51. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14160 by Jared on December 21, 2006 at 10:21 am

JohnC:

I take your points, both good and bad, respectfully, though I still think you are talking in circles when it comes to denying that religion is a collectivist movement.

You mention the ID appeal to the wisdom and beliefs of ordinary folk. How does this imply an appeal to being an individual or the sort of self ownership that comes as part and parcel of individualism? I would take it to mean "Be like the rest of us" rather than "Form your own opinion on the matter." If you claim that it is a reaction AGAINST individualism, then I might agree with you. But American religious eccentricity is hardly individualistic in nature. There are no churches of one.

I also disagree with your statement that there is nothing democratic about science. It may not be GENERALLY democratic across society, between scientists and non-scientists, but it most certainly is and should be democratic within its own practices. I don't think that is what you meant by it, but care should be taken when phrasing such a statement.

Furthermore, I am not disputing that religiosity has no particular social benefit across a society, which I would have guessed even without your article disproving it so well. The human rights problems in Islamist theocracies would indicate the same. I think part of the problem is that you've been meaning 'socialistic principles' (or at least something akin to them) in places where I took you to mean merely 'social,' and for any confusion there I apologize.

I've also not argued that the way the US enacts its educational system has many positive effects. Education reform is absolutely necessary. I simply DO NOT agree with the assertion that Texas is the seat of 'individualism,' or that it was the spirit of individualism that led to the rise of evangelicals. Even your article cautions against mixing correlation with causality.

I notice that their data does not account for economic factors that might lead to a split between belief and disbelief. It can hardly be a coincedence that in the US, the poorest parts of the country (the deep South, the midwest) are also the most devout. The article indicates that things approach normal European levels as you head northeast, where there is more wealth and less religiosity. But I would argue that it's not the religious beliefs that cause the problems, but that the problems would encourage the beliefs. Lower levels of education and economic well-being have been linked to higher levels of religious belief across the world. I have no data to back that up, sadly, because I'm not much of a sociologist and don't make a study of it. Anyway, I worry that you might be taking a symptom and naming it the disease.

I propose no cures, though I suggest that any attempt to fix the problems of the United States will have to take into account factors of both its unique history AND its current state, which is no doubt a tricky proposition.

52. Now we know how to make the IDists dance in their petticoats: blaspheme.

Comment #14113 by Jared on December 21, 2006 at 7:11 am

I deny Thetans, L. Ron Hubbard, and Lord Xenu.

BRING IT, Tom Cruise!

53. 7 monks injured in clash over monastery

Comment #14112 by Jared on December 21, 2006 at 7:10 am

Yorker:
I may be a newbie to LIVING in the UK, but I've been something of an 'Anglophile' (which I use because I don't know of a term to describe fondness for the culture of the WHOLE of Great Britain and Ireland) for as long as I can remember.

I was aware of the 'easy access' myth, though not of Billy Connolly's excellent addition to it! But yes, my awareness of this myth did little to make me anticipate your hilarious invocation of it here :)

54. 7 monks injured in clash over monastery

Comment #14106 by Jared on December 21, 2006 at 6:36 am

Yorker:
"3. Comment #14076 by Richard Dawkins

>>...So are female sheep, presumably for fear they would offer too much temptation...<<

What? Are you saying it's not just us Scots that indulge in this pleasant recreation?

Well, I'm just glad I'd set my cup of tea down and finished swallowing before I read that, or else I'd be asking you for a new laptop! Well played :)

55. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14101 by Jared on December 21, 2006 at 5:45 am

Any society that tells people what they can or cannot think is getting far, FAR too intrusive for my taste. By claiming that you mean 'collectively' deciding what's OK, JohnC, you're undermining your own point. Since the religious in the US so clearly outnumber the non-religious, any 'collective' social decisions they make about the boundaries of 'acceptible' expression of belief are BOUND to be tied to the view that such religiosity is OK!

It has little to nothing to do with individualism, in that way, and begins to sound quite a bit like we DO posess the sort of 'social consensus' you imply. That the consensus is different here than in Australia is small wonder, given the countries' differing histories. The way you speak of it, you make it sound as if the liberal, non-religious sector of the US (a sector that is, by most nationwide measures, a minority), should have some sort of elite priviledge in imposing their social consensus on the rest of the nation!

That the United States, as religious as it is, does NOT have more overtly religious laws and policies than it does is a testament to the INTENDED (if not always followed) dictum of 'separation of church and state.' That's the best shot the secular side in the US has at protecting its own interests, and it also happens to protect the interests (in theory) of rival religious groups.

Any other social problems (hand guns, lack of public health care) are incidental to that rather than explicitly tied to it and are distractions from the central question of why America is more religious, and more accepting of open religiosity, than the rest of the developed world.

56. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14019 by Jared on December 20, 2006 at 6:39 pm

Having now finished the video, I guess I can throw some other comments out there.

Although I agreed with the host, I did find his voiceovers a bit snarky at times. I don't blame him; I'd be snarky too! But I guess that, if I'm going to be annoyed at it when the other side does it to us, I shouldn't really be accepting when we do it to them, either.

That said, this reminds me of why, despite the cheaper cost of living in most of the suburban south when compared with that of the Northeast or West Coast, I would not wish to live there. It's not that I'd be afraid of these people harming me or, say, converting any prospective children I might try to raise there. Really, I'd just not want my kids to have to face the persecution of the community for being raised in a secular household by a 'godless atheist.'

Unlike the people in the video, I don't think it's a GOOD thing, nor a noble, to be persecuted unecessarily. I'd rather live someplace where it doesn't really matter whether my kids go to church or not.

I'm OK with the evangelicals producing their own movies and TV and all the rest, so long as it has no effect on my own. If they get pleasure from that sort of stuff, more power to them. I also hope that their children eventually see through it and that the statistic repeatedly quoted in this piece (about the decline of religiosity in the US) is true. Just keep your mitts off of me and mine until then!

57. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14014 by Jared on December 20, 2006 at 5:56 pm

Hmm. There used to be a "Holy Land" not too far from where I grew up. In fact, there was (and still is, I think) a giant, illuminated cross next to the park, which was atop a rather distinct hill.

