51. Supporters of abortion have no future in Church, Pope tells faithful

Comment #39606 by ghostbuster on May 11, 2007 at 9:22 am

Bayle: check out jesusneverexisted.com for some history on how religion set humanity back for about 1000 years.
Pope just got rid of limbo, so those unborn babies will go back to God, just like the ones in Iraq and Africa where Christians respect the sanctity of life by bombing the former and denying life-saving condoms/healthcare drugs to the latter. The list is long on how Christians have respected life in such a way as to send much of it into heaven, hell, oblivion or whatever. Such respect I could do without.

52. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39349 by ghostbuster on May 10, 2007 at 11:38 am

Gee, you'd think ua atheists would know better than expect anything else from such a program. We've heard it all before; why get your shorts in a knot.

53. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38824 by ghostbuster on May 9, 2007 at 8:45 am

IQHO: has good points.
Religion is a hierarchy, and a very strong one. Human beings seem to be programmed into hierarchal thinking, thus find no problem in hero worshipping even when the hero doesn't deserve it--and almost all of them don't. We have such strange urges to make the likes of John Wayne a hero if only because he was one in the fantasies of Hollywood movies. Fantasies intrigue us.
I will mention the casaubon delusion again because it also seems to be inherent in our brain makeup. We want patterns. We want them badly. It sooths us.
In the good old days, the monarchs, unable to let go of their hierarchal positions spent enormous amounts of capital and labour to build kingdoms in the afterlife. That's how strongly we feel this stuff. Until and unless there is a change in how we percieve hierarchy within the brain itself, that is, a change of consciousness (and I do not mean the hippie-style) which needs to happen really soon, then we are likely to die off.
When you feel the urge to idolize someone, just think of them having a bowel movement--kinda equalizes things a bit.
Sam Harris has a bit of problem, but it is nice to see he is open to criticism.

54. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #38815 by ghostbuster on May 9, 2007 at 8:30 am

To divorce God from the sacred writings is to be a Deist. A God that sits around doing nothing, may as well not exist.
The same argument always unfolds; few mention the casaubon delusion, a delusion that can, admittedly affect scientists, but that science/philosophy can and is avoiding through open dialogue, something religions forbid. The human brain is designed, through evolution (as are all brains I might add) to see patterns--it is highly advantagous for survival--but it is probably the one feature that makes religion so resistent to change and/or for its elimination.
Moral relativity also occurs among other religions depending upon their culture. They are after all, human constructs and open to abuse by the powerful to subjugate the less powerful--in other words, maintain a hierarchy. In some respects, I think religion is less about explanation than about subjugation, the former used to aid the latter.
There are no double-blind studies to evaluate whether a culture would be better with or without dogma--we still have the hierarchy to deal with as was seen in those countries flooded with political dogma (ie) Stalin--the usual example of an atheist state. The Stalinist state has a very complicated history; however, secularism has benefited society in many ways which is demonstrable in cross-cultural studies among monarchies, theocracies, dictatorships and democracies. In some instances, a benign dictatorship can be better than a cruel democracy but it comes down to the heirarchal attitudes of a particular culture. With religion, it is the strongest of hierarchies and therefore the least desirable form of government or dogma, especially aligned with political ones; the ruling elite have always known the benefits of religion. However, one can oust a Stalin or a Hitler from office, but try and oust God--a ghost.

55. Massive explosion is brightest-ever supernova

Comment #38532 by ghostbuster on May 8, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Actually, quasars are even more powerful. Recent additions to the Worlds of David Darling site are that black holes may be seeding the universe with carbon etc. and that they may indeed be wormholes--and, these wormholes could lead into other universes. Additionally, micro-blackholes could actually make for communication between these other universes (unlike the regular blackholes)and be experimentally verfiable---someday.

56. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38220 by ghostbuster on May 7, 2007 at 8:57 am

Sounds to me the only hysterical thing I see here is the article itself--or perhps Ms. Bunting having a difficult time while in the process of denial.
Convincing the convinced is an exercize in futility; they go away either crying, mad or both (at least that's my experience) then pop up the next day, beliefs firmly in heads.

57. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37920 by ghostbuster on May 6, 2007 at 9:26 am

Just in case anyone thinks the golden rule is Christian, it actually orginated in China.

Comment #85: Indeed. Additionally, notice the neo-conservative's love for Leo Strauss--it will make your hair stand on end. I am not cinvinced of the "secular" nature of the Democrats either.
Yorker is right.

58. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37758 by ghostbuster on May 5, 2007 at 4:02 pm

I think FXR said it right and to the point. Wherever there is a hatred towards women, their sexuality, their position within the patriarchy/hierarchy, their values, their bodies, or capabilities, tribal or not, behind all this lurks religion. Religion has most often defined women's positions in cultures. If this young women was in a secular society, treated as a human being under a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was seen as equal and valuable, then this would not have happened. What in the culture is responsible for the belief that this young woman was NOT equal and NOT valuable? Religion.
Even the method of killing her is religious in origin.

59. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #37462 by ghostbuster on May 4, 2007 at 2:00 pm

The best form of government is democracy, tempered by assassination.

60. Ape gestures 'show human links'

Comment #37459 by ghostbuster on May 4, 2007 at 1:58 pm

A gorilla, trained in sign language and needing a mate, was given pictures of several male gorillas to "choose" from (this was on Discovery Channel a few years back). When presented with the picture of one particular male, she turned abruptly away and signed "No" then "toilet water".
More there than just survival I'd say.

61. The Damned

Comment #37455 by ghostbuster on May 4, 2007 at 1:50 pm

About the T-Shirt "Smile, there is no Hell"--I think, given the descriptions of typical fundy heaven, I'd also buy the T-Shirt, "Smile, there is no Heaven".

62. Your favorite book in the last 25 years?

Comment #37235 by ghostbuster on May 3, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Bonzai; I like Penrose too--and Susan Blackmore. An older book that was fascinating was "The Origin of Consciousness In the Break-Down of the Bicameral Mind" Julian Jaynes. Although it is fairly old (1976) it was a real decent attempt at explaining consciousness from an historical and cross-cultural viewpoint and while Jaynes may have gotten a number of things wrong, he still makes sense on other things--especially the idea that consciousness itself evolves as the brain does.

63. Your favorite book in the last 25 years?

Comment #37233 by ghostbuster on May 3, 2007 at 7:46 pm

King Leopold's Ghost
Calculating God
Collapse: how societies choose to succeed or fail
Killing Hope
Rogue Nation
Anything by Robert Jensen
Betrayal of Trust
Anything by Chomsky
A Man Without A Country
Slaughterhouse Five

64. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37231 by ghostbuster on May 3, 2007 at 7:33 pm

oao--you're right. The elite have always used religion as a mean to fool those who believe it. This does not change the fact that ALL religion is backwards; just give it power and wealth and it will become even more destructive. I do not like Islam any more than I like Christianity or anyother religion. Islamic countries do not yet have secular governments; unfortunately for Afghanistan, in 1978 they almost had one if it weren;t for you-know-whose interference. The Congo would have had a good government as well, if it weren't for you-know-who getting involved and helping to put in a tyrant. Afghanistan's present government is made up of drug lords and gangsters.
Chomsky a moron? I get it, anyone who disagrees with oao is a moron. Well, I'd rather be in Chomsky's camp than his any day.
Why haven't you apologized to RD yet? Perhaps because you really mean what he thinks you said?
Bonzai: ever hear of Leo Strauss? He believed that the elite should use deception, religious fevor and pertetual war to control the ignorant masses---neoconservative philosophy practiced by the likes of, among others, Paul Wolfowitz. It is not enough to just shrug and say you don't know those things but still believe in what you'd prefer to believe--this is incredible on this site. "Leo Strauss and the American Right" by Drury.
Again, all religions are backwards if given the power and wealth to control others. If Christianity seems less backwards it is only because it has been stripped of its power--at least for a while. There are those in the Bush administration that do consider the ME cinflict as a religious war. The West, furthermore, must take not some small blame for driving countless poor, uneducated, starving masses into the arms of a religion that gives life and suffering meaning. The Catholic Church knew well this formula.
Empire was just as bad under the Democrats as the Republicans. Any nation that places God anywhere in its policies, is a nation that can commit terrible crimes in the name of that God and especially when a crisis arises.

