1. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181166 by Sauveterre on May 16, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Amen. I suspect, though, it's less to do with atheist bad morality and more him not finding what he was looking for here and jumping to the next potential source.

Yeah, that did occur to me. I think Keith might be right. With the number of conversions and 'life changing' decisions Morgan has made, it is possible this will just be another conversation starter.

2. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181165 by Sauveterre on May 16, 2008 at 1:54 pm

RM talking about morality is a bit like Wilt Chamberlain talking about celibacy.<lockquotes>

Yeah, but now that I read the story, I do remember him going up in arms about people laughing over a cultist's fate. I like the point where he says, 'David Robertson would never say a thing like that'.

My thought: What's your point?

I have met many, many preachers around here on my campus who are all too willing to condemn people to hell. For wearing the wrong clothes, looking too effeminate, or having long hair. And much worse things have been said than simply, "It's a pity he didn't kill himself with the log."

How about this one: "You are going to burn forever and ever, being continuously sodomized for your (sexual indiscretions/not believing/being an assertive woman/ etc.)."

The gist of the conversion story seems to be that he thinks Christians are more polite. What a sad (and blatantly untrue) reason to convert.

3. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181160 by Sauveterre on May 16, 2008 at 1:42 pm

So I was right. It wasn't RM thinking about the issue and deciding that he thought there was a god. Not even coming up with a (flawed) ontological argument, or anything referring to the existence of such a being. Instead, it was morality that turned him to god, when morality has absolutely no bearing on god's existence. Some of the site's members made him feel bad, and so he decided that god existed, because some atheists can have a dark sense of humor.

I think, judging from posts that he had written before the conversion, that he sees the flaw in this reasoning. Or he would if he would allow himself to.

You can't get an ought from an is. And you can't get an is from an ought. Whether people on a forum somewhere behave as you think they should or not, the christian god has the same evidence to back him up. That is to say, none.

4. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181136 by Sauveterre on May 16, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Well, looks like I missed out on a lot. So, can I get a copy of the conversion story?

5. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #181110 by Sauveterre on May 16, 2008 at 12:41 pm

How about the story of Job? You walk into a house, only to see it destroyed, your farmland ruined, and your life reduced to a shriveled pile of shit. Then at the end, when you are covered in sores, a voice over a megaphone will condemn you for questioning your punishment, and generally just make you feel terrible.

6. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180205 by Sauveterre on May 14, 2008 at 11:16 am

When did you find dog again, Morgan? Was he hiding under a rock the rest of the time you were on this site?
Oh wait, dont tell me: "He was there, trying to get my attention all along, but I ignored him. I simply had forgotten how to listen." Or some drivel along those lines.
Really, what was your conversion story? Or if you've already shared, can you direct me to the article where you did so? Did it have anything to do with logic, or just random warm fuzziness?

7. The detail in the Devil

Comment #176090 by Sauveterre on May 6, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Rod the Farmer:


I'm in. Although, is 9 years of atheism enough? Sorry, I just cant measure up to the 50 year mark (existential complications).
I've often thought of doing just that, and then laughing in a priest's face when he tries to exorcise you. Maybe faking all the babbling and screaming, writhing on the ground. The whole works. Yeah, I could enjoy being possessed for a while. We could get some genuine satanists to stand in and try to send an evil spirit into us, just to complete the farce.

8. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #175132 by Sauveterre on May 4, 2008 at 2:07 pm

I cant help but disagree with the wide opinion that the United States is going downhill. Although it is true that many people here resist evolution and in some cases history, with maybe a little bit of cosmology or chemistry thrown in, it usually ends there. For some reason, there is a complete mental disconnect for faith heads. They are perfectly happy with the chemistry that makes bombs, fertilizers, maintains all the apparatus of industry. The physics necessary to perform most engineering is perfectly fine with them too. Even biology is okay as long as it doesnt say anything about god.
But as soon as you follow any field to its logical conclusions(i.e. all living things are just chemicals acting according to specific laws), then they start going up in arms.

So I think that this kind of nonsense will be able to keep going on for quite a while without hurting anything more than U.S. credibility. And its a shame, because if there were more consequences, Christians might actually cut it out.

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

Comment #154628 by Sauveterre on April 3, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Oh yeah, I forgot another important conclusion that must be drawn.

No countries with widespread internet access have existed for longer than a few decades. Therefore, the internet lifestyle just isn't right for our nation. The internet can only bring sorrow and regret.

QED

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

Comment #154619 by Sauveterre on April 3, 2008 at 2:07 pm

"Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than a few decades," Kern said in the recorded comments. "It is not a lifestyle that is good for this nation."

