1. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125041 by mountainpix on February 10, 2008 at 7:50 pm

The sad thing is that it seems Boteach is knowingly dishonest in making his feeble arguments, or at minimum, he allows himself to avoid recognizing obvious contradictions and falsehoods. For example, he claims to believe in evolution so long as it is guided by God, but he then goes on to make the, "where are the transitional species?" argument. Evolution guided by God would still require transitional species. He is either dishonest or deluded.

2. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23808 by mountainpix on March 2, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Plantinga accuses Dawkins of expressing vitriol, mockery, ridicule, etc. of the religious and of belief in gods, rather than setting out to offer a "fair and balanced"
scientific perspective. Well, to a believer, I suppose this could be seen as true (though I actually think his tone is respectful of his fellow humans in general). While Dawkins makes use of firmly accepted scientific FACTS to support his positions, his point of view is that religion is ridiculous, dangerous, and irresponsible in the face of well established scientific reality! Why would anyone expect him to present an emotionally sympathetic religious point of view out of fairness. However, he goes to great lengths to explain the leading theological arguments for the existence of a god, and tears them down very effectively.

The bottom line is that religion and deist beliefs appear in the context of modern scientific knowledge and inquiry to be reasonably ridiculous and therefore worthy of ridicule, in the most sober terms. The notion that we should respect others does not require that we respect beliefs that are unsupported by any real evidence whatsoever, though this is what Plantinga seems to argue.

3. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #18345 by mountainpix on January 19, 2007 at 11:49 pm

Dreamer's Dilemma,

Why is it that American fundamentalist Christians are almost always reactionary defenders of industrial capitalism as if it were gospel? I think that it is because reaction, rather than thoughtful progression, go along with both phenomena. This leads me to believe that much American Christianity is a male chauvanist front for men who wish to maintain a paradigm in which they don't have to develop their intellect, but that still demands obedience from their wives and children. I sum up fundamentalist dogma as follows: "Don't question daddy." In this case, this means invoking a deity to suggest that daddy's tendencies to be homophobic, racist, anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-environmental, zealously capitalist, xenophobic (except for the Mexican gardener and maid), etc., are righteous, good, and worthy of being aspired to by his children. I really don't think it has to do with Christ, the Bible, spirituality, or anything else that could be naively considered noble.

4. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17313 by mountainpix on January 12, 2007 at 10:06 pm

I'll just add that regardless of Al Gore's political life, the fact that anyone could question whether global warming is happening is mind boggling. One would have to believe that the people who report about the massive quantity of supporting data are all a part of a massive conspiracy - folks who spitefully want people to give up their fossil fuel addiction. Is this in and of itself profound evidence of the rampant delusion in the "faith-based" world, or is it the reluctance of people to accept an inconvenient truth?

I hope that Gore runs again and is RE-ELECTED in 2008!

5. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17300 by mountainpix on January 12, 2007 at 7:19 pm

If Frosty Hardison wishes his daughter to be an ignorant rube, then he should have asked that she be excused from class for the day that "An Inconvenient Truth" was shown. A girl in my high school class was opted out of entire school years of sex ed and anthropology due to her parents' religious beliefs (which I think is a tremendous pity), but why would the school board impose Hardisons narrow view on all the children. Surely, his view isn't the even the majority opinion, much less a rational one. Some creationists would even argue with him that the world is far younger than 14,000 years, not to mention the narrow majority of the American public that accepts the overwhelming evidence of scientifically established geological time and the reality of climate change.

By the way, why is he obsessed with the "bad America" thing? To me it seems perfectly plausible to accept that the choices of a nation, as much as you love it, could have negative consequences, as well as good ones. I have no problem loving America for its potential and accomplishments, and strongly opposing policies and actions that I consider negative (in the same sense that I greatly appreciate the sacrifice, service, and excellent individual and unit-level performance of American soldiers in Iraq, but consider George W. Bush a war criminal).

It seems to me that people like Mr. Hardison suffer from extreme insecurity. They have a need to be members of self-supporting religious cliques with a mindset that weathers all reasoned challenge without any intellectial heavy lifting (a la "the Bible says it's true, so it must be true), they have a need to feel that their country is great and that they can claim that greatness as their own, and anyone who challenges (threatens) any of the things that prop up their fragile egos can go to hell. The last straw for him would be if his own daughter was allowed to understand things that shake the foundation of his identity.