1. Prayer refusal pupils 'disciplined'

Comment #204654 by SPS on July 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #204650 by Steve Zara

Well said, Steve.

2. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202624 by SPS on July 1, 2008 at 5:48 pm

From the article:

,,, and the fact that they seem complicated and hard to explain through evolution doesn't suggest for one second that we ought to invoke the supernatural finger of God.

So I'd say to Dawkins, until you explain to me how human beings interact with the world, don't tell me that God couldn't interact with the world in the same way we do.

...but something that we don't understand at all is occurring. I don't think it's supernatural. I think that someday we may understand this.

I think it's a very reasonable belief that God interacts with creation and that experiences people have of interacting with God are profound and deeply meaningful.

3. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201458 by SPS on June 29, 2008 at 4:59 pm

I skimmed through most of this article and the phrase 'intergalactic jihad/crusades' comes to mind. Here's to hoping advanced alien species are atheists.

Layla,

You may be thinking of this episode of Star Trek TOS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Circuses_(Star_Trek)

4. God hates Mars

Comment #199486 by SPS on June 25, 2008 at 8:25 pm

sent2null,

Yes, but what are your thoughts on candy?

The Skor bar is highly underrated, and is a good use of taxpayer money.

5. God hates Mars

Comment #199434 by SPS on June 25, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Mars addict lives on chocolate for 17 years

6. God hates Mars

Comment #199395 by SPS on June 25, 2008 at 5:14 pm

...no need in wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money...

7. What Happens When a School Board of Religious Zealots Will 'Lie for Jesus'?

Comment #197316 by SPS on June 21, 2008 at 5:50 pm

This is the link to the PBS program, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, referenced by Shemp333.

Creationism is like weighing yourself on a broken scale. You may like what you see, but it doesn't make it true...results may vary.

8. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #196119 by SPS on June 19, 2008 at 10:21 am

Great post, irate.

clearthinker,

What is the difference between the supernatural and what you imagine it to be?

9. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195487 by SPS on June 18, 2008 at 10:19 am

A little late...welcome Oystein!

10. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195193 by SPS on June 17, 2008 at 9:23 pm

"In brief the argument is that explicability itself requires explanation"

11. Only a Theory

Comment #194056 by SPS on June 16, 2008 at 10:47 am

I enjoyed listening to the talk wit Dr. Miller.
Am I wrong in thinking that 'strengths and weaknesses' of religion will be taught as well? <--(joking). Agenda driven initiatives closed to being challenged often don't apply to themselves the same rules they would have others follow.
In the talk Dr. Miller spoke briefly about the non-literal interpretation of the bible by christian scholars, but why then is 'god' not excluded from literal interpretation?
Following the discussion about limitation, my thought is that limits first have to be observed to know they are limits. Realization of limitation is the first step in overcoming it. To me, religious belief is a roadblock to the genuine pursuit of understanding. All forthcoming answers and solutions to problems are either truncated, assumed without question, credited, stifled, or given their possibility through the 'god' answer to whatever might or might not come along. Surrendering knowledge to the incomprehensible is no solution, because it is no different than surrendering to the non-existent or the rules of the imagined.
I think there may be more than one intersecting path to religious belief, but my speculation about the nature of religion is that it is a placebo for commonplace phobias - death, uncertainty, etc. Phobias can reflect actual threat, but also allow for compartmentalization to tend to the actions needed to sustain daily life. Widespread, the importance it's given is in equal measure to the cure sought out. Its application finding necessity in imagination, used to smooth the powerful and potentially debilitating to survival, emotions such as grief, desperation, and fear of finality. Its implication matching its need. Imagination and reality met by mortality run towards unconditional survival, but religion stops in the dream.
(Pardon some of the wording.)

12. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #193918 by SPS on June 16, 2008 at 8:06 am

Is it too early to have my thumb out?

13. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193849 by SPS on June 16, 2008 at 6:14 am

For some reason I picture the pope doing magic tricks at this meeting, a few "is this your card" tricks, followed by a game of 3-card monty, and rounded off by pulling a coin from behind Bush's ear, a stunned Bush throwing his hands in the air, "Wow, this catholic stuff is cool!".
A robe and pope hat Bush could play pope in would seal the deal.

