1. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #47367 by scot on June 4, 2007 at 8:49 am

Brian,

I don't get my news from Newsmax. I was just pointing to a review of the book I ran across on another site. I haven't looked into it any further than that. Regardless, as has been pointed out in other posts here, there are many examples of why the Islamic scare is not pure hysteria which was my intended point. I never offered any solution in my post, let alone slaughtering every last muslim as you say. Your aggressive tone is comical at times Brian, but you should slow down on the personal attacks and any opionion I might have on your beliefs are based on reading several posts of yours as you post alot. Not one.

2. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46908 by scot on June 2, 2007 at 7:03 am

Comment 26 - Agreed
Comment 27
"All it takes is a little mature and calm reflection to conclude that the "islamic scare" is pure hysteria"

Pure hysteria Brian. Really? Take your mature and calm reflection and look at what's going on in the world, regardless of your wishful thinking that the U.S. is doomed and seemingly to blame for everything wrong on the planet.

http://w3.newsmax.com/a/dayofislam/?PROMO_CODE=34BE-1

3. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #44045 by scot on May 23, 2007 at 8:15 am

Brian - apparently if it agrees with you it will do. Majority rules right! I'm done with this as well.

New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

In September 2006, New Scientist drew criticism from the writer Greg Egan, who distributed a public letter stating that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science". In particular, Egan found himself "gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy" in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's "electromagnetic drive", where New Scientist allowed the publication of "meaningless double-talk" designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the conservation of momentum. Egan urged those reading his letter to write to New Scientist and pressure the magazine to raise its standards, instead of "squandering the opportunity that the magazine's circulation and prestige provides" for genuine science education. The letter was endorsed by mathematical physicist John C. Baez and posted on his blog[2].

The New Scientist editor replied defending the article, saying New Scientist is "an ideas magazine - that means writing about hypotheses as well as theories"[3].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newscientist

4. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43917 by scot on May 23, 2007 at 4:00 am

Mr. Grape,

So your opinion is that out of all the sources of news in America, local and national, no facts can be found, only opinions? That's ridiculous. I'm no fan of Fox, but I find that most people who hate it have never or only briefly watched it and are basing their opinions on what they've heard or on 10 seconds of seeing Bill O' Reilly's smug face or the laughably obvious bias and stupidity of Hannity. Good reasons not to watch Fox as there are better sources of news but it's wrong to say that Fox gives no "facts" in their news segments. Aside from the major cable and non-cable networks, there is local community radio and t.v. as well as national. The only reasons an American has for being uninformed is laziness or disinterest. (very common) For those who care to open their eyes and ears, the information is readily available.

5. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43678 by scot on May 22, 2007 at 9:19 am

Comment 42

My experience has been the opposite. As an American living in Ireland for the last 3 years I have found that the variety of opinion and choice for news sources to be far inferior to what could be found on the airwaves, t.v. and radio, in America.

6. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42377 by scot on May 18, 2007 at 6:12 am

chbg21808,

Just wanted to say that I've enjoyed this thread and it's good to see more skeptics on this site. When I first logged in here several months ago, I made the comment that the man made global warming bandwagon is beginning to resemble a religion and I was attacked. There seems to be more open discussion on the issue now on this site. What people like Brian need to seriously consider is that there is political influence, money, and power to be gained by those who would like us to believe that we are destroying the planet and that drastic measures are needed now to avoid impending doom within the next 5 to 10 years. The notion that one must be a right wing Christian fundamentalist, pro-Bush, pro-big oil, anti-environmentalist American if one is a skeptic is false and doesn't contribute to an honest debate.

7. Lou Dobbs w/ Hitchens on Al Sharpton's Bigoted Remark

Comment #39555 by scot on May 11, 2007 at 6:01 am

mrjonno,

"How do you differentiate between advanced science and god?"

Is this a serious question?

8. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39220 by scot on May 10, 2007 at 7:37 am

SteveN,

The theists are on the losing side of any intellectually honest debate on the issue. If they were able to come up with a good argument that relies on reason and logic then atheists would have to reconsider their own views. Not gonna happen, no bias on your part, your objectivity is intact.

9. The God Delusion

Comment #37373 by scot on May 4, 2007 at 8:57 am

SRWB,

I'm not sure that I understand your definition of subjective and objective.

"I actually believe that the golden rule is about as objective as we can get."

then:

"But the point is that if it was possible to actually follow the golden rule without deviation, it would be very objective."

