51. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80668 by roach on October 22, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Oh no!!! Richard Dawkins made as slight error by calling atheism a belief system during an interview. It's almost as if he's a fallible human being! My world has been shaken.


I don't get why theists often imply that if you are to challenge the existence of God (any God) you must first prove yourself to be all-knowing and all-powerful.

I understand that your post was just a not-so-serious little joke/jab but it's still annoying.

52. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #79302 by roach on October 16, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Teratornis,

Thank you for the link and for repackaging the argument that people who organize their lives around the belief that intelligent aliens exist are crazy. Although the cults like Heaven's gate went a far cry further than mere belief in technologically advanced aliens existing at sometime/where in the universe. I have no problem with some galactic treasure hunter donating his money in the most likely vain attempt to encounter ET. I also don't have a problem with deism btw. You do have a point about public money though. How much money does it cost to keep SETI running? I'll have to research it.

53. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78996 by roach on October 15, 2007 at 6:17 pm

USA_Limey,

There is a difference between wanting something to be true and believing it to be so. Also, nothing turns on the belief that there are alien civilizations somewhere/time in the universe. Essentially no one organizes their lives around such a belief. If someone does, he will rightly be called crazy. No one is going to condemn you to hell, or say you're living in sin, or legislate morality and education because he/she thinks technologically intelligent aliens exist. It's a significant difference.

54. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78681 by roach on October 14, 2007 at 9:37 am

After reading the posts this seems to be a topic where no one knows what the hell he is talking about.

55. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78606 by roach on October 13, 2007 at 7:10 pm

Teratornis,

How do you know of this short million yearish window between the ablility to broadcast and the conquest of the galaxy? I don't doubt that this may very well be possible if humans were afforded the opportunity to continue as we have for the last 40,000 years or so. But who's to say that it isn't more likely that we destory ourselves or the evironment makes the conquest of the galaxy impossible?

56. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #78097 by roach on October 11, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Well PZ has always been a little douchey. He's like that really talented but kinda dirty player you have on your beer league softball/hockey/basketball team. It's great when he's playing along side you. You laugh at his jokes and taunts and even find yourself participating. But that all changes when you play against him.

57. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77839 by roach on October 10, 2007 at 9:00 pm

considering everything Sam Harris has done, written, and said in the past few years, I thought the rest of the AAI would have given him the benefit of the doubt.

58. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77271 by roach on October 8, 2007 at 11:40 pm

This all strikes me as almost a complete waste of time. I'll go along with Harris because I think he is funnier.

59. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74771 by roach on September 30, 2007 at 10:50 am

Teratornis,

Well it appears that you think ingesting drugs or as you call them "recreational poisions" is somehow ethically or morally problematic. I don't see how this is so.

Also, your Einstein child molester hypothetical is entirely irrelevant. Yorker was not suggesting that the fact that Einstein, Feynman, Dirac, Maxwell chose to smoke is an argument IN FAVOR of smoking. The only implication is that their behavior is independent of their achievements. You went on to illustrate this point well with Hitler and his superhighways.

In regard to my short musings on anger, I would argue that it just depends on how you use your anger. If I get intentionally and viciously hooked while playing hockey, I'm going to get angry. Now what to do? Should I turn around and smash my stick into my opponent's face? Or should I use the emotion (and the energy it gives me) to skate a little faster and maybe score a goal? I'll go with the latter.

60. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74765 by roach on September 30, 2007 at 10:16 am

Teratornis,

You're crazy dude.

61. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74760 by roach on September 30, 2007 at 10:00 am

Why do so many people have a problem with anger? Anger and the adrenaline rush that accompanies it is pretty sweet.

62. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74628 by roach on September 29, 2007 at 6:13 pm

v4ri4bl3,

It appears they treated you unfairly. But Kelly has big boobs so I'm gonna let it slide.

63. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74623 by roach on September 29, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Richard Morgan,

That's a cool avatar.

64. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74622 by roach on September 29, 2007 at 5:46 pm

v4ri4bl3,

You spoke with the RRS in person? Or was it online?

65. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74615 by roach on September 29, 2007 at 5:38 pm

That's an interesting thought Yorker. Perhaps some of us have an "us vs the World" mentality that we simply don't want to give up.

66. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74607 by roach on September 29, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Iam Buruma states: "The danger of all dogmas, religious or secular, is that they lead to different forms of oppression."

Thank you for regurgitating Sam Harris' thesis in The End of Faith.

67. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74593 by roach on September 29, 2007 at 4:19 pm

I think a lot of people just don't understand how the "youth of today" processes information. I'm 25 and not far removed from college. I've spent some time browsing a number of different internet forums populated by the "youth of today". The tactics employed by the RRS are quite similar to those I've seen on other "less intellectual" forums. Now this may seem like a very weak defense of the RRS but it is important to remember that there is something of an unwritten law on the less intellectual websites/forums. The law is basically "You can insult people as long as you don't really mean it and it is funny". It's kinda like the appeal of toilet humor. It's good for a cheap laugh (point) but it's not the most effective or intellectually satisfying approach. Most everyone understands this and it's okay.

Meh...

68. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74429 by roach on September 28, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Alright then.

Their everyday guy/girl approach is endearing.

69. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74423 by roach on September 28, 2007 at 6:34 pm

I like the RRS. And I would be apalled if they all started wearing collared shirts and ties. Their everyday guy/girl look is endearing.

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

Comment #72938 by roach on September 23, 2007 at 3:38 pm

This is an amazing piece of writing. Every sentence is either misrepresentative or vapid.

71. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #71673 by roach on September 19, 2007 at 12:49 pm

No one is pushing for a political group of atheists or some type of atheist agenda.

It seems to me that most people on this site want to promote reason and scientifically informed decision making. I see no reason to think that the members of this site would ban a deist, an agnostic, or even *gasp* a religious moderate from some type of organized effort to promote reason and science in politics and social policy.

Switching gears, I consider myself to be a "joe sixpack" kinda guy. I'm just some dude. How sweet would it be to throw back a few with some of the "New Atheists" and the RRS?

72. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #71346 by roach on September 18, 2007 at 1:32 pm

"Devotion, the Sacred, Sin and Redemption, Worship"

Why are these capitalized? Religion insults, cheapens, and greatly exaggerates all these supposed aspects of the human condition.

73. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71322 by roach on September 18, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Please don't pray for me. It's a nice gesture but it's essentially a waste of time. I'd recommend spending time with your wife and kids instead.

74. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71313 by roach on September 18, 2007 at 11:58 am

Notice how revcort didn't respond to my posts? It's obviously because he knows in his heart of hearts that Eru is the One True God. This simply cannot be denied. I'm actually looking at the book that reveals this Ultimate Truth! It's so refreshing to know I can consult it for the Perfect Word. It serves as a guide for my life. And it can do so for you, if you let it.

75. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71000 by roach on September 17, 2007 at 12:49 pm

You believe that Egyptian nonsense? Ha! Either Eru has blinded you in his infinite wisdom and mercy or Melkor is usuing you as a pawn in a clever game of deception. I'll have to discusss this with the elders in order to get solid information. Regardless, your false beliefs are yet more proof that Iluvatar is the One True God (OTG).

76. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70996 by roach on September 17, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Actually, the True God is "Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Iluvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones..." Yahweh may be a "Holy One" but we don't know yet. It's the subject of great theological debate.

This is all clearly laid out for us in the holiest of Holy Books, The Silmarillion. I mean seriously, how much cooler and phonetically pleasing is Silmarillion compared to Bible? If that's not good enough evidence I don't know what is.

I trust that Eru will show himself to you someday. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

77. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70645 by roach on September 16, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Yorker,

Yea.

The war of ideas has to be fought at all levels from all angles.

78. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70249 by roach on September 14, 2007 at 2:24 pm

I find that intelligent and well-meaning theists often retreat to a deist/pantheist position when pressed about their beliefs. It's completely unfair and demonstrates why there really is no better option than attacking the ideas/scriptures themselves.

I think many religious moderates are private deists or pantheists (poetic atheists) who "belief in belief" but like the community aspect of religion. It really is a shame that there isn't a secular equivalent to religious community building. Although I actually think that most people go to church not to hear a priest read from the Bible but rather to see and talk with their friends and neighbors (or attend whatever fun and entertaining activity the church is putting on that week).

79. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69830 by roach on September 13, 2007 at 12:57 am

Always enjoy reading Sam Harris. Reason and humor are the two most important aspects of writing (or any type of communication) in my book and he has a great talent for both.


Religion = Sacred tribalism

80. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69791 by roach on September 12, 2007 at 7:51 pm

All of this "you have to look at how people practice the religions" stuff is impossible and irrelevant. Impossible because we simply cannot know the personal religious ideology of the 6.2 billion people on the planet. Irrelevant because the New Atheists are attacking ideas and not necessarily the people who subscribe to those ideas.

