1. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128055 by Conrad on February 16, 2008 at 1:40 am

I'm only ashamed that the US doesn't get the great pride of calling her our own. Though, I must admit a slight tinge of joy at seeing the French taking her in. Sadly, none of the neo-cons will see the irony.

2. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #101426 by Conrad on December 20, 2007 at 10:56 am

No, no, you guys don't understand! This was simply one of the animals that wasn't in walking distance from Noah's house and it died in the great flood at the same time as the dinosaurs! It must have been an EVIL animal and so god smote it. Whales however are towers of virtue.

3. Abstinence Programs Face Rejection

Comment #100585 by Conrad on December 19, 2007 at 12:17 am

I, like everyone else, am not surprised. Next on the list of no brainers (though not really gov't supported in money) is that cohabitation before marraige is not damaging either.

I would also like to know exactly what "relationship building skills" means. This too could easily be biased biblical bollocks.

4. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99241 by Conrad on December 16, 2007 at 3:23 am

Oh. Crushed by Joni Mitchell. You're right ADH, I now believe in a god who's blood I must drink and who's flesh I must eat because a songwriter mentioned "paradise" in a song lyric..

Please continue with your earth shattering insights...

After reading your scribblings for a while now, I must conclude that you really are a simple minded twit. You are indeed less than those believers who would be open to evidence. You happen to set yourself against it in the guise of openness. While they may be deluded, you are willfully ignorant. It is your continued unalterable presence that most dismays me. If you avoided facts in private then I couldn't slight you too much, but your preference for ignoring evidence in public leaves you a millimeter from contemptible.

You've never said a word that is new or interesting and only reiterated all the same arguments over again as if we didn't just finish answering them. Had you been a believer who had some sort if insight I see how we could have tolerated you.

But as of this thread, when I'm around, you can expect little other than ridicule. Your time of open, inclusive conversation has been squandered. Either say something worthwhile or piss off.

5. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99238 by Conrad on December 16, 2007 at 3:02 am

So I've skipped passed every comment about this piece so that I may simply state my own views uninhibited.

I found that Sam was brilliant. Solid in form and presentation while Hitchens, a great favorite of mine was sloppy and rough in his arguments. Richard was far too quite and Dan was smart but, as always, too meek to make himself noticeable against the others. Though if one has a mind for philosophical ideals then I believe that he had quite a lot to say. In the end, I'd have to say that Sam presented the best points. And this coming from someone who doesn't really follow Sam's point of view on "atheism".

6. Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

Comment #98495 by Conrad on December 13, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Adherence to unthinking dogma is not restricted to the main Abrahamic religion and that is the main reason why religion is dangerous. Once you believe propositions based on no evidence to be true then you can be lead down many vile paths even from "sophisticated" systems. For example two men recently cut off and stole a hindu holy man's leg because they believed his claims that it held healing powers.

Irrationality is still dangerous no matter how pretentious the packaging.

7. Believe it or not

Comment #97356 by Conrad on December 12, 2007 at 12:12 am

So what our writer is saying is that the right fights to pick have nothing to do with the facts and constitutional basis of the case. Only fight if you know for certain that you can win, in any other case, stay silent.

I can't express the loathing I have for such political preening.
When was the last time a writer such as this did something unpopular because it was right, or refused to be silenced from saying something that was true? In giving advice like this they seem to miss the idea of freedom and truth altogether.

8. Christopher Hitchens appears on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show

Comment #97352 by Conrad on December 12, 2007 at 12:01 am

Amazing. The host, an informed man apparently, is yet naive as a child about the importance of being a Bishop and the actual ties this entails. Also, to conflate asking a man if he will follow the teaching of his religion and follow his leader above all else or follow the constitution, with that of the inquisition is absurd. It is a question that must be answered, no matter what silly equating with england goes on. To ask questions and demand answers is not to threaten the sword as this otherwise seemingly informed host should know.

9. The art of the soluble

Comment #95697 by Conrad on December 9, 2007 at 1:50 am

Horrible review and from what I've seen of Lennox I can easily assume it is a horrible book.

