451. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #52734 by Logicel on June 28, 2007 at 12:48 am

Criticism is often directed at atheists for being alienated, lonely, nihilistic, etc. Though atheists do often emphasize a lack of belief in God, Jillete, with his positive, unabashedly life-enhancing and appreciative stance, is paving the way for a positive approach to atheism, without forming a church. Jillete is pointing out that once God-bothering is out of the way, one can REALLY focus on living to the fullest.

His stance reminds me of my own response to a Catholic boss for whom I worked about a decade ago in London. We were talking about my atheism, and he just looked shocked and said, "How could this just be it? This can't be it!" I was just as shocked as he was and said, "How can this not just be it? It is all so much, so very rich and fulfilling, how can you expect that there could possibly be more than this wonderful reality of life?"

As for Jillete, he is big, loud, and unrelenting. Gotta love him.

452. Journey Into Islam

Comment #52457 by Logicel on June 27, 2007 at 4:13 am

Another quote from the intro of Swarup's critical book on Islam:

A new fundamentalism is sweeping over the Muslim world, throwing up leaders like Khomeini and Mu�ammar Qaddafi. Wherever it triumphs, dictatorship comes in its wake. Fundamentalism and authoritarianism are twins.

According to some thinkers, this fundamentalism is nothing but a search by Muslims for self-identity and self-assertion. It is a weapon of self-defense, derived from the available symbols of their culture, against the materialist and bourgeois values of the West. But on calm reflection, it is also something more; it is also their dream of recapturing the grandeur of their old imperial days. Islam is by nature fundamentalist; and this fundamentalism in turn is aggressive in character. Islam claims to have defined human thought and behavior for all time to come; it resists any change, and it feels justified in imposing its beliefs and behavior patterns on others.

453. Journey Into Islam

Comment #52452 by Logicel on June 27, 2007 at 4:05 am

82abhilash, Thanks for those great links--I have been wanting to make the effort to become more familiarized with Islam.

Here's an excerpt from the intro in the book written by Ram Swarup (a critic of Islam, Christianity and communism):

To the infidel with his critical faculty still intact, the HadIs is a collection of stories, rather unedifying, about a man, rather all too human. But the Muslim mind has been taught to look at them in a different frame of mind. The believers have handled, narrated, and read them with a feeling of awe and worship.

454. Germany imposes ban on Tom Cruise

Comment #52089 by Logicel on June 26, 2007 at 6:02 am

Germany has banned the makers of Tom Cruise's new movie from filming at military sites in the country because the actor is a Scientologist.
_______

Perhaps someone who lives in Germany can respond to this article?

Apparently, the film crew has not even as of yet asked for permission to film in Germany, and the German Defence Ministry is jumping the gun and ensuring that any possible filming will not be done at military sites? The German Defence Ministry can decide as any other owner of property can, regarding in allowing filming done on said property. And no reason is necessary to be given, and yet the German Defence Ministry is clearly giving the reason. Very interesting.

455. God Hates the World

Comment #52080 by Logicel on June 26, 2007 at 5:34 am

What is the worse insult that can be thrown at a man? What caused Zidane to head butt a player on the opposing soccer team? By insinuating that their mother or sister is somehow capable of having sex. Though the insult is often graphically cased in deviate and disgusting sexual terms to drive the point home, it is the very idea that a mother or sister is somehow carnal that carries the insulting weight, not the more whimsical embellishing of the insult.

I see a similarity in Robertson's horror of criticism that is pointing to the glaringly obvious, that the God that he believes in is a very nasty one. Robertson has made his religious concepts to be perfectly idealistic, that his God is everlasting love, and then us atheists come along and disabuse him of his precious 'truth'--that his ideal conception of God is as foolish as thinking that a mother or sister is not carnal. Robertson then continually 'head butts' us.

456. God Hates the World

Comment #52037 by Logicel on June 26, 2007 at 2:04 am

David Robertson is upset--not by the religious connection of these nutjobs at WBC to his own religion via the Bible--but by the posting of this video at Dawkins.Net! He is not upset that faith without any evidence leads to all kinds of dangerous nonsense--his kind is not overtly dangerous but still with its insistence on regarding belief without evidence as being a positive boon for humanity, his brand of nonsense still packs a deleterious punch, resulting in divisive bickering, unjust treatment for others, like homosexuals, etc.