But it wasn't THIS sort of "Holy Land." It was merely a miniature re-creation of biblical towns, I think, and they had no actors or any of that. It also became quite run-down by the time I was a kid. It turned into a bit of gang territory and was home to drug deals, etc.

That's largely subsided as far as I'm aware, and the place is abandoned now. Here's a site about the place, coincedentally written by someone from my hometown:

http://www.roadtripmemories.com/roadmaveness/holyland.htm

58. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #14013 by Jared on December 20, 2006 at 5:42 pm

J.:

Thanks for that compliment! I rather enjoy your suggestions as well, particularly the 'frisson of freethinkers.' Something refreshing about that.

How about...

A distinction of Darwinists?

Or, one of my new personal favorites...

A scorn of skeptics!

59. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13969 by Jared on December 20, 2006 at 10:37 am

J.
'An apocalypse of atheists'

Ha! I can't possibly imagine anyone having a problem with that! Certainly takes it up a notch from my suggestions of 'murder' and 'doom!' Well played.

What's next? A ravage of rationalists? A horror of humanists? A sabotage of secularists??

Or, on a lighter note, an ambivalence of agnositics :-P

60. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13961 by Jared on December 20, 2006 at 9:27 am

Yorker:

I agree with what you said, by and large, although I don't think it's only goverments that do what you claim. I'd say it's 'authority' in general or perhaps anyone with the 'Will to Power' or whatever the phrase is.

But, stepping aside for a moment from even the specific details about which you write, I find I'm more interested in WHY those methods work, in what it is about some humans that makes them susceptible to them, what makes others wary of them, and what makes still others want to make use of them. Obviously its not as simple as that and there's surely a spectrum on which those three types are mere points, but I think that it's an interesting area to study.

I suppose my interest here comes down less to the specific 'anti-government' or mass collusion of government/media/marketplace at which your post seems to hint, and more at why these methods are successful, why they've 'evolved' (using the term very loosely, of course), and whether we can use education to get around them.

Indeed, I wonder what sorts of new ideas for governing will come in this increasingly technological and globalized world. I find it intriguing that we seem to be on the cusp of big changes in the ways nations, regions, economies, corporations, and people interact and interrelate. As the dominance of the nation-state seems to be waning, with more and more countries stretching their influence too widely while not getting as much in return from production or even service, what will arise to replace it? Corporate states? Small, semi-autonomous regions?

Who can say anything, other than that big changes are likely afoot in the next 50 years? If the current, somewhat archaic political/state machines don't kill us all with their 'ultimate tool' of war (or wreck the environment beyond repair), it will be a very exciting time to be alive.

61. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13908 by Jared on December 20, 2006 at 3:14 am

Logicel:

I was going to make a response to Niels Thorsen's post, but you beat me to it and more or less said everything I was going to say!

To further expound on the idea that people can be educated out of their weak-mindedness, I'll talk a little about personal accountability and self ownership.

Personal accountability seems to have gone totally out the window, at least in the US where I've personally seen this happening during my lifetime, when irresponsible lawsuits about all sorts of things have clogged the courts. To be fair, a lot of these issues (suing the fast food chains, suing after spilling coffee on oneself) are not QUITE as frivolous as they first appear, but they all have something in common: The people involved are willing to act as if they had no choice in matters over which they most certainly DID have choices.

No-one forced them to eat McDonalds every day. No-one told them to put coffee, which they presumably WANTED to be hot, in between their legs. There may be questions of deception (ie. the food content is addictive or not adequately described as bad for you, the coffee is far hotter than normal) but for the most part the results are attributable to choice. Where I would likely be angry at myself for being stupid and spilling hot coffee all over my legs, other people assume their mistakes cannot belong to themselves.

But this behavior is not confined to negatives. There are a large number of people who cannot accept responsibility for their successes, either. I'm thinking of athletes who 'thank god' after every good thing they do or people (like my own grandfather) who believe that they aren't capable of anything without Jesus. As Logicel says, we are not taught to own ourselves, and this has a trickle-down negative effect on many areas of modern life.

Not to get into the question of free will, which is far too difficult to address satisfactorily here, but even IF free will is no more than an illusion, we owe it to ourselves to at least allow for the exercising of that illusion. Sometimes both bad and good things are our responsibility. It's no wonder that despair and impotence are so widespread, when people are taught that nothing is their fault and all of their successes are part of a debt to an eternal skyfather which they must repay by a lifetime of servitude and self-denial!

But, look on the bright side: If you bear your servility with a smile in THIS life, you get to live another, eternal one in blissful union with the Skyfather, so who cares if this life is bad and you deny your responsibility to yourself? Especially since if you don't smile quite bright enough or take pride in your own successes, you get to spend eternity in searing pain. No wonder people feel they have no choice.

62. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13897 by Jared on December 20, 2006 at 2:27 am

Logicel,

Nice! Thanks for adding to the list of collective nouns.

Now the trick is to latch onto one or two of them and start using them around in the hopes that they spread like a meme. I've been pleased to notice that Yorker's term 'religite' has caught on quite nicely at least here at RD.net, and I've made efforts to use it elsewhere as well.

I think I'm going to stick with 'aurora,' personally, even if it might not be an actual collective noun. I like what it symbolizes, and it doesn't hurt that it is alliterative, to boot.

63. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #13894 by Jared on December 20, 2006 at 2:12 am

Richard Dawkins:
(Quoting Dembski) ' "Why might all this interest you? With the recommendations by Senator Santorum and others close to President Bush, I plan to pay him a visit at his home early next year and have a frank discussion with him about the future of science in the United States and the possibilities for public funding of intelligent design research. I expect your remarks below will help me make my case." '

Does this sound frighteningly like a child who is about to go tell the teacher on another kid? Seriously, I would anticipate these remarks to be followed in any grade-school classroom by the requisite 'Ooooooh!' that always happened when someone was 'in trouble!'

