51. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25911 by John P on March 15, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Meta-analysis? Victor J. Stegnor in his recent book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis" deals a good bit with intercessory prayer and meta-analysis. Here's one quote:

This procedure [metanalysis] is highly questionable. I am unaware of any extraordinary discovery in all of science that was made using metanalysis. If several, independent experiments do not find significant evidence for a phenomenon, we sure cannot expect a purely mathematical manipulation of the combined data to suddenly produce a major discovery. p.93

52. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25903 by John P on March 15, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Well, that settles it. Sullivan is a Christian, not because the existence of God is true, but because the idea of life without a god is terrifying, and Christian belief is comforting.

And it well may be, for billions of people. But as has been said many times before, that doesn't make it true.

And I, for one, do not find comforting a non-existent god, living in a non-existent place who won't be there when I die.

53. Out There

Comment #25286 by John P on March 11, 2007 at 5:24 pm

I agree. This is fascinating stuff. I just hope the Discovery Institute doesn't read this. I can see it now:

God is...DARK.

54. Why Children Love Their Security Blankets

Comment #24796 by John P on March 8, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Does this mean that I have to give up my signed copy of The God Delusion?

55. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24713 by John P on March 8, 2007 at 6:59 am

Reader's Digest Author of the Year Award?

That's ...odd. Reader's Digest is not known for its stance on atheism. It's a very conservative magazine, promoting good old American family values.

56. Long live satire

Comment #24401 by John P on March 6, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Right on!

(or if you're in the UK) Spot on!

Islam has got to be the most humorless religion on earth.

57. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #24024 by John P on March 4, 2007 at 10:45 am

"The most disappointing feature of 'The God Delusion,' " Mr. Orr wrote, "is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way.

58. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23260 by John P on February 27, 2007 at 8:18 am

"5. Why are there any bones in Jesus's box? Shouldn't it be empty?"

You're kidding

59. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23172 by John P on February 26, 2007 at 3:36 pm

From what I read, it seems to leave a lot of questions. For instance:

1. The tomb with 10 ossuaries indicates a relatively well off family. I thought Jesus was the "son" of a poor carpenter and his wife, who had to be born in a stable. Did the family become well off later on? Perhaps as a result of Jesus's .. errr.. vocation? Perhaps he was what Bart Ehrman claims, an early apocalyptic, i.e. a huckster, a pre-televangelist, and he got rich off of the tent revivals?

2. Can you really get viable DNA out of 2000 year old bones?

3. Do we trust an Academy Award winning movie director to do scholarly research?

4. Why Jerusalem, and not Nazareth?

5. Why are there any bones in Jesus's box? Shouldn't it be empty?

Those are for starters.

60. In praise of Darwin this Sunday ... in hundreds of churches!

Comment #22027 by John P on February 12, 2007 at 11:44 am

Do you see the irony? The clergy supporting evolution, but the evolutionary, secular humanist insisting such a position is untenable. Dawkins has stated that evolution led him to his atheism.

61. The God Delusion

Comment #21894 by John P on February 11, 2007 at 1:39 pm

That is codswallop. Humans are the only animals who can make a conscious decision not to copulate.

Moreover, if humans looked to other animals to inform their morality, stealing, forced copulation, and murder would also be acceptable.

62. The God Delusion

Comment #21890 by John P on February 11, 2007 at 1:06 pm

This whole "Sex should only be used to propagate" thing is not a theological question, nor should it be. It is not a question that organized religion should concern itself with.

Sex, like breathing, is a function of the human body. To say sex should only be used to propagate is to misunderstand sex. It is not a tool, which that statement implies, to create children. At least not in the sense that we humans think of tools - one that we can pick up and put down depending on the need.

It is a function of the body, designed by nature as a response to external and internal stimuli, that ensures that we do the act which incidentally creates children (sometimes), to ensure the perpetuation of our species. Without the urge for sex, there would be no guarantee that we would create children, and our species would die out. The pleasure is there as a incentive to continue having sex. (This may explain why, once we reach a certain age, libido tends to diminish - we are past the historical age of having children.)

So, in short, sex is as much a part of being human as is breathing and excretion. We have no choice. To claim that we should suppress it, or to use it only once or twice to have children, etc., is just blathering nonsense.

Theologians should stick to the angels-on-a-pin study, move off into a corner, and leave humanity alone.

63. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21701 by John P on February 10, 2007 at 4:59 pm

The problem with theology as a discipline is that it takes the existence of God as a given. If God does not exist, then theology is a lot of gray matter exercised over nothing. Intellectual discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of pin seems pointless is angels don't exist.

The fact that religious people motivated (partly) by religious fervor did good things in the past, and continue to do good things today, does not make the existence of God more certain.

64. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21469 by John P on February 9, 2007 at 10:09 am

OK. There is a god. His name is SAM!