It has been pointed out that Dawkins has NOTHING to do with the management of this site that bears his name. He, in fact, is also an user of this site, like the rest of us, meaning that he contributes to the content, by commenting. Some of his articles are posted here, but so are other commenter's entries, like Blackford's and Coughlan's.

I have mentioned previously that it is disheartening that Robertson's stubbornness, which if was able to be channeled positively, could do more good than in its presently manifested form, if Robertson could somehow be liberated from his rigid, religious frame of thinking. I am reminded of the psychological bit of wisdom that says that your best virtue can become your worst vice.

His stubbornness is digging his religious heels in deep, trying to discredit atheism through all manners of inanity from accusing Dawkins to be an atheist leader with us commenters as being his flock to suggesting censorship of articles to be posted. He apparently sincerely believes--since he keeps doing the same approach over and over again--that this constitutes defending what he regards as the only, true grasp of that slippery, ever changing beast, religion.

As a person with some training in psychology, this psychological aspect of Robertson's stubbornness by spending a huge amount of time posting at various threads at this site for over an half of a year now, getting absolutely nowhere, spinning his increasingly threadbare tires in sand, has been and unfortunately probably will continue to be, an interesting behavior to observe.

And of course, I usually learn interesting information from atheist commenters, whether if it is some bit of science or bible excerpts, in their often humorous responses to him.

457. His word

Comment #51516 by Logicel on June 23, 2007 at 8:06 am

Since this article has been posted in two places at this site, it has two threads going at the moment--so here's my post from the other thread in a parallel universe:

First time I have ranked an article below average.

Baddiel, do yourself and us a favor and take a long vacation doing something you like, probably nothing. Just do nothing for a week or two. You sound super burnt out.

Not only do not take any books with you, but have some needy group come and haul away all those burdensome books, yet unread, ticking away like a literary/cultural bomb, on your groaning bookshelves. They may appreciate them more than you do or ever will.

Damg, I need a vacation after reading this, it gave me a bout of fatigue.

458. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51515 by Logicel on June 23, 2007 at 7:56 am

First time I have ranked an article below average.

Baddiel, do yourself and us a favor and take a long vacation doing something you like, probably nothing. Just do nothing for a week or two. You sound super burnt out.

Not only do not take any books with you, but have some needy group come and haul away all those burdensome books, yet unread, ticking away like a literary/cultural bomb, on your groaning bookshelves. They may appreciate them more than you do or ever will.

Damg, I need a vacation after reading this, it gave me a bout of fatigue.

459. In the name of the Father

Comment #51468 by Logicel on June 23, 2007 at 2:52 am

Harries wrote: Hitchens has written a book that is seriously harmful, not because of his attack on religion, some of it deserved, but because he will divert people away from the real problem: which is we human beings, both religious and irreligious.
________

Harries seemed to have read Hitchens book, but not to understand it much. Hitchens often focuses on our limitations as humans, but Hitchens, unlike Harries apparently, does not consider religious concepts to be anything else but man-made. In that regard, Hitchens is focusing on humanity and its problems. Hitchens is willing and able not to pussy foot around the delicate toes of the religious but stomps on them instead--uncomfortable for sure, but not divisive as Hitchens and other atheists are loudly saying that religious believers can keep on believing, as long as they keep it to themselves. But of course, religious believers tend not to keep their religion to themselves.

The religious believers are the ones who need to learn how not to be divisive, and religious apologists are allowing this problem to fester because they refuse to grasp the core issue, which is non-evidential beliefs and the power and arbitrary handing out the status of virtue to faith based on no solid evidence at all.

These moderate religious officials, like the author of this article, are in a pitiable situation, typical of religious affiliation, torn and dysfunctionally pulled/pushed in opposing directions--wanting to help as their vocation demands, but with tools which are dangerously outdated and blunt. Builders of obsolete horse buggies either learned other occupations or became unemployed. What can these moderate religious officials do to take the place of their 'vocation'? Just what does a bishop do? They talk a lot, should they become TV talk hosts?

460. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51233 by Logicel on June 22, 2007 at 2:51 am

Whereas we employed fire (literally), you have access to firewalls and anti-virus software that conceivably could relegate most correspondence and written communications infected with the God virus to the cultural trash bin.
________

I was going to list some of the best commentary, but you gals/guys outdid yourselves this time, there are just too many excellent comments to recommend--you know who you are!

