1. Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism

Comment #81832 by Pi Guy on October 25, 2007 at 8:49 am

"Is the teaching, or possibility of teaching, creationism or Intelligent Design in U.S. schools now completely banned federally by the Supreme Court because of the First Amendment?"

It was not banned at all. And the case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, was not argued in the Supreme Court but, rather, in US District Court in central Pennsylvania. Judge Jones' decision indicated that ID was not to be taught in science class as the evidence presented at trial led to the obvious conclusion that ID is not science at all as it has no empirical basis for its arguments and there are no studies to date that support it or, more importantly, that are designed in a such a way as to make it falsifiable. In other words, it doesn't meeI believe, however, that he explicitly stated that it is a topic suitable for discussion in a philosophy or history course. We shouldn't pretend that people don't support that view. It's just not science class material. Period.

If anything, the "freedom of religion" clause is likely what makes people think that they should be allowed to teach ID as science in the first place. The Constitution has no bearing on what is accepted science. It only addresses what people can say about it.

2. Arguments Against Evolution

Comment #81708 by Pi Guy on October 25, 2007 at 4:17 am

My friends, I think that you're missing the point here:

Ask them what their theory is: what does it predict, is it falsifiable, etc?

These two beliefs are contradictory...

If humans are not evolved beings then why do we have tail bones, appendixes, and wisdom teeth?

...is it not more reasonable to give credit to a theory (evolution) that is based at least on partial/many evidence rather than to a theory based on ZERO evidence (ID).

Twisted, brainwashed religionists pose these weak, unsupported arguments precisely because they aren't reasonable. To (nearly) quote House, M.D.:

"Rational arguments don't tend to have an impact on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people."

I fully support our cause but I fear we're fighting an upmountain battle here. Coupled with the tendency of religious people to have larger families than those who are not religious - Egads! I don't even like thinking about it!

3. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65170 by Pi Guy on August 23, 2007 at 4:52 am

PZ:

Sorry and, er, congrats.

At any rate, I just can't wait to see how you tear it apart!

4. Richard Dawkins: Atheist

Comment #51009 by Pi Guy on June 21, 2007 at 3:43 am

It's not an original thought but I think a good response to "disbelief" in evolution is to point out that you don't have the option of "believing" in gravity or in entropy. Objects fall earthward and heat redistributes itself without seeking the consent of the faithful and non-believers alike. Likewise, evolution occurs whether you believe it or deny it. If there was a story in Genesis that explained how heat energy came into being then the faithful would demonize Clausius along with Darwin.

Ever notice how nobody is ever referred to as a Clausiusist? (perhaps because it's difficult to say...) But Ms. "God is Love" asserts that rational thinking people sit in the pews of the Church of Scientism in an effort to relabel science as a religion. Does she think that by naming it so that she's reduced its findings to mere matters of faith? I think that's exactly why people of faith say it. They realize that it's becoming harder and harder to openly acknowledge many things that are central to religion and that many are beginning to question faith as a virtue. So, rather than producing evidence to support their claims they mount a PR campaign. But people are catching on.

One more thing: I never hear a person of the Hebrew persuasion use the label of "Judeo-Christian" when describing society or a set of values. Only Xians like McVety seem to think that that term has any tangible meaning, a feeble attempt at seeming inclusive when I suspect that the opposite is more likely the case. I've got to believe that there are Jewish people cringing in large numbers every time someone utters that phrase. Tolerance my ass!

They're circling the wagons, I tell you!

5. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50605 by Pi Guy on June 19, 2007 at 4:20 am

I used think that, if an argument simply makes sense, if the premises are sound, then everybody will just get it. That's the way I work, it makes sense, and I certainly don't have any sort of monopoly on common sense.

Therein lies the problem, you see. The people with whom we tend to have this argument have already demonstrated the lack of capacity for reason by believing in the first place! By the time that we engage them - heck, by the time that they arrive in kindergarten! - it's way past too late. Now what? I have hope that we can prevail over time but I must admit that I think that it's going to be a tremendous challenge.

Personally, I like the recent straight-ahead tactics proposed by RD et al as I think that the only way to break people loose of the bonds is to continually remind the religious of how irrational and intolerant they are. We need to continually remind them that articles of faith are NOT TRUE statements and, subsequently, cannot form the premise of any valid argument. Beliefs do not constitute support for any position in a debate such as land ownership in the Middle East, stem cell research, homosexual couples marrying and raising families, or assessing the fitness of political candidates for office.