You're right in saying that it isn't easy to follow because it takes a true understanding of what it means and why it's important before it will come natural. People have a choice and that's what makes morality possible. Without a choice, no morality can exist. So deviation from the golden rule has nothing to do with the validity, subjectivity, or objectivity of the rule itself; it has to do with the morality of the person doing the deviating.

Is killing always wrong? No. For example, in situations where one person defends their right to life against another who is forcefully attempting to take it, whatever happens happens. (well not really, we have courts of law to deal with whatever happens) When that person crossed the line and began initiating the use of force in an attempt to kill, they gave up their own right to life and to live in a society where people have an understanding about how to peacefully co-exist. Animals will fight for their life when pushed in a corner. So will human beings. Simplified example, I know, it becomes more complicated, but the golden rule is what it is, without change. People have a choice and there have to be consequences for making the wrong choices.

10. The God Delusion

Comment #37329 by scot on May 4, 2007 at 5:28 am

SRWB

The golden rule, treat others as you would like to be treated, is subjective in an obvious way. The golden rule is in reference to the idea of respecting other people's rights; natural rights, God given rights as some like to say. Rand referred to the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the rights to life, freedom, and property (a misleading word meaning the proceeds of your work and creativity are yours) and that these are by virtue of being born a human being. The golden rule from an Objectivist point of view would mean that no person may violate these rights of another and that no person may initiate the use of force upon another. So while the general idea of the golden rule starts out as seemingly subjective, once it is further defined it becomes more objective by referencing it to concepts which if agreed upon could be called axioms. These axioms then become starting points from which logic and reason can be used to deal with more complex issues. I don't know if any of this answers your question but maybe it's a start.

11. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #37011 by scot on May 3, 2007 at 6:21 am

Comment 39:

Be careful about putting the "European World" on a pedastal. America has gone through the worst of it's racism problems and while racism still exists, you'll find that racism in Europe, or at least in Ireland which I have the most experience with, is much more apparent than the part of America I'm from. As are some of the other things you mention. Just my opinion.

12. The God Delusion

Comment #36998 by scot on May 3, 2007 at 5:08 am

Shuggy,

The question becomes why do you think Hitler was wrong when there is a disagreement. If you rely on different subjective points of view as the determining factor of the right or wrong of the issue, then there really is no right or wrong, just different points of view. So there is a better way. Better than God and better than subjective moral relativism.

13. The God Delusion

Comment #36755 by scot on May 2, 2007 at 7:31 am

Comment 42 - Agreed

Thor,

I understand where you're coming from but that's one of the the points of the philosophy of Objectivism; to have a system of ideas in regards to ethics which are not subjective. In terms of right and wrong, if it is all subjective then anything goes. Rand attempted to use logic as a means of determining right and wrong in her code of ethics and was very good at breaking complex considerations down into basic premises that could be agreed upon; or not. Morality is a code of ethics in reference to a value. What a person values is subjective but I think the argument that logic and reason can be used to determine the best moral action towards achieving a chosen value is correct.

14. The God Delusion

Comment #36474 by scot on May 1, 2007 at 9:28 am

It could be said that there is a cultish aspect to some of Rand's "followers" today, but Rand didn't have respect for anyone who didn't think for themselves and the philosophy which she coined Objectivism is simply that; a philosophy, not a cultish guidebook. Regarding environmentalism, Rand wrote about it, so it's only fair to review her own words rather than ignore them based on a review. (my original point) Protecting the environment is a rational self interest from the individual's and Objectivist's perspective. (Corporations given individual rights is another topic) Rand's opposition to environmentalism stemmed from her opinion (which is undeniable in my opinion) that socialists had grabbed onto the term and were using the concept to advance their agenda. They still are but the savvy capitialists like Al Gore are on board now as well with their carbon credits companies. Generally speaking, environmentalism is not in conflict with Objectivism. Socialism however is.

15. The God Delusion

Comment #36418 by scot on May 1, 2007 at 4:40 am

Ayn Rand comments:

I'm guessing you haven't read her books. If you have, you should know that she only disagreed with altruism in terms of it's original definition: that you must serve others by placing their interests above your own; that you must live for others, that you must serve humanity. She never, as far as I am aware, said that philanthropy was a bad thing or that you shouldn't make any concessions to the existance of other human beings. If you have read Rand, then you are either interpreting her wrong (on this point) or you agree with the above definition in which case we can agree to disagree or have a meaningful debate. I find that many people who have opinions on Rand arrive at them second hand and brush her off without really considering her work which is unfortunate because it is worth considering. If she were alive today I think she would be offering great praise for Richard Dawkins.

