51. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80408 by ChrisMcL on October 21, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Well said, Jack.

52. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80063 by ChrisMcL on October 19, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Riley:

Thanks for your explanation. I've always felt uncomfortable with Hithen's challenge. You explained well how it is contradicted by Christian belief. I wonder if Hitch knows this and is baiting them.

BTW Christian moral superiority has been undermined by the evidence collected by George Barna (an evangelical) showing that U.S. god-believers have higher divorce rates, are more probably in prison, and so forth, than non-believers.

53. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #78962 by ChrisMcL on October 15, 2007 at 2:24 pm

We all know from the movies that the Earth will one day be ruled by robots, and then apes.

Of course, humans will overcome these simian and mechanical overlords to once again be masters of this world.

What scares me, though, is the thought that some day apes and robots may team up. What hope has humanity then?

(Sorry, but silly superstitions about armies of bridge-building monkeys, makes me goofy.)

54. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78349 by ChrisMcL on October 12, 2007 at 1:25 pm

This is more likely a way to link Al Franken with "godlessness" than it is an attack on atheism.

55. A Revelation

Comment #78224 by ChrisMcL on October 12, 2007 at 7:45 am

Interesting. A review of the event from a religious person trying to be impartial. It's respectful, but not what I'd call unbiased.

56. How China Got Religion

Comment #77976 by ChrisMcL on October 11, 2007 at 11:31 am

I thought that the author had missed the point about that which he was writing until I read the last paragraph. Very nice.

57. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75835 by ChrisMcL on October 3, 2007 at 7:47 pm

Just listened to it. The religious sponsors of the debate revealed in the post-debate commentary that they will be using the recording of the debate in future programs [code: programs=religious propaganda].

The post-debate commentary started right into parsing Dawkins statements into misrepresentations of his meaning.

My fellow atheists, we just got BAMBOOZLED once again by the religious.

Here's my question to Lennox on the debate http://aproundtable.org website:

I keep coming across articles describing scientific discoveries that reveal and explain the workings of the universe and the human mind. The facts revealed in these articles reveals a universe and a humanity that work without need of God. If God isn't a part of the universe, then isn't one just as well off not to believe in God as to believe in it? I mean for instance, God isn't going to answer anyone's prayers, people find well-being without religious faith, and the revealed truth of religious texts is at best dubious; so why bother?

I wonder what crackpot answer I'll get, if any.

58. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75710 by ChrisMcL on October 3, 2007 at 12:16 pm

From icanus, post #12:

"They never admit a defeat, always talk about glorious victories. The only way you can tell that a campaign was going badly is that each "glorious victory" occurs closer to home than the last..."

What a lovely thought! Certainly the religious have been losing the philosophical war. For the last 2500 years they have lost all but the very lowest ground.

But there are still churches on every corner. They [the religious] create obstacles to abortion procedures and stem cell research, heavily influence politicians and political decisions and debate, and pretty much muck up free and liberal Western society wherever they can. Then there's the Middle-East...

59. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75521 by ChrisMcL on October 2, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Why don't we just do with the "A" word what African-Americans have done with the "N" word. Let's "take back" the "A" word.

The negative connotations to the label are from stereotype, not reality. By showing the world who we really are, atheists can, in time, redefine the ideas associated with the word "atheist".

60. A New Debate

Comment #75514 by ChrisMcL on October 2, 2007 at 10:21 pm

Sounds like a quiz show where all the contestants look like the host.

How about we just insist that more questions about science and religion be asked during the numerous upcoming debates already scheduled? I know that this year I will be voting for the candidate that is compatible with my atheism.

61. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75503 by ChrisMcL on October 2, 2007 at 9:11 pm

[yawn] For over 2500 years, atheists have been using empirical information and rational argument to prove that there is nothing supernatural in the universe. With all due respect, what is one more debate going ot accomplish?

I will still watch the video and be entertained by how the religious get their clocks cleaned by Dr. Dawkins.

Dawkins says that all religious people are atheists with regard to all the other religions that they do not subscribe. Is there a time and a place where religious people were not aware of alternatives to their particular religious faith? And yet they maintain their particular religious faith in the face of these alternatives, even if we do not count atheism as one of the available options. The religious are virtually impervious to anything that contradicts their faith.

The debate will be a good morale booster for atheists, but the religious will just do their usual mental duck and weave, shake off any good blows, and none of the arguments against their faith will connect.

62. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75341 by ChrisMcL on October 2, 2007 at 11:22 am

Thanks for the reading suggestions, Peacebeuponme. I must confess that I envy those like yourself who are able to make it through theist philosophy books. I literally get tired while reading that BS; those books' arguments don't make sense to me. It starts to become like reading boilerplate text ("Lorem ipsum dolor...").

The most helpful book so far, in terms of helping me to understand god-belief is Breaking the Spell. I think it works because it explains religion from an atheistic (or maybe "neutral") point of view. Many years ago, I read Karen Armstrong's book, The History of God. I always thought she was an atheist. I don't understand how someone could write that book (or read it) and not come away with a healthy skepticism for contemporary monotheism.

63. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75294 by ChrisMcL on October 2, 2007 at 8:57 am

Richard Morgan wrote in a previous post:

"Where there is little formal education and high unemployment, there will fundamentalism thrive."

I am right there with you Richard. Time and again we see evidence that the religious will not lose thier belief even when confronted with devastating contradictory evidence of its falsity. The past 2500 years of brow-beating seems to have little effect on thiests. Atheists would do well for themselves to put their efforts into creating a more socially just world.

64. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75293 by ChrisMcL on October 2, 2007 at 8:51 am

Rieux,

Thanks for the link. I love learning about history and moral philosophy as it relates to atheism. If you [or anyone reading this] has more, please educate me.

Since reading The End of Faith nearly six months ago, I have been on a spiritual quest of sorts with regard to my atheism. I've snce read The God Delusion, God is Not Great, Breking the Spell, Why I Am Not a Christian, and selections from the works of Spinoza, Democritus, and many others.

For the first time in my 40 years on this planet, I feel very confident in my atheism. But I greatly enjoy to learn more.

65. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75280 by ChrisMcL on October 2, 2007 at 8:21 am

The religious would argue that atheists are moral relativists, and that that opens the logical path from atheism to evil deeds. They would continue their argument by pointing out that what Dawkins describes in his article is morality by committee. They would say that the only moral absolutes can come from god(s). ...yada yada, yawn...

The religious need to see that they themselves are moral relativists. Their beliefs about the moral teachings of their god(s) has changed over time. There are so many interpretations of the moral teachings of their god(s), even within each religion, as to make absurd their claims to moral absolutism.

Much as Democracy is not the best form of government, but rather the least worst, the utilitarianism of atheists is the least worst moral philosophy.

"If theists would be so kind as to make a short list of all the concepts of God they renounce as baldersh, we atheists would know just which topics were still on the table."
-Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell, pg. 211

66. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #72959 by ChrisMcL on September 23, 2007 at 4:08 pm

"If theists would be so kind as to make a short list of all the concepts of God they renounce as baldersh, we atheists would know just which topics were still on the table."
-Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell, pg. 211

67. How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science

Comment #70307 by ChrisMcL on September 14, 2007 at 8:44 pm

This article and other indications show that if we want to produce more atheists in the world, we must do so indirectly. It's not enough to prove that somone's religious belief is wrong. Atheists have been doing that very effectively since Epicurus.

We might try to just create an environment more conducive to atheistic thinking instead of frontal attacks on religion. Many people get sucked into religious faith when they are sick or in some other trouble. Support of universal health care (in the U.S.) and a more fair distribution of wealth, among other things, remove some of the breeding grounds for religion.

68. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68915 by ChrisMcL on September 9, 2007 at 5:01 am

Crackpot article.

Reading it from an athiest perspective it was slightly annoying in certain statements (Christian nation), but hopeful in its conclusions.

But, the author used a lot of politically loaded words and phrases that would make a fundie read the article as a call to arms. Methinks the author had an agenda.

69. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68689 by ChrisMcL on September 8, 2007 at 6:58 am

Who is buying these response books?

I read Dr.'s Harris (congrats, BTW) and Dawkins books in a search for self-discovery. I assume that a large portion of their books are purchased by other atheists for similar reasons. I find it difficult to believe that the religious would buy their books, knowing that the books challenge their deeply held beliefs.

Furthermore, why would the religious reader of Harris and Dawkins want to read a response to a book they have never read? I think that Dawkins is correct in his assertion that these books are parasites. I would guess that the authors and publishers of the respose books simply assume that they will sell their books to a small percentage of Harris and Dawkins readers. I think that they will be disappointed. This is not the kind of subject, like politics, that engenders that kind of exploration in the readership.

70. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68573 by ChrisMcL on September 7, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Where was Hobson when the religious were openly scornful of atheists?

You know what "Hobs", almost all of my heroes have been imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed by Christians; all for simply saying publicly that they don't believe in your god. But then what should we expect from a religion that glorifies the horrific death of it's most central figure. Now, religious apologists like Hobson, Bunting, and Cornwell want to "crucify" my contemporary heroes. They may find it strange to know that I do not consider it a compliment.

71. Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Comment #68568 by ChrisMcL on September 7, 2007 at 4:00 pm

There must be gene that makes christians want to put crosses on perfectly good rocks. And it may be related to the gene that makes women want to put sea shells on the back of toilets.

72. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68564 by ChrisMcL on September 7, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Nice. Dawkins is wrong because he is right. Wow. Bunting is an idiot.

We in the West live farther away from a Hobbsean "state of nature" than ever before in human history. And, coincidently, Western Civilization is more secular than ever.

Bunting needs to back up her assertions with examples if she is going to make such ourageous claims as she does in this drivel.

