1. Top billing for platypus at end of evolution tree

Comment #177935 by DNAtheist on May 10, 2008 at 2:16 am

And it shares with the chicken a gene for a type of egg-yolk protein called a vitellogenin. That suggests that vitellogenins, which are found in birds and fish, predate the split from the sauropsids, although the platypus retains only one vitellogenin gene, whereas the chicken has three.

Wouldn't the fact that vitellogenin genes show up in both birds and fish already suggest that they predate the split between sauropsids and mammals?

2. Fossil find could be Europe's first humans

Comment #150912 by DNAtheist on March 27, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Stop finding these fossils! You're just creating more gaps!

3. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143721 by DNAtheist on March 14, 2008 at 10:17 am

Well this Bishop is clearly out of his mind, but then anyone who thinks they have the magical power to transmute crackers into slices of demi-god bologna lacks a solid relationship with reality.

4. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143659 by DNAtheist on March 14, 2008 at 9:25 am

Hedges is a fundamentalist by his own definition. He believes that anyone who disagrees with his theology is either evil or amoral, and he believes that if everyone were to exchange their "extremist" positions for his own then the world would be a better place. These are the very reasons that he regards atheists as "fundamentalists." He is a "moderation fundamentalist."

5. Earliest bats did not 'see' with sound

Comment #126470 by DNAtheist on February 13, 2008 at 10:00 am

Quetzalcoatl wrote:

Another gap filled.

And two more created. Sigh.

6. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #118776 by DNAtheist on January 31, 2008 at 12:59 am

Happy Birthday, Josh. Thank you so much for this site.

7. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107586 by DNAtheist on January 4, 2008 at 7:37 pm

NormanDoering,

I'm not fooled by Huckabee at all. He's a theocrat to the core. My point wasn't that he likes us, but that we have become mainstream enough that he has to treat us as legitimate opponents. I don't think those with similarly evangelical world-views would have done the same back in the 1970's. I consider that progress.

8. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107546 by DNAtheist on January 4, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Dax wrote:
1970, today, what is the difference? With Huckabee doing so well, we should be seeing this more often in the near future.

Actually things have changed for us. Today even Huckabee is publicly acknowledging our right to serve in politics.

Hardball January 3, 2008 (After Iowa caucus)

OLBERMANN: ...Do you think at some point you would face a question of what do you do about those who do not share not necessarily your religious beliefs but any religious beliefs or religious beliefs to the degree that you have expressed them?

HUCKABEE: No, I don't think Americans necessarily vote for or against somebody just because of their religion. At least, I certainly wouldn't want to believe that, whether they vote for or against me or somebody else. I think they want, however, you to be consistent with your own religion.
You know, I said on Bill Maher, and got a lot of people surprised and their eyebrows raised when I was asked about Pete Stark, a congressman from California, who is an openly declared atheist. And I said, that doesn't bother me. I'd rather have somebody who is an openly declared atheist who is honest about it than a person who claims to be a Christian but doesn't live like it.
That is what disturbs me, is when people claim a faith and then they don't practice it. People are looking for authenticity, not necessarily someone who just absolutely goes right down the line of their own personal doctrine.

Hardball November 29, 2007

MATTHEWS:  So when the Constitution says no religious test shall ever be used as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, that phrase in the Constitution means what to you?

HUCKABEE:  It means just what it says, there shouldn't be a religious test.  There's no requirement that a person has a religious at all.  It may have been on your program, Chris, that a few weeks ago, we talked about Pete Stark, an avowed atheist.  My point that day, and I'll say it again, I'd rather have a person serving in Congress who's an avowed atheist who's honest about it than a person who tries to pretend he's a Christian when he doesn't live like it and he's filled with hate and venom and anger toward people.

Glenn Beck October 19, 2007

BECK: Would you vote for a Mormon?

HUCKABEE: You know, I don`t know that that would be an impediment, but what I really want to do is I want for somebody whose views are not just compatible with mine but whose views are compatible with their views. I want somebody to be consistent. I want someone whose compass points north and always has. I don`t care if a person disagrees with me. Quite frankly, Glenn, I can live with someone who is 180 degrees different from me. I just want him to look me in the eye and tell me, "This is what I believe." Not because the political winds are blowing this way. And if the person says -- let me give you an example. Pete Stark is a member of Congress. He`s a Democrat. He`s an announced, professed atheist. I was asked on Bill Maher`s show does that bother me. And I think I shocked him. I said, "No, Bill, I have more respect for Pete Stark, who says, `Hey, I`m an atheist`"...