16. Neil Peart cites The God Delusion in new album's liner notes

Comment #28139 by scot on March 28, 2007 at 6:01 am

Comment 25

I gather from your statement about Ayn Rand that you think the characters of Roark and Galt are brilliant (unless I misread you) but then you say that her philosophy is garbage. Roark and Galt represent the ideal man according to her philosophy so you contradict yourself unless I read you wrong. Regardless, If objectivism is garbage, then I am a garbage man because I agree with much of it.

17. How my eyes were opened to the barbarity of Islam

Comment #24740 by scot on March 8, 2007 at 9:28 am

Very inspiring and refreshing to see an advocate of absolutes as opposed relatavism. Looking forward to the book.

18. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24719 by scot on March 8, 2007 at 7:40 am

Perhaps it is the term absolute morals which is confusing the issue. Acting morally is meaningless without reference to a value. At it's most basic form, if we can agree that the value is life, then moral actions serve the purpose of survival. The value, life, and the right to it is absolute. As has been mentioned there are situational considerations as well as cultural but I think it is right to say that all people could or should agree on such an essential "absolute", such as the right to life if they are thinking rationally and if they value life. And if that is true then we should be able to agree on some absolutes about how we should conduct ourselves barring any "situational" circumstances. To say that morality at this level is relative is dangerous in my opinion. Anyway, this discussion probably needs to go to the forum at this stage.

19. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24707 by scot on March 8, 2007 at 6:11 am

Richard,

Thanks for your comments. I have read a few books on philosophy and I prefer to keep things simple. I understand your point about situationism and the man with a knife (I presume) at my throat. That man has given up his right to his life, or to live, at that moment in time by his own choice. If the right to my own life is relative, then perhaps this hypothetical man could rationalize why I don't have a right to it and go ahead and slit my throat and still be acting morally. To say that there is no moral absolute right to life, or to live and that it is relative not to situations, but to perspectives is wrong. I made the comment because I've seen several similar posts recently and I have a different perspective. God and religion are certainly not necessary in order for there to be absolutes.

p.s. my knickers aren't in a twist!

20. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24697 by scot on March 8, 2007 at 5:03 am

"Of course, the hyper-post-modernist-relativists are right to say that there is no absolute moral distinction between, say, treating women as equals and treating them like shit, because there are no absolute morals. But there is a practical distinction, a distinction for consequences to the sum total of human happiness, prosperity, and long-term prospects. We foolish liberals admit that we 'arbitrarily' call such aims 'good' in order to make moral distinctions. But the relativists have yet to come up with an alternative."

Why are there no absolute morals? Consider the right to life. It is absolute. It is absolutely immoral to deny it. It is absolutely moral to respect it.

21. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24685 by scot on March 8, 2007 at 4:03 am

I second your comment BaronOaks. Pantore is a bore.

22. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24549 by scot on March 7, 2007 at 7:43 am

Comment # 24 - Rather, it seems likely to be etched in our so-called moral grammar--but in an objective, purely rational sense, there is no morality.

Ultimately, morality boils down to a way of existing that is based on a choice between living and dying. If you value your life, you will live accordingly and vice-versa. You can't survive without valuing your life because your virtues will consist of starving your body rather than feeding it. This is a simplistic way of putting it meant to point out an objective and rational morality. If there is no morality in a rational sense, then in what sense is there? An Irrational one? What type of morality is that? Pick any religion for an answer.

23. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24538 by scot on March 7, 2007 at 6:35 am

"After all, the human race has existed for an eye-blink of cosmological time and will certainly cease to exist in another eye-blink or two.

The only response a genuine atheist would have to that fact is, so what? Which helps explain why there are almost no genuine atheists."

So without a belief in an eternal life after death there is no reason to love this life and the planet that supports it?

Pantore - are you human? (reference the "they" above)

24. Atheist Apostle

Comment #24337 by scot on March 6, 2007 at 4:07 am

"The only reasons these people are there, he says, are "bad genes, bad parents, bad ideas, or bad luck." If that's true, why use terms like "unethical" or "immoral" for any human behavior?"

Harris could have also mentioned bad choices which may have been clearer than bad ideas but this guy is really stretching to make something of nothing.

25. Atheists Take On Religion

Comment #24194 by scot on March 5, 2007 at 8:05 am

Also Riley,

The anti-abortion extremists are mostly Christian in America I would think and they have been known to set fire to abortion clinics and target doctors who provide abortions.

26. Atheists Take On Religion

Comment #24189 by scot on March 5, 2007 at 7:52 am

Riley,

I know you're up to speed on the AEI so would you mind pointing me to the evidence that they support the union of church and state.

