1. A rationalist's view of religious intolerance

Comment #25518 by MacGruder on March 14, 2007 at 1:33 am

I always thought many theists were insecure. This analysis provides some basis for this musing.

By the way, Tasmania is in Australia (this info for the benefit of Americans). I am always pleasantly surprised at the number of Australian postings/contributions to this site considering its relative population size. Gives me hope despite the rise of the religious right in this country.

(Happy B'day Richard!)

2. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21367 by MacGruder on February 8, 2007 at 11:55 pm

RE: Comment #21309 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

"and the counterpoint : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ "

The video on the YouTube link is fantastic! Thanks - you made my day!!

Highly recommended for all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3. We all fund this torrent of Saudi bigotry

Comment #21203 by MacGruder on February 8, 2007 at 2:56 am

1. This guy has guts
2. Will be interesting to see if anyone refutes his claims

Mike Moore has previously made links between the House of Bush and the House of Saud, but I haven't seen the mainstream media run with the story. I await other bloggers' responses to this story...

4. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20886 by MacGruder on February 6, 2007 at 11:01 pm

There it was again...an inference that atheism is equated with immorality. Makes me think...maybe we should create an "Atheist pledge to morality". I think this might help many theists understand that athiesm doesn't necessarily equate to immorality.

I know many atheists will simply say 'tough - it's the theists' problem if they think we are immoral and it's not our role to prove otherwise.' However (and I cringe when I say this), I think we need to market ourselves better (there, I said it!).

I'm going to work on a draft of the pledge and get feed-back via this site. I even envision atheists pledging on-line as with the Blasphemy Challenge (perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself here!)

5. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20354 by MacGruder on February 2, 2007 at 12:51 am

beLIEve - Good point Constitutional Republic versus Pure Democracy. Scary to think how easy it is for a theocracy to get in power in any country without a strong constitution. I guess this is what happened in Iran. However, even with a constitution, the pious majority only need to vote in a born-again christian as president to make redundant any notion of seperation of church and state...

Fellow Aussie Will - The evidence against God is not 100% - it is in fact ZERO, just as the evidence against fairies at the bottom of the garden is zero. The geatest comfort to theists is the fact that their proposition is unfalsifiable. Having said this, the evidence FOR god is also ZERO. The burden is on theists to provide the evidence, not for atheists to dis-prove their proposition.

6. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20341 by MacGruder on February 1, 2007 at 11:30 pm

After hearing "discussions" such as these, I get concerned that the magisteria of science and religion are indeed non-overlapping. Scientists and theists simply operate in different spheres and speak different languages.

I have an idea...let's get to people's minds when they are young...we can set up institutions where children are forced to go at least once a week...we'll indoctrinate them with rationality and critical thinking skills...we'll convince the kiddies that if they don't believe what we teach then really bad things will happen to them...Come on guys, it's our only salvation...come praise and have faith in logic!

7. The Ego and the ID

Comment #19949 by MacGruder on January 30, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Convertedchristian - when I hear stories like yours it makes me question the methodology of surveys that are often quoted in relation to the number of people who believe in a god. I remember when I was in my early teens (~1970s) and how it was very common to state your religion when completing surveys or applications. I would automatically write the religion of my mother even though I didn't believe in god or attend church. The assumption of anyone reviewing the data would conlcude that I was religious/believe in god. I often wonder how many people today follow similar practices when answering surveys?

[By the way, I was grateful that I was classed as "presbyterian" at school as there was no visiting presbyterian minister and it meant I could skip religion education classes!]

8. The Ego and the ID

Comment #19926 by MacGruder on January 30, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Dear cheshirecat,

I am not sure if you are purposefully being provocative, however...

I, for one, first heard of ID way before I ever heard of RD. Last year (or the year before?) ID proponents began circulating the ID video to schools in Australia with the blessing of the then Minister for Education! Not suprisingly this made the News (TV and print). I have yet to see RD on any News or current affairs program in Australia.

9. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19623 by MacGruder on January 29, 2007 at 12:50 am

When will people learn that Fox News is not the place to put forward views contrary to conservative thought. The interviewers are experts in manipulating the "interview". I have no sympathy for people who appear on Fox News expecting to get a fair hearing. This interview is typical of debates that simply reinforce the views of those on both sides of the argument without leaving any possibility of progress in understanding. How many theists do you think were driven to re-think their views on religion after watching this piece? How many do you think had their views reinforced? Flemming walked into a trap here for which he was very unprepared.

10. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19056 by MacGruder on January 24, 2007 at 2:44 pm

I do not like "bright" for the reasons others have already articulated.

However, I think the term "atheist" is entrenched in many people's minds as "amoral". This is simply because they not do know the definition of atheist. I am sure if you asked many theists for the definition of atheist a lot of their answers would include phrases such as "without morals". This has much to do with the entrenchment of religion in our society, and with the way a word's meaning evolves over time.

The propositions:

Theist = Belief in God = Moral
Atheist = Non-belief = Amoral

have been reduced to:

Theist = Moral
Atheist = Amoral

In other words, "atheist" has become associated with amorality, rather than simply non-belief.

The word atheist carries too much baggage and it would take many generations to change people's understanding of the word. For this reason I prefer the term "non-theist". If people are not certain what this means, it provides me an opportunity to explain.

11. It is possible to respect the believers but not the belief

Comment #14504 by MacGruder on December 22, 2006 at 8:53 pm

"It seems to me self-evident that we would not have the European civilisation we have today without the heritage of Christianity, Judaism and (in a smaller measure, mainly in the middle ages) Islam, which legacy also paved the way, albeit unwittingly and unwillingly, for the Enlightenment."

It is self-evident that we have the civilisation we have today because of ALL our heritage (including the scientific revolution and the overcoming of ignorance and superstition).

Did religion pave the way for Enlightment...or did Enlightment occur in spite of religion? Which parts of our civilisation are attributed to religion...only the "good" bits?

The broad and sweeping arguments made by the author are typical of the logic (not!) used by many on the theist side of the debate (and perhaps some agnostics). Can anyone let me know when they have something original and rational to offer?