And if it offends or embarrasses the faithful to have that pointed out to them - and, for any rational person, the realization that they've been harboring a litany of ridiculously improbable, empirically unsupported beliefs should be a complete embarrassment - then that's their problem. Keep at it and hope that every once in a while you find someone who can think for themselves. I think that you will.

I choose to be counted.

6. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42026 by Pi Guy on May 17, 2007 at 1:24 pm

There's no doubt that the world is warmer than it was in the mid-1800s. For what it's worth so late in the game:

- Evolution seems reasonable because the data from which the conclusion is drawn spans hundreds of millions of years.
> OTOH, we have ~150 years of reliable data from which to extrapolate (dangerous! see below) the AGW claim.

- Ever wonder why Greenland is so icy and Iceland is so green?
> I've heard that it has something to do with Leif Erikson trying to deceive people in Norway to bypass Iceland and come to Greenland but there is also some discussion in the book Collapse by Jared Diamond that seems to indicate that both countries would've been more akin to their namesake until the Little Ice Age ended c 1150 CE. Point: temperatures and climates can change.

- As RD notes, the thing that makes evolution so compelling is that it can be understood by most laypeople (if they'd just bother to do the research).
> I am a physicist working in chem/bio defense. We think about weather all the time. Among the aerosol scientists, meteorologists, fluid/aerodynamic engineers that I know, many admit that they've never been asked to find a closed-form solution to the Navier-Stokes Equation for compressible fluids. Why? Because it's unbelievably difficult, even for these people who occupy the upper strata of mathematical and scientific understanding, to do it. And, to be clear, I do not number myself among those in that layer.

** The point: while it is possible for most of us to understand the mechanisms of evolution, hardly any of us are qualified to even question the findings of any paper's authors on climate science, whether they support or dispute AGW. We just aren't that good and, as a result, accepting - or refuting - the AGW hypothesis takes an incredible amount of faith on our part.

While it is true that science-types tend to fall toward the liberal end of the spectrum, I know several real qualified scientists, noted above, who are at least skeptical due to the limited number of data points. Statisticians typically warn against extrapolating outside the limits of the collected data. If you pick a small enough interval on a sinusoidal function, you can find portions that are can be generalized as linear, parabolic, or any other shape. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone-Weierstrass_theorem) In other words, if this current warming trend - and I do not deny that there is evidence of warming - is part of some cyclic heating-and-cooling pattern correlated with sunspots, geothermal activity, or whatever, we may simply not have enough data to see it.

If you say, "Well it's better to do something - just in case" then let me remind you of RD's complete dismantling of Pascal's Wager in TGD. While inaction may rub some the wrong way, pretending that we know for certain that AGW is afact. Only those publishing in the field - on both sides - can declare anything with any authority on the matter. Let the scientists do the science. Isn't that what we keep telling the fundies when it comes to evolution?

7. The Colbert Report: The Intolerant

Comment #41957 by Pi Guy on May 17, 2007 at 11:06 am

Colbert is amazing! I love how in America the "fake news" is more accurate than the "real news"!

I'd agree except that Fox News is the "fake news" and Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert actually deliver the real news. There's no agenda there except to expose and ridicule those who have agendas. That's as Walter Cronkite/Edward Murrow as you can get.

8. Hitchens on Falwell

Comment #41832 by Pi Guy on May 17, 2007 at 6:45 am

I am amazed that Anderson Cooper let him say as much as he did.

I said the same thing on another blog yesterday. Cooper seems to understand that, when you conduct an interview, the point is to hear what the interviewee thinks. We already know what O'Reilly and Chris Matthews think so we don't need them to keep cutting in on the answers but they keep doing it as if they think that they're the stars. Oh, wait...

9. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41458 by Pi Guy on May 16, 2007 at 6:37 am

I had to stop after he wrote "It explains the mysteries of life." Huh?

How could even add anything meaningful to what CJ22 wrote.

10. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #41407 by Pi Guy on May 16, 2007 at 5:01 am

One practical problem for antireligious writers is the diversity of religious views.

In other words, there are many ways in which people come to believe ridiculously improbable things.

...and only after a long time decides to intervene and send his son: "Did he not care before?"

I've wondered about that, too.

Harris has made much of a survey that suggests that forty-four per cent of Americans believe that Jesus will return to judge mankind within the next fifty years. But, in 1998, a fifth of non-Christians in America told a poll for Newsweek that they, too, expected Jesus to return. What does Harris make of that?

