1. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111387 by fun2bfree on January 14, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Wishing you a speedy recovery. The world is a better place with people like you still in it.

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

Comment #110719 by fun2bfree on January 12, 2008 at 6:36 am

I am glad someone mentioned Julia Sweeney's "LETTING GO OF GOD."
I would just add that a FILM version of this one woman monologue should be coming out this year...

3. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #100258 by fun2bfree on December 18, 2007 at 12:35 pm

"In some states of the US, public display of cribs and similar Christian symbols is outlawed for fear of offending Jews and others (not atheists)...(snip) A red-coated "Father Holiday" has not so far been sighted, but this is surely only a matter of time."

What a shame that Dr Dawkins perpetuates nonsense and then makes such an ill-informed comment about red-coated characters substituting for Santa.

No state outlaws the "public display" of anything (except the naked human body)--the legal skirmishes over nativity scenes are not over "public display" they are over "GOVERNMENT DISPLAYS" - a huge difference that usually the faith-heads confuse- I would expect more from Dr Dawkins. Also, atheists are amongst thosewho are offended when their government uses government money to promote religious displays and have enjoined legal proceedings to stop their governments from these displays of religious favortism.

As for non-religious co-optings of the Santa character--apparently Dr Dawkins never visited Soviet Russia--where Father Winter was a remarkably familiar red suited fellow whose holiday presents could be found under a decorated tree. since the Christians co-opted many pagan traditons into the Christmas celebration-- I don't see what is so odd about others doing the same thing in creating their wintertime excuses for a party.

4. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #97104 by fun2bfree on December 11, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Well- look at it this way-those who refuse vaccination will be wiped out by the diseases that they are not immunized against and evolution will have the last laugh...

5. An Atheist Responds

Comment #57926 by fun2bfree on July 22, 2007 at 10:51 am

Right and wrong are not nouns--they are adjectives...
as pointed out above it is all about actions and consequences--what action will lead to what consequence--
So what are the "right" consequences ot aim for?
It all depends on what you are trying to do?And if you are measuring outcomes in this world that is something that requires the powers of reason and observation--not faith.

What is the right temperature for water?

To drink? To bathe in ? To go swimming? To baptize a baby? To baptise an adult?

The consequences we seek ultimately are written in our genes...the survival of those consequence seeking genes which lead to their own propigation...

6. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #39057 by fun2bfree on May 9, 2007 at 9:51 pm

ARRGH! Moral Relativism can't be answered better than this???!! Come on!!

Right and wrong are not nouns they are adjectives--right behaviour or wrong behaviour..,so asking how we can know what is right behaviour is like asking how we can know the "right" temperature for water? You have to say right for what end? Bathing, drinking, swimming? different ends--different answers--this is not moral relativism..it is objective cause and effect--observation and hypothesis, testing and observing again...rational morality--we know from experience (Evidence of history) that allowing only the mighty to define "right" does not achieve a desirable end...so we can know it is wrong... what makes us desire certain ends? the survival of our genes, plain and simple....it all comes down to that..no gods need apply....genes that would make you desire stuff that won't propigate the genes won't get into the next generation--genes prefering only the mighty would kill each other off...this is all demonstrable in computer simulations of various types of moral behaviour....unfortunately the above argument is not a sound bite--like God gives us our morality...what it lacks in brevity it makes up for by being true though.

7. Atheists go on the political offensive in God-fearing US

Comment #38043 by fun2bfree on May 6, 2007 at 7:50 pm

A very encouraging development that I saw today was the film "HOT FUZZ"--the comedy with Simon Pegg of Shaun of the Dead fame....in it Simon plays Detective Angel--and openly nontheist who is the hero of the piece and even says at one point to an obviously evil theist--- "I may not believe in God, but I do know right from wrong." It is great to see this sort of message in popular entertainment...we are making progress....

8. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32582 by fun2bfree on April 17, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Secular philanthropists?

How about 3 of the top 4 of all time?

Bill Gates, Waren Buffett and Andrew Carnegie..

the first two are donating huge fortunes to wipe out diseases amongst their fellow humans....

if morality is impossible without religion ---how is that so few atheists (not just absolute numbers but percentagewise) wind up in jail?

9. The Religion Clause Divided Against Itself

Comment #26444 by fun2bfree on March 19, 2007 at 10:48 am

Is there any other area where the Court bends and wraps itself in to pretzels in this manner other than to claim that religion has some historical place that does not require actual law to back it up? I am not a legal scholar but it seems that this is a special compartment for the law...much like defenses of faith in general, those inclined to be pro-religion will bend logic or give special dispensation for the lack of actual evidence as to why their DESIRED viewpoint is the "correct" one.

An example given in the article above perfectly illustrates this willful ignorance of the evidence: the claim about chaplains...

