551. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #104888 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Hey Atheist John: Pats are 16-0!! Stick that in your blast furnace and smelt it! No, not really, just good natured ribbing see you in the playoffs man of steeler.

552. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104785 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Paula: I am against doing violence to people. If that is what exorcism entails (I've only seen the movie). I agree that if they are incompetent to consent then this sort of thing would likely be an assault (again depending on what is involved).

I could extend the argument to say not only any one who consents to exorcism is mentally disturbed -- but anyone who believes in invisible Gods & demons is deranged and should be taken into custody for their own protection.

I see invoking the power of the state, in creating a law as a last resort against this sort of thing. I appreciate your concern for the welfare of those affected however. THat's all I have time for today. thanks

553. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104780 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Perhaps if that's what they are into. People do all sorts of kinky things. Is the Pope proposing that exorcisms be performed on the unwilling? If he is then that would be criminal assault & battery. Now is a person too crazy to consent to exorcism -- probably many times they are. I guess your immediate family then gives consent. If some sensible adult steps in and says "alright that's enough of this foolishness we're of to the hospital" great (even if that is a policeman called to the scene).

554. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104773 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 12:05 pm

No...but let's not outlaw things just because they aren't beneficial. You might sue the performers of exorcisms for fraud or for negligence if they truly prevent a person from otherwise seeking medical care. But exorcism is in a sense an expression of opinion.

555. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104767 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 11:52 am

Why would you want to outlaw exorcism? The exorcism itself wasn't the problem it was the substitution of it for proper medical care for mental illness that led to the crime.

556. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104734 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 9:37 am

Thanks for the link! Hunzer0: God is all powerful and all knowing and all good yet creates evil to give us freedom? I thought we ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil despite God's directive. Which is it? In any event if God is all knowing then he can see our future and therefore it is not a matter of free choice (therefore also not evil but all part of the divine plan so nobody goes to hell and so why have a devil)? This stuff is ridiculous! As I stated on another thread...I now have a new appreciation of why it is difficult to give up something you like simply for the sake of reason. If I like something (drinking scotch for instance) you can tell me all day how it is (rationally speaking) a net negative for me -- I'll find excuses and rationalizations that allow me to keep doing what I like to do. However, can we at least hope for some agreement from believers that this sort of magical thinking is bad for people -- even if people don't want to give it up?

557. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104726 by Radesq on December 29, 2007 at 8:55 am

"Thanks be to God, we have a Pope who has decided to fight the Devil head-on," he said.

558. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104564 by Radesq on December 28, 2007 at 7:00 pm

Did anybody see that? I just learned something here. I don't think it can be helped. I never had to give up anything to be an atheist -- I just never bought into religion ever. So it is all too easy for me to look at believers and think "man you are just dumb as dirt -- why can't you just see this? You're only hurting yourself and making yourself look foolish."

But if you are raised in this religion thing then you probably have alot invested in the dogmatic and/or in the personal relationships and even just in your all around comfort factor. Many of you here probably had a lot to lose by choosing this path (one assumes more to gain hopefully).

It's no wonder that often beating people over the head with the obvious problems of religion doesn't win them over and just elicits a "you can't understand" or "you're just a jerk reaction". I still can't hold back the bludgeoning instinct most of the time but I'll have to come up with a plan B.

But at least I can begin to understand the entrenchment that sometimes happens when rational thought begins to encroach on someone's personal comfort zone. Thanks people!

559. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104556 by Radesq on December 28, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Happy birthday! Until the next time...take care

560. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104554 by Radesq on December 28, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Well, yes Don, I think people would find other things to be greedy about. Coveting thy neighbor's wife or ass kind of thing. Maybe selfish control over working and social relationships (maybe sorts of caste systems).

I don't really know -- I just don't like moral absolutes and I worry that applying scientific rigor to morality is going to show me too many things I like to do that I shouldn't be doing were I acting rationally.

Oh dear...I feel some empathy for believers coming on.

561. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104543 by Radesq on December 28, 2007 at 6:15 pm

On 84 Are you mistaking me for someone else? Or just making a commentary on what is motivating me? I never said anything about capitalism or cancer, if there is something between the lines you're trying to tell me be blunt I'm apparently not that clever.

562. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104542 by Radesq on December 28, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Krisking at 82 I don't know -- maybe some people believe it is immoral to eat meat or to eat more than enough to survive while others in this world are hungry. Maybe some think it is immoral to drive a car that uses fossil fuels and pollutes the air and water. Maybe it is immoral to have a big screen tv or make a certain amount of money (I don't think I'm in too much danger on that one). If we all come to agree through reason that somethings that I do are immoral I'm going to be hard pressed to just say "well I have a different belief system so go sell it somewhere else". If everybody had everything they wanted? I think that would be impossible due to mutual exclusivity.

563. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104536 by Radesq on December 28, 2007 at 5:57 pm

krisking

I'm not sure I understand your last post. No I believe we can achieve progress for other than selfish reasons. I'm just afraid to move to a morality that is based on reason and isn't sufficiently amorphous -- I think I would lose a lot of perks that I can currently justify.

564. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104528 by Radesq on December 28, 2007 at 5:43 pm

To be honest I'm not sure agreement about what is moral and is not moral is possible. I'm certainly not prepared to become altruistic if that becomes an agreed upon proper moral stance. There has to be some room for moderately anti-social behaviors like selfishness -- isn't there?

565. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #104521 by Radesq on December 28, 2007 at 5:27 pm

I liked watching Cosmos when I was a much younger man -- and I remember some years ago I caught some reruns on cable here in the USA. Carl Sagan is something of a cultural icon here (say bill-yuns and bill-yuns of anything and most people will get the reference). I have to admit though it always seemed like ol' Carl was high when narrating those shows. Just his manner I guess.

566. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104289 by Radesq on December 28, 2007 at 9:26 am

See Atheist John: You think atheists are all Lefties and al-rwandi is worried they're in bed with the Neocons. Diversity of thought. And yes it was me who suggested you might be repressing something. I don't apologize for it because I'm not the one who said it was icky. In the first few posts you made I assumed you were trying to convince us that you were not gay -- very not gay. But after this long, it no longer seems like its us you're trying to convince. Nevertheless, who cares what your sexual orientation is? Do you still think atheists are all PC lefties or no?

567. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104104 by Radesq on December 27, 2007 at 10:19 pm

The gullibility of the American public cannot be overestimated. It's not like this is the first story of this kind to be publicized or the fifth or the fiftieth. Some people never learn. Right Scooter? If you're out there you should be all over this one.

568. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104100 by Radesq on December 27, 2007 at 10:07 pm

So this is not on topic but Downunder has reminded me of a some questions that bother me. What is the life (I'm taking that as a synonym for soul) like in the afterlife? Is it like a ghosty looking semi human version of yourself or just an invisible consciousness? I ask because this other dimensional thing (I'm taking that to mean heaven)always seemed like it would be a rather boring place filled with mostly old people as that is when most people die. No offense old people I am rapidly becoming one. Again I was always puzzled by the quandary of someone who's spouse dies young and who then remarries. Who do you hang out with when your eternal reward comes? (awkward!) If most churches have done away with purgatory what kind of heaven is there for a miscarried or aborted fetus? Or alternatively if you die young do you stay young forever in heaven? Do they have books or are you stuck with a first grade education if you die in a car accident at age 6? Perhaps these seem like silly questions (alright they are silly questions) but I suspect if we could discern some answers it might be helpful for some.

569. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104094 by Radesq on December 27, 2007 at 9:54 pm

Right -- a necessary condition for preservation but not a sufficient condition for progress. But what can you do? Gotta start somewhere.

570. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104087 by Radesq on December 27, 2007 at 9:18 pm

Well, my question goes to the veracity of these claims of belief given the penalties associated with heresy in early ages. It doesn't mean the people he mentions weren't believers, just that their written views might be a bit less than forthright for practical reasons.

Another point that occurs to me is -- the fact that many medical doctors smoked some years back does not indicate that smoking and good health are compatible. Perhaps these scientists of earlier ages really should have known better.

571. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104085 by Radesq on December 27, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Is it proper to assume Billy that you believe the scientists from previous centuries you mention would be believers were they alive today?

572. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104084 by Radesq on December 27, 2007 at 8:52 pm

If a person who would appoint secularist justices wins the Presidential election -- the most likely vacancies will be for the seats currently occupied by the more secular justices. Not much of a gain, but perhaps at the appellate and trial levels of the federal judiciary some progress might be made.

573. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104073 by Radesq on December 27, 2007 at 7:14 pm

When using the US Supreme Court and secularism in the same sentence be sure to use the past tense.

574. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104034 by Radesq on December 27, 2007 at 4:34 pm

I kind of like Deism. At least the way I think of it as the God who locks his keys in his car while its still running. It is a lot less obviously false than the God of the three Books. There is a lot more room to work with a non-interventionist God. Alas, he is still superfluous in my book.

575. Man and God

Comment #103785 by Radesq on December 26, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Those modish atheists who claim to understand the panoply of religious experience, or myth as they would have it, are, in the words of a critic, like "someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is The Book of British Birds".

576. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103774 by Radesq on December 26, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Scooternyc: I'm sure your callous indignation will teach that young man a lesson. He won't dare pull that stunt again anytime soon.

577. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103480 by Radesq on December 25, 2007 at 7:27 pm

I'm afraid I don't know what you are referring to. Although I find Hitchens very intelligent and interesting to listen to I certainly am not conversant with everything he has said. Did you repost it somewhere above? Generally, I would think an atheist may or may not want to burn down a mosque for whatever reasons. Atheists in a group? I don't know of any plans. Do you think he meant to say atheists would not do such a thing because they are atheists? I am not aware of an atheist rule book that says you can't do such a thing. I don't advocate such a thing -- it doesn't seem like a nice thing to do.

578. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103476 by Radesq on December 25, 2007 at 7:10 pm

Now your talking. Atheist are not uniform in their political views any more than Religious people are ( and I would argue less so, because they are united in one thing that they don't believe rather than a group of things that they all agree on). Is it possible that certain subsets will agree on a number of things other than god is unproven -- sure, likely in fact. But just the few statements I've made here will be enough to prompt disagreement from someone whether or not they respond.

579. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103471 by Radesq on December 25, 2007 at 6:42 pm

AJ: The only reason one issue continues to kill you here is because you persist in flame baiting. I don't understand this as you seem to be able to converse normally on other topics.

Your clear fixation on gay men kissing on trains and expressing their fantasies makes you look like Ted Haggard (not to mention your obvious self-loathing man crush on Bill Clinton).

If you want to talk about Stalin being an atheist (which most agree he was) or something else that is not symptomatic of your repression, then feel free to do so. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.

580. Man and God

Comment #103469 by Radesq on December 25, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Agreed, the oil tanker is changing direction. I quibbled with "death throes". Forgive me I don't know your politics, but it seems you are using the more Cheneyesque definition of that term. Thanks for the pep talk though.

581. Man and God

Comment #103448 by Radesq on December 25, 2007 at 5:10 pm

To Richard Morgan 76
In what way is it clear we are witnessing the death throes of religion? It seems to me that perhaps some eyes have been opened by the discussions of science and reason by RD and others. However, editorial commentaries like the Times one above show that some (many?)people will still either consciously or subconsciously deny or misconstrue what their eyes and ears present to them. They also will go to enormous lengths to avoid applying everyday reasoning to the subject of religious faith. Every faith that came before the ones we have today has died or been replaced. But I don't see any certainty that Abrahamic religions will be replaced anytime soon or that they will necessarily be replaced by reason and the scientific method.

582. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103257 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Perhaps or more likely cash registers have been rattled. StephenH

583. Bible bashing dying out in Kansas

Comment #103256 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Sorry, I meant to say Dr. Steve Zara

584. Bible bashing dying out in Kansas

Comment #103255 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Steve Zara: I hate to do this because it's no longer has any chance of being funny (if it ever did) but if your were trying to help me out on the definition of pissed -- please reread my post 17 more carefully.

Just so this isn't totally off topic I would also point out that Bible bashing never dies out around here, but like a traveling road show it has to keep on moving before people catch on.

585. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103241 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Is it even possible to argue that religion does not hinder science? I'm not a scientist (which I'm sure comes as no surprise to anyone who's read my postings) but I have heard of the Dark ages and Da Vinci and the Scopes trial and stem cell research. I think science and religion might be a tad antagonistic.

586. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #103233 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Thanks walk, I didn't think I could hold back the urine reference much longer. If you know what I mean. His/her prayers have not succeeded in converting me yet, but it is Christmas eve.

587. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #103219 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Heavens no, why in the hell would you do such a thing - take such a devil may care attitude -- holy cow!

588. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #103216 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Personally I don't find faith to be very useful in predicting events or solving problems in the real world. So I don't find it to be the equal of science. Does that mean God doesn't exist - no. But it does mean that I get along fine without him. It seems to me that if he is unnecessary, then it is that much more unlikely he exists (you know Occam's razor and all that stuff).

589. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103211 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Yes freethink25 that may be, but see my 6 & Corylus 13 -- you never know perhaps he just outsmarted himself.

590. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #103209 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Urin4it Why don't you pray for us to gain your wisdom, that should do it.

591. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #103137 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 10:59 am

RE: Csarven 330 -- Are faith and science equally valid systems for judging reality and just a matter for subjective preference?

592. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103126 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 10:37 am

Interesting stuff Billy, are you trying to make a point other than Isaac Newton believed in God?

593. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103091 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 9:48 am

Neil: Maybe the US kids should have five moments of silence per day and maybe they should all face toward Washington DC when they do -- so their contemplative power will assist the Department of Education.

594. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103072 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 9:30 am

...and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
-- Vizzini

595. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103065 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 9:20 am

Barbara at 18 is right. Individuals are not prevented from exercising their rights - just because the institutionalization of a moment of silence (which really means prayer or why bother organizing at all?) is prohibited. Will the Shermans and their supporters be derided as fundamentalists, militant, strident, intolerant, angry? Almost certainly. They will just have to smile and repeat the Reason for their opposition.

596. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103051 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 8:54 am

Fighting Falcon -- My inclination is to agree with you, I don't like getting all worked up over little things. But, what would be the right fight at the right time? In the USA this stuff is so ingrained in the culture you have to start somewhere. Why not start with allowing children to have their own moments of quiet contemplation when they feel like it -- rather than by group coercion (even if that may be too strong a word for it)

597. Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad

Comment #103014 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 7:37 am

dragonfirematrix 26

I disagree with your last statement. The problems of terrorism and war have many causes -- religion being one of them. Religion, however, makes it harder to find non-violent solutions to these problems because of its intractable nature and its near imperviousness to reason.

598. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103011 by Radesq on December 24, 2007 at 7:23 am

Irate Atheist: Your vivisection at 60 above is of the M Bunting Guardian commentary right? It doesn't have to do the RD Delusion Book, which I assume almost nobody has read.
My favorite has to be the disclaiming indoctrination bit. I was never taught religion as a child. I did write reports on the Greek & Roman empires in elementary school however, and that required some learning about their Pagan Gods. The difference was nobody was telling me this is true and you must believe it or burn in hell for eternity (or leave that last part off if you are a "moderate"). Even at a young age it is OK even good to learn about religions. But what Churches and religious schools appear to me to do is not educate it is indoctrinate.

599. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102902 by Radesq on December 23, 2007 at 8:45 pm

Albondigas: I think the prevailing belief for the majority of humanity for the longest period of time would still be pagan gods not monotheism at this juncture. If you agree that is the case then your argument that it is incumbent upon atheists to prove God doesn't exist - loses its basis. Your point about how unlikely or foolish a deception the bodily resurrection would have been is a bit odd to me. I see what you are getting at, but in terms of foolish or unnecessary claims what do you say to Mormonism, Scientology, etc... which make even more unnecessarily outlandish claims IMHO and have many believers?

600. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102897 by Radesq on December 23, 2007 at 8:35 pm

OK I see this question was posed to another writer on another thread so I'll let you off the hook. I don't suppose it is likely that I will come up with anything that hasn't been discussed here at least a dozen times. But I'm not going to let that stand in my way.