Everyone here knows sophistry of this kind as it has become old hat and has already answered it in six posts. Is this writer supremely ignorant or willingly dense?

The existence of a god who has any role in our physical universe is a scientific question. A god who by definition has no basis in our universe can be said to not exist. Either way the review is tired and boring for all the same old reasons. It's as if none of these people READ.

10. Keith Olbermann talks about the Romney 'Religion' Speech

Comment #95696 by Conrad on December 9, 2007 at 1:38 am

I was more than pleased to hear Olbermann point out that John Adams was behind the alien and sedition acts. A horrendous treason against freedom was committed by that man as president and Romney quotes him in a speech about freedom!

Also on par was his point on how Romney 1) labeled secularism a religion, and 2) then went on to attack it in a speech about religious freedom. The mind boggles.

11. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #95661 by Conrad on December 8, 2007 at 11:56 pm

Exactly Ayaan. Exactly.

12. The Pagan Christ

Comment #95098 by Conrad on December 7, 2007 at 10:50 am

It has been said and should be often repeated that if jesus did exist it adds no more evidence to his miracles than the existence of New York is evidence for Spiderman. As to the case of jesus actual existence, I leave that to the historians. It's irrelevant for my purposes.

13. Let us kill all the teddy bears

Comment #95092 by Conrad on December 7, 2007 at 10:42 am

Brian, I too agree that if there are indeed moderate muslims within islamic nations then they should be encouraged. I'm simply having a hard time finding them.

14. Let us kill all the teddy bears

Comment #94964 by Conrad on December 7, 2007 at 4:16 am

Brian, while to some extent you may be correct about the 60 percent of british muslims who do not advocate Sharia law, this says little about those who actually live in those muslim countries under question. It is almost to be expected that some number of those who live in a tolerant land will easily feel free at relatively little expense to themselves to speak out. Where are our representatives from muslim countries (the countries where these atrocities take place most importantly)? The reaction from those in a free land and blunted by western democracy, should not be held as the prime example of muslim belief nor moderation. Where are those who actually LIVE there who are speaking out? Are there exactly zero people in Sudan who support freedom in regards to religion? Lets not talk about the british, lest we be reminded about the near 40 percent who prefer Sharia law.

15. Colouring book warns kids of pedophile priests

Comment #94947 by Conrad on December 7, 2007 at 3:16 am

Guilaume,
You have of course given yet another angle on the great "problem of evil". It seems as though, god himself will do nothing to save a soul, even be it a innocent child. Exactly as we would expect from a universe that didn't have one.

16. Let us kill all the teddy bears

Comment #94942 by Conrad on December 7, 2007 at 3:10 am

Rasco, I applaud you efforts. I am of course skeptical that any such "moderate" group actually exists. But nothing would delight me more than to see another group of muslims rallying against the zealots.

17. The Pagan Christ

Comment #94941 by Conrad on December 7, 2007 at 3:06 am

Bonzai, you are quite correct to state that the mainstream historian view is that Jesus did exist. After that of course, it is quite clouded. It is those who wish to state that he didn't exist at all though that have their work cut out for them. Not that I would begrudge the finding that Jesus never existed, but the simple fact that people rewriting jesus happened to take from existing myths is nothing unsurprising. Their doing so says nothing about the actual existence of the man.

18. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94930 by Conrad on December 7, 2007 at 2:43 am

Chuck Norris deserves my unending pity. It was of course the tattoo line that sends me over the edge. Much like Indiana Jones and the swordsman, I think in his next showing, he needs to be met by someone with a gun.

As a side note, I'll inform everyone that ol' chuck as never actually been in a REAL fight. You know, one with without rules and refs. Who knows how good of a fighter he actually is, in you know, reality. He certainly seems to be losing his current bout with it.

19. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #94925 by Conrad on December 7, 2007 at 2:27 am

It is telling that to begin he quotes Adams, who enacted the alien and sedition acts, which are the height of unconstitutional (un-american as some would say today...) as Jefferson pointed out at the time.