14. Behe's Empty Box

Comment #193127 by SPS on June 14, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Pardon me for recycling part of my post on Dinesh D'Souza's blog entry with a slight edit:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/06/12/can-a-darwinian-be-a-christian/27#comments

I know some here have been making assertions about science in defense of their faith. I am curious. Would you be as comfortable making these claims in an auditorium full of evolutionary biologists, physicists, mathematicians, etc? Would you be open to being shown incorrect?
Some have posed that intelligent design/creation make sense, because certain things are 'impossible'. Why do you then credit a creator in doing the impossible whose methods you do not know, and who believers readily admit they cannot comprehend? Why do you not allow for the first, and allow for the second? Why are you searching for an evidence based god? If evidence is important then where does that place the importance of your faith? Would you still believe without "evidence". If you would believe without evidence doesn't this reveal you as biased against it?
A yes or no answer will suffice for most of these questions, but answer as you wish.

15. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192923 by SPS on June 14, 2008 at 9:02 am

jdbartlett,

You make some good points, and I think I agree in part with the basic thrust of what you're saying. Speaking for myself, I generally formulate the gist of what I want to say for a first post before reading anyone else's. We should also guard against agreeing to be in disagreement as a virtue in itself. After all, putting forward any argument comes with the expectation that someone will agree with/challenge what you have to say, doesn't it? Religion can have valuable traits, though the traits should stand on their own, and can lose their value when enforced by the "reasoning" behind religious mandate.

16. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192881 by SPS on June 14, 2008 at 5:56 am

If the issue is maintaining tolerance among religions, the trouble is differences and unknowns when translated into religion become absolute certainties, when peace can require an attitude of 'let's wait and see/let's find out', and honestly answering and challenging the question 'how do we know?'. It would seem that the goal of diversity in coexistence may necessitate religion's removal from the equation.

17. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #191391 by SPS on June 10, 2008 at 7:48 pm

clearthinker,

Thanks for your response. However, my name is not Brian. Maybe you confused my post with that of Brian English's, which is above mine. No matter, though.
I posted this on Dinesh D'Sousa's blog in response to this entry of his:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/06/08/what-science-cannot-tell-us/

I think some of my questions/responses may be applicable to your stance. Feel free to ignore the parts that are not, or answer them if you like. Some of what I wrote on his blog I have already posted here before in part. I see some posters here have already put similar thoughts to mine more eloquently in their own posts. Here it is :

You suggest that atheism allows for no meaning in life. This is only in contrast to what you already consider criteria for meaning. You write about the limits of science to provide answers. What do you consider knowledge? How do you arrive at it? Do you see that the shortcomings you assert are only in relation to what you already consider unchangeable proper measurement? Why do you value answers given over answers discovered? I have heard you speak about the limits of our senses. What would your thoughts on god be without your senses? How did you arrive at this observation of limitation? Divine inspiration? You write about what it would take for an atheist to be convinced of the supernatural. If you were raised in a village that was not technologically/scientifically advanced and had no contact with the outside world, would you consider it acceptable for a villager to believe a plane writing in the sky is acceptable proof of the supernatural? If acceptable, would the villager be correct based on his/her belief? Would this observation by a villager qualify as one of the "things that science cannot possibly tell them"? What do you consider an acceptable limit to seeking answers through scientific inquiry? Would you apply the same limit to medicine? Meaning, applied to an area of life, changes, and does not need permission to exist or change. Surely, you have experienced this even in your supposed christian view of life and experiences? Tell me, do you and your religion value the truth, or only being 'considered' correct? I know which science values. If interested in the truth, how do you plan to arrive at it? Have you held a point of view only to find that you were incorrect? How did you come to this conclusion? Was it by logic, observation? When was the last time faith proved you wrong? You believe the bible correlates well with science. No doubt you have seen religion and faith re-defined to fit science? Tell me, have you ever given a subject serious thought and observation and not found some degree of correlation or similarity with someone else's thoughts on the same subject? As for what is good, bad, etc. If you were poked in the eye, would you have to experience divine inspiration or accept jesus as your personal savior before deciding if this was something you actually wanted? Would your ability to observe consequence be effected by your ability to memorize the ten commandments? How do you explain other animal's behavioral norms? Why don't they fall into chaos? Clearly they are not believers, and don't have a soul for that matter. I see you like to associate faith with science. One values evidence and results, the other is faith. Oh, and by the way, you forgot to apply skepticism to your skepticism of skepticism.

::Edited for clarification, redundancy, spelling, and some grammar correction.::

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

Comment #190639 by SPS on June 9, 2008 at 10:12 am

I have yet to meet an atheist who can make even a feeble argument to counter any of these points...

19. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190307 by SPS on June 8, 2008 at 7:24 pm

moderndaythomas,

My guess is what is probable is what is profitable unless unavoidable.

20. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190291 by SPS on June 8, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Has anyone seen the documentary The Future of Food? Worth a watch in my opinion.