Log on to killinghope.com (or org) William Blum and also Robert Jensen, his website is under his name.
Communism was particularly hated for its challenging of accumulated wealth and the power of religion over people. It was easy to get people to fight the Vietnam War to stop the dirty commies, even when the people themselves, wanted communism. Please follow up on some of the stuff I mentioned.
oao has a hair across his ass and would be better off to debate the people on newswithviews.com.
Anyone wanting to know the historical ugliness of the Abrahamic religions should fine jesusneverexisted.com a fascinating trip. Humphries is excellent--maybe RD could meet him someday.

65. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37197 by ghostbuster on May 3, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Bonzai: You might want to read the article "The Crusades: Christian Taliban is Running the Department of Defense" on commondreams and as well, the book "With God on Our Side".

66. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37189 by ghostbuster on May 3, 2007 at 3:55 pm

oao's comment speaks volumes about his own set of dogmas about his country. Can't tell the truth, it upsets him.
"The Family" found in Harper's magazine. Dominionism sites. Try reading about it. When the majority of Americans prefer creationism to evolution and when they have a President who prays to God to find out what his next move in the Middle East is, I'd say there's a problem, especially from a nation that ought to know better but doesn't. How do you expect Third World Nations to do any better with superstition if the most advanced nation can't.
oao-read "Rogue Nation" by William Blum. He's American. Oh I forgot. You won't read anything left-leaning; sort of like the fundies won't read RD's book. Might hit upon some truth.
Pope says no to condoms in Africa, Bush says no to sexual health aid for fear agencies support abortion. He certainly doesn't mind their resources though, resources that should benefit the people that own them but who live in abject poverty. Have you read "Project For A New American Century"? Who's behind it? Not a bunch of atheists for sure. God, King and Country--isn't that the motto that's filled graveyards for centuries? Where Empires go, missionaries follow. The alliance of power and religion goes a long way back. And both create tyranny.
Perhaps oao, perhaps, if the Industrialized nations hadn't raped and robbed and foisted their religion on Third World peoples, the Third World peoples wouldn't hate us so much. There is quite a devastating history there; this stuff just didn't pop up from nowhere--desperate people do and believe in desperate things when their lives
seem hopeless, helpless and unchangeable.
You are not going to find real politics on FOX news, oao, so take a pill, go to bed and read a book.

67. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37140 by ghostbuster on May 3, 2007 at 1:01 pm

oao--not a moonbat position, just fact. You keep telling everyone to educate themselves, educate yourself on American politics.

68. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37105 by ghostbuster on May 3, 2007 at 11:42 am

Read "End of Faith" by Harris if you want a go at Islam.
Considering the Christian at the helm in the USA, I would consider him and his Christian followers the more dangerous "faith" at the moment. Increasing nuclear arms, inventing more bio-chemical weapons--actually suggesting that
weapons be made that can target genetically susceptible populations--, instigating wars, grabbing resources from impoverished countries and supporting other countries who have contravened international & humanitarian laws all surrounded by Dominionism--I think RD IS targeting the most dangerous religion--and all religions are dangerous when they are allied with wealth and power.

69. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37093 by ghostbuster on May 3, 2007 at 11:16 am

I didn't find the guy's stuff pompous. I thought he was at least polite and I don't mind the word "debate" at all. In fact, he should be invited to debate Richard--freely, not like the O'Reilly show. Maybe Behe would learn something, the fence-sitters probably would and Dawkins could just keep polishing up his debating skills which are already awesome.

70. Just 120 Trillion Miles From Home

Comment #37065 by ghostbuster on May 3, 2007 at 10:15 am

I would like to note that science has done us trememdous good but it has allowed us to tinker with tremendous evil. We are a species that did not consider philosophy enough; religion was the end all and be all of what we were to know and then, never to debate. With this, we now have minds emotionally stuck in the 4th Century operating 21st Century technology that can and very likely will make us extinct--so getting a 120 trillion miles in space is likely a moot point. I will also point out that it may do some of us readers to actually look at Grayling's articles/papers/books. They are not to be missed. Science should never have been nor should ever be divorced from philosophy.

