601. Man to die over insult

Comment #47148 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 6:38 am

Story is now dugg. The digg icon is just above the comments, in the center. Please digg this article--it takes a few minutes to open a digg account if you do not have one. Also, please leave comments and use the digg setup to email/blog this dugg story to your friends, family, and acquaintances.

My comment at the digg site has my letter and the list of email addresses.

This article has been dugg by other sites, but I still went ahead and started a new dugg thread, because I wanted to take advantage of the hefty web traffic this site has.

602. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47128 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 4:33 am

Nice find, Luthien, I wonder if there is a patron saint for wiping one's arse?

Here's ours, the patron saint of the internet:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/sainti04.htm

603. Man to die over insult

Comment #47116 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 3:49 am

Here is my letter put together from the suggested template which I am sending to the below email links:

I am writing to express my concern for Younis Masih, who was charged with blasphemy on 11 September 2005, Parvez Aslam Choudhry, and their families. I call upon you to take immediate steps to guarantee their safety and the immediate and unconditional release of Younis Masih.

The Pakistan law defines blasphemy so broadly that it makes Pakistan into a country intolerant to practice of religion in its many forms or the non-practice of religion.

I urge you to work towards the abolishing of laws, including the blasphemy laws, which provide for people to be punished for exercising their rights to freedom of opinion and expression.

In addition, I am asking for an immediate moratorium on all executions in Pakistan, in line with worldwide trends to abolish the death penalty with a view to an eventual abolition of the death penalty.


APPEALS TO:
Minister for the Interior
Mr Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao
Ministry for the Interior, Room 404, 4th Floor, Block R, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92 51 9202624
E-mail: minister@interior.gov.pk
secretary@interior.gov
Salutation: Dear Minister

Minister of Law, Justice and Human Rights
Mr. Muhammad Wasi Zafar
Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights, S Block, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92 51 9202628
E-mail: minister@molaw.gov.pk
Salutation: Dear Minister


COPIES TO:
Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
H.E. Mr. Shahbaz
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
Eckersbergs gate 20
0244 Oslo
Fax: 22 55 50 97
Email: info@pakistanembassy.no

PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY.

EDIT: I removed the punjab.gov.pk one because it is no longer valid. I also forgot to copy each of the emails to the embassy in Norway, but I did send a separate one there. The sending of the emails took about 10 minutes. Remember to put in the subject field: Appeal for Younis Masih.

604. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47110 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 3:19 am

Rtambree, Your rendition of McGrath, though excellent, made me throw up in my own mouth.

OT: Can you access Asktheatheist.com site? I have been unable to since yesterday.

EDIT: This is a nice, perky, friendly-to-atheism review. Regarding the use of AMEN, I think RAmen is a decent substitute. So far, the only religious language to which I object when used by theists when communicating with atheists, is the use of God Bless. Why not, simply, wishing you health and happiness. Perhaps, because other than their God forcing them to be nice to you, they really are just a bunch of b*stards?

605. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47107 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 3:07 am

Dianelos wrote: So when atheists discuss religion they must at least temporarily abandon their basic beliefs or preconceptions about reality, because failure to do so amounts to begging the question.
_______

What question is that? Are atheists asking if there is a God?

Would you similarly offer the same advice to a psychiatrist treating a Schizophrenia sufferer? You are simply advocating that religion be given a special pass and not be subjected to the same demand for evidence as any other reality is.

606. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47105 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 3:00 am

bouve wrote, Perhaps we are deficient in some way and should be pitied for our inability to "tap in" to the power source known as "god"?
________

Or perhaps the pity would be better served if it was served to believers who despite the evidence that not all people are brain-wired to be receptive to the presence of a supernatural being because their God apparently failed to make them that way, and therefore dooming them to eternal damnation, keep on insisting that ignoring such evidence if not for the lack of Gods, but for an existence of an cruel and certainly not a loving one, is reasonable and fair.

607. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47100 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 2:44 am

The perspective held by Dianelos is redolent of, though in an apparently milder form, of the kind of admonition that a more extreme believer of religious superstitions would hold: IF YOU DO NOT READ AND ADHERE TO THE WORD OF GOD YOU ARE ALL GOING TO HELL, NOT TO MENTION MISSING THE RAPTURE! Instead, in Dianelos' version, if we do not study the finer religious points--the spellbinding nap of the velvet, the captivating drape of drapery, the sublime cut of the cloth, we are all going to stew in our superficial juices, preventing us from paddling about in a profound pool of pathetic pedantry.

608. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47098 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 2:32 am

Dianelos wrote: By equal measure then it is unreasonable when a scientist claims that theism is so obviously wrong that one does not have to actually study the religious thought behind it before rejecting it.
_______

I also think it is very unreasonable for car drivers to insist that car driving is better, more reasonable, and effective than driving a horse-drawn buggy. If they only would study the marvelous aspects of horse-drawn buggies, they will see that when driving in their cars so fast, they see nothing but a blurry forest. In fact, I think they should all get out of their cars and walk instead. How about crawling, that would even be slower?

609. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47087 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 1:55 am

Mr. Doubter, our dear weekend godder, your religious experience seems to be mostly one of touch, the touching of hot honey flowing over your head. Touching is a sensation like smelling...

You have not responded--not that I can remember--to human brains being shown to be superb simulation software.

My personal anecdotes were to mostly underline the contextual framing commented on by alovrin. The first, the one of my friend, was to show how supernatural context plays an role in interpreting information. The second, my own experience in knowing what the identity of the playing card was, is to show that when one does not have any supernatural framework in place to which to resort, it is not.

Unfortunately, since religious upbringings are prevalent, the majority of humanity has this context located conveniently close by within which they can frame an event or an experience. The ubiquitous possession of fantastic simulation software coupled with the learned framework of the supernatural can result in some pretty zany interpretations.

As far as what to "do" with your particular religious experience, that is entirely up to you.

I once participated in what was called a special encounter with Jesus. I was handpicked for this event, and I failed miserably. The stage was set, in a dark room, with a recording droning the words of the NT, with fragrant, burning incense, flickering candles, lush draperies, etc. The other 5 girls--we were teenagers--fell sobbing to their knees, experiencing all kinds of revelations, while I remained erect and dry-eyed, observing this spectacle of theatrical set triggering of emotion with emphasis on latching said emotion to the supernatural.

On the way out of this "event", I met up with one of the two priests hosting this encounter with the Lord, and I stated that it was disgusting that these girls were led into behaving like a bunch of silly ninnys. He said that not all were as smart as me, and that such "tricks" were necessary in order to make some to feel the presence of the Lord, but not me, I could simply be talked to. Ha! He was wrong about that, as I was able, some years down the road, to help him air some of his grievous doubts about his chosen profession.

610. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47080 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 1:22 am

Dianelos, I agree with Dr. Benway's comment 47035 regarding whether absolute evidence is required or not in order to agree on a consensus.

Philosophy is not one of my strong points because I find much of it ridiculous. I remembered acing a Philosophy test in University, even though I had not read a single suggested reading as I was too occupied reading non-philosophy books of my own choosing instead. I just flim flammed my way through the test, and the professor rewarded me with an A anyway. I just made everything up, sort of like what astrologers do.

There are some here that are not like me, and do appreciate what Philosophy offers, like Russell Blackford, and perhaps they can respond to your comments. I was once told that Philosophy is the love of knowledge, and if that is true, then I suppose it is a worthy discipline. Except it seems that some major philosophy was being done before significant scientific tools, methods, and knowledge were amassed, and that these achievements would most likely re-interpret what knowledge can consider to be.

611. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47075 by Logicel on June 3, 2007 at 1:06 am

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote: Or consider this: Suppose God had given us evidence for His/Her existence that is similar to the evidence we use to ascertain the existence of teapots or electrons. Wouldn't this misguide us into thinking that God is similar to teapots or electrons? And don't you think that God, being benevolent, would abstain from misguiding us in this way?
_______

All I am asking for is that He spontaneously regrows all missing human limbs which are missing at present on earth at the same time. Is this too much to ask for a "benevolent" God to demonstrate His existence in such a manner? Though the God in question would also have to tattoo His particular identity to distinguish His from the many that have been worshiped in the past and in the present, on these regrown limbs.

Perhaps this "benevolent" God is too busy creating lethal tidal waves and earthquakes to take a little break from His meaningful work? And if the regrowing of missing human limbs causes Him to be tired, can He then in His Goodness, establish maybe 2 more days of rest, so we could all have three-day extended weekends? And if this regrowing of missing limbs somehow interferes with His Divine Plan, can't He just make the limbs disappear again?

Despite my being a bit dense in the philosophy department, I did suspect that Dianelos is a master weaver of the same cloth which Plantinga tirelessly weaves, the brown cloth of Crapolan (TM). Unfortunately, clothing his naked Emperor with Crapolan (TM), causes His Divine Emperor to look even worse than if He was naked and certainly much more disagreeably smelly.

612. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47034 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote: But another obvious way to interpret such experiences is that the experience of God evidences the existence of God, and if our brains are hardwired for such experiences the more the better as God is the creator of the physical world and has hardwired our brains for us to experience Him/Her.
_____

Neuroscience studies also note that not all human brains are receptive to religion and belief in the supernatural. Like Dawkins. Apparently God does not love him enough to have made his brain receptive to Him.