Regarding the above quote, actually what the Net is allowing is for non-believers to get together from all over the world and forge a sense of community and to challenge and criticize religious superstitions in a potent and effective manner. This quote also implies a fear of science similar to the image of a mad scientist--that some early opponents had of genetic engineering like my mum-in-law did--being in his lab concocting a dog with a man's head all by his little mad scientist self in his little old lab.

Apparently, we should not be afraid of people concocting dangerous religious notions that are to be arbitrarily respected and whose proliferation be paid for by taxes just because they are religious concepts, but we are supposed to be realistically frightened of mad scientists who are just panting and waiting to rule the world under their cruel and self-serving thumbs.

In our household--one member being a seasoned software engineer who I must now watch suspiciously as a prospective information Tsar filled to the brim with the insane desire to control what information I may access--we use firewalls and anti-virus software to protect our computers against malfunctioning, not to censor what we can access, but to allow us to access freely what we decide is worthwhile to access.

The Cardinal and his ilk were crazed arsonists, while programmers who make firewalls and anti-virus software are the courageous firemen putting out the fire of spam and viruses that would consume a computer's ability to be a link to the free flow of information.

461. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51227 by Logicel on June 22, 2007 at 2:12 am

Dr Benway, your comment 52/51134 was hilarious--you made my day. Your whole parody was perfect but here is my favorite bit:

This is my point: I am like Mothra!

Godzilla thinks he knows so much. But he will learn. Mothra points to the way-back machine. Everyone sees a fuzzy picture of Mothra eating books and heretics. How awful!

Off topic: Mothra name drop "Galileo." Mothra get around.

Back on topic: Watch Mothra acting all smart. But no one loves Mothra. He is not sexy. Godzilla now should be getting the subtle implication of all this. Maybe Godzilla is feeling a little sad.

Good time for Mothra to cleverly flatter Godzilla by saying "Don't let Sam Harris have your Godzilla powers, for he cannot handle them!"

Mothra then change the subject abruptly.

HILARIOUS!!!!!

462. Richard Dawkins: Atheist

Comment #51010 by Logicel on June 21, 2007 at 4:07 am

The most useful handle I got from reading TGD regarding how to understand the nebulous and often hard-to-see connection between moderates who use science, reason, and fact to make major decisions in their lives and the fundamentalists who don't, was in identifying that both regard belief in belief and non-evidential faith to be virtuous.

When Bonzai trots out her/his opinion from time to time that uniting moderates and extremists is dubious--one could say Bonzai's opinion is becoming mantra-like itself--I always pause and think of the moderate religious people that I do know, and though they clearly do not inspire fear in me as do fundamentalists in the sense that they will harm me in some direct way, I do perceive their embracing non-evidential belief as being a boon for humanity is problematic and indirectly harmful to me and my welfare. And in the way they can adeptly slide between their firm grasp of reality and their slippery embracing of a jelly-like religious substance that can't be pinned to any reality wall that I can identify, they can inspire some pretty serious apprehension on my part also.

463. The courage of their convictions

Comment #51008 by Logicel on June 21, 2007 at 3:41 am

Grayling wrote: Think of the phrase, "the courage of one's convictions". This week the true meaning of these words, hitherto eroded into a flat nap-worn cliche by overuse and misuse, comes home with the force of a kick in the belly.
_____

Powerfully stated.

Deadly fatwas, which know no international boundaries, have eroded free speech in secular societies. They have allowed weak-kneed moral relativists to have more ground to stand on then there is in actuality. To combat this deadly virus of fear and control, people of tremendous courage are needed. However, there is strength in numbers, and we need to continue in criticizing the egregious aspects of Islam, regardless of the Aslans, Hedges, and Atrans who insist that Islam is blameless for the most part for great injustices it perpetuates on humanity.

464. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50801 by Logicel on June 20, 2007 at 2:40 am

HPMcCall, If you are concerned about the negative impact of your child being regarded as baby Jesus by your religious friend's child, perhaps you may find some solace in obtaining a photo scrapbook of other children that came into being via artificial insemination. Some baby doctor's offices often have such scrapbooks--that's from where I got this idea. You can then keep this scrapbook on the coffee table or some other easy-to-retrieve place for small children, and the children can use it as a reference to learn about reality. You don't need to say much more than, here are other children that came into being the same way as mine did. Root the 'phenomenon' to reality as simply and graphically as you can.

