1. The God Delusion's cameo in season premiere of 'Family Guy'

Comment #256982 by MaxWeiss on September 29, 2008 at 9:36 pm

That was a great episode... "I'm no meteorologist but I'm pretty sure it's rainin' bitches." I fell on the floor laughing when I heard that.

2. Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

Comment #254411 by MaxWeiss on September 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm

I was simply pointing out that the idea of morality is to at least a degree dependant on perspective. We dislike it when it's suggested that Sharia Law should be applied anywhere in the West, so to suggest that a Western definition of the morality of a law should apply in a Middle Eastern country seems at least problematic.

Certainly some aspects of morality are subjective, but many aspects are not. It is possible to objectively analyze two moral opinions (the following being only one possible way) based on the culture which created, and the general well being of an aggregate of cultures for or against (or indifferent to) that issue. The fact that a whole Muslim society thinks it's OK to suppress women, or to deny people basic health concerns, like oh I don't know, eating or drinking during the day, does not make it OK.

We should NOT just consider it a cultural difference. Those women who want to adhere to Muslim ideas and people who don't want to eat or drink during day time may do so, but the law must respect guests' right to not adhere to those ideas.

It is only acceptable to infringe on another's rights when by doing so you prevent him from infringing on others. This is a basic moral commonality throughout all civilized nations. There is no threat posed by people drinking during the day, and it is absolutely unacceptable to force people not to eat or drink. Period.

3. Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

Comment #254406 by MaxWeiss on September 25, 2008 at 4:16 pm

The problem with all the people who think this isn't so bad is that it goes beyond cultural differences. If it was something like you can't wear skimpy clothes, that's different--that's an acceptable cultural thing. But the problem with this particular incident is that they are preventing people from eating and drinking, and this is a HEALTH concern. It is possible somebody will need food or water desperately. This is NOT an acceptable "cultural" difference. Granted the people should have studied the rules of where they were going and they are somewhat at fault for their ignorance, but that doesn't change the fact that the law is NOT ok.

4. Jewish 'ultras' defend morals with menace

Comment #251509 by MaxWeiss on September 21, 2008 at 2:31 pm

I see so many articles like this, and it just gets to me so much. I feel compelled to do something, but I don't know what! This behavior is not acceptable. Whether it's your religion or something else, your rights stop when you impose yourself and beliefs onto others. If you and yours want to be crazy in your home, that's fine, but it is not acceptable to bring that forcibly onto others. Anybody have any ideas on how to fight stuff like this??? So far my activism goes as far as bumper stickers and talking with somebody any time they say something stupid. I never convert them but I do very well with all the bystanders listening in. What else can be done on a day to day basis??? Anybody???????

5. 'Spore' Its for the Little Guys

Comment #244452 by MaxWeiss on September 8, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Yes, everybody, this game misrepresents evolution, but it's very very fun!!

6. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198509 by MaxWeiss on June 24, 2008 at 7:12 am

Ugh, that's depressing... McGrath is such a good presenter but has so little substance, and Atkins has so so many good points that just fly over the audience and McGrath because he's such a poor speaker and antagonizes McGrath so often.

That was a useless debate because no good points were allowed to be expanded upon. Atkins couldn't condense his ideas, and McGrath couldn't understand them when Atkins attempted to explain them.

Like the whole good and evil part was very important because one could easily show what McGrath thinks (there are absolute right and wrongs which are divined via god) and what Atkins thinks (just because the universe doesn't care doesn't mean we can't establish ethics based on actions/consequences) but neither was able to really step up and present that.

If Atkins could explain himself better and was more personable, he'd win over the audience by a landslide.

Oh well....

7. EXPELLED!

Comment #147624 by MaxWeiss on March 21, 2008 at 2:29 am

Nice.

8. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108497 by MaxWeiss on January 7, 2008 at 4:34 am

Do not question SAM HARRIS!

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/8890/sam5qo9.jpg

9. Sherri Shepherd needs to go away now

Comment #94628 by MaxWeiss on December 6, 2007 at 5:29 am

I wouldn't normally mind ignorance like this. After all, whether or not the world is flat or round or whether or not history happened one way or another really doesn't have an impact on how this woman lives her life or her ability to get around in a self-sufficient manner.

