51. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26378 by infidel_michael on March 19, 2007 at 2:36 am

Do they suffer "for faith" or "from faith"?

52. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25653 by infidel_michael on March 14, 2007 at 2:32 pm

"To fight irrationality it is first neccesary to define it. Whoever defines it defines it to their own ends and predujudice."

What about logic? Irrational beliefs are usually based on logical fallacies. Isn't it an objective criterion? Irrationality is reasoning based on faulty logic.

53. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25646 by infidel_michael on March 14, 2007 at 1:37 pm

"Non-believers can be bigoted too"

Non-smokers can get cancer too ..

"This, of course, suggests that the real problem is not religion as such but irrationalism in all its forms, whether secular or religious."

This, of course, suggests that the real problem is not smoking as such but unhealthy lifestyle in all its forms, whether smoking or non-smoking.

Yes, right .. and now what? Does it mean, that we shouldn't criticize smoking, only because non-smokers can also live unhealthy?


Of course, there are many forms of irrationality, let's discuss them all! But how to fight irrationality, if not in its forms? Discussing irrationality in general is not enough. For explaining logical fallacies and pseudo-arguments you need also some examples. And religion is a pretty good source.

54. Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Comment #23655 by infidel_michael on March 2, 2007 at 1:07 am

How can Bible have an overall context when it was written by so many different people in so long time period? Bible isn't one book. It is a collection of books, each of them has it's own context. Adding new peaceful book to the collection cannot erase the violent context of older books. It is still there, but christians intentionally ignore this fact, because they disagree with the moral standards in old testament but they also must believe that it is the word of God, so they cannot cut it off. If there is an overall context, it is schizophrenia ..

55. Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Comment #23651 by infidel_michael on March 2, 2007 at 12:40 am

"The key difference is that if scriptures are read as a whole and not taken out of context, the results can be the opposite, Ridge says, as the overall themes of the Bible, specifically, are peace and love."

Nice example of cherry-picking ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

56. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22132 by infidel_michael on February 13, 2007 at 1:55 am

It is pity, that the blond atheist woman wasn't prepared for such common question as "where do atheists have their morality from?". Empathy and golden rule could be quite reasonable answer. Or simply - it is more useful, we know that from our experience. The good moral values in bible can be reduced to these principles and they are not unique to christianity, nor Jesus was the originator of these ideas.
Telling stories about Jesus is only one of many ways how to present these ideas to people. When you understand why it is good to behave according golden rule and feel empathy with other people, you don't need to believe in miracles. It is the same as if you understand Aesop's fables, you don't need to believe in talking animals.

57. In praise of Darwin this Sunday ... in hundreds of churches!

Comment #21974 by infidel_michael on February 12, 2007 at 2:45 am

Evolution as a tool for creation?

It sounds possible, also human engineers and programmers use evolutionary (genetic) algorithms for designing. But the only reason why they use evolution is, because they are not all-knowing. They don't know the final solution, so they let the trial-and-error algorithm to do the work. If the designer knows the solution, he creates (implements) it directly, there is no need for evolution.

From the algorithmic point of view, evolution is a blind search with selection, it has no preferred direction, it searches randomly in all directions. This is incompatible with goal-directed evolution. The blind alleys in human evolution are meaningless if homo sapiens was a predefined goal. Was the God lazy or unable to navigate the mutations directly to the goal?

Darwinian evolution is also incompatible with all-loving God, because this process has unpleasant side-effects: meaningless brutality caused by harmful random mutations - genetic diseases. Is God lazy or unable to restrict mutations to positive/creative ones? Is there any particular reason to destroy lives of innocent children or the God simply doesn't care?

58. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21665 by infidel_michael on February 10, 2007 at 1:06 pm

What are the limits of science?
Science limits itself to verifiable claims. So beyond science there is everything unprovable and unfalsifiable.
That is why scientific knowledge converges - it advances by evidence and elimination of alternative theories.
But beyond the limits of science, there is no elimination, you can give us any answer what you want and nobody can prove you're wrong. Therefore religious "knowledge" diverges - look how many religious answers we have and none of them can be proven right or wrong, because all of them are "unlimited".

