1. Fish out of water: Your Inner Fish

Comment #111078 by John Turner on January 13, 2008 at 1:00 pm

I think a few videos should be watched before doubting the ability of a hot rod beetle!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljv6EZlB08s&feature=related

2. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78886 by John Turner on October 15, 2007 at 8:59 am

Teratornis, Ive found your posts quite interesting and agreed with pretty much everything you've wrote. Nice one

3. The Religious Right's New Tactics for Invading Public Schools

Comment #77412 by John Turner on October 9, 2007 at 8:29 am

phasmagigas:

"so maybe we'll hear some islamic prayers in texan schools, that will go down well."

You maybe more right than you realise, take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmRqDMUA4P0

4. Talking Action Figure Jesus

Comment #73471 by John Turner on September 25, 2007 at 3:58 am

Heres an alternative jesus doll :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haitxwIYj3Y&mode=related&search=

5. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66094 by John Turner on August 28, 2007 at 4:13 pm

PaulEmecz,

I think you take a rather narrow and unimaginative view of science and the scientific method.

"The scientific method will not tell us the value of a human life"

This starts with the assumption that there should be an inherent value to human life, and with your assumption that there is, what other field would you suggest could give an answer?

"Scientists are not the best people to train would-be artists"

Art is a very subjective thing, it is almost like saying, "scientists are not the best people to tell us what the best colour is". However, using the scientific method for example, you could examine many pieces of artwork, conduct a survey to find out which are the most popular, and study the most popular pieces in depth to see what they have in common. Also, if you were specifically talking about training people to be painters, you could use the scientific method to study different ways to mix and apply paint to paper to get the result required…etc.

"Scientists don't make the best counsellors"

Psychology is a scientific field……

"Scientists don't write the best stories"

You could also say "scientists aren't the best people at stacking shelves in Tescos", although i am sure with some study and practice, a scientist could rival the best at the job. Also the scientific method could be applied with writing as described above with relation to art.

It seems what you are trying to say is that science cannot give us creativity, or at least in a way that affects peoples emotions (e.g. Art and stories). I would beg to differ, as I think science itself is a very creative process, as it needs to be in order to be effective at generating new ideas and hypothesises. As far as these creative ideas being aimed at arousing peoples emotions, art is largely a hit or miss affair, and with enough random pieces of art being creative all over the world some pieces are inevitably going to tap into peoples emotions. If a particular artist (who was popular with a group of people in society) was studied, and compared with other artists that were not popular, I am certain attributes of his work could be identified as what particularly makes the pieces pleasing to the group. Then, for example, psychology could be applied to find out just what it is that is going on in the minds of these people to make them like it (brings back similar fond memories, makes a shared political view etc.).

I wrote this with the hope of opening you're mind to how the scientific method is integral to most things (even when it isn't noticed, and isn't referred to as "the scientific method") and can be applied to even more. Also those creative processes, that produce powerful emotions, aren't necessarily mystical forces beyond understanding (And I fear that most of it doesn't make any sense, oh well, it's late….)

6. Anger at Malaysia 'Jesus cartoon'

Comment #65880 by John Turner on August 27, 2007 at 8:39 am

"Religion is a famously sensitive subject in the world"

7. Christians disrupt Hindu Prayer at Senate Invocation

Comment #56840 by John Turner on July 17, 2007 at 12:56 pm

'The should start the Senate and Congress sessions with by reading from the oath to the constitution, the declaration of independence or some other document that is all American.'

How about just cut all the ritual, oath, recitement crap and get to work?

8. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52262 by John Turner on June 26, 2007 at 3:33 pm

I thought this was good, and could help a theist try and see it from an atheists point of view, but yeh,it probably wont.

And ab_initio, yours and mind_rebel's comments are in the 'Alternate Comment Thread', and i dont think mind_rebel was joking.

9. Dental healer finds share of faithful believers

Comment #44312 by John Turner on May 24, 2007 at 9:18 am

'Some shudder at his touch.'

'"When he prayed for me, I felt the right side of my face go numb."'

I can imagine reacting to the guy this way aswell.

'Others hold their hands out, palms upturned as if in a tent with a crazy guy, and not having a fucking clue what is going on.'

10. Ice Age blast 'ravaged America'

Comment #44006 by John Turner on May 23, 2007 at 7:14 am

Dont worry epeeist, i think most people will understand.

11. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42341 by John Turner on May 18, 2007 at 5:09 am

I didnt really agree with this guy on alot of points, and he seems to contradict himself and not think through what he is saying on quite a few points.

This part seemed especially poor-
"But what are memes? How do you decide whether something is a meme or not? And what you really want to understand is, how is it passed on and why does it persist? This is never discussed. So for Daniel Dennett -- who's a philosopher, after all -- to get involved with memes, the moment he does that, I just stop reading him."