But the problem is that she votes and has influence on others and has a say in how everybody else's life is run. She can vote for things in the school curriculum and for who the next president will be. That poses serious problems.

I really wish there was some kind of critical thinking test and basic general knowledge test that medium and high level political candidates had to pass, because so many of them are very good at politics and socializing but lack in every other area. And while the two things are enough to get elected, they aren't enough to do the job--but that's just not the top priority if they can keep getting themselves elected. Obviously most of them are probably sincerely trying to do the best job they can, but so many of them really aren't fit for it.

10. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94500 by MaxWeiss on December 5, 2007 at 8:07 pm

NNNoooooooooo.... not Chuck Norris. I would be upset if his tears didn't cure both cancer and AIDS.

11. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90440 by MaxWeiss on November 25, 2007 at 6:56 am

I sent this to him. What do you all think??


Hello Prof. Davies!

Near the beginning of your recent Times article "Taking Science on Faith" you asserted that "All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way."

It is my understanding that something like gravity is taken to be true because while it cannot be proven true in all circumstances, it continually passes each series of tests thrown at it. And the Scientific Method is the singular tool used for all such tests. Similarly, the "laws" of nature and the "rational and intelligible" nature of the universe are considered as such because they are continually not disproved. In other words, if the laws hold over and over and over, it is very likely they will continue to do so, and if it appears that they are not, the problem likely lies in another area (though not necessarily).

I am therefore confused as to why you believe the assumption of the continual presence of the laws and order of nature is invalid. Certainly when what we believe to be true is proven false, the theories are amended or discarded altogether. Relativity, for example, amended the classical Newtonian "laws".

Whatever order or laws are assumed have been tested and observed to be true over and over, have they not??

Do you believe that gravity will continue to act in the manner that it has in the past? If so, then I am wholly confused as to why you take a different view about other laws of nature and the rational and intelligible order of the universe---after all, they are all tested and taken for granted in the same way are they not? And if not, why?

I'm not trying to be mean, and I am truly confused about your faith-in-science stance and the above statement.

Thanks for your time!

12. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #82024 by MaxWeiss on October 25, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Dinesh already talked me into buying 3 more used cars; what more do you want from me!!??

13. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80652 by MaxWeiss on October 22, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Wow, I'm so glad I can hear Dinesh speak! I had no idea that Christianity was the bringer of everything good that ever happened, ever. And I also feel that my car is inadequate, especially when compared with the prices of the models on this lot.

14. Come Out!

Comment #59726 by MaxWeiss on July 30, 2007 at 12:32 pm

The idea of being more vocal about opposing nonsense is wonderful, but it appears that the only way to be involved in this campaign is buying tee-shirts... which seems--less than wonderful--and less than useful...

15. Rudy Park Comic Strips

Comment #53007 by MaxWeiss on June 29, 2007 at 1:55 am

Shuggy, Fedler got it wrong. Maxim is one of the greatest magazines ever. It isn't nearly as full of sex advice as he makes it seem. It does have plenty advice in that department, but it has so much other cool stuff and a section on awesome new gadgets. It's kind of like a teenager's version of GQ. I just turned 23, BTW and haven't read it in (coincidentally) just about three years, but I have fond memories of that awesome magazine in all it's awesomeness.

16. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26004 by MaxWeiss on March 16, 2007 at 4:10 am

Sullivan's last post (on the 14th of March) really annoyed me. That was a very long way of saying he's religious because it's comforting. Again, of course, he has not backed any of it up or said anything useful, other than confirming Sam's statements that he must reject some tenets of other faiths. Wow, that was useless...

17. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24637 by MaxWeiss on March 7, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Here is a letter I sent to the author--I hope I didn't misrepresent atheists (you all here) in a way that you would be upset about! [Stuff italicized and in brackets was not in the letter!]............


--------
Hello Professor Campos!

My name is Max, and I am [a little about me]. (And I am an atheist.) I came across your article "Why there are almost no genuine atheists" from this last Sunday's O.C. Register.

