1. Carlin on Religion

Comment #200011 by drbreakfast on June 26, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Carlin was great and was still at the top of his game during his last HBO special shown late last year.

It's a shame he couldn't hang on longer. Thank you George for your sharp wit and years of belly laughs.

2. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #199986 by drbreakfast on June 26, 2008 at 3:20 pm

61. Comment #199464 by prettygoodformonkeys on June 25, 2008 at 7:55 pm


I am a recovering theist/deist/buddhist (15 years without a prayer), and your third paragraph blew my mind. The others supported. Thanks!

PGFM

--------------------------------------------------

PGFM:

Thank you for the kind remarks.

I really had to vent on this debate. The only other religious apologist who makes me want to scream more than McGarth is Dinesh D'Souza. However, unlike D'Souza, McGarth, as you pointed out in your post, gives the veneer and style of being reasonable. But everything he says is incredibly vacuous.

3. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #199416 by drbreakfast on June 25, 2008 at 6:21 pm

The very idea that the existence of "God" confers a meaning to our lives is absurd on its face. If "meaning" were in fact conferred, we would not have all these theologians, high priests and witch doctors whose sole existence is to interpret, i.e., give meaning to 1st century (and before) ancient texts that read as gibberish rantings.

Moreover, let's for a moment accept the Christian notion of human beings being rewarded or damned in the "afterlife" based on our acceptance of belief in god and his laws, such a belief actually makes our present lives "meaningless" or at the very least raises substantial questions as to why god has us live on this planet for 7-9 decades on average when our "souls" live on forever.

I suspect that a Christian would assert that our earthly lives are a testing ground. However, this position is nonsense as it appears as if our "souls" can presumably be tested as well. If we can feel eternal pain or pleasure outside of our bodies, we should be able to choose to sin without bodies.

And BTW, what meaning does "god's" existence have? Particularly given the fact that we arrived rather late in the time line of the universe and the universe will self-destruct in about 5 billion (earth) years. Where's the meaning in that???

4. Richard Dawkins Public Lecture - Liverpool 08

Comment #198352 by drbreakfast on June 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm

17. Comment #197870 by RightWingAtheist on June 22, 2008 at 7:53 pm

LaTomate :

The obama video is thrilling, but what he says is a really easy argument to make. It feels so relieving to hear a politician say anything against theocracy, but he isn't holding himself to much. Is it really so revolutionary for him to speak out against murdering children?

Don't forget that Obama is still a Christian who goes to a "rock and roll church" as Hitchens calls it. He can go there for 20 years, and leftist atheists will dismiss it as political posturing, but when he says we should report child murder to the police, in ONE short video, suddenly he's the first secularist ever?

--------------------------------------------------
True, Obama is a self-declared Christian and his observations during this speech are facile. However, I cannot think of any recent American politician who has run for president to voice so directly that religious belief should NOT drive public policy. The closest that I've seen is when Edwards stated that he did not believe in "the power of prayer."

Yes, I suspect that if Obama (like many other politicians) were being totally candid, they would reveal themselves to be agnostic or atheist, but we know that such candor would cost him the White House for sure.

And yes, it is a sad day that George Carlin passed away. Thankfully, we have his recordings and writings to remember his great wit. Thank you George.

P.S. -- Great lecture by RD!

5. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181595 by drbreakfast on May 17, 2008 at 3:37 pm

RD was in great form. The interviewer asked essentially the same lame questions that these "objective" mainstream interviewers do, although at least this guy let Richard speak.

The "panel" afterwards was painfully inane.

6. The Atheist Next Door

Comment #167924 by drbreakfast on April 24, 2008 at 12:29 pm

I have mixed feelings about this piece.

The Bad: Typical mainstream American "news" piece creating the false drama that something was wrong with this seemingly "normal" family.

The Good: At least for an American mainstream news segment, there was no real attack upon atheists and even somewhat supportive language.

Sadly, too many Americans equate religion with morality and therefore atheists are viewed as either cold and amoral or worse. So, in a sense, the overall, "atheists are just regular folk" theme is necessary.

7. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159594 by drbreakfast on April 12, 2008 at 3:22 pm

I was really happy to see Prof. Dawkins on Bill Maher last night. Being here in the U.S., I believe that it is particularly important to hear voices of reason on mainstream TV.

While I frequently enjoy Maher's show and agree with many of his views and sentiments, he is somewhat wacky and unreasonable, (e.g. his "alternative medicine" rants). As some one noted above, his little segment on some cheerleaders beating up another cheerleader was dumb. And I was actually surprised (and relieved) that Jason Alexander called Maher on his inane remarks. (Bravo Jason!!).

I wonder whether Maher gave Richard the option of appearing on the panel. (Hitchens has appeared on many occasions). I'd love to hear Richard engage in a give and take on not only religion/god, but on politics and popular culture generally. I'm afraid that even if all religion and superstition magically disappeared tomorrow from the U.S., Americans would still be the homeland of irrationality. The fact that we have George W. Bush in the White House is a key example of how the U.S. is festering with the irrational and misguided.

8. Supreme Court to consider Ten Commandments vs. 'Seven Aphorisms'

Comment #153430 by drbreakfast on April 1, 2008 at 1:14 pm

I'm a lawyer in the U.S., but no 1st Amendment specialist. But this seems like a great opportunity to raise public awareness of how this is NOT a Christian nation. Will Ed Tabash file an amicus ("friend of the court" brief?

9. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137980 by drbreakfast on March 3, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Very interesting thread -- Maher/Hitchens and Buddhism.

As to Maher, I enjoy his show and agree with much of what he says, though I admit that he isn't very funny and says some incredibly stupid things. But hey, he is probably the best opportunity at the moment to bring serious challenge to the societal deference to religious dogma. (I personally prefer Pat Condell as he's sharper and funnier than Maher, but he's English).

While I think that Hitchens is a great spokesperson for atheism, he is somewhat over exposed and can rankle people with his sometimes over-the-top remarks.