There is only 1 case, when you can disprove a claim, which is beyond science - when the claim contradicts itself. But religious methodology has it's tools to avoid it:
1. Don't take it literally
2. Human reason is not capable of understanding this

Thank you, I'll rather stay "limited" ..

59. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21436 by infidel_michael on February 9, 2007 at 6:50 am

This parody makes no sense, because:

1. If Bible was not written by God, it doesn't mean that it has been evolved by random mixing of alphabet. It was written by man.
2. Origin of books is not comparable to origin of complex DNA, because books are not replicators with heritable variation - evolution doesn't apply to them. Therefore it is easy to disprove evolution of a book. It is only a straw-man version of evolution.

This parody mixes up these 2 things and the result is a total bogus without sense.
----

On the other side, "Kissing Hank's Ass" is excellent parody, because it addresses the main points of religion:

1. Reward for obedience and punishment for disobedience
2. circular logic of scripture authority
3. hijacking of good values (eat right, wash your hands ..)
4. Arguments from ignorance and denying the scientific evidence (the moon is made of green cheese)
5. Impossibility of verification of the claims (Hank does not allow to check whether someone got the money)
..etc

60. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21381 by infidel_michael on February 9, 2007 at 1:27 am

What a pseudoskeptical video. The main rule of skepticism is: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What is so extraordinary on the existence of Dawkins? Hi is an ordinary human, we have quite enough experience with existing humans (and with humans writing books), you don't need to accept any extraordinary new premises to believe in existence of him. On the contrary, we have no experience with beings designing life, ecosystems or universes, therefore existence of such being is an extraordinary claim and requires belief in completely new premises.
-

This video just compares 2 uncomparable things, if people find this "clever", I'm afraid that reason cannot win this battle. Stupid false analogies, false dillemas and unclear metaphores will win, because they don't require logical thinking, only finding some vague similarities.

61. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21368 by infidel_michael on February 8, 2007 at 11:59 pm

Don't forget: Hitler, Stalin, Mao .. none of them believed in Richard Dawkins!

62. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #20943 by infidel_michael on February 7, 2007 at 4:13 am

- There is no piece of evidence supporting the existence of extraterrestrials.
- Do stop behaving as if you are an extraterrestrial!

:)

63. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #20915 by infidel_michael on February 7, 2007 at 2:33 am

One of the most used stupid religious tricks in discussion with atheists is to accuse them of dogmatism. When I see this on TV, atheists seem to be surprised with it and are not able to answer this non-sense.

I think the adequate answer to this accusation could be this:

1. Atheism is rejection of religious dogmas
2. Rejection of dogmas is NOT dogmatism, otherwise there could be only dogmatics
3. Rejection of dogmas means to ask questions: Is it true? How do you know that it is true? Is there any possibility how to prove that? Is there any other explanation available? etc. This means open-mindedness or freethinking.
4. Freethinking is the opposite of dogmatism, it opens the door for another views, not only for 1 dogma.
5. Therefore dogmatic atheist = dogmatic freethinker, is an oxymoron

64. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #20903 by infidel_michael on February 7, 2007 at 2:04 am

"First, Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences."

- an example, pleeeeease!!!

"Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life."

- as well as Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Humanism, Art, Science, Sport, ..

"Dawkins simply presents us with another dogmatic fundamentalism."

- of course, rejection of dogmas is another dogmatism, therfore there are only dogmatists and no freethinking people, right?

"In fact, The God Delusion might turn out to be a monumental own goal - persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant as the worst that religion can offer."

- of course, intolerance of intolerance is intolerance itself, so everybody must tolerate religious intolerance, otherwise you are as intolerant as religion and therefore you should shut up ..

65. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20387 by infidel_michael on February 2, 2007 at 5:43 am

I love the believer's logic:

Atheist: Your god doesn't exist.

Believer: But, my God said, that we should eat fruit and vegetables rich in vitamins. What's bad on that? Fruit and vegetables are healthy, without vitamins we would be sick! Therefore it is good to believe in my God.

----

Christians simply don't understand, that people can love each other without God's command to do that. "What is wrong with loving your neighbors?", what a stupid and irrelevant question.
This is the most arrogant thing on christianity - they think, that they have the patent for love and peace. When somebody argues against them, he automatically argues against love and peace. Such a stupid trick, used in almost every discussion.