Seriously, reading Sam's incisive and devastating arguments against Andrew is like watching laser surgery, compared to bloodletting with leeches. His ability to hone right in on the issue, and elucidate it so that you can actually understand the argument is nothing short of brilliant.

What's he going to be like when he gets his Ph.D.?

65. The Chronicles of Kearnya, or, Principles of Evolution Observed in the Field at Kearny High School

Comment #20565 by John P on February 4, 2007 at 8:24 am

I don't know about the other 49 states, but in PA, it would be illegal to tape record anyone surreptitiously, without their clear consent. It's a violation of the Wiretap Law (of all things) here. It may also be in Maryland, because I vaguely remember some discussion about it during the Monica Lewinsky/Linda Tripp tape recording matter.

66. In defense of atheism

Comment #19337 by John P on January 26, 2007 at 9:10 am

I agree. And I love that phrase " a collective gesture of exclusion". I never thought of it that way, but he's right. People who need to conspicuously pray together in a public place, are really making the statement "See! Look at us! We're better than you". If all they want to do is pray, hell, go ahead and pray. Most people pray with their minds, not their mouths anyway. Is God more inclined to listen to your prayer if it's made out loud while sitting in a circle with others mouthing the same prayer?

67. For the Bible told them so

Comment #18547 by John P on January 21, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Rather than shy away from talk about religion, Keene said it's time people other than conservatives "stood up" to "give the public another look at how the Bible can be understood."

68. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16713 by John P on January 8, 2007 at 8:53 am

I am almost inclined to disagree with this statement as much as I believe that if someone can't control their behavior just because someone is speaking his/her mind, then the "bully" needs to be knocked down, not the person speaking.

Thoughts?

69. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16578 by John P on January 7, 2007 at 12:42 pm

The faith that the new atheists describe is a simple-minded parody. It is impossible to see within it what might have preoccupied great artists and thinkers like Homer, Milton, Michelangelo, Newton and Spinoza--let alone Aquinas, Dr. Johnson, Kierkegaard, Goya, Cardinal Newman, Reinhold Niebuhr or, for that matter, Albert Einstein. But to pass over this deeper faith--the kind that engaged the great minds of Western history--is to diminish the loss of faith too. The new atheists are separated from the old by their shallowness.

Homer, Milton, Michelangelo, Newton and Spinoza--let alone Aquinas, Dr. Johnson, Kierkegaard, Goya, Cardinal Newman, Reinhold Niebuhr or, for that matter, Albert Einstein

70. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16354 by John P on January 6, 2007 at 8:06 am

Re: Comment #16296 by The author

My cultural studies professor even calls me "dogmatic" and my views "idiotic" because I "believe" in science ("but you can not prove evolution!").

71. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #16048 by John P on January 4, 2007 at 9:21 am

My favorite Sam Harris quote. Only partly apropos.

The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. Now, if he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ludicrous or more offensive.

Sam Harris

[edit] Should have read comment 32 first. :)

72. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15343 by John P on December 30, 2006 at 1:55 pm

Re: Comment #15281 by Vadjong

>>"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,"

>How about offending geologists ?

Just geologists? How about all people with brains?

73. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14422 by John P on December 22, 2006 at 11:41 am

Yes. A nice little addition to the Ancestor's Tale. Maybe he'll add it to later editions.

74. Merry Mithras

Comment #13852 by John P on December 19, 2006 at 6:49 pm

paradigm667

You wrote it. I simply agreed with it. :)

The statement is atheism boiled down to a one line description: God didn't create man, man created god.

Do you listen to XTC? "Dear God"?

75. Merry Mithras

Comment #13842 by John P on December 19, 2006 at 5:12 pm

Re: Comment #13815 by paradigm667

>>God did not create MAN in HIS image, rather MAN created GOD in HIS image. <<

I don't know about the rest of post (not disputing it, just don't know) but the above is the essence of the truth about God.

76. The Grinch Delusion: An Atheist Can Believe in Christmas

Comment #13366 by John P on December 17, 2006 at 9:40 am

How you celebrate Christmas, a national holiday, not a necessarily religious one, is personal to each and every one of us. I, like Richard, am a post-Christian atheist. The "Christ" in Christmas is pronounced different than in "Christ the Saviour", so I'm comfortable saying Merry Christmas. (I also exclaim "Jesus Christ" when I hit my thumb with the hammer") I have an angel on top of the tree, because I cherish tradition, and the little sucker up there tops the tree nicely. We have other leftovers of the religious aspect of the holidays decorating the house (more angels, cherubs, a couple of wise men, etc.) and they fit nicely with the Christmas carols I listen to, and that I grew up on. I'm not going to just give it all up, when it brought such joy to me growing up.I didn't throw out all images of Santa when I stopped believing in him.

Just because I don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean that all the trappings of Christmas are to be disposed of.

77. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12952 by John P on December 14, 2006 at 3:01 pm

I tend to agree with Yorker.