Personally, I think that Sam Harris is probably the best of the "4 Horsemen" in articulating reason generally (and by extension atheism). Sam's demeanor is classy and non-confrontational, yet he is very capable of hitting his debating opponent with a subtle, yet effective, humorous jab. While I highly admire RD, Hitch and Dennett, they can become tongue-tied at times and/or repeat less than compelling responses.

(For example, when the theist dangles the "Stalin/Hitler-were-atheists" card, RD tends to bring up the same "mustache" response. While cute (and valid), the more effective response would be to point out that Stalin's and Hitler's crimes were so heinous not because they were atheists (or quasi-pagan in the case of Hitler), but because they had access to 20th Century, world power military forces. Does anyone seriously doubt that if The Spanish Inquisitors had 20th Century war making ability that they would have used any restraint in their killings and tortures?)

However, I have never seen Sam Harris loose his stride in a debate or discussion. Sam almost seems incapable of misspeaking and speaks with a clarity and precision that is, at times, truly breath taking.

10. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #133149 by drbreakfast on February 25, 2008 at 5:38 pm

I agree that this was an interesting interview, but I am surprised that he claims to be an agnostic, while still admitting that he is an atheist with respect to the Christian/Jewish/Islamic god.

The "best" argument for the existence of "god" that theists have is the "first cause" one. However, the nature of this alleged "first cause" god is so unclear and nebulous to be meaningless. Why would Ehrman be still fence-sitting about an alleged being so intellectually vague or undefinable?

It hurts my brain when "thoughtful" theists will make claims such as "God" exists outside of time and space and therefore is undetectable. Such people are asking us to believe that an incorporeal intelligence exists outside of the universe but somehow was or is very interested in creating the universe. Of course, Christians, etc. make even more preposterous claims usually inclusive of this one.

However, their "best" argument is no argument at all because it simply argues from the "common sense" observation that nothing complicated can exist without something or someone being its author. Yet, they proceed no further in substantiating this premise other than retorting with "well science does not know" or Boeing 747 junkyard analogies.

Basically, "The only thing I can think of to explain why there is something rather than nothing is...GOD did it."

11. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #130530 by drbreakfast on February 20, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Sickening, yet fascinating. This documentary certainly highlights RD's claim that the indoctrination of children in this crap all too often amounts to child abuse. However, it also shows by implication a point raised by Dan Dennett in "Breaking the Spell."

Notice that in the case of the Boutwell boy that his father was apparently a self-described former alcoholic and "sinner." The Brazilian girl's father was also an ex-con who "found Jesus" in prison. While it may be debatable whether these fathers are any better now than when they were "sinners," religion has in fact caused the criminal and socially dysfunctional to have better (though misguided) lives.

I too have personally known people who are now "born again" who were severely dysfunctional in the past. And indeed there are many high profile people who are now arguably better now then when they "sinned" such as George W. Bush. (Of course, the U.S. and the world would be better if Bush remained an alleged coke snorting alcoholic rich kid, but I digress).

Nevertheless, I am confident that we as a society can find an alternative to the religious fables to turn the dysfunctional and criminal around. A full scientific study of the various facets of religion is certainly necessary. Dennett is right!

12. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #120818 by drbreakfast on February 2, 2008 at 4:01 pm

For me, the very concept of blasphemy is very strange. Why does an "all-powerful God" need humans to punish those who tarnish his "good" name? This debate, while reasonably well executed, but it's rather silly in the final analysis.

13. Belief in Belief

Comment #117736 by drbreakfast on January 29, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Hitchens raised in the first part of his essay a question that has baffled me for most of my life, namely, how can anyone believe this stuff? By the age of 9, it was pretty clear to me that there was no god/gods as well as no validity to such non-religion claims such as horoscopes.

My hypothesis is that people engage in "belief-in-belief" because they want to have a road map that explains the world and avoid unpredictability to the extend possible..."oh this person is a Leo, so I know he's reliable." This is the same as "well if I don't eat beef on Fridays, I'm more likely to go to heaven at my death."

I suspect that people believe these fairy tales (religious and non-religious) to satisfy, in part, the need for "answers" and "certainty" even in light of the obvious fact that it is all non-sense.

14. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #112133 by drbreakfast on January 16, 2008 at 12:15 pm

27. Comment #111293 by gnarl on January 14, 2008 at 8:42 am
I tried to contact Sam but no response so far.
I've translated The Letter to Chinese. The original intention was to share it with some friends. If Sam or his publisher wants to publish it in Chinese, please contact me at gnarl.perches@gmail.com I can send you the manuscript.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I think that a Chinese language version of "Letter" would be great. I live in New York City and to my dismay, most of the recent Chinese immigrants whom I've met are Christians and many of those are pretty fundamentalist in their beliefs. I suspect that this is due in part to their rejection of communism.

Christianity is spreading like wild fire in China. Given the strong likelihood that China will emerge within the next 100 years as the primary superpower in the world, it would be best if the spread of the Christian doctrine in China is nipped in the bud. Sooner rather than later.

15. Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin

Comment #103706 by drbreakfast on December 26, 2007 at 2:29 pm

I can't believe that any true atheist or agnostic can believe in the virgin birth. Presumably, this oxymoron was the result of poster/polling error or some believers mistakenly identifying him/her self as an atheist, but meaning to state something else.

Putting the 15% oddity aside, it's still rather amazing that so many people take this stuff as true.

16. Secret Swami - About Sai Baba

Comment #103181 by drbreakfast on December 24, 2007 at 12:20 pm

It is truly baffling that anyone could follow this fraud. However, what's even more baffling is that for millions across the world (including those who would recognize Sai Baba as a fraud), will believe in "miracles" that purportedly occurred at the beginning of the 1st Century and then "recorded" in "Gospels" written decades after the "fact."

Can anyone explain to me why ancient gibberish is more credible that modern gibberish?

17. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #98849 by drbreakfast on December 14, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Assuming that it was the creationist who did the killing, for me, this is another example of a believer who had to do violence (in part at least) to defend the honor of his "all powerful God."

It never ceases to amaze me that so many believers are hellbent on punishing heretics on earth now rather than waiting for their "Almighty" to dole out the purported eternal punishments. Do they not believe that "God" is capable of dealing with us nonbelievers more capably than a mere human?

18. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #98803 by drbreakfast on December 14, 2007 at 11:23 am

Yes, it is a matter of taste and some here may find him tasteless. However, I think he's great and I discovered him from this site. I think that the combination of his delivery, "rough" eloquence and the raw bite of his humor is a welcomed addition to the voices of reason.

While he is not likely to do it, I think that a Pat vs. Denish debate would be highly amusing and it would plainly show the empty suit that religion really is.

19. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #94821 by drbreakfast on December 6, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I'm not sure whether this political tit-for-tat is constructive. Full disclosure: I'm a registered Democrat, though I think the Dems have sold their "souls" a long time ago. American politics today, thanks to the flawed "two party" system, has little to do with good governance or sound policy. I think we need to start from scratch on a number of levels.

Nevertheless, while I generally agree with Norm's criticisms of the Republican party and share his bewilderment as to how, say a homosexual or a libertarian, can still call himself/herself a Republican, I don't think that attacking a forum member here on mere political affiliation is appropriate.

For example, I strongly with Christopher Hitchens on Iraq, but I don't think my criticisms of his views on Iraq are appropriate here, given the focus of this site. As Ed Tabash said at the AAI forum, atheism and reason should not be deemed "left wing." Arguably, the Dems are the more "reasonable" of the 2 parties and therefore less prone to engage in insane Christ-speak, but, given the uphill battle that we as atheists already have, maybe we should have a little less "in fighting."

Just my two cents.

20. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93622 by drbreakfast on December 3, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Desouza is comparable to Anne Coulter, a conservative commentator who seems to have no problem with pulling assertions out of her ass and repeating them loudly as if statements made at the highest decibel level possible converts them into facts.

However, Desouza's method of debate is very similar to most theists in that they jump around every 3 seconds, but with Desouza, he throws in so many half-truths or outright lies that one cannot start to rebut them without a heck of a lot of time.

For example, the lie that Hitler and the Nazis were atheists. True, Hitler's regime could not be fairly characterized as "Christian;" however, it was not atheistic. Indeed, Desouza himself said that it appeared to be pagan. Pre-Christian European pagans had gods/deities. Pagan does not equal atheist. Of course Dennett knows this, but he could not spend the time to rebut this untruth and the 20 others that Desouza spits out.

And of course Desouza was heavy on Pascal's Wager arguments. The chief problem with PW is well, which "God" do I place my bet on? The Hebrew Yaweh? Jesus? Allah? Vishnu? If I bet on Allah, but turns out that Vishnu was the one I should have chosen, do I get more points than the atheist? Or less? Is it a wash?

PW is one of the weakest of the theist arguments and Dennett really did not effectively knock it down.

21. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87673 by drbreakfast on November 12, 2007 at 6:52 pm

15. Comment #87269 by PeterK on November 11, 2007 at 3:49 pm
The notion of a transcendent conciousness (ie God) that creates or brings into existence--well all that exists-- could not possibly exist, simply because to "be conscious" would require something to be conscious OF ( existence ). If there is nothing --because nothing has yet been created--there can be no consciousness anywhere, not by nobody, not no how. And this includes any Allah, Jahweh, Zeus, Jupiter.

Now would this not constitute as proof that a creator-God-thingy-dingy could not possibly exist?
What IS the problem here?
----------------------------------------
If I understand PeterK's point, I agree with what he's trying to say, but I don't think it came out right. The Abrahamic religions' god (and other "personal" gods) is so unlikely, logic requires that it be affirmatively disbelieved. Theists tend to assert that their god is "outside" of time and space and incorporeal , thus being an intelligent consciousness free floating in "nothing" or perhaps "outside of nothing."

When you press a theist for him/her to specifically define "God," other than saying the usual, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. being, he/she will usually trail off into further, more intense babble or switch the topic.

Stenger's book discusses the science behind making the idea of an eternal god very improbable. I'm no physicist, but given that an intellect must reside in something -- even if it's within a chemical reaction or process of some type -- it is impossible (or extremely unlikely) that in nothing: (no elements, no sub-atomic particles, nothing), an incorporeal intelligence suddenly emerges to create the universe. Or that this bodiless being would simply decide, "I'm bored" and cause the cosmos to exist.

Stenger's argument is that if this god exists and is so intervening in earthly and human affairs, there should be some "paper trail" if you will concerning its existence. Stenger goes on to show that while much still needs to be learned, the atheistic view of the universe is far more probable than the theist and even deist one.

22. Bill Moyers interviews Jonathan Miller

Comment #87574 by drbreakfast on November 12, 2007 at 1:49 pm

I watched and downloaded Miller's "Disbelief" series from Veoh.com. Fabulous stuff and I'm really happy that it's going to be broadcast here in the U.S. I never heard of Miller until I stumbled across these videos and I must say that I'm now a fan. The series was just brilliantly done.

The dramatic quote readings by the Bernard Hill are a little corny, but in a good way; sort of like Rod Serling's openings from "The Twilight Zone" series. I'm definitely going to record the PBS broadcast and it would be great to the series released on DVD with all of the one-on-one interviews Miller shot. It would make an excellent X-mas gift for your favorite atheist!!

23. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #85656 by drbreakfast on November 6, 2007 at 5:24 pm

I think the "fine tuning" argument is a red-herring (and a separate issue) that does not require a complex argument based on quantum physics to rebut.