I don't know about Harris, but I take it to mean that the chances of me bumping into a genuine whack-job on a daily basis is at least 1 in 5. That's way too may.

11. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #41077 by Pi Guy on May 15, 2007 at 1:24 pm

ugh - phrase sequence problem. Better keep the fatty for yourself...

12. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #41076 by Pi Guy on May 15, 2007 at 1:23 pm

@ CDG:

I think that there are some scientist right here on earth currently trying to create seperate universes as we speak. ... they would then be God like too...

Sure come on by sometime. I've got a few proto-universes going in the garage and a pre-pubescent one in the back yard. It's too big to keep in the garage now but the primordial black holes are starting to shape up nicely!

BTW: I'm not god-like but I've got a few old gods that I picked up at yard sales over the years. Free to a good home.

Like jayalenik said - don't bogart!


Any thoughts?

Yes. Just one ....... pass the dube

13. The Creation Museum: Prepare to believe

Comment #41044 by Pi Guy on May 15, 2007 at 11:52 am

"Exhibit B: (from Deuteronomy 5:12)
Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you."

Oh, I see. That explains the "Nine Commandents" display at the museum.

"Jerry Falwell just died."

I read that headline out loud at the office and my next door neighbor said, "I didn't know that being an asshole was fatal."

Personally, I think that the fact that Falwell lived this long is conclusive proof that there's no god. If there were, this idiot would've been struck down long ago.

14. One side can be wrong

Comment #40975 by Pi Guy on May 15, 2007 at 9:17 am

Intelligent Falling - hah!

Cleraly, that class in Differential Geometry was a waste of time while I was working toward my physics degree. More that that, students no longer need those massive, expensive three-semster General Physics texts. All they need is a one-page doc that says "god did it". Brilliant! *bumps Guinness bottle with Guinness drinking buddy*

Maybe that's how so many people get through the Liberty U Law School. Just take out all the hard stuff, repeat the statment "god said that was wrong", and you've got a job in the Dept of Justice!

15. Christopher Hitchens is Not Great

Comment #40942 by Pi Guy on May 15, 2007 at 8:26 am

Hitchens' seemingly ambiguous right/left positions highlight another problem: namely that there's more than one dimension to the Conservative/Liberal dichotomy.

For example, one could be fiscally conservative (ie: in favor of smaller government, against welfare and other publicly funded social programs) but socially liberal (ie: supporting the expansion of people's rights), a philosophy commonly referred to a Libertarianism. But that's even unreasonably limiting, as political ideologies exist in many dimensions, way more than the two even cited above.

Robbins's oversight is that, when he notes that

"...it bucks Hitchens' recent trend towards the right."

then follows later with

"...Hitchens' fall from grace for many of us on the left."

he's assuming that there is only one way to be a leftist/liberal ("our" - Robbins' - way) or conservative ("their" way) as though there's no room for people who actually think for themselves on the political spectrum.

I don't support the war but Hitchens has his reasons. Judging from his writing and recent interviews, it seems likely that he's spent far more time actually thinking it over than I. On the other hand, I fully endorse his view of religion. The point is, Hitchens is an extremely smart man who spends a lot of time researching and thinking big thoughts, more than most of us (see American Idol, Paris Hilton), and should be given credit - nay, extolled - for exercising his right to Free Thought (the main precursor for memes expressed by exercising our freedoms of speech, assembly, and the press) and challenging people to think.

16. Christopher Hitchens Explains It All for You: Move over, Sam Harris; another atheist wants the pulpit

Comment #40934 by Pi Guy on May 15, 2007 at 8:12 am

...as when Hitchens writes that "many religions force themselves to think of the birth canal as a one-way street, and even the Koran treats the Virgin Mary with reverence." (It must have seemed funny at the time.)

It is funny if you take off the virgin-colored glasses of your faith, my good Reverend.

17. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #40891 by Pi Guy on May 15, 2007 at 7:00 am

"Hannity stated that he had read off the argumnents ... he certainly hasn't understood them."

I believe that deep down every believer knows that there deceiving themselves but can't or won't admit it, even to themselves. It would require admitting that they were wrong and, in their mind, take a great amount of work to adjust. Simply put, I think that they're just lazy.

It's been said that the most common application of reason is to affirm what we already believe. Nowhere is that statement more true than when applied to religion.