Again, I thought Sam Harris' Nazism analogy (much like this article) works well to demonstrate this point.

81. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69165 by roach on September 9, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Yorker siad: "Of "nice" I would say this. On the occasions I am nice it is because it makes me feel good to know my words or deeds have made someone else feel good."

Yeah. And?

82. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68947 by roach on September 9, 2007 at 8:15 am

There's a commandemnt condemning rape?

83. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68337 by roach on September 6, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Cornwell (and every other apologist for religion) really has to stop applying Dawkins' arguments against religion as an ideology to believers as people. It's a tiresome strawman. The New Atheists are criticizing ideas, not people. It's a simple point that is constantly misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented.

I thought Sam Harris' Nazism analogy in his debate with Chris Hedges illustrated this point particularly well.

84. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67806 by roach on September 4, 2007 at 10:51 pm

I was really annoyed after the first sentence but whatever.

I can understand the discomfort felt by the author. About a year ago, a good friend of mine recommended I read TGD and I was very hesitant. I described myself as an agnostic and "believed in belief". And I simply didn't like the idea that there was a book attacking religious people. Happily, I realized that Dawkins et al. are criticizing IDEAS, not necessarily the people who hold those ideas.

This article has many problems. Linklater never explains any of his self-imposed "why" questions. He just states that the tactics of Dawkins and Toynbee don't win him over. His entire argument is emotional. Such an analysis may be valid when attempting to explain why you don't like the music of a particular band or why you find Sarah more attractive than Jane, but it just doesn't hold up in this context. It's a completely unfair tactic that I admittedly employ from time to time. But I'm not a professional journalist. .Basically what Linklater is saying is "They present rational and valid arguments, but I don't like it so humph".

He also fabricates a complete lie when he states "What unites both Dawkins and Toynbee is their absolute insistence that we sign up to the fixed and rigid agenda they have set us".

Oh well. You can't please everyone. What's offensive to one person is convincing to the next.

85. Christopher Hitchens on BookTV

Comment #67776 by roach on September 4, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Thanks for posting this.

86. India to charge writer Nasreen with 'hurting Muslim feelings'

Comment #67469 by roach on September 3, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Criminal charges for rabble rousing? Unreal.

I suppose Christians can sue Muslims for denying that Jesus is the son of God, Muslims can sue Christians for denying that Muhammad is God's Prophet, and Jews can sue both parties for claiming that the Last Prophet has already appeared.

87. The importance of doubt

Comment #67461 by roach on September 3, 2007 at 1:59 pm

I don't know what that parenthetical is supposed to mean so I'll only state that doubt and ambiguity are a mainstay in my everyday life.

As for your argument regarding politics. So what if atheists find the beliefs of moderates to be absurd? Why are moderates so offended by this? It's not like they have good reasons supporting their beliefs. If they are secure in their beliefs, they shouldn't have a problem with dissenting arguments. I see no reason why moderate believers and atheists cannot work together to combat the ugly aspects of religion. Indeed, we've already seen examples of this, i.e. when Ken Miller destroyed Behe and the ID proponents in the Dover trial.

88. The New Atheists

Comment #67451 by roach on September 3, 2007 at 1:34 pm

phil rimmer,

I fail to see how someone can be a "staunch Catholic" and not think faith should be used to justify a moral position. What about the Catholic Church's position on contraception? Or pre-marital sex? Or divorce? Or homosexuality?

Sounds to me like your friend is more of a "staunch deist" which, for all practical purposes, is no different than a "staunch atheist".

89. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67260 by roach on September 3, 2007 at 1:38 am

Terrible and bipolar article. More atheism is another religion and atheists are dogmatic nonsense. Yet the author admits that religion "can and does" create all types of problems. Then why not openly oppose these ideas?

Also, this idea that atheists have "puny" imaginations is absurd. I'm free to imagine anything I want. But I'm not free to believe anything I can dream.

90. In God we doubt

Comment #67254 by roach on September 3, 2007 at 1:24 am

Well if an interested but unconvinced reader came to the site, saw a comment like "what a fuckwit" and came to the conclusion that atheists/secularists are "arrogant, rude, simplistic", then that person is making the terrible mistake of taking the impulsive action of an individual and applying it to the whole population.