The constants necessary to have the universe exist may need explaining, but the "God in the Gaps" position doesn't explain anything. From what we presently know, most of the universe (and in fact the Earth itself) is hostile to our fragile existence. Why has the average human life span increased over the centuries (and more recently in the last 150 years)? Not because "god" "finely tuned our Earth, but rather, because humankind has made advances in science, technology, medicine, agriculture, etc. In fact, one could argue the fact that our lifespans have increased solely because of human advances, demonstrates that there was no "intelligent designer" with a "plan" for us. (At best, poorly thought out "design").

The theist argument that "god" exists some how outside of the material universe is also a cop out. As a matter of logic, if there was "nothing" other than "god" who somehow exists "outside" of this vast timeless, endless "nothing," why would this entity decide to create a "finely tuned" universe for human life, billions of years prior to the appearance of even the simplest life forms, much less human beings?

Indeed, if it's possible for a "god" to exist as a non-physical entity, then we could have been "created" as non-physical beings as well. After all, most theists (at least Christian ones) posit that there is an "afterlife" which we will inhabit "eternally" and without bodies, though somehow be able to experience pain (hell) and delight (heaven).

The whole "design" argument is simply absurd.

24. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #85630 by drbreakfast on November 6, 2007 at 2:21 pm

This is such a meaningless assertion by theist and they (again) are mixing apples with oranges. If "the meaning of life" is conferred by a supernatural being, the question becomes how is this "meaning" conveyed? From self-contradictory, arbitrarily assembled collections of texts written by primitive Middle Easterners? Given the variety of interpretations/disagreements within just one "unified" religious tradition, it's clear that religion offers NO answers to the "meaning" question.

Secondly, my disbelief (and I think for most non-believers) enhances my appreciation for human talent that develops such great art, music, literature, etc.

Being an atheist is life affirming because we accept the fact that this life and world is all we have and it ends upon our deaths. So I have to appreciate as much beauty, emotion and wonder as I can get in because there's no bearded dude on a cloud who's going to show me this stuff upon my demise. Besides -- if I'm wrong, then am I not damned to "burn" for eternity anyway?

25. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #85622 by drbreakfast on November 6, 2007 at 2:05 pm

I agree with many of the comments here with regard to religion essentially being man's first attempt to explain why things the way they are. However, it seems as if our discussion is Judeo-Christian and Euro-centric. After all, ancient China, just to take one example, had a rather thriving scientific history, starting with the Han Dynasty at least 200 years before the alleged birth of Christ.

Apologists may argue that the Confucian "religion" was responsible for this. However, my understanding of Confucian thought is that it is a system of philosophy and not a religion.

26. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85613 by drbreakfast on November 6, 2007 at 12:15 pm

The thing that is incredibly tiring to me from religious apologists and/or critics of atheism (beyond the usual "arguments" that we all know), is the claim that the "new atheists" are saying nothing new. To assert the charge that "I was saying these arguments against the notion of God when I was 14" really says nothing at all. Bravo, you outgrew your belief in Santa Claus too.

Why is the burden on those who simply say, "I see no evidence to believe in some supernatural being." As RD put it that the AAI conference, the likelihood of the existence of a god/gods vs. no god/gods is not a 50/50 proposition. Moreover, since there are some many gods/religious traditions to choose from (and perhaps, sadly, more on the way), the odds are even more favorable to disbelief as being correct.

I was really feed up with the debate between Sharpton and Hitchens because Sharpton kept coming up with the "first cause" argument. There are a lot of steps that one has to navigate as a matter of logic/history and science to go from the assertion that there is/was a creator of all to the Christian God. Why do most theists/religious apologists not see this?

27. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #82956 by drbreakfast on October 28, 2007 at 11:04 am

4. Comment #81944 by upsidedawn on October 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm
avatarIt really annoys me that the Merriam-Webster On-line dictionary defines "atheist" as "One who believes there is no diety." Grrrr.

---------------------------------------------
Upsidedawn, I totally agree that having such a definition in a purportedly non-biased resource concerning the English language is unacceptable.

Why not, "a person who holds no belief in, and/or affirmative denies the exist of, any deity or anything supernatural." I suggest that this is reasonably accurate and NEUTRAL.

28. What's Good About Religion?

Comment #82486 by drbreakfast on October 26, 2007 at 12:42 pm

This was brilliant. I almost spat out my lunch as I was watching this clip. I think this is funnier than the "why won't god heal amputees?" clips.

29. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78414 by drbreakfast on October 12, 2007 at 6:19 pm

28. Comment #78348 by glittergulch on October 12, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Poor Lauren Green. This is almost too much for her little brain to process.

For those who missed her brilliant take on Kathy Griffin's "suck it, Jesus! This [Emmy} is my God now!" acceptance speech a little while ago, it's here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296683,00.html

To entice you to read it I'll paste one of her big conclusions:

"The freedoms we enjoy in this country to speak freely and to live freely are directly related to that man who died on a cross 2,000 years ago."

Oh boy!
---------------------------------------------
Wow, I just read the Lauren Green piece. Astonishingly inaccurate in most of its factual (and even biblical) assertions. For example, her editorial:

"After several years of human failings, the church went through conflicts and quite a few unbiblical years — the crusades and the inquisition to name just two."

In fact Ms. Green, if you were even marginally familiar with Numbers, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etc., you would realize that the Crusades WERE very biblical.

And that's the problem; so many of these faith heads truly haven't read The "Good" Book and apparently find such "niceties" such as Jesus "dying for our sins" as being meaningful. When in fact, the very core of Christian theology: God is schizophrenic (3 persons in 1, right?) commits suicide (as the "Son") so that he (as the "Father") can forgive humanity for all past, then present and future sins. Why is it that so few people can see that this "faith" is simply the ravings of primitive nuts?

Oh boy indeed.

30. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77094 by drbreakfast on October 8, 2007 at 12:46 pm

This post and the wonderful comments posted in response serve as a reminding that most atheists, skeptics and agnostics who have bothered to take the time to think about the claims of religions are very far away from the stereotype of being selfish and amoral. Rather, these comment show that most of us are life affirming and moral beings.