The irony is, of course, that it was Dembski who was in trouble in this case, and not Dr. Dawkins! It's like when the habitual tattle-tale goes to the teacher's desk with another frivolous report, only to be yelled at and told to go sit in the corner!

Oh, and with the (well-deserved, in my opinion) evisceration Dembski has gotten here both from you all and from Dr. Dawkins himself, I feel I have to say this: I hope I never, EVER end up on your collective 'bad' side! :)

64. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13850 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 6:33 pm

Hmm, Sancus...

I personally like some of the existing collective nouns for other animals, though sadly I think all of the ones I like convey the wrong message!

A murder of atheists (Crows): Not playing into their hands much, eh?

A skulk of atheists (Foxes): Makes us sound a bit too furtive, though foxes ARE said to be clever

A pride of atheists (Lions): Furthers the christian connection of atheists with the pride that led to satan's fall. Not entirely a bad thing, in my opinion, but counterproductive perhaps

A flight of atheists (Doves, Dragons(?)): Sort of positive, though it does sound a bit like we're running away! I'd prefer to think of it as a rising above, though perhaps Rod Liddle would call that 'a tad arrogant.' (I've also heard 'doom' used for dragons, but as cool as THAT sounds, there'd clearly be some issues...)

An aurora of atheists (Polar Bears): I like it, though the term might be of suspect provenance. Either way, I think it sounds good, and it shores up the connection to light, as well.

That's all I've got for now! Any other suggestions?

65. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13848 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 5:55 pm

RE:Martin:
'Very often, when religious advocates try to make atheism look bad, they call it a religion. [...] And very often, when they to make religion look superiour, they try to make it look "scientific" '

That really is an inciteful point. You make me wish I'd noticed the correlation first!

RE:alanmackenzie:
Quite a nice post, there! Thought I'd chime in and say 'Well played!'

66. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13758 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 9:55 am

Hmm. Mr. Robertson is back. I thought I recalled him saying that he wasn't going to keep on coming 'round. Maybe I misread his statement.

Robertson only sounds funny when he mocks that we regularly point out logical fallacies in opposing positions. Oh no, they're being rational! That'd be like me saying "I hate how bad my arguments are and how easily they get picked apart!"

It only ADDS to the irony when, immediately thereafter, he makes the straw man claim that we say Communism is not atheistic. We don't make that claim, because it is OBVIOUSLY not true and not supported by evidence (ie. the existence of atheist cathedrals). The Soviet Union WAS atheistic, in name. We only suggest that it was the Leninist COMMUNISM part, the ideologically driven devotion to the state and the leader, and NOT the ATHEISM part of the Soviet regime that made it a negative thing.

Frankly I don't care, for the purposes of this argument, whether the atheists are right or Mr. Robertson is right. It's the arguments that matter. The fact that Robertson can't even concede that many of the arguments made against our positions are flawed demonstrates a weakness in logic and an unwillingness to debate.

Instead he comes and makes inflammatory posts mocking us PERSONALLY instead of finding the same holes in our logic, holes which I'm willing to concede MAY exist. I'd honestly love for someone to show me where my posts are wrong or are based on faulty suppositions. It will only help me find out how to make a better argument in the end.

Until then, I will hold to the position that it's blind adherence to ideology, whether political, economical, social, or religious, that causes the trouble. Posting here has convinced me that there exists a wide range of thought underneath the atheist umbrella and that, far from being dogmatic, we all have different thoughts and opinions on matters. If Mr. Robertson wants to refer to this propensity towards disagreement and discussion as faith, dogmatism, and irrationality, I'll refer him to the dictionary.

67. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #13741 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 9:03 am

What, NoLongerHaveBelief, I don't count as an American any more? :-P Just kidding.

And Jonti, thanks for the news. That really hasn't been publicized as much as one would think for such a big personality! Well, my sympathies to his family and fans. I was unfamiliar with him prior to this show, and am saddened that this will be both my first and last experience.

68. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13725 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 7:59 am

Penbat,

I somewhat agree with you. I am more concerned about the indoctrination of children than I am the beliefs of full-grown adults who have come to their choices by rational (at least, to them) logic or whatever other means. But I can't see why we should leave religion OUT of it. Taking ANY subject off of the table and out of discussion is a bad thing, I think.

To me, there is no question about fussing with the beliefs of those adults. It would NEVER be MY intent to beat them over the head with my own ideas or otherwise coercing them to my position. I may enter into a logical debate in an attempt to understand them, but it is unlikely that I would go up to a random adult religite and try to evangelize to them.

My primary concern is, as J. said before me, the way in which other peoples' religious beliefs impugn upon the rights of those who do not share them. That is why I advocate for a secular government and laws based on a more rational, rather than religious or popular, morality. Otherwise, if people wish to worship god, the devil, or a sticky toffee pudding I could care less. Just don't tell me that the sticky toffee pudding forbids eating croissants and try to make croissants illegal! :)

I'm not entirely on board with your EQ ideas, though, mainly because I'm not entirely familiar with the concepts and have never been wowed by what evidence I've seen presented. But then again, psychology and psychoanalysis are difficult areas for consensus, sometimes, and can be quite speculative due to high subjectivity and quantitative indeterminacy. The EQ framework, while interesting, still seems to me one of many approaches with similar ideas and goals, each of which may or may not be particularly effective.

But please, don't think I'm mocking your whole thing! I'm just not convinced and wouldn't be being honest if I said I were. Perhaps I'll agree more after I've done some research.

69. Security tight as Mozart production resumes

Comment #13718 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 7:32 am

Re: The author:

Well, at least in this case, regardless of whether her motivations ARE what you claim them to be (which I do not doubt), Merkel made the right call. I was cheering for her merely for that reason, and more than a little bit out of surprise.

If the story were about her closing an anti-christian opera, rest assured that she would have gotten no "hoorays" from me and would have been on the opposite end of my rant :)

70. Security tight as Mozart production resumes

Comment #13696 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 6:02 am

Hooray for Chancellor Merkel! If we are to cut out everything that may be offensive to SOMEONE, there will be nothing left to say. It's a slippery slope argument, yes, but that doesn't mean I'm not highlighting something important.