Plantinga gives me a rash just typing his name! The article written by him posted at this site is an icky mess of driveling mush. But, then again, philosophy is not one of my strong points. Perhaps, some others who have a grasp of philosophy can respond critically to your comment.

613. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47032 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 8:51 pm

Another personal anecdote is this:

While walking several times around the park near my workplace during lunch for exercise, I noted a playing card face down on the ground. I knew FOR SURE, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER, that I KNEW what card it was--an Ace of Spades. I bent down, turned it over, and it was an Ace of Spades. I had a good laugh and a think, and came up with the following explanation. I had seen this same card face up during my walk, and it was marked in a peculiar fashion for it was torn in one corner. Having good observational skills and memory, I had stored that bit of info and then later retrieved it. I was not operating within the context of the supernatural in the first place. I simply figured out why I was able to know what the identity of the card was.

614. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47028 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Mr. Doubter, several decades ago, I took LSD, and among other odd and uncanny perceptions, the stone stairs to my building wavered so much, I had to weave among the moving steps in order to reach my apartment, the toilet paper in my WC appeared to be the most elaborately embroidered satin brocade that I have ever seen, and the clouds which apparently were following me in order to talk to me, did exactly that, talk to me.

In addition, I completed my psychiatric nursing training in Bellevue, a large NYC hospital, and believe me, I was surrounded by folks who took the manifestations of this wonderful simulation software--the human brain--to be true and meaningful. They apparently had some kind of equivalent of LSD being produced in their bodies.

As RD in TGD noted, our human brain is a simulation software of the most extraordinary kind.

alovrin pointed out in this comment, Theres your answer, the context in which it happened. A friend, who had recently experienced a car crash, where she had to endure sitting, clutching her small, shrieking dog on her lap, trapped in her seat, next to the dead body of her husband whose head was crushed by the driving wheel for a half an hour before help arrived and she was rescued, related the following to me.

She was much troubled by this traumatic event, and she often, being a follower of new age nonsense, would place crystals and burn incense in front of a collection of her husband's photos. During one such ceremony, she smelled the cologne of her husband. She was so happy that he was communicating with her. Some days later, she spent some time downstairs, visiting with her neighbor, who rented the downstairs floor with its expansive patio. While sitting in her neighbor's living room, a man strode in from the patio, which is directly under the room where my friend conducted her ceremonies. Lo and behold, this gentleman smelled of her dead husband's cologne.

My friend was not expecting her dead husband to communicate, but within the context of the ritual, and that is what your context is also, the rituals of your religion, she was able to jump to an irrational conclusion.

615. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47023 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 7:47 pm

The article/discussion section at this site often is graced by a Sunday drive-by-godder. This weekend it is james_the_doubter who seems at first glance a nice enough bloke. See if he sticks around. Anyway, I look forward to the next Sunday drive-by godder that will visit this site, perhaps, next Sunday?

616. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #47017 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 6:46 pm

james_the_doubter wrote: Logicel wrote:

Remember, there is no concrete evidence for the supernatural--use that handle as a lodestone, to anchor yourself to a bedrock of logic and rationality while doubting your faith.



I just got into this subject on the McGrath/Dawkins thread... it'd be great to hear what you have to say.
_______

I am taking you to mean what evidence I would consider constituting proof that a supernatural being exists? If so, then I would request that all missing human limbs be spontaneously re-grown all over the world, at the very same time.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

617. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #47015 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Fanusi Khiyal, I have read the essay which you recommended (see link below). Thanks for the link.

Perhaps you can set up a forum thread, if you have not already, to discuss the points raised in this essay, as encouraging a discussion related to these points would be OT in this present thread.

In short--without elaborating upon my agreement/disagreement with the main points--the essay was well written and thought out, and I would encourage people interested in this topic to take the time out to read it. The essay took me about 15 minutes to read.

Silmarilion, please note that after awhile, maybe an half hour, this site may automatically log you off, leaving the comment box still open which you then fill with your wonderful, lengthy comment. Eventually, you may be dismayed to find out, since you are not really logged in, your comment "vanishes." You can use the back feature to get to that window, copy your comment, log back in, and than paste it in the now properly logged-on window. Or you can just type lengthy comments into a word processing file and then transfer them to this site.



http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp

618. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46913 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 7:18 am

Baeoz wrote: Can I get an Amen?
____

Of course not, but you are welcome to a loud and resounding: RAmen! As the church of the FSM is the only true religion as we all know.

