51. Lou Dobbs Interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #37479 by kkant on May 4, 2007 at 3:12 pm

room101 writes:
Now, I'd like to see him appear on Fox (against the right wingers) and have a go with O'Reilly, Hannity, et al. I think he would hold up well as he is eloquent and doesn't appear to be easily bullied.

As a matter of fact, he was on Fox. I was at the mechanic getting my car fixed, and the TV was showing Fox News. Imagine my surprise, when I caught the tail end of Hitchens on the TV. It was about 1:30 PM pacific time yesterday (May 3). I don't know who the interviewer was, I don't really know these Fox anchors by name. In what little I saw, treating him with that smug sardonic grin, as if to say "this guy is kind of a kook and we can pretty much ignore his outrageous statements, but we'll generously indulge him as we look down our noses". Of course, I only saw a total of 5 seconds of this interview, so I could be mistaken. If anyone has a link to this video clip online, would be cool to see.

This Lou Dobbs interview, on the other hand...great stuff!!

52. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36594 by kkant on May 1, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Funny how religion--the most incredibly obvious and widespread self-deception--is not so much as mentioned in this article. Not even obliquely.

53. Religion & Culture Panel

Comment #36478 by kkant on May 1, 2007 at 9:50 am

Eureka Step writes:
What is Karabell's point? That Hitchins, or anyone for that matter, cannot question religion, any of its practices or hypothetical gods because of human error in producing a mirror for an orbitting telescope!!!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!? WTF!!!?!?
...and he looked so smug after saying it.

Indeed. This was one of several points during this video (including the one RD mentions equating religious criticism with the Taliban) where I was wringing my hands in amazement at what facile nonsense those other two authors were smugly saying and the cheap laughs they were drawing from the audience. I thought Hitchens handled this particular nonsense (about the Hubble comment) very well and with good humor. More than I could have done--I would have been saying "Yeah, we made a mistake you moron, does that mean the corrected images are not beautiful and awesome and inspiring? And when's the last time your all-knowing always-perfect God had the humility to admit to a mistake?"

Incidentally, "God is not Great" is #4 on amazon right now. :)

54. Pop Tech Lecture

Comment #36471 by kkant on May 1, 2007 at 9:06 am

I especially liked the bit about the biologist who had such humility (and indeed joy) in accepting a disproof of his theory of the golgi apparatus. That was a very moving anecdote.

55. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #36307 by kkant on April 30, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Once again, nice responses to devolved folks. Talk about an ass-kicking. :)

56. Religion & Culture Panel

Comment #36298 by kkant on April 30, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Wow, this was a great video. I'm ranking this one "Excellent". Once again, Christopher Hitchens is a great guy to have in the atheist camp. He is an extremely eloquent speaker and debater.

That guy on the left, John Hirsch, was I believe the same guy who gave Sam Harris a hard time in that recent Harris/Aslan debate (posted here recently). This time around, Hitchens absolutely mops the floor with him. In fact, it's "everyone against Hitchens" here in this video, including the moderator. Yet he still kicks everyone's ass. He did so well that the other panelists were forced to backpedal on their position and admit that religion was in fact factually false and manmade. You can be sure that they wouldn't have admitted anything *remotely* like that in other circumstances. Well done!

Sam Harris is a really brilliant writer, as we've seen here on this site (especially in the Sullivan/Harris debate). But when he is speaking he is more hesitant, and when he is debating in real-time he seems to forget his best arguments (e.g. that Newsweek debate between Warren and Harris). RD is of course awesome on the science front (I found RD through Douglas Adams, when Adams recommended "Blind Watchmaker", which was an brilliantly eye-opening book for me). But contrary to all the ridiculously false accusations against RD (that he's rude or angry or cruel), in fact RD is extremely polite and soft-spoken in debates--and I feel many of his adversaries take advantage of that fact. With Hitchens in a debate you seldom have to worry about that sort of thing. Takes no prisoners, takes no shit.

