551. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48596 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Zwingli, and:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/43_why_do_atheists_not_take_theology_seriously

552. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48594 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Zwingli,

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/31_why_do_atheists_regard_religious_extremism_as_being_representative_for_the_majority_of_religious_believers

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/17_why_do_atheists_feel_it_is_necessary_to_speak_against_and_criticize_religious_beliefs

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/44_why_do_atheists_often_focus_on_criticizing_christianity_instead_of_other_religions

553. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48592 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Rtambree wrote: Now there's a class action in every sense of the word.

http://www.earthsgreatestlawsuit.org/

I had a ball filling out a claim against my childhood Catholic parish!!! I am asking 10,000 bucks in damages.

554. 60 SECONDS: Richard Dawkins

Comment #48589 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 1:22 pm

short and sweet.

555. Christopher Hitchens: Religion Poisons Everything

Comment #48587 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Yup, I always learn something from Hitchens:

Here's an excerpt on Bayard Rustin from Wikipedia: He counseled Martin Luther King, Jr. on the techniques of nonviolent resistance. Rustin was openly gay [1] and advocated on behalf of gay and lesbian causes in the latter part of his career.

And this excerpt on A. Philip Randolph from Wikipedia: Randolph also helped Rustin and Martin Luther King Jr. to organize the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963. As the U.S. civil rights movement gained momentum in the early 1960s and came to the forefront of the nation's consciousness, his rich baritone voice was often heard on television news programs addressing the nation on behalf of African-Americans engaged in the struggle for voting rights and an end to discrimination in public accommodations.

556. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48575 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 12:34 pm

USA_Limey wrote: What exactly is this more 'elegant' version of belief you speak of? I think you have been fooled by the likes of Mcgrath here who would have you believe that there is such a thing, that somehow they are 'better' than the Creationist who thinks the world is 6,000 years old. Less dangerous, yes certainly. But more 'elegant'... no I don't think so since if they cannot be Deists and must subscribe to one of the religions they are little better than pagan snake charmers and sun worshippers. In the case of Christianity, worse.

I cannot stress enough how much I despise the likes of McGrath, I will say again for those who missed it in a previous post: I actually have more respect for the fundamentalists at least they are honest.
_______

I was unable to look at this video of McGrath longer than a few seconds before throwing up in my own mouth. Same for D. Robertson in terms of reading his posts. I also regard moderates to be, well, disgusting. I think they are the big problem, actually, even though they do not fly planes into buildings.

As for the 'elegance' of certain theistic viewpoints, I was not using that adjective to imply that such 'elegance' deserves any serious consideration, just that I wanted to be familiar with that kind of ploy, so I can answer theists questions better at asktheatheists.com that just got started about a week ago. Regard my dalliance with Dianelos as a means to take a crash course in that kind of view, so I am better prepared for the sinuous path of slithering logic if presented, and to cut through it.

I regard both yours and alorvin's approach which is to focus on the form in which religious beliefs are shaped to be admirable.

Dianelos is not only polite and calm, unlike D. Robertson, he is consistent in his delivery of his religious views, no matter how tortured and non-evidential they may be. He also responded to your question, though it took longer than you wanted. And he is, after all, a human being.

557. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48570 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 12:16 pm

newatheist wrote: Hey Logicel…

no child should have a file which states that they are of a particular religion. The religion of their parents can be noted, of course. (emphasis mine)


Um, why? <:-O
___

Mainly because I would want that my children have atheists for parents be listed on their personal information. But, as I think more about it, I really can't come up with a good reason why the religious or the lack of religious affiliation of the parent should be listed unless to mollify the parents.

558. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48567 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 12:05 pm

I wrote: Was Biz allowed to shoot his real gun when a kid? Was he allowed to drink alcohol when a kid? Were his parents allowed to beat him to a pulp when he was a kid? Was he allowed to buy cigarettes when he a was kid? Were his parents allowed to deny him medical treatment because of religious beliefs when he was a kid?

BIZ responded: Where in the world did this come from? It's totally irrelevant and totally inappropriate. Why would you assume that because I own two guns and enjoy shooting that my parents, whom I love dearly, were abusive and irresponsible? This kind of garbage just isn't necessary.

_______

BIZ, THEY ARE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS. Because the answer is of course NOT. Damg, my opinion of your intelligence just tubed.