Regarding your friend, it has often been discussed at various threads at this site, that though the vocal atheist does criticize religious beliefs, that discretion and consideration in terms of within what context criticism is used is important. If you two have a tacit agreement to live and let live, then that sounds wise. Only time can tell if such an agreement is workable.

As the children grow older, it is possible that you may find yourself in other difficult situations. Communication is important for developing mutual trust, so keep on communicating your viewpoint by being rooted in reality and showing that connection to reality as simply and clearly as you can.

465. Diary of a Deserter

Comment #50423 by Logicel on June 18, 2007 at 4:14 am

Brian, You know what is best--what is the right approach for you; trust yourself, and you will be able to work through the challenges. You are, after all, your own best friend.

It seems that you have a good handle on the circular 'reasoning' used in supporting religious beliefs, but that you do not have a good handle on leaving/replacing the social support which you have entirely depended on your religious group to provide. You are wise in pinpointing this as a big problem for you and trying to understand how you can best solve it.

I wish you the very best in solving this thorny situation and will keep checking this thread for any posts by you.

Thank you again for your honesty and courage in speaking out.

466. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #50422 by Logicel on June 18, 2007 at 4:04 am

Pewkatchoo, I am taking your line that this is .... shite as pertaining to the stuff uttered by Fish. If not, I would also like for you to further elaborate why you do regard this essay by PZ as being crap.

467. A battler beyond belief: Review of 'God is Not Great'

Comment #50281 by Logicel on June 16, 2007 at 10:49 am

Excellent and well written review. I appreciated especially the quote from Conrad:

"The world of the living contains enough marvels and mysteries as it is... I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvellous to be ever fascinated by the mere supernatural."

468. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50279 by Logicel on June 16, 2007 at 10:33 am

How exciting it is to be alive during the time that such important work is being done via neuroscience and cell biology regarding brain function. I would suggest that Dianelos pay more attention to this research. This week's Economist has a nice write-up on the astounding breakthroughs in understanding how RNA is much more than just a messenger, but it is responsible for much organic complexity, especially how the brain operates. Many species contain a close enough number of genes for coding proteins, but it is in the realm of RNA, that humanity shows noticeable differences, even from chimps.

Here's a taste from the article:

If RNA is controlling the complexity of the whole organism, that suggests the operating system of each cell is not only running the cell in question, but is linking up with those of the other cells when a creature is developing. To push the analogy, organs such as the brain are the result of a biological internet. If that is right, the search for the essence of humanity has been looking in the wrong genetic direction.

Of course, such results are speculative and primitive. But that is the point, Lord Rutherford, who proved that atoms exist, knew nothing of neutrons. Chadwick knew nothing of quarks, let alone supersymmetry. Modern biologists are equally ignorant. But eventually, the truth will out.

469. The Great God Debate

Comment #50249 by Logicel on June 16, 2007 at 2:36 am

As for the continuing debate on various threads, about atheists just debating and not doing anything, I will focus on Robert Maynard's excellent point that we do positive action on the basis of our humanity not because of our atheism so there is no need to set up atheist groups to accomplish change and good actions. There are plenty of secular groups which one can join to make a difference. In addition, there are specific atheist activists groups of which one can become dues-paying members, including an atheist political lobby group in the USA.

Debating is part of the endeavor to get the message out. You may have heard these points over and over again, but there are many who have not.

And there are secular museums ALREADY which clearly show the significance of evolution, especially the current exhibit at the Museum of Natural History in NYC.

470. The Great God Debate

Comment #50247 by Logicel on June 16, 2007 at 2:30 am

Roberts said: I think it's certainly truthful that my children, unfortunately, are going to carry on some of my own sins.
________

I don't know, but I think this is awfully close to psychologically abusing children. At the very least, it is poor parentage, to saddle your children with your baggage, even if it is most likely non-existent as sin is a religious and unproven concept.