18. Pope: God Will Punish Drug Dealers

Comment #40370 by Pi Guy on May 14, 2007 at 7:31 am

"I would think that Brasil and Colombia would do much better if cocaine was just legalised"

I totally agree. If you're encouraged to delude yourself with unreasonable beliefs while sober then there should be no reason why you should be prohibited from observing and evaluating the natural world when deluded by being under the influence.

Personally, I suspect that religions - or, at least, gods/supernatural beings - actually resulted from a combination of going three days without eating while chasing the herds, 20 hours without fresh water, and throwing a few plants with mildly toxic chemicals in them on the fire.

If you want to experience something that seems not-of-this-world try this: skip one whole night of sleep then go out and run a few miles (or kilometers those of you in the metric system) and write down everything that you felt and saw. I suggest that the results would be something very close to supernatural.

19. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40360 by Pi Guy on May 14, 2007 at 7:16 am

The greatest shame of this whole matter is that RD needs to write this letter in the first place.

You are doing a great service to the entire world and, after 20+ years of sheepishly acknowledging that I am not a believer, I have been inspired to spread the word! Thanks!

20. The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Comment #40354 by Pi Guy on May 14, 2007 at 6:55 am

Awesome article!

@ devolved:

"Come on use you brains! Critique Stuart Burgess article."

I see. When I tore my ACL 4 years ago, and the doctors made me walk on it for over five weeks (40 days, actually - just like the Flood!) because they needed the swelling to subside and wanted me to do some pre-op rehab to strengthen the joint, I wasn't actually walking! All those blood sacrifices to Cthulu over the years must've paid off!

I couldn't run, go up steps, or squat but I could absolutely walk and nobody could even tell that I was hurt - even on Monday when I went to work (hurt it the Sat before).

Irreducibly complex? I think not.

21. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38739 by Pi Guy on May 9, 2007 at 4:52 am

@ RichardHarty and Logicel:

"I think if we stopped treating religion as a science and more like an art...and instead used it as creative discussion and exploration it could be a vehicle for transformation and growth. And maybe the comfort could be far more meaningful if it didn't have all the strings attached." [my emphasis]

And that there's the lynchpin. As science continues to push the boundaries of both reality and our imagination, asking questions about what lies beyond fuels both creative new research opportunities and hungry, existentially-motivated minds. But - and this is a very BIG BUT - religion is "all the strings attached". Without the strings, it is only, at best, a marginally reliable, proponent-influenced source of history.

Religion comes with a set of assumptions that, much as the Pythagorean Theorem starts with a statement somethig like "In the plane...", without which, the whole thing unravels. Xtianity likewise comes with the proviso that you must believe Jesus is the son of god or you can't get the rest of the philosophy. All other religions include a set of, at the very least, dubious "givens" as well just to be in the game. How does having to make space - nay, waste space - in our psyches for beings and events that are statistically unlikely further the creative process.

IMO, this wasted space and energy only serves to divert resources that could, instead, be used to imagine. (props to John Lennon)

22. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38322 by Pi Guy on May 7, 2007 at 3:30 pm

That is a very fine article.

> On the subject of RD's et al tone ("charming as fingernails dragged slowly down a chalkboard") and its impact on the "core radical" message:

For Regular Joes like us, it's not so tough to keep our cool in the comparitively few real-life situations in which we are confronted by believers on matters of faith, god, etc. And while I've certainly had a heated exchange or few with relatives/co-workers/friends, the circumstances are not typically conducive to engaging in a serious, hot button issue debate beyond both sides firmly stating their position. ("Never talk about politics or religion with your father-in-law.") But, in most cases in civil society, once we know what makes someone feel uncomfortable, threatened, or insulted, we tend to try to avoid doing things that provoke the people we know and love, despite their delusions.

Dr. Dawkins, OTOH, could've simply rested on his Selfish Gene/Blind Watchmaker laurels, shaking hands and kissing babies as he hopped from one cushy, lucrative speaking engagement to another. Instead, he's chosen to use his powers for good, at considerable risk to his significant celebrity and potential financial considerations, and use the platform that his scientific expertise and experience and masterful writing has earned him to challenge all people to employ reason – a human trait whose impact is orders of magnitude greater than that of the opposable thumb! – and recognize and acknowledge that the seat of morality, of legal and civil discourse, and of life itself is not some Toga-Wearing Hippie in Birkenstocks in the Sky but, rather, it is MAN. And when you write books, go on TV and radio, etc. and boldly deliver the "…whole, crazy, fanatical package"...