We have what I'd like to call reasonable faith, i.e., we have faith in our fellow human beings to be selfless and determined without the need to refer to scripture at every turn.

There is a lot of good in this world. And it comes from our species trying to make the best of it.

31. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76361 by drbreakfast on October 5, 2007 at 3:44 pm

1. Comment #76292 by steve99 on October 5, 2007 at 11:16 am
avatar

Most people are religious not because of scientific arguments. They believe for emotional reasons. For most believers religion is not a metaphysical exercise or a counterfeit version of science, it has a completely different purpose. To them the value of religion is more therapeutic than philosophical.

Most everyday believers don't care about big questions like how the cosmos began, how the first self replicating molecule came into being or why fundamental constants have the specific values we observe. They care about the meaning of life, they want to be assured that death is not the end, they need to construct meanings out of tragedies, they need to hope.



From my limited experience of watching friends and family, all with religious upbringings, I really disagree with this.

I really think that most people are religious because of ignorance. They really do care about big questions, and for the ignorant, the big questions are answered by religion. I think that most people, once they are educated, work out their own ways to deal with the philosophical issues. I think people are, at heart, honest, and generally believe rational evidence. This is why (as the polls show) the best defence against religious belief is education.

-------------------------------------------------
The reason WHY modern people adhere to religion is for a fascinating question and I would love to see some probative research into this. I suspect that it is a combination of factors for different people.

If you think about it, in the past (and certainly around the time that the bible was authored), religion served the same purpose that science does today, i.e., a tool to explain the world and to cope with the problems that arise. "Why did Joshua die? Because he worked on the Sabbath." When the real cause could have been a heart attack.

Of course, as science progressed and its value could be appreciated by all, religion found that it had a competitor and therefore now serves only to purportedly answer "meaning of life" type of questions.

So, now, people adhere to the religions frequently for cultural and communal reasons. For example, in South Korea, about 40-45% of its population is Christian (the rest are Buddist, Taoist, and other religions native to East Asia). Yet, when it comes to immigrants to the U.S. from South Korea, virtually all of them are Christians. True, there may be some correlation with the ones immigrating to the U.S. do so because they see the U.S. as a Christian nation; however, the Korean-American churches serve as a community center for the new immigrants to become more comfortable in their newly adopted land.

The churches here in the U.S. have served similar roles for other groups, black Americans for example, etc.

Likewise, many people see religious practices and beliefs as a way of coping through disaster -- emotional support. These and other "benefits" are more important to the faithful than the actual theology espoused by the various religions. I suspect that this is the reason that one usually hears self-contradictory gibberish -- even from smart people -- when it comes to the actual dogmas of "faith."

32. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76314 by drbreakfast on October 5, 2007 at 12:42 pm

This "debate" was rather disappointing. First, the format was horrible. While Lennox is probably one of the better Christian apologist (and admittedly the standard is rather low -- it's hard to defend the indefensible), Lennox espoused some pretty ridiculous things. .

For example, he should certainly know better to admit that the universe certainly does not look as if it were "designed" for us given that the majority of it is made of black holes/dark matter.

Secondly, how in the world could he say that atheism is a "faith" too. This is such a banal assertion. OK, tell me what, as an atheist, I have "faith" in? What assertion about the universe am I making about the genesis (if any) for the universe other than saying that, based on the evidence, it appears that there is little probability that a disembodied intelligence (presumably) created all matter. How is this a "faith?"

My head hurts.

33. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73206 by drbreakfast on September 24, 2007 at 12:55 pm

I'm a fan of Maher's show, though I do not watch him for "the laughs." Rather, I watch him for his political commentary and to hear his guests.

While Maher is not a hugely popular or well-liked celebrity, his show is certainly mainstream -- he wouldn't be on HBO if he weren't. So, it is certainly good to have someone of his stature espousing a skeptics/rationalist viewpoint. However, his audience is limited largely to the 18-30 demographic segment, many of whom do not vote.

It would be nice for him to invite RD or Sam Harris on his show, particularly if the discussion is focused on religion. A Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan panel would be great as the audience would be able to see for themselves a Christian/religious apologist making the bizarre twists of logic necessary to believe in a god and/or religion.

34. 'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' Released on DVD

Comment #68044 by drbreakfast on September 5, 2007 at 7:54 pm

31. Comment #68037 by windfall on September 5, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Wow, has anybody seen THIS?!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_dQ5KJ8rgA&mode=related&search=

(Ted Haggard admits he bought Meth from gay prostitute)

Talk about bizarre!
-------------------------------------------

Very interesting clip. To me Haggard's story doesn't add up. He buys meth from a gay male prostitute whom his "hotel" referred him to for a "massage."? He buys it because he was "tempted" but throws it out. Let me try to flesh this story out according to TH:

Haggards in a hotel room and thinks, "Gee, spreading the Word of Christ, our Lord and Savior is hard work, I need a massage. I'll ask at the front desk."

TH: "Hello my Brother in Christ. This is Mr. Haggard."

Front Desk Clerk: "Yes, Mr. Haggard, how may I help you."

TH: "I need a referral for a massage and no, I am a man of Christ, no so-called happy ending for me. Can you refer someone."

Front Desk Clerk: "Why yes, here's the name and number..."

1/2 hour later in Haggard's room:

Gay Prostitute (GP): "So what can I do for you?" (winking).
TH: "Yes, my brother in Christ. I need a massage... but that's all. No funny stuff."

GP: "OK, I'm no comedian, but if you change your mind, I'll let my tongue tell you some jokes in a very special way. And by the way, I can sell you some crystal meth if you want."

TH: "What's that?"

GP: "Makes you feel REAL good."

TH: "I'll think about it..." TH gets a massage (no sex, but perhaps it's how one defines sex??) and then days later he buys the meth?

