51. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71693 by sane1 on September 19, 2007 at 1:24 pm

OMG!!!

THE BLOND BOZO IS BARKING MAD!!!

THERE IS NO GOD. I "BELIEVE" THESE LADIES ARE FLAT OUT LOONEY.

IS THE WORLD FLAT? - "NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT." OK THAT CHICK IS USELESS. SAVE ME/US FROM THIS INSANITY!!!


Sorry for the shouting...

52. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71689 by sane1 on September 19, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Kinda stupid and non-scientific really. I voted anyway.

53. In Depth: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #71363 by sane1 on September 18, 2007 at 2:30 pm

same one i think. But that was 17 or so separate short YouTube videos...this seems to be one segment taken from the original.

54. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70396 by sane1 on September 15, 2007 at 10:09 am

Dreamer: You say the NYT etc is in favor of:

complete abdication of our national sovereignty

55. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #70017 by sane1 on September 13, 2007 at 4:48 pm

found this excellent response in Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter 83, at skeptic.com.

Francis Collins and C. S. Lewis


Francis Collins, the scientist and god-believing head of the human genome project, revealed the basis of his religious convictions in an interview with DJ Grothe (Point of Inquiry, August 31, 2007). One of the turning points in his conversion from atheism to belief was reading Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis's attempt at a philosophical defense of theism. Some critics think Dawkins was out of his element when reviewing philosophical arguments for the existence of god but Dawkins looks like Kant compared to C. S. Lewis. Particularly weak is his presentation of "the moral argument," i.e., the argument that holds that moral rules require a moral rule-giver. I don't see why moral rules require a rule-giver any more than the rules of carpentry require a Master Carpenter handing down rules for building houses that don't collapse. If they do require a rule-giver, humans can make up rules and claim they are universal and eternal just as easily as god can.


When I taught courses in the introduction to philosophy, I used an anthology that had excerpts from Lewis's Mere Christianity, including the moral argument and another howler based on the fact that we desire immortality. That desire, according to Lewis, can be taken as evidence of the existence of something that would satisfy it. Right. And what about those of us who don't desire immortality? Is that evidence in support of the view that there is no afterlife? I admit that I used Lewis as a punching bag. It wasn't really a fair fight. All the other authors in the anthology had far superior arguments to those offered by Lewis.


Collins considers it "arrogant" to claim there is nothing "outside of nature." Maybe. But it's worse than arrogant to talk as if you understand what the expression "outside of nature" means. It looks like a meaningful expression, but so does "purplish side of rectangular." "Outside of nature" seems to be a marker for "unknowable." I don't know of anyone who says there can't be things that are unknowable. How could you know such a thing? In other words, the expression "outside of nature" is just another in a long list of negative expressions theologians have created for their godtalk. God is outside of space and time and the physical, etc.


Collins agrees that evolutionary psychology can explain reciprocal altruism but he denies it can explain why people admire and consider people like Mother Teresa to be morally good. He uses Mother Teresa as a model of someone whose altruism has no ulterior motive and, for that reason, is universally admired as morally good. Collins seems to think that evolution (i.e., natural selection) would be unlikely to produce beings who were capable of completely unselfish acts, or, if evolution produced such people, evolution would not produce people who would universally admire them as good. Why? Because he seems to think that evolution aims at producing only behaviors and values that favor passing on one's genes.


I don't think it is obvious, however, that a species would not survive if every member had a tendency to unselfishness that disregarded one's own well-being in favor of anyone else, kin or not. A species couldn't survive if every member had a tendency to, say, commit suicide or whose sexual behavior was exclusively homosexual, unless reproduction could be accomplished without sex or heterosexual sex. But there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason for claiming that our species couldn't survive quite well even if a good percentage of our members are suicidal or homosexual. Collins seems to be perpetuating the myth that evolution works by individuals choosing only those behaviors that favor their chances of passing on their genes. It is my understanding that all that is necessary for a species to survive is that many individuals reproduce, that many of their offspring survive and live to reproduce, that their environment provide sufficient nourishment; that they not evolve behaviors like universal suicide; and that they not be wiped out by some environmental catastrophe. The human species is rather new and will probably go extinct like most other species have. But I doubt if non-reciprocal altruism is going to lead to the downfall of our species. So, I see no reason why one has to bring in god to account for altruism.