BECK: That`s why I vote for Joe Lieberman. I vote for Joe Lieberman. I know when he closes the door he`s going to say the same thing behind my back that he said to my face.

HUCKABEE: Well, character has often been described and defined as character is who you are when nobody else is looking. And I think that`s so important. People are looking for authenticity in their leaders. Not perfection. Because none of us can provide that. None of us can be perfect. But we can be authentic. And you know, there are times I have to look at people and say, "Look, you guys disagree with me on this, but I can live with that. But..."

Granted he isn't endorsing atheism and he treats it like a religion, but he is at least acknowledging our existence and he is praising our honesty over the mealy-mouthed religiousity of "moderates" who don't take these questions seriously. So much for those who claim that publicly coming out will just bring scorn. Vive le OUT Campaign!

9. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107033 by DNAtheist on January 4, 2008 at 1:07 am

I just discovered that he has made similar comments before.

From Hardball (November 29, 2007)

MATTHEWS: So when the Constitution says no religious test shall ever be used as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, that phrase in the Constitution means what to you?

HUCKABEE: It means just what it says, there shouldn't be a religious test. There's no requirement that a person has a religious at all. It may have been on your program, Chris, that a few weeks ago, we talked about Pete Stark, an avowed atheist. My point that day, and I'll say it again, I'd rather have a person serving in Congress who's an avowed atheist who's honest about it than a person who tries to pretend he's a Christian when he doesn't live like it and he's filled with hate and venom and anger toward people.

I wish we could get a democratic candidate to say something like this.

10. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107032 by DNAtheist on January 4, 2008 at 12:47 am

Huckabee was on MSNBC tonight after winning the Iowa caucus, and interestingly he brought up the topic of atheism. He was asked how important the particular religious views of candidates were for this election. Huckabee responded that it is sincerity that matters the most to the American people. As an example he mentioned that Representative Pete Stark had recently come out publicly as an atheist and that this didn't bother him. In fact he said he respected honest atheists more than insincere Christians. (I don't have an exact quote, but the transcripts should be up soon.)

Even granting that he was not so subtly attacking Romney with these comments, this represents the progress we have made in the last few years. I think that it also validates movements like the OUT campaign. When we come out publicly, as Pete Stark has - when the faces and names of real people become attached to the word 'atheist' - it is so much harder to marginalize and malign us.

11. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101947 by DNAtheist on December 21, 2007 at 8:41 am

i am now convinced that the best strategy is to back out of the argument, and let the various faiths disprove each other. we should be encouraging debates between faiths, not faith vs non faith, that is how to get to the moderates.

I agree. The problem is that the moderates have a long-established truce regarding these discussions. Even the more evangelical types are reluctant to publicly state that Jews, Lutherans, etc. are worshipping false gods and will end up in hell. How did your wife's school manage to overcome that ecumenicalism?

12. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101770 by DNAtheist on December 21, 2007 at 12:43 am

But for the rest of us, forced to ponder the complexity of our existence and the competing implausibilities of faith and unbelief, that was surely the point of the manger, the stable, the ox and the ass. That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.

What stable, ox, and ass? None of these are mentioned in either of the two very different nativity stories in the Bible. This idiot is invoking non-existent biblical verses to argue for the authenticity of the bible.

13. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101347 by DNAtheist on December 20, 2007 at 9:04 am

He said the virgin birth was "part of what I have inherited".

He said the virgin birth was "a dogma with which I was indoctrinated as a child."

Fixed it for him.

14. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100472 by DNAtheist on December 18, 2007 at 5:01 pm

I wish theists would make up their minds. If we don't want to celebrate the holiday then we are insulting Christians. If we do celebrate the holiday then we are insulting Christians. The only way we could stop insulting them would be to become Christians.

This is, of course, their goal. They simply know that they can't get away with saying it out loud. Christianity seems more like Islam every day.

15. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #97973 by DNAtheist on December 12, 2007 at 11:11 pm

I think it is worth noting how the vote breaks down along party lines. While all of the nay votes came from democrats (9 votes = 4% of democrats present), the vast majority of democrats voted aye (195 votes = 84% of democrats present). The majority of republicans also voted aye (177 votes = 89% of republicans present), while none voted nay. So in percentage terms the democrats were better than the republicans, but not much better. In terms of raw numbers there were more democrat votes for this measure than republican votes. Among the aye votes was presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, who is often characterized as the candidate who most supports the separation of church and state.

Is there enough room in England for those of us who want out of this asylum?

16. Georgia gets rain, but it may not help

Comment #88460 by DNAtheist on November 16, 2007 at 7:55 pm

It should be noted that the governor announced that they would be praying for rain after the weather service had issued its forecast predicting rain. Using science to make sure your prayers are "answered" hardly seems like a meaningful test of faith, but I suppose they know that their mythology would fail any real test if it had to stand on its own.

17. Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

Comment #88409 by DNAtheist on November 16, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Pseudo-deity?!?!?

Would a newspaper refer to Vishnu or Allah as a pseudo-deity? The FSM is just as real and meaningful as any other deity, and should be treated just as respectfully.

Arrrgh! Tis' time to board the good ship CNN and make some writers and editors walk the plank!

18. Holy communion

Comment #87006 by DNAtheist on November 11, 2007 at 1:28 am

I am sick of the humanists. Let them recruit theists if they want their movement to grow. This atheist has decided he won't be joining any of their organizations.

19. Brief Regarding the California Same-Sex Marriage Case

Comment #82460 by DNAtheist on October 26, 2007 at 11:29 am

Erik wrote:

I wish Tabash had spent more time on the issue of whether there is no secular purpose to the same-sex marriage ban, and less time on the basics of First Amendment principles, which are well understood.

I have to disagree with you that these principles are well understood. Having read the historical interpretations given by the U.S. Supreme Court judges in the Newdow and 10 Commandment cases, it is clear to me that even our highest judges lack a solid understanding of this history. The California justices might be better informed, but any opportunity to combat the massive misinformation campaign that the religious have been waging for decades should be taken.

But I do agree with your larger point. I have never heard one sensible, coherent, non-religious objection to same-sex marriage. Come to think of it, that may be why Tabash didn't focus on it much. It is hard to argue against a position that doesn't exist.

20. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79616 by DNAtheist on October 18, 2007 at 12:55 am

Atheists are a minority of the population, but they have made startling inroads into centers of national influence: the media, the education system, movies and television, and more.

Well it's official. We have replaced the jews as the most dangerous non-Christian conspiracy. If we're lucky this means that a few decades from now Christians will be calling this an atheo-judeo-Christian nation.

21. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #76849 by DNAtheist on October 7, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, Max29. I'm flattered, not offended. It's just annoying having two versions of my avatar on the same board. I have some other ideas for avatars if you are interested.

22. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #76713 by DNAtheist on October 6, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Indeed you did steal it, Max29. You stole it from me. That is very annoying since I spent a considerable amount of time designing it. Please find your own avatar, not one of my old ones.

23. Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse

Comment #73039 by DNAtheist on September 23, 2007 at 11:54 pm

Simply marvelous.

24. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73011 by DNAtheist on September 23, 2007 at 7:49 pm

skyhook0 wrote:
What exactly would a "show for atheists" be?

There is at least one show on atheism, The Atheist Experience. It serves a number of purposes. It educates believers on the nature of atheism and the character of atheists hopefully showing that we are generally normal, nice people. It addresses issues of church and state separation, raising awareness of the problems created by religious intrusions on our secular government. Perhaps most importantly it provides those who are questioning their religious beliefs with an alternative viewpoint while making non-believers living in isolation aware that they are not alone. The show can be viewed on google video.

25. Scientists' Good News: Earth May Survive Sun's Demise in 5 Billion Years

Comment #69952 by DNAtheist on September 13, 2007 at 10:07 am

Sane1, I had exactly the same reaction.

26. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67449 by DNAtheist on September 3, 2007 at 1:28 pm

There are no experiments and tests to explain love, empathy, longing, the agony and ecstasy of the heart, the wild and wonderful creativity of the brain, that thing that happens to you when a full moon appears above the sea and is reflected in it. Sorry, but knowing the science of why the moon shines is irrelevant to the experience. Faith is the light of the moon above and that light in the sea, reality and spirituality, both making you tremblingly conscious of forces vast and beyond words. Impertinent scientists cannot know what they speak of.