Does anyone really believe TH's story? Well, maybe his followers will believe it; after all they believe that the Bible is literally true. If you believe that, Ted's story makes perfect sense.

Truly amazing...

35. Bill Maher Making New Documentary Movie, 'Religulous'

Comment #67426 by drbreakfast on September 3, 2007 at 11:54 am

I'm looking forward to this movie very much. While Maher is technically a stand-up comedian, I don't think he's very funny, strictly as a comedian. Rather, I view (and approve of), him as a political/social commentator who infuses his commentary with explicit humor. In essence, he's a left of center, (mostly), Rush Limbaugh.

Assuming that the movie is done in a a half way decent fashion, it could start a social debate on the issue of why we as a society are so respectful of religious belief and religions. As articulated by Harris, Dawkins and others, religion is perhaps the sole sphere where one can espouse the most absurd assertions of fact with a serious face without any criticism.

36. Democratic Candidates on a Personal God

Comment #67197 by drbreakfast on September 2, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Yes, it is indeed pathetic pandering. This "debate question" has no place in a modern democracy except in the U.S. Sadly, here in America, our president has to also serve as "witch doctor in chief." The most respectable (as well as non-suicidal to one's presidential ambitions) would be something along the lines of:

"Well, I do not think that it is the role for the president to attempt to give spiritual guidance in times of adversity. That's the role of the clergy. A president must serve the best interest of the American people -- period. Where he or she gets one's inner strength to serve is irrelevant. Our constitution forbids any requirement for a religious test to hold office. It is time for our political culture to adopt the wisdom of the Founders."

I'm no political speech writer, but something along these lines would make the point that it's stupid question without revealing one's faith or lack thereof.

37. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66391 by drbreakfast on August 29, 2007 at 11:18 pm

Hitchens was sharp and the Catholic guy was blowing slogans, but I did not understand the point of the "debate." Hitchens applauds her for doubting her "faith" and the Catholic apologist just shouts "the Catholic Church stands behind her." OK, so they're both applauding her but for different reasons. What's the point?

38. Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism?

Comment #58104 by drbreakfast on July 23, 2007 at 1:38 pm

17. Comment #56482 by CJ22 on July 16, 2007 at 2:14 am
avatar"Hitler can be explained by 'free will' "

The other problem with free will is "whose free will?" While it may have been an act of free will for Hitler to do what he did, and an act of free will for the Nazis to support him, where was the free will of his victims? The exterminated Jews were not granted free will to act - in fact, the more free will Hitler got, the less the Jews had. Since there were more Jews than Hitlers, doesn't that add up to LESS free will? That's a slightly sophistic point, I know.

Free will was also brought up with regard to the Virginia shootings. It sickened me. Those poor kids weren't offered the free choice of whether to get shot or not. If God granted the shooter the choice of whether to murder or not, he took all the choices away from the victims.

The 'free will' option as an answer to the problem of evil is distastefully immoral, and typical of Christian double-think.

-------------------------------------------------------

I have always been greatly troubled by the "free will" defense because it is so idiotic, even by theist standards. I'm uncertain, but I believe the whole premise of "free will" being a "gift from God" was advanced by St. Thomas Aquinas. In any event, putting aside the strong argument that "God" still allows suffering by way of natural disasters, is not the "free will" concept a mere illusion by Christian standards simply because "God" knows the future anyway? And are not our "choices" rendered moot because "God" already decided how we're going to exercise our "free will" in the first place?

If "free will" is meaningless to "God," and only has relevance to humans, why is "free will" such a wonderful thing? The notion that we are merely following "God's" (to be generous, puzzling) script in a mindless way seems to take "meaning" out of our lives, denying us the illusion of full humanity. But why did "God" make us so? After all, he could have made us to be perfect robots happily following every command, so what's the point? And if "God" already knows and in fact dictated our choices in advance, "free will" is merely a delusion.

Of course, "free will" is all just theist nonsense. Held up to the light of reason, its soundness as a legitimate explanation for evil quickly evaporates.

39. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57955 by drbreakfast on July 22, 2007 at 3:47 pm

10. Comment #57467 by mandelstam on July 19, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I don't think christians are all stupid, but..
I had a friend (no longer) who is an evangelical christian and says the bible is literally true. It isn't stupidity that appalls me but the intellectual violence he and others like him must do to themselves. It is truly dreadful, and frightening, because that violence they feel mandated to inflict on others. And most "civilised" countries encourage it being done to children.
____________________________________________
Until recently, I avoided engaging in any "debates" with believers because they would usually be incredibly pointless. In an interview with Jonathan Miller, Daniel Dannett remarked that he believed that most people in the West do not believe in a personal god, but rather "believe in belief." I think this is true with "intelligent" or "thoughtful" believers.

Most believers whom I've engaged on the topic tend to never actually address my points and usually terminate the conversation early:

Here's a real example from my life:

Theist: "How can you not believe in God?"
Me: "Many reasons. Where do you want me to start? Why does 'god' allow for innocent people to be killed or maimed?"
Theist: "Free will..."
Me: "But how about NATURAL disasters. No human 'free will' required?"
Theist: "But if you don't believe, how can you be moral?"
Me: "Morality has nothing to do with belief. In fact, many believers do incredibly evil things for their beliefs. Just look out the window." [My office was about a block away from ground zero and this conversation took place in 2002].
Theist: "OK, but it's helped me. My faith helped me stop drinking booze."
Me: "Well, in my view, that was your own will power and the help of your support group."
Theist: "I gotta go."