73. The New Atheists

Comment #67472 by ChrisMcL on September 3, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Atheists certainly need to join forces at the local level. And not to just get together every week or month in order to complain about religion. We need to educate each other, become involved in local politics, and have fun together.

74. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67391 by ChrisMcL on September 3, 2007 at 8:02 am

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, how Machiavellian of you to cite the utility of religion as religion's justification (pyramids, fear of god, etc.).

I wonder, how would the utility of science and reason would stack up against the utility of god-belief and religion?

75. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67025 by ChrisMcL on September 1, 2007 at 11:12 am

I just realised something today as I was doing some reading about history:

Most of my heroes have been imprisoned, tortured, or killed by Christains.

I don't mean that in the commonplace sense that since most Westerners are Christian, and therefore most wardens, torturer's, and executioners are Christian. I mean that those who stood up in the face of Christian dogma were physically punished for it. In England, atheists were burned at the stake as late as the eighteenth century.

76. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #65538 by ChrisMcL on August 24, 2007 at 4:32 pm

What bible? I don't see any bible.

Oh! There it is!

Hey, how about making the bible completely invisible. Can Jesus do that?

77. Rational Atheism

Comment #64908 by ChrisMcL on August 22, 2007 at 10:04 am

Some of Shermer's arguments remind me of those made by African-American's in support of the policy of "Separate but Equal". Atheists should not be satisfied with with thier world view simply achieving an equal status of respect. If we achieve that, then what? We will see the same kind of subtle discrimination that Afircan-Americans are still subject to these 35+ years after Dr. King's struggle.

No, I say. We should insist that others regard their beliefs with the same skepticism, rationalism, and scientific information that we use. That is the only way that we will TRULY be equal.

78. Poll: Which religion do you associate with?

Comment #64905 by ChrisMcL on August 22, 2007 at 9:18 am

As others have repeated, the poll is unscientific. But it is a joy to see such results as are shown from the poll. It makes me fondly daydream about a time when scientific worldwide polls show the same kind results in support of atheism.

"Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace "
-J. Lennon

79. Christians disrupt Hindu Prayer at Senate Invocation

Comment #56084 by ChrisMcL on July 13, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Sounds fine. But be careful what you wish for. Do "ALL faiths" include atheism? Apparently not, according to the judiciary of the U.S.

Opening up religious observances in government forums to all faiths may serve to show thoughtful people to question the validity of individual religions. But I would rather see the elimination of religious observance.

I am apprehensive about the possible unintended consequences of requiring observance of all faiths. For all we know, it may somehow reinforce the hold that religion has on society.

80. Christians disrupt Hindu Prayer at Senate Invocation

Comment #56069 by ChrisMcL on July 13, 2007 at 3:20 pm

The fact that there is a prayer at all has always bothered me. Prayer is inappropriate to a legislative body. It's as if some would rather turn it into a church.

It's not fair that the religious often turn everything into a religious occasion. They can't even allow young children, who have not yet formed a religious belief, to go through a school day without being witness to (or preferably, participate in) religious ceremony.

81. Christians disrupt Hindu Prayer at Senate Invocation

Comment #56057 by ChrisMcL on July 13, 2007 at 2:52 pm

I'm only surprised that two religions clashed and no one was physically hurt in the process.

I am in fear of the very real possibility that the future of this country will see sectarian violence of the kind that happens regularly in other parts of the world.

82. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #52899 by ChrisMcL on June 28, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Materialism has become a synonym for greed. If I told told someone that I was a materialist, they might assume that I was telling them that I was greedy (which I may well be).

Naturalism isn't too bad, but it may be mistaken for "nudism" or some hippie philosophy.

And Secualr Humanism is a terrible name. Not only is it a mouthful, but Secular Humanists are something of a "sect" of atheism. I personally don't agree with their core philosophy.

83. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #52883 by ChrisMcL on June 28, 2007 at 11:34 am

The implication of the definition of "atheism" has always bothered me. It serves to reinforce the idea that there IS a god, and atheists just don't BELIEVE. I don't believe in unicorns either, but I wouldn't call that "a-unicornism". Unicorns simply do not exist, and neither do gods. Using a word that implies that gods MAY exist, is troublesome. I wish someone smarter than me would come up with a more acceptable word. Maybe "Realitarianism"....

84. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #44212 by ChrisMcL on May 23, 2007 at 5:02 pm

I did some checking into the Frank Tipler story that was shown on CBS stations across the USA. I found that an Atlanta CBS affiliate, WGCL, originated the story. Here is the link to the original story in video:

http://www.cbs46.com/Global/story.asp?s=6434444

I read some debate below about various reasons why professor Tippler is wrong. The answers ranged from another equation to other theological questions that Tippler's theory may not answer. I'm hoping that eveyone sees the very simple reason why Tippler is wrong in his "proof" (and not worthy to teach science). He ASSUMES that the Cosmological Singularity is God. A leap of logic.