471. In the know

Comment #50244 by Logicel on June 16, 2007 at 2:08 am

Vernon is encouraging vagueness and mystery. A vague attraction to mystery is the best defense against confrontation and challenge to faith-based beliefs, better than fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism--in this closely connected world we all live in at present--can lead to deconversion because of the glaring conflict between modernity and fundamentalist beliefs. En bref, fundamentalism is giving moderate religion a bad name through association. Atheism, consistently and clearly stated, will also lead into coming out of the closet for atheists and pushing borderline theists over to the atheist side--as shown in the Converts Corner on the upper left of this site.

Goldilocks would have adored Vernon, keep the mush served just at the right temperature, so no one will upset the religious bowl of steaming nonsense. Vernon may sound like he is giving advice to atheists in the form of don't make the same mistake which religious fundamentalists have made. However, he is really saying, please do not focus on the naked emperor because we are running out of imaginary clothes with which we can adorn Him.

472. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50098 by Logicel on June 15, 2007 at 4:12 am

For those who are interested in an overview of AI and also the criticism directed at it, Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive article:

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

473. The Great God Debate

Comment #50097 by Logicel on June 15, 2007 at 3:33 am

CJ22, Unfortunately, the believers will just wiggle out of this proposed dilemma which you have described as possibly happening in regards to the missing Maddie. They alway do and always will. They will ascribe such terrible events to God's mysterious plan, and they will feel vindicated in having faith, because it has been tested yet again. The more crap that is thrown at faith--except in rare cases--the stronger it gets because the psychological investment in the faith stance increases and becomes a monument that can't be budged.

As for to whom I can attribute my born-again atheism, I would hazard a guess that it was a bit of undercooked potato that I ate yesterday--I just adore that explanation that is given by Dickens as a possible explanation to why Scrooge sees the ghosts of Christmas!

474. The Great God Debate

Comment #50093 by Logicel on June 15, 2007 at 2:50 am

Well, that does it. I have let go of God. Hitchens convinced me that religious beliefs are just a load of baggage filled to bursting with guilt and arrogance which I don't need to lug around to be good anyway.

Oops, I forgot, I am already an atheist. I had myself going there for a moment!

Hitchens, as usual, held his end of the debate admirably well, every once and awhile rising to such charming and spirited dismantling of the opponents' view, that I apparently became a born-again atheist.

475. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50085 by Logicel on June 15, 2007 at 12:29 am

The useless guys at the Vatican seem to be yapping more and more lately. Wonder why?

Do protesters ever circle the Vatican with signs describing the hypocrisy and evil of the Vatican? If not, then it is needed to be done.

Apparently, the church coffers are getting a bit of a hit from the lawsuits pertaining to the child sexual abuse scandals.

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

Comment #49906 by Logicel on June 14, 2007 at 4:01 am

13. Comment #49897 by howtoplayalone on June 14, 2007 at 3:30 am
I'm glad I got in before someone mentions "drunk" or "slurring" or "rehab."
_______

So true. But the other jab that can be relied upon to be unfailingly hurled at Hitchens, is his support for the Iraq War. And he was called upon that during the question-and-answer period. His response was right on the mark--that for him, the Iraq War is a war against religion, and therefore, it is more ironic for the religious supporters of the war to be grouped with him instead of the other way around.

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

Comment #49905 by Logicel on June 14, 2007 at 3:58 am

Regarding Hitchens not verbally responding to the applause of his becoming an American citizen, he was born and raised in Britain, after all, and can be a bit reserved in the regard of accepting compliments, or maybe I am just talking out of my hat. However, his facial expression showed clear pleasure at the applause.

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

Comment #49904 by Logicel on June 14, 2007 at 3:50 am

Excellent debate. While Olasky was stating the positive actions of Christians of which he personally knows, I was wondering how Hitchens could respond without appearing to be a lout. And Hitchens did not disappoint by emphasizing that religion is superfluous to good deeds.

Some phrases of Hitchens which I particularly appreciated were:

Wonderful faith-based nightmare (regarding the situation in Uganda/Sudan.)

necromancy (describing the North Korean government)

Mr. Jefferson, build that wall. (referring to the separation of state and religion)

I also really appreciate the way Hitchens handles how religion unjustly and unfairly regards women, especially their sexuality. His voice usually booms magnificently when describing the religious delegating of females to semi/non-human status.

