1. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #202070 by AtheistAspy on June 30, 2008 at 7:30 pm

The question of extraterrestrial intelligence is different. It is specifically a science fiction question, not a scientific one.

How is that?

If E.T.s are "sci-fi," then so is every scientific hypothesis that has yet to be confirmed.

Does this mean we should reject new ideas in science just because sci-fi writers use them?

2. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #201640 by AtheistAspy on June 30, 2008 at 1:17 am

Why a ceremony?

Why not? There's no real reason, except to meet family and friends, proclaim your devotion, create pleasant memories for later reflection, and, of course, there's the sentimental value.

I don't think you *must* have a ceremony, but don't see what's inherently religious about it.

Cultural conditioning by the faithful, not the inherent nature of marital ceremonies, is what causes us to see marriage as inherently religious.

We could just as easily ask why we should bother celebrating birthdays.

3. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #201603 by AtheistAspy on June 29, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Goldy

People living together is a relationship, not necessarily the ceremony itself. There is no reason in principle why a marriage ceremony must involve either the government, religion, or any organization for that matter.

Weddings and commitments need not be religious anymore than birthdays. The belief that they must, I think, is somewhat of a dogma advanced by the faithful.

4. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #201238 by AtheistAspy on June 29, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Goldy

After all, I did get married - that's a religious based ceremony.

I've never understood why marriage is considered religious. If you're devoted to someone and wish to commemorate it after a set period of time with a ceremony, why should it be religious?

5. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #201223 by AtheistAspy on June 29, 2008 at 12:55 pm

black wolf

he Gallup poll from 1999 asked:
"As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?"

People in both the UK and Germany were asked the
same question, and the results were almost exactly the same (UK 19%, Germany 16%).

Perhaps a small few do believe that, but it still sounds like they could have been confused.

Slightly less than 1/5 the population is what I'd intuitively expect to misunderstand.

Then there are those few who give random answers or who like to mess with survey results.

Edit: The question doesn't sound idiot proof. I've known people who get confused about even simpler things.

6. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #201082 by AtheistAspy on June 29, 2008 at 12:57 am

Bonzai

If Atkins came better prepared I am sure he could have mopped the floor with Craig too. If someone makes an argument for God that only a trained philosopher can refute it is probably a stupid, irrelevant argument based on word play to begin with,

Three cheers to the anti-philosopher, :)

If you accept that religious faith is not warrnted and that it differs from, say, a "belief" in logical axioms, you are taking an epistemological position. When you explain why you take that position, you egage in the same sort of philosophical reasoning that academic philosophers use.

If you take a position on materialism, whatever it is, you're taking a metaphysical position. If you put forth arguments, you again use philosophical reasoning.

If you think that morality is somehow non-objective or that it is ojective, you take a meta-ethical position, which, yet again, can only be backed by abstract reasoning.

And so on.

Where exactly do you draw the line between philosophy and everything else? How do you do it?

7. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #201080 by AtheistAspy on June 29, 2008 at 12:46 am

FALSE beliefs are everywhere. Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found.

Most likely they don't believe that but just got confused by the question.

8. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190932 by AtheistAspy on June 10, 2008 at 12:24 am

Scientists as a whole are increasingly open to the idea of a conscious Creator.

Didn't Nature do a study showing 63% of scientists did not believe in a god, and wasn't the number like 93% for those in the NAS?

I love when people make shit up.

Edit: NAS = National Academy of Sciences

9. A moral test for true believers, Rudd style

Comment #189607 by AtheistAspy on June 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Asked on ABC TV recently whether his religious views would influence how he ran the country, Mr Rudd said: "No. You are elected on the basis of the views you put to the Australian people; the policies you put to the Australian people."

So what would he do if Australian voters had his views for religious reasons?

10. The Great Evangelical Decline

Comment #188877 by AtheistAspy on June 4, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Podaar

This reminds me of Mormon leadership's tactics. They claim 12 million (or more) members worldwide, but they count every person who's ever been baptised and are still alive. Rumor has it that the active membership is much lower.

False bragging rights.

Funny, I read somewhere there are more ex-mormomons than mormons and that only 25% of converts remain mormon.

The mormon church is also not the fastest growing.

Also, unlike other churches, they don't publicly release details about how much they donate to charity.

11. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188247 by AtheistAspy on June 3, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Man, this thread got long fast.

12. Karma comedians

Comment #187751 by AtheistAspy on June 2, 2008 at 2:19 pm

"some people have not been born [with two hands and two legs and half-decent brains] for a reason ... the karma is working from another lifetime. It is not only people with disabilities. What you sow, you have to reap."