This discussion on the three-in-one deal that the Christian God makes available to their minions reminds me of a comment written by a Christian at this site, that essentially it was cool that Christians get triple value for their investment. Of course, I had to mention that I believe in Joe Pesci as George Carlin does, and that since Pesci has created around 40 film characters, I am getting a better value deal.

Anyway, bitbutter has designed a quite visually attractive website and invited several of us from this site to contribute to answering questions posed to atheists. Hopefully, there is no good reason why bitbutter has failed to emblazon the url here, but being the loud, brash, native New Yorker that I am, here goes:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions

619. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46879 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 4:01 am

Some Christians also haggle themselves out of that annoying clash of their supposed free will and the omniscience of their deity with the interpretation that though God may know what they will do and decide, they, the believers do not, that is they are not let into the God game/plan, therefore they do essentially have free will.

My brain hurts.

620. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46878 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 3:55 am

About the 3 in 1 Trinity... I've always thought about it like an egg.... there's a shell, the egg white, and the yolk. All egg, but different parts.
_____

Cute explanation, but does the eggshell in its separateness go around hurling locusts at recalcitrant kings? Does the egg white go separately prancing about and impregnating virgins? Do yolks separately go about sacrificing themselves on the cross in order to redeem human souls?

No, they don't. They all stay together and contribute to the development of a real creature, perhaps a chicken or a sparrow.

Remember, there is no concrete evidence for the supernatural--use that handle as a lodestone, to anchor yourself to a bedrock of logic and rationality while doubting your faith.

621. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46873 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 3:21 am

will young wrote: Mormons do believe in an evolving god that lives physically on another planet.

Just thought I would toss that out for the sake of discussion, certainly not to promote LDS as a rational belief because it is not. Having an evolving god does make for a more realistic mythology though.
______

The creative ways--how dare lowly believers challenge God on his monopoly of creation--in which believers in the supernatural can manage to contort reasoning and logic so as to feel they are being reasonable and logical is AMAZING. And somewhat comforting, if only the power of human creativity and imagination could be harnessed to work within reality, like scientists, artist, inventors, etc. do.

I would not agree that such creativity on the part of Mormons constitute in creating a more realistic mythology, but just simply a more convenient one, one that they can delude themselves as constituting a more 'rational' approach to the irrational.

622. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46872 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 3:10 am

james_the_doubter wrote: ....unbelievers need to be open to the idea that faith is true and there is a god. Right?
_________

Which of the many faiths and Gods which exist and have existed would that be?

As for keeping an open mind--as per that clever saying--one needs not to have it so open the brain falls out.

Dawkins, when asked what he would say to God if he is wrong and does face Him after all after death, Dawkins would say, "Not enough evidence, not enough evidence." Dawkins has also given something comparable to alovrin's suggestion as what would constitute evidence.

As Flagellant astutely notes, it does take time to recover from all the nonsense and illogic thrown at a religious person. In my own case, though I was a closet atheist since the age of seven until the age of eighteen when I was able to leave my Catholic home, I still often display weak and distorted reasoning to which my husband (we are both middle-aged now), who was raised in an atheist household, will gently and consistently call my attention much to my gratitude. I recommend that you surround yourself with as many rational people as possible, including on the Web. There are many sites that would fit the bill--check the links on the top left of this site.

Because I needed to be, in essence, an one-body schoolhouse with bolted windows and doors, where I secretly nurtured reasoning, while being brought up as a Catholic, my reasoning/logic skills unfortunately did not have a chance to be exposed to criticism, polishing, and challenge. Nowadays, no closet atheists/doubters needs to suffocate themselves in such a manner, because of the wide, wonderful Web.

623. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46856 by Logicel on June 2, 2007 at 1:19 am

Titchfield wrote: Billions of people living in the most appalling ignorance and often poverty, does not sound like a comfortable situation to me.
______

I would suspect that Ms. Bone is interested in eradicating extreme global poverty, and if I am correct in this assumption, then her words are carelessly presented. Otherwise, her article is a welcome addition to positive reviews regarding the current crop of atheist writings. Though I agree with others that her use of agnosticism was also carelessly presented.

Statistics show when poverty and insecurity are lessened, so are religious beliefs. In the light of these statistics, the religious attraction to glorifying poverty and pain--like what that pathetic Mother Teresa did--becomes clear. Do/did missionaries, past and present, actually play(ed) a concrete role in permanently removing the causes of poverty, or did they just offer some slight relief in the form of ministered goods, instead of actually imparting skills, solid education, and essential tools so these poor people and their future generations could steadily erase poverty? In other words, just keep them alive long enough to convert them? What motivation do these missionaries have to really and truly erase global poverty? Poverty is a great boon for their business.