Olasky is undoubtedly one of the good Christians, one who can use the religion to his advantage, or thinks he is using the religion that way. However, it always is a disappointment when such a good person starts stating his non-evidential beliefs concerning original sin and salvation via crucifixion. He then appears quite unreasonable at that moment.

Liveliest Crib, nice post and great point about how Olasky could have trapped Hitchens.

479. A Compass That Can Clash With Modern Life

Comment #49615 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 2:58 pm

These people have not been allowed to grow up--they are compelled to defer to an Islamic authority to make decisions which people in the Western countries do by themselves, with maybe a little help from the relevant experts. These followers live in fear that they will be tortured in their coffins if they don't somehow figure out how to live in the modern world and still follow their stupid, confusing beliefs and holy book. What major individual and societal dysfunction this represents.

Watching and observing their stressful coping with modernity is similar to being thrown back in time, centuries ago, when Christianity went through a painful modernizing process. Except this crap is happening right now.

This article implies that fatwas can be bought and sold--reminds me of Papal indulgences.

480. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49564 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 11:47 am

Rtambree wrote: No more contemplating how many angels could dance on Alister McGrath's head.
___

Too funny!

481. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #49560 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 11:34 am

More for the reading pleasure of the neutered one:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/14_do_atheists_have_doubts_concerning_their_atheism

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/32_why_do_atheists_delude_themselves_in_regarding_themselves_as_being_entirely_rational

482. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #49558 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 11:31 am

Spagettio's wrote: ...,what they do not know, and then believe blindly in their own conjectures.
__________

If the neutered one is still at its goofy computer and hopefully it has not yet got blinded by all the brighty brightness, perhaps it can read these answers:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/40_many_atheists_criticise_faith_but_isnt_atheism_also_based_on_faith

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/37_why_do_atheists_insist_on_trying_to_rationally_understand_god

483. Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

Comment #49553 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 11:22 am

Spagettio's wrote: What does evolution have to do with how man came to exist on earth?
_______

The neutered one can chow down on these answers:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/38_why_do_atheists_not_understand_since_evolution_does_not_explain_how_life_started_that_belief_in_evolution_cant_replace_belief_in_god

484. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49534 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 9:55 am

ok, I successfully closed the italics left open by howtoplayalone

485. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49533 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 9:54 am

test

486. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49532 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 9:54 am

487. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49463 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 3:05 am

Regarding atheists and theists being better than one or the other, or one viewpoint being better than one or the other, the way I regard this topic is that atheism is the most realistic view based on the most evidence, and that's about it. Atheists can be bastards, theists can be wonderful.

488. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49462 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 3:03 am

You mean that God is having It's way with your women?

489. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49457 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 2:44 am

And since humans are the ones with the fullest consciousness--to the best of our present knowledge--then humans are Gods, because they can choose to give a chance for another human to have the opportunity to achieve virtue by deciding to give birth to another human. Therefore, I conclude that women are Godnesses.

490. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49454 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 2:22 am

And if I regard Dianelos as a gifted and talented salesman, then I also regard myself and many others posting at this thread to be consumer advocates. Why use a product of which there is no need?

491. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49452 by Logicel on June 12, 2007 at 2:19 am

Dianelos, You regard atheists as having thrown out the baby with the bathwater, and I regard your theistic viewpoint, as keeping both the baby and the bathwater, but coloring the bathwater with a dye of your own choosing, a very opaque dye. Your 'evidence' for your theistic viewpoint is the lack of satisfying explanations from science, especially regarding human consciousness, therefore setting up a perceived crucial situation where need trumps hard evidence. The explanatory and predictive power of your lovely dyed bathwater--your particular and carefully polished theistic viewpoint--is not on the same par as the explanatory and predictive power of scientific theories as your viewpoint is a hypothesis and not a scientific theory.

En bref, I regard your theistic viewpoint to be woefully inadequate. If I do understand your viewpoint, which is essentially that there exists, a priori, a supremely perfect and good entity, who, in its goodness, wants to allow us humans a chance at being as good and perfect as It is. To do this, this entity has made the universe, essentially a trial ground for us to achieve virtue. All I can conclude, is that this entity, takes itself too seriously, as the elaborate setup It has created in order for humans to achieve virtue boggles the mind. I suppose you can suggest that this only proves how important humans achieving virtue is. How come this perfect being has deprived rocks, ants, and clouds from not having the chance to become as virtuous as It is? All these other creations, are just props placed cunningly so the main actors, humans, can achieve virtue?