71. Just 120 Trillion Miles From Home

Comment #37032 by ghostbuster on May 3, 2007 at 7:58 am

My point exactly. Of course ideas are rejected 90% of the time, perhaps more, but it is the 10% we are looking for. We often cannot get to that 10% without the 90%.
And, some ideas were rejected once and then were adopted later when the evidence was in.
I know the difference between an idea and a theory, but the idea comes first.
The other point was that we cannot become as dogmatic as the religions we abhor. Debate, also the realm of philosophy, must never be discouraged by those who think they know everything. I do not mind the previous posts who have considered possible scenerios, whether ridiculous or plausible; to humiliate shuts down ideas.
I am a 10.0 atheist.
Lots of spelling mistakes on this blog--your point?
While you make statements with the benefit of a lifetime of science that may be your weakness. "everything that is not explained is not
in view."

72. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36777 by ghostbuster on May 2, 2007 at 9:24 am

This also helps to alleviate internal conflicts. Many religious people will cling more fiercely to their beliefs (delusions) when they are presented with painful evidence that their delusions are wrong. Conflict resolution, I guess.

73. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36775 by ghostbuster on May 2, 2007 at 9:22 am

By the way, self-deception might also prevent violence and social disharmony. I remember a program featuring an alph male gorilla averting his head when he saw his closest "buddy" cozying up to his top female. If he didn't see it, it wasn't happening and thus saved him the need to punch out his friend and possibly his female--everyone was happy.

74. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36773 by ghostbuster on May 2, 2007 at 9:19 am

One of the strongest cracks in religious self-deception is the fear of death. "Thank God I escaped the car wreck"---hmmmm, why wouldn't you want to be with God if that's where you really thought you were going--and why be sad about those that have already left. I know very few religious people who have joy in their hearts when someone close to them dies.
Craaaaaack!

75. Believe in God Spray

Comment #36546 by ghostbuster on May 1, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Maybe this'd work best when applied before oral sex. I can hear it now "oh God! oh God! oooooooh God!"

76. Just 120 Trillion Miles From Home

Comment #36544 by ghostbuster on May 1, 2007 at 1:20 pm

By the way, first fire was not seen as science but as magic.

77. Just 120 Trillion Miles From Home

Comment #36542 by ghostbuster on May 1, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Come to think of it, most people are clueless and will shortly be having difficulty warming their caves. And the point?
Is it not at least possible to think of a creature, say the dolphin or whale, as a civilization based entirely on philosophy? There can be different definitions of civilization and not all of them need be based on material things.
Perhaps if they had invented guns they could have shot back at the whalers, but my point is that an intelligent creature could find happiness and contentment within philosophy (not religion) and still not have scientific sophistication.
We can be bound also by a scientific worldview, a "hierarchy of importances" leading to an "absolute restriction of attention such that everything that is not explained is not in view". (Julian James)
There is no final answer, or single truth, or single cause--and it would be to science's greatest advantage to be relieved of some of its human constructs. Using present day science to look into the future thousands, maybe millions of years down the road is akin to looking at entrails of dead chickens, a kind of scientific superstition. We just don't know enough to make any really good guesses about what lies ahead, if anything, about space travel, life forms, other universes or the micro-universes or entirely different perspectives about the universe from the perspective of another creature. Yes, there is no avidence but must I quote the rest? Absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.
Can't we play with ideas? And know not only their limitations but our own?