The fact is that one must reasonably draw the line somewhere. And where do you draw that line? Do you draw it once people have protested? Do you let the system take care of itself, trusting that, if something is truly offensive, ticket sales will falter and the production will fail? Do you censor EVERYTHING in advance? What is the answer?

In my view, and this could be just my American free speech bias creeping up, you don't censor it at all from the government's perspective. The private owners of that opera house have the right to show whatever they want, and not to show what they don't. The people running the production would have the right to find another theate owner/venue willing to run a controversial show if the owner denies them, but not the right to claim a free speech violation if they are not censored by the government. The citizens have the right to complain and protest if what is shown is troublesome, but not the right to get the government to stop it from being shown.

If someone puchases a ticket and is offended, they can ask for their money back and advise other similar minded people NOT to go. Neither they nor the government should have any right to decide for the rest of the people what is or isn't allowable. It's the only way to keep things fair to all involved, in my opinion.

Unfortunately some groups feel the need to protest with violence, fear, and threats rather than more peaceable means. However, any appeasement or toleration of that behavior sets a dangerous precedent and cannot be allowed. This tolerance is why people end up censoring themselves. There is no reason to start out down a path that causes people to doubt their own freedoms.

71. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13691 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 5:40 am

Ugh. Sorry. I just can't stay quiet.

Here's the logical argument:

(a)Three known atheist societies were Jacobins/fascists/communists
(b)All Jacobins/fascists/communists are evil
(c)Therefore, atheist societies cannot be good.

There is much wrong here. The second premise has a lot to do with subjectivity and sociology. There is much to question about people following blindly despite knowing better, and about reasons why that might happen. I don't think those reasons have necessarily got anything to do with whatever it is they are blindly following.

The first premise is, as has already been pointed out, guilty of selection bias. Much of Scandinavia is, for all intents and purposes, atheistic in nature. I've never heard that they've perpetrated any systematically evil acts. This also says nothing of secularly ruled societies, societies like France and (ideally) the US where religion is kept out of laws and government. Liddle is cherry picking here.

The conclusion drawn from these faulty premises is also, quite naturally, faulty and does not necessarily follow even IF the first two were spotless. I could make a similar argument like this:

(a)Several young mothers I've known neglected their children
(b)All mothers who neglect children are evil
(c)Therefore, young mothers cannot be good.

No one would make that argument, and fewer would be likely to believe it. The scary part is that some people won't see through Liddle's rhetoric and that this could actually undo some of the work that's been done to improve the image of atheists worldwide.

72. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13685 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 5:13 am

The distinct difference between atheist 'worship' of Darwin and religites' worship of gods or saints or what have you is that, if Darwin's theory gets modified, improved, or even shown to be wrong, we WILL change. It's not the man, it's the theories are important. If the theories don't apply, we change them. It's like Newton and the changes made to his ideas since Einstein and quantum theory.

I'm not going to bother to respond any more unless Liddle really annoys me in the last twenty minutes or so. The only good point he's making here seems to be meta-textual in that, clearly, there is a bit of misrepresentation and generalization about religious viewpoints in the atheist sector. Well done, we all do that. None of the rest of the actual text here is terribly thought provoking.

73. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13680 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 4:52 am

He says 'Atheists would argue that the scientific method is all we need to make sense of the world.' That's quite a straw man, there.

I don't think that ANYONE has ever tried to claim this. The scientific method is the best way to attain some measure of objective truth about reality. It's not the ONLY thing we need.

So far, instead of making a real argument, Liddle's piece comes across as no more than a parody of atheism. There are many criticisms one could make about 'The Root of All Evil?' but at least it made a case rather than simply making fun of things. Dawkins didn't need mockingly grandiose music and faux nature program descriptions of "Atheist Territory" to make an argument.

74. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13675 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 4:33 am

Watching it right now...and right off he set my American hackles up...

Does Liddle actually think that NEW YORK CITY is the 'American Heartland?' I'm wondering if he's forgotten about, oh, I don't know...the entire midwest and the Bible-belt? New York City is, along with San Francisco and LA, one of the most progressive and tolerant places in the States. Liddle's a fool if he's trying to claim NYC as anything but.

75. Talk in Class Turns to God, Setting Off Public Debate on Rights

Comment #13659 by Jared on December 19, 2006 at 3:47 am

This story does two things for me:

First and foremost, it frightens me and makes me feel that, if I ever have kids, finding some way to keep them out of the public school system will be essential. This isn't out of fear that they'll be taught religion: I intend to arm any children of mine with a full 'baloney-detection kit' (a la Carl Sagan) well before high school. No, all of my fear comes from the STUDENTS...those that would threaten a kid with DEATH over asking a teacher to stop preaching. That's just too much.

Second, this story makes me value and appreciate the public school education I received. It was ENTIRELY secular, rather well-balanced from what I've been told by others not as fortunate, and as little as I had in common with the other students, at least I never got death threats for speaking my mind! (Instead, I was voted 'Class Complainer' in my senior year...oops!)

76. Preaching to the converted

Comment #13588 by Jared on December 18, 2006 at 3:28 pm

Martha:
'I'm of the view that a REAL atheist would be completely indifferent to the beliefs and fantasies of others, in the same way a heterosexual man (or woman) has no particular interest in gays or lesbians. Any comments on that, anyone?'

Yeah. I'm gonna have to go ahead and say that I disagree on a couple of levels.

Firstly, I don't really like the 'REAL atheist' idea. It has too much of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy about it. Basically, we all have differing degrees of identification with the term 'atheist' and many of us also have different definitions.

Also, I don't think that defining yourself as an atheist necessarily says anything about your behaviors or concern for other people's beliefs. It merely says something about your own. You seem to be advocating an idea of disengagement, which is no way to accomplish anything. Imagine applying that argument to people of opposing political philosophies: instead of negotiating and coming up with compromises, both sides would say 'I don't care what the other side thinks,' and nothing would get done. So yeah, I'm going to disagree there.