A later quote: "A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."
Correction, a person should be rejected by his faith if he professes all the passages that are inhumane and unconstitutional.

Another telling remark "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."
This of course assumes that none of the churches matters overlap with those of the nation. Maybe any fans of NOMA should advise him on how to work out such blatant conflict.

He of course then goes on to quickly contradict himself saying "My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs."
Frankly, you either follow you elders or you don't. Either you follow the council of the church or you don't. But if you don't, how then can you call yourself a member? I can touch the dissonance. Or worse, the bullshit.

" Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism..."
This of course speaks for itself.

I will also comment on the ignorant display of the use of "the founders" next to comments about our money and pledge. These things came about in the 50's. Let's not be more ignorant than we need to be for political reasons.

I'll end with something quite opposite to the ending of this speech. Thomas Paine and Sam Adams once shared a correspondence that I'm sure good Mitt has never read. It is again telling that Mitt quotes Adams, for in correspondence with Paine he says says, "I am told that some of our newspapers have announced your intention to publish an additional pamphlet (after Common Sense) upon the principles of your "Age of Reason."
Do you think that your pen, or the pen of any other man can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?"

I believe I can see through Mitt rather well. He has failed to convince me of anything. Quoting historical religious figures be they patriot or not, will get you no further with me than defending slavery by pointing out that the founders all had slaves.

NIce try Mitt.

20. Let us kill all the teddy bears

Comment #94905 by Conrad on December 7, 2007 at 1:41 am

It is a common misconception that in the muslim world there exists anything called "moderate islam". Ayan Hirsi Ali would do well to give our columnist a good talking to. All too often assumptions are made and parallels pointed to that don't exist, but could be set right, if we only asked people who have actually been there, lived it and know.

I'll again ask where all our muslim counter-protesters are? If they are indeed the greater majority, why do they not even write anonymous letters to editors, or to tv stations? Where is the widespread outrage that such action is taken in the name of their "moderate peaceful faith"? Or does it not exist?

21. Colouring book warns kids of pedophile priests

Comment #94901 by Conrad on December 7, 2007 at 1:29 am

Does the catholic hierarchy even realize the terrible irony in that these coloring books by catholic leaders, warn kids to say away from, well, catholic leaders? In effect the moral is, "catholic children: beware catholic priests (and anyone else who acts like one)."

22. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #91683 by Conrad on November 29, 2007 at 1:16 am

2 days after the smoke clears I finally return home to find that this board has turned on it's head and lost it's ability to see irony. Our normally honorable and overworked admin censors posts on a thread that has a great deal to do with free speech, I find a supposed atheist who is pathetically unread blathering on religiously about moral absolutes (of course with no evidence), I see a man described as disgusting for the simple recognition that he is indeed male and that that actually impacts his life and unconscious decision making, and to my shock and horror I see revolting ingroup/outgroup behavior amongst a group of atheists who of all people should know better!

I am saddened to be reminded that one being an atheist is not a mark of intelligence or rationality.

As for my donation status, I'll be damned if the majority of you deserve to know.

23. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91664 by Conrad on November 28, 2007 at 11:31 pm

I seriously hope Huckabee is gaining steam. It will considerably easier to scold religious beliefs of a candidate that are beyond the pale and take away a good deal of religion's political weight.
The more examples we have of a candidates religion hurting their bid, the less seriously it will be taken. So lets hope for a real nutter who we can score a good deal of points against, and thus also give a good warning to the incoming president.

24. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91288 by Conrad on November 28, 2007 at 12:56 am

If Mitt is too sly to answer such pressing questions when they are tied to his vacuous religious beliefs, then simply phrase them differently.

"You were associated with a racist organization for about 10 years. What is your explanation for this?"

"Do you or do you not take orders from anyone?"
"If so, do these orders supersede the constitution?"

Done. All that is left in this case is to repeatedly tell him to answer the question.

25. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #91017 by Conrad on November 27, 2007 at 1:43 am

Well Gadsden,
I suppose the bear should be happy it wasn't throw to "ravenous killer whales".

26. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #91013 by Conrad on November 27, 2007 at 1:19 am

This is horrific and mundane all at once. News such as this is not new and such a fact makes it even more horrific.

I am also reeling at the attempts made to justify such behavior or those who practice it but do not fully follow it. We, being rational beings, can all easily agree that in this particular case these parents were not angry at Ms. Gibbons because of her violations, views or actions regarding foreign policy.

No. More simply, she violated a religious rule. Darfur did not create the religious text that proscribes such behavior, and you would not need it to have a culture that follows it so fervently. To be clear, you could have a failed theocratic state that cannot accept it's own short comings and must blame others to explain it's constant outrage. Though, in this particular case, such points are not needed. It is religion and religion alone that prompted this.

To those who would defend the upstanding moderate Sudanese Muslims, I propose a simple test: Where are the protests? The letters to the editor? The public outrage that the good name of Mohammed, prophet of a "peaceful religion" should be tarnished by those who jail a teacher (according to religious doctrine) because she let her class name a teddy bear?

The plain fact is that either these moderate muslims do not actually believe that making images of Mohammed (in any sense) is bad, thus their silence on such a matter would show them to be less than upstanding, or they do believe, in which they must agree with such a barbaric occurrence making them not quite the upstanding people they are painted to be. So unless some muslims begin to cry foul, do not defend them. They have not earned it.

As a side note, I will not hear claims of fear keeping good, decent muslims silent. To be a christian in a muslim country may give you good reason to remain silent, but to be a muslim in a muslim country, and yet claim fear of your peers is an even worse indictment of islam, and all the more reason to question why such "upstanding" people would defend it, much less claim it as their own.

27. 2006 Charles Simonyi Lecture: 'Can the Internet Save The Enlightenment?'

Comment #90999 by Conrad on November 26, 2007 at 11:04 pm

yyuryyub,
Many of us would be quite interested in the link to such audio. Could you possibly put it up?

28. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #90383 by Conrad on November 25, 2007 at 1:03 am

Interviewing niceties aside, this was mostly rehash. Though I will say that it's a bullet point rehash, thus we get to hear the sound bite version of most of Hitchens' talking points, which is always helpful to hear for when one might find themselves in a debate and asked similar questions.

As for his smoking and drinking and what-have-you, I always counted it simply to the fact that as an obstinate contrarian. No matter what public opinion is, he's going to do whatever he damn well pleases if it brings him pleasure (and isn't a felony). :)

29. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90380 by Conrad on November 25, 2007 at 12:31 am

"To do the prime minister's job properly you need to be able to separate yourself from the magnitude of the consequences of the decisions you are taking the whole time...But for me having faith was an important part of being able to do that"

Those two statements are why faith should be viewed with such distain in politics. If you're making decisions that effect entire countries and the world, then you do indeed need to separate yourself from the weight of it all and simply make the most logical, rational decision based on the evidence given. Faith of the other hand is belief based on non existent proof.

So to say that your ability to make rational, evidence based decisions is aided by your ability to irrationally believe without evidence, is simply nuts. To then complain that it's unfair when people point this out is even more nutty.

30. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86984 by Conrad on November 10, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Flagellant,
In order to misunderstand the humor of my post, one must be looking for something to quotemine and use against me. As it stands I see it as perfectly clear to state that someone who uses Kant's noumena in such a way that Dinesh uses it does not have a clear understanding of what the idea entails.

But more importantly, I'm not going to restrict my free expression for the fear that someone may be looking to quote me unfairly. We get that even when we are at the peak of our rational stride. I will not be 'worried into silence' because of a laugh derived at Dinesh's expense and I certainly won't be 'concerned into silence' if I feel the need to laugh again.

31. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86717 by Conrad on November 10, 2007 at 2:46 am

Flagellant,
Biting comments about noumena are expected here. To see Dinesh stumble over his basic understanding of a concept and laugh, is not to turn us into some monster. It's to chuckle about a very self assured man getting his ass handed to him.