If a child is already protected from such abusive behavior, it is only reasonable to also protect a child from being labeled as a full-card-carrying member of a religion before he/she is too old to decide for themselves. I also suggested that comparative religion be taught to all children, including ones from secular families. A religious family can teach their religion to their child, but just not label that child as a member of that religion--it is unjust and unfair.

559. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48558 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 11:29 am

steve99 wrote: But what I trying to do is figure out how people think differently from me work.
_____

I wanted to know the more 'elegant' version of belief so I am better equip to answer theist's questions without getting sidetracked by the elegance. And no way was I going to go the way of David Robertson or Plantinga, so Dianelos has served that purpose for me.

Some posters here are hard, others are softer, and some are right in the middle in their approach in communicating with theists. All I know, is that I learn stuff each and every day, and as long as that continues, I will keep reading and posting here. I have learned a lot in the six months that I have frequented this site. Each one of us learns in their own way. Also, I regard the honesty at this site, in terms of expressing anger and disgust directed towards religious beliefs, to be refreshing.

560. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48555 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 11:16 am

pewkatchoo, I hear you. We all need to be smart and cautious. However, as more and more of us become openly critical--as one poster here said--it will be harder for us to become targets, because there will just be too many of us to track down--strength in numbers kind of protection.

561. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48549 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 10:42 am

Pewkatchoo, Kudos. I see nothing in your comment that would deserve the responses it got.

This nonsense that the parents resorted to is no different than if they went to a medium, and yet there will be religious believers and also non-believers that will defend this behavior because it comforts, is a boon, it would be inconsiderate, impolite, rude, etc. to do otherwise. Of course, they can believe whatever they want to believe, but they are not immune from criticism just because they have religious beliefs even though they have lost a child.

Supporters of religious superstitions are so coddled, they can't be criticized even in less serious situations, forget about a situation like this one. Piety, faith, acceptance of terrible events as God's will, etc., are to be criticized strongly for the irrational nonsense it is. Such criticism is long overdue.

Personally, for me, this kind of publicity, which may help to find lost persons, is also weird--almost like voyeurism. In addition, this focusing on just one missing person, instead of the general problem of missing people all over the world is also unpalatable to me. But then again, I am just a Godless heathen.

562. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48476 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 5:51 am

Rtambree, spot on.

563. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48473 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 5:10 am

BAEOX, typos are no big deal. I view them as my mother viewed infamous NYC cockroaches: Anybody can get them, but only filthy people will keep them.

EDIT: And I am leaving that particular typo, BAEOX, because I like it, and there is nothing that hordes of the Godless can do about it.

ADDITIONAL EDIT: My deciding which typos will remain is reminiscent of that saying from some famous writer who was called to task on using a split infinitive, and he replied that he damg well knows what a split infinitive is, and if he wants to damg well use one, then he has a good reason to do so.

564. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48470 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 5:00 am

Dianelos, Thank you for your clear and concise summary of your theistic viewpoint. I will read it several times and have bookmarked it.

BAEOZ wrote: You refuse to even consider explanations that the naturalistic world has put up. They work very well, and while they are still being extended are better than inventing a deity. Why do you reject them? Perhaps because you want consciousness to transcend the natural world. You want to be more than a collection of stardust that obeys the laws of chemistry and physics.

Though I could say what BAEOZ has said in my own words, I won't, because BAEOZ said it very well.

I am left with the following curious musings:

Since there is some evidence that some of us are evolutionarily hard-wired to sense something greater than the material existence of humanity, and if said wired-up human is also very intelligent and capable of abstract thinking about thinking, the result can be the development of such a theistic view as Dianelos'.

How common is this combination of a strong intellect and being hard-wired for receptivity to the supernatural? How common is the combination of a strong intellect and being hard-wired for not being receptive to the supernatural, as in Dawkins'? And regardless of the commonness of these particular mixes of mental abilities, what evolutionary purpose does it serve to have both Dianelos and Dawkins to exist in the same species at the same time?

I recognize that at this stage of our knowledge, humans seems to be the only species on this earth that does have such a full consciousness of itself. Though I certainly regard human consciousness as a wonderful boon resulting from evolution, it is also sometimes a complete pain in the arse. When it does become that way for me, from time to time, I just accept that, I don't try to squeeze in some abstractly reasoned concept of a supernatural being that cannot be proved to exist except only by such abstract thinking and/or by personal revelation (and does personal revelation play a role in your belief in God, Dianelos?).