In the case of Mother Teresa, she basically took starving, diseased, dying people who were in great pain, off the streets to let them die indoors on concrete beds, claiming they were better off. In my mind, they were worse off, because they should/could have been given so much more. And that bitch had the resources/publicity to do so. If you go to the trouble of taking them off the street, then please only do that if you can really make a difference. I can imagine desperate people, in great despair and pain, at first, feeling a sense of hope when their plight was finally noticed when they were picked off the street by that bitch's minions, only to rot indoors, instead of out on the street.

As much as the Gates Foundation is criticized for its possible monopoly in the charity field, I think their 'mission' statement is spot on, and I suspect that they will be able to make the world a bit more receptive to atheism by lessening the root problems--like rampant disease and malnutrition--which feed religious beliefs.

624. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46763 by Logicel on June 1, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Wrought wrote: I like McGrath's point that it's about salvation not explanation.
________

From the many religions which existed and exist at present with their myriad sects which is the true one that will insure salvation? Focusing on the point that religion is about salvation does not explain the contradictory plethora of religions available, and how to navigate one's way towards the truth.

Pushing the need for salvation, of which there is no proof that it is required for anyone, is a potent way to ensure that the particular faith will be passed on to the next generation, for no parent would wish their child to be doomed for all eternity.

The fact that McGrath can dispense such inane glibness signifies that he contributes to the ensnaring of people to mentally and emotionally inhabit a world of fabricated nonsense.

625. Photos of The God Delusion Event in Second Life

Comment #46748 by Logicel on June 1, 2007 at 11:40 am

Yes, I have played 2nd life just a little, and it was interesting and fun. But, prancing about via a virtual avatar in virtual space is not my cup tea in general; I miss the smells, touch, and the spontaneous, surprising action of real life. Anyway, I really enjoyed the photos, the teeshirts especially!

626. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46736 by Logicel on June 1, 2007 at 10:32 am

In certain ways, the average person is an expert in determining what the non-verbal aspects of communication could infer. If a person is smiling and laughing, but his tone is sober and serious, the average person notes that contrast.

Communications professionals will use and collect what the non-professional notes about non-verbal communication, and armed with this knowledge, the expert can guide public speakers to address certain aspects of their non-verbal delivery to enhance their presentation and comprehension of their points depending on the people comprising the audience and the location.

As McGrath's argument is just a bunch of waffle trying to rationalize an unproven notion of God's existence and His divine role in human lives, I can understand why some here are focusing on what information McGrath's style of delivery can be giving us.

McGrath's physical style of debating unfortunately has more meat than his feeble arguments. With Dawkins, his style of debate can certainly be discussed and has been on this site. But with Dawkins, since his arguments are substantial, it is an ad hom when they are completely ignored, while his style is solely focused upon.

627. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46730 by Logicel on June 1, 2007 at 10:01 am

I forgot the exact percentage, but a hefty bit of our so-called verbal communication comes from the non-verbal bits, like body language, hand gestures, tone and inflection of the voice, etc.

Communication experts when dissecting a verbal performance will always focus on the non verbal bits as they are also communicating essential information.

628. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46729 by Logicel on June 1, 2007 at 9:51 am

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote: His position seems to be this: God as a rule does not interfere with the natural order; after all if God did as a rule interfere with the natural order then we would be living in some kind of magical Mickey Mouse kind of world and clearly the world we live in is nothing like that.
____

Religious believers, especially the sophisticated ones like McGrath can be marvelous in the way they can manage to verbally twist and turn to support their UNFOUNDED, NON-EVIDENTIAL, FAITH-BASED beliefs.

In psychiatry, a delusional paranoid person is wrong in his/her belief that he/she is being followed by a non-existent stalker. However, once that delusional premise is accepted, the rest of the patient's logic is perfectly rational. The patient will look out for the stalker and try to prevent him/herself from winding up in a deserted location, etc.

With religious folks of the educated theologian brand which McGrath represents, it requires a bit of vigilance to keep in focus that their superbly glib logic and reasoning is based on a premise that has no support in reality.

629. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46724 by Logicel on June 1, 2007 at 9:28 am

I was unable to endure McGrath's repellent physical gesturing and verbal style more than a few seconds. However, I have read some of his articles and am familiar with his sophisticated brand of religious hogwash.

Keith, I agree with your psychological 'speculation' regarding the possible reason why McGrath is so stiff and unwelcoming in his verbal and physical mannerisms. As McGrath is an adept at denying that the emperor is naked, what else can a freethinker latch onto except what McGrath's peculiar and frozen physical behavior is saying about his personal reality?

