51. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106431 by troyreynolds86 on January 2, 2008 at 11:25 pm

You know, though at this point I plagiarize some previous comments, the first thing that popped into my head was that the Christians have become so unoriginal since their Founding Frauds, under the guiding hand of undiagnosed schizophrenia, first penned their sacred mythology, sinking so low as to copy an Atheist. Then I remember that they copied their mythology, too.

Also, I apologize to all schizophrenics for comparing you to certain people that are incapable of riding a horse.

52. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104955 by troyreynolds86 on December 30, 2007 at 6:36 am

I am impressed. A small step in the right direction.

But the Bishop, by implying that our (Atheist) morality is a social inheritance from our religious (Christian) heritage, doesn't even begin to explain how other forms of highly moral thought, such as Confucius, could be arrived at without the aid of that heritage that roots itself in divine commandments. Great moral pronouncements seem to come to us independent of heritage or divine association.

Secondly, it fails to address how and why large moral attitudes can change with time, especially for what we would call the better. Were the ancient Isrealites actually right in finding slavery to be a perfectly fine moral precept, or are we in our abhorance of it? It cannot be overlooked that when we define a lawgiver as good as an immutable precondition whatever law is then handed down becomes de facto good. Which would make fundamentalist Islamic psychopaths, who rape virgins so that they can be executed, supremely moral if their theology turns out to be right. Nothing is more akin to moral relativism than divine inspiration.

Thirdly, if the bulk of morality is programmed by genetics, completely hidden from personal introspection, what it would give the impression of is inherited cultural morality. So, considering our morality seems to be inheritable, doesn't it strike the Bishop as just as likely the source is genes as opposed to culture?

Well, progress, none the less. Baby steps must be taken before we are able to walk in a full gate.

53. Washoe, the sign-language chimp dies

Comment #86211 by troyreynolds86 on November 8, 2007 at 5:47 pm

One wouldn't expect for a chimpanzee or a gorilla to be able to construct complex sentences or abstract ideas through sign language, and deeming this as being the core of language is both inaccurate and unjustified. The primary purpose, though not the extent, of language is communication. The ability of these other primates for such communication is at its most basic language, in much the same way as a dog is capable of communication by scratching a door or peering into an empty dish with pained eyes. Our language is our evolved trait, as is our brain's capacity for abstraction, but where we miss the lesson of Washoe and Koko is that thoughts, desires and emotions, and a contructive way of relaying them, is not ours alone. I think, in my most humble opinion, that to dismiss such, if in fact it is communication, as not being language we again fall victim to self-centered elevation of our species as being of the most regal design. Such plays well into the hands of those who trace their lineage to Adam.

54. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79587 by troyreynolds86 on October 17, 2007 at 9:04 pm

Comment #79454 by USA_Limey:

I agree that it is sad to see where the money is coming from, though I think Beth may have the right idea. Stripping money from congregations that run legitimate soup kitchens or Meals on Wheels is one thing, taking the food from the mouths of babes so to speak. But jokers like these. All we would be bleeding is a snake oil salesman in an Armani suit and a BMW. I say milk 'em for what they got.

55. The importance of doubt

Comment #66555 by troyreynolds86 on August 30, 2007 at 11:58 am

Hitler and Stalin again!

Stalin suppressed the Russian Orthodox Church (amoung others) until such time as they no longer had a control over the people that could challenge that of the Party and then, after the Church swore allegiance to him, he allowed it to have some amount of power back, though eternally limited.

Hitler didn't kill Jews for religious reasons, he killed them for racial reasons and for economic/social/political reasons. His wasn't a relgious war against people or else he wouldn't have been gassing people for merely having a bit of Jewish blood in them.

As for how Hilter and Stalin were able to get otherwise perfectly well adjusted young German and Russian men to commit such attrocities was a blended mix of FAITH in the dominant politic, the immense threat of death and torture for those who lacked faith by means of oppression, miseducation, propaganda, torture, murder and imprisonment. Now, I wonder, which organization is it that really perfected that system? Something about Rome and Pope is coming to mind.

56. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60775 by troyreynolds86 on August 2, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Monkey2,

You shouldn't have felt bad about not understanding McGrath and don't ever think that because you cannot follow an argument that the argument comes from someone that is just out of your league. McGrath may be an Oxford theologian, and he is obviously intelligent and learned, but if ever you feel that way again about an argument that you cannot make heads or tails of just do a bit of reading and never assume yourself to be so inferior. Instead think of it as a failure of the speaker to clearly describe his position. I would doubt that any person on this website is sooooo mentally inferior to anyone that we can not understand the intelligable and able to recognize nonsense.

57. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60426 by troyreynolds86 on August 1, 2007 at 10:37 pm

I have never been a supporter of legislating "hate crimes". My main objection is that it places a greater emphasis upon certain motives for evil deeds over other motives while rendering the deed itself as a secondary consideration. Using the obvious example, a racially motivated crime, while being breed from a hatred of a race and is more morally repugnant for that reason alone, shouldn't be treated as a greater crime because we would be legislating thought, in this case detestable thought, but in fairness to the First Amendment even the ugliest thoughts of all are still protected. This exists as only my opinion and I certainly would expect a thousand dissenting opinions to this, but I can't find justification in escalating the significance of immoral acts based upon the thought behind it. While our sense of social justice demands we punish the perpetrators of repugnant thought with greater zeal we should in turn remain consistent with our belief in Free Speech and Free Thought in all spectrums, especially when it is what we find most repelling because we would demand the same when our thoughts were repelling to another. Justifying irrational hatreds remains a rather unpopular position in our sensitive world, but my own demands of unfettered thought demands in turn that I never impose upon any other thought regardless of the ugliness.
Hate Crime legislation also applies a fresh coat of grease to the slipperiest of slopes in finding a act that can be interpreted as intimidating as being unlawful leads us all to a place that we wouldn't want to be. If it is a Hate Crime to simply say or do things that can be merely condemned as hateful because they cause the opposition's participants to feel as though they are being intimidated out of the public square then such actions as counter-protest and public debate begin to suffer the ultimate consequence. Too easily a tool those types of laws can be to dissolve all and any dissenting opinions.
Should we include in any form of speech racial, ethinic or sexual slurs. No. But neither should we demand they remain legally unutterable phrases because we would loose the right to utter our little gems like Fundie and Faith-head. While none of these are equally repugnant they are all born of the same contempt. Again, laws regarding the hate within a crime remains quite beyond the bounds of the law.
What this kid did was a nasty, idiotic waste that is barely recognizable as protest. But there remains a question, would we be as angered at his action, and think of it as equally hateful and deserving of retribution, had he stolen a copy of Mein Kampf from a Skinhead and deposited it into a toilet in an act of equal dissent? Any who find fault in his present action would certainly have to agree that this would be equal and yet I doubt many would see it that way.
It will forever remain upon the docket of public debate the circle of protection that should be offered by a free society, and while exciting our own personal violent tendencies upon the grounds of our own personal prejudices, scribbling hurtful words upon a building wall or attempting to flush a distasteful book into the sewers with the rest of the crap strikes us as being a "Hate Crime" I find it imperative that we overlook the thought behind it and focus on the act itself or else we may loose the privilege of free public vocalization that someone may find hurtful. And nothing could be more hurtful to a society, and would remain light-years beyond hateful motives, than that.

58. Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism?

