1. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177765 by Tosser on May 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm

DalaiDrivel wrote:

Anyways Richard is under no obligation to apologise. He is exercising his freedom of speech, and the act of demanding an apology is often an act of callous and condescending one-upmanship, which I think it is from Schmuley, and you as well, if you mean it.

Appeals to the freedom of speech are also often used as weapons against an opponent. The freedom of speech is not at issue, and it does not grant anyone immunity from being criticized.

He is also under no obligation to take responsibility for the allusions people infer from the reference to Hitler in addition to the stated one.

C'mon! Someone references Hitler and then feigns shock that there are connotations to that?

"Hey, your wife's lipstick is the same color whores wear...What? You're offended? How? I was just comparing colors."

Or how about Ben Stein's routine of...Hey, I'm not saying people who believe in evolution are Nazis, but...

When you compare someone to Hitler, you're implying a lot. There's no inference needed on the part of listeners. Hitler is just too loaded of a topic about which to seek that kind of nuance.

Richard should apologize because he did something wrong and hurtful.

2. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177693 by Tosser on May 9, 2008 at 1:44 pm

DalaiDrivel wrote:

A Hitlerian style is both dictatorial and demagogic, yet excludes the possibility and sobriety and sense. It is the best adjective to describe Schmuley's delivery.

Damn the fact that it makes people squeamish. It makes people squeamish to say God doesn't exist, and that they aren't going to paradise, unless the long odds are in their favour.

When people hear "Hitler," they think of many more things than his rhetorical style. How many people yell and rant when they debate? And of all those people, Dawkins choose to reference Hitler. That's a trick Ann Coulter uses to compare her targets with terrorists, Nazis, and others. For instance, read this comment:

"Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read 'Mein Kampf.'"

Richard's defense would apply to Coulter too: She was only comparing Obama to Hitler to the extent that they both had books that the public should have read before the person came into power. Or as Dawkins said, "That is the only point of resemblance, and it is true."

What's pathetic about what Richard is doing is that he has rightly criticized his own opponents from making the Dictator-Atheist connection, noting that Stalin and Hitler had mustaches, so would that be a meaningful link? No. He was right that time. But here he is just like his critics, and not because they all have four limbs or two ears or anything incidental.

Richard choose his words poorly, and he should admit as much and truly apologize. But by continuing to defend the indefensible, he is shaming himself.

The evolution/creationism and atheism/theism debates are not zero sum games. We don't need to defend Dawkins here to defend rationality and science.

3. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177478 by Tosser on May 9, 2008 at 6:51 am

Richard,

I'm usually on your side in debates with religious fanatics, but comparing a person to Hitler in any way, unless they are a bigot or murderer, is shameful and childish. Just say he rants like a madman, as you did above, and be done with it. You should have apologized to the man, but you danced around in the letter above.

I have to call them like I see them. I look forward to reading your future writings, which I hope and expect will live up to the high standards you have set for yourself but abandoned here.

4. Investigating Atheism

Comment #166954 by Tosser on April 23, 2008 at 2:04 pm

To see how little thought went into this site, look at the list of contemporary atheists. They name the "four horseman" and three others. How about putting people like Ricky Gervais on there? And how about investigating "ordinary" atheists working as plumbers, doctors, insurance agents, and so on?

The site appears bent on portraying atheism as a small, quirky cult. It's not a fundie screed, but the difference is more about style than substance. Behold this gem:

"Religious belief has traditionally provided human beings with a reason to think that their individual lives have a purpose, and that the existence of humanity as such has a purpose. Atheism, on the contrary, has generally taught that both individual human beings and (eventually) humanity as a whole have no purpose in the universe, and that they will be definitively annihilated in the course of time (human beings after their short spans of life, humanity - at latest - when the earth finally becomes uninhabitable)."

5. My Argument With God

Comment #131629 by Tosser on February 22, 2008 at 7:33 pm

I did a quick search and have some leads you might want to follow up, but I'm not sure of anything or the authenticity of these.

It appears there was an official govt report:

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpus97.pdf

And then one person contacted the publisher of the report for info about religions:

http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

At the very least, the person's homepage seems cool and topical to our interests:

http://holysmoke.org/icr-cult.htm

6. My Argument With God

Comment #131595 by Tosser on February 22, 2008 at 4:20 pm

I no longer needed a reason for my existence, just a reason to live. And imagination, free will, love, humor, fun, music, sports, beer, and pizza are all good enough reasons for living.

We could just keep that quote and discard all that's been written on atheist morality and values.