WTF

13. Teacher tortures, kills boy

Comment #187726 by AtheistAspy on June 2, 2008 at 1:34 pm

zoron

People, people...you really need to get informed, beatings and pedophilia in such "schools" is really a common practice, there are whole organizations and web sites dedicated to just this.

Really people, in case of Islam, not generalizing is a fallacy.

Hey, if more dead kids mean fewer terrorists tomorrow, then waht's the problem (sarcasm)? Not only are you sick, but you also seem to be inconsistent.

14. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186853 by AtheistAspy on May 31, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Actually Keith, you're the one making the idiotic comments.
Yes, many atheists do in fact replace one dogma for another. In my experience, atheists care way more about politics than their religious counterparts and tend to be more dogmatic when it comes to political issues. If you disagree with them or are even slightly apathetic about politics they tend assume something's wrong with you.

Even when the person ends up having fewer beliefs to be dogmatic about, it seems they "make up" for the lost dogma by being even more dogmatic about their remaining beliefs.

Where do I get my ideas about atheists? Personal experience and empirical data. I've seen data showing that atheists donate less time and money to charity and have more emotional problems, for instance. That could be due to demographics since atheists are disproportionally young males. Or could be that smart people tend to be smug.

There was also my AP European History teacher I mentioned and many others who've convinced me that a disproportionate number of atheists are smug political activists.

I think people are dogmatic in general, atheists being no exception.

15. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186661 by AtheistAspy on May 31, 2008 at 12:09 am

Fine, annulment, not divorce, such a big difference.

I see no reason to believe the husband lied anymore than I do to believe the wife lied.

Okay, I'll admit we just don't know whether he lied or she did, but I still don't see any reason to involve outsiders in their dispute. My 2nd point stands if she wasn't a virgin and the other two do regardless of whether she lost her virginity.

You're not the same one got so offended when I called for abolishing NASA are you?

16. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186656 by AtheistAspy on May 30, 2008 at 11:26 pm

I don't think most atheists are any less dogmatic than the average theist. In my experience, the typical atheist simply replaces one dogma (religion) for another, but of a political nature.

I remember my senior year high school; I had a heated argument with the teacher of my AP European History class. Basically, I said that if do the math, it is quite easy for someone making upwards of $70,000 dollars a year to become a millionaire if he invested 10% of his income each year in a savings account. I did not wish to have an argument with him, but he became very angry once he heard my opinion, which is when the argument started. He yelled at me, got red in the face, and told me to shut up. He never apologized by the way, even though I did.

This guy was a hardcore atheist leftie who had been arrested in the 70s for blocking a munitions train. This guy also said he did not have enough money for saving even though he spent $900 on a student dictionary no one used and had summers off to work.

Too many people like this comprise the atheist liberal elite. Politics is seriously overrated, and to most atheists, politics is just another religion.

17. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186650 by AtheistAspy on May 30, 2008 at 11:03 pm

1. Who cares what the French law says? If either person wants to get divorced, why not let him/her?
2. She didn't just lie about her virginity. She knew it was important to him. If it's that important to the other partner that you be honest with him/her, no matter trivial the potential lie seems to be, then for that person's sake it is only for the best that you be honest. To truly love someone means that you'll consider even seemingly unreasonable requests.
3. Just because he divorces her doesn't mean he doesn't love her. Things are not that simple.

I find it somewhat hypocritical that social liberals will support unrestricted divorce, but then oppose it in this case if the motivation for the divorce was religious.

18. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181677 by AtheistAspy on May 17, 2008 at 10:47 pm

I wouldn't mind taking a religion class, if it was neutral. Religion really is an interesting phenomenon.

19. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181674 by AtheistAspy on May 17, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Yeah, that's fine.

20. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181670 by AtheistAspy on May 17, 2008 at 10:06 pm

Yes, I have Asperger's.

It means nothing. He just seems to from his posts.

21. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181662 by AtheistAspy on May 17, 2008 at 9:32 pm

Henri Bergson, do you have Asperger's?

22. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #178728 by AtheistAspy on May 12, 2008 at 1:05 am

Anomalocaris

AtheistAspy,

Why! why! why! would it be a good idea for the richest country in the world, the country with the best technology, and the only country with the know how, the experience, and the infrastructure to support an effective space program to sit back and wait for other countries to develop space technology????