Comment #56465 by troyreynolds86 on July 15, 2007 at 11:21 pm

What seems to be overlooked as we argue, amongst ourselves and with members of that other party, did Hitler use the religion of the people to commit the murders of the Holocaust? Hitler's personal beliefs aside, as they bear little significance to his followers but greatly to his motives, these were the actions of a psychopath, a condition equally dangerous in the hands of an Atheist, Christian or Celtic Pagan, I think we would be careless in linking orders to actions as though it was Hitler's own hand that preform the atrocities. Whether Hitler was an Atheist, a Christian or some strange hybrid of everything in between if he was able to manipulate the religious specifically because of their religion then that serves as an indictment of religion. Perhaps it wasn't "orthodox" Christian beliefs that Hitler used upon the people of Germany but instead a twisted message it would still be called religion even if we don't recognize it as being part of an established religion. This should demonstrate how religion as a blind faith and the faithful's absolute adherence to that faith are always a demonstrated force of cruelty when overseen by the wrong hands and why we should, as a species, move away from something that can be so destructive. I personally do not care if Hitler was a Christian, I care how he could get young men, who otherwise would have been perfectly well adjusted and good human beings, to drop gas canisters into showers. If he did by using their religion his own views mean absolutely nothing.

59. Christians disrupt Hindu Prayer at Senate Invocation

Comment #56459 by troyreynolds86 on July 15, 2007 at 10:05 pm

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Thomas Jefferson

I guess we know were Jefferson would stand on the issue, and for my money Jefferson is the mother of all Founding Fathers. It is about time that certain members of our populous learned about history before trying to dictate the actions and positions of historical men.

60. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55912 by troyreynolds86 on July 12, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Good interview. It gives Hitchens the ability to build upon his experiences since writing the book. This should be the motion of our lives. We should not be mired down in a moment, trapped within our own self-certainty, or in the certainty of civilizations that exist only as a memory of a memory. Today I think, today I learn. Tomorrow I shall take what I have learned, rethink what I thought and learn some more and perhaps someday I will know something worth knowing.

61. The Republican War on Science Rages On

Comment #55894 by troyreynolds86 on July 12, 2007 at 7:22 pm

What is the point in appointing someone to serve as an expert in a field of which the President is not if that person is just suppose to repeat the president's opinion. That's Tony Snow's job. Who honestly cares if past presidents have done this the same way, it is the wrong way to do it so change it now and improve the situation or fire all of the appointees and save me my tax money. Also, CNN, don't sugar coat the issue. It is not just ideologies, it is religion. Call a spade a spade.

62. The US map of faith

Comment #55662 by troyreynolds86 on July 11, 2007 at 11:02 pm

I grew up in northern New Hampshire (that conspicuous little red nipple surrounded by all of the yellow) and most of the people I know did have a religious belief but the adherents were of the casual Christmas and Easter kind. Most thought Sunday was a good day for sleepin' and fishin'. I wonder what the question was that they drew their conclusion from; "Do you consider yourself religious?" or "Do you actually participate in a religion?" If you don't know how a survey is conducted then the survey is largely meaningless.

63. A force for good?

Comment #55149 by troyreynolds86 on July 10, 2007 at 5:50 am

Could someone help me, I have become confused. Valley claims to be a Christian so there are certain tenets to which one would think he conforms. How exactly does "the power of Being itself" impregnate a virgin, create a universe or resurrect the dead? If such a being is not a conscious being how does it decide such things? How does a holy book contain morality that is nothing more than human constructs elevate itself as the important truth that the divine wants if such a being is in no position to want? Paint the theist into a corner and he will knock down a wall and build a whole new room.

64. Evangelicals See Dilemmas in G.O.P. Field

Comment #54747 by troyreynolds86 on July 8, 2007 at 8:30 pm

"But if he's going to put the leader of the Mormons before his God there's a problem."

Really? I would think the bigger problem would be putting his god before the American people, and the nation as a whole, and upholding the Constitution. These should be the questions that plague us as we look around the sea of candidates that we have to choose from. If this is the strongest driving force behind our votes then we are a screwed nation.

A few decades along, when China, India and Europe are so far ahead of these United States both economically and socially (at least in Europe) that all that remains for us it to thrash within the turbulence of the wake, our position of diminished obscurity will have amongst its many culprits the view that many of us gaze upon in the mirror for not recognizing that a nation has greater problems within this world than the fate of embryos or whether two grown people want legal protections of inheritance rights and joint healthcare. Even then, when all that remains of the once impressive quality of this nation is a fading memory and nostalgic rhetoric, we will overlook our many faults, continuing the failure that we engage in today. We will have no one to blame but ourselves and our greatest failure will be that we will still lack the insight to see where we were wrong. Good luck world. My hopes will be with you.

