1. Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

Comment #165237 by Cwazy Cat Lady on April 21, 2008 at 8:43 am

I'm glad to see the NY Times devoting very little space to this film and using this short piece to expose this 'documentary' for what it is: pure ideological propaganda.

"the only expulsion here is of reason itself"

2. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164989 by Cwazy Cat Lady on April 20, 2008 at 11:03 pm

At times it is depressing to ponder one's life in a country in which a film like Expelled might reach more viewers than proper science education in schools...

While we, as defenders of reason and atheists, can respond to these attacks and continually act defensively, we must start becoming more proactive about fostering critical thinking in American youth.

Ben Stein is probably a lost cause. I, though, am concerned about the generations who will soon inherit the earth and this country...

3. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #160701 by Cwazy Cat Lady on April 14, 2008 at 9:45 am

That was enjoyable. Too bad it wasn't a longer segment.

I wonder if that little website plug has brought more people to the site... Josh?

4. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #135324 by Cwazy Cat Lady on February 28, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Bunting's primary concern seemed to be that 'people get along.'
I agree that peace among nations and individuals is a noble goal. But how does she get away with laying claim to that cause via her religious tolerance? Is religious tolerance actually leading to greater harmony among humankind? I don't think it is, ironic as that might sound.

It seems clear to me that religious beliefs and other dogmas are if not the greatest, then one of the greatest, sources of divisiveness among people across the globe.

Yet another excuse why we need to be calling on our neighbors to join us in allowing reason to guide our thoughts, actions and policies... Only there can we truly find common ground!

5. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #133834 by Cwazy Cat Lady on February 26, 2008 at 11:13 pm

oh geez! Poor PZ. This Simmons guy is so deceitful, insincere, and downright slimy. And the radio hosts are total nincompoops.

Strawman after strawman. To say that Biology departments don't allow for any discussion about topics of evolution... And that the 'door is closed to talk about "issues". What issues? Please!!!

We need to create a service corps of young science educators. It is so sad that this kind of debate happens in this country every single day--it all stems from a failure in early education/the home to help children develop critical thinking skills.

(*fuming*)

6. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #133821 by Cwazy Cat Lady on February 26, 2008 at 10:28 pm

@ Warning_No_God

Gould's book that is mentioned is _Wonderful Life_.
It's about the Burgess Shale in BC.

7. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86816 by Cwazy Cat Lady on November 10, 2007 at 8:01 am

"When it rains - and it will eventually - he'll have his testimonial of God's power. What a putz!"

Quite!!

Let's force him to put a time constraint on that prayer--how about by tomorrow? What's he willing to bet...?

8. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77172 by Cwazy Cat Lady on October 8, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Wow, what a disappointing decision on the part of the Netherlands. How can they possibly give up and in on this??? I'll be watching to see what happens.

9. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77168 by Cwazy Cat Lady on October 8, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Sam is right. We must challenge faith for sure but not just because there is no evidence of God, but because we are concerned for a larger goal: creating a culture that values critical thinking, reason and skepticism. By nurturting such a society we would anyways deal a heavy blow to the faith-based religions of the world...

When I read Sam Harris I wonder why no one has ever said it before... It all seems so utterly CLEAR!!

10. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #77165 by Cwazy Cat Lady on October 8, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Time and Time again I read something that Sam has written or said and I am astounded at how much I agree with him. I cannot understand the uproar over this in the atheistic communtiy. After all, we need to keep sight of the broader goal--advancing the use of reason and the ideals of the Enlightenment. Fighting religious faith is one part, and it is an important one--perhaps one of the first fornts of this battle, but there is a larger war we are waging that affects how humanity will face its (uncertain) future: will we face it with the best tools we have--our minds and ability to think and rationalise--or something else?

Thanks be to Sam for articulating the disccussions occurring in my head all the time... Alas, I am not crazy.

11. US Congressman Holds No God-Belief

Comment #25384 by Cwazy Cat Lady on March 12, 2007 at 8:40 pm

I sent an email, thanking him. I'll be curious to see if this makes any headlines whatsoever...

12. Why Children Love Their Security Blankets

Comment #25048 by Cwazy Cat Lady on March 9, 2007 at 10:31 pm

I can attest to this. I don't think it is that weird, though, really. An object that has experienced something with you, reminds you of soemthing, was touched by someone special or whatever is NOT identical to an otherwise materially identical copy...