Okay, so atheism is a non-religion whose adherents lack faith.

Fundamentalist atheists want to replace old religions with their own. To them all previous prophets were false. Their fervour makes them as blind and uncompromising as those following the religions they detest. Science gave them no immunity – they too are infected by the virus of faith. Only, they would say, theirs is the only true path, and all other roads lead to damnation. Of course.

So now atheism is a religion whose adherents have faith.

This is a very confused woman.

27. Orthodox Call on Sinners To Give Chickens a Fairer Shake

Comment #66879 by DNAtheist on August 31, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Northern Bright wrote:

Honestly - makes you want to weep, doesn't it?

Yes it does. And where are the religious "moderates" who endlessly claim that Dawkins' criticisms of religion are unfair because no one really takes these old books seriously?

28. Fruit fly parasite's gene invasion raises questions over evolution

Comment #66878 by DNAtheist on August 31, 2007 at 11:18 pm

Kelphis wrote:

you all know what this means? the creationist loons will jump on this to show how wrong evolution is.

Northern Bright wrote:

Sigh. They certainly will (since they always do). Though I think they'll struggle to claim that Creationism accounts for this phenomenon any better! :-)

You are right about that. This pretty much demolishes their concept of divinely created "kinds" which are forever separate. Unless, of course, bacteria and fruit flies are the same "kind."

29. A Daddy Longlegs Tells the Story of the Continents' Big Shifts

Comment #66700 by DNAtheist on August 31, 2007 at 3:16 am

Obviously these creatures were distributed by Satan in just the right way to trick good people into believing the lies of atheistic Darwinianists like Dawkins. The Devil is so much more clever than we are. And since only an omnipotent creator could make someone as smart as Satan, then God must exist. So much for that issue.

Now about fairies...

30. Anger at Malaysia 'Jesus cartoon'

Comment #65972 by DNAtheist on August 27, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Beer I can understand, but how could he be smoking a cigarette? Tobacco only grew in the Americas until a few centuries ago, so he would have to have traveled to the New World and...


Holy carcinogens! The Mormons were right!

31. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #63606 by DNAtheist on August 15, 2007 at 4:25 am

Religion, if it remains independent of the state, can serve as a useful check and balance on excesses of government. For example, during the 1920s, eugenics became the rage among scientists, academics, and intellectuals. Thirty states enacted forcible sterilization laws, which resulted in fifty thousand people being surgically sterilized. In 1927 the United States Supreme Court upheld these laws in a decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, an atheist, who wrote: "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." The only dissenting opinion came from a religious Catholic. Churches fought hard against sterilization laws. In this instance, religion was right; government and science were wrong.

This is a rather biased presentation and interpretation. The case at issue here is Buck v. Bell (274 U.S. 200, 1927). Dershowitz presents this as a conflict between secularism and religion, with religion occupying the high moral ground, but the reality is not so favorable to religion.

Dershowitz makes a point of identifying Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr as an atheist, and the sole dissenter, Pierce Butler, as a "religious Catholic." Since the atheist Holmes supported forced sterilization in this case and the very religious Butler opposed it, obviously the root cause of their disagreement was theological and in this case "religion was right." Case closed.

But what about the other seven judges who are ignored by Dershowitz? All seven, including the Chief Justice, joined with Holmes in the majority opinion. All seven of them concurred with his statement that

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind."

Were these judges also atheists? Why, no they weren't.

Chief Justice William Howard Taft - Unitarian
James Clark McReynolds - Disciples of Christ
Louis Brandeis - Jewish
Willis Van Devanter - Episcopalian
George Sutherland - Episcopalian
Edward Terry Sanford - Episcopalian
Harlan Fiske Stone - Episcopalian

(As a side-note, I am not aware that Holmes ever identified himself as an atheist, although I wouldn't be too surprised if he was.)

So the real story is that seven theists and one (probable) atheist voted for forced sterilization and one theist voted against it. This is hardly the clear victory for religion that Dershowitz presented. It is made even less convincing when you consider that Butler's dissent was not accompanied by an explanation. Dershowitz simply assumed that, because he was Catholic, his opposition was based on religious convictions rather than legal grounds. Dershowitz seems to have given no consideration to the possibility that those voting for sterilization could also have been religiously motivated, and by focusing exclusively on the single non-believer among the majority, he made it less likely that his readers would consider the possibility.

