1. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52362 by diquea on June 26, 2007 at 9:09 pm

"This mental and moral capitulation has a bearing on the argument about Iraq, as well. We are incessantly told that the removal of the Saddam Hussein despotism has inflamed the world's Muslims against us and made Iraq hospitable to terrorism, for all the world as if Baathism had not been pumping out jihadist rhetoric for the past decade (as it still does from Damascus, allied to Tehran). But how are we to know what will incite such rage? A caricature published in Copenhagen appears to do it. A crass remark from Josef Ratzinger (leader of an anti-war church) seems to have the same effect. A rumor from Guantanamo will convulse Peshawar, the Muslim press preaches that the Jews brought down the Twin Towers, and a single citation in a British honors list will cause the Iranian state-run press to repeat its claim that the British government—along with the Israelis, of course—paid Salman Rushdie to write The Satanic Verses to begin with. Exactly how is such a mentality to be placated?"


This is ridiculous. He is acting like this all happened in a vacuum. Assuming that there was/is Jihadist rhetoric pumping out of Iraq... um, no shit. You invade a Muslim country, Bomb it for 10 years, and then invade and occupy it again, of course there is going to be Jihadist rhetoric.

"How are we to know what will incite such rage?" Is he really asking this? We know what incites the rage from which the more recent terrorist attacks came. Having western troops occupying Muslim holy land, bombing their countries, and installing dictators. The same man who planned the attacks in the US in 2001, told us his reasons for it back in '96, I believe.

We invade, occupy and bomb their lands, motivating jihadist efforts against us, and then use those jihadist attacks to justify our occupation and bombing of their lands.

2. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #38798 by diquea on May 9, 2007 at 8:00 am

Yeah... If this article is truly how it played out, I'm surprised, confused, and a little upset with how Hitchens used this opportunity.

Hitchens can argue against God, I think I've heard him do it. God is an easy thing to argue against; I wouldn't have even touched on the subject of the Bible.

Eh. Whatever. Better luck next time Hitch

3. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37145 by diquea on May 3, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Ugh, I have to agree with Spinoza. I definitely would not consider Sapient and his crew the best and brightest representatives of the reasoning for the atheist position.

Go read their forums and responses to hate-mail, you'll understand what I mean, I think.

4. Across the Universe: A Guide to the Past, Present and Future of the Cosmos

Comment #29007 by diquea on April 1, 2007 at 6:38 am

If there were life on two planets in this one solar system... just wow. I would have to be there to see the look on the face of those who say life is just too improbable, blah blah blah.

5. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28150 by diquea on March 28, 2007 at 6:43 am

7. Comment #28144 by Yorker on March 28, 2007 at 6:26 am

I don't question that other scientists hold that opinion or not, and don't really care. I know they do, I just wanted to know what Penrose had said.

I find it amazing that the guy can do complex equations in his head. I don't think that makes him an authority.

6. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28140 by diquea on March 28, 2007 at 6:04 am

The strongest argument that Professor Dawkins submits is that religious belief is somehow linked to violence?! The strongest? Come on. That is probably the weakest, because whether religion is linked to violence or not has nothing to do with the truth of it.

I haven't listened to the whole thing yet, but McGrath just picked the weakest argument! And then he said when he was an atheist, he thought it would be "logically inevitable," that if we rid ourselves of religion we'd rid ourselves of violence.

What bull.

Yeah, religious people can do good things. It can organize groups of good people. It can do bad things. Who cares? The point is that god is just as likely to exist as an infinite number of other invisible beings that require no evidential support. The point is that even if you were given that God existed, the conversation cannot advance beyond that, because who can apply attributes to such a God?

Edit: Oh, Dawkins says that. lol

7. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28136 by diquea on March 28, 2007 at 5:49 am

What does Penrose say about Hawking? My respect for Hawking stems more from his determination to work through his disability. Remember that this man cannot write anything. He solves everything within the confines of his head. At least that is my understanding.

8. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27480 by diquea on March 24, 2007 at 9:33 pm

It isn't like you can argue against the fundamentalists, yet leave the moderates and progressives unscathed. They all believe in God, and they all believe in some nonsensical ideas, for which there is no evidence. This is a large part of what atheists are arguing against.

Personally, I find the ignorance seemingly accompanying the concept of having faith enough to convince me to argue my point. But even if we were only arguing for our point of view because the religious right and fundamentalists are encroaching upon our freedom (so reactionary), then we could not help but include all religious people.

This is because we do not necessarily care to just go after those crazy, fundamentalist notions like 6,000 year old earths and creation myths. As an atheist, I am not trying to cause another reformation of religious thought in the fundamentalist camp. I'm going to argue that the concept of any specific god with specific desires and characteristics is a complete delusion. And that even a detached, impersonal, unspecific god is silly if it is arbitrarily decided that it does not need to answer the same "where-did-it-come-from" question it is meant to answer.