I've read the article by the way and came to the same conclusion as Kelly: Dinesh didn't see like Kant didn't, that talking about noumena leaves us with nothing but speculation. And that isn't somthing to base belief upon.

So in the end, I have no need to add to the debunking that Kelly has already finished. If I did, I certainly wouldn't be vain enough to link my writing to this site without permission.

32. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86707 by Conrad on November 10, 2007 at 2:34 am

This is shite. First of all crowing about 13-24 year old's being in church is what's to be expected. Unless you leave the home at twelve and get to declare your disbelief, then we should expect those numbers to be higher. Only after leaving home and being on your own for a good set of years would we expect that familial pressures would abate enough to declare yourself an non-believer.

As for the studies findings in "positive" points, we can quicky question the terms "ethical life" good "volunteer work" and "positive civic activities". In my time in the church, I spent time at homeless shelters serving soup ONLY so that I could preach to the homeless. In some shelters you can't get food UNLESS you profess belief.

I regret the capitalization, but I don't have enough net savy to write in italics online.

Also, the idea of more chrisitians supporting an ethical life leaves open the very question of what it means to be ethical! And anyone who follows the mainstream teaching against homosexuals, the "christian" subjugation of women, or the endorsements of violence, don't count as a voice of ethics as far as I'm concerned.

We then have the same problems as far as "civic activities" are concerned. Yes, you pick up trash, so only to be around the public in order to show them how wonderful you are. It's not about actually picking up trash for it's own sake. It's about making a positive impression. If none of these activities made a positive impression on non-believers then less churches would participate in them, because they don't actually help the churches main goal: adding numbers. It's not about good for its own sake. It's about numbers.

33. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86702 by Conrad on November 10, 2007 at 2:12 am

People ELECTED this man to work for their betterment. And his answer to problems is to pray? I'm beginning to think I should go into politics. Anything is smarter than proposing prayer as a way to get rain. Even if I suggest swallowing your spit I'll be elected in a heart beat.

34. Antony Flew's Bogus Book

Comment #86693 by Conrad on November 10, 2007 at 1:33 am

Sadly, Carrier, pushed on by those around him, got his name involved and thus added more philosophical weight than was needed in this case. Yet, even so, their naming Flew, "The Worlds Most Notorius Atheist" was simply insane.

35. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #86692 by Conrad on November 10, 2007 at 1:28 am

So many contradicting religious stories by region. Yet the evidence is the same everywhere.

A more concise argument against religion can hardly be made. A little clarification may be needed, but my goodness, is that sharp.

36. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86681 by Conrad on November 10, 2007 at 12:18 am

Now THAT is the kind of ice cold takedown I like to see. I'm still chuckling wondering if Dinesh even knows what noumena are. After seeing this article, I can't wait to see the next 50! I expect that they all will reach and surpass this level of sharp, intelligent and concise takedown. RRS, you may very well have one new reader.

37. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #86179 by Conrad on November 8, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Jack if any of that was aimed at me your bile is misplaced. I've never said one negative or even mildly critical word about the RRS till this very thread, and indeed in other situations been one of the few supporters. If you repeatedly hear that the RRS isn't peoples cup 'o tea then you haven't been hearing it from me. If I have to be any more kindly gentle and accommodating in critical reference to this one single article, I may spit. No where have I said, and all I can account for is myself, that I thought it was bad. But I don't think it was wonderful either and I've said so in a terribly mild way. But snotty? Come now. If you happen to enjoy the piece, then more power to you. I did not. And I wouldn't be repeating the fact if the rest of you didn't get your panties in a twist over it.

As for my thoughts on the content, frankly and for the very last time, it reads like a flame piece to start and has many strong points mixed in the middle. But overall if they're looking to come across as scholarly, they need to ditch the reliance on invective and rhetoric, or save it for the end. Otherwise they're stuck with a good internet forum article that could be alot better. I want them to do better.

And d4, hold you temper and spare your computer, your wallet will thank you.

38. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85900 by Conrad on November 7, 2007 at 12:48 pm

GoatBoy,
If indeed someone claims that your views are incorrect simply because they don't like the style they were presented in, then you would be correct to kick them in the shins.