Throughout this paragraph, Dershowitz engages in another rhetorical sleight-of-hand by conflating atheism, science, and the eugenics movement. Most of the judges involved were theists, and none of them had degrees in science. It is difficult to see this as a battle between science and religion.

And what of the laws which prompted this case? Dershowitz blames "scientists, academics, and intellectuals" for these policies, but presents no evidence that the majority of these people were atheists. Even if they were, surely the vast majority of citizens in those 30 states were "people of faith." Dershowitz is quick to attribute Butler's vote against forced sterilization to religious values, but somehow dismisses religious motivations when considering the tens of millions of religious citizens whose votes enabled the creation of those laws.

Dershowitz wanted to come up with a clear example where religion provided a bulwark against the excesses of government. Unable to find such an example, he had to create one by cherry-picking facts and summarily assuming religious motivations for all admirable actions and secular motivations for all reprehensible one - the same tactics that always get used to justify religion.

32. 'Delusion' Revisits Faith Vs. Reason Debate

Comment #63565 by DNAtheist on August 14, 2007 at 9:08 pm

If a criminal behavior is based on the criminal's genes, how are we to condemn his actions?

This is a silly question.

The author implies that actions can not be condemned if they have a cause, but that assumption exonerates every behavior no matter what form that cause has. What difference does it make whether the ultimate cause of someone's actions is his genes, his environment, a soul designed by a god, or some combination thereof?

If a god installed in me the sort of soul that causes me to kill people, then any responsibility for my murders devolves onto that deity. And in many theological systems, I gain the additional excuse that my behavior might have been caused by demons, devils, or other evil supernatural beasties.

The author has confused the issues of atheism and determinism, and with the usual deference to religion, he has assumed that determinism isn't a problem for theism. But religion, as always, not only fails to resolve this issue, it actually makes the problem worse by adding supernatural elements. (Don't they teach Occam's Razor any more?)

Besides, Dawkins doesn't even come close to suggesting that genes are the sole determinant of someone's actions.

33. A Designer Universe?

Comment #61776 by DNAtheist on August 6, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Nails wrote in post #13:
If I was to design a universe, I would probaly try everything I could to make the galaxies closer together. Sure it is nice to see the faint stars on a clear night, but is that all they are for?

No. God intended them to be used for astrology and for telling time, of course.

Genesis 1:14-15
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Of course you had better not actually use them for their intended purposes.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

That Yahweh is such a practical joker.

34. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #61347 by DNAtheist on August 4, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Russell Blackford,

You aren't alone. I didn't find this joke clever either.

35. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57381 by DNAtheist on July 19, 2007 at 4:33 am

Smart Patrol:

Here is that enlarged photo that you wanted.

36. Insurance for Sex Abuse: A policy tailor-made for the Catholic church

Comment #56925 by DNAtheist on July 17, 2007 at 9:10 pm

No matter who forks over the money for damages, awards today are so large that some dioceses are facing bankruptcy.

The priests should be hoping for bankruptcy.

"And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed [be ye] poor: for yours is the kingdom of God."
-Luke 6:20 (KJV)

37. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56467 by DNAtheist on July 15, 2007 at 11:46 pm

I agree with Zwartz. Anyone who rejects the existence of Thor without evidence to back it up, or who treat Thor-worshippers with disdainful terms like 'silly' or 'deluded' is a militant, dogmatic, fundamentalist.

Hmm. Does anyone know whether Zwartz accepts the existence of Thor?

38. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55933 by DNAtheist on July 13, 2007 at 12:59 am

Rob wrote:
Hmmm... It seems I am alone in thinking that what Sloan Wilson said was worth reading and that Dawkins retort is overly aggressive.

Well I don't agree with your evaluation of Dawkins' response, but I was interested in reading about Wilson's work. I think that what I found so frustrating about his article was that he spent so little time actually discussing his ideas because he was so busy listing the multitude of faults that he sees in Dawkins.

He could have taken a positive approach by pointing out that Dennett and Dawkins have exposed the public to the concept that evolutionary biology might explain some aspects of religious behavior, and then presenting his ideas as some early steps in exploring that possibility. Instead his article repeatedly presents the negative argument:

1.) Dawkins disagrees with me.
2.) But Dawkins is just mean, arrogant, rude, angry, and dogmatic.
3.) Therefore I'm right.