So you've got lots of questions about memes which you say never get discussed, and yet when someone writes about them, you stop reading. I thought 'Breaking the Spell' dealt with memes quite well, and addressed all the questions above He seems to have no understanding of the concept memes at all and yet just dismisses them, and it seems like he would apply this to other areas where he doesnt want to consider or investigate any other idea that is different to what he believes.

Guess he just annoyed me abit.

12. BBC man says 'I was wrong to lose it. But these scientologists are truly scary'

Comment #40366 by John Turner on May 14, 2007 at 7:23 am

tedlove, yeah maybe it could be argued the stuff they believe isnt any more crazy, but the believers themselves are much more intense and creepy, at least when asked about their beliefs.

I wonder why they are so worried about the practice of psychiatry, hmm......

(because they are fuckin insane, and don't want anyone with qualifications to break the bad news to them)

13. Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39836 by John Turner on May 12, 2007 at 4:40 am

I was disappointed by hitchens in this debate. I felt that he didn't address the questions made by sharton which could have been quite easily squashed, yet he just continued to say what was wrong with the bible, and it came across that he didnt have an answer for sharpton. I think that dawkins or harris would have nailed this guy, but in my opinion hitchens failed to do so.

14. Jordan opens children's museum

Comment #36986 by John Turner on May 3, 2007 at 3:56 am

Why cant our queen be smokin' hot like that?

15. Flea Circus!

Comment #33102 by John Turner on April 19, 2007 at 7:42 am

Weefree

'The point about science and religion being opposed still stands. It is perfectly possible to be a rational consistent good scientist and believe in God. It is a myth, without any empirical evidence, to suggest otherwise.'

It may be so as you say that theists can be good scientists, like someone who believes the world is flat could be a good scientist, as long as they put this belief to the back of their minds while they are working. But the fact is that many of the 'Truths' of the Abrahamic religions are directly opposed to the facts of science, whether theistic scientists can put this to the back of their minds when carrying out science is irrelevant.

16. Christians at Bible publishers have their throats cut

Comment #33096 by John Turner on April 19, 2007 at 6:51 am

Heres some of the clips released of the videos that the kid from virginia made before the killings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMhl7R9Ng-s&mode=related&search=

17. Christians at Bible publishers have their throats cut

Comment #33061 by John Turner on April 19, 2007 at 4:46 am

Wee Free

I think you should check out the videos that this kid from virginia recorded before the killings. From what i remember seeing on the news, he was talking about his soul being hurt, and wanting to die like jesus did.

18. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #27692 by John Turner on March 26, 2007 at 6:39 am

Re: He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

The Monty Hall Problem doesn't apply to Deal or no Deal. The box in front of you at the end, when you have the option to swap, has the same chance to have either of the two remaining amounts as the box across the room. The idea of swapping is an illusion really, as you are just choosing one box or the other, you just happen to be standing closer to one of them. I would stick with the box I picked at the begging, as its less hassle :) (But I would also punch Noel in the face, he really pisses me off)

19. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25172 by John Turner on March 10, 2007 at 4:23 pm

I like the sound of groups like CFI, i didnt really know anything about them before. Tis promising.

20. Atheist Rap: Extian, The Verse from Atheist Nation Pt III

Comment #20661 by John Turner on February 5, 2007 at 3:25 pm

very nice

21. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20618 by John Turner on February 5, 2007 at 5:56 am

"Any other thoughts on this?"

Yes, go and live in Saudi under sharia law, and see if you still feel the same way.

22. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19179 by John Turner on January 25, 2007 at 11:52 am

Comment #19178 by nine9s

I can see what you are saying, but i think its more a case of frustration and losing his temper, than of arrogance. Imagine, for instance, if they had been having the discussion through email. I think responses would be on the whole more measured and deep.

With that guy getting right in my face with lies (and having already having to explain it deeply to other similar sorts, who don't listen and spit out ignorant comebacks) i would have got abit red in the face aswell.

23. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19166 by John Turner on January 25, 2007 at 10:46 am

Comment #19163 by Lionel A

Yeh, I don't think you need to be a specialist on this one.

Especially if you see the video of the gay man who is accusing him, who seems to be a fairly well-rounded nice guy.

24. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19159 by John Turner on January 25, 2007 at 9:31 am

here you are

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTzoHI_aQ_w

What a sleazy lying cheeseball

25. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19124 by John Turner on January 25, 2007 at 4:22 am

Comment #19077 by VrijzinnigMan

I disagree that the fundamentalists should be focussed on first. I think that we need to pull the 'moderate rug' out from underneath them, and they will collapse.

26. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19064 by John Turner on January 24, 2007 at 3:34 pm

While we are talking about T-shirts, can someone make me one with 'I'm an Atheist, so Fuck you!' written on it. That'd be sweet

27. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19052 by John Turner on January 24, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Firstly, I think some people are looking at the word atheist in an unhelpful way by viewing it as the name for a group of people rather than a descriptive word for the sole fact that you, as an individual, are not a theist, and it neither does or need to represent anything else.

The label 'Bright' is not in fact a specific and descriptive word, and only has descriptive value to the people who invented it (or label themselves as one) and assigned all these different qualities that this word is supposed to represent. Using a term to collectively represent your thoughts, seems similar to choosing a political party. What if you agree with most of the views stated by the 'Brights' as a collective but disagree with one or a few, does this mean now that you cannot name yourself a 'Bright', or that you overlook these views and allow people to have misconceptions about what your actual true views are. Alternatively you could call yourself a 'Bright' but then explain the few views which the term is associated with that you do not share yourself, similar to ordering a full english breakfast and saying 'but hold the beans and tomatoes'. Why not just ask for some sausages, bacon and eggs in the first place.

I think calling yourself a 'Bright' ('Clear', or anything similar) could encourage unhelpful stereotyping. What if someone who called himself a Bright decided to go insane and murder somebody? This could be used against the others who call themselves 'Brights' by people who are against atheism. Creating the idea of a group rather than just a common view between certain people (that there is no supernatural being), I think, is the wrong direction in which to be going.

As far as being similar to homosexuals naming themselves as gay. I feel even this segregates and may put up false barriers. If I asked somebody about their sexuality I think it would be clearer for them to say that they prefer to, or only have, sexual relations with people of the same sex, than to label themselves as gay. The latter can bring up multiple stereotypes whereas the former is just a specific statement that should have no connotations about the rest of their life or personality.

Also I think using the term 'Brights' could make it harder for people to 'come out of the closet' because in lost of cases they would not have much choice at being associated with the term 'Brights', of which their religious loved ones could already have pre conceived ideas. Instead they could just explain to there families that they specifically do not believe in a supernatural being, and hopefully that there family and friends can view them as the same person apart from this one aspect (although i know in lots of cases people wouldn't be so accepting).

This turned into abit of a long one, basically what I wanted to say was -
I don't call myself an atheist, I describe myself as one.

28. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #18833 by John Turner on January 23, 2007 at 5:28 am

"- At 4, had a life-changing spiritual transformation, converting the family to Christianity."

What??

http://nhne.org

29. Atheists challenge the religious right

Comment #16167 by John Turner on January 5, 2007 at 7:09 am

"atheists and other nontheists"

I dont understand. Surely the definition of atheist is non-theist, and vice-versa.

30. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15557 by John Turner on January 1, 2007 at 9:27 am

Firstly, I think some people are looking at the word atheist in an unhelpful way by viewing it as the name for a group of people rather than a descriptive word for the sole fact that you, as an individual, are not a thiest, and it neither does or need to represent anything else.

The label 'Bright' is not infact a specific and descriptive word, and only has descriptive value to the people who invented it (or label themselves as one) and assigned all these different qualities that this word is supposed to represent. Using a term to collectively represent your thoughts, seems similar to choosing a political party. What if you agree with most of the views stated by the 'Brights' as a collective but disgree with one or a few, does this mean now that you cannot name yourself a 'Bright', or that you overlook these views and allow people to have misconceptions about what your actual true views are. Alternatively you could call yourself a 'Bright' but then explain the few views which the term is associated with that you do not share yourself, similar to ordering a full english breakfast and saying 'but hold the beans and tomatoes'. Why not just ask for some sausages, bacon and eggs in the first place.

I think calling yourself a 'Bright' ('Clear', or anything similar) could encourage unhelpful stereotyping. What if someone who called himself a Bright decided to go insane and murder somebody. This could be used against the others who call themselves 'Brights' by people who are against atheism. Creating the idea of a group rather than just a common view between certain people (that there is no supernatural being), I think, is the wrong direction in which to be going.

As far as being similar to homosexuals naming themselves as gay. I feel even this segregates and may put up false barriers. If I asked somebody about their sexuality I think it would be more clear for them to say that they prefer to, or only have, sexual relations with people of the same sex, than to label themselves as gay. The latter can bring up multiple stereotypes whereas the former is just a specific statement that should have no connotations about the rest of their life or personality.

Also I think using the term 'Brights' could make it harder for people to 'come out of the closet' because in lost of cases they would not have much choice at being associated with the term'Brights', of which their religious loved ones could already have pre concived ideas. Instead they could just explain to there families that they specifically do not belive in a supernatural being, and hopefully that there family and friends can view them as the same person apart from this one aspect (although i know in lots of cases people wouldn't be so accepting).

This turned into abit of a long one, basically what I wanted to say was -
I don't call myself an atheist, I describe myself as one.