Collins's point that non-reciprocal altruism is universally considered morally good is easily dismissed because it is false. He should read Nietzsche or Ayn Rand, though they are not the only ones who think this way. Not everybody considers altruism intrinsically good, socially beneficial, or morally admirable.


I don't understand why Collins thinks god is a better explanation than evolutionary psychology, cultural transmission of values, or personal preference for why self-sacrificing people emerge and why most people admire them.


He also contradicts himself in the interview. On the one hand, he criticizes Dawkins for making the existence of god a scientific issue, yet he claims that what he learned as a scientist investigating the natural world provided support for his belief in god. Dawkins doesn't claim that science can prove god doesn't exist. Like Collins, though, he thinks science can inform the debate. However, for Dawkins the evidence makes it overwhelmingly probable that a being like the one portrayed in the Hebrew scriptures is extremely improbable.

56. Scientists' Good News: Earth May Survive Sun's Demise in 5 Billion Years

Comment #69947 by sane1 on September 13, 2007 at 9:38 am

"Stellar evolution can be a wild ride for a planet that is trying to survive, especially inner planets like Earth."

57. Enemies of Reason

Comment #68555 by sane1 on September 7, 2007 at 3:21 pm

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/index.html

Volume 13, number 2

58. Bible Belter

Comment #68545 by sane1 on September 7, 2007 at 2:36 pm

a bit of a boring review, but the section:

Peter Hitchens begins his negative review in the Daily Mail quite well ("Am I my brother's reviewer?"), but the substance of his complaint seems to be that Christopher is as confident in his disbelief as any fundamentalist is confident in his belief. The answer to the familiar accusation of atheist fundamentalism is plain enough. The onus is not on the atheist to demonstrate the non-existence of the invisible unicorn in the room, and we cannot be accused of undue confidence in our disbelief. The devout churchgoer recites the Nicene Creed weekly, enumerating a detailed and precise list of things he positively believes, with no more evidence than supports the unicorn. Now that's overconfidence. By contrast, the atheist says the humble thing: of all the millions of possible entities that one might imagine, I believe only in those for which there is evidence – trombones, pelicans and electrons, say, but not unicorns or leprechauns, not Thor with his hammer, not Ganesh the elephant god, not the Holy Ghost.

59. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66285 by sane1 on August 29, 2007 at 3:29 pm

How frickin credulous do you need to be to consider this Teresa story as more evidence of the existence of jesus, etc???

I feel sory for the flock, and it looks like hitchens has discovered a tender spot for M Teresa too.

60. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65504 by sane1 on August 24, 2007 at 1:51 pm

oxytocin: If she hadn't been such a hypocrite, and had actually helped people with modern ideas instead of celebrating their sufferin with stone age dogma and theological torture, maybe I'd feel sad.....or maybe not. There are way worse things in the world than being showed as a hypocrite after you are dead.

61. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65494 by sane1 on August 24, 2007 at 1:17 pm

"This is 1,000 times the volume of what we sort of expected to see in terms of a typical void"

62. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65486 by sane1 on August 24, 2007 at 1:00 pm

The Time magazine link is more complete - This story is this week's Time mag cover story, I think. The crazy lady actually didn't believe god existed. Priceless. Hitchens will love this one. His quote in the Time mag piece is tame compared to what I expect to hear from him in the near future.

63. A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

Comment #65484 by sane1 on August 24, 2007 at 12:58 pm

"It is 1 billion light years across of nothing. "

I think it actually IS god. The biggest nothing there ever was.

64. Scientists Induce Out-of-Body Sensation

Comment #65328 by sane1 on August 23, 2007 at 4:26 pm

I had an OBE when I fainted during a normally uneventful medical procedure. All about lack of oxygen to the brain. In fact, I thought I died, left my body and returned. No beleif in god; no godly experience. Just as one would expect from a world where there is no god, but plenty of god deluded people.

65. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65033 by sane1 on August 22, 2007 at 5:13 pm

cassdenata: Go for it. Do not be afraid. You'll fell better.

66. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65000 by sane1 on August 22, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Steve: Nice job!

67. Poll: Which religion do you associate with?

Comment #64999 by sane1 on August 22, 2007 at 3:24 pm

get the vote out...dropping to 71%

RickM: I bet they mention the poll, especially if atheism is unexpectedly high - this would be "news" to these people. They'll ignore the fact that it is scientifically meaningless, and make a story out of it.

CNN homepage says Amanpour will be on Larry tonight...

68. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #64994 by sane1 on August 22, 2007 at 3:15 pm

My Post:

No, I do not live by faith, I do not live by magic, I do not live by the "Secret" , and I do not live by anything supernatural. I do live by reason and evidence, and what science can tell me about the world. Faith is corrosive, and anti-truth. The debiltating dynamics of belief start with the foolishness of religion, but do not end there.

69. Rational Atheism

Comment #64976 by sane1 on August 22, 2007 at 2:24 pm

The current issue of Skeptic (http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/) has an unfailingly positive essay by schermer about dawkins, apparently included in a book of essays about dawkins, edited by grafen and ridley.

The issue of Skeptic is excellent, full of interesting articles.

70. Poll: Which religion do you associate with?

Comment #64913 by sane1 on August 22, 2007 at 10:30 am

Vote and quit whining.

....holding at 72%

71. Rational Atheism

Comment #64889 by sane1 on August 22, 2007 at 7:46 am

sidfaiwu: yup - here it is: http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/
I may have to get me a copy.

72. The Politics of God

Comment #64885 by sane1 on August 22, 2007 at 7:35 am

Great great sentence: "And the debilitating dynamics of belief don't end there." (from part II)

73. Rational Atheism

Comment #64881 by sane1 on August 22, 2007 at 7:17 am

I am a fan of Schermer who has done plenty to better the world for freethinkers. His points are good points, and should be taken seriously. I am disappointed though that his article came across as 99% criticism. I'll be surprised if he doesn't get some interesting letters back, and I look forward to them.

And most importantly, we would be better off if we had something better to rally around than a criticism of religion. The "brights" business is obnoxious, "atheism" is too pejorative and not positive enough, "secular-humanist" is too messy, and "free-thinkers" sounds too much like 1960's hippies.

EDIT: the following is a pretty good (if not wordy) description of what I am about:

"YOUR PETITIONERS ARE ATHEISTS and they define their life-style as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellowman instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellowman can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellowman rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god, nor channel action into prayer, nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."


~ Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), preamble to Murray v. Curlett, U.S. Supreme Court, April 27, 1961

74. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64776 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Re: Comment #64763 by CruciFiction
Nice find. Thanks. Confirms I subscribe to the "atheist life-style."

75. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64773 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Rieux: That would make case that the review was widely read. But perhaps help the claim that it is true that he is a crackpot.

Brialliant idea, either way - the man should be held up to riducule for the stupid lawsuit, if nothing else. So here goes:

Pivar is a litigoius crackpot.

76. Ancient Protein Tells a Story of Changing Functions

Comment #64772 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 7:07 pm

tieinterceptor: I flag you for erroneous use of, and failure to turn off, bold text......there.

77. Response to Orr

Comment #64746 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Fine letter from Dennett. Did Orr ever respond???

EDIT: Found it...pretty interesting:

http://www.edge.org/discourse/dennett_orr.html

78. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64739 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Thanks, thehardproblem, for the link.

79. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64733 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Darwin2: Interesting information about your "belief":

Pure energy is thought without a physical body. Our souls are pure energy. Our soul is a distinct entity fully aware of itself. I have written the following poem that helps me understand this issue and may or may not answer your questions.

80. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64732 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Stephen Prothorow (the professor in the piece) says religion is the: "greatest source of evil and greatest source good" Then, he says "you [atheists] can't have it both ways."
I'm thinking he missed his own point.

And that crap that the fact there is no proof is not a problem (for Protherow or the elder Ms Sweeney) is really an amazing amazing amazing fact that makes us logic and evidence based people doomed to exasperation.

...and the head of the american atheists underwhelmes me everytime I hear her. If I never see her again, I'll be very happy.

81. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64729 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 1:25 pm

"i'm catholic, i intend to stay catholic, i think the catholic church is a wonderful place."

"i just thought that is a hard way to go."

julia's mom didn't seem too convinced about god.

82. God's Still Dead

Comment #64725 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Lilla's thesis includes a deconstruction of religious "belief". And it includes the following memorable phraseology (Part II of his NYT article (elsewhere on the RD site)):

"The debilitating dynamics of belief".

Words well chosen and described!

83. Ancient Protein Tells a Story of Changing Functions

Comment #64701 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 11:33 am

I hope I am not guilty of "cherry-picking the evidence" but Oh how I do love it when the facts support my beliefs!

84. God's Still Dead

Comment #64694 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 11:16 am

go hitch go!

Hitch's immediate command of history, philosophy and politics is humbling and impressive.

85. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64688 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 10:19 am

JC Samuelson: you said:

With respect to the "Assault, Libel, Slander" charge, I suspect (though I don't know for sure) that this is simply the title or scope of the code under which Mr. Pivar intends to make his case, so this needn't mean that he alleges all three. Sometimes, related charges can be placed under the same statute and titled to reflect that.

86. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64684 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 9:50 am

Tholin: your quote:

If you're not fond of "appeals to history", though, the current U.S. impotence in striking bin Laden's haunts should make my point fairly clear; It's nakedly incongruent to advocate the
horrific misadventure in Iraq, consequences be damned, yet muzzle one's "morality" in lieu of cautious inaction that leaves unanswered the slaughter of thousands of one's countrymen.

87. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64672 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 8:39 am

bluebird: Are you sure its cases like this? Maybe it is real cases where injured and wronged people are seeking redress through the courts. Got facts?

88. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64671 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 8:37 am

PZ may need some funds to mount the defense and counter-suit. Is he taking donations?

Seems an absurd lawsuit! Truth is a defense, by the way. Also, I expect that publishing opinions (nasty or pleasant) about public works of art or liturature would be immune from suit.

ps. I am a lawyer. I haven't practiced in this area ever, but I have not forgotten everything I learned in law school, nor have I lost my mind.

89. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #64669 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 8:27 am

imnotalone: You are just rationalizing the lie, aren't you. Does the thruth matter ot not?

just stumbled across the following from Sagan's Baloney detector essay:

Carl Sagan:

Clement of Alexandria, a Father of the early Church, in his Exhortations to the Greeks (written around the year 190) dismissed pagan beliefs in words that might today seem a little ironic:

Far indeed are we from allowing grown men to listen to such tales. Even to our own children, when they are crying their heart out, as the saying goes, we are not in the habit of telling fabulous stories to soothe them.

In our time we have less severe standards. We tell children about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy for reasons we think emotionally sound, but then disabuse them of these myths before they're grown. Why retract? Because their well-being as adults depends on them knowing the world as it really is. We worry, and for good reason, about adults who still believe in Santa Claus.

On doctrinaire religions, "Men dare not avow, even to their own hearts," wrote the philosopher David Hume,

the doubts which they entertain on such subjects. They make a merit of implicit faith; and disguise to themselves their real infidelity, by the strongest asseverations and the most positive bigotry.

This infidelity has profound moral consequences, as the American revolutionary Tom Paine wrote in The Age of Reason:

Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.

T. H. Huxley's formulation was

The foundation of morality is to ... give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge.

90. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64668 by sane1 on August 21, 2007 at 8:21 am

C'mon captain underpants! His posts provoke excellent responses and endless entertainment. Leave him alone or you will come back as a jelly-fish after you die.

91. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64537 by sane1 on August 20, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Pantore: In what bizarre world do you live and learn in to conclude that the US is the most evil nation in history. Willing to go to war - clearly. Certainly not the first or only such nation. Certainly not the most barbaric.

Satanburiedfossils: - Of course, Hitchens has become an American citizen.

Tholin: correct on all counts. You can even add Cheney to the list of those who foresaw significant problems in invading Iraq (see his recently revealed comments from 1994 and even early 2001 on the topic that mirror those of anti-war types on the eve of the war.)

92. Democratic Candidates on a Personal God

Comment #64482 by sane1 on August 20, 2007 at 7:52 am

Pantore: How is the US starting the cold war?

I get how the US started the Iraq War, but the cold war?

93. Democratic Candidates on a Personal God

Comment #64480 by sane1 on August 20, 2007 at 7:49 am

I pray these bozo suck up fakers get what's coming to them in the after-life.

At least Edwards and Biden understand and say that prayer doesn't work to avoid bad things.

Pandering, pandering, pandering, pandering.

94. Bill Maher Making New Documentary Movie, 'Religulous'

Comment #64477 by sane1 on August 20, 2007 at 7:42 am

"...their own planet after they die."

Good one, Bill.

The more of this the better.

95. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #64204 by sane1 on August 18, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Imnotalone:

If you value truth and honetsy, and insist upon it from your kids, I wonder how you can wait until they are 6...If you wait that long, they'll know you lied to them. Just my opinion...

96. The Out Campaign: Interview with Josh Timonen

Comment #64029 by sane1 on August 17, 2007 at 11:05 am

Great job all the way around Josh.

97. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63934 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 7:56 pm

darwin2. i feel sorry for you, i really do. it sucks to be afraid to discuss your beliefs for fear of persecution and being belittled. just imagine how we atheists feel! at least the god fearing are united in their "respect" for each other, at least in polite circles. They have only contempt for us godless athists.

and your ideas are still wacky, by the way.

98. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63880 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 1:54 pm

hey Darwin2: Walk asked you an excellent question (202. Comment #63852 by walk on August 16, 2007 at 12:33 pm) and actually devoted his time to your views.

"To darwin2/George Killoran: I read quite a bit of your 93 page "Darwinian Creationism" pdf. And while it's contents are completely incredulous to me, you seem to have admirable motives, have obviously invested a considerable amount of time and energy on these musings, and, refreshingly, do offer that you may be completely wrong. My question is: Where did all this stuff come from? Total fabrication? Hallucinations? New age websites? (Ramtha, Kryon?) A desire to compose a work of cosmological science fiction?
I'm not trying to be cute here. If you wouldn't mind, I'd really like to know.
"

I echo his questions...

99. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63878 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Darwin2:

You say: "As I said above I believe in Reincarnation and Karma. We are all living in this temporary hell called Earth because of mistakes we have made in previous lifetimes."

HMM..ok, Interesting idea. I do not know everything, so I'll entertain it. Please let me know why you think this is true. Any evidence at all would be appreciated. Something approaching proof would be thrilling.

Failing reasonable proof from you, I'll then ask you to indulge my reasons for believing that Thor makes thunder.

100. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63873 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Darwin2 -

I see you replied to my earlier post (criticising your reasoning that the complexities of observed life prove the existence of a god/creator - your comment #2 above) by declaring that you "believe" in evolution.

You may indeed "believe" it, but you don't seem to understand it. If you understood it and had basic powers of reason, you would not claim that complexity proves the existence of your "God, The Supreme Designer and Creator of All that exists."

EDIT: and you would not write as you did above: "I do claim that order and purpose can't come without a designer."

Evolution explains it far better. Far better.

EDIT: As I stated earlier, read the selfish gene - and this time try to understand it.

And anyway, what explains your supreme being anyway? Hint: If you say he is a super evolved alien, you may still be dealing with realistic possibilities. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html) If you say he just is and you know it, well... never mind...