As mesomodel pointed out, China and other countries could easily develop the technology instead. Besides, anything involving space colonies would occur on a long term scale. I see no reason to think that U.S. contributions will matter in the long-run, especially if China's economy overtakes us.

obviously the idea of evacuating earth is retarded, even if you built a space elevator you couldn't move that many people into space even assuming you had somewhere to put them.
what IS reasonable is the establishment of self sufficient colonies on mars, and the moons of the outer solar system. Eventually over the course of hundreds or thousands of years we might even be able to develop interstellar travel and expand beyond the solar system. What I was actually referring to however was the ability to deflect large asteroids and other bodies capable of causing extinction level impact events. I'm surprised you didn't get that considering that you seem to think that human extinction via one of these impacts is inevitable and overdue.

-Again this is all long-term and I don't see what difference U.S. contributions will make.
-Again, if any major disasters occurred in the short-term, we'd be screwed anyways. No amount of research dollars could possibly improve the situation no such short notice.
-Again, for anything long-term, I don't expect that U.S. contribtuins will make a neglible difference.
-Furthermore, the U.S. space program's primary focus seems to be, not on deflecting asteroids, but on searching Mars for life.

We have not thoroughly examined mars for life we have barely scratched the surface with a handful of robotic probes designed chiefly for other things than looking for life. However even if it is completely lifeless it can teach us many things about geology, and climatology to say nothing of its potential for terraforming and colonization.

-Again, Mars is a barren desert. Why blow billions now on a barren piece of rock, when we could search water Europa in a few decades with cheaper, more effective technology?
-Again, let other countries learn whatever information Mars has to offer.

It is interesting that you would bring up global warming as much of what we know about the greenhouse effect was discovered by studying Venus and through satellite observations of the earth neither of which would be possible without a space program.

-Again, let other countries make these discoveries for us.

It is possible for the human race to do more than one thing at a time. We can improve health care, protect the environment, increase standards of living, work towards ending our tribalistic infighting, AND expand our knowledge of the universe.

-Of course, just let other countries handle the part dealing with the space program.
-Besides, we'd gain knowledge by focusing on medical and environmental research as well.

23. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #178232 by AtheistAspy on May 11, 2008 at 1:18 am

If we were to end the Iraq war, cut back military spending, and end the bush giveaways to the richest Americans we would likely have more than enough money to provide true universal health care and dramatically increase medical research funding.

-I don't know why you keeping harping on about what other areas of spending we can reduce. I'd agree but also like to see space programs cut.
-It's a non-sequitor, really. That we waste money in other areas does not make the space program any less of a waste.

I never said that the US had to maintain its dominance in space however if we were to step back and let china take over that would mean an almost 50 year setback in human space exploration. Also while I could be wrong it seems that china is more interested in the militarization of space than it is in science.

-You need back up your claim that it would a 50 year set back and demonstrate why that's necessarily a bad thing.
-Even if China wishes to militarize space, I don't see how our involvement will prevent that unless we militarize things ourselves, by which point we would be the world's policeman.

Your expectations of what we might find are irrelevant the fact is we haven't looked yet, and if we look carefully and find that there is not and never has been life on mars that too is a worthwhile discovery. Mars is another planet with its own unique climate and geology studying mars can teach us a great deal about planets in general and even help us understand earth better.

-Wrong. We have looked, repeatedly. Even if life is there, the odds of us finding it don't look very good. Mars is a barren wasteland. So far we have nothing. Europa is currently thought to have liquid water under its surface. What better place to look for life than one that already has water and is not light years away?

Your statement that we don't have enough technology so we shouldn't even try is ridiculous. you don't develop the needed technologies by sitting on your ass doing nothing.

-You're totally missing the point. I don't want us to develop the technology. I want to wait until other countries have developed it. Other countries are clearly interested in space travel. Let them make the discoveries.
-Why blow billions of dollars sending space craft to a barren desert in a futile search for extinct life, when we can wait 50 years to have much cheaper craft that could find an entire ecosystem on a watery world, totally different from our own? That the U.S. is not the one making the discoveries should not be a problem if the primary concern is simply the pursuit of knowledge.

Maybe the survival of the human race won't depend on space exploration for centuries but its in its extreme infancy now. If we're to be ready when we actually need it we must start now.