I look forward to seeing more video/audio of Hitchens. Thanks for the post, and keep em coming!

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

Comment #36174 by kkant on April 30, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Regarding Comment #35907 by cassdenata.

I just finished a huge mega-post replying to your points on the Iraq war. Then I saw that 3legcat responded to most of the issues already, and in much fewer words. I think I'll just leave it there, unless you want to discuss further.

But regardless, I especially agree with what Stuart Paul Wood said above. Get this book, "God is not Great", irrespective of what you think of his position on the war.

Incidentally, if you want a book that will *really* piss you off, check out "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" also by Hitchens. I always kind of knew Kissinger was a douche, but I didn't realize how far it went.

58. Huge rally for Turkish secularism

Comment #36161 by kkant on April 30, 2007 at 10:49 am

evren writes:
Thanks for all your comments. I am Turkish and I was there on Sunday. It is not true that many people are against secularism in Turkey. Although it is true that AK party got the highest votes. (I am not sure about the exact numbers but they received approx 25% so there is another 75% that supports other parties or do not vote). So it would be wrong to say that most people in Turkey wants an Islamic theocracy (I am sure most people did not have this in mind when they were voting for AK Party as well). Unfortunately they have their democratic right to be selected and have the right to select the president. The problem is, if the president and prime minister is against secularism they have the right to change every constitution, education program etc. Unfortunately our European friends are very short sighted and they do not want us in Europe in the coming 50 years or so. This pushes Turkey towards east. I hope they do not want to see a country like Iran in their border. Unfortunately I am not positive. Any way life is still beautiful.

Thanks for this information, and thanks for your attendance of this demonstration. I am with you 100%.

59. Huge rally for Turkish secularism

Comment #36160 by kkant on April 30, 2007 at 10:48 am

Denoir writes:
The Turkish situation is a tough one - you have secularism as one option and democracy as the other....People forget how Ataturk made the country secular - by excessive bloodshed and repression. The majority of the Turks never wanted to be secular and are still very much opposed to it. The relevant question is: do you allow your democracy to self-implode? Do you allow the election of a party that will eliminate democracy completely - not to mention freedom of speech, secularism etc.

This is why a constitution is important. A constitution-less democracy allows for the tyranny of the majority, as evidenced by the conundrum you bring up above. A constitution affirming basic human freedoms and rights goes a long way towards solving this problem. Constitutions can be changed, of course, but not as easily.


MelM writes:
It's freedom that's most important and democracy does not equal freedom. The Bill-of-Rights exists to protect individuals from the government which is elected. Hell, once a theocracy comes to power in Turkey, it will either kill or retire the secularists in the military and then Turkey is stuck with no way out of the theocracy. These days, when I hear people talk about democracy as the primary base of government, I know damn well they're not interested, fundamentally, in freedom--they're trying to get away with something. Example: Bush!...The U.S. call for letting democracy have control of the outcome--no matter what--is really an outrage. Nobody has a right to impose tyranny by voting. And, once a tyranny takes power, it's not long before democracy is lost as well.

I absolutely agree. Very well said.


mrjonno writes:
Have to disagree with you on that, no constitution or institute is any better than the people who work in it.
If 99% of the population want to exterminate the other 1% no law on earth will stop them.

When such a situation gets out of hand and we start seeing murder and torture from this 99/1 effect, that is where I think the genocide convention comes in. We don't want to see another Hitler happen.
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm


Druid writes:
I also would like to express my gladness to see the demonstration on BBC and CNN.

I agree. In my view the people who demonstrated in Turkey for secular values and human rights are heroes.

60. New Noah's Ark ready to sail

Comment #35885 by kkant on April 29, 2007 at 7:37 am

Bizarro Dawkins writes:
I absolutely agree. Religion is dead, as its common understanding implies a stagnant set of rules and traditions.