Instead, I admire and envy my two beautiful cats, who are blissfully spared by evolution for not having the same kind of full blown consciousness that I have as a human. But then again, my cats can't luxuriate in conceiving fictional characters and making some dough from such luxuriation. They also have no idea what they are missing from such luxuriation. Hmmm. Makes me even more envious of them.

565. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48467 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 4:10 am

BAEOZ and any other poster, Please list any typos or errors at the forum feedback thread:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16395

This way, http://www.asktheatheists.com/ can have an army of Godless proofreaders/editors!

Thanks.

566. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48438 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 1:17 am

Here is the forum link for discussion and feedback on http://www.asktheatheists.com/
:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16395

567. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48437 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 1:14 am

264. Comment #47937 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2007 at 4:46 am
avatar

Here is Rtambree's answer (from a site several of us are working on to answer theist's questions about atheism, but of which I am cautioned not to announce as of yet because it is still being created):



Well, that's certainly sparked my curiosity! When will this site be finished?
_________

bitbutter has just launched the site:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/

In addition to clarifying the atheist position to theists, the site can also be used by atheists when debating either online or in person; the answers can be used as stepping stones from which you can launch your own debates.

bitbutter also set up a thread in the forum under Civic Action if you want to discuss the site and give feedback or contribute to the site as a writer, or you can just use the contact info at http://www.asktheatheists.com/

568. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48435 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 12:55 am

Atheism may not be a view of life, but as Dawkins puts it so well, an atheist can have a very fulfilling life:

Richard Dawkins expresses this viewpoint on page 1 of The God Delusion:

I suspect – well, I am sure – that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don't believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents' religion and wish they could, but just don't realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness – raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is an realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.


bitbutter has announced the launch of his website:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/

A stable of writers, mostly posters here at Dawkins.net, answer questions posed by theists. If you have any feedback or would like to join this stable of atheist answerers, then use the contact info at:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/

or

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16395

I also consider this site to be a handy resource for atheists, who when debating either online on in person, can use the answers as at least a stepping stone from which they can launch their own debate. For example, I just hopped to the site and pulled out this quote above from Dawkins.

569. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48322 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Excellent and extremely moving article.

570. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48192 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 2:30 am

With its significantly weakened explanatory power, God can be put on the same level as the tooth fairy.

571. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48188 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 2:10 am

Dianelos

I wrote:

As you have pointed out that it is naive or silly to look for evidence for a being which exists out of the range of human perception--I find your framing God within an anthropomorphic view to be just as naive. And yet, you cannot do it any other way, can you, being human? God is known only through revelation, I suppose, and this knowledge cannot be transferred to another. No? (bold face is the part of my comment you did not include)

You responded:

Actually no. Many existents exist out of the range of human perception. (By human perception I take it you mean the five senses: seeing, touching, smelling, hearing, tasting). But we cannot see, touch or smell gravity, and even though we believe it exists. Similarly we cannot see, touch or smell electrons.
__________

I agree that many existents exist out of the range of human perception, and that my phrasing was useless in my effort to state what I mean. Can't you just read my mind? Lol. I will try again.

God does not exist in the material plane, so we could not even detect any evidence which may exist out of the range of our human perception because there is no possible evidence because God does not exist within the material plane. Such focused investigation is fruitless, so the one of only two ways that can give any credibility to an being which can not be shown to exist by the relied-upon method of evidence--whether or not said evidence is within or not within the range of human perception--is to resort to the explanatory power of the God hypothesis.

Your focus is that the God hypothesis succeeds where science fails in the sense that only the God Hypothesis explains our whole experience, our consciousness. Science does explain consciousness, as a byproduct of our evolution.

In addition to the God Hypothesis--your version is a bit more intriguing than that of the fundamentalists, which is that Creation, both the physical and the non-physical, our consciousness included, is proof of a Creator, while your version is that God created everything, but the physical plane was done via evolution--the only other handle we have on the existence of God is through personal revelation which is non-transferable and non-verifiable. Together, these two theistic handles, purport to a reasonable and, to the theists mindset, certainly not a trite grasp of the high probability of the existence of God which the theists--expressly, you--regard atheists like Dawkins as having, that is, labeling such endeavors as being based on weak, wobbly assumptions.