Apparently, his abominable style is perceived as soothing to some church-going members. I regard this positive effect as a very significant clue as to why McGrath speaks and acts the way he does. Preachers and theologians share the talent of performing in front of an audience with secular entertainers.

However for me, the atheist that I am, it is as if McGrath's entire body was rough sandpaper and it pains me just to think of an accidental brushing against him, while his strangely strangled voice oozes words out like a continuous stream of thick, congealed mud.

630. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46407 by Logicel on May 31, 2007 at 6:17 am

Baeoz, I enjoyed the guitar playing very much, however I was unable to understand the sung lyrics, and I noted that written lyrics for Sunday was not provided.

631. I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

Comment #46398 by Logicel on May 31, 2007 at 5:49 am

Good satire, not necessarily hilarious, but its focus on irrational folks regarding themselves as being rational while believing the unbelievable is precious.

632. Diary of a Deserter

Comment #46392 by Logicel on May 31, 2007 at 5:26 am

There are now 17 comments for Brian's latest post, all supportive, helpful, and positive. I can only imagine that the 17 commenters are theists misrepresenting themselves as atheists, because we all know that atheists are cold, uncaring, and selfish. :-)))

633. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46202 by Logicel on May 30, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Liveliest Crib, you indeed have mystical powers as the article posted shortly after this one focuses on empathy being hard-wired:



http://richarddawkins.net/article,1207,If-It-Feels-Good-to-Be-Good-It-Might-Be-Only-Natural,Shankar-Vedantam-Washington-Post

634. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46200 by Logicel on May 30, 2007 at 2:30 pm

29. Comment #46095 by Skeptic Jim on May 30, 2007 at 7:41 am
Lets say i had a lemon and it could talk. Would it believe in god?
______

Excellent and hilarious--I can't stop laughing--analogy summing up concisely and wickedly the fractured and barely coherent substance of Prager's presentation.

635. A Look at Regent University

Comment #46199 by Logicel on May 30, 2007 at 2:26 pm

...it was a reminder that the wall between church and state in America more closely resembles Swiss cheese.
______

More like grilled, melted Swiss cheese.

636. If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural

Comment #46196 by Logicel on May 30, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Eventually, you are bound to get into areas that for thousands of years we have preferred to keep mystical,...
________

Preferred? As it was a choice? We came to such conclusions/attitudes based on lack of knowledge. With such advances in our understanding stemming from discoveries in neuroscience and other disciplines, this attitude, that was once held--simply because we did not know what we do at present--should be now regarded as preference, instead of ignorance?

Religion was born out of scarcity of information which science later provided. Our embracing supernatural explanations, such as God imbuing us with the will to choose good over evil, is a habitual, 'wise' way of regarding the issue. How can such habits be replaced with a more learned and informed view? I would love to see before my life is finished, public service announcements on the TV stating that religion is superfluous to the human ability to be moral, very much like announcements informing the public that excessive vitamin intake is not required for the majority of cases, and that the required amount can be obtained through normal eating of nutritional foods.

637. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46183 by Logicel on May 30, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Prager, at least, certainly can not be considered to be tainted with post modernism. Other than that saving grace, the style and content of his argument was blunt, clumsy, and mostly boring.

I think I have been living outside of America so long, that this very American style of Prager's--blustery but straightforward and still friendly--has lost its appeal. Instead of being warmed by such a style, I stare into the blank intellectual space created by Prager and wonder how in the world can it ever be filled with something of substance and elegance.

638. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45985 by Logicel on May 30, 2007 at 12:58 am

RDs pointing out that moderates--by regarding that belief without evidence is good--play an important role in giving credibility to the extremists, is a point that rings true to me. On the level of embracing non-evidential faith, though it may result in a more moderate expression of the practice of non-evidential faith--as in the case of Andrew Sullivan, Hedges, etc.--the moderate cleaving to believing in the supernatural, in believing in the positive power of non-evidential faith, is extreme. Despite the moderate expression of their faith, these blokes, are still extremists, as they are extremists in thought though perhaps not in action, and they present a significant roadblock against rationality in the public sphere.

I think that RD really does get it in this regard--he is pinpointing a very useful and valuable handle in focusing on the role that moderates play in giving credibility to the incredible stance of embracing beliefs without evidence. But even without that 'indirect' role, how about the direct role that these moderates play themselves, in encouraging themselves and others to continue to regard non-evidential belief systems as being valuable? How do they, in their sloppy reasoning adversely affect the quality of everyday life of decision making if they are capable of regarding non-evidential belief as a positive state of mind? Studies are needed to focus on this aspect of the religious mind--how does their belief in the supernatural, in believing in the power of non-evidential faith, how does this manifest itself in everyday decision making, does the compartmentalization work as well as we think it does?