By the way, how did all those prayers for world peace go?

Edit: Just saw Barry Pearson's post. Glad to hear it. On to the next world crisis!

21. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190047 by SPS on June 8, 2008 at 9:26 am

Another disturbing result of superstition:
Albinos, Long Shunned, Face Threat in Tanzania

22. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190018 by SPS on June 8, 2008 at 7:37 am

Unusually enough, my dog is quite well behaved without religion, though he is occasionally naughty. Maybe he just needs a good preaching to to set him straight;)

Speaking of creationists:
Exploring The Creation Museum - America's New Mecca of Fanatical Ignorance

23. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #190002 by SPS on June 8, 2008 at 6:06 am

Which then leaves us in a free for all.

24. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189747 by SPS on June 7, 2008 at 6:30 am

If I were not a cat worshiper and yet find myself surrounded by cat worshipers, and the cat worshipers had undue influence on the society around me, I might find myself seeking the solace of non-cat worshipers, regardless of what else we might have in common. The reason people gather can be related to a person's views in contrast to those around them. Gathering is not a religious thing. It's a human thing. Gathering is not prohibited by one's atheism just like not gathering is not a rule of atheism. It's like calling a christian a pagan because they have a christmas tree.
By the way, if anyone is interested, Religulous has a trailer out:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/religulous/

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/06/religulous-movie-trailer/

25. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189601 by SPS on June 6, 2008 at 3:50 pm

In Massachusetts we have a lake named Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg (really, we do - also called Webster Lake)...named after Superman:)

26. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189347 by SPS on June 6, 2008 at 5:01 am

"We're not proposing the book of Genesis as a scientific textbook," West said. "We just think science and religion are friends, not enemies."

27. Karma comedians

Comment #187047 by SPS on June 1, 2008 at 8:05 am

Stew282,

That's an interesting point, but what about particular groups, such as serial killers, heads of state that authorize the killing of multitudes, or even those who live their daily lives with little or no conscience? How would things work out statistically even for such people?
I often hear the phrase, "There's a reason for everything". To which I respond, "Yeah, but not a good reason".

28. Karma comedians

Comment #186773 by SPS on May 31, 2008 at 9:41 am

I agree with robotaholic. I've misspoken many times, and have said things I wouldn't have been eager to see captured on video. A sound bite isn't necessarily an accurate representation of the person.
A certain approach may have an effect on changing things around you, but the idea of karma never made sense to me. How is the suffering of children justified, for example? Karma would also have to assume that everyone is fully equipped to make the best decision in every circumstance, and then leaves out an explanation of why one wouldn't.

29. Tribute to a Beloved Mentor

Comment #184136 by SPS on May 23, 2008 at 6:43 pm

I was almost in tears just from reading this...

30. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #184097 by SPS on May 23, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Here's a recent article about another possible method for detecting an alien civilization:
Looking for ET's neutrino beam

31. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183651 by SPS on May 22, 2008 at 12:19 pm

The Sun's properties are consistent with it being pulled out at random from the bag of all stars.

32. God seekers go public

Comment #179369 by SPS on May 13, 2008 at 7:12 am

My question for the believers is:
What difference is there between a belief in god/design and the imagination?

33. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179303 by SPS on May 13, 2008 at 5:02 am

Mike O'Risal,

I've been praying daily to the ghost of Norman Fell

34. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179148 by SPS on May 12, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Matthew 18:19-20
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Prayer is the answer to every problem in life.

35. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177816 by SPS on May 9, 2008 at 6:54 pm

I can't imagine jesus wanting to hang around with any of these religious pretentious types on earth, nevermind for an eternity. I've never met a devout [insert religion here], and thought, "god's really going to enjoy your company".
As an aside, the thought of hell now makes me hungry.

36. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #177594 by SPS on May 9, 2008 at 10:40 am

It is the right decision at this point in my presidency, and it will forever be the right decision.

-Bush

The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right...

- Learned Hand

37. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176976 by SPS on May 8, 2008 at 12:12 pm

From the article:

And at the same time, that "inner you" begins to get tired of the whole spectacle and sometimes forgets to protest...

38. What really goes on at the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #175662 by SPS on May 5, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Fascinating. An engaging fellow. It's nice to see that kind of subject matter presented in layman's terms with that sense of awe. One unexpected thing I learned is that intelligence does not guarantee a flattering haircut.
Great presentation, nonetheless.

39. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175096 by SPS on May 4, 2008 at 11:39 am

Teratornis,

Probably no two people react to a given argument in exactly the same way. An argument which appears irrefutable to one person might simply not "register" on another. But if that other person hears the argument enough times, and worded in enough different ways, eventually it might "click."

40. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175093 by SPS on May 4, 2008 at 11:31 am

Funny how every threat of punishment or promise of reward in the religious world equates to something in the known physical world. The 'lake of fire', 'fire and brimstone', '72 virgins', pain, suffering, separation, etc. Even in the tract above god/jesus is shown sitting on a throne at the top of the stairs. How can the supernatural lay outside the physical world and not be subject to its laws when it is only the physical world that can be used as an example, and is the only one to which we can relate? It's been said that god created time. If we're to believe that a god possessing a will made the decision to create time, then decisions and the will to enact them require time, again equating to what is observed in the physical world.

41. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174898 by SPS on May 3, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Shouldn't actual scientists agree about evidence contrary to evolutionary theory and have their evidence scrutinized and pass peer review before it is taught in a classroom, rather than passing legislation that allows "classes that probe the theory for weakness"? This is another fraud promoted under the banner of 'freedom'.
Opinion poll mentality should have no place in the teaching of science.

42. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171705 by SPS on April 28, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Or

'Imagine no religion...'

Had to throw that in.

43. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #167298 by SPS on April 23, 2008 at 9:18 pm

al-rawandi,

My guess is that there is a more mundane cause - human vulnerability, pettiness, or vanity. A man finds he can no longer function the way he used to, and with his manhood threatened/in question, and without a way to understand why it happened, he attributes it to witchcraft. I bet claims of shrinkage or disappearance would actually more likely be a case of impotence. The belief becomes known, and a curse of shrinkage or disappearance becomes an acceptable means for some of enacting revenge. Someone worried about being cursed worries himself to the point of self-imposed impotence, and the otherwise impotent now have something to blame. The person worried into a state of impotence, even though he may suspect his own worry to be the cause, now has a ready made excuse that exempts himself as the cause. In any case, the afflicted man may not have the knowledge to attribute it to anything else, or to exclude the likelihood of witchcraft as being the cause. Some of the reward/punishment aspects of religious belief may work in a similar way.

44. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #166670 by SPS on April 23, 2008 at 11:24 am

I blame Hogwarts.

45. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #165982 by SPS on April 22, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Dinesh D'Souza misrepresents Dawkins' position on his blog;

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/04/21/how-did-life-begin/

For the faithful the idea of 'no evidence is evidence' is the only evidence they've got...for that which they supposedly require no evidence in the first place.
We don't know 'x', therefore 'y' must be true.
How do they know this? Well, as they often remind us, we are limited in our ability to comprehend, therefore what they have to say about the unknown is the only truth possible. Makes perfect sense, no? No.

46. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164469 by SPS on April 20, 2008 at 9:49 am

moderationsmuse,

Hmm. And why would people not think the earth is 6,000 years old? Science? Maybe they should have kept quiet and let people have their "quaint views" about that. I mean, after all, how can someone who makes no use of evidence be lead to do anything dangerous, right?
There is a social responsibility. If I see someone get assaulted on the street should I do nothing because I'm not a cop? It would seem so by your way of thinking.

47. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163879 by SPS on April 19, 2008 at 8:40 am

The idea of life being seeded by aliens is also in an episode of Star Trek TNG:
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68598.html
The examples given by 'clearmind' show assemblage with intention of the pre-existing, not creation in the sense implied.
A rock falls down a hill, deforms the earth, chips its surface, disturbs the air around it, and lands on level ground killing an ant. What do you suppose the rock's intention was? Can we understand the rock by knowing its intention?
Can we understand why it happened? I think we can. Can we understand it by believing we know its intention? I don't think so. The meaning behind it comes from us.
Existence is the prerequisite, intention is not.

48. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163305 by SPS on April 18, 2008 at 7:05 am

It is okay to use slandering and twisting; they are another sign of denial or trying to save evolution. You can just join dawkins. Now he is a politican; maybe he can run presidency for the states?

49. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163240 by SPS on April 18, 2008 at 5:03 am

clearmind,

The Stork opens his beak to us. It's up to us to join the flock.

If you don't want to do that, try using some Latin. Latin makes everything true.
A great teacher once said:
Semper ubi sub ubi.
Words to live by.

50. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162964 by SPS on April 17, 2008 at 6:11 pm

The reviews (some of them) are in for Expelled.
Quite bad:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/

Stork Theory goes along well with my ignorance of science, and my preference for not thinking.
Are we supposed to believe babies magically grow inside a "womb" and come out of a "birth" "canal".
Hey Sex Theory - evil called, it wants its theory back.
Puhh-lease.