Thanks

27. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23381 by scot on February 28, 2007 at 9:01 am

"But he said that there is not a good naturalistic explanation for altruism of the type exhibited by people such as Oskar Schindler who provided safety to Jews during the reign of the Nazis. It appears that people sometimes risk their lives and in the process also their genes in order to help strangers from whom they have no expectations of help in return. Collins implied that this altruism is a sign of God's existence and a gift from him. Dawkins asserted that altruism in these cases is a kind of carry-over from ancient times when altruism had survival value for people living in small clans. Going beyond altruism, Collins then pointed to the existence of "moral law" or the "absolutes … of good and evil" within the human species as evidence for the existence of God."

The term altruism confuses the issue to begin with because people have different ideas of what the word means. In the above statement, it is implied that Oskar Schindler did a good thing selflessly, at a risk to his life, expecting nothing in return and that this altrism is a sign of the existence of God.

Human beings have volition and are capable of choosing between what their values deem right and wrong, or, good and evil. We don't act "absolutely" according to the fairy in the sky's law. Collins also points to moral law or the absolutes of good and evil within humans as evidence for the existence of God. These are more rationally explained by the choice humans have between life and death. A rational person values and chooses life and recognizes that they must act accordingly if they are to live.

So why would Schindler risk his own life for "strangers"? Perhaps because he valued not only his own life, but the lives of other innocent people and saw the threat to their lives as ultimately a threat to his own life and values and chose not to live in a world where human life was so grossly violated. Benevolence and justice toward other people is a recognition of the values we share and we lose our pride in ourselves and run the risk of ending up in the same unjustified situation ourselves if we don't do what we can to protect them.

28. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22644 by scot on February 20, 2007 at 5:45 am

panotore,

"Ayaan is an evil person, she works for AEI; those people have their own 'religion' it's called capitalist-fascism or like Mussolini used to say the right word for fascism is corporatism, meaning when businesses and government work together to control the population."

Guilt by association in it's purest form to say that Ayaan is evil because she works for the AEI. Mussolini's corporatism refers to cartels which are illegal in the U.S.

From wikipedia: The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank, founded in 1943, whose stated mission is "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism--limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate." I don't see anything religious or fascist in this stated mission.

29. Wash. school board restricts Gore's global-warming film

Comment #22357 by scot on February 15, 2007 at 4:09 am

Jeebus,

By denial of global warming, do you mean denial of climate change, or denial that it is caused by human activity? I agree with you that ignoring evidence to avoid an unpleasant truth is wrong, which is why I say that the global warming bandwagon resembles religion. There is scientific evidence and theory currently being tested that disputes what so many have concluded about global warming and it is being ignored by people such as yourself, because you have concluded that the cause of global warming is human. Full stop. Are you "willfully ignoring evidence to avoid a truth that you would rather wasn't quite so true?"

30. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21617 by scot on February 10, 2007 at 6:47 am

"The simple fact is that all of us, whether Christians or atheists, base our lives on at least some fundamental beliefs that we know we cannot prove, but nevertheless believe to be reliable and significant."

Really? I can't think of any "fundamental beliefs" that I am basing my life on that I can't prove. There is no god. That isn't a belief, it is an acknowledgement of there being no evidence for it. The burden of proof is on the believer. Existence exists. I don't believe it, I know it, and knowing it is fundamental to my life... you better know it!

31. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21013 by scot on February 7, 2007 at 9:43 am

eccles,

This is the 2nd time I've seen you refer to the United Christian States of America. I've already been through this with Aussie in "Friends of God" thread so I refer you to that if you'd like to consider alternatives from your conclusions drawn during your 1968 visit. Dogmatic anit-Americanism serves no purpose other than to alienate those who may otherwise be in agreement with you.

p.s.
well put Riley

32. 'Friends of God' Documentary

Comment #20419 by scot on February 2, 2007 at 10:00 am

Aussie,

I haven't read that book yet, it's on my list. I am from Northern California and Oregon which wouldn't be representative of the so called bible belt so you are right about that. As for statistics on this issue, I read that people are more likely to answer questions more honestly over the internet and these studies arrive at conclusions which aren't quite so alarming. I agree with you essentially, however sometimes I run into people who have never been to America and they see something like this and think we've all completely lost the plot. Who knows maybe we have... but the fact that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins books are selling so well is encouraging.

33. 'Friends of God' Documentary

Comment #20239 by scot on February 1, 2007 at 8:23 am

No doubt the level of irrationality in America is worrisome. However, I think the majority of Americans who are religious are more concerned with tradition than brainwashing their children with a literal belief in the bible.