-Again, other countries are already interested in space travel. Let them deal with it.
-How would you even move millions, if not billions, of people into space? Where would they even go? What would provoke such a mass migration?
-If such a disaster occurred in the short-term, we'd be screwed anyways. No amount of research is going to improve space travel that much that quickly.
-If the disaster occurred far into the future, it would probably be so far into the future that any contribution from the U.S. would be miniscule.
-The best remedy is to prevent or mitigate such disasters (e.g., global warming) in the first place rather than focusing on far fetched plans to evacuate the earth.
-If you wish to preserve the human race indefinitely, then your wish is unrealistic. We're long overdue for the destructive asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs; and the sun will eventually engulf the earth.

Europa is very interesting and could potentially harbor life. However it is much further away than mars, too far from the sun for solar panels to be an effective source of power, and it presents a whole new set of problems. don't get me wrong I think we should explore there as well, but without a dramatic increase in funding, for the short term mars is a more realistic goal.

-There shouldn't be a dramatic increase in funding, nor should we bother with Mars, and of course Europa is hard to get to. That's exactly why we should wait until the technology exists. Why spend many billions now on our inadequate technology, when we can use cheaper, more advanced technology in the future to explore Europa for life?

you say that we ought to wait for countries that care enough to develop the technology, but many many people in this country care a great deal. Just because you don't care doesn't mean that others are going to be satisfied with ignoring the future.

-Actually, people tend to care more about issues that impact their lives personally, for better or worse. You fail to show how the space program does that.
-I want us to address immediate problems that have long-term consequences. How is that ignoring the future?
-You act as if the space program was on par with combating global warming or other immediate concerns for which we need immediate solutions, when the space program at best, could only meet far and away, and largely undefined, problems, even though there's no evidence the U.S. space program would mitigate any problems in the long run.

24. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #178198 by AtheistAspy on May 10, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Anomalocaris,

I am in no way under the assumption that you are politically conservative, I was suggesting that military spending is a far better place to cut funding from than space exploration. We both want to increase funding for health care, I just don't want to get that money by eliminating other worthwhile spending.

Far from some nationalistic urge to be "ontop" I believe space exploration can foster international cooperation in a peaceful quest to increase our knowledge of the universe. Note that this article is about international cooperation toward exploring mars.

-I'd cut money from Iraq and the space program.
-I don't think the space program is worthwhile spending.
-Why not let other countries pursue the knowledge?
-If the space program is about cooperation with other countries, then why should the U.S. overcome China in space exploration?
-I don't expect us to learn anything especially interesting by focusing on Mars anyway, much less anything of practical value. If we found life, I'd support more research, but I don't see that happening anytime soon, especially on Mars.

I don't think we have the technology to find whatever life exists, not a worthwhile chance anyways. We ought to at least wait for countries that care enough to develop the technology. Even then, Europa would probably be a better place to look for life than Mars.

25. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #178197 by AtheistAspy on May 10, 2008 at 8:24 pm

mesomodel

Much of our modern society benefits from the basic space technology developed by NASA. Has the investment in NASA in the past been worth it? What about satellites and the all the things supported by that technology? Communications? GPS? Internet? Monitoring of our environment? Weather prediction? Here's some NASA stuff actually saving lives: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

I don't have data to support this, but I'm willing to bet that the return on investment with NASA has been a net positive. That is, for every dollar invested, there is in excess of one dollar in benefit generated.

You could find technological benefits from virtually, if not any, field of study. The question that really needs answering is, how do the benefits compare to what can be gained from other fields of study?
So yes, space research could (indirectly) support medical research, but there's no telling how much better the benefits could have been had we directly funded medical research instead of directly funding space research.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I happen to think the arts serve a great purpose. I also like public television. The arts provide enjoyment and they stimulate the mind. Maybe you just haven't been to the proper performances.

You can find great art without government funding. You just need to know where to look.
Also, "great" is subjective. What public art you consider to be "great" might be considered trash by someone else.

You seem to be utilitarian.

I place a high value on happiness, though some other things also have value (e.g., truth, freedom, social relationships, etc.)

Can you see the benefit, any at all, in activities and experiences whose only benefit is stimulation of the mind, lightning of the spirit, flexing of the emotions, or instigation of good belly laugh?

Of course, I just don't think any of those things require government funding.

I highly recommend "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips. He provides mountains of empirical data (overkill actually) that shows how countries have benefited socially and economically (not just militarily) by investment in exploration, and then how overextension in war brought them to ruin. Kind of like the U.S. is doing now. As you might guess from the title, it weaves the concept of religion into the mix. Admittedly, it's a very over-the-top investigation of empires, exploration, economies, social well being, religion and war. But, even if you accept only 25% of it, it still makes my point about the importance of exploration.