40. A force for good?

Comment #55274 by drbreakfast on July 10, 2007 at 12:25 pm

"So I'd like to define what I believe, and not have someone else do it for me. Where I start from as a religious person isn't with philosophical paradoxes that ask how God can be both all-powerful and all-loving. I start with a sense that there is purpose in existence. That we are connected to something bigger than ourselves. That we find greater fulfilment by relating to that and by seeking the shimmer of transcendence. God is not an "invisible being" who "commands, rewards or punishes. God is not to me a particular "being" at all, but rather the power of Being itself. God is a supreme moral ideal to be reverenced for its value not for its controlling power."
--------------------------------------------------

There is a shitload of claims made in this piece that are untrue or baseless, but the above passage really gets me. "God...is the power of Being itself?" What the hell does that mean? This guy writes this warm and fuzzy gibberish to hide the fact that he has no basis for his "beliefs" or whatever they are and make them appear harmless.

He cannot admit: (1)there is no "purpose" to existence other than what the individual defines for himself/herself (the ideal) OR what others define for him/her (e.g., religious totalitarianism anyone?; (2)by virtue of the fact that "god" is so formless that anyone can define him/her/it into "what I believe" makes the whole notion of "god" to be in a very literal sense on this guy's definition, a mere figment of his imagination.

So why do we have to pay any attention to his delusions? When will it end...

41. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53834 by drbreakfast on July 3, 2007 at 12:57 pm

10. Comment #53258 by PaulEmecz on June 30, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Dr Dawkins, you are an intelligent man who can reason very clearly. Please answer the morality question once and for all, and explain to me why it's so wrong (or not!) to be a Deist.
---------------------------------------------------
PaulEmercz' basic propositional arguments appear to be: (1) moral truths must be absolute; (2) absolute truth can only come from an all powerful creator; (3) therefore, atheism cannot be moral because it denies the existence of a creator. (Please feel free to correct my summary of Paul's propositions).

Propositions 1 and 2 are simply untrue. However, even if 1 were true, to this day, proposition 2 cannot be known. If "god" exists, he/she/it needs to take Communications 101 or public speaking courses. "God" appears to be incredibly shy, because what "god" thinks about in terms of morality is hard to ascertain to say the least.

Given this reality, humans MUST for themselves determine what is moral. But don't despair, our species does seem to have an inborn sense of morality.

42. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53120 by drbreakfast on June 29, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Response to 65. Comment #53050 by PaulEmecz on June 29, 2007 at 5:33 am
Here's an entirely made up scenario:

I come across a letter my aunt wrote years ago, I never received it. It says she had cancer and was not sure whether to continue fighting it, or to go and have the holiday of a lifetime.

I try, but I can't find out what she chose. Does it matter, at all, which she chose? Does it matter if she had a great time, spent her last months in hospital, or even lost her mind and went on a crazed killing spree?

------------------------------------------------

Of course it matters -- to her and to her loved ones (and to those she killed on her killing spree if she made that unfortunate choice). The absence of "meaning" or "purpose" beyond humanity does not nullify moral choices. Our moral sense in our species evolved as we are advance communal creatures.

I'm not quite sure that I understand your point that "meaning has no meaning if it's only temporary." I take it that you mean that atheism allows for amoral or immoral behavior because once we die, we cannot be "held accountable?" This is nonsense. Perhaps we should simply get rid of the judicial systems throughout the world because we know that "god" will deal justice to those immoral humans once they die? Internal damnation!

43. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52897 by drbreakfast on June 28, 2007 at 12:43 pm

PaulEmecz:

I think that any rational and civilized person would agree that Hitler's actions of killing people merely because of certain attributes, (being Jewish, homosexual, disabled, etc.), were immoral. However, I think that we would also agree that most ethical or moral questions, are not that black and white. How, as an atheist, do I know that I should not kill? I know because I do not want to be killed and unless acting in self-defense, someone trying to kill me would have no basis for interfering with my will to live. I therefore recognize that it is wrong to kill because I would interfere with the autonomy of another being.

If, on the other hand, someone is trying to kill my 9 year old daughter, I would be faced with the moral question of whether I should kill in order to prevent the attack. But as one recognizing that killing is usually immoral, my moral choice is to determine whether there are less drastic means to avoid the loss of my daughter. I do not need a religion or a god to tell me this. And I would venture to think that most clear thinking and civilized people, religious or not, would agree. We evolved to be moral beings because having a sense of morals is necessary for us to live among other humans.

And while religions attempt to "codify" or affirm our innate sense of morality, it often fails. To take the example of Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son because his "god" told him to -- where is the morality in that story? Was it moral for "god" to "test" Abraham in such a fashion? Was it moral for Abraham to be willing to take a life because he was merely told to do so -- and did not even question the order? What am I to learn from that story? It certainly isn't moral and if some parent today attempted to kill his son because he claimed he heard the "voice of god" ordering him to do it, all civilized people would undoubtedly call for the immediate punishment of such a person.

The Judeo-Christian bible is filled with such stories of wanton killing and violence and the moral point of these stories is, at best, difficult to understand. And to say that this is not what Christianity is about is a non-answer because we otherwise have no "word" or direction from the alleged "creator." So, again, humans create morality not on the basis of scripture or "belief in something greater," but rather, on the basis of real life experience and evolution.


For reasons that escape me, it appears that believers cannot understand that disbelief in a deity alone is not a systemic world view. To say that I do not believe in Zeus, tells you virtually nothing about how I stand on any other question. So if I extend my disbelief to all other deities, you know nothing other than my rejection of belief in the supernatural.

44. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52680 by drbreakfast on June 27, 2007 at 5:47 pm

52. Comment #52652 by PaulEmecz on June 27, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Another question - you are a philosopher, so are intellectually free to choose either option. There are two options - God, Not God. The God package has some undesirable content, but the Not God package lacks morality, any purpose or point to life, etc. In fact, the Not God package requires far more intellectual weakness, because you have to pretend that Hitler was wrong to kill millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies etc. With the God package, you are surrounded by people saying (and singing) stupid things, but why is it the less reasonable option?