You can't have it both ways. Either God is perfect and stagnant, or God is changing. He said what he said in the Old Testament, and he can't take it back: that would be an admission of fault and imperfection. A follower of your God living in 600 BC would be morally obligated to kill people working on the Sabbath, and there's nothing you can say today which can justify this evil perpetrated by your God.


Bizarro Dawkins writes:
but I would not call all Christians fools. Was Galileo a fool? Or Newton? What about Pascal? What about me? Am I a fool?

Not fools. Just mistaken about certain things. Yes, you too are mistaken Bizarro.

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

Comment #35877 by kkant on April 29, 2007 at 7:16 am

shmooth writes:
brilliant. Hitchens, the Iraq War supporter, blasting Islam for...causing war. guy doesn't have a coherent thought in his dome.

I think what Hitchens would say is, there is a difference. The same way there was a difference in WW2. Both sides wanted to go to war--but there was still a difference between the Nazis and the Allies.

You know, I am a liberal type, or at least I think I am. But when I listen to Hitchens speak about the war, frankly I find myself hard-pressed to refute his logic. I hear the people trying to trip him up from his audiences (in Berkely for example), and I find myself thinking, "these people are full of shit, and Hitchens is making sense". That's exactly what the atheist community needs--someone who can really convince people on the other side.

So, here's what Hitchens says on the war. I'd love to see a response on these points from anyone on this board; because I can't think of anything myself. I'll play Hitchens' advocate for a bit here, let's see how it goes:

1) This war didn't start just now; the US has been in a continuous state of war with Saddam since 1991.
2) The US caused this problem initially by putting the Baathists and Saddam in power, and has a responsibility to fix it.
3) The guy was commiting genocide (on the Kurds and others), harboring terrorists, WMD were found (e.g. the buried nuclear centrifuge), and he was in the past used WMD on his own people (chem attacks on the Kurds).
4) Bush is a liar and also an incompetent (on which I think we all agree with Hitchens), but that doesn't change the humanitarian and other logic above.

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

Comment #35876 by kkant on April 29, 2007 at 7:11 am

Pi Guy quotes someone on his plane:
"Well, 97% of the population is believes Jesus is the son of god but apparently the majority doesn't rule in a democracy anymore (speaking about the laws of the land not being the same as Biblical law)."

No, in fact, us Americans do not live in a democracy. We live in a *constitutional* democracy. Plain old democracy = majority tyranny. Consitution = universal inalienable rights. So the guy on the plane will continue to be disappointed, thank goodness. :)

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

Comment #34511 by kkant on April 24, 2007 at 10:04 am

krogercomplete writes:
Furthermore, what does God's choice not to stop this particular incidence of violence have to do with everyone being a robot? I imagine an omnipotent God could come up with a clever way to thwart the attack without infringing substantially on anyone's free will.

Exactly. Very well said. For example, God (if he existed at all) could have caused all the bullets to stop in mid-air miraculously. This would have been easy for him to do, since he is all-powerful, and would not have affected anyone's free will at all.

64. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34110 by kkant on April 23, 2007 at 8:54 am

Heheheh. Nice responses to devolved, folks. I kinda suspected him when he used the old "I used to be an evolutionist" gag. Not that he is necessarily a theist troll...but he sure smells like one.

On this limbo stuff, what a joke. The guy is talking like this "high level commission" did intensive research on the subject. Like Harris said on this subject, can you imagine anything more intellectually forlorn? What the hell can this "commission" possibly have been discussing?

And here's the worst part (if indeed it is possible for there to be a "worst" part of this disgraceful piece of rubbish):

"The thought that stillborn babies, for example, would be relegated to a kind of no-man's-land in the afterlife tormented generations of Catholic families."

Look at the spin! The modern Catholic Church has magnanimously alleviated the torment of so many generations! Never mind that for many centuries, limbo was spun as an eternal happy playpen for babies, a way to show how magnanimous God was, a way to comfort one delusion with another delusion. Yes indeed folks, the enemy is Eastasia. Always has been, always will be.

65. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33645 by kkant on April 20, 2007 at 9:34 pm

the great teapot writes:
Richard strikes me has having little charm and even less sense of humour.

I disagree. He did a great job on Colbert, and you *need* a sense of humor (and charm too) to handle that.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,210,Stephen-Colbert-Interviews-Richard-Dawkins,The-Colbert-Report-Richard-Dawkins

Spinoza-- I'm not worried about the science or the technicalities of the logical argument. We've seen many times over that atheism is the winning logical position. This is about politics and appearances, and I'm afraid that there is a possibility that, with a real-time interview that one side is able to prepare for and the other side isn't, while at the same time the former side has the additional advantage of doing all the editing and cutting, RD might not come out as well as he deserves.

66. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33644 by kkant on April 20, 2007 at 9:32 pm

I just ordered "God is not Great" the other day, along with another of his books "Missionary Position" (about Mother Teresa). I can't wait to sink my teeth into them. Hitchens is a very eloquent speaker and writer. Even when he's saying things that you might not agree with, he's really damn hard to argue against. Outspoken, confident, willing and able to take on all adversaries. Definitely a good guy to have in the atheist camp.

67. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33472 by kkant on April 20, 2007 at 9:41 am

Like many of the previous posters, I am also very concerned about this interview. Maybe I should put that in scare quotes: "interview". If O'Reilly is already anti-Dawkins, this will just be a shout-fest, with Bill doing most of the shouting. The best that can happen is RD shows his usual calm conversational logic without getting ruffled by the interrupting and yelling. But I don't know if that is possible.

I sincerely hope I am wrong in this.

68. Nisbet and Mooney in the WaPo: snake oil for the snake oil salesmen

Comment #32062 by kkant on April 15, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Yorker-- your referenced definition of "dogma" is "a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle." I would submit to you that "settled or established" does not mean "based on evidence." The word "dogma" most certainly does have a very clear and universally applied connotation of "rigid adherence which is unchanging in the face of new evidence." That at least partially implies that dogma is evidence-less belief. Without this connotation, the word "dogma" loses some of its meaning.

Here are some other definitions of dogma that speak to this clear connotation:

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
"A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum."

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
"a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof"

69. Against God

Comment #32060 by kkant on April 15, 2007 at 11:53 am

Rtambree writes:
[[Is a there a term for someone who doesn't care if there's a God? Apatheist?]]

Excellent. I will remember this one. :)

70. Medical 'Miracles' Not Supported by Evidence

Comment #31772 by kkant on April 14, 2007 at 7:26 am

Hey Yorker--

Here's one that you missed:

Cellphone vs Mobile


And on book recommendations, here's one on Physics. "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene.

71. Medical 'Miracles' Not Supported by Evidence

Comment #31683 by kkant on April 13, 2007 at 8:43 pm

Agreed. These people are so shameless. They will steal all the latest science buzzwords and completely demean the ideas they represent. It seems they are always trying to subsume science, trying to claim that their religious paranormal bullshit is above and beyond all this science stuff. A recipe for perpetual delusion.

A Deepak Chopra fan recently told me about something he wrote. Apparently he says that, when meditating, the blank space between thoughts is the Event Horizon. Honestly, if you can say that, then you can say anything is anything.

72. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #30047 by kkant on April 6, 2007 at 11:00 am

CruciFiction writes:
[[As a life-long atheist, I've just never been able to fathom why some people cling to a life immersed in that kind of "Alice In Wonderland" mindset, nor how they can so thoroughly block/dismiss critical and reasoned thoughts that conflict with it.]]

As a former believer, I can tell you that religious ideas get ingrained into you at a primal level, when they are taught in early childhood. The kinds of feelings we had are at the same level as other primal feelings like terror. It is very difficult to let these things go. Fear and guilt play a big part in the stickiness of religion. I am not at all surprised at Sullivan's (or any other believer's) resistance.