I regret, that I am still in the Dawkins camp. As Dawkins and other atheists have pointed out, that way back when the Abramhamic religions were spawned, science was in its infancy, and the explanatory power of the God hypothesis could dance in its glorious vacuum, unchallenged by science. Now, it no longer can do that.

What is your opinion of Stenger's, God: The Failed Hypothesis?

572. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48177 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 12:58 am

Sam Cooke song Wonderful World is where Coyne took his wonderful title from, here are the lyrics:

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the French I took

But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be

Don't know much about geography
Don't know much trigonomitry
Don't know much about algebra
Don't know what a slide rule is for

But I do know one and one is two
And if this one could be with you
What a wonderful world this would be

Now I don't claim, to be an A-student
But I'm trying to be
For maybe by being an A-student, baby
I could win your love for me

{repeat first two blocks)

Now in America, if a guy wants to win a gal, he needs to show off his ignorance of science.

573. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48175 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 12:51 am

greg_m, That 'monkey' video also leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It undermines the value of monkeys also. The makers of the video, unfortunately, in their earnestness to show how divisive and silly humans can be, left out any allusion to the wonderful achievements done by humanity and its staggering potential to continue to do so.

There are other videos which emphasize how connected humanity is, rather than focusing its sundering into divisive elements. I prefer them.

574. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48171 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 12:28 am

I love this guy.

575. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48170 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 12:24 am

mmurray, Thanks for your sleuthing. Heard is a young, gay conservative, like Andrew Sullivan is.

When I read his article, before knowing that about him, I had suspected that he, unlike me, uses and bases a large part of his morality on tradition--one of the five bases of morality (see link below) that some researchers have come up with and whose 'test' on morality I recently took. I scored very low on that aspect of morality, but very high on identifying harm and pain as factors in determining morality.

If morality is hard-wired, based on empathy for others as other research in neuroscience has shown, and if the researchers from Morality.org are correct in stating that respect for tradition contributes to morality, then what evolutionary role does respect for tradition accomplish?

Also, how do such gay people, who are apparently departing from tradition by being gay, reconcile that departure with their embracing of tradition? The brain hurts.

http://www.yourmorals.org/

576. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48133 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 6:02 pm

It is also true that no religious nation on earth, not even theocratic Shi'ite Iran, offends against basic human rights on the scale of officially atheist China.
______

Russia violates human rights, America violates human rights, South Asian countries, South American countries, so many countries do, that NGO's have their hands full exposing and challenging such violations.

Also China is now allowing religious practice, especially the ancient forms of folk religion in the countryside.

577. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48130 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 5:55 pm

On the contrary, time and time again religious faith has applied the brakes to monstrous human excess.
_____

Heard does not give any specific examples. But I can give an example how belief in belief allowed children to be sexually abused by priests. Such abused children were reluctant to ask for help from other adults, because they would not be believed that priests could do such a terrible act, as priests are men of faith, and thusly, such monstrous human excess would not manifest in them.

578. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48127 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Celandine, You captured the inanity of this author's slant. Heard is very ignorant about what atheism is criticizing. Atheists are criticizing the belief in God, not the non-existent sky daddy. And as theists claim that their religious beliefs point to a merciful and loving God, atheists can only see how their belief conflicts with reality.

Do humans make earthquakes, tidal waves, mud slides, disease, etc.?

Gutenberg was an inventor who happened to be a Christian. Is this author implying that it was Gutenberg's Christianity which allowed him to create movable type? In addition, the Christian church consistently tried to censure what could be printed.

579. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48121 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 5:23 pm

This article is a rant. I hope it made Hobson feel better after writing it.

580. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48119 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 5:21 pm

blods, Apparently Hobson's editor removed the bit where Hobson mentioned Hitchens leaving his wife when she was pregnant.

581. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47945 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 5:12 am

Dianelos wrote: But if there are atheists here who think that there are things beyond the physical world we observe and its natural laws as studied by science, then I would like to ask them what things?
______

Emotions like love, anger, hate, anxiety; thoughts, consciousness, the mind. None of those states have any matter or energy, yet, they are set into motion because of matter and energy, or so I regard them to the best of my knowledge relating to the work being done in neuroscience.

582. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47939 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 4:55 am

Quetzalcoatl, When the very talented and hardworking web designer/atheist is finished with his work--perhaps he needs to take the seventh day off from his labors--said glorious creation will be announced here, at least by me, if not also by the numerous atheist contributors who mostly post here at this site.

583. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47936 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 4:42 am

steve99 wrote: If God does not interact, then there can be no causual connection between the mental processes in our brain that occur when we think of God, and any actual God; in other words, we have just made up the idea, based on no foundation, even if He does actually exist. Suppose there is a locked room, and I imagine there is an elephant in there. There may actually be one there, but that would just be co-incidence, and not related to the what you imagined!
______

Accidentally stumbling on truth is a sure sloppy way to get at the truth, and this golden ring that they managed to grab while on their mental Merry-Go-Around is potentially dangerous because they are rewarded for gut feelings without evidence to guide them in finding other answers.

Essentially, God, whether it is a more sophisticated version like Dianelos' or a more primitive one like Jerry Falwell's, is unknowable without personal revelation. Without that revelation, there is no proof and no evidence, no matter the elegant framing, thinking, etc., and yet that revelation is personal and is, therefore, non-transferable and non-verifiable. In this regard, a belief in God is no different than a belief in any other similar entities, where there is no evidence for their existence except personal revelations. And yes, that includes the tooth fairy.

I have followed Dianelos' comments because I have been nagged by a gut feeling that there is something odd in equating belief in God with belief in the tooth fairy.

I am afraid that at this point I am more convinced with Rtambree's answer to Why atheists equate God to the tooth fairy as being more substantial than Dianelos' heroic and patient effort to prove his case.

Here is Rtambree's answer (from a site several of us are working on to answer theist's questions about atheism, but of which I am cautioned not to announce as of yet because it is still being created):

Atheists equate God with fairies, principally because the evidence is equally non-existent for both them.

The ranking importance between these invisible entities is irrelevant. Just because one imaginary 'balrog' may be more important that a lowly ranked 'orc', doesn't make the balrog any more real.

Secondly, if one believes in God because of the explanatory power of a Deity in creating the universe or because of Pascal's Wager, there is no way of distinguishing which God, of Gods, or fairies, did the creating. There is no objective reference point against which to ensure you are following the true deity or deities – it may be Zeus, Thor, Allah, Yahweh, Ra, Vishnu, Shiva, Jesus, the Dreamtime Serpent, or any one of the millions of other deities obviously invented by humans.

584. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47932 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 4:18 am

Dianelos wrote: ...but rather that God knows everything that God wants to know.
_________

So God does not get information overload? Or that God has a bias to what information God allows for God upon which to focus? Like a divine editorial gatekeeper at a celestial newspaper?

As you have pointed out that it is naive or silly to look for evidence for a being which exists out of the range of human perception--though we can bear witness to God's work via evolutionary theory--I find your framing God within an anthromorphic view to be just as naive. And yet, you cannot do it any other way, can you, being human? God is known only through revelation, I suppose, and this knowledge cannot be transferred to another. No?

585. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47926 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 4:05 am

Dianelos, I am concluding that you are the same Dianelos who is a Wikipedia editor? Then we can refer to you as he without being worried about being sexist pigs? And if so, you have certainly lived an interesting life.

586. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47905 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 2:24 am

I wrote this even before Dianelos requested understanding for his human limitation of grappling with many debaters all by her/his self:

212. Comment #47633 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 5:35 am
Dianelos, Please, when you can find the time,...
_______

I regret for not including that entreaty when posting my latest questions, but I would think that an intelligent and sensitive person like Dianelos would apply my stated qualification on any additional questions that I may pose. I am writing them as they come to mind so I do not forget them.

587. Sen. Clinton: Faith got me through marital strife

Comment #47902 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 2:10 am

And Philip1978, as for the rather arbitrary edict of the Trousers religion in insisting that trousers are not worn for the month of June, some parish priests, like ours, allow the wearing of furry trousers on cold days in the month of June.

I almost want to convert to my husband's religion. I love when our cats sleep on my lap, and during cold days in June, our cats both choose to sleep on his gussied up, furry lap. I am really jealous.

588. Sen. Clinton: Faith got me through marital strife

Comment #47901 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 2:02 am

Well, Philip1978, when I first married into the Trousers religion I had no idea how complicated and varied its rituals are.

I spent almost an entire week hunting down a pair of my husband's trousers, a pink job splashed with yellow and purple circles, with deep pleats of orange. I had loaned it to one of our friends who does the clown-for-kiddie-birthday-parties circuit. Well, that bloke was on holiday in some Trouser-forsaken place. When I was finally re-united with these trousers, they were covered with ice cream and gooey melted candied stuff. I have just finished washing and pressing them so my husband can now attend a funeral.