However on the flip side, pointing out that an articles style may be lacking is not essentially an attack on the views expressed. As I've said before, I tend to agree with most of what Kelly and the RRS say. Likewise, was I one of the few here that supported the Blasphemy Challenge. Otherwise, I've never liked their approach. Much like how I enjoy Hitchens debating skills but found his book mediocre.

If now though the RRS wishes to tackle the arena of more scholarly writing, which I'm more familiar with, then I'm all for them doing so. But like a teacher who gives a student a low grade, I don't want them to fail, I want them to improve. And they won't do that by constant praise without criticism. And in this case the arena of public opinion if the teacher, my thoughts only counting a small portion.

Lastly, an art critic with no hands will never be able to go out there and paint like other painters out there. This though in no way negates his opinions on art. So the argument of, if you're not out there doing it yourself then you don't get to criticise, doesn't fly. I'm sure doing what she does, Kelly has a think enough skin to weather a little criticism and she'd be foolish to disregard it all as "hate" and "trolling". In fact if she continues down this road and her writting gets sharper, I may actually be inclined to pay attention to what the RRS does, and that would be good for everyone!

39. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #85884 by Conrad on November 7, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Just another case of ID being EXPELLED from somewhere. It's just not fair to these guys when someone takes them to court and uses things like evidence, a judge, and jury of their peers to show that ID is false. Sad, sad, sad...

40. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85615 by Conrad on November 6, 2007 at 12:29 pm

I likewise was left wanting more from the article argument and style wise, if of course it was meant to be a scholarly refutation and not simply a blog forum rebuttle. Though I enjoyed it nonetheless. But to simply state that a writer could improve on their presentation and admiting that it read in a lackluster way is in no sense trollish behavior. It's a simple observation and not deserving of the quite over-the-top response from Sapient.

Athiests are not a solidified unit. They will and do disagree about most things. Any article written by an atheist will not be accepted on that fact alone. This fact should not need to be expressed, and we should not respond with flame and bile simply because someone does disagree with any part of an article.

This is puerile that we've even gotten this point and that someone who disliked the presentation of an article should need defending of their ability to do so without inane howling following in their wake.

Frankly, Sapient, if the articles that follow this one are written in the same manner, then yes, Janus and any of likemind are allowed to comment upon what they view as a lackluster presentation. No one doubts Kelly's intelligence and most here support and agree with many of her views, but if someone says that a particular post was weak, siting her credentials is not an answer to such a claim. My advice would be to write a better article.

41. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85597 by Conrad on November 6, 2007 at 10:56 am

I would like to add as an aside that if one set out to write a book about the evils of any topic, then no one should be surprised to see that all the good it may have done doesn't get alot of page time. Frankly it isn't the purpose of the book.

In effect such a criticism reads like: "Hey, I don't like your book criticising reilgion. All it does is criticise religion."

Even so in each book there is reference to what religion has done that may have been helpful in human history. Though by the premise, you shouldn't expect that section to be too long.

42. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #85086 by Conrad on November 4, 2007 at 11:52 pm

As for the bus part, the cart has gotten before the horse. We give our seat to old ladies because of our evolutionary heratige, not because it creates a selective advantage now. Treat others as they would wish to be treated is a strong moral instinct, thus leading us to such an action.

As for the heritage itself, altruism and empathy are obvious answers to such a question as they allow us to cooperate and thus lead more peaceful lives, thereby having more offspring survive. I'd be stunned if even the farthest gone creationist would claim otherwise.

43. Jesus Rides the Number 7 Train

Comment #85084 by Conrad on November 4, 2007 at 11:42 pm

Penultimate is just another linguistic fad. Much like "schadenfreude" was there for a while and "raison de etre" was before that. It'll pass. Forgive him his writers weaknesses.

44. Lessons in hate found at leading mosques

Comment #83624 by Conrad on October 30, 2007 at 5:25 pm

A woman who simply GRUMBLES EVERY NOW AND AGAIN is of hell?