Next, I don't really think the use of absolutes in terms of sexuality is very helpful, or a valid comparison. There has been enough research to show that the idea of a PURELY heterosexual/homosexual individual is specious at best. At what level does one stop being a REAL heterosexual? At the level of involuntary arousal, of admitting a person of the same sex is attractive, etc? That sort of definition leads only to trouble and its more likely that there is some sort of spectrum extant with all of us occupying a range.

Granted, some people may range more widely than others, and some range very little at all (especially in terms of actions) but the point still stands. Either way, sexuality is likely something that we have little real choice about and therefore cannot really be compared to worldviews forced upon us that we can choose whether or not we wish to relinquish in the face of better evidence.

And finally, though I doubt that you meant it that way, the last comment about heterosexuals (by definition) not being particularly interested in gays and lesbians struck me as a bit off-putting. I assume that you mean 'interested in romantic relationships with,' rather than 'concerned with' or 'associating with.' But even in terms of 'interest,' I think you're propping up absolutes where none exist.

Unless you meant interested in CHANGING gays or lesbians, in which case I'd STILL say you're using absolutes where none (or few exist), despite the fact that I'd agree in principle with your point in that case. (Although some sects of religites certainly would NOT!) :-P

77. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13421 by Jared on December 17, 2006 at 2:57 pm

Yorker,

No offense taken at all! I'm always somewhat proud when people take me for being older than I actually am, particularly online where people don't even get to use my image to hazard a guess! It's been a lifelong thing for me, though; I learned to read before I was three years old, (somewhat unexpectedly, as its been explained to me) without specifically being taught to do so. Surprised my dad to no end!

I've always felt that clarity in communication is paramount to getting the point across. If one result is that I end up sounding more 'mature' than my age would indicate, I guess that means I'm doing my job. So thank you for your compliment!

Oh, and I'm really beginning to wish I'd brought my webcam to the UK with me. I feel like I could write myself a wonderful script for a holy spirit denial video after thinking about it more and reading this thread!

78. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13402 by Jared on December 17, 2006 at 12:44 pm

Yorker:
Again how right you are about the concept of hell! As I was raised catholic, hell was ever present (even if not as much as in some American protestant sects). It takes a very, very long time to rid your mind of that idea. It certainly is rather effective brainwashing.

I'm not sure most people ever REALLY shake it completely. There's always that instinctive twinge of 'what if I'm wrong?' associated with our actions. The proper answer to that question is, as always, found via reason rather than via fear, but only those of us who have shaken our fear this much are able to be rational when threatened with ETERNAL TORMENT for our actions or words.

As a brief aside, I can recall as a child being ABSOLUTELY terrified of accidentally 'selling my soul' for something. Like, the thought 'I'd sell my soul to the devil for whatever new toy is cool at the moment' would creep unbidden into my head and I'd panic, hoping that this 'benevolent' god so prone to epic overreaction in the bible wouldn't take my uncontrolled thought literally!

As I never received whatever that toy was, I have to assume that he didn't...or that there are no such things as gods, devils, souls, or any of the rest of it. Or that, if they do exist, they aren't too terribly concerned with my every thought and action and, consequently, there's no point in fear.

But, back to the subject at hand, Yorker. I'm not sure there is a 'right' way forward from here. I think that BOTH the Dawkins and Weinberg camps are right and are necessary. Extremes, of both radicalism and bridge-building, are required. This stuff is being given so much print, TV, and Radio time that people are being forced to think about it, regardless of agreeing on one point of view or another.

The best thing to do is to keep our opinions in the public eye as much as possible. The only way to make headway in that respect is to just keep talking. The more normal it becomes to have people think about and question faith, the less 'taboo' it becomes to do so. Calmness and rationality, even when discussing 'radical' concepts, are mostly more effective than the other side's typical bombastic responses of 'hell' and 'thou shalt not.'

Even apologetics like Benn (in the video on that other thread) are assisting us by merely DISCUSSING the topic. We just need to keep talking, to keep the religites talking, and to get as many people as possible thinking! ONLY thinking can subdue, weaken, and defeat religion and hell. In this regard, most approaches are 'right.' Keep fighting the good fight!

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

Comment #13398 by Jared on December 17, 2006 at 12:19 pm

There's always FSMmas as an alternative. I for one cannot wait until I can craft a Flying Spaghetti Monster tree-topper to use on my own. Then I'll decorate the tree with little pirate ships and other seafaring images. If anyone asks, I'll say that the tree is symbolic of a ship's mast decorated in pirate regalia to please the FSM, and that it's just a coincidence that these 'christians' use a similar tradition at about the same time of year!

80. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #13396 by Jared on December 17, 2006 at 12:12 pm

Dawkins is a charlatan? Wow, he must be one of the best flim-flam men EVER. Why, he's even fooled the University of Oxford for 30+ years into believing that he has some actual semblance of an idea about his subject. Incredible!

Thanks ever so much, John A. Davison, for liberating me from this so obviously deluded Darwinian theory! I'm equally amazed at your ability to have converted me and (I must assume) all the rest of us here without actually refuting any claims or presenting evidence. But, I mean, CLEARLY you're right. So right that you quote yourself in your signature because no one else is as right as you!

Or was that an attempt at trolling? If so, and you've been banned from all these other places, I'd have thought you'd be better at it than that by now. 0/4 stars.

81. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13344 by Jared on December 17, 2006 at 6:34 am

I'm unfamiliar with this show, not having a TV to watch while I'm here in the UK. However, this little 'advertisement,' as it were, does little to make me wish to tune in.

The hosts seemed a lot more smug, in my opinion, than Prof. Dawkins or Mr. Benn. Benn seemed to be fighting a losing battle while dodging the questions. He appealed to common points that ANYONE would agree with, rather than actually getting to the substance of claims to the existence of god.

