitually that they don't even know they're doing it! Not that this is excusable.

Matt

10. Lungless frog discovered in Borneo

Comment #173953 by Ascaphus on May 1, 2008 at 11:46 am

However, a bit of an evolutionary misnomer there:

The aquatic frog has evolved backwards, re-acquiring a primordial trait, David Bickford of the National University of Singapore and colleagues reported.

Yes, there are several clues that the writer has not much training in biology. Such as:

"The evolution of lunglessness in tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) is exceedingly rare, previously known only from amphibians -- two families of salamanders and a single species of caecilian (blindworm)," they wrote.

"Here we report the first case of complete lunglessness in a frog, Barbourula kalimantanensis, from the Indonesian portion of Borneo."

The 'previously' would seem to indicate that we have here an exception to that precedent. But... This frog is just another amphibian, unless there is something they haven't told us. Lungless tetrapods are still all amphibians.

mjkawa wrote:

isnt it possible that this species never evolved lungs?

Possible, but unlikely. The Anurans as an order do have lungs. For this frog to come from a line of lungless amphibians would require that this entire line (a new Order?) of frogs has evolved an identical skeletal structure and all other Anuran characteristics in what would be a nearly impossible collection of evolutionary analogies! After this amazing case of parallel evolution the clades are identical except for lungs. The simpler explanation is that an Anuran frog species has acquired lunglessness.

Matt

(you can tell from my avatar that I have a soft spot for lotic frogs. :)

11. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #127075 by Ascaphus on February 14, 2008 at 11:10 pm

A scientific technique is to take an idea and create different
hypotheses, then look at the situations or conditions (predictions)
that might be expected if either were true. In this way you can
compare to find which hypothesis best describes what we actually see.
H1: Moral behavior is an attribute only of theists. This group should actually be restricted to just the debater's own faith group, since people of all other faiths are worshiping the wrong god, they should have no better basis for morals than atheists and non-believers of all kinds.
Predictions:
1) Only theists will show moral behavior;
2) Only theistic groups, organizations, political groups and states
will show, encourage, or be based upon compassion and moral behavior;
3) Biblical stories and allegories will be unique in admonishing
compassion and prohibiting negative traits -secular myths will not
encourage positive traits or discourage negative ones;
4) The ten commandments will be unique;
5) Charitable groups will always be religious;
H2: Compassion and moral behavior is a human trait. This means that all humans have the same basis for moral acts.
Predictions:
1) Theists and atheists alike can show compassion and moral behavior;
2) Groups, organizations, political groups and states which show,
encourage, or are based upon compassion and positive traits can have
either theistic or atheistic associations;
3) Human cultures will all come up with similar stories and myths
which encourage positive traits and prohibit negative ones, including
some that predate the Bible;
4) Many cultures will come up with admonishments that resemble the ten
commandments, both predating and postdating the Bible;
5) Charitable groups will be found among many groups, theist and
atheist;

I have not included any consideration of immoral acts, because that is not the specific question asked here. Theists seem to assume that, yes, all humans have all of the negative human characteristics, and only seem to question why or whether non-believers should or will show moral behavior. If you want, the immoral behaviors can be included in H2 and its predictions, extending the analysis. This list is not exclusive or conclusive: feel free to suggest improvements and additions. As usual, the more ideas the better. You could, for instance, start with an H0 of no morals for anybody. For some this might be illuminating, but it may also be confusing for folks not accustomed to this sort of thing. It seems to me rather obvious that we’re all in this together, and that no group has a corner on morals, but… Here we are debating it!

Matt

12. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #127067 by Ascaphus on February 14, 2008 at 10:06 pm

When speaking with a Bible adherent, this one may prove useful. Reconsider the story of Abraham and Isaac. The entire episode is supposed to be a test of Abraham's submission to the will of God. In the eyes of the servile, this is a good thing.

But what would make this a true test of Abraham's commitment? If Abraham, in and of himself, had no moral compunction against killing his kid, this would be no test at all - just kill the kid with no pangs of conscience. Similarly, if Abraham's morals came from God, the entire episode would be an absurdity. If you create a puppet, the puppet will do whatever the puppeteer imagines.

The only context that makes sense as a 'test' is if Abraham already considers murder of offspring to be abhorrent. God tests Abraham to see if his submission to God is so strong that it will override even his own moral conviction against killing. The reason that the story makes such an impact is that every reader also knows that murder is abhorrent, and recognizes just what a dilemma has been posed by the almighty. The moral of this story is that, just like Abraham, all humans already recognize what is and isn't moral. It does not come from God, but is part of humanity.

Furthermore, this story is from the culprit's mouth - religion is one of the few malevolent cultural distortions that can actually encourage depravity, and successfully corrupt a person's innate morals sufficiently to make him commit immoral acts contrary to his own principles. Abraham was stopped at the last instant, but in how many other Bible stories was it God who encouraged innately decent humans to commit atrocities. Things they would only have done under the influence.

Matt