Isn't that a bit like saying that no country that has completely embraced modern physics has lasted longer than 150 years? I mean, what criteria do you even use for "completely embracing" homosexuality? I guess if there are absolutely no consequences, and no social stigma, for either gays or lesbians, then you would have complete embrace. I was pretty sure that such has only been happening in the last twenty years or so. And until one of the nations that has 'embraced' it collapses, I'm not really sure that this statement means anything at all.

Of course they have only lasted a 'few decades'. That's all the damn time that has passed since these social changes started occurring!

11. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #133742 by Sauveterre on February 26, 2008 at 4:28 pm

But doesn't this basically already exist?

http://www.tolweb.org/tree/

Yeah, but it's taking way too long to expand. I've been waiting for the site (tol) to start speeding up for about a year now, but new entries still take forever. And entries are often remarkably short considering how long they take to add them. Hopefully the new site improves the process.

12. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131509 by Sauveterre on February 22, 2008 at 1:39 pm

However, considering kriskings tendency to limit conversation on any subject to just a few words, I really could not be bothered to try to get into a discussion.

True. I'll just join in the fun. On the other hand, I was wondering if you could explain something about punctuated eq. on the whale page.

13. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131500 by Sauveterre on February 22, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Steve

No, its "brains", not "beings". Still, that is what religion does for you...

I actually think that Krisking has a legitimate point, but makes it into something more than it should be. I think what he has correctly observed is that many people want explanations for the world around them that will make them feel good. Theists always call it a "God-shaped hole", but I am inclined to think it is more just a need for specialness. A need for fuzzy warmth. And since religion is really the only world-view that makes the ridiculous claim that we're all super-special (while simultaneously claiming we're all evil and deserve hell, but lets ignore that) that is what many let take that space.

14. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131465 by Sauveterre on February 22, 2008 at 1:06 pm

At the moment, I don't think I agree with this; mostly because there is so much religion in the world. Where did it all come from? Why does it exist at all?

A bad idea only has to be come up with once, in distant antiquity, and as long as it is imposed on your progeny, has built-in defense against members leaving (hell), and is the best explanation for the world you have(at the time it was), it will continue to be passed down regardless of whether it has any merits. If you really don't agree with this, simply ask yourself, if a child were not allowed any interaction with religion at all, would they ever come up with the gospel of Jesus Christ? No. Would they come to any other religion, if they werent specifically taught it? No. Then they are atheist.
However, it is quite conceivable, in fact almost a guarantee, that were all scientific understanding of the world eliminated, it would eventually be re-discovered in its entirety. This is because science depends on a world that is always there for everyone to see, where the laws arent changing. Rather than on some relatively inconsequential, piddling events in the Bronze-age Middle East.

15. Whale Evolution

Comment #131395 by Sauveterre on February 22, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Steve

A group of species was selected that all had a whale body plan, and such a range of variability that some were whales and some weren't. Suddenly the climate changed, or a small meteor hit or something, and all but the whaley ones were killed off. Nothing to do with gene selection.

I'm not completely familiar with Gould's arguments, as all I have read of him is in Dawkins' books thus far. But is this what he actually proposes? And even if large scale catastrophes were always involved in speciation, wouldn't the fact that one species survived and the other didn't imply some kind of selection for their ability to survive the disaster? (i.e climate change) Or does his theory always rely on some kind of indiscriminate slaughter event(like a meteor), where by complete chance one body plan is wiped out?

16. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #127655 by Sauveterre on February 15, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Wow. We apparently have an incredibly rude... big bang-denier? Umm, I guess its something new, at least. Anyway, reading this topic is quickly becoming as fun as wading through garbage. Have fun with the post modern 'if you werent there, it didnt happen' logic.

So besides theoretical knowledge/ideas of how things came about

What other kind of knowledge do you want? I dont think first hand experience is going to come anytime soon. And were we there, how could we know our senses were really telling us the truth?!!!!

Go back to reading Dancing Wu Li Masters.

17. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126513 by Sauveterre on February 13, 2008 at 11:42 am

Your contention is that "Selective" readings mean you are not a member of that faith, something you and Styrer get to decide. I don't think this is very helpful. There is some desperation here to create a monolith which would excuse us from genuine research into the topic.

I understand that passions run somewhat high between Fanusi,Al, and others, but I simply wanted to point out that Styrer basically redefined Muslim, and then said something which, when the redefinition is taken into account, completely agrees with you.

However, as for my own position, I am completely happy to promote those less literal readings as an example of tolerance, and kindness. I think that helping the moderates fight their own battle (not physical, of course) against fundamentalists is important. However, I cant help but get a bad taste in my mouth when doing so. It is promoting faulty thinking over faultier thinking, and though it is probably necessary, I don't have to like it.