All of us have the ability to rationalize lies and stupidity, but not necessarily the incentive. People who have primal religious feelings have a great incentive to use that ability for their religion.

73. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29710 by kkant on April 4, 2007 at 9:17 am

Re Fishpeddler's comments. Absolutely hilarious. :D

74. U.N. Panel OKs Measure on Islam

Comment #29041 by kkant on April 1, 2007 at 9:57 am

This is EXACTLY what Christopher Hitchens was warning us about in his speech on Free Speech which was posted here recently.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,731,Free-Speech,Christopher-Hitchens

Islam wants to outlaw any speech opposing them or ridiculing them, while at the same time they are free to spread their own messages of hatred and violence.

This is a recipe for disaster. If we want neanderthal religious madness to take over society, the UN is going about it the right way. I'm glad at least to see Japan, Europe, and other sane countries opposing this, and NOT kowtowing to religious bullshit just because it is a matter of faith.

75. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28839 by kkant on March 31, 2007 at 7:21 am

Wee Flea writes:
[[kkant: "OK, the god-lovers are back. I'll pick this up where I left off last time. To Wee Flea and cheshirecat: explain what you would do if you were living in 600 BC, and had just read about God's command to kill anyone who picks up sticks on the Sabbath. Is this a moral command? Would you obey this law?"

Since God would give me no such command I would have no problem.]]

In the Old Testament, your God commands his followers to kill anyone who picks up sticks on the Sabbath. This is in Numbers 15:32-36. Are you really attempting to deny this? Remember, this is the COMMAND of YOUR LORD, that you are attempting to DENY. Do you really want to do that? If you are living in 600 BC, God *did* give you that command. Now, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to follow this command, or not? Is this a moral command, for someone living in 600 BC?

76. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28770 by kkant on March 30, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Shetlandforpeace, yes I agree. Problem is, the god-lovers generally move goalposts and try to slither away, whenever presented with a reasonable argument. So, I'm presenting an argument they can't run away from. :)

As Mike Shermer (sp?) says, smart people are very good at rationalizing things they initially came to believe for non-smart reasons. So let's present the believers with a situation that inevitably and undeniably leads to contradiction.

77. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28758 by kkant on March 30, 2007 at 4:29 pm

OK, the god-lovers are back. I'll pick this up where I left off last time. To Wee Flea and cheshirecat: explain what you would do if you were living in 600 BC, and had just read about God's command to kill anyone who picks up sticks on the Sabbath. Is this a moral command? Would you obey this law?

78. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28756 by kkant on March 30, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Is the video of this event available online anywhere?

79. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28303 by kkant on March 28, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Hey hey hey... Very nice! Congrats RD!


Beej writes:
[[A depressingly predictable writeup in the Guardian though, they just can't let it go, can they?]]

Hmm. I thought they had gotten the message about that whole "literary spat" thing being a fraud, after RD sent his explanation to them. In fact, I thought they had offered an apology to RD. What's going on here? Do we need to write letters?

80. Believers are away with the fairies

Comment #28191 by kkant on March 28, 2007 at 9:29 am

So, I visited the intelligence squared website again after the above-mentioned debate (www.intelligencesquared.com). Looks like the atheist panel kicked some ass. Before the debate it was 44/36/20 for/against/unknown, and after the debate it was 58/37/5. Nice. :)

I'd love to see the video!

81. Nigeria teacher dies 'over Koran'

Comment #28013 by kkant on March 27, 2007 at 3:27 pm

[[In reality it is often fuelled by ethnic or political conflicts and competition for resources, which can be fierce, given that so many people live in poverty, he says.]]

Several of you have already commented on the wrongness of this part at the end of the article, where the author quickly patches together "alternative explanations" for this clearly *religious* barbarism. Sam Harris is right: religious moderates really don't know what it's like to believe fervently, and consequently they can't believe that others are really motivated by their beliefs.