His repeated statement that science does nothing to 'tell us how to live,' is patently absurd. Neither does cooking, sport, mathematics, etc. Just because something does not instruct us does not make it invalid. And I suppose one of the whole points of science is to use reason, and it is this use of reason which can teach people how to live, if that is something they feel they need. It is easy in most cases to use reason to determine 'good' actions from 'bad,' and in the cases of something in the 'grey' zone, ONLY reason can build a consensus, and ONLY reason responds to the shifting of time and the presentation of new information.

But the hosts, oh boy, the hosts...they kept on saying things like 'now I know you don't believe in god, but...' and 'we won't convince you in the next five minutes, but...' They acted as if they honestly thought they were presenting Dawkins with novel arguments. But it is very difficult to do that, or to even have this sort of debate, when the people involved have CLEARLY read no more than the jacket blurb or at best a synopsis of the book in question. The hosts in particular come across as smiling panderers to the believers who make up the lion's share of their audience.

I think in many cases I'd rather read or watch a nasty, vitriolic response to Dawkins' ideas than one that meets him with nothing more than vapid, smiling bemusement and condescension.

82. Preaching to the converted

Comment #13334 by Jared on December 17, 2006 at 5:58 am

GregPreston:
'The thinking man's Posh & Becks..'

OK. That slogan absolutely needs to appear at the top of this site or under a picture of the two somewhere...too funny!

83. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13274 by Jared on December 16, 2006 at 3:05 pm

Logicel:

VERY cool video! But yeah, the continuous correctability is EXACTLY what would give me a problem. Perfectionism + Never-Ending Corrections=GAAAAAA!! :)

Sapient:
Wow...you work too hard! Good luck getting some rest!

84. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #13264 by Jared on December 16, 2006 at 1:44 pm

The funniest part is that fart noises and high squeaky voices do little to make what Judge Jones said any less devastating to the case for ID. The more inane bits of this do little to comment on the material being presented, but do much to make laughable those presenting it in this manner.

85. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13261 by Jared on December 16, 2006 at 1:30 pm

Logicel:
Thanks for the links to those other videos! I'm glad to see that people are not merely singling out that one belief to deny. I'd still like to see a few more affirmations of what people DO think and 'believe' about the world, but I'm a big nit-picker (too big of one to EVER do what you do on Wiki...I'd never stop correcting things) and on the whole these responses are quite good and gratifying.

Sapient:
I respect you guys and think you're doing good, difficult work. At the same time, I agree with Yorker that coming in here and being sarcastic and smarmy towards people who more or less agree with you is probably not the best move. I've never been convinced of a point-of-view's validity by being belittled by its supporters; that reminds me of some OTHER groups who've tried to 'convince' me in the past.

You're posting at a site that is largely friendly towards you and, more importantly, is extremely friendly towards open debate. I can definitely understand that, since you guys are consistently having to defend and justify yourselves to theists, you might be tired of rationally explicating your point-of-view and reasons for this challenge. But to do so here, to an audience largely comprised of the only sect likely to LISTEN to a well-reasoned argument, would be far more productive than shouting us down in bold text.

86. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13187 by Jared on December 16, 2006 at 4:41 am

I have to say that, as always, Yorker and Logicel have brought some interesting perspectives to this debate.

As an immature person of not quite 25 years, I haven't got the breadth of experience that you both, and many others here, have. At the same time, I don't think there is anything too terribly wrong about having some disagreements with people whose general world view you share. For instance, I'm sure there are plenty of things that Michael Moore and I would agree on, but I don't support him or his methods because we differ philosophically on the best way of doing things. (It doesn't help that I think of him as a bit of a liar, either, but that's besides the point.)

So, in that vein, I have no problem with those of us who disagree with what the Rational Response Squad is doing, for whatever reason. I personally like and understand the RRS's goals, with the few small caveats I made in my previous post about the method of denying the spirit. But I could also understand why someone wouldn't support this particular campaign and, agreement aside, I respect that.

I agree with Yorker on his point about many of us doing no more than talking about these issues on the internet and not supporting the causes in other ways. I'd love to work for a group like CFI, the RDF, or (closer to my original home) the New England Skeptical Society. Were I not many, many thousands of dollars in debt thanks to my desire to seek an education, I'd even be willing to help out financially.

I guess the best I can really offer currently is no more than applying my intellect here and in my every day life to help support this movement and promote the idea that rational atheists are not evil and are, quite often, rather pleasant to be around :)

87. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13165 by Jared on December 16, 2006 at 2:19 am

Hmm. I'd heard about this challenge from another blog yesterday, and I'm sort of glad to come here and read some interesting and varied responses to the idea.

I'm in a position where I partially agree with all of you, even David Robertson (who ever thought I'd say THAT?) This is a very strange topic with a lot of facets and I can understand how just about all of you feel.

As to myself, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it. I don't think there is anything WRONG in the action of denying the holy spirit in its own right. I do, however, wonder at the utility of doing so. It kind of reminds me of some self-proclaimed Satanists I once knew who used to take a sort of immature pleasure in things like praying with their hands in 'satanic' poses while in church or wearing upside down crosses.

I guess I feel that denial of the spirit, JUST in those words, is a bit silly and vapid. It does misrepresent our cause in that it can be interpreted by others as that same sort of immature act. However, I'm not opposed to denying the spirit as long as it is accompanied by or in the midst of a wider statement of denying all such unproven faith-claims.

Better yet would be to include an affirmation of what we DO think. Atheists are too often presented as merely contrarians, which is so simplistic that it tells no one about what we're really like. So, if I were to make such a video, I would say something like this:

'I deny the holy spirit, just as much as I deny the influence of the stars on my life, the existence of witches, and all other unproven claims. But I AFFIRM the rights of individuals to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. I affirm the sovereignty of choice, freedom from dogmatic browbeating, and the power of science and reason to determine the nearest approximation of the truth that we humans can comprehend.'

But that's just my take. Rant over. :)

88. Grandparents linked with church-going

Comment #13073 by Jared on December 15, 2006 at 9:17 am

Hmm. My grandparents are still quite deluded about a great many things. When I dropped out of my confirmation program all those years back, they were upset, but I think they sort of pretended to themselves that it didn't happen. At the very least, they acted as if it didn't mean what it so obviously meant.