Do you not think that many people choose 'Not God' without committing themselves to the philosophical implications of their choice?
______________________________________

Wait a minute! Morality and religion are NOT the same thing. And of course, there are numerous examples of the contents of "The God Package" that are clearly immoral - The 9-11 hijackers being an obvious example. An act is moral or immoral not because of a commandment from "god" but rather because it has a significant impact, positive or negative, on a being that can materially experience some form pain as a consequence of that act. Yes, it is relative -- morals do not exist in a vacuum, but there are universal truths that can be ascertained from the human experience which will tend to demonstrate that an act (or inaction) can be moral or immoral given certain circumstances.

Secondly, your "God Package" or "Not God Package" is, in a sense, a false choice for explaining the existence of universe, as there are other possibilities. Assuming for the sake of argument that some intelligent force was responsible for the start of the universe. And let us further suppose that this intelligent force "died" or burnt out in a manner similar to how stars burn out. Would this "dead" entity be "god" since it no longer exists, given the "acceptable" definition of "god"?

Likewise, assume that the "God Package" is true and this "god" created the universe and all life forms. This does not necessarily mean that there is a "purpose" to our lives. "God" could have been bored, decided that it screwed up and started another universe that we simply do not know about.

Obviously since we are having this debate (and there is obviously a difference of opinion among believers given the huge number of present and past (and, regrettably, probably future religions), no one truly knows "god's purpose." Therefore, we as humans must give purpose to our respective lives since the alleged creator is a bit tongue tied in letting our species in on the secret.

My lack of belief, in and of itself, has no "philosophical implications" if I understand your claim. I simply decline believing in something without any factual support. If my neighbor tells me that he saw a green tooth fairy dancing on his roof with George Bush, absent rather substantial evidence, I would be inclined to disbelieve my neighbor and would take his statement, as perhaps a sign that he's gone mad. But my refusal to believe him would have no "philosophical implications."

However, given my experiences with fellow nonbelievers, I think that most tend to give great thought and inquiry into the issue and come away deciding that any belief in the supernatural is baseless and rely on materialistic realities to form one's respective philosophy. If that's what you mean by "philosophical implications," then I think the answer is a resounding YES!

45. God Hates the World

Comment #52275 by drbreakfast on June 26, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Would be revolting comedy if it weren't real. But sadly not surprising. The "god" of the "good book" advocates all sorts of evil and loony practices. Let's just keep this bunch away from box cutters, airplanes and recording studios.

46. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #52119 by drbreakfast on June 26, 2007 at 8:09 am

Very good presentation by Tabash. It may me think that we should have a "dark horse" atheist candidate run in 2008. Naturally, his/her chance of winning is up there with the "second coming" happening; however, the right candidate could go a long way in exposing the bigotry that so many Americans sadly feel towards atheists.

47. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #50049 by drbreakfast on June 14, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Response to 36. Comment #49945 by Linda on June 14, 2007 at 8:01 am

Marvin Olasky and others cite comments from ancient texts as if the proof of god is in the olde thyme tomes where apparently the supernatural talked to illiterate peasants. Come on now fella is that the best you can do? Does he and others who romanticize Bronze Age science fiction ever wonder why the gods don't talk to modern literate people? Why do aliens only abducts hillbillies?
_______________________________________________
I often wondered about this myself, particularly coming from otherwise seemingly grounded, intelligent people. A client of mine, whom I would describe as being a biblical literalist, said that the reason why "God" does not intervene in modern life as frequently as he did back in the Bronze Age (and apparently in only the Middle East) is because we are now in a "blackout period" in which "God" has decided not to "speak to us" for the time being unless absolutely necessary.

Huh?? And this is from a guy who acknowledges that the Mormons are "truly nut cases." It truly never ceases to amaze me that people can put so much stock in an internally contradictory work written by 1st Century men in a long dead ancient language, with an English translation that is obscure and nonsensical. If there have ever been any miracles, this is truly it.

48. Atheists: Get off of our country!

Comment #44971 by drbreakfast on May 25, 2007 at 5:35 pm

"Atheists have caused the ruin of this great nation by taking prayer out of our schools and being able to practice what can only be called evil."

Um. OK, I work 6-7 days a week running a small business and employ college students; I have a wife and two children, (both gifted and well adjusted), and I support them; I do pro bono work; I pay my taxes; I've never been arrested, etc. But I refuse to believe in something for which there is no evidence of. What evil am I practicing?

49. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #44882 by drbreakfast on May 25, 2007 at 12:51 pm

16. Comment #44794 by goatboy on May 25, 2007 at 9:48 am

Similarly, you say "if one did exist; it would be repugnant"...how can you make this assumption? Surely you are basing that on the model of God as presented by Christianity or Islam, say.

-------------------------------------------------
I'm in general agreement with goatboy. Clearly, the "God" of the "great monotheistic faiths" is a horror, and frankly, ridiculous. The god/gods other faiths are generally just absurd. While, I think that there is NO evidence of any all powerful "creator," if one were to exist or did exist, that conceivable fact alone is not a horrible thought.

The fact that so many people have such differing (and truly vague) views on "God," to me constitutes substantial evidence that "God" is entirely a human construct. Additionally, when one considers the fact that intelligence without any type of corpus whatsoever would tend to defy all known scientific laws, the very notion of such a being is almost certainly impossible.

50. The root of all evil?

Comment #43813 by drbreakfast on May 22, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Perhaps it does not matter how softly Dawkins talks, how gently he probes. As his wife once said - and several of his Root of All Evil? interviewees would surely agree - "He seems so nice, but can say such shocking things." As he does in Root of All Evil?

For example, his statement that the God of the Old Testament is jealous, petty, vindictive and unforgiving.

------------------------------------------------
I've been an atheist for most of my life, so until reading TGD, I never read the bible in any real way. I made prior attempts, but all the "beholds" and other arcane language therein get really tedious fast(and I'm a lawyer!!).

Anyway, after reading RD's account of the dude who offers his daughter up to a crowd of thugs for them to gangrape her, I decided that I had to actually take a look these "sacred" texts. The more I read, the more I realize that most Christians/Jews either never read any of this crap or they are simply insane (or both!).