These things go to the core of Christian belief structure, and leaves no one untouched.

9. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27296 by diquea on March 23, 2007 at 7:13 pm

What about Titan? I have heard that they believe Titan's atmosphere, geology, etc. resembles what we believe Earth's early make-up would have been.

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/moons/moonDetails.cfm?pageID=16

"Despite centuries of speculation and decades of research, scientists are still seeking fundamental clues to the question of how life began on Earth. Titan [TIE-tun] is the frozen vault that may contain these secrets for the Cassini-Huygens mission to discover.

Titan is the largest of Saturn's moons, bigger than the planets Mercury and Pluto.

The study of Titan is one of the major goals of the Cassini-Huygens mission because it may preserve, in deep-freeze, many of the chemical compounds that preceded life on Earth."

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/videos/cassini/titan20070314/jpl-titanlakes-320.mp4

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/videos/cassini/cassini20070308/

----

As per a cooled cavity for testicles, I agree. If you're infinitely intelligent, infinitely creative, and infinitely powerful, shit man, why not just make sperm able to survive in a warmer environment? Hell, if I were all those above mentioned, I'd have made sapiens WAY better. We'd be able to see all the different wavelengths, smell, hear and taste way better, probably use sonar also... and... I think I'd kind of like to be able to do what those kids in those little kids-books Animorphs could do? hahaha

If god existed, I'd be pretty upset with his creative ability.

10. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27289 by diquea on March 23, 2007 at 6:37 pm

I have heard that testicles need to be at a slightly cooler temperature to keep sperm alive, than they would be were they inside the body. I'm not sure if that is correct, but just what I've heard.

11. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27282 by diquea on March 23, 2007 at 5:50 pm

"Brian, often these people try to claim that this is all Old Testament stuff, and Jesus bcame to correct all this (yeh, I know how weak that is)."

I know exactly what you mean Luthien. I find it so incredibly odd, though, that they seek comfort in knowing that their god is no longer like this. Hey, sure... in the OLD Testament he was a disgusting personality. But he's different now, Jesus came and corrected all of it. As if it seems reasonable that Jesus (God himself) came to correct God's (Jesus himself) ludicrous demands and commands of the Old Testament. Even if God no longer desires those Old Testament laws still be followed, he DID, at one point in time. How does one seek solace in this?

12. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27279 by diquea on March 23, 2007 at 5:42 pm

"Positing the existence of a Designer/Creator for the universe and life isn't a 'cop-out' though, is it? Why does prof dawkins acknowledge that organisms look designed? BECAUSE THEY DO, BRIAN. And why do they look designed? BECAUSE THEY WERE, BRIAN. Can I prove it? Of course not. But its a better explanation than time, chance, and natural selection."

Who cares if it fits the definition of the term "cop-out." I mean, in my opinion it is sort of an excuse, or an evasion of the responsibility of using the scientific mode of reasoning and seeking truth, so I'd say it is. But that doesn't matter. No one cares. The god-concept is meaningless; it is here to explain the design of complex systems which "appear to be designed" (I don't think they necessarily do), but is arbitrarily excluded from having to answer to this same 'problem.' As Dawkins also says, that thing which designs things which looks designed, must be equally complex. If you disagree with this, you do so [again] only arbitrarily.

Do they look designed? I don't know, were those 99% of all species which are now extinct designed? Did god just have a little trouble with designing, so he ended their line? Was it a hit-or-miss thing, or trial and error? Does the fact that thousands of people a year choke due to our breathing and eating through the same orifice seem designed?

A better explanation than time, chance and natural selection?! What a claim!! A better explanation because it takes less thought, work, and research? What makes it a better explanation? Because you can [once again] arbitrarily claim that every single fact is compatible with your god, because it works in mysterious ways? It is all powerful?

And by the way, there is NO better explanation than natural selection. It is an undeniable fact that natural selection is a MUST, given environmental conditions that make a specific gene more suitable for survival. It is only logical that natural selection is true, given environmental adaptation.

This is how it goes: There is nothing in the natural world that is SUGGESTIVE of a god. More importantly, there is no thing suggestive of any specific god, and definitely not of his opinions on homosexuality, and whether a woman ought to be stoned for not screaming loud enough while being raped. EVERYTHING is COMPATIBLE with a god-concept, if you allow him to be all-powerful and above logic, thereby giving him the ability to do anything.

13. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27273 by diquea on March 23, 2007 at 5:07 pm

I'm so glad Atkins called McGrath out on preaching with his opening 'argument.' Not only was it a sermon, but totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed. "SHOULD we rid our minds of religion," not "WILL we."

I was also glad to see Atkins point out the idiocy of "why" questions, once one has a firm grasp of evolutionary theory.

14. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27122 by diquea on March 23, 2007 at 8:03 am

I wish it weren't so difficult to hear. It's a bit muffled

15. Beyond Stones & Bones

Comment #25280 by diquea on March 11, 2007 at 4:23 pm

"The science of human evolution is undergoing its own revolution."
...
"The neat traditional model in which one species gave rise to another like Biblical 'begats' has been replaced by a profusion of branches, representing species that lived at the same time as our direct ancestors but whose lines died out."

This is new? A revolution? I thought it was like a given in evolutionary theory that there would be several different branches.

16. Arguing for Atheism

Comment #19224 by diquea on January 25, 2007 at 4:19 pm

"In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony."

First, I'm tired of this argument. Just because religion is not the sole cause, does not do away with the need to rid ourselves of it.

Second, anyone know if Shermer has written more on this argument? Or Atran? Someone? I hear them invoke it from time to time, as if it is an alternative rather than a supplement. Let's rid ourselves of poor reasoning, intellectual poverty, and altogether irrational ideas; I have heard Dawkins and Harris acknowledge there are more problems than religion in this world too many times, for this diversion to still be used. Religion is a problem. That there are others does not make it not so.

17. Unscientific American: US Almost Last in Understanding Evolution

Comment #19082 by diquea on January 24, 2007 at 5:38 pm

I'm with the guy who said, isn't 15% still too much? As soon as I get my degree, I'm out of this country. I really cannot handle this farce, this sideshow of a government; this regressive society.

18. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18063 by diquea on January 18, 2007 at 5:49 am

"Iraqi's are not killing Americans because they believe in a god , they kill Americans because they... marched into their country with 3rd Reich-style agression.
People should read more about politics."

You should read more of the article.

"We agree that a large part of the murder and mayhem in today's Iraq is also rooted in religious difference, specifically the ancient rift between Sunni and Shia."

I really do love to read Sam Harris. He's so calm and collective, and I have never seen his temper flare. I also wonder how long it will be before we can call him Doctor Harris. It seems like all this spotlight would have slowed him down dramatically.

19. Christian Shrine Needs Two Exits, Israel Says

Comment #17804 by diquea on January 16, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Because most of us don't like to see loss of any life. I'm hoping that was not serious though.

20. Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Comment #17144 by diquea on January 11, 2007 at 7:30 am

I think that when people claim we are trying to eradicate theists, churches and their establishments off the face of the earth (Tobias)... when we 1) don't say we will, and 2) actually say we won't... only goes to show that they see if the human story continues along its progressive way it will happen without us having to do it. As we continue to educate and provide good models of viewing the universe that do not necessitate some outside source, it will eventually lead to what we all desire. Unless we kill ourselves first.

21. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15602 by diquea on January 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm

I had been bored enough to keep up with the hundreds of passionate comments about exactly what [each person] THOUGHT Professor Dawkins meant. I just sat back and felt as though I would feel like the most ridiculous person if I were to join in.

Ed said in his article (after reading this petition that Dawkins had put his signature to) "This I was completely unaware of, and I find it highly disturbing. And I agree with him, this is absolutely evidence that Dawkins does indeed favor coercion to try and stamp out religion."

I would have expected someone with a blog like Brayton's to have really thought it through, and definitely to get Dawkins' opinion on it, before claiming it to be absolute evidence in any direction. I did not immediately see the attached part of the petition either, and once I did I thought it was more of an addition, or an explanation than an actual attachment.

But didn't EVERYONE realize that the petition would not become law? I thought the best explanation was that it was a way of keeping the issue in the public's eye.

22. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #14724 by diquea on December 24, 2006 at 7:13 pm

I admire whoever plowed through the entire thing. As far as I got, I thought it was funny that he referred to the Boeing 747 argument, since TGD has a section entitled "The Ultimate Boeing 747."

In any case, I don't suppose there is really any reason to read it all, I'm sure the rest is as redundant as the 747 bit. It was also a rather annoying perspective from which to write the article. If an intelligent god exists, this certainly is an insult to it.

23. How the Great Atheist got polite society standing

Comment #14722 by diquea on December 24, 2006 at 6:56 pm

I know, what's with the attack? It has nothing to do with whether he is correct or not. Christ, I couldn't give two shits if Richard is a dick, no pun intended. I suppose this is what they are left with.

I wonder how Giles would react to an article about Ted Haggard, as a way to discredit the Christian belief-system.