78. Just 120 Trillion Miles From Home

Comment #36469 by ghostbuster on May 1, 2007 at 8:56 am

And not thinking outside the box can keep us shackled to ideas like religion.
Time is, my friend, another illusion of the mind. Try reading Scientific American on that one.
And while many ideas never happen, it's the ones that do that count.
Brain-storming yields alot of nonsense, but without it, new, inventive things would never be approached. Need I mention Tesla? A virtual outcast until somebody saw profit looming.
Yonker, you keep thinking that way, the same way as your fundies who who wouldn't let a new concept in logical or illogical for testing and/or consideration based on what they "know". What I am trying to get across is that we actually know very little and therefore cannot speculate too far into the future other than "pie-in-the-sky" ideas based on our present human constructs. Quantum mechanics made many well- respected scientists shudder--but let's pretend we know everything there is no know about it, shut down the labs and for god's sake (opps) let's not question the firmly held truths. In fact, most theories begin as sounding rather absurd.
Gee, and I thought that was science's main objective.
But what I do agree with is that we are more likely to become extinct than ever get to another place or time; it may well be the failing fault of all intelligence, becoming greater than the creature's capacity to control its own annhiliation.
But then who really cares? Why bother? We came from stardust, we shall go back to it and all that really matters is what is right in front of us now. Perhaps it is fundamentally more important to study philosophy than science. How would such a civilization fare?

79. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

Comment #36282 by ghostbuster on April 30, 2007 at 7:35 pm

And if there was not once single life form in the universe, it wouldn't matter whether there was a universe or not. Without light, the eye would never evolve. Without the eye, light doesn't exist.

80. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

Comment #36281 by ghostbuster on April 30, 2007 at 7:31 pm

How about, if there were no consciousness, the universe would not exist. As one philosopher put it, the mind is a means by which the universe can understand itself.
Imagining a universe with no consciousness doesn't count because a consciousness is trying to imagine it within the context of how it understands it.
All things dead--no ants, no people because all living things have some sort of feeling it is alive. Take it all away as if all were dead. Where's the universe?
Perplexing problem. Back to the old philosopher's statement.

81. Just 120 Trillion Miles From Home

Comment #36280 by ghostbuster on April 30, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Let's just say it is a bit egocentric to think we know all there is to know about physics, biology or any other science. Actually, we know very little. We've only been at it seriously for a couple hundred years, were plunged backwards for at least a thousand because of religion, so for heaven's sake (oops!) we can't have gotten it all solved have we?
There is even theoretical room for time travel and quite frankly, what has gotten us further than anything is the ability to think outside the box.

82. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

Comment #36126 by ghostbuster on April 30, 2007 at 8:42 am

By the way, some can turn to killing in defense of their dogma, another chilling thing, if for no other reason than they don't ever want to lose their delusions. Some psychotics refuse to take their meds because they miss talking to God (or whatever).
Interestingly, I read a study that indicated that Jehovah Witnesses are a very depressed group of people. My friend, who is one, once told me that the number of sisters that left their religion was astounding once they started taking anti-depressives. It took a great deal of will for me not to say anything.

83. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

Comment #36123 by ghostbuster on April 30, 2007 at 8:37 am

There is a psychological bent that when an individal's "life's belief" is proven wrong, that individual, for some time, continues to fervently cling to the delusion before accepting that it is one. Those who have come out of cults know this. There is that moment "It cannot be! I have made critical decisions based on a falsehood--it cannot be!" somewhat in the same fashion as one who has just been told they have a terminal disease---denial. What can occur in an individual, can occur in a social group.
Grayling is therefore, quit likely to be correct. However, what is also chilling is the lack of time we need to become sensible.

84. Just 120 Trillion Miles From Home

Comment #36120 by ghostbuster on April 30, 2007 at 8:28 am

Here we're rolling in our imaginations on an inhabitable planet 120 trillion miles away while we're busy making this one uninhabitable. Go figure.

85. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #35961 by ghostbuster on April 29, 2007 at 3:03 pm

I'd like to organise 87 atheists to eat a full can of beans each and then attend that Church; watch them get up and leave again.

86. Pundit Christopher Hitchens picks a fight in book, 'God is Not Great'

Comment #35957 by ghostbuster on April 29, 2007 at 2:36 pm

It would be nice to live long enough when the Bible will become a book not worth publishing--just an ancient, historical dusty relic of by-gone eras, studied only by the bespeckled geeks of history and anthropology. I like geeks, by the way.
The supersititious have had their say for centuries, over and over ad nauseum, so let's just jump right in there. Worked for them after a time.
Sometimes you have to repeat yourself again and again before you are heard. Ask any woman.