What is correct-ie, what is best- may have nothing to do with what the founders were planning--ask a native american or a slave--but in this case the founder who was the architect of the establishment clause- Madison- was vehemently opposed to the chaplain hirings that supposedly show how the founders really felt about government and religion...so citing the chaplain hirings as an example of how the Amendment was meant to be interpreted is misleading or really just down right bogus.

What would be the downside to a government that was neutral? Not a public that is neutral--but a GOVERNMENT that is neutral-- That did NOT post 10 Commandmants, or support prayers or put up creches, or tell us that we trust in God? What would be so bad about that? Who would be harmed? The public can still be free to be as relgious as they like without using the force and funds of the government to support their particular relgious preferences.

The defenders of government relgious entanglement almost always use the words public and government interchangeably--it is an obfuscation,intentional or not (I think a little of both) but it is just the sort of confusion that prevents the Court from adressing this issue definitively.

Govenment actions are public, but all public actions are not government, nor should they be.

10. Grief Without God

Comment #19869 by fun2bfree on January 30, 2007 at 11:30 am

that post by andmarsmi makes some valid points but is one big fat strawman of an argument...and creates a very false dichotomy of responses. Comforting words which have no reference to other unkown entities or worlds are abundant...as it is said nowadays: "Keep it real." Acknowledge the pain of the grieving, the accomplishments of the deceased, and offer to listen to help in any way you can -all refering to what is and was IN THIS WORLD..the only one we have any sort of certainty about....I agree that the best response to the misguided "prayers" is to acknowledge the good intentions and ignore the rest of it...

11. Former exec in Irvine says he was fired over religion

Comment #19455 by fun2bfree on January 27, 2007 at 10:05 am

Free market means FREE--free from force and fraud...no intimidation--no faking like you are an open comopany when you are really a bigoted one---in such a case I think the fears raised about the "free-market" raised above (KKK, slavery etc) fade away to the nonsense they are...

12. Halting progress

Comment #17050 by fun2bfree on January 10, 2007 at 12:45 pm

As much as I deplore the small mindedness of those who discriminate, the libertarian in me-which prizes freedom above all else-- thinks they should be free to discriminate. I do think they should be open about it...none of the fraudulant pretenses of the past where Jews were denied access to places for every reason except the one that really motivated the decision--that is their being Jewish (see the film Gentleman's Agreement for examples)--
I think if a restaurant openly said it was for whites only or straights only-- it would be unlikely to be very successful--the market would speak and their is no need to invoke the government...Freedom means being free to be stupid and wrong. The use of force--which is what the government is about should be reserved to protect people from fraud and force against them. In this case if they are upfront about their discrimination and not using force against the discriminated group--I think we should let it go.
The problem with Jim Crow in the South, for example, was much more about the violence and threats of violence than the discrimination, per se. The Freedom Riders who came to the South were killed and intimidated because they were exposing the discrimination to the light of public opinion which would have made the discrimination impossible.

Let freedom ring--most of us will avoid those establishments which discriminate and will ostracize those who patronize or discriminate...but transparency is key.

13. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15429 by fun2bfree on December 31, 2006 at 9:01 am

JohnC-
I am pretty sure I did not call anyone stupid for choosing my column B--I sincerely must be the stupid one -because I don't understand why that would be the chosen position...even in areas where scientific "understanding" is less clear--why is the default position an even less clear option chosen?

Citing movie popularity seems a nonsequiter...people love the Wizard of Oz--no one believes any of it actually is real...people usually can separate out suspension of belief and investment of belief.

14. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15365 by fun2bfree on December 30, 2006 at 6:36 pm

Column A: The world is understandable and continues to be consistent with what we have learned about it up to now Ghosts and paranormal phenomena are explainable within this framework.

Column B: The world is a mysterious place that we actually do not understand and is occupied by these strange things for which we do not have any real evidence and which we cannot really comprehend or test. Magical, unpredictable and frightening things are possible at any moment and you have no hope of preparing for them or controlling them to your advantage. Ghosts and paranormal stuff are really out there!

Why should anyone favor B again?

15. The problem with secularism

Comment #14553 by fun2bfree on December 23, 2006 at 7:24 am

Stalin had a moustache when he killed millions
Hitler had a moustache when he killed millions
Obviously the problem is the moustache.

Also the overwhelming majority of crimes committed are by committed by Christians...therefore christianity causes crime.

Can one of the religious types please explain how atheism informed the persecution and murder committed by Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot? How their victims were killed because they either refused to accept atheism or because they insited on believing things without evidence for their beliefs?

16. The problem with secularism

Comment #14462 by fun2bfree on December 22, 2006 at 2:36 pm

Barely literate would seem to describe these authors and most of the reviewers of TGD--
I actually have read the book and if I had it in front of me right now could quote page numbers where virtually every "argument" made by reviewers or like those here are answered. Which makes me think they did not actually read the book.. so maybe they are unable to read -but they are able to write-or barely literate.

17. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14459 by fun2bfree on December 22, 2006 at 2:24 pm

XXY would still be phenotypically male- Klinefelter's syndrome...interestingly the XXY is the explanation for how you can have a tricolored Caleco cat which is male...I think it goes something like this:
on the X is the code for blackot it is not turned on so no color is present or white--
or it can be for Brown or off (white)
so XX- if one parent gave black X and one Brown X then the different follicles are black, brown or off (white) three colors so almost all tricolor Calecos are females...see below
XY white and black or white and Brown since only one type of X provided--so all males can only be 2 colors EXCEPT for Klinefelter's Kitties..which have Y --so they have to be male--but can have two different colored X's

18. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14445 by fun2bfree on December 22, 2006 at 1:24 pm

I loved this but there are some other problems (I think):

[quote]Selling is different. It is as though an individual mates with it.[/quote]

I suspect the last word should be "itself"

then in the same paragraph I wonder if there is a mistake:
[quote]... but if the two haploid cells that 'mate' have been formed by one haploid cell splitting into two, they will be identical to each other.[/quote]

If a haploid cell splits in two (I don't know what you call half a haploid cell) and then comes together it is not going to be diploid--it will be haploid....maybe what is meant here is if the two haploid cells that mate have been formed by on diploid splitting into two-..but then that would not explain the identical part.

Confused

19. Two who hopped off the faith train

Comment #9239 by fun2bfree on November 24, 2006 at 8:02 am

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

So what exactly would be evidence of absence?
Can I have an example, please, that would make this statement something more than the meaningless rhetorical device it appears to be?

20. To be Read at my Funeral

Comment #9228 by fun2bfree on November 24, 2006 at 7:11 am

RE #9211-

That is precisely my feeling as well--I used to thnk about what I would like done at my funeral and realized that the most honest position for the committed atheist/materialist that I am --is indifference--I will be gone-- if they want and or need to they can have a Catholic mass --it won't matter to me and I will never know.

I note Richard talks about reading this at funerals including possible his own...so this is submitted as a possible non-relgious thing for those who are looking for such, not just as what he wants at his own funeral.

21. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7901 by fun2bfree on November 19, 2006 at 9:02 pm

no no no--
the existence of free will, the moral sense, the existence of the material world are NOT proof of GOD who exists outside the universe and natural laws....

there are 42,232 different gods--

I know this because god # 38,101 told me...
the mistake made by these silly monotheists is thinking their silly "natural law, this-universe- logic" applies to the mighty committee of gods which came up with our universe and its laws. But they exist outside of our universe--even the number 42, 232 is actually very different in their universe..but it is not ONE...I know this from revelation from #1003.


also on this whole free will question wasn't John Calvin a theist and decidedly NOT a believer in Free will?--so how does free will have anything to do with theism anyway?

22. My God Problem

Comment #7118 by fun2bfree on November 17, 2006 at 8:28 am

I have often wondered why the anti-evolution crowds has not gone after the publicly funded evolution displays at the Smithsonian and other publicly funded museums....I wish they would--the sniping from the shadows that these lunatics do is worse than open battle on the public stage...

23. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5707 by fun2bfree on November 10, 2006 at 2:55 pm

Definition of Religion: By Ambrose Bierce
A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

As Sam Harris has pointed out we don't have a word for people who don;t believe in astrology or alchemy or other supernatural things...atheist is an unnecessary word. It is not a belief system--it is a byproduct of a naturalistic worldview.

24. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5696 by fun2bfree on November 10, 2006 at 2:00 pm

Quote: "I believe not only in truth but also in the power of God and his Holy Spirit to bring enlightenment to even the darkest mind. So there is still hope for us both"

to use the title of a new book:
Don't believe everything you think.

This piece is precisely the sort of "thinking" that Dawkins is actually combatting--it is not religion, not God belief per se.. any strong vigorous certainty which is founded only on one's own beliefs and thoughts is wrong...not because it is not true..sometimes such a belief could be true- but the methodology is fundamentally flawed--the ultimate method of determining truth is evidence based--scientific reason...revelation, authority, tradition, faith are not always wrong..the record so far is that they are not better than random guesses--science is unique and better because it moves us toward greater understanding by building on what went before..and is reproducible--revelation if lost may never be rediscovered...scientific truths are always there to be rediscovered by scientific inquiry...

25. Heaven can wait

Comment #517 by fun2bfree on October 2, 2006 at 1:58 pm

Can somebody provide some solid evidence for this besides the quote?
"Research indicates that theists live longer, are generally happier and survive life-traumas better."


What research? Was it well done? I would be shocked if such a conclusion were founded on anything approaching sound scientific methods...I am open to the evidence--I just actually like to see it before I buy into it...it's something about my worldview that keeps me from just blindly accepting whatever anyone says as true....