In summary, on the mental level, both moderates and extremists are similar, they are disgracefully connected to one another even if the moderates are wishy-washy or would never, ever contemplate flying planes into buildings. Though one can focus on the different personalities that different religites have, those differences seem not to matter, but get pushed in the background, and their idiocy of embracing non-evidential beliefs flourish in the foreground, making them more alike than not. If you have not already, please read the dialog between Sullivan and Harris to get a sense of this extremeness in thought and non-evidential belief system that the moderate Sullivan can pull off with ease.

639. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45721 by Logicel on May 29, 2007 at 4:41 am

'Debates' between posters knowledgeable of science who happen to be atheists and posters who are theists who happen to be more or less scientifically misguided are interesting to observe from a psychological point of view. In addition, I often encounter important information or links offered by the posters knowledgeable in science.

Yes, it is positive to see the patience displayed by posters in responding to such tortured logic and misinformed/biased grasp of science. However their patience is met with an equal 'force', that of inflexibility.

My present reading of Unweaving the Rainbow by RD has thrown up this relevant bit--p 144:

The quality of childhood that I am trying to pin down is not pure gullibility but a complex combination of gullibility coupled with its opposite--stubborn persistence in a belief, once acquired. The full recipe, then, is extreme early gullibility followed by equally obstinate subsequent unshakeability. You can see what a devastating combination this could be.

Yup, a devastating combination for sure. And that is why supporters of religious superstitions want and need to indoctrinate 'gullible' children--gullible in the sense that their minds are thirsty sponges and will absorb what adults offer them. And that is also why, secularists want to keep religion out of public schools and encourage critical thinking as early as possible.

640. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45338 by Logicel on May 27, 2007 at 8:06 am

Per RDs mentioning that one cannot even joke without anticipating any word or expression being misunderstood as terrorist planning, public airports in many countries are now no longer places of free speech.

641. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45337 by Logicel on May 27, 2007 at 8:04 am

Jack Rawlinson wrote: It reveals that what this nonsense is really about is appearances. They need to be seen to be doing something; never mind whether that something actually makes sense, or is likely to be effective.
______

And just as revealing is that many Americans regard such mindless activities as ensuring their safety, rather seeing through their uselessness as RD does. In additon, if these so-called measures for 'security' are lampooned, you are accused of being anti-American and unpatriotic at the very least, or held for questioning at the very worst. Yup, the Christian right wingnuts have made Bin Laden a very happy and fulfilled terrorist.

642. Group Threatens to Sue Pentagon Over Military Role in Evangelical Festival

Comment #45317 by Logicel on May 27, 2007 at 6:52 am

Newton30 wrote: See letter #4 in the 'ugly' responses of 'the good, the bad, the ugly' section of this website.
_____

Here is said letter:

From John Doe:

Dawkins, you and your atheist friends cannot win. America WILL become a Christian Republic even if we have to write a whole new constitution. Millions of us are dedicated to this righteous cause. We will suceed. And then we will invade godless countries like "Great" Britain and kill all of your heathens. First we need to take care of things at home and in the Middle East but we will get around to Europe. You Godless freaks will die but then you will roast in hell for infinite time. Goodbye you loser.

643. Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Comment #45051 by Logicel on May 26, 2007 at 3:23 am

I remember, several months ago, a poster--named Peter, I think--lambasting us here because we were just focusing on 'bashing' gentle Christianity instead of 'violent' Islam. We replied that all religions are the same, and as atheists, they are all poppycock to us. Also, some of us mentioned the fear/political correctness/lack of familiarity factors concerning the challenging of Islam which all served to 'prove' that Peter was right, that we were only attacking Christianity because it was an 'easy' target.

I am not into appearing on vids so criticizing religions that way is not for me. However, I enjoy looking at them and commenting on them. Months ago, there was hardly anything negative on youtube against Islam. Now there is. So Peter, if you are still reading this site, you can rejoice that another religion is being 'persecuted'.

Referring to Condell's vids as hate speech is hilariously misguided. As Dawkins' TGD was greeted with joy and relief that these matters on the minds of many are finally getting publicity, so are the vids made by Condell. He is obviously, from the comments at his vids, doing very important and needed work.

If any here are offended by his vids, then please focus on why his challenging a belief system based on no evidence whatsoever is promoting hatred against the supporters of that belief system. Not only is religion in general subject to being coddled from criticism, but some religions even more so, like Islam. Why?