I found that extremely annoying as well as unhelpful. I found it especially obnoxious that he used the standard theistic tact of characterizing Dawkins in religious terminology.

-Dawkins turned group selection advocates into pariahs.
-Dawkins rejected group selection with zeal (read this as "Dawkins is a zealot.")
-Dawkins engages in fundamentalist rhetoric.
-Dawkins appropriates the deity (Darwin) for his own cause.
-Dawkins recites a mantra regarding group selection.

And then he ends by characterizing Dawkins as "just another angry atheist" who prostitutes his scientific reputation to "vent his personal opinions about religion." Do you really think that Dawkins' response to this sort of personal attack to be excessive?

39. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55659 by DNAtheist on July 11, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Richard Dawkins wrote:
I thought it a generous gesture at the time, and I see no reason now to regret my choice to write my own book rather than his.

But I think he does regret it. Since you weren't kind enough to put your name on his work, he has put your name on it himself by publicly attacking you as a fundamentalist. The repeated invocations of your name will certainly garner him more attention that repetitions of his own would, and any attack on you will certainly endear himself to the large liberal religious community who work so hard to convince themselves that their faith isn't dogmatic, but requiring evidence is. Perhaps most importantly, attacking your positions doesn't require him to support his own.

Good grief. If even scientists use these sort of tactics to ride your coat-tails, I can understand why you don't want to debate creationists.

40. A force for evil?

Comment #55067 by DNAtheist on July 10, 2007 at 12:18 am

Here is the link to the mp3 file of the debate. (85 MB)

41. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54412 by DNAtheist on July 7, 2007 at 1:01 am

Solarium Solaris wrote:
"How do you get an avatar on this thing?"


While you are logged in, go to the forum. Select "profile" from the menu at the top of the page to see your profile settings. Then scroll to the bottom of that page and you will see a section for adding an avatar.

42. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #54408 by DNAtheist on July 7, 2007 at 12:44 am

I propose that the Bishop was wrong. The floods were actually God's condemnation of the anti-homosexual bigotry of Church of England bishops. So bishop Dow is personally responsible for the deaths that resulted, and if he doesn't repent random people around the world will continue to die in natural disasters. Damn, someone was just struck by lightning in Brazil. Quick, pass a law to remove the bishop's freedom of thought before he makes God kill again!

Given that theists keep insisting that God's ways are mysterious, they should consider my theory to be just as valid as Rev. Dow's.

43. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50898 by DNAtheist on June 20, 2007 at 11:12 am

These links are not mp3 files. They should be changed so that they don't look like mp3 files.

44. The Atheism FAQ with Richard Dawkins

Comment #47113 by DNAtheist on June 3, 2007 at 3:26 am

Richard Dawkins said:
"The God of the Old Testament, as I described, is not at all a good 'person'. The God is certainly a lot better in New Testament."

I have to strongly disagree with this statement. Mark Twain eloquently addressed this misconception in Letters from the Earth.

In time, the Deity perceived that death was a mistake; a mistake, in that it was insufficient; insufficient, for the reason that while it was an admirable agent for the inflicting of misery upon the survivor, it allowed the dead person himself to escape from all further persecution in the blessed refuge of the grave. This was not satisfactory. A way must be conceived to pursue the dead beyond the tomb.

The Deity pondered this matter during four thousand years unsuccessfully, but as soon as he came down to earth and became a Christian his mind cleared and he knew what to do. He invented hell, and proclaimed it.

Now here is a curious thing. It is believed by everybody that while he was in heaven he was stern, hard, resentful, jealous, and cruel; but that when he came down to earth and assumed the name Jesus Christ, he became the opposite of what he was before: that is to say, he became sweet, and gentle, merciful, forgiving, and all harshness disappeared from his nature and a deep and yearning love for his poor human children took its place. Whereas it was as Jesus Christ that he devised hell and proclaimed it!

Which is to say, that as the meek and gentle Savior he was a thousand billion times crueler than ever he was in the Old Testament -- oh, incomparably more atrocious than ever he was when he was at the very worst in those old days!

Meek and gentle? By and by we will examine this popular sarcasm by the light of the hell which he invented.