"If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so" [my emphasis]

...well, then, you're going to piss a few people off even if what you say is right. But being right doesn't matter to people who've got a vested interest in perpetuating the fraud or just plain don't want to think about things that hard. And, eventually, when – and I don't know how to put this delicately – people keep asking the same dumb questions and making the same tired assertions and challenge you to address them again, and again, and again, as if this time they'll make sense and are somehow valid or even remotely convincing and seething and frothing at the mouth as they do it, you're bound to lose your cool once in a while. I wouldn't last three audience questions, personally…

It is MAN (by which I mean HUMAN) who decides what is good and what is bad. We decide what is good and what is bad. And, if the origin of life and what, if anything, happens after we die is to ever be known, I'll bet the farm that it'll be a scientist like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or some other clear-headed, objective observer of nature that figures it out way before some Snake Oil Salesman peddling in Ignorance and Fear.

23. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37867 by Pi Guy on May 6, 2007 at 4:08 am

Worst of all, Tipler has name recognition as his General Physics text book has just about replaced the previous, classic GP text by Halliday and Resnick, the standard in undergrad science and engineering courses. The perfect platform for spreading the word.

[obvious logical fallacy] Argument from authority - even with all his cool science buzzwords thrown in - does not a true premise make. [/obvious logical fallacy]

If his "proof" is so convincing, then why aren't all the other science guys, for whom all the math/fizix is not beyond, endorsing it? I think that I know why. It's been said that the most common application of logic is to justify what one already believes. I believe that Dr. Tipler has just provided support for that assertion.

24. Pundit Christopher Hitchens picks a fight in book, 'God is Not Great'

Comment #35847 by Pi Guy on April 29, 2007 at 3:51 am

"But what is the point of writing such a book? Surely, it will change no mind"

I think that, in addition to honing the arguments in our memepool, one practical reason for writing such books is that it helps dispell the "This is what everybody thinks" myth that - especially American - Christians seem think prevails here urging more than a few quiet, closet atheists out as well as providing a source of support the vast number of young people who are currently questioning, if not challenging, the beliefs and customs that their parents have attempted to bequeath to them.

But, we clearly have long way to go. I was on the plane the other day and overheard a guy say "Well, 97% of the population is believes Jesus is the son of god but apparently the majority doesn't rule in a democracy anymore (speaking about the laws of the land not being the same as Biblical law)." Aside from the stat used to support this, uh, argument being greater than it actually is by at least one sixth, the poor, gullible man also clearly isn't aware of "shall establish no religion" statement - despite the fact that the greatest majority of citizens are the Christian, the government cannot assign favored status to any faith. I won't even bother going into the "majority rules" BS.

Suffice it to say that there are a lot of people who need to critially consider the works of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al.

25. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32718 by Pi Guy on April 18, 2007 at 5:06 am

I often go to Barnes & Noble, grab a coffee, and "preview" a book. I'll give this one a perusal or two and report my findings here. I've read LtaCN twice since Dec so, if it has any meat (which I doubt) or attempts even a poor point-counterpoint presentation, I'll share that here. If it doesn't actually address any Sam Harris's points - which I find rather likely - I will let you know that as well.

While I don't really wish to financially support their cause, I don't object too greatly buying the book in order to read and critique it. Much as it is important to know the Bible - and I never cease to be amazed that so many of us know the Bible more thoroughly than the so many of the faithful - these books are typically the same old claptrap, often without even the most modest attempt to repackage it. But, as it still fails to trip the BS-ometer of so, so many, it serves as a reminder of what we're really up against here. And, as was noted above, book sales are some indication of its impact, if not its content.

I'll let you know what I find soon.

26. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32512 by Pi Guy on April 17, 2007 at 8:34 am

I think that you've all hit the major point, to which I can only add:

"Freedom of religion - my ass!"

27. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30440 by Pi Guy on April 8, 2007 at 3:51 am

"By religion, I mean any faith-based set of values that makes exclusive claims for its truth and explains the mysteries of the universe."

That kills me every time! What part of observing the data objectively and drawing a rational conclusion based upon the evidence or, even, recognizing that the experts in a given field are actually the accepted authority in said field and, being a rational, educated person, I've decided that their conclusions are consistent with the evidence that they've presented along with their explanation (do the boys over at the Disco Inst even realize that this is how science, not to mention debate, is actually done? Apparently not; this bozo similarly chose not to provide any support for his lame arguments – again) even remotely overlaps with faith-based, as in, I'm done trying - or, more likely, have never tried - to discover a cogent, natural explanation for this set of phenomenon and hereby hand all my intellectual reasoning powers – that which truly makes me human – over to (insert name of favorite sky fairy here)?