87. Huge rally for Turkish secularism

Comment #35956 by ghostbuster on April 29, 2007 at 2:29 pm

I am apt to think of the ancient quote "the best form of government is democracy tempered by assination".

88. Mormonism: A Racket Becomes a Religion

Comment #35708 by ghostbuster on April 28, 2007 at 12:55 pm

The Japanse cult Aum Shinriko should dispell any beliefs that following a cult is equated with stupidity. Many of the followers were scientists, very good scientists that wore gadgets on their heads to hear the words of their Master and drank his bath water. Madam Blatvasky cast her spell on people, especially well-connected, elite people as that well-know occultish Freemasons. Then we have the Hell Fire Club and the teddy-bear picnics of world leaders in California--the Bohemian Grove--and so many other weird groups unknown to the general public. Aleister Crowley, look at his list. Jupiter, there's no end to it.
So, while Mormonism stays within the boundries of mainline religions, we must not forget the ones we don't really know about. Some of the Presidents and other world leaders had neferious connections---give me an atheist, pleeeeease!---and Canada now has a Bush-lite in power with his Focus-On-The-Family connections and what else??
Safe to say, the planet is probably going to get f@#$*d--not one rational person in power where it is going to count.
Where's that new planet?

89. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35701 by ghostbuster on April 28, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Downright pornographic if you ask me!
I wonder if they could explain to me why a man's penis resembles a mushroom--at least in part?God must have had something on his mind.
Yeah, and it's shaped to fit into a vagina, a mouth and an anus, so of course, homosexuality is God's gift too--quit bitching about it!

90. Mormonism: A Racket Becomes a Religion

Comment #35528 by ghostbuster on April 27, 2007 at 1:35 pm

The Jehovah Witnesses have another great story to tell about their founder, Charles Russell, accussed child molester, occultist, belonged to the Masons--three pretty much forbidden things among JWs--that is if they even admit to it. Isn't it interesting most of these religions arose at about the same time? What is even more unbelievable, is the extent a 20th Century religion has spread---Scientology. Take a look at the spread of that guru guy that put sarin gas in the subways in Japan--forgot the name of his cult. If that could happen within 40 years, is it so hard to see how ludicrous things got over a couple of thousand+ years?

91. New Planet Could Be Earthlike, Scientists Say

Comment #35259 by ghostbuster on April 26, 2007 at 6:18 pm

Jehovah Witnesses once believed God lived on a planet in the constellation Pleiades (sp?)so it wouldn't take much of an imagination to think this might be a great find since religion doesn't take much imagination anyway.
Maybe it's Prot's world?

92. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34851 by ghostbuster on April 25, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Now, if they could only abolish Popes.

93. Potentially habitable planet found

Comment #34850 by ghostbuster on April 25, 2007 at 1:01 pm

I suspect earth isn't an exception to the rule but rather an example of the rule. I also heard that double star systems could hold habitable planets too. I wonder if somebody hasn't looked our way and found us, asking if there is intelligent life. Sadly, most of it isn't.
Little green men? Beats a guy talking to a burning bush any day.

94. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34797 by ghostbuster on April 25, 2007 at 9:06 am

The god delusion, which I like to refer to as a monothematic delusion even though it is not medically correct, has managed to kill millions of people. People died because they believed something that was a fact (world went around the sun), volumes of great scientific literature were destroyed because of the god delusion-(indeed, the Jewish holocaust was too), literature that could have benefited mankind but that, due to the god delusion, sent humanbeings into the abyss of imbecility for 1000 years or so and in doing so, probably sent more people to an early grave. Is it possible that had rationality ruled the day rather than superstition, that the great plague may not have taken a third of the world's population? What about all the religiously inspired wars? And would the men and WOMEN have been allowed freer expression of their talents, thus increasing the pool of knowledge thousands of fold? I think of the famous Greek astronomer, a female, the flesh shredded from her bones because she dared to question religion. How much did we truly lose because of the god delusion? I'll hazard a guess that it was far more than we ever gained. And still, in this day of Martian probes, genetic engineering, technological advances that the average person cannot master the simplest of explanation for, we still are fighting over ghosts that were fought over eons ago and always about the same reason--mine's better than yours.
If Richard Dawkin's book is a bit insulting, well then its fault then is that it wasn't insulting enough. Religion has been an assault and an abuse on humanity for thousands of years and we cannot linger on debate when 4th Century mentalities are in control of 21st Century weaponry.
It is long past due to be insulting; radical, revolutionary would be more in order.

95. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34786 by ghostbuster on April 25, 2007 at 8:38 am

I find most religious people border on a monothematic delusion, some more, some less. As usual, Bill doesn't get the facts straight and Richard wasn't allowed to straighten them, but for most people, it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway. Every scientific fact that threatened the dekusion has had to be painfully brought to the public's consciousness and hence, has slowed down the evolution of consciousness itself. Like sickle-cell anemia, it had a use but it certainly isn't a trait the species as a whole should have expressed. I suspect it will drive us into a bottleneck; either we survive without it or we go extinct because of it. I wonder still, what would have happened if the Greek Enlightenment had been allowed to progress and mankind had not been plunged into general imbecility for a 1000 years?
Would we have had to endure Bill O'Rielly?

96. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34555 by ghostbuster on April 24, 2007 at 1:25 pm

It is rather funny he should mention Gandhi because I remember him having a conversation with Rabindranath Tagore who also declared Gandhi as being one of the worse things to happen to India. Not very many people think like that about Gandhi, then not many people know Tagore either.
Power of the media, of course. Hitchens always startles one out of linear thinking.

97. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34553 by ghostbuster on April 24, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Thanks Brian!
As a Canadian, I now know that we live in heaven since to many Americans, including the duds that made this video, Taber and Heaven are somewhere "up there". No wonder they can't find us.

98. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34497 by ghostbuster on April 24, 2007 at 8:37 am

Additionally, this program favored Bill to RD. Perhaps we all see otherwise because of our stance. If I were a Christian, Bill would have confirmed my stance, not RD. Sorry. I think the actually benefit of this interview to the public goes to Bill.

99. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34496 by ghostbuster on April 24, 2007 at 8:34 am

This is exactly what I thought it was going to be. Bill "won". To the average American viewer, RD didn't make any good ground nor was he allowed to since Billy got to makes, as usual, his erroneous points through interruptions. Such an interview really goes nowhere except as a promo for RD's book (the only good point to be made--as well as Europe being more atheist) but again, to the average and ignorant American viewer, Bill won.
Yeah, it is true about facial hair--ie. Margaret Thatcher.

100. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34108 by ghostbuster on April 23, 2007 at 8:45 am

devovle should read Robert J. Sawyer's "Calculating God". It is an interesting proposition that "God" whatever that means actually evolved from sentient beings many universes ago and have learned to manipulate things much as a gardener does---no particular reasons other than what "they", "he", "she" or "it" wants.
My personal belief is that biology follows universal systems similar to physics, chemistry and mathematics. What works here works elsewhere (at least in this universe at this moment) and that earth isn't special but ordinary. Luck wouldn't have very much to do with anything anymore than luck drives gravitation or the turning of hydrogen into the elements within the stars. It just is and it happens that way because biology works within the laws of physics, chemistry and mathematics. Perhaps more yet to be discovered, but not magical. So it was a "lucky" break that the dinosaurs expired and let the mammals evolve--perhaps for the mammals, but dinosaurs were doing their own evolving and perhaps an intelligent saurian species would be here debating how "lucky" a break it was that there had been no major asteroid collisions; and perhaps that same saurian would have gone towards mammilian anyways---those roads are as unknown as the roads we take each and every day. Perhaps saurian races would have been smarter--why do we suppose we were a "lucky" break for earth?
I do not believe in "God" as a "God"--I keep my mind open to the possibility of extremely evolved beings capable of influencing the universe, even its creation. Those superior beings would have at one time been under the influence of evolution. At the same time, there is no proof,it's just a thought, so I also keep my mind open to the possibility that there is nothing but scientific laws---the universe or universes are, just because they are. Whatever cannot be proven remain only human constructs of the mind.