I used to have such feelings of true belief, so I know what it is like. Actually, I still do have lingering "beliefs" that won't let go, even though I am a complete atheist intellectually. When you are indoctrinated with religion in childhood, the taboos and impulses and some of the instructions get right into the primal levels of your brain. They are right there at the same level as fear and terror and rage and other such primal emotions. For example, I was indoctrinated with the idea that all paper is sacred, and should not be stepped on with your feet. I know now intellectually that this idea is meaningless, that my stepping on a piece of paper has absolutely no bearing or effect on anything. Yet to this day the thought of stepping on some papers that are on the ground induces in me a dread-like feeling, and I won't do it (or I'll feel squeamish doing it). I have no problem with cardboard, but I do with papers or books or anything else that has or could have knowledge on it. This indoctrination is somewhat similar to the anti-desecration doctrine in Islam. And I have no trouble understanding how such desecration can truly and easily induce Muslim-indoctrinated people to commit violence against the perpetrator.

82. Believers are away with the fairies

Comment #27941 by kkant on March 27, 2007 at 10:53 am

[[A C Grayling will be speaking for the motion, We'd be better off without religion, at the Intelligence2 debate on Tuesday 27 March; see www.intelligencesquared.com]]

Dawkins, Hitchens, and Grayling on a panel debating theists! This promises to be good. Can't wait to see it; I hope someone records it.

83. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #27069 by kkant on March 23, 2007 at 4:28 am

Nice fonex. :)

Mr. Flea: Do you believe in the Christian God? And how do you know he exists?

84. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #27049 by kkant on March 23, 2007 at 3:27 am

Mr Flea: Do you believe in God? Which God do you believe in? What reason do you have for believing in your God?

85. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26931 by kkant on March 22, 2007 at 11:18 am

Freedom of religious belief is fine, but we do have laws, secular laws, which we decide on based on how helpful they are to society. This proposed outlawing of burkas in schools shouldn't be considered a law *against* a religion, it should be considered a law *for* safe schools. When there is a conflict between religious practice and valid secular law, secular law should win. What if a religion says "kill someone you don't agree with" (and several of them do!)? We have a valid secular law against that, and the secular law wins.

It's not about culture or Britishness or assimilation, even. Suppose you say "Britishness" includes getting drunk at the pub. If you don't allow that in school, does that make you anti-British-culture? No, certainly not.

Ceremonial Sikh knives and Muslim burkas are unsafe in schools (the latter because, for example, an intruder could easily enter the school in disguise). And furthermore, burkas impede teaching because the teacher can't see and identify the kids. There are other religion-related things which are perfectly reasonable to allow in schools, because they are not in conflict with valid laws. For example, wearing a cross on a necklace, or wearing a t-shirt saying "There is no God".

86. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26930 by kkant on March 22, 2007 at 11:03 am

justme writes:
[[With Sam, he admits he could be convinced by a complete and valid argument. Andrew doesn't allow that. I'm very disappointed.]]

Yes. What makes it worse, is that Sam even dealt with this non-falsifiable aspect of Andrew's belief (the Pluto argument). Yes, in fact, you *can* reason your way out of something that you did not reason your way into. Andrew's claim that he can't, that he "doesn't have a choice", is just blind denial. This is like a kid who has his fingers in his ears and is screaming lalalalala.


I also agree with BaronOchs in post 445. We have seen several times in this debate that Andrew is quite able to misunderstand Sam in self-advantageous ways. Whether willfully or no, it has happened multiple times in this exchange. If Sam were to take a gentle approach, as suggested by Tom Day, I am sure we would just see from Andrew more misunderstanding and muddying of waters and false claims to victory on various points. In fact, in this exchange Sam did offer a very eloquently described alternative vision of morality and inquiry. Andrew misunderstood it in several important ways and proceeded to attack a strawman. With determined theists, perhaps the best approach is to keep it simple, give them no room to manuver, hold them by the hair and force them to face reality.


MouthAlmighty in post 446-- once again, very well said.

87. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26887 by kkant on March 22, 2007 at 7:03 am

Wow. EXCELLENT post MouthAlmighty (comment #26875).

88. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26886 by kkant on March 22, 2007 at 7:03 am

Philip1978 writes:
[[Does this sound like Andrew or am I wrong?]]

I love the TV analogy from Douglas Adams, but personally I think the Electric Monk is closer: "The answer, of course, was very simple. He had a whole board of circuits for dealing with exactly this problem, in fact this was the very heart of his function. He would continue to believe in it whatever the facts turned out to be, what else was the meaning of Belief?" :)

89. Polish woman wins abortion case

Comment #26835 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 10:34 pm

DavidJMH, you should follow your own advice and read the article yourself. She has three children now; it was the birth of her third child that damaged her eyes.

And I quote: "When Alicja Tysiac became pregnant in February 2000, three eye specialists told her having another baby could put her eyesight at serious risk." That means AFTER she became pregnant with her third baby, she visited the eye doctors. The doctors THEN informed her that continuing the pregnancy could risk her eyesight.

Got that? She didn't know her eyes could be damaged when she decided to conceive her third child. After conception of that third child, she learned of the danger to her eyes. Despite that, her doctors refused to license an abortion for her....and now she has to pay the price for Poland's religious lunacy.

90. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

Comment #26827 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 9:08 pm

DavidJMH, he was not just "making references during class to areas of thought outside the subject matter in hand". This teacher was making comparisons between evolution and Nazis. He was teaching material straight from a creationist/ID site. The parents researched his notes and found this out, not just the students. What more proof do you need? This is all straight from the articles, and yes the evidence in the articles is quite clear. He was teaching his religion in science class.

Maybe kids aren't taught enough critical thinking skills, but this guy wasn't teaching critical thinking. That was a lie he made up, in view of the rest of the evidence in the article. The statement from the school's superintendent was somewhat wishy-washy and party-line-ish, but the evidence from the parents is really all you need to see what's going on here.

91. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26820 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 8:38 pm

cheshirecat writes:
[[We are argueing about Christianity. They are not Christians. I did not say stoning someone to death was a good thing but a product of the Jewish law which is repudiated in the gospells.]]

Are you saying the Jewish Law was immoral then? Remember that the Jewish Law was written by the Christian God. Are you saying the Christian God was immoral before 0 BC? You are living in 600 BC: what should you do? Mark hasn't written the Christ story yet. All you have is the word of God in the Old Testament. Do you follow it or do you not?

By the way, get some sleep. :)

92. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26804 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 6:44 pm

cheshirecat writes:
[[kkant: But how else are we to take this command, if not literally?

Read Marks Gospel.]]

Incorrect. The year is 600 BC. Mark's Gospel doesn't exist. You have to figure this out by yourself, and here is the key: *you* are not *God*. Jesus can arbitrarily change the text of the Old Testament because he is God, but you can't.

So, once again, we come to the question. Remember that your lord has commanded you to stone this guy to death for the most minor thing--picking up sticks on the Sabbath. How do you interpret the plainly spoken but immoral command of your Lord, in the year 600 BC? Come on now, the answer is really obvious, if you'd just allow yourself to say it. Think out of the box. ;)

93. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26796 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 5:50 pm

cheshirecat writes:
[[kkant: "Do you think it was moral for people living in 600 BC to stone people to death for working on Sunday? Yes or no?"

No.]]

Excellent. Now, in 600 BC, consider God's command "find the person who works on the sabbath and stone him with stones". If you take that command literally, then God is immoral. He has prescribed an immoral action for a person living in 600 BC. Again, this is your God. The Christian God, the God of Abraham. An immoral lunatic, if you take him literally.

But how else are we to take this command, if not literally? What interpretation of this command would you suggest? Remember, you are living in 600 BC, and you know this command is immoral. How would you change the meaning of God's plainly spoken word to suit your own superior moral standard?

94. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26783 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 4:08 pm

cheshirecat writes:
[[Nobody in the christian church was stoned to death for working on the sabbath. That is a jewish law. The sabbath is a saturday which is not the christian holy day. You could be punished for practicing a trade on a holy day by church law for which you would be fined or have to perform a pennance. However this was primarrily because your fellow craftsmen would be annoyed at you getting one up on them by outcompeting them in the production stakes. This stoning to death thing is a load of nonsense.]]

You STILL didn't answer the question. Here it is again. Do you think it was moral for people living in 600 BC to stone people to death for working on Sunday? Yes or no?

This is the command of YOUR GOD, the God of both the Old Testament and the New. They are the same God, the God of Abraham.

95. Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

Comment #26764 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 2:37 pm

And, on a side note... :) Great to see the non-prophets making the news!! For those who haven't listened to them, it's a great atheist show. Lots of irreverent blasphemous fun. They have mp3/podcast archives at http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/audio/

Looks like their website is slow at the moment. Maybe they're getting farked from this thread. :)

96. Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

Comment #26763 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Another similar website breaking down the myth of a historical Jesus:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

This is by Earl Doherty, and you can buy "The Jesus Puzzle" as a book now as well.

97. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26762 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Steven Mading-- quick note, the post you referenced in your post 48 was not made by me, but rather by Riley (in post 38).

98. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26750 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 1:37 pm

cheshirecat writes:
[[To attack christianity as being a cruel religion it is neccesary to do more than quote the old testament. (for a start because what is said in the new is meant to superseed the old Jewish laws - I know nothing about theology but I know this)]]

This is incorrect. The Old Testament still applies. Jesus said so very clearly. See Matthew 5:17-18. How are we supposed to take this statement? It's only "sort of" true? It's a direct contradiction with other teachings in the New Testament, and you know it. No amount of contortionist excuses can get you out of it.

But suppose for argument that the Old Testament is superceded by new rules. What does this mean? Did God change his mind? It used to be "moral" to stone someone to death for working on the Sabbath, but now it isn't? So much for the idea of a perfect God. Or perhaps, are the statements in the Old Testament just fiction? If so, why not consider the New Testament to be fiction as well?



cheshirecat writes:
[[I did not say that the new testament uperseeded the old but the old Jewish laws. Gregory the great says the following concerning women being admitted to holy communion soon after childbirth.]]

Yes, I read the quotes from Gregory the Great you posted. In your first quote, Gregory simply says that the laws of the New Testament are different from the laws of the Old, but he *does not* say that the Old laws don't apply. In the second quote, he says that God's word is not to be taken literally. How does he know which parts to take literally, and which not? He doesn't, of course. He is not God. Don't you see he is making all this up as he goes along? He didn't like something in the scripture, so he arbitrarily redefined it to his liking.

God's statements in the Bible are very clear. Kill the person who works on the Sabbath means, kill the person who works on the Sabbath. Suppose you lived in 600 BC. How would you "interpret" this command? Taking this statement "figuratively" means that you are simply making up a meaning for it on the spot, and admitting that the Old Testament is not a magical book written by a perfect God.

99. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

Comment #26694 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 7:27 am

MeIM writes:
[[These "critical thinking" wingnuts are really something; they want to do critical thinking about evolution but not about Bible dogma. Disgusting!]]

EXACTLY. Almost any time these theists defend their beliefs, you will find this method at the bottom of it. There are some very smart people defending religions. They use their critical thinking skills to the *utmost* to criticize science (or even other religions), but then give their own religion a completely free ride.

100. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26689 by kkant on March 21, 2007 at 7:04 am

Yes, we're definitely into massacre territory now. I wonder if Sullivan will actually change his mind. By the way, it looks like the moderator forgot to post Sam's latest reply here on this site. Does anyone have a line to the mods to inform them?

justme, I found a bit of humor at the beginning, in the Viking theology substitution. :)