Yes, those are the special trousers that his Trousers religion insists on his wearing to funerals. Such a special religion. Anyway, he is all psyched up to take in stride the horrendous and intolerant abuse the people at the wake will hurl in his direction for not wearing black trousers. Other religious people are so close minded!

589. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47897 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 1:13 am

Dianelos wrote: "The idea that natural selection is God's way seems quite reasonable to me.
_______


Please give your reasons why it seems reasonable.

You regard the possibility of God's existence as not being trivial, and therefore you are 'bothering' with it. Fundamentalists balk at atheist criticism by opining that they will burn in hell for not heeding God's word, your stance is that atheists are missing out on what exactly?

You say that good people, including atheists, will not be eternally damned (if I remember correctly), so what is this delicious carrot you are dangling in front of us so we will trot in your God-bothering direction?

590. Sen. Clinton: Faith got me through marital strife

Comment #47893 by Logicel on June 6, 2007 at 12:51 am

I watched the clip. A woman in the audience asked Edwards how did he know that the voice he was hearing was God talking to him, or Edwards' own. In true, well honed political waffle, Edwards answered without really answering.

None of the experiences which not only tested their faith but about which their faith also provided solutions, are unknown for the majority of people. In my own life, when such experiences occur, what grounds me is reality. I suppose one can call it comparative reality. Collectively, we experience much of the same anguish, pain, and disappointments. If I was the only one who has ever experienced these difficult situations, I would feel quite persecuted and unhappy, but it is just life, itself, that needs to be taken in stride by simply accepting it in all of its joys and pains.

What does faith in a supernatural being have to do with any of the difficulties we all go through? Acceptance of reality allows us to continue finding solutions, adapting to change, etc.

No faith in god is needed for that necessary response. Reminds me of the elaborate process that parents go through in denying the reality/truth that it is the parents, themselves, who love their children, and therefore, spend time and money buying Christmas presents, not Santa Claus. It was Edwards and Clinton, who solved their own problems, most likely with the help and knowledge gotten from experience contributed by friends, which aided them, and they need to emphasize that aspect because that is what is effective in confronting difficulty.

591. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47817 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Dianelos wrote: A person is perfectly good when I would completely trust that person in situations where that person's will can affect me. Another way is this: A person is perfectly good when I wish myself (and everybody else) to become ever more similar to that person. Suppose, just for discussion's sake, that such a person of perfect goodness and limitless power actually exists. What do *you* think such a person would choose to do? And then compare what you think such a person would do, with your actual experience of life, and check whether you find a contradiction between the two, or maybe an explanation. (But be careful to think about what that person would want to do, not what you would want that person to do.)
__________

This person would listen to you and gently encourage you into realizing what the best is for you and your circumstances is.

Is God the supreme psychiatrist?

592. Pell plans fidelity oath for principals

Comment #47807 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 2:57 pm

There can be a place for theologians to make explorations of criticism, but in teaching positions the role is to very much be faithful to the teaching of the church."
_____

Such a quaint phrase, exploration of criticism, not exactly criticizing any Catholic tenet, but simply exploring such criticism? So, little Theologians, play in your sand pile with your pails and shovels, but if any of your playful exploration result in serious criticism, the Pope will just override it.

Before this declaration, what were the Catholic teachers practicing and teaching: atheism?

The Catholic Church ping pongs between trying to appeal to the masses and after acheiving some success in doing so, a 'bright bulb' in their midst, then decides clarity and firmness is the way to go, until church attendance falls yet again, and the Catholic officials become yet again understanding and tolerate until they decide to tighten the screws once again. What a vicious and useless circle of pathetically manipulative dysfunction.

593. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47633 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 5:35 am

Dianelos, Please, when you can find the time, respond to Epeeist's response to one of your posts. I agree with Epeeist's description of RDs argument.

Incidentally, your analysis of RD's naive argument for the non-existence of god is wrong. A mixture of poor logic and not using the primary source.

It should really be cast in one of two ways, the first echoes the theme of "Climbing Mount Improbable"


1. Some things created in a single step are complex.

2. Complex things created in a single step are improbable

3. Some things are improbable



Or


1. Complex things created sui generis are improbable


3. God is a complex thing created sui generis

4. God is improbable

594. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47587 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 3:08 am

As for religious studies, instructors can be accredited, with a religious studies certificate, to be qualified to teach the topic of comparative religion.

595. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47585 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 3:06 am

Quetzalcoatl wrote: No state can control what parents teach their children at home, nor should it be allowed to.
_______

No, but at public schools, no child should have a file which states that they are of a particular religion. The religion of their parents can be noted, of course.

Dawkins' important point is to raise consciousness regarding the labeling of children. Some posters here are so wrapped up with the state interfering with the raising of children--with which I absolutely agree--that they seem to be blind to this point of RAISING CONSCIOUSNESS.

596. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47583 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 3:00 am

Yes, Biz, you need to not only travel to other countries, but also live in other democratic countries. There are quite a few in existence in addition to America, which is still a democracy despite unrelenting encroachment upon the American constiution by religious, right wingnuts. The same wingnuts are an embarrassment to more rational members of the conservative political party.

Inhabitants of other democratic countries, do own real guns and ammunition and can shoot them--via target practice and hunting.

597. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47579 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 2:47 am

There is no doubt that this will be a controversial position. However, there is nothing to prevent the UN from organizing a world convention on the issue of the religious abuse of children, a forum where the pros and cons of childhood exposure to religion and its influence on children can be openly debated. The world body cannot remain silent on this vital issue just because it is a sensitive and difficult subject, even given its member nations and their religious interests. A convention like this would also be an opportunity for those who might want to argue for the benefits of the influence of religion on children, so the UN should not shy away from debate of the issue.
_________

Excellent article, the above quote is my favorite bit.

As for Biz and his free-shooting in his back yard, what does that have to with children and religious institutions? Was Biz allowed to shoot his real gun when a kid? Was he allowed to drink alcohol when a kid? Were his parents allowed to beat him to a pulp when he was a kid? Was he allowed to buy cigarettes when he a was kid? Were his parents allowed to deny him medical treatment because of religious beliefs when he was a kid?

The debate needs to be done whether or not it is a difficult debate with difficult to arrived-at solutions.

One measure could be as Dawkins suggests, that children are not LABELED the religion of their parents. Parents can teach their religion to their children, along with all the other ones, and when grown up, then that former child can decide what religion, if any, to embrace. I find absolutely nothing oppressive or state controlled about this aspect. Various restrictions are in place already, like children not partaking in voting, drinking, smoking, working in certain jobs, being beaten to a pulp, etc. Enough of this hypocrisy. No free pass for religious institutions.

As a former child forced to kowtow to Catholicism--being an atheist in mind, though keeping my atheism secret until I could leave my family home at age eighteen--I would have loved/been extremely grateful if my American government restricted my parents in labeling me as Catholic before I was grown up enough to decide for myself.

Religious beliefs are not VALUES. They are simply beliefs based on no evidence.

598. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47359 by Logicel on June 4, 2007 at 8:22 am

SharriG wrote: I do think it's dangerous to fall into the trap of being too cynical though.

and

Lumping the good with the bad gets nobody anywhere.
________

I think it's dangerous to fall into the trap of NOT being too cynical :-)))

I think it is important that good things are accomplished for the right reasons, and are not worth their 'goodness' if they are not generated for the correct reasons/understanding. One of my favorite perspectives is to realize that good often comes from bad, and that bad can come from good.

599. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47355 by Logicel on June 4, 2007 at 7:54 am

SharriG, Anyone can become a Wikipedia editor. However, not all remain editors if they are just vandals.

You could edit the article on childhood yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

I often wish that everyone who uses Wikipedia opens an editing account, so when they read articles, they can correct the errors of spelling, grammar, etc. like a built proofreading feature. That's what the major bulk of my editing has been, though I have created some articles.

600. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47342 by Logicel on June 4, 2007 at 6:16 am

SharrieG wrote: you surely miss the point - Jesus spoke out against the surrounding culture and said that children should be loved and respected. The fact this his followers have not always done this is an indictment on them, not on him.

_______

Point taken. However, I was being cynical, as portraying Jesus--whom I have no idea even existed--as a marketing genius, instigating the creation of an captive audience for his product. Kindness to children in the form of not making them do menial labor, freeing their time so they can be instructed in the faith, etc.

As for the Wikipedia entry, it is in need of clean-up, and perhaps I will do it, as I am one of the legions of editors. The meaning is that the followers of Jesus in the next 400 years promoted the notion of a childhood.