Gervais is brilliant. The Office. Extras. And, if you haven't checked it out, his podcast with his co-writer, Steve Merchant, and Karl Pilkington, the world's most fascinating man.

7. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129869 by Tosser on February 19, 2008 at 5:26 pm

There should be many more studies like this, though perhaps from organizations other than the Templeton Foundation. Why people believe is a fascinating and important issue for science. Attempts to answer the question often get a gloss over of the sort, "People hold to their faiths because it makes sense out of the world around them."

Are scientists hesitant to put religion on the dissection table?

8. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126938 by Tosser on February 14, 2008 at 2:25 pm

The more I here from religious people in such debates, the more that Daniel Dennett's idea of "belief in belief" makes sense. The religious person here talks about metaphors, emotional truths, and so on, falling into a haze in which she can't even address straightforward questions like, "Was Jesus born of a virgin."

9. Help Build The Reason Project Archive!

Comment #123554 by Tosser on February 7, 2008 at 10:43 am

Seems like there are too many sites doing similar works already. What unique contributions does this site bring to for the cause of reason?

Fear not. I think that this archive will be only one part of the overall project.

10. MySpace: No place for Atheists?

Comment #118503 by Tosser on January 30, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Did MySpace provide a written explanation of why they were taking action?

Is there any one on these boards with a good press contact? This should be newsworthy.

--Tosser

11. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #117729 by Tosser on January 29, 2008 at 1:27 pm

No Karl Pilkington? That's a travesty.

At least Dawkins was appropriately recognized.

12. US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

Comment #116055 by Tosser on January 25, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Does anyone else sort of hope they're *not* successful in creating life?...how long would it take the apologists to switch from "you're playing God!" to "See? If a person can create life, than God clearly can!

Once humans create life, the process will be considerably demystified. In particular, what if we create something like a flagellum that works better than the current one? That would mean that a supreme being couldn't do better than a bunch of lowly naked apes still in the early stages of their technological development...but you're right, creationists will still find a way to cling to their faith.

13. US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

Comment #115795 by Tosser on January 24, 2008 at 7:55 pm

"The important question is not 'how long?', but 'how wise?'" said Jim Thomas from ETC.

It's interesting that certain people always have this knee-jerk reaction to almost any scientific work, but then they never engage in a thoughtful discussion about it. Instead, they remain in a loop--always fearing the potential ethical implications but never moving forward to help actually develop ethics for the new technology.

P.S. To fulfill the prophesy given in Comment 5 above: the article calls this "artifical life." Do the intelligent design faithful ever use the term "artifical life" to refer to people?

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

Comment #115462 by Tosser on January 24, 2008 at 8:10 am

The article also doesn't seem to realize that our racial labels are not genetic categories.

In a strong sense, the study of genetics *is* the study of evolution, and the facts of genetics contradict the view that humans are divided into distinct groups.

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

Comment #115417 by Tosser on January 24, 2008 at 7:07 am

Since the Origin of Species was published in 1859, legalized slavery in America was abolished and segregation was ended. So on a cause-and-effect level, accepting the fact of evolution appears safe.

Campolo makes the mistake that so many do: thinking that studying evolution is equivalent to studying Darwin's complete belief system, as if Darwin were some sort of secular diety, and Darwinism was a religion practiced by "Darwinists." (Note that people are never referred to as "heliocentrists.")

Securalism frees us to use modern understanding to dismiss and condemn any beliefs that Darwin held. We can maintain a respect for his enormous contribution to science even as we fault the man himself. We do the same in respecting the accomplishments of the other famous man born on February 12, 1809, even as we condemn the many racist sentiments that Lincoln expressed.

16. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #114539 by Tosser on January 22, 2008 at 11:34 am

The NY Times just reviewed 'Irreligion' here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/books/22kaku.html?ref=books

In publishing, almost any review is welcome, and this review even offers modest praise for the book. But the reviewer (the Times' most prolific) hardly seems moved to address any of the questions seriously, and labeling Paulos a "wiseacre" unduly marginalizes the author's arguments.

The first half of the one-two punch can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/review/Holt-t.html?scp=5&sq=religion

Like so many other commentators, Jim Holt (whose review is linked immediately above) claims that (I'll paraphrase), "The good, serious, and complex beliefs of the majority of the faithful are being ignored while the simple, easily swatted-down arguments of the minority are focused on."

But often when you try to pin down a believer's beliefs, you get tap dancing like, "That's not a propositional belief, it's an approach to life."

Is it too much to ask of the faithful that they state what they believe using simple, direct statements phrased as propositions? That way, we'd be able to focus on the alleged "real beliefs."