I still need to know what specific benefits are being talked about.

That's true. The U.S. doesn't have to be on top. But, then you also have to accept the consequences. Do you think it would be good for China to dominate space? I can imagine a few downsides to this.

Like what downsides?

Let's think about the reverse experiment. Take away technology and see how happy we are. I'm grateful for the technology we have today. I can think of many instances where I would have been profoundly unhappy if it were not for today's technology. Actually, I'd probably be dead. Multiple times.

I never argued we should take away technology. In fact, I specifically argued in support of more medical technology.
Arguing that more technology isn't necessarily better is not the same as arguing that we should get rid of all the technology we do have.

The Amish are rather utilitarian. I think they're generally happy. But, the ones that are dead because of their lack of technology can't really complain now can they?

Wrong. Living does bring more happiness just as a longer-lasting life of pain would bring more pain.
Also, I never claimed that happiness was all that mattered, just that it was one of the most important things.

I agree with you on some of these. I gave up my electric razor a long time ago. I found a plain razor to do a much better job. But, I do think television has improved our lives. It's the backbone of mass communication. It brings the reality of the world to your doorstep. Refrigeration is another very useful and recent technology. Water filters. Etc.

I never claimed that we could do without television, just that color television isn't necessary. Also, I don't see how color television is any better at informing us than a black-and-white one.

I honestly don't know why you bring up refrigeration and water filters. I specifically favored technology that improves our health.

I'm not against technology per se; I just think some types of technology deserve more emphasis than others and that some we can do without.

26. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #177635 by AtheistAspy on May 9, 2008 at 11:57 am

As mesomodel already pointed out, China and other countries could develop the space technology instead. As for survival of the human race, your talking about something on the scale of centuries at least. Minor contributions from the U.S. won't change anything in the long run.

I can't for the life of me see why you bring up military spending. I'm also against the exorbitant amount spent on that gravy train.

You seem to assume that I must be politically conservative just because I oppose spending in space exploration.

27. Mental Disorders In Parents Linked To Autism In Children, Study Shows

Comment #177369 by AtheistAspy on May 9, 2008 at 1:46 am

I bet that people on this site are more likely to have autistic children considering that many posters have interest science, which seems to be associated with autistic traits.

28. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #177365 by AtheistAspy on May 9, 2008 at 1:36 am

At least it's tanking at the box office. I live in the religiously-conservative city of Colorado Springs, and the movie's 10th place at the local box office.

29. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #177353 by AtheistAspy on May 9, 2008 at 1:02 am

Anomalocaris

The entire Nasa budget for 2007 represents less than 0.57% of federal spending. That doesn't seem like a waste of money to me.

Every bit counts. I still don't see how this is not a waste. Even .57% spending could be put to better uses.
mesomodel

I run into this reasoning quite often. It's very true that there are lots of problems. We sure could use the money to fix them. Here's the problem: There will always be problems. At least until we've achieved utopia. So, we can either choose to continue funding fundamental research, including space exploration, or stop it entirely. Forever.

-So keep focusing on the big problems, at least where saving lives is concerned. Also, you could fund research if there is a reasonable expectation that doing so fulfills long-term priorities. I need to see how exactly that's the case with NASA.

And, applying the same logic, we should also stop funding the arts. Paintings, music, sculpture, dance--they don't cure cancer.

Absolutely!!! The arts are even more useless.

The U.S. can either continue to be a leader in the exploration of space, or it can sit back and let China do it.

I don't see a problem with that.
This sentence reminds me of pro-military types who worry that other countries could exceed the U.S. in military might, all because they want us to be the world's police man.
There's no reason why the U.S. always has to be ontop

Countries that invest in exploration, even if the benefits are not immediately obvious, have historically done pretty darn well for themselves. Space is the future. It's a small investment for a potentially large return. I won't get into the spin-offs that space exploration and NASA can and do provide, including medical benefits.

-I need to see some empirical data. It also depends on the kinds of "benefits" being talked about. If it means military technology, for example, then I see little reason to support it.

Want to save money and put it to good use? End the Iraq war. The cost of the Iraq war is of order $1 trillion dollars plus or minus hundreds of billions. Interest on the debt to fund the war could push this substantially higher. That amount of money could fund NASA for 100 years or more. Or it could be used to fix health care, cure cancer, or end hunger. On the flip side, you could zero the NASA budget and you still won't have enough money to fix health care. The cost of two B1 bombers is equivalent to a single Mars mission. The cost of an aircraft carrier (order $5B) could fund 5-10 Mars missions, not to mention the cost of maintaining and running it. And the Navy doesn't even want them. That is a waste of money.