They bore my no longer attending church, even on holidays, in much the same manner. And they still harbor some belief that I'll end up being a priest some day, even though I protest and say that "I'd make a pretty bad priest."

They still ask for me to pray for them, and thank me for my prayers because they "mean a lot." I don't have the heart to disabuse them of this notion, nor do I think it would stick. It'd likely only make my poor old Italian grandmother worry even more about me than she already does, if that's even possible!!

But that said, neither my sister nor I go to church any longer, at all, despite our grandparents' EXTREME Roman Catholicism. But my personal experience isn't enough to refute a study...it's only anecdotal evidence that it may not always hold true.

89. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13024 by Jared on December 15, 2006 at 5:07 am

pholt:
'He is as scathing about PM as he is about religion.'

And with good reason, I'd say! As someone who has had to deal with lots of Postmodernist texts in my MA program, I can say that it doesn't take a lot to see the deliberate obfuscantism in which they coat their often specious ideas.

This is not to say that there is NO benefit to be gained from the movement, merely that as someone who prizes truth, clarity of expression, and rationalism, Dawkins SHOULD have his sword pointed at postmodernism. They quite often stand for much that Dawkins is against.

The only trouble is that for the purposes of Eagleton's review, the point is moot, as Eagleton is also a fierce critic of postmodernism from a different side. With both postmodernism and Marxist critiques coming from the left, and with the points that Sancus and MouthAlmighty make above, it's clear that Dawkins can't expect many friends at all amongst the liberal left. Pity, that.

90. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #12981 by Jared on December 14, 2006 at 7:56 pm

I originally came here to highlight the very quote that Yorker pulled from the article, regarding 'How To Read A Poem' and the working class. Great minds think alike, they say :)

In any event, I agree with Logicel that this was probably one of the most fair reviews we've seen. It's not overwhelmingly, slavishly positive (as some, but only a very few, have been) and nor is it ignorantly negative like the VAST majority of them. Demers brings up justified negatives about Dawkins's approach without saddling his complaints with Eagleton's Marxist baggage.

I wish there were more in this vein, coming from both sides, but that may be an unrealistic desire on so polarizing and needlessly 'taboo' an issue.

91. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12847 by Jared on December 14, 2006 at 3:35 am

Well, I for one am hoping that this editorial gets quite a few responses in Boston. Thanks to MIT, Harvard, and all of the other schools there, it's quite likely that a large number of rather well educated and intelligent atheists in the area would be annoyed by this guy's (lack of) logic. I hope someone grabs any responses they find so Josh can put them up here.

And for someone in a city at the center of the Catholic child sex abuse scandal, where a former archbishop moved priests accused of molestation from parish to parish rather than actually punishing them (and who, I might add, was given a cushy job in Rome as his own 'punishment,')...it takes a lot of self-deception to say that religion 'is society's best bet for restraining our worst moral impulses and encouraging our best ones.' Give me a break!

92. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12749 by Jared on December 13, 2006 at 2:58 pm

Logicel:

Yeah, the states are troublesome these days, but not yet SO bad that I'd be afraid to bring non-American friends there. Just stick to the northeast or the west coast :)

I am not proud of what my country has become. I'm not sure that I believe that it was EVER as great a place as it was made out to be in many of the myths on which I was raised. But where it has been going is a much darker place than I'd care to think.

I'm not so naive as to think that anything unnatural is occuring, nor am I as defeatist as a certain Mr. Mathews we used to know. I am, however, enough of a realist to see that the world is changing around me, which makes it an exciting (if also frightening) time to be alive.

Until I left the US, I never did realize how much of an American I was. Sure, I'd traveled before and had identified with the other places more than my home...but now that I've been living abroad I'm beginning to see some of what IS good and different about the country. And its those few things I'd like to preserve and expand if at all possible.

It's that, or the old stand-by of "I'm gonna buy an island and make my own free-thinking nation."

Yorker:

The only stuff of Chomsky's I've ever actually read had to do with the innateness hypothesis and cognitive linguistics, and that was a while back anyway. However, I am familiar with his reputation and know that he's quite a clear thinker. I may not always agree fully with everything he says, but as I am not in a position to either a) out-think him or b) out-research him, I can't make coherent counter arguments. I do respect his intelligence and position quite a bit, either way.

My current path, however, leads me to respect him even more. I'm in Film Studies, and here we have to deal with a whole boat-load of BS that comes from M. Jacques Lacan...basically a bunch of unprovable psychoanalytical/linguistic stuff that also gets filtered through a few other theoretical viewpoints. And Chomsky quite famously called Lacan a "self-conscious charlatan," I believe, which delights me to no end :)

93. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12686 by Jared on December 13, 2006 at 9:02 am

Yorker:
The venerable Dr. Chomsky may be onto something...but I hope for my own sake that my country hasn't failed beyond redemption!

The CFI lobby in DC has its work cut out for it.

94. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12664 by Jared on December 13, 2006 at 6:44 am

TearTheRoofOffTheSucker:

Just glad to be of service :)

95. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12661 by Jared on December 13, 2006 at 6:39 am

I wonder if Mr. Robertson is adept at immediately recognizing well-done satires in magazines with which he is unfamiliar from cultures in which he did not grow up. He must clearly be a pro at it if he thinks our own misreadings of the piece are so absurd. Or maybe he hasn't read enough American evangelical opinions on evolution to recognize how very small the differences are and how, to someone from THAT culture, this would not seem quite so apparently satirical.

No, I suppose that's not the answer. I guess I just need to 'get a life - and a sense of humor.' I wonder if I should dash up to Dundee and let Mr. Robertson and his Wee Frees teach me how to acquire those things.

96. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12603 by Jared on December 12, 2006 at 6:32 pm

Oh boy...I, too, was fooled. I have to agree with what aoratos philos said...the fact that we would not be TOO terribly surprised to read these views is a rather interesting point.

I mean, I did find them a bit, shall we say, more basic than normal...but I was willing to accept them as realistic until I got to the end.