Maybe I am misunderstanding this, but I think it is somehow sensible that people attach value to things that age, that are familiar, etc..

My most recent example: Someone came into our house one night and stole many small items of value. One such item was my iPod, which had been a gift. I replaced the iPod, even upgraded a bit (they had added a better battery by then and 20 gigs), but I still feel somewhat sad about not having the other one, which was a gift.

I don't think it is due to any imagined 'essence.' The physical property they allude to is simply 'history'--which is real. Objects are more than their visual physical components.
I'm not sure whether their study is really lending any new ideas on this phenomenon, but maybe I am missing the point?

13. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25046 by Cwazy Cat Lady on March 9, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Okay, I gave it a chance, but I had to stop listening once the guy said that eugenics was a 'scientific theory'. Eugenics is not a scientific theory! It was a collection of bad social policy proposals that proponents attempted to shore up with a scientific argument. And you know what? It failed. It failed because science has nothing to say about 'should' but rather what 'is'. It certainly did not determine who is or is not worthy of reproducing. Please. And thankfully, as science is revealing, there do seem to be some universals when it comes to human morality. One consequence of these moral inclinations is that the vast majority of people worldwide find unwillful sterilization abhorrent and cruel. Science did not play a role in supporting eugenics. It can shed light, however on the nature of human morality, which in this case, for example, the Bible could have offered no explanation (did 1st century writers and their predecessors know what sterilization was???). An innate human 'moral compass', if you will, ultimately caused eugenics to go away.
This guy is SO FULL OF IT!

14. In Loving Memory of William Luke Ashton: July 10th 1989 - Dec 25th 2006

Comment #22248 by Cwazy Cat Lady on February 13, 2007 at 5:20 pm

The religious claim a monopoly on immortality and a wonderful afterlife, yet it is through the people we have touched and our contributions to the world that we 'live' on in any sense!!

What a lovely way to remember your son. My condolences to you and your family.

(My donation, via paypal,is from an 'SNW' from Seattle, WA)

15. Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

Comment #22006 by Cwazy Cat Lady on February 12, 2007 at 9:07 am

I'm not going to challenge his right to the degree, if he did all the work and can defend it. His personal views don't really enter the framework, I don't think--not for degree granting. In terms of what he now does with it, well, it may be a different story...

It's clear that for this student, and for his community, no amount of evidence or anything, it appears, will cause them to examine and abandon beliefs, even when they contradict reality.

It's now just a matter of having made a choice to be stubborn... and probably (in this kid's mind) going to any length to "help the cause of his Lord."

16. Out of Africa, in the Gut

Comment #21895 by Cwazy Cat Lady on February 11, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Fascinating. I wonder what kinds of implications there might be in terms of strains of this bacterium and incidence of stomach cancer and ulcers... I wonder if that is the next step in the research.

I agree with the above poster about how all the small advances we are making--the increased pixelation (so to speak) of our picture of the world is reinforcing the grander theories and 'outlines' of how it all works and came to be...

Very cool. We truly live in a great era. For those who thrive on learning and understanding, it has never been a better time.

17. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21670 by Cwazy Cat Lady on February 10, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Empty Al:

On this website, while I've only been hanging around for a short time, I've noted that many people posting remarks talk about 'Richard' as if he is a personal friend. He may very well be, but the risk of personality cult raises its ugly head.
There is no validity in exchanging one personality for another, just as vicarious belief (or non-belief), is equally invalid. Just as faith (should you require it), should be a personal appropriation, the atheist should probably be able to maintain their position based mainly on an internally developed view. Sure, the construction of arguments for and against faith are valid and useful in verbalising tough concepts.

Something about the very nature of atheists and their rabid independence (and self-awareness) makes me doubt that they are as prone as the average person to cults of personalities and to persuasion by celebrity.

The enthusiasm of people here in support of Richard Dawkins is a response to his courage to step up to the plate and defend an unpopular minority worldview on behalf of thousands (millions, really) who have ingrained the culture of 'pc' acceptance of religious belief trumping reason and secularism in the public square. Among attacks against him as an atheist (which correspond to being attacks against many of us), we've witnessed MANY (verbal) personal attacks directed towards him over the last months--the above tirade being a good example. In this case, people are showing some solidarity. As for referring to Dr. Dawkins often, well, this is a website in his name, and he has made an effort to respond to the posters/participants in the forum, and in these comment sections, as well. He may not be a friend, but he's an ally of sorts that people feel akin to.