Agreed. But as long as we're over there, we could at least give the troops body armor and support.

Lastly, I question the premise that more technology is necessarily a good thing. Psychological studies show that we are no happier than generations of 50 years ago.
Not saying happiness is all that matters, but it's pretty damned important.

I think that technology and consumer goods get way too hyped where they don't improve our lives (e.g., electric razors, color television, video games, etc.) but ignored where they can (e.g., health care).

30. Mental Disorders In Parents Linked To Autism In Children, Study Shows

Comment #176734 by AtheistAspy on May 7, 2008 at 11:12 pm

JSW

Maybe that's why so many parents of autistic children are crazy enough to think it was caused by vaccines.

Funny, my mother's exactly the same way. She's also the most naive person I know and will believe everything in alternative health articles.

31. Mental Disorders In Parents Linked To Autism In Children, Study Shows

Comment #176731 by AtheistAspy on May 7, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Hmm, my mother has social anxiety disorder.

My youngest brother has high-functioning autism and OCD, and I have Asperger's.

So two out of four (I and my three siblings)are on the autism spectrum.

32. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #176423 by AtheistAspy on May 7, 2008 at 9:51 am

It'd be cool to find life, but considering our other problems (e.g., debt, healthcare, Iraq, etc.), public funding for space exploration is a waste of money.

The money could be better spent on medical research or providing health care.

33. Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats

Comment #171867 by AtheistAspy on April 29, 2008 at 12:53 am

BCReason

AOL News is also carrying the story plus they're taking a poll whether you believe in God.

Amazingly 21% said no and 9% were undecided. The poll received 18,000 votes so far.

This is hardly a scientific poll but still 30% Atheist or Agnostic is really an encouraging number.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/atheist-claims-harassment-in-military/20080428092709990001?icid=100214839x120

It could be a biased sample. I don't recall ever seeing polls with that high a percentage of nontheists.

34. Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats

Comment #170739 by AtheistAspy on April 27, 2008 at 11:36 pm

mblarson323

Here's an idea. Why don't we let the evangelicals *have* the armed forces. Stack the deck with 'em! Send them over to some god-forsaken (pun intended) war in a foreign country with "Rumsfeld's army" - you know, the one you go to war with - no truck armor, no body armor, substandard weapons? Let natural selection do its job and thin the ranks. It'd filter some of the scum out of the bottom of the gene pool.

Not cool.

35. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #160313 by AtheistAspy on April 13, 2008 at 11:39 pm

What a bitch! They ought to impeach her ass. If she was sorry, she would have at least apologized in private before the criticism started.

36. Scientists take drugs to boost brain power: study

Comment #160281 by AtheistAspy on April 13, 2008 at 10:06 pm

That's still just 20% who use the drugs.

37. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #156129 by AtheistAspy on April 6, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Atheistaspy said
" That's a very simplistic way of reasoning. So if an intruder threatened your family, would you not feel justified in killing him if you had no other choice and if you thought he was suicidal anyways?"
Him being suicidal wouldnt enter into it for me, that he intended to hurt my family would be enough.

You miss the point. Your intentions are what provoked your actions and are what you would be judged by. If a person had his judgment impaired in someway besides mental illness (e.g., mental retardation, young age, deceit, etc.), I wonder if you'd be so arrogant to them as well.

And how did we move from condemning to killing?

We didn't, you just missed the point. The point of my analogy is to ask if it would be right to condemn you for killing someone. Condemning a schizophrenic purely for the consequence of killing someone, as you implied, suggests that intentions don't matter, particularly where killing is involved.

Just proves my point that most atheistaspys are assholes!

Only towards those who should have known better than the ones they are assholes to.

I'd like to see some empirical evidence that most atheists are not "elitist assholes" (e.g., rates of giving, surveys, psychological studies, etc.).

I only criticize individual atheists, not atheism (theism isn't remotely plausible).

Whenever I read what other atheists write, they strike me as people who (1) grew up in fundamentalist families and have chips on their shoulders and (2) smart people who think only intelligence matters.

In fact, the social scientists Michael Shermer (an agnostic and president of the Skeptic's Society) and Frank Sulloway conducted research showing that children who had frequent conflicts with their parents were more likely to adopt different beliefs or abandon religion all together.

