1. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #171274 by Prom_STar on April 28, 2008 at 12:01 pm

The inevitable fundie response:

"It's still just a monkey."

*Sigh*

2. Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says

Comment #169583 by Prom_STar on April 26, 2008 at 10:58 am

Why did they have to use the word "Eve"? (Because it's a literary reference, but still.) A fundie who reads this will only see that one word and respond "Ha! Science proves the Bible again." We can then expect the Hittite incident to be rammed down our throats again.

Creationists aside, this discovery is fascinating. I wish the article went more in depth on the genetic analysis used to determine this.

3. A New Flea

Comment #160800 by Prom_STar on April 14, 2008 at 11:56 am

Guaranteed, this argument for God is just another repetition of Aquinas's Five Proofs or the Kantian moralistic argument. Or maybe the argument by design.

In any case, totally bunk.

4. Expelled Overview

Comment #149477 by Prom_STar on March 25, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Good review. I have to say, the Holocaust part bothers me the most. It's not just a non sequitur, it's exploiting a tragedy like it's a stepping stool. I'm reminded of this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXsVKbHY_T0). Stein's bit sounds like the exact opposite.

5. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148047 by Prom_STar on March 21, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Wish I'd known about this video (the Harvard one) while I was taking biology 100 last semester. And unlike the Expelled guys, sending the link to my professor would have been within the realm of fair use.

6. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145172 by Prom_STar on March 17, 2008 at 10:35 am

All D'Souza's points I've seen before in a debate between him and Hitchens--where Hitchens kicked his ass, showed his arguments for what they are: a house of cards.

Again, as Hitchens said, same old shit. Over and over. There will never be a new argument from these people. Some of them are even proud of this fact. I have a friend who was absolutely dismayed when I told him I would not believe in evolution if given legitimate evidence against. He couldn't understand how I could abandon a belief so easily. I guess that's what Dennet's called believing in belief. Stick to your guns regardless of the evidence--madness.

7. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140531 by Prom_STar on March 7, 2008 at 5:06 pm

I think RD was misquoted. Wasn't he referring to the Old Testament (pre-Christian) god?

8. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138346 by Prom_STar on March 4, 2008 at 8:11 am

"anyone devoid of faith is evil, immoral, and responsible for societal ills."

I bet they bring up Stalin again. Which, of course, is a classic example of the fallacy of composition. By the same logic--or lack thereof--we should do away with all beef because some beef is tainted.

9. All worldviews are merely paradigms, narratives having no more inherent value than any other narrative.

Comment #132526 by Prom_STar on February 24, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Atheism isn't a belief in anything. It's the absence of a whole range beliefs, mainly theisms. And why are postmodernists bringing up this totality-of-skepticism argument? Haven't they read Hegel? Long before any of us were born he showed just how much of a waste of time that path is.

10. Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

Comment #132524 by Prom_STar on February 24, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Dogma: a belief held without evidence.

Obviously, this cannot apply to a rationalist, an empiricist, a utilitarian, an atheist, an agnostic, etc. ad nauseum. There have been nonreligious dogmas (the ideologies of Nazism and Stalinism, for example) but I don't think there's ever been a non-dogmatic religion.

11. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #132523 by Prom_STar on February 24, 2008 at 11:13 pm

The argument that science requires faith can stand only on the argument "there is no absolute certainty." Interestingly enough, though, it is the scientist, not the theologian, that embraces this idea. Science cannot prove. It can only test and create tools (theories) that produce results. Rational minds ask themselves, often, an essential question: what if I'm wrong. And they do so knowing it is entirely possible, if not always probably, that they are indeed completely wrong. The rational atheist has to admit that it is possible that there is a god. But until evidence can be put forward that makes him more than an unnecessary premise, we will remove him from consideration.

12. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129258 by Prom_STar on February 18, 2008 at 11:34 pm

I am actually nauseous after watching this. These parents are either nuts, ignorant, or obvious exploiters. The sheer ignorance is appalling. "How would you speak to a Chinese?" The story of how Samuel Boutwell came to be "born again" ought to be in textbooks under the heading religious child abuse. What kind of parent tells their child, "you are going to hell?" How can someone be that cruel?

13. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122749 by Prom_STar on February 6, 2008 at 12:12 am

Best part, I think, is when Jackson explains his conversion experience. "I saw a dog killed and thought--that could be me." He completely proved Hitchens' point (borrowed from Frued) that the religious impulse is born from wish-thinking and fear of death. Jackson also never really answered Hitchens' question: "How do you know that God is love?" And that is the real question religious people have to answer.

14. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117720 by Prom_STar on January 29, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Why do so many people think "The probability of the universe turning out this way is very low" is a problem? The probability of the English language existing in its current form is also very low. Yet no respectable linguist denies that English (and every other language) evolved by natural processes.

The probability argument is only a problem if you (incorrectly) assume that this current state of the world is the only way it can be. In other words, stack the deck and of course you can win.

15. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117719 by Prom_STar on January 29, 2008 at 12:56 pm

I agree. Dogma is the problem, not religion per se. But the problem, though, is that separating the two is very difficult, maybe impossible.

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

Comment #115378 by Prom_STar on January 24, 2008 at 5:45 am

All we have here is an argument ad hominem--a fallacy. It doesn't matter if Darwin was (or if some random guy says Darwin was) racist, sexist, or if he hated little green men. The merits of his theories have been proven time and time again.