As I often do, I am going to compare this nonsense of being politically correct and tolerating intolerance with experiences from my past. Decades ago, on a bus trip from a Vietnam protest march in Wash, DC back to NYC, a group of hitchhiking African Americans were allowed to ride for free in a fully seated chartered bus. They played loud music, sitting on the floor next to my seat, jostling and scraping my legs, drinking beer the whole trip and spilling it all over me. I politely called their attention to the discomfort they were causing me, was immediately accused of racism for the whole trip, and was really let in for some serious screaming, needling, and insulting once we got off the bus. And not a single person challenged this nonsense, including my own friends.

I had found out at the tender age of 19, that not only was Nixon an idiot, but so were some on 'my side'. When humans act like a'holes, I call them on it, regardless of their race, creed, or sex. For this reason, I have been labeled racist, sexist, anti-American, anti-semitic, you name it, I have been called it. What are these people trying to do? In order to fight injustice/hatred, they are leaving their brains in the politically correct basement when confronted with criticism? They need their critical thinking brains on the ground floor of the discussion.

Please note this site and enter as a plaintiff if so desired--Condell mentioned it on one of his vids:

http://www.earthsgreatestlawsuit.org/plaintiff.php

644. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44806 by Logicel on May 25, 2007 at 10:17 am

Skeptyk, I also enjoy some writings by Hedges. He is very passionate about the injustices and hypocrisies in the world; however, he has trouble seeing where he ends and others begin. Empathy is wonderful, but it is not if it consumes the individual. In this article, I see Hedges' inability to accept reality in all its beauty/ugliness and in all his powerlessness. And because he cannot do this, he clings to what he regards as the necessity of transcendence.

Hedges is the opposite of Richard Feynman, who honestly admitted that he does know where he ends and other begins; armed with that viewpoint he focused on his life, reaping delicious fruits which he generously shared with his beloved students, who can then pass his wisdom and love of life onto others within their own small worlds.

In this article, Hedges states that the monotheistic religions were instrumental in creating the notion of an individual, freeing humanity from the constraints of tribal pressures--whether that is true or not is up to debate certainly--and then goes on to say that individuality breeds self-focused inanity, resulting in a pathetic God of one's self. Hedges seems dysfunctional psychologically in this article--tormented by some major internalized pushing/pulling.

645. Liberty U student plotted to set off explosives, police say

Comment #44282 by Logicel on May 24, 2007 at 4:33 am

However, members of dysfunctional families can and are encouraged to seek therapy. On the other hand, because of the absurd respect that is given to religion, a religious follower is not encouraged to mend their internalized basic dichotomy inherent in the religious view towards humanity.

The selfish gene leading to the altruistic society must be a horridly painful thorn in the side of supporters of religious superstitions. And neuroscience and its discoveries regarding the 'sick' brain drives those thorns even deeper. For they conclude that humans are decent, except when they are sick. No God need to apply.

646. Liberty U student plotted to set off explosives, police say

Comment #44279 by Logicel on May 24, 2007 at 4:26 am

Christians view all humans as being innately evil, but it also preaches that this evil can be adequately compensated by following the religion's credo--whatever that may be, as there are so many interpretations and sects. This attitude is reminiscent of dysfunctional parents constantly driving home the lack of worth in their children. In such families, the children are rewarded for kowtowing to this pressure; they are given confused, fragmented crumbs of 'love', which they hungrily grab. This dysfunctional 'push/pull can occupy their entire lives--you are bad, no you are good, no you are bad, no you are good.

They, like Christians, have a deep and basic distrust of their own humanity.

The photo of this young man--I wonder if it was taken before or after his arrest--shows an unhappy, troubled guy.

647. A galactic fossil - Star is found to be 13.2 billion years old

Comment #44091 by Logicel on May 23, 2007 at 9:58 am

Thanks for that link, bluebird.

648. The God question

Comment #44088 by Logicel on May 23, 2007 at 9:53 am

The core issues covered in TGD are presented via a writing style which is simple and easy to comprehend, without either sacrificing or diluting the substantial meaning of TGD. Kudos to this author.

649. Some US Muslims say suicide attacks OK

Comment #43982 by Logicel on May 23, 2007 at 5:59 am

Forty-seven percent said they consider themselves Muslim first, rather than American. Forty-two percent of Christians and 62 percent of white evangelical Protestants identified themselves primarily by their religion in earlier surveys.
_____

Why not consider themselves as HUMANS first?

650. The root of all evil?

Comment #43934 by Logicel on May 23, 2007 at 4:22 am

I don't know about you guys, but I'm really looking forward to a future war between small-minded Atheists, and small-minded, incredibly misguided, Christians!
______

You mean that atheists minds are not so open that their brains fall out? So, you are objecting essentially to people who insist on using their brains to relate to and solve problems in the world? Why should simply criticizing religion be cause for a war? Has your brain fallen out?