A wikipedia search for support of evolution by religious bodies points to the Clergy Letter Project, a signed statement by 10,000 American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism. Also the National Center for Science Education found "of Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education." Even the Pope now recognizes evolution as more than a hypotheses.

The point is, the vast majority of religious people in America, while deluded, are not nearly as deluded as the ones in this video, regardless of what this poll or that poll says.

34. 'Friends of God' Documentary

Comment #20225 by scot on February 1, 2007 at 6:41 am

Aussie,

My opinions are based on having lived in, worked in, gone to school in, travelled in, and observed America and American culture for the majority of my life. I don't think the fundamentalist wackos have the power that people think.

Where are these monkey trials that you say are tearing the country apart. Some people don't want evolution taught in schools but they aren't tearing us apart and I doubt that they will ever be successful.

It is said that 90% of Americans beleive in god, not that they beleive the earth is less than 6,000 years old. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I am, then I have reason to be more concerned.

In regards to Bush saying that god told him to invade Iraq, I think this is a myth. Can anyone point me to proof that he said this in a serious manner, if at all. I'm not defending Bush, but it is so popular to hate him that the truth is sometimes stretched or ignored.

35. 'Friends of God' Documentary

Comment #20222 by scot on February 1, 2007 at 6:29 am

just a test, my comments aren't showing up for some reason.

36. 'Friends of God' Documentary

Comment #20075 by scot on January 31, 2007 at 8:50 am

God Help America! - the laughing stock of the rest of the world. How did this sad country ever put men on the moon? Why did I never see this side of the USA in my many visits over several decades. This country is rotting from the inside out. Why is the USA the only country so fatally afflicted?

Aussie,

The reason you never saw this side of the USA is because it isn't very apparent in most parts of the country and my experience has been that most people in America think these extremists are nuts and recognize the brainwashing. As an American living overseas it makes me cringe to hear statements like this because they are so onesided. Keep in mind that Separation of church and state are a reality in America, unlike some other countries where children have to excuse themselves if they don't want to sit through religion class. America has it's problems but it isn't rotting and it doesn't need God's help.

37. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #18635 by scot on January 22, 2007 at 6:17 am

Lionel,

Be careful of guilt by association. So Imhofe is a bible thumper. So is Gore. That doesn't mean they aren't capable of looking at the science to back up their opposing views when it comes to global warming. Please do send your URL list as I am considering all points of view.

38. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #18040 by scot on January 18, 2007 at 3:43 am

IPV4,

I agree with some of your points. Big Corporations also influence (run is a strong word)some environmental researchers which is the point of the link. Did you read it? It gives an opposing view and recommends further reading which must be considered in an attempt to search for the facts and to be objective. I am not suggesting that the senator is objective, though he may be, I am saying that in order for you or I to be, we have to search for information on both sides of the issue and then decide what we think.

39. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17897 by scot on January 17, 2007 at 11:20 am

I posted this link in another area, but here is a decent opposing view to Gore's film. Good reading for anyone who is a true beleiver in Global Warming. The environment is crucially important, but so are objectivity and reason.

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

40. Wash. school board restricts Gore's global-warming film

Comment #17863 by scot on January 17, 2007 at 4:38 am

Jack Rawlinson,

My comment was in response to Murslak "How much longer to do we have to deal with ignorance as pertains to public misunderstanding of science?" Much of the public's understanding comes from media hype and entertainment films. Check out this link and see what you think.

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

41. Wash. school board restricts Gore's global-warming film

Comment #17776 by scot on January 16, 2007 at 8:05 am

The global warming bandwagon is beginning to resemble a religion. People look at you strange if you say you're not convinced. If it is unquestionable I still need to be pointed in the right direction to find the unbiased evidence that proves it. The global warming scare is a reason for higher taxes and fines. Some countries will require more taxes and fines to pay for their carbon credits when they fall short of meeting their KYOTO goals. I wonder what the evangelicals want for agreeing to cooperate with science to fight the problem? If I give them a donation am I being responsible? (see link from comment above)I'm not arguing that global warming doesn't exist or that the environment isn't important. I am considering the possibility of an agenda to scare people for alterior motives.

42. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5983 by scot on November 12, 2006 at 5:01 am

Many of the posters on this thread are doing themselves a disfavour by making personal comments and challenges on David without knowing him. I have known for several years and while I do not share his beliefs I know him to be a man who strives to live up to his christian ideals. He is down to earth, very much in touch with the 'real world, open minded and accepting of others who do not share his faith.
Stick to rational debate and stop the ignorant mud slinging at David and his church.