65. Scientists Urge a Search for Life Not as We Know It

Comment #54573 by troyreynolds86 on July 7, 2007 at 9:40 pm

Morro,
Perhaps your understanding of chemistry far outreaches mine (admittedly limited to property studies for materials and basic chemistry beyond that) but why would it need base pairs in order to maintain heredity? I would agree that other life would require a catalyst system for chemical replication (this strikes me as essential) but perhaps the hereditary information could be contained upon millions of individual molecules, or perhaps a strand of molecules that encoded the replication sequence inside of the hereditary material. There conceivably exist several ways that this could be done. Just wondering if you could be more specific.

66. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54571 by troyreynolds86 on July 7, 2007 at 9:21 pm

Just a few points on the bible that I would like to make. First, if a modern Christian is to look at the Old Testament as being myth (that it almost entirely is, even those names that are verifiable turn out to have actions attributed that are largely overblown or complete fabrications) then upon what justification do they have for accepting biblical prophesy of Jesus? The prophets were followers of the being that Dawkins does describe and apparently got it all wrong but somehow got the prophesies right. I will admit that perhaps a divine creator did this (just being its usual mysterious self) for purposes that we can't know, but one doesn't have to be particularly skeptical to scratch ones head over this.

Secondly, if the Nativity and the Annuciation both are myth then doesn't this also place a serious burden on the prized virgin birth. How can a Christian justify this belief? These wouldn't be myths that required centuries to fester upon the lips of ever competing oral story tellers (each looking for consistent work) but would have sprung up quickly. That doesn't speak of myth, that recks of lies. And if they lied about that, what else did they lie about?

Thirdly, didn't Jesus give us the impression that he beleived in the literal truth of the Old Testament, and in fact, on the mount, said that those orders should be followed? The god of the Christians seems to believe in a god that modern Christians dismiss as myth. A troubling position.

I would like to add that I hold more respect for the fundamentalist than I do the moderate. The moderate may be more reasonable but the fundamentalist is at least consistent and justified.

Also, if modern biblical scholarship is meant to influence modern Christianity then it should show that the bible is man made. Why should we accept the specific teachings of one particular branch of the early Christian faith (that survived and succeeded with imperial support) as opposed to the numerous ones that also existed? Why should that faith only fall upon the partly mythological four gospels of fame and not upon the others- i.e. Mary Magdelene, Phillip, Thomas, etc-or other works such as the Pistis Sophia (love it, it is like reading LSD)?

If the modern believer can answer these, in light of what the author reveals to us the position that the modern Christian holds and which I seem to have been unaware I would be truly interested in hearing. I have no interest in "faith" answers, but solid answers about why some miracles are accepting and some are deemed myth, why some aspects of Yahweh are dismissed while others (projection of prophesy, creator of the universe) are accepted. Trying to understand Christianity is like trying to paint a cameleon. As soon as you mix the paint the blasted thing changes.

67. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54255 by troyreynolds86 on July 6, 2007 at 6:58 am

I wouldn't go so far as to call our ethics a faith, but I would grant Henri the point in that our morality has a certain looseness about it that is defined by moral teachings. Although to call this religious is to miss the point a little bit I would think. I don't think that we would call a person who garnered moral insight from any of the great works of philosophy as being religious, nor faithful, but basing a personal standpoint upon a sound argument or simply evaluating an idea as being a good idea. It would still require some personal reflection, some internal dialogue and evaluation to determine if the principle should be followed. I couldn't categorized this as faith, although it does fall a few shades shy of being absolute reason in some areas. For it to be faith it would require that we never did evaluate it upon merit but only accepted it as being for its own sake, most often as divine commandment. I accept some Judeo-Christian ethics, reject others and in turn seek out other ideas to investigate in an ongoing refinement process. This is ethics. This is morality. One simply uses the evolved centers of the brain, couples them with moral teachings to produce an outcome. To restict morality to total absolutism or total relativism overlooks that there is more to morality than a brain or a holy book. There is society, personal experience, family pressures, etc. that all shape the positions that we hold. We would never take these on faith, we take them in hopes of discovering a better way, of growing and evolving our moral sense.
Paul, I am interested. Why can't an atheist believe in morality? What is it about atheists that makes morality beyond their capacity? Is it your point about "knowing only through experience"? I would like to discuss this. It is enjoyable to have believers such as you on this site. It gives us reasons to think, to better form our position and perhaps to learn. That is always a benefit.

68. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53789 by troyreynolds86 on July 3, 2007 at 6:46 am

Paul, that is an excellent question. There is no reason why a creator must be omniscient, or omnipresent or omnipotent for that matter, and I am only responding to the general belief by the religious that their deity is all of those things. A universe could very well be created by a lesser being than is generally presented, or by no being at all for that matter, but when we restrict the level of power and wisdom of the divine to something less than infinite then we are left with the immediate question of how limited? Certainly we cannot begin to answer this question because we have no way of knowing the nature of such a being, or if such a being could even exist, but the moment that such a being is limited we must again being to ponder as to whether a greater being exists, a creator of a creator, and perhaps our worship is misdirected upon only the agent of the true creator, a agent that does not necessarily share in the vision of the greater being but is cleaver enough to hide it from its more powerful but also limited master. What is certain is that if the being is less than absolute then all of the major religions in the world are misrepresenting the divine into something that it is not and that is a slippery slope of doubt.

69. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53767 by troyreynolds86 on July 3, 2007 at 4:42 am

Paul, the limitations upon the type of world that we live upon are most likely true (I haven't investigated them but they seem reasonable) but there is something lacking in the conclusions. These are truths derived by the fallible (we humans) but represent the creative process of the infallible (the divine). One would tend to think that with omnipotence and infinite wisdom does come infinite solutions and that if the divine did not want to build a universe with laws that require the planetary harborer of life that necessitated natural disasters so that life could exist upon it then that would be an easy practice for such a being. Any explanation that this is just how things need to be places restrictions upon the abilities of the divine to the point where other claims (omnipotence, omniscience, etc) don't seem possible.

Troy

70. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53514 by troyreynolds86 on July 1, 2007 at 8:46 pm

Ok, I am willing to give this a try.

If we all do what religion (which one?) tells us, become biblically moral (someone pass me a stone, I got some sinners to do some killing to, also back off menstating woman I fear being unclean), stop being gay (any suggestions?), stop allowing perfectly capable adult human beings doing things with their own genetalia (how do you spell bigot?) then (insert your deity of choice here) will cease all and any hurricanes, floods, tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, and the AIDS virus and everyday the sun will shine, the sky will be blue and butterflies will land on our shoulders.

This is about as likely as if the second rate, backwater Kingdom of Israel denounced polytheism for the religion that the temple priests endorsed and then the would not getting their asses handed to them by the vastly superior Assyrian Empire's army. Worshipping practices are just what made the difference in that little skirmish.

71. Supreme Court nixes suit over faith-based plan

Comment #51988 by troyreynolds86 on June 25, 2007 at 7:52 pm

And so the end begins. Up until now we have only feared a theocracy. Today we stare into its glaring eyes, and shocked by its toothy grin. We American atheists have had our only recourse for protection now cut from under us. Our country, at the very core of her ideals, provided the right to challege the authority of the government, as our founders challenged the authority of the king, so that our government could never become the tyranny that our colonies had known. A tyranny is born when voices are silenced, and today we are ordered silent, not by the rifles of a militia but by the banging of a gavel. Protests within the public square can still live on, but those pleas will now be silenced by the stone walls of our hallowed halls of justice.