As for the expulsion comments, I dont buy into that. Christians used to be universally pretty hard line, and several centuries of de-fanging has done wonders. I don't think you should ever act on what amounts to thought crimes(throw people out of the country for belief). If a fundamentalist breaks the law, then punish the crime, not all those you think harbor thoughts conducive to crime. Reasoning is a better alternative, nearly always. And if you have to reason with the mealy mouthed deists to get at the fundamentalists, so be it.

18. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126435 by Sauveterre on February 13, 2008 at 8:48 am

So is that kind of like the Nicene creed of Islam?

I wasn't aware that the Koran was for equality of women. Or said anything to the effect that they should be. In fact, I was under the impression that, like the Bible, there were many verses explicitly stating that women are inferior. (which is something moderates in Christianity scrupulously ignore now.)And if this is not the case, then I stand corrected. But I think styrer is of the opinion that those who claim to practice a religion, and then ignore specific statements in the HOLY BOOK about what is to be done, are not really followers of the faith. Again, I havent read the Koran, so I dont know if this book is free from the rabid prejudice, misogyny, and general hatred that the Bible has. Anyway, if it isnt, then I can see styrers point about selective reading of texts.

19. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126422 by Sauveterre on February 13, 2008 at 8:19 am

I think that Styrer is maintaining that those people who are moderates are not REALLY Muslim. Which is certainly arguable.(They do not, for instance, follow their own holy books whenever they feel it goes against their conscience)
And if we accept this proposition, then yes, I do strongly dislike all true believers. However, the problem here is that moderates still consider themselves believers. So any blanket criticism of all Muslims is naturally going to be taken by others on this site (steve, al-raw, oisha) as a criticism of those styrer doesnt consider Muslim. A bit of a nomenclature issue, I think.

To note:
Styrer said:

those adherents whom you have decided to separate from the tenets of Islam are not, in fact, Islamists or Muslims as we usually understand.

20. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #124520 by Sauveterre on February 9, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Does anybody have any suggestions of a few books offering an alternative position that's at least somewhat readable?

The trendiest one I have heard a lot of Christians urge is "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. I think his position in said book is basically that a moral law proves God's existence. Cant see why you'd want to bother with the details of an imaginary being, but have fun.

21. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122874 by Sauveterre on February 6, 2008 at 8:40 am

Epinephrine:
I like this point, but I think it can be extended further.

Not only would you have to disprove all of those other gods, but you would have disprove everything. The idea that everything is a given until it is disproved runs completely counter to the logic that everyone uses, universally. Even theists, when waking up in the morning, don't systematically go through a list of all the possible non-corporeal entities that could be lurking around their bed. There isn't a giant invisible pit of spikes outside your doorway. And yet, this is exactly what should follow from the absurd logic of existence until disproof. The fact that no one, anywhere on earth, actually follows this creed is proof that it is not a genuinely held argument. It is only a last line of defense by theists for an idea that seems increasingly absurd when examined critically.

22. The devilish church practice of exorcism

Comment #114612 by Sauveterre on January 22, 2008 at 1:23 pm

"Thank God," he said, "we have a Pope who has decided to confront the devil head-on." (One representative of this evil, he added, is Harry Potter.)

Ah, yes, we must denounce the horrific evil of fictional books(funny, no?)....and then abuse our children to act in accordance with the Lord's plan.

Is it just me, or is this the most warped view on morality you have ever heard seriously, soberly proposed?

"Holy Spirit, I deny thee, in Daniel Radcliffe's name!"

23. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113900 by Sauveterre on January 21, 2008 at 1:20 am

I could see myself making a clone. Maybe just raise him as my kid. The ultimate in narcissism, perhaps, but still pretty cool. Dont see what the problems are. People always say, "you cant hurt clones!" Uhh... no shit? Who exactly proposed that laws should function any differently for these people than for other people?

And if we are talking about the embryos, then there is no more ethical concern here than for any other embryos, so I dont see why people have gotten so worked up about it.

Then again, 17-year-old-me's organs DO look mighty tempting.

24. The New Theology

Comment #113171 by Sauveterre on January 18, 2008 at 6:34 pm

They see themselves as spokespersons for an emerging religious majority that has been obscured by the excesses of stubborn creationists and the iconoclastic broadsides of scientific atheists.

"emerging religious majority"...
Couple of problems here.
1. Deism is nothing new.
2. It is not a majority.

As a child, my dad basically had a very open minded deist position, which was nice for me. But even in a relaxed methodist church, his views were considered so far from the norm that he offended people practically every time he opened his mouth.
Funny thing about that. I remember asking my dad, "If it is unobservable, and doesnt affect anything, then doesnt that make it a nonentity by definition?"
Got about ten minutes of introspective silence from that one. After which he changed the subject.

25. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #110811 by Sauveterre on January 12, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Here there is much to say, but I'll say only a bit of it. First, suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover machine-like objects that look and work just like tractors; our leader says "there must be intelligent beings on this planet who built those tractors." A first-year philosophy student on our expedition objects: "Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are." No doubt we'd tell him that a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two.

Maybe if we fix this argument, it will become a little clearer to theists why it is such bullshit.

First, to bring the analogy into accordance with life, the tractors that we observe must reproduce, and show variations in their populations. There must be little tractors, big tractors, blue and green, tractors that fly, some that burrow, filling every possible niche; all the variety we see in life. Second, we must find evidence of a continuous line of tractors and various other related farm appliances for the last couple billion or so years. Third, these tractors must contain some kind of hereditary material, which can change via mutation.

Finally, there must be absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the aliens existing, as well as a complete absence in the fossil record that they ever existed.

When all of this is true, the person who casually writes off the resort to a higher intelligence seems quite a bit more learned than the buffoon in this decrepit analogy, doesnt he?

And even were everything that I outlined above true,the situation isnt quite as bizarre as the one theists propose. For they arent suggesting that another form of 'intelligent life' governed by the same principles as us, and all other species, might have existed. Instead they are throwing out everything we know, all that we can know, in favor of a magical being who they insist from the start is unknowable, and doesnt follow any observable rules.

Theists dont just want to push our explanation for life back one step, to aliens, or some other phenomena. They want to make any such explanation off limits, because god is inexplicable.

Utter foolishness.

26. Blind Faiths

Comment #108761 by Sauveterre on January 7, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Condemning multiculturalism is misplaced. It is those groups, like the Muslim extremists, who don't accept multiculturalism that are the problem.

Nice sentiments, except that by stating that Muslim extremists are a PROBLEM, you are stating that you disagree with their 'culture'. Which according to multiculturalism is no better or worse than ours.

Don't get me wrong. I think that regarding Islam as fundamentally different than other religions, or more evil, is simplistic. If Islam had 400 odd years of dilution and challenge, its adherents would justify non-literal reading of the Koran just as Christians overwhelmingly justify non-literal reading of the Bible.

But lets not pretend that Islam isn't disproportionately backwards as of right now. If a religion is used to justify murdering someone because they are gay, or they have insulted the name of a dead pedophile, then it isnt quite to the point where it can play nice with others. Or work in a free society.

Say what you want about Christians, at least they aren't killing/imprisoning people for heresy anymore.

27. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107987 by Sauveterre on January 5, 2008 at 7:05 pm

csquared1:

After skimming through the comments, I am shocked that no one seems to be adressing the objectionable comments about the Holocaust the Rabbi made. He stated that the Holocaust was the fault of the growth of secularism in society.

It isnt addressed because it has no bearing on whether or not god, as an entity, exists. It does not even belong in the discussion.

I admit that this is quite an egregious misunderstanding on the part of theists, and an intentional one at that. But after seeing it so many times, I think I understand their reasoning. They know that they are outmatched when trying to speak at any length on the (il)logic of religion, but that even mentioning this (holocaust, mao, etc.)will occupy the atheist for a while. Useful time is wasted trying to clear the muddy issue, so that the theist avoids anyone actually scrutinizing their god.

So it is a defense mechanism. Much like a sea cucumber ejecting its vile innards all over you, simply to distract you. But to compare the noble cucumber to a theist does a tremendous disservice to the species (cucumber).

I have stopped even paying attention to these remarks, and try to continue the real debate. We are morally bankrupt in Christians' eyes, and no amount of reeducation will make them change their opinion.

28. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107971 by Sauveterre on January 5, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Did not know that. Thanks eX. First time on not just this forum, but any forum for me. (I know, a little odd, huh?)

29. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107963 by Sauveterre on January 5, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Liked the debate, but there were a few times I thought that Wolpe could have been swatted down more effectively.

1. "I can say something, and change the physiology of your brain. Now how is that, unless there is more to your brain than physiology?" (Paraphrased from Wolpe.)

This comment made me start to laugh. Let me outline it. You make sound waves using vocal chords. The sound travels through the air. It is perceived by your target through small hairs in their ears. These hairs fire impulses which then reach your brain through the cranial nerve. At what point was it necessary to grasp at something beyond physiology and existence? People have got to get beyond this primitive idea of a noncorporeal homunculus living inside your brain that is REALLY you. You ARE your brain, not merely a ghost who inhabits it.

2. Can we imagine death?

Uhh, not sure if this counts, but since all death consists of is the end of your consciousness, couldnt being under strong anesthesia apply? No memories whatsoever. Of course what death will be 'like' is a mischaracterization of the problem. Since you wont be experiencing anything at all.

3. Teapot: As above, no one seems to understand that the point of this experiment isnt that you could prove it, but that you CANNOT disprove it.

Sorry, long post.