The cattle prod which I use to encourage myself to achieve virtue is reality. This life of mine is all I will ever have. And that is enough motivation to be the best that I can be. It was possible for me to come into life, and it is possible for me to be the best that I can be. No splashing about in fancy-colored bathwater with a divine baby is required.

492. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49206 by Logicel on June 11, 2007 at 2:29 am

GBile wrote: Just a thought: What would mr. Prager do when he saw 10 of these guys coming from a bible-class ?
______

A good one!

493. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49202 by Logicel on June 11, 2007 at 2:12 am

Excellent responses! Especially the focus on these manly men kowtowing to the mega macho guy/the father of all alpha males in the sky.

American Christianity is a clever, astute, and effective use of marketing. This article just shows another expression of that reality.

However, this marketing approach could result in losing some of their previous market, that is, women, by emphasizing this aspect--or perhaps not, maybe it will increase the ranks of this previously enthralled segment. Female practitioners obviously get some joy out of subjugating themselves to a male God, so why not just bring that aspect closer to home, right in their own homes?

494. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49199 by Logicel on June 11, 2007 at 1:29 am

Dianelos wrote: Sure, as long as you live as a good Muslim :-)

Incidentally maybe the most interesting religious currents I know of is that of Sufism, which belongs to Islam.
_______

I agree, and if I will ever throw reason out the window and embrace a religious view where I view God permeating each and every aspect of my existence, I would go for Sufism, or even just plain Islam--I adore the hypnotic refrain, There is no God but God. If you are going to be extreme, then embrace a real monotheistic religion rather than a fake one aka the three-in-one diluted version of Christianity.

USA_Limey is asking what is the name of your particular religious group/sect? And even if he is not asking that, I would like a answer to that question anyway.

495. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49079 by Logicel on June 10, 2007 at 8:15 am

Instead of encouraging children to embrace critical thinking, why don't we just encourage a mandatory class in critical consumerism instead?

496. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49078 by Logicel on June 10, 2007 at 8:11 am

Yup, Dianelos is a gifted salesman--convince your prospective customer that they need to clean that little space behind the radiator with a special cleanser, and then hone in with your product.

Theism is to take care of that pesky little problem of human consciousness, while Christianity is the specific product for the correct and lasting solution.

497. Americans believe in both evolution, creationism: poll

Comment #49076 by Logicel on June 10, 2007 at 8:03 am

blueollie, Informative post and thanks for the links.

498. In U.S., faith is never far from politics

Comment #49072 by Logicel on June 10, 2007 at 7:39 am

...all appeared on a podium with the aging Billy Graham.
________

In full-blown nitpicker mode, I consider aged to better describe Graham than aging

Graham offered spiritual guidance to many American presidents but his distinctly apolitical approach also evokes another era, when faith and politics did not publicly mix to the extent they do today.
________

As a kid growing up, I remember regular folks being concerned that JFK would abuse his presidential position by foisting Catholicism on all, to which he had responded with a very eloquent speech about that religion has no role in determining governmental policy. It seems centuries ago rather than just several decades.

499. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49040 by Logicel on June 10, 2007 at 4:10 am

Dianelos wrote: Every single thing we experience, including our experience of physical phenomena, is caused by God.
__________

Fundamentalists sniff glue, while Theologians apparently snort cocaine.

I still commend Dianelos style of calmly and without ever resorting to ad homs of any kind--it almost makes me want to inject his God-soaked world view in my veins so I can be less snarky in debating. However, being the cynic I am, I suppose his style can more aptly be attributed to his excellent business acumen rather than his theism.

Apparently, commerce and its need to conduct oneself in a trustworthy manner in order to keep and grow a customer base, was/is a powerful factor in promoting civilization.

500. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49037 by Logicel on June 10, 2007 at 4:00 am

456. Comment #48811 by Dr Benway on June 9, 2007 at 5:42 am
avatarthe great teapot:

If conciousness is supernatural why does it follow my body around like a stalker?

LOL. That's worthy of a signature line.
__________

Yup, please, teapot is great, make that your signature line--if you do want to do that, do you know how to?