Although, in light of this sorry road that my nation now travels, I shall never be ashamed of my heritage because I know for what this nation truly stands. Perhaps the populace has lost sight of our origins, forgeting our ethics as they preach their morality and praise their Jesus, but I shall never forget. I believe in the United States, not defined by her borders or her people but by a simple document that to me today looks a little more yellow with age, a little more tired and a little more distant from the times in which we all live. When this nation dies, whatever that death may look like, if I still live a small peice of this great land shall live on as well because I can find no greater potential in a society that shall ever grace this earth than this one when the ideas of our founders, improved upon by the wisdom of their successor, are put into practice to the fullest.

Today, the hereditary defenders of those ideas have shamed us all. I hope the world is taking notice with horror at how so quiet a things as a court can radically reshape the future of a nation. Once the nations of the world could look to mine for inspiration from our example, albeit a decidedly sad track record in action, but within our society was the ability to build upon our mistakes, as I feel that we always have. Until today. Today we have failed ourselves, and I now can only ask that our fellow humans upon distant shores can learn from our mistakes. We, it appears, shall not.

Yesterday, I would not have thought this possible. Tomorrow I shall awake, wiser perhaps, but less hopeful of the future. Less hopeful and silenced.

72. In the name of the Father

Comment #51773 by troyreynolds86 on June 24, 2007 at 8:38 pm

"The problem lies with us, especially when we are organised in groups with a dominant ideology, whether secular or religious."

OK, define secular. I would refer to secular, as I think most atheists would, as a society where individual ideologies of all kinds are put aside and the society operates based upon informed rational discussion, where ideas are argued by merit, not as absolutes that must be followed because of a divine order or a philosophical imperative imposed by the governmental powers. Stalin's regime (Harries reference to secular I think) was never secular as I would call it. If the writer is implying that we do need to maginalized all absolute ideologies, I think he would find a simpathetic audience here. This is the message that all of the "anti-religion" authors that are being bashed by the religious responders. We need to remove the irrational absolutism from our public discussions. Perhaps they simply skipped those chapters.

73. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51424 by troyreynolds86 on June 22, 2007 at 10:19 pm

If these particular doctors wish to refuse a particular procedure, and our legislatures create laws to hold up that "right", then fine, there are ways in which such priviledges should be practiced. First and foremost, when a patient visits a doctor the patient, entering into a relationship of trust with a learned professional, should have a right to any ideological restrictions the doctor may have pertaining to the available and legal treatments. The doctors, as my solution would have it, should provide a detailed list of procedures that they cannot perform for any reason. These lists should be public knowledge, available by request, posted in the hospital so that the patient can read and decide if this doctor is the right fit for him or her, especially her as women are exponentially more effected by this, long before that doctor has access to the patient. If a patient is taked to an available hospital in an emergency or is restricted, by any circumstances, in option of hospitals, and the hospital or doctor refused an otherwise typical treatment for ideological reasons, it is a failing of the hospital to meet the needs of the patient, and the hospital, being the perpetrator of the failing or the employer of the perpetrator, should be bound by law to transport, if permitted by the health of the patient, to a facility that can and will perform all available medical procedures. It is not the fault of the patient that the doctor finds certain procedures unethical, it is the fault of the doctor and the patient should not suffer for it. This being said, all care given by the initial hospital, as well as the transportation, should be provided pro bono as it qualifies as a failing of the hospital to meet the needs of the patient, not the failings of the patient for having lack of choice.

74. In the know

Comment #50214 by troyreynolds86 on June 15, 2007 at 6:32 pm

For a person trying to write about Atheists, he seems not to understand what makes us tick. We are not the type of people that do very well when told what to believe, we do well when we are shown a good reason to believe. Prove god and we will believe. Doubtlessly, the largest message of TGD, and the other such writings, is not to reject religion outright, but question it with a sceptical eye and a rational mind. If this is what is fear that we will inherit then fear away because I had this before I ever heard of Richard Dawkins.

75. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46617 by troyreynolds86 on May 31, 2007 at 8:27 pm

I grow so tired of the divine plan gives us a purpose arguement. "We are all here because the deity decided it wanted us to be", has got to be the most nearsighted statement uttered by what is increasingly becoming a lower order of mammals. If we all have a purpose then all I have to say is, "God bless Adolf Hitler", because something as massively significant in the history of this species as the torture and execution of six million people could only originate from the divine. Where such a powerful being opposed to that barbarity then it could not have occured, unless of course the divine was on vacation. The lesser forces of evil could not have cause that to remain hidden from the watchful eye of omniscience and yet it was allowed to continue. The only conclusion that anyone with more than a handful of cells still firing in their brain would be that the divine sanctioned this catastrophy. For that reason the religious should not be repulsed by but celebrate lunitics such as Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler for doing such a damn fine job ensuring that the divine plan stayed well on track.

76. Convention ends with Satan and immigrants

Comment #36293 by troyreynolds86 on April 30, 2007 at 8:54 pm

If the Washington DC Voting Rights bill stands up to the constitutional challenge in the courts that it will face, Utah will also be given another vote in the House. Which one of those wackos or a related wacko will end up with a vote in Congress.

77. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32522 by troyreynolds86 on April 17, 2007 at 8:57 am

I find it embarrasing that any court of law would even allow this case to become something that lasts more than thirty seconds. I feel that any judge who didn't instantly look at the father and say "You are becoming Jewish. Your son is not. Until such time as your son feels the need for a circumcision this court will leave his doink alone. Now get out of my court." Why would we ever even consider something of this nature, a fathers conversion having anything to do with nature of his son's religion, especially when the kid is old enough to say no and reasons for doing so. It is just plainly embarrasing to be an American somedays.

78. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32327 by troyreynolds86 on April 16, 2007 at 10:02 pm

What the author also fails to realize, and blazenly gets backwards, is that America is religious and the most scientifically illiterate country in the industrialized world. He fails to mention the studies done that not only show America to be mostly against believing in evolution and unable to state what a gene is. We may be the mass consumer of science via gadgets and gizmos, and our labs may do some important work, but as a populace we are completely in the dark about science. This is the only industrialized country that has had a major movement for ID, for Christ's sakes.

79. Nisbet and Mooney in the WaPo: snake oil for the snake oil salesmen

Comment #31901 by troyreynolds86 on April 14, 2007 at 10:42 pm

The solution is very simple. We are all literate-scientifically, historically, and grammatically-and from these knowledges any one of us can give the public understanding. One does not need a phd behind his or her name to educate. If the scientists are failing to get the message across then maybe we should try. If we are as dedicated to science and rationality as we say, then the effort of writing books, essays or newspaper articles would be well worth the attempt. If we fail we fail, but if never try then we fail in the most horrific way, with our head up our ass. Maybe we will be ignored, but would that be any worse than now?

80. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31687 by troyreynolds86 on April 13, 2007 at 9:02 pm

First off, article from today informed me that some cases of gonorrhea have become antibiotic resistant, so if the grand inquisitor (I just like to call him that) needs to see evolution first hand, that might be a place to start. We don't need historical cases to prove that natural selection happens, we can observe it.
Secondly, what does the term rational mean as he uses it. Rationality would imply that there was an ends to the means, some kind of plan. A rational plan would occationally choose the less fit to survive, as the next step may depend on it. Well, that doesn't happen; we know it and the pope's pet scientist should damn well know it. I almost get the feel that he is trying to say with the word rational that yahweh was doing all this for us. If we were the result of the rationality of selection then yahweh lacks a great deal of imagination.

81. For God's Sake

Comment #31569 by troyreynolds86 on April 13, 2007 at 9:47 am

We should also remember that Bush may not be an isolated election anamoly. If the religious right was truly the defining drive for his election then whatever influence they had before is much greater this time via appointments and political favors and that type of influence can become very established indeed. How many judicial appointments did he hand out after all. These carry weight long after halfwit ass is removed from power. I doubt that the religious right will ever have the power to radically alter the constitution, but altering interpretation can be just as harmful. Addedly, however unlikely, there may come a time in this country when just being a open athiest in the US is dangerous. Must we forget that nearly every society that has ever existed before us has collapsed, so are we right to assume that this one will last forever.