The horror of such an inescapable torture for the crime of being human has certainly caused more psychological damag than any other religious concept. It also provides the theological justification for hideous acts like torturing jews into conversion for their own good, slaughtering newly baptized infants so they will die without sin, and killing heretics before their ideas spread and condemn others to everlasting fire. This is the God of the New Testament.

Don't forget that Jesus reaffirmed all of the laws set down by his Old Testament personality, thus enabling Christians to justify slavery, the criminalizing of homosexuality, and the execution of women accused of witchcraft. He even expanded many of the old laws into the realm of thought crimes. The act of adultery was condemned in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament we are told that simply being attracted to a woman was morally equivalent. Where the Old Testament God is primarily concerned with foreskins and animal sacrifices, the God of the New Testament makes mere lack of faith an eternally punishable crime.

And as for epic acts of divine violence, the actions of the deity in the book of Revelations surely match or exceed the gore factor of any story from the Old Testament. I really can't imagine how anyone who has read the entire Bible could possibly think that the New Testament deity is better than the Old Testament one.

45. Man to die over insult

Comment #47089 by DNAtheist on June 3, 2007 at 1:58 am

NJS said:
It seems its okay to condemn Iran as a theocratic hell but "friends" like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are free to perpetrate the same evils.

Yep. The theocracies that produced Osama Bin Laden and the majority of the 9-11 hijackers were obviously the best choice to help us eliminate terrorism and to spread democracy throughout the middle east.

46. Scientists divided over alliance with religion

Comment #46572 by DNAtheist on May 31, 2007 at 5:08 pm

"If we give the impression that science is hostile to even mainstream religion, it will be more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important," he said. "We need people like that as allies in dealing with extreme fundamentalism."

So these "mainstream" believers will side with science if they think that it is compatible with their faith, but they will side with the "extreme fundamentalists" in rejecting science if we tell them how science contradicts their beliefs?

How then are these "mainstream" believers different from the "extreme fundamentalists?"

47. Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Comment #44823 by DNAtheist on May 25, 2007 at 10:53 am

'People should not be allowed to spew racist propaganda without others being able to respond,' Cohen said. 'It's not about free speech - it's hate speech.'

People are being prevented from responding? How? The aren't allowed to post their own videos or web pages addressing this issue? And if people are not allowed to respond, then how did this statement get published? What utter nonsense.

Elliot Cohen clearly has no idea what the first amendment means, but that isn't surprising to me. Living in Berkeley taught me that the extreme left is no more repectful of freedom than the right-wing loons that I had to deal with in Alabama. Both sides think that it is okay to restrict the liberty of others in order to force them to be "good." They just disagree on the definition of "good."

48. God help us all - The No. 2 book on Amazon right now is a

Comment #44810 by DNAtheist on May 25, 2007 at 10:29 am

epeeist said:

Is anyone else sick of the term "Islamofacism" (which my spill chocker underlines). A portmanteau word designed to create fear and hatred.

If it keeps being used then I shall have no compunction but to talk of "Christofacism" when referring to the likes of the Dominionists.

I believe the correct term is "Judeo-Christofascism." After all, America is a Judeo-Christian nation. ;)

49. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44490 by DNAtheist on May 25, 2007 at 1:27 am

Sam confuses the irrational—which he sees as part of faith—with the non-rational. There is a reality that is not a product of rational deduction. It is not accounted for by strict rational discourse. There is a spiritual dimension to human existence and the universe, but this is not irrational—it is non-rational.

I hereby declare that atheism is based on super-transcendent-nonrational-rationality and is therefore more true than concepts like faith which are based on mere non-rationality.

So there Mr. Hedges, I can piss on logic and the English language too.

50. Army to EO Reps: 'Discrimination Against Atheists OK'

Comment #36611 by DNAtheist on May 1, 2007 at 6:19 pm

mdowe wrote

This is just warped -- especially when you consider the US army has loosened regulations about accepting people with criminal records (see: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/2/14/111649/573 ). It sounds like the US military establishment can forgive ex-cons, but they have a problem treating law-abiding atheists with the same respect given to the religious?

It makes perfect sense when you consider the example of Jesus. According to the gospels he welcomed all manner of criminals into his company and he treated them well, but when he encountered people that he considered blasphemers his immediate reaction was to assault them and vandalize their property.