I'm not sure whether this is more of a comment on my own credulity, or on the fact that, with a few small twists, we HAVE seen these arguments before. Good show, though!

97. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12438 by Jared on December 12, 2006 at 2:37 am

Logicel:"Our public school systems do not focus on developing and sustaining critical thinking. Why?"

You've hit the nail on the head, here. If I end up in education at some point on this twisting trail I call life, you can bet that I'm going to be including a boat load of critical thinking in any curricula I design. It'll be a drop in a bucket, I realize, but even a few drops of dye, if it's powerful enough, can tint the whole bucket.

98. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12305 by Jared on December 11, 2006 at 2:15 pm

Mr Topping,

I am sure your knowledge of biblical verse is greater than my own, so on that front I will not seek to debate you. I don't even own a copy. So, despite my (admittedly limited) awareness of the many convolutions of thought and assumptions of factuality within the text itself, I will not venture there without evidence at hand.

However, the part I am curious about is the construction of the text. The book, in its current form, was not put together (putatively) until well after the death of Jesus. From what body of extant messianic texts were those selected by early canonizers chosen? And what was the provenance of these chosen texts?

In other words, who is to say whether texts making predictions that could be interpreted to support the already-known outcomes weren't favored for inclusion over texts making other claims? And what of translations, ambiguous words or phrases, and potential editorializing? I am no scholar of ancient texts, but surely some debate must exist here from a strictly literary/historical viewpoint.

Next, I have to wonder about the foresight you evince in claims of future "scoffers" of the word. At the time these texts were written, and indeed for much of the early Christian church, Christian views were diverse, multifaceted, but also nowhere near dominant. Is it conceivable, then, that the author(s) of these texts might have faced some persecution for their beliefs?

It is known that, for instance, even in the "consensus building" phase of the Catholic faith, other "heretical" sects were rooted out. My point is merely this: Is it possible that referring to doubters was, as it is today, a common practice amongst minority viewpoints as a way to rally the faithful and allay doubts as to the righteousness of their cause amongst many claimants?

I've been quite careful with my word choice, so as not to come right out and say that your point of view (or any, for that matter) is wrong or that I have a "correct" viewpoint myself, so please make a note of this in any response you may make. I have not resorted to ad hominem or name-calling tactics, nor placed a particular value judgement ("wickedness," for instance) on your words.

All I am attempting to do is find grounds for "reasonable doubt," as it were, when attempting to derive any meaning applicable to modernity solely from the textual works of antiquity. Cheers!

99. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12227 by Jared on December 11, 2006 at 10:50 am

Yorker's post #70 deserves to be quoted on the sidebar of this site with Dawkins and the rest.

As to Mr. Robertson, he knows that he's being disingenuous when he claims to have met mostly insults. There were insults, to be sure, but they weren't the end-all be-all of responses. And right after his first post here, I pointed out the logical fallacies inherent in his piece. He actually took what I said to heart...for a few posts.

Now he's right back at it, attacking the repetition and tone of our arguments instead of their substance. Using that segment of atheists who lose their cool on the 'net, an altogether easy thing to do, as a representation of all of us is slanderous. I would never claim that, because the Westboro Baptist Church, for one, uses harsh language on their website and is prone to emotional cruelty to others, they stand as a representative sample of all Christians. Give me a break!

To say that we think we are right and everyone else is wrong is a foolish straw man attack on the atheist position. Of course, were that our actual stand, we'd be quite foolish ourselves. But it is not. The rational/atheist community (regardless of whatever those amongst us with less restraint may say) wants nothing more than to be presented with good, credible evidence for any other positions. We've got that, as well as a solid logical foundation, for our assertions, and we expect others to bring the same to the table for their own. If they present evidence that stands up, we will change our minds. It's that simple.

Unlike most theistic practices, rational thought is prone to change, sometimes even rapidly, in the face of better information. We don't claim to be "right;" that is what religion does. We merely claim to be trying to find out whatever we can from what evidence is available. Mr. Robertson knows this, as well, and knows it would be a silly criticism to say "atheists think that no one can claim to be right until they shift the burden of proof, and that we all should think about it more," despite that being the more nearly accurate depiction.

The fact of the matter is that, whatever flaws may be found in the supporters of EITHER religion or atheism, attacking either side's supporters does nothing, logically speaking, to prove or disprove anyone's logic. Robertson truly brings nothing to the table in support of the actual question of whether god exists and, if so, how he knows that it is HIS god and not, say, Ganesha or any of the others. If he had made some sort of legitimately debatable point above, I could have something to rebut. As it is, he did not and I have no interest in picking apart character flaws as that gets us nowhere.

As to his last point, that we should think "What if we're 'wrong' about god?": I think we've likely all DONE this already, have considered the evidence, and have decided that at these levels of likelihood it's reasonable to assume AGAINST the proposition.

But if I am wrong about it, I'd like to think that any kind of 'supreme being' would have more important things to think about than the transgressions of one ape-descended life form on one planet in the universe. Or would, at least, being possessed with the knowledge and wisdom any omnipotent being must have, be more understanding of my choices.

However, if the god of the bible IS real, but never revealed himself during the course of my life and only saw fit to pop up at the end and say "You're in trouble now!" then, I'd want no part of him. I could, logically, no longer be an atheist in that situation...but that would not make me feel the need to go prostrate and beg forgiveness. I'd still think I lived a good life and made the best choices I could based on the information available to me, and for that I'd make no excuses.. If that's not good enough for god, then he can go ahead and punish me. I've no patience for divine sadists and grew out of striving to please unsatisfiable people a long time ago.

100. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12101 by Jared on December 10, 2006 at 3:27 pm

Re: # 12096
NormanDoering: "I propose quoting Deepak Chopra as a form of satire."

See? That's exactly what I meant earlier :)

The man is so blatantly, patently absurd that he works just fine as his own satire. If it ain't broke...

It just scares me to death that there's a large number of people around the world who don't see it that way and actually follow the guy. At least people who believe in the standard forms of religion typically were raised to do so. People who believe in Chopra...well, that's all down to choice! Scary indeed.