Assuming then the man isn't perfect, his wife is not allowed to call him out on his asshatery? No wonder there is currently such a large number of Islamic wingnuts. They don't have any self correcting mechanisms in their lives, namely, a wife that can call "bullshit".

45. A Rational Universe Implies a Creator, Science points towards Theism

Comment #81646 by Conrad on October 25, 2007 at 1:54 am

This argument is no different than "everything has a beginning, there must be a first cause. That cause is god" argument.

A beginning to the univese does not imply a "Causer" no more than laws imply a "lawgiver".

Rationality is then explained by darwinian principles allowing us to naturally comprehend the environment we are being naturally selected against. Being able to comprehend such an environment is a great advantege to not being able to comprehend it, that would easily be selected for.

46. Pascal's Wager

Comment #81640 by Conrad on October 25, 2007 at 1:45 am

Infinite as-of-yet unimagined gods leave Pascal's odds at nil.

Belief cannot be forced. Fire burns no matter how much I'd like to believe otherwise.

It would of course be safest to side with the god that vowed to punish you the worst for nonbelief. But would you actually want to worship that god?

Simply put, why don't you side with muslims? If it's because of any evidence based claim, then we're back in my court and playing the odds becomes meaningless.

47. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81634 by Conrad on October 25, 2007 at 1:39 am

Simply put, Darwin has dismantled the idea of "design" through naural selection quite clrearly.

More intersetngly are the fundanental constants. We know little about them. In the end it is just as likely that they could be no other way than how we see them.

First cause leads to infinite regress. What caused the first cause? If something must be uncaused, the universe is just as likely (or more) than anything else.

As for something rather than nothing, physicist Victor Stienger (and nobel laureate Frank Wilczek) answers that "something" is the natural order of things. In fact the greatest proof one could give of god is a universe with nothing in it. The transition from simplicity to complexity is a natural one (think snow flakes). "Nothing" being the simplest state there could be, we cannot expect it to be very stable. Nothing is unstable; Thus: something.

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

Comment #81619 by Conrad on October 25, 2007 at 1:21 am

Though I can't PROVE that I love someone or not, I can give evidence to such an end which my lover will judge by what she believes loving actions to be.

To continue this Idea I'll quote DCTalk, "Love is a verb". If god gives me nothing to make a decision upon then it is just as likely that he hates me and wishes me harm. The natural world would seem to argue for such an answer.

49. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #81615 by Conrad on October 25, 2007 at 1:13 am

Even if I did conciede that science didn't answer "why" questions, we still have no way of knowing which religion actually answers the "why" questions correctly. Thus, it's possible we may be worse off with the wrong answer than with no answer at all. Suppse the answer you're given is that you must engage in self flagellation for every "impure" thought.

Yet I'm not even going to go that far. Meaning is placed upon life by the one living, (I could state the meaning of your life is to do my dishes, but you may not want that. So it is with everyone who attempts to give you your meaning for you. You may like or dislike the suggestions, but at no point is the meaning you're given the one you've given yourself) leaving this question dead in the water, by begging the very question that it is trying to assert.

50. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #81609 by Conrad on October 25, 2007 at 12:58 am

Third party meaning is no meaning at all. If an advanced alien race long ago tweaked the hominid line in order to make a better race of slaves, then this too would give our lives meaning from a third party. But simply because meaning is given to us by another entity doesn't mean we will wish to recieve it.

On a side note, anyone who has actually read the entire bible will find it to be horribly written in a pedantic dreary style that hardly ever lets up. Even aside from the content, it's terrible writing! I don't take to the argument that being a christian gives you increased artistic sense or ability. If this were true then the vast majory of artists today would be christians....

As for life being depressing, we are depressed when our expectations are not met. It's my opinion that having a reality based view of the world leaves me vulnerable to less of my expectations being thwarted. For example, I don't expect prayers to come true and thus am not saddened by thoughts that requests to my diety have been ignored or refused. Instead I place my trust in what is possible, and more importantly, probable, yet always leaving open the possibility of the unexpected.