Let them do "science" in all of the labs they want. If they publish any findings, by definition, other scientists should be able to reproduce their results. If they can't be reproduced, then the findings are not very good evidence of anything, much less ID. The scientific community will make mincemeat of shoddy science. And if they are right, (i.e. prove there is an intelligent designer via reproducible science) well, hell, I'll give up atheism.

Look at the two measly papers they published, referenced at the end of the article above. Where are the supporting articles reproducing the findings? There don't appear to be any.

Look at what they use their "peer reviewed" findings to support. Not any direct link to evidence of an intelligent designer. Only as a negative inference that evolution could not have happened as explained or in the manner previously described. Does that prove ID? No. It only means that more science is needed, at best, something no scientist worth his salt would dispute.

A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

78. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12600 by John P on December 12, 2006 at 6:12 pm

It always struck me that philosophic analysis of the existence of God was mere rationalization after the fact - after assuming God's existence. It never impressed me, and this reviewers philosophical musings notwithstanding, I still see no philosophical rationale to believe in God. Philosophy seems too close to theology, and theology assumes the existence of God in all of its arguments. If God doesn't exist, theology as a discipline is about as valid as astrology or alchemy.

Oh. And I thought Pascal's Wager was his strongest argument for the existence of God.

79. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9988 by John P on November 26, 2006 at 8:25 pm

>Comment #9987 by Currency of Faith on November 26, 2006 at 8:22 pm<<

>>How to liberate yourself from Jewish Slavery........<<

Howard? Is that you?

80. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9979 by John P on November 26, 2006 at 8:11 pm

>>Why should the burden of proof be on the Christians or on the Muslims or any other monotheistic or polytheistic belief. The atheists or nonbelievers are the one who have to prove that there is no God or Gods. Where is your proof?<<

Do intelligent people still ask this? I thought this was a real non-starter. The basic rules of logic, argument and debate need to be constantly re-hashed, it seems...

Ok, Atheistsarefaithless, let's take it from the top.

In any debate, the proponent of a position has the burden of proving his position.

It is logically impossible to prove a negative. For instance, I cannot prove that there are no invisible pink unicorns. Somewhere, in some place we've never looked, there might be one hiding. Therefore the burden to prove they exist is on the person who asserts that they do. In a court of law, we don't place the burden on the accused to prove that he didn't commit the crime, until after the state has proven that he did.

The position put forth in this debate is whether God exists.

Since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of god, (the negative position) the burden was on Prager, as it is in all debates with this issue, to prove god's existence (the positive position). The burden was NOT on Harris to disprove the existence of god, because in order to do so, he would have had to assume the existence of the very entity he was being asked to disprove.

Got it?

Good. Try to keep it straight in the future.

81. Holy Baloney: Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion crucifies religion and the religious

Comment #9723 by John P on November 25, 2006 at 5:22 pm

I really think that when you get a positive review from someone, that person is an atheist, or at least very non-religious. Conversely, negative reviews must come from religious people. It seems that it's the nature of belief, that belief cannot withstand criticism, because it's based on thin air, virtually nothing, so the only thing believers can do is get their back up against a wall and become very defensive.

Atheism is an intellectually neutral position. It says "prove it to me, otherwise I won't believe". Theism, on the other hand, always has a dog in the fight. So if a theist is the reviewer, he cannot be neutral, because his basic beliefs are being questioned. He must give a negative review, because to give a positive review would be to admit that his beliefs are baseless.

82. Science v God: the showdown

Comment #9572 by John P on November 25, 2006 at 7:09 am

>>Dawkins's strident, take-no-prisoners stand has one great virtue: it changes the parameters of debate. Just as Thatcherism moved the political centre to the right, so Dawkinsism is pulling the intellectual centre on to a more rational footing. Set against his zeal, more compassionate advocacy of atheism looks less extreme, and gets a more sympathetic hearing.<<

Yes! Exactly. Someone has needed to say what Dawkins has finally said. It might offend, but it's no different than having to tell a loved one that he is an alcoholic. It might offend him, but he can not be objective about his alcoholism, and he needs to be told, for his sake and that of others. Once the elephant in the room is identified, and accepted, proper discourse about what to do about it can commence.

Personally, I find nothing grating or offensive about the book, but of course, I'm a member of the choir.

83. Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

Comment #9391 by John P on November 24, 2006 at 4:52 pm

Do these people live in a bubble?

It sounds like this documentary should be compared with "Reefer Madness" for it's truth and accuracy.

84. Lynchburg, VA Photos : Batch 2

Comment #3206 by John P on October 26, 2006 at 11:02 am

Who knew atheists had groupies! I would have forsworn god years ago if I'd known.

85. Stephen Colbert Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #2076 by John P on October 18, 2006 at 3:03 pm

Rae said:
>>>Has anyone else noticed the jump in sales of The God Delusion? Last night, before The Colbert Report, it was at #11. Now it's at #4.

I just checked. It's at #3, now, behind the Woodward book, and John Grisham. And way ahead of Bill O'Reilly.