Despite the intelligence of atheists in general and the implausibility of theism, it must be asked how many atheists left religion due a intellectual reasons rather than a need to feel superior or a reaction against a fundamentalist upbringing.

Perhaps they left for emotional reasons and only later cited intellectual ones.

38. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155808 by AtheistAspy on April 5, 2008 at 11:21 pm

jayalenik

If a schizophrenic person killed an innocent because he thought the victim was a suicide bomber, we would, according to your logic, be justified in condemning the man. "

We would be justified in condemning him. He intended to hurt his victim.

Even if he thought it was an emergency and that his victim would die anyways?

That's a very simplistic way of reasoning. So if an intruder threatened your family, would you not feel justified in killing him if you had no other choice and if you thought he was suicidal anyways?

Just proves my point that most atheists are elitist assholes.

39. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155742 by AtheistAspy on April 5, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Darwin's badger

You're missing the point somewhat, Aspy. We're all (for want of a better term) 'mentally ill', in that we all have our cognitive blindspots, our psychological perspectives skewed by our odd genes and our equally odd developmental environments. One of your blindspots seems to be that you consider this guy and bin Laden to be a false analogy, when they are both religious extremists who find it difficult to listen to reason, and who, in trying to do the right thing by the voices in their head, have caused x amount of damage to the lives of others. I don't believe that bin Laden even considers the deaths of non-believers to be 'hurting people', as we infidels are less than human to him.

I recommend that you read Festinger, Riecken and Schacter's classic in social psychology, "When Prophecy Fails", which goes into far greater detail about the mental workings of people than I'm prepared to. In the meantime, every time you hear something funny, think about whose feelings may be hurt by that joke if it has relevance to them and tut disapprovingly. ;)

It's still a false analogy. You can't just consider the consequences of their actions. You also have to consider their motivations and what they believed the consequences would be. Osama may have have rationalized that the people he hurt were less than human, but still intended to hurt people. It's not so clear in the case of the cult leader.

If a schizophrenic person killed an innocent because he thought the victim was a suicide bomber, we would, according to your logic, be justified in condemning the man.

40. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155578 by AtheistAspy on April 5, 2008 at 12:51 am

Dr Benway

If one poops on someone for pooping on those who poop on a guy hitting his head with a log, does that break the irony meter?

Not if the last ones being pooped on should have known better than the ones they pooped on.

Being so rational and intelligent, perhaps the so-called "freethinkers" here should know better than to disparage the mentally ill.

41. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155577 by AtheistAspy on April 5, 2008 at 12:44 am

ZekeCDN

Wow, what happened to the "clear-thinking oasis"? Perhaps if you tapped yourself in the head a few times you won't be as tempted to make puerile reductio ad absurdum arguments.

Missing the point are we? What does distance and time have to do with anything? I don't quite see what your reasoning is.

In it he describes one of the strangest side effects of living in the new age of instantaneous telecommunications and global media, namely our increasing tendency to obsess over (sometimes trivial) developments on the other side of the world--all the while practicing willful blindness with respect to the (sometimes tragic) plights of our closest neighbours.

I think we should pay attention to them too. What's your point?

As the poster who mentioned Bin Laden suggested, empathy is not always the appropriate response. Postman would add that it's often misplaced as well.

As I explained, that's a false analogy. Bin Laden deliberately hurt people. The cult leader may have meant well to begin with and could have reasoned that the people would be okay. Second, empathy does not mean that you approve of someone's actions. You seem to conflate understanding with approval or sympathy.

If you think that Kuznetsov is deserving of sympathy, then you are welcome to give him yours, but you have no right to demand that I or anyone else do the same.

Just proves my point that most atheists are elitist assholes.

42. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155543 by AtheistAspy on April 4, 2008 at 5:56 pm

220202

A genuinely sad story, I hope everyone recovers, especially the Orthodox guy.

A few hundred years ago they may have been hailed as prophets and heroes. Today I just hope they're o.k.

Best comment.

Most times, I can't help but feel that most atheists are elitist assholes. I'm the only atheist I know personally, so I could be wrong, but whenever I read what other atheists write about the religious, it is almost always disdainful and totally lacking in empathy.

Most atheists act like intelligence and rationality are the only things that matter. They say they fight religion for some greater good when really they just like to think they're better than everyone else.

I'm not saying religion should never be criticized, just that criticism of religion need not preclude empathy and understanding.