I wonder what the market would be for a faith-based auto repair shop would be? "Well, see, your car left Detroit in the Year of the Snake, so..." or "Its chakras are misaligned along the drive train and need to be re-balanced" don't seem like good motivations to seek real solutions like replacing a water pump or swapping in new plugs. I suspect that no car owner would find that their vehicle's performance had improved after such "repairs" are executed. If they were, the steam engine would've been invented many centuries earlier as it wouldn't have required knowledge of such faith-based fields of inquiry as thermodynamics or mechanical engineering. If I want to stop being sick, I go to a physician. If I want my toilet repaired, I call a plumber. Why do the religious - especially Christians! - think that, with their track record on such matters, any contemporary thinking person would seek their "expertise" in addressing moral dilemmas or determining the age of the universe?

Never mind - don't answer that...

28. Creation Science 101

Comment #28106 by Pi Guy on March 28, 2007 at 3:07 am

I'm going to start working on both of those for my next party. Hilarious!

*falsetto* Jerry Falwell's God - Huh!

29. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23864 by Pi Guy on March 3, 2007 at 8:27 am

To paraphrase a quote from TGD, I'm not sure that theology, as opposed to religious history or ancient literature, is even qualifies as being worthy of academic pursuit.

MiloC says: "Theology is something that we all do to some extent." If that's true - and even as an atheist, I believe that it is - then there's no need for Dawkins to have had any training in the field to comment on it as opposed to, say, evolutionary biology. (Funny thing: being unqualified in that field has not deterred anti-evolutionists from weighing in as though they were thoroughly knowledgable experts...)

More to the point, Dawkins foresaw the potential criticisms in his lack of theological scholarship and sidesteps it - deftly, as I see it - by asserting that theology is something that cannot be known or even studied and is, thus, not a "subject" at all. You may not agree with this assumption but, once you appreciate that that's his point-of-view, it's not possible to both declare yourself objective and unconvinced by his argument.

30. Presentation on Atheism

Comment #22722 by Pi Guy on February 21, 2007 at 10:59 am

That was great. Keep up the good work in Dixie!

I've bookmarked Mr. Hillbilly's site and expect to be a frequent reader.

31. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #20842 by Pi Guy on February 6, 2007 at 6:33 pm

"There is no empirical evidence that people regard God, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy as being in the same category...but I've yet to meet somebody who has started to believe in Santa Claus later on in life."

I see. Since people believe god is in a different category than Santa Claus it's a foregone conclusion that one is real and one is not. Does this somehow seem like a rational defense of his position?

If you're still believeing in Santa at 10 or 11, the other kids will make fun of you until you stop believing. I believe that in the not too distant future the same thing will happen when the kids find out that another kid believes in god.

32. The Chronicles of Kearnya, or, Principles of Evolution Observed in the Field at Kearny High School

Comment #20554 by Pi Guy on February 4, 2007 at 5:09 am

Here's a novel idea: record ALL classroom lectures! - You want to know if a teacher is being effective, get it on tape.
- You want to convince a parent that a student is lazy or unruly ("Not my little Johny. He helps old ladies cross the street and take abandoned kitties to the shelter!"), get it on tape.
- You want know if a History teacher is a wackjob creationist contributing to the emotional beatdown of minority students, get it on tape.

33. Richard Dawkins explains his latest book

Comment #116 by Pi Guy on September 22, 2006 at 1:39 pm

I especially like the argument against labeling children as Christian, Muslim, or anything else. It really does come pretty close to abuse. It's ridiculous to assume that kids are responsible enough to comprehend the choice of something as large as Life, the Universe, and Everything (uh, religion) merely by sitting in a pew and yet they must wait until (near) adulthood to vote, drive, or consume alcohol.

My two daughters have never been told to pray or worship and, as a consequence, they don't seem be be missing anything. If they decide later on in life to practice some particular faith, that's fine. It should be their decision. But I do think that, should they choose that, I'd be disappointed that they'd be willing to suspend rational thinking in order to fit in or in an effort to gain some sense of false security. And I'm heading to Barnes & Noble as soon as I leave work to look for your new book!