I really liked most of it and was very happy that you were trying to connect believers and non-believers in an attempt to get us to understand each other. That is refreshing when bother believers and non-believers seem to be at each others' throats lately! [Actually, I am one of the vocal "angry" atheists like many people here, but I appreciated his aire of tolerance and didn't want to make a fuss.] However, one comment did bother me:

Conversely, when one presses a purported atheist, one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don't make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call "God." For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of "ought" statements, as in "we ought to preserve biological diversity," or what have you.

I do not know how accurate your categorization of religious moderates was, but I can speak for most atheists in saying that the above comment is inaccurate as is your conclusion that there aren't many "genuine" atheists. (Although, in a sense you are correct--16% of Americans claim no specific religious belief while only 2-3% actually call themselves atheists. It is true that agnostic non-believers are not necessarily atheists.)

Again, I liked your article, but the whole spirit of it seemed to be understanding, and so I want you to understand atheist morality better, since from the article, I don't think you do.

Atheists, in my experience, are usually vague in where they get their morals from because they simply haven't thought about it. You can rest assured, however, that there is no "belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call 'God.'"

I find it highly unlikely that anybody bold enough to claim there is no God (the 2-3% who are atheists) are going to believe that there is a higher, "ultimate" source for morals, other than how one's actions affect others. Most atheists are kind, loving people just like the rest of the world (well…. you know what I mean) and they, consciously or not, base their morals on who and what will be positively or negatively affected by our actions. There is no "ultimate" source—simply the consequences of our actions.

Many atheists may disagree on what the best way to act is, because of the different things we think may happen if we choose one course of action over another, but our reasoning—how the world is affected by us—remains the same, and it lacks any higher, ultimate authority other than consequences. I have the capacity to affect the happiness and suffering of others, and I am compelled to help others because I get enjoyment from it. I cannot tell you 100% for sure the reasons I like doing good things; it may be because I am programmed that way—helping people ensures survival—or it may be because I expect them to help me in return. But there is no reason to think that it is anything other than evolutionary instinct combined with higher brain functions and an ability to greater understand how we affect the world—certainly no higher, ultimate authority.

On a side note, based on what I have said about atheism and consequencialist views, I suspect you will find, if a poll was taken, that atheists' (the definite 2-3%) views on many moral and "political" subjects are very one sided; topics such as abortion, gay marriage (other than atheists who oppose marriage altogether), stem cell research, premarital sex, et cetera.

Anyway, I'll stop my blabbering, but I hope I have given you some further insight into atheist morality. Your article was very good otherwise. Thanks for your time!

--Max

18. The Silence That Kills

Comment #24124 by MaxWeiss on March 4, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Arab country or the current USA...

19. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #24123 by MaxWeiss on March 4, 2007 at 11:30 pm

Let's get this straight---Dawkins is not doing a good job at commenting on religion because attacking the very foundation of all these religions is somehow not directly to the point???

The specific tenets (which few follow) of any one religion versus another are what is important, not God himself???

And the author calls Dawkins an amateur!!

20. Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

Comment #22154 by MaxWeiss on February 13, 2007 at 4:40 am

I guess it makes some sense for a religious nut to study science just to understand how scientists think. I've thought about studying religion to try and get into the heads of the religious zealots, but really---how much can you put into it if you just find the whole idea preposterous???

21. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #16929 by MaxWeiss on January 9, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Has anybody actually looked at the "Truth in Science" website?? Flipping hilarious. They make sure to debunk all the biology textbooks put out by the Cambridge and Oxford Press but thankfully give star reviews to the likes of Michael Behe and others who show all the flaws with evolution. And our dear Richard Buggs is the most credible of the lot--take a look at the credentials and histories of the people who are on the board and run the thing.

-----------------

"Richard Buggs sits on the scientific panel of Truth in Science"

Maybe they should have left that credit out when they published the article....

22. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13162 by MaxWeiss on December 16, 2006 at 1:54 am

This seems misguided at best. We should be trying to prove to the world that atheists are good and decent people just like the rest of the world (ok, well, good and decent at least) and a stunt like this will just anger people and also alienate closet-agnostic atheists whom we should be trying to recruit. This is a bad idea. (Although, I might could consider it for the chance to win $25K for doing nothing.)