It's no different than coming to the ridiculous conclusion that all women are not to be trusted simply because your first girlfriend cheated on you.

91. In God we doubt

Comment #67247 by roach on September 3, 2007 at 12:42 am

An army of strawmen. I really dislike it when the "New Atheists" are criticized for supposedly saying that "believers are mostly naive or stupid" when, in fact, they often refer to believers as " intelligent and well-meaing people".

92. The importance of doubt

Comment #67244 by roach on September 3, 2007 at 12:34 am

Eric Blair,

Yes the amount doublethink and mental suffering moderate Christians impose upon themselves is amazing.

What would you have Dawkins do? Lie that he doesn't think religious moderation is a problem? Perhaps he should pen an article saying that religious faith should be seen as a virtue as long as the believer is riddled with doubt. Or maybe he should dishonestly argue that he thinks evolution is indeed compatible with moderate forms of Christianity. I'd take intellectual honesty over political deception any day.

Dawkins does not "tar all believers with the same brush, seeing such distinctions as ultimately trivial". He and the "New Atheists" are attacking beliefs, not the believers. I know that you contradict yourself in the paragraph following the sentence I quoted but I still had to point this out.

Also, if today's moderate Christians were "post-Enlightenment rationalists" they would probably not be Christians of any sort. They would much more likely be deists like Jefferson and Madison.

93. The Fear Factor: When the Brain Decides It's Time to Scram

Comment #66838 by roach on August 31, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Richard Morgan,

This was a perfect opportunity to offer some constructive criticism. You could have suggested how 601 reword his argument to make it sound better. But instead you offer only thinly veiled insults. Way to go!

94. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66837 by roach on August 31, 2007 at 6:13 pm

We're still waiting for those reasons.

95. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66834 by roach on August 31, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Richard Morgan,

What a devestating counter! It's right up there with the gems embedded in college message boards during a flame war. Gems like...

"Kiss my ass"

"You're a douchebag"

"You fail at debate"

"Your mom is a whore"

"Let's meet in person so I can kick your ass"

"wAt! yOu thInK u hArd? Iz goNNa gIt my BoyZ aNd pLaNt a cAp 'n yOu sKuLlz. loLz."

Provide some reasons supporting your position that Russell Blackford has "lost all credibility" and we'll evaluate them.

96. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #66822 by roach on August 31, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Mooney states: "The gist: The American public doesn't generally perceive a necessary conflict between religion and science; but if you tell them there is such an either-or conflict, guess which one of the binary options they're gonna choose?

Yeah, that's right. White-beard-in-the-sky-guy--or some variation thereon."

Sure they may say that. But what if the beliefs had tangible consequences? I bet that most Americans wouldn't choose God/religion if they had to live without all the advantages granted to them by science and it's application.

I doubt more than a handful of religous Americans would say "Sure. Take the medicine, cars, planes, computers, ipods, food, clothing, houses, air conditioners, supermarkets, movie theatres, books, and all the other worldly possessions. My God will provide for me."

Our lack of perception regarding the conflict between science and religion is because we (consciously or unconsciously) place blinders on ourselves so we don't see it. This cunning self-deception makes it quite easy to have our cake and eat it too.

97. A Matter of Faith

Comment #66819 by roach on August 31, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Dr Benway,

I can see your coffee table in my mind's eye. I will soon use the sending incantation and magic it into your living room. But remember if it doesn't happen the problem lies not with my powers (which are undeniable), but rather with your skeptical mindset.

98. A Matter of Faith

Comment #66816 by roach on August 31, 2007 at 4:08 pm

I like Douglas Gasking's humorous proof that God does NOT exist. It's presented in TGD in the section addressing ontological and other a priori proofs. Here it is:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. An existing God therfore would not be a being greater than which a greter cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

Ergo:

7. God does not exist.

Gasking didn't disprove God. But Anselm didn't prove god either. Neither is a very convincing argument. The very important difference is that Gasking was making a joke while Anselm was spouting sincere nonsense. If an argument is not supported by evidence or reason, it had damn well better be funny.

99. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66418 by roach on August 30, 2007 at 1:11 am

Liveliest Crib,

I agree with what you say. I should have bolded the word "like" in my previous post to make my joke/wishful thinking apparent.

100. The importance of doubt

Comment #66415 by roach on August 30, 2007 at 12:54 am

Oh it's not "faith". It's "doubt of doubt". This make so much sense! Can I say skepticism is actually "doubt of doubt of doubt"?