Darwin's badger

Human beings are funny. Sometimes tragic, but still achingly hilarious. Some of the sanctimonious comments on here make me wonder as to what the reaction would be to someone like bin Laden: Should he get a cuddle and a prescription of Haloperidol for his delusional beliefs, perhaps? Quite clearly he's lost, lonely, disconnected from reality etc., so let's just pity the poor man.

False analogy (the cult leader did not deliberately hurt people). Comments like this just prove my point that most atheists act like rationality is all that matters. So what if people want to be irrational? Why is it such a big deal if someone wants to live according to an illogical belief system? As long as he doesn't hurt anyone, then why is that a problem?

If we're so rational, then why this irrational assumption that only rationality matters in choosing what to believe?

And yeah, you might laugh even if you suffered from mental illness, but that's no reason for approval. Others in similar situations might not feel the same way.

ZekeCDN

I am disturbed by the comments that suggest it's inappropriate to laugh at such antics, especially in circumstances where we are separated from the actors by time and place.

So it's okay for a white supremacist to laugh at the suffering of starved Africans as long as he stays away from them?

43. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151988 by AtheistAspy on March 29, 2008 at 9:54 pm

That's all well and good, but this story is getting old fast. Me thinks this is a case of megalomania run amuck.

44. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #149397 by AtheistAspy on March 25, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Bonzai

Nietzsche said it best, we have art so that we don't die of the truth.

That's interesting. My psychology textbook claims some self-delusion is necessary for personal happiness. In fact, a study was done showing that clinically depressed people made more accurate predictions of a football game's outcome than happy people. I remember reading it at Skeptic.com.

Steve Zara

Religion surely does make many people happier than they would otherwise be. I guess what matters is the trade-off between that and the harm it can certainly do. Just to give one example - the belief shared by a large proportion of the population of the United States that this world is temporary and Jesus will be returning soon may provide huge comfort, but it also encourages a lack of concern for the state of the world, which is a dangerous situation in the only remaining superpower and a major polluter. Religion affects votes.

I'm actually very skeptical of that. It sounds like an atheist strawman to say that believers don't care about tomorrow. Theists only seek comfort in an afterlife when death is close at hand. Usually, they do in fact plan for tomorrow, but heavily compartmentalize their beliefs.

justanotheratheist

I would love to believe that one day I will be reunited with loved ones who have passed away. Really, I would. Nothing would make me happier. However, the firm belief that it will never happen means I waste no time thinking about it and get on with the business of enjoying life without superstitious bullshit.

Wanting to believe something is not the same as wanting it to be true. I'd like to have a $1,000,000 in savings, but I don't want to believe that unless it really is true.

45. Evolution Of New Species Slows Down As Number Of Competitors Increases

Comment #149385 by AtheistAspy on March 25, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Maybe this is the reason for the Cambrian explosion (there were niches before then).

46. The science of religion: Where angels no longer fear to tread

Comment #148992 by AtheistAspy on March 24, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Evolutionary biologists tend to be atheists

Notice how biologists are always referred to as "evolutionary biologists" when religious claims are being investigated? Don't biologists in general tend to be atheists? Why call them "evolutionary biologists" if not for the sake of dissociating biologists in general from any criticism of religious claims?

Bonzai:

"Truth" is *meaningful* only to intentional agents that can ascribe and grasp meanings, if "truth" says intention is an illusion, meanings will become void as well, in that event "truth" would mean nothing.

You should look into the deflationary theory of truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflationary_theory_of_truth

Not to say I agree with it necessarily.

47. Sci-fi guru Clarke to have secular funeral

Comment #148309 by AtheistAspy on March 22, 2008 at 3:50 pm

I'd like to die by physician-assisted suicide when I'm old and already close to death. I'd also like to have friends and family there when it happens (I don't want to die alone). I'll probably donate my body, though I'm not sure how much good they can do with a shriveled old corpse. Maybe if I died young they could do something with it.

48. Two More Fleas

Comment #148057 by AtheistAspy on March 21, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Maybe wooter is just a troll. I mean, no one's this stupid, right? Sometimes it's hard to tell whether the person's a real fundie or just playing dumb.

Is it just me, or has wooter's posts become more articulate all of the sudden?

49. EXPELLED!

Comment #147598 by AtheistAspy on March 21, 2008 at 12:14 am

CanadAdam: Thanks.
I'm glad that's cleared up. I just try not to fall prey to bias or group think.

50. EXPELLED!

Comment #147586 by AtheistAspy on March 20, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Seriously, I know no one wants to address the issue, but what happened? According to a theist's link by Bigorra, PZ Myers was kicked out for being disruptive and not having a ticket.