I don't think people are confused about reality: the vast majority of people on here do not know him personally and I don't think they have deluded themselves for one moment to believe that. But you have to understand that Richard Dawkins is unique in that he has revealed much about his (private) values and opinions and opened up his every word and move to scrutiny--so there is a sense of connection that people can make to him more readily than the average public figure.

In regards to borrowing arguments or what have you... As I alluded to above, I doubt many people have been 'converted to atheism' on the grounds that someone famous is/was an atheist. You have to cut people some slack: defending atheism is a real challenge--the semantics and thought process combined are complex; throw in some impassioned attack by a true believer who despises you (to the point of wishing you ill) and it can be very difficult to communicate your well-thought out reasons.

I'll venture to say that in the current situation, in which atheism is not very popular, you either have to be an independent thinker (or, in the red states, a masochist) to be an out-of-the-closet atheist.

18. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21545 by Cwazy Cat Lady on February 9, 2007 at 10:42 pm

Richard Dawkins, England's grumpiest atheist, has a wonderfully brash way of dealing with this. Here's how science would sort out this muddleheaded way of thinking: everyone else just needs to get out of the way, and let the real scientists, like himself, get to work.

Get to work? Shoot, Dawkins has made a choice to sacrifice possible research on his behalf in order to share what humankind already knows with the wider (ignorant) world! I'm not sure he's trying to get people off the scientists' collective back so they can "get to work". I think he's trying to be inclusive, if anything.

The above comment is a grossly innaccurate portrayl of Dr. Dawkin's attitude.

Having read Dawkins' books and listened to him speak on public media, I am not sure how Mr. McGrath comes to such an assessment. My only explanation is that he has some serious personal grievances against his colleague. Ironically, and in my opinion, this characterization of RD reveals a whole lot more to me about Alistair McGrath than about anyone else. It's revealing enough that I feel kind of embarrassed for him or uncomfortable (as if I overheard him pouting or ranting to a trusted confidant). ((Is he feeling a little remorseful that he made some wrong choice in life when it comes to career/goals?))

19. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21542 by Cwazy Cat Lady on February 9, 2007 at 10:22 pm

Owen Gingerich, Harvard University's distinguished astronomer, published God's Universe. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, brought out The Language of God. Both these scientists, with a long track record of peer-reviewed publications, made the case for belief in God as the best and most satisfying explanation of the way things are.

Okay so by Mr. McGrath's logic, if you happen to be a scientist who has published peer-reviewed papers on any scientific topic, you are now an authority on the existence of God.

This is exactly the logic that the stubborn religious fall back on: Let's argue on your turf by citing a couple of scientists who have contributed in their specific fields. If they believe in a God, then there must be good reason to believe in one. In fact, let's just take count. If 50.1% of scientists happen to believe in a God, well then it must be true!

What ridiculousness!

20. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21357 by Cwazy Cat Lady on February 8, 2007 at 10:12 pm

Bravo to the individuals who took the time to write to Hunter, Schlussel and Paula Zahn ("Paula Tooth" in German... :-))

This kind of response would not have been nearly as concerted/significant were it not for the recent developments due to Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and others... including our good friend (ranted about during the panel debate) who so boldly challenged the Pledge of Allegiance. I can't forget to mention, of course, of course, the large numbers of individuals who have purchased the books, talked to others, joined an online community, and in some sense, begun a movement.

I am happy to see this solidarity here as a response to this retarded CNN segment. On the other hand, I am a bit depressed about the segnment itself. Of course it was irritating, but on top of that, I think this was the first real piece of evidence that I have seen that we are not full of crap and Richard is not full of crap: athiests ARE hated as a collective... by an ignorant majority.

The crazy irony: they don't even know who we are! They know nothing about atheism! If they only were aware of the what the average atheist really looks like!!! (But of course they're not since we've been a long silent bunch).

As someone else said, we really cannot afford to be silent anymore.

I'm young, but I can say that until more recently, I was very isolated--there was this invisible barrier between me and everyone around all because of my worldview, which I rarely revealed to people. It's SO REFRESHING to have like-minded folk to talk to!!

Thank you, you all, for speaking!