951. Kadra attacked in public

Comment #32037 by Logicel on April 15, 2007 at 10:20 am

"...by seven or eight persons of Somali origin,..."
______

At first I wondered why comments were focusing on the attackers as being male. Then I saw the below quote:

"...the gang of Somali men attacked her around 3 a.m..."

Kadra, like any person confronting potentially lethal opponents, takes my breath away.

Her attackers must be found and punished. And Kadra needs to be protected from any future brutality. These fanatics are such desperate, pathetic fools. They are providing the best ammunition with which atheists can fight them.

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

Comment #32018 by Logicel on April 15, 2007 at 8:36 am

Yorker, Obviously, you can post whatever you desire as can Mind_Rebel. However, until I see more flesh in Mind_Rebel's comments, I will stick to my guns, and to avoid pedantry regarding dogma, I will say instead the Mind_Rebel's posts reflect a very rigid understanding of atheism, one that I do not support. In addition, Mind_Rebel's not responding to comments which other posters took the time out to write to him, adds to my discomfiture.

Bad cop, over to good cop.

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

Comment #31996 by Logicel on April 15, 2007 at 6:52 am

Briancouglandworldcitizen and Rtambree, thanks for the hilarious running spoof of dogmatic atheists.

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

Comment #31991 by Logicel on April 15, 2007 at 6:35 am

Yorker, If you consider yourself dogmatic in your atheism, then, you disappoint me. A passionate belief based on evidence does not dogma make.

As for my 'attacking' Mind_Rebel, fine, if that is the way you view my opinion. As for the 'wonderful' aspect of the thoughtful replies to Mind_Rebel's narrow-mindedness, wonderful as in the sense that commenters took out time to address the blinkerness of his comments.

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

Comment #31973 by Logicel on April 15, 2007 at 4:48 am

"I've noticed that MIND_REBEL does not attack anyone here personally, even when attacked! I suggest therefore that we all cut him/her a little slack, allow this person to perhaps learn and gain experience."
______

But I also have noticed that he/she seldom if ever replies to the wonderful thought-out responses to her/his staccato barrage of predictably dogmatic comments. Mind_Rebel is dogmatic in her/his atheism, and it is very unpleasant to behold. Dogma sucks. PERIOD.

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

Comment #31937 by Logicel on April 15, 2007 at 1:46 am

Ok, Veronique, you should have my msg in your PM (Personal Message) box. It seems nothing is necessary to activate the PM box, just that one needs to remember to check it. I found it by clicking on my name, Logicel, and was presented with my profile and the PM box.

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

Comment #31928 by Logicel on April 15, 2007 at 12:57 am

Veronique, how do I turn on my notification button, and what is that exactly in terms of what gets sent where?

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

Comment #31923 by Logicel on April 15, 2007 at 12:48 am

The only other common garbage that is thrown my daily way, besides theism, is marketing:

Theism is the way to truth?

Marketing is communication?

Nisbet and Mooney have no evidence that their marketing based on appeasement is going to further the acception of evolution.
Appeasers comes in all flavors, and Nisbet and Mooney just served us a (half) Baked Alaska: hot, sexy, fluffy topping covering a cold, hard center of bullsh't.

959. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31827 by Logicel on April 14, 2007 at 1:31 pm

86. Comment #31484 by Liveliest Crib on April 12, 2007 at 11:22 pm

Thanks for that very helpful post. Something similar has been simmering in my head for some time now. However, you have given the proper wording and explanation so I don't need to wrestle with my mental musings anymore!

960. Medical 'Miracles' Not Supported by Evidence

Comment #31824 by Logicel on April 14, 2007 at 1:06 pm

hogi wrote: "as we have seen in history, we should avoid the concept of regarding ourselves as special in some way, and as naturally as we reject geocentrism and heliocentrism, we should reject the idea, that our time is and will be forever the most enlightened time of all. so we should expect the scientific method to be transcended in the future."

and

"...it seems that they and their believers are desperately looking for shortcuts to transcendence, actually to avoid the hard work of using the scientific method."
________

Definitely agree with the second quote, but the first one is confusing. Science can certainly lead humanity down the path, which it has done already, of achieving such advancements that if previous generations could be transported to the present, they would think these scientific accomplishments were magic.

Their reaction would be similar to our own present generation's if we were confronted with the scientific achievements of a more advanced alien race. Through science, humanity can transcend perhaps some of their limitations, and in the process, make science an even more potent process and body of knowledge, which would then expand human understanding and ability to confront difficult issues even more--a kind of continuing, compound scientific interest.

961. Medical 'Miracles' Not Supported by Evidence

Comment #31821 by Logicel on April 14, 2007 at 12:52 pm

ksskidude wrote: "Needless to say, my spinal cord did indeed give me a window of opportunity, and I maximized the opportunity to recover most but not all of my physical attributes."
________

Way to go!

962. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31795 by Logicel on April 14, 2007 at 10:20 am

Dr Benway wrote, "Something having to do with mentalism, or the ability to represent other minds to one's self. Seems to me this skill plays a role in the formation of group belief systems, such as religion."
________

My own musing is that imagination/creativity plays a role in the ability to embrace religion. The same imagination/creativity which plays a role in scientific developments. Trying to pinpoint the role of cerebral prowess without simplifying it via the left/right hemisphere, rationality versus irrationality, artistic versus technical, etc., has always been very difficult and challenging. But now, with more sensitive cerebral scanning technology and with developments in the merging of physics and biology--I enjoyed James Watson saying that last century's big duo was the overlapping of biology and chemistry, and in this century, it will be between physics and biology--we perhaps will gain a better understanding of the human brain.

963. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31791 by Logicel on April 14, 2007 at 10:09 am

We certainly need to continue researching the wonders of the human brain. I do remember seeing a TV program years ago about Grandin, and being deeply affected by it. I especially loved her devising a treatment for her autism by using the mechanical device designed to 'calm' bulls down. I think that what it was, anyway.

Now that religion is coming under the critical eye, more and more studies will be made applying the acceptance/nonacceptance of religion as a variable/factor.

964. For God's Sake

Comment #31735 by Logicel on April 14, 2007 at 3:21 am

The neutered Spagmonster is a troll who apparently regards the neutered self as being beyond Brighty bright, occupying a realm of certainty in which all will be revealed to the neutered self eventually. The neutered spagmonster needs not be concerned with being bright and sees such brightness in others to be silly and unnecessary, and CERTAINLY not bright.

All trolls give out a frisson of delight, and the neutered spagmonster is not an exception to that delicious rule of thumb.

965. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31721 by Logicel on April 14, 2007 at 2:08 am

Since a certain proportion of atheists were theists, then apparently they went from having healthy brains to damaged ones?

Brain health--various scientific fields are helping to add to our understanding of brain functioning--is a bit more complex than the simple, empirical notion presented by Benway: just because the majority of an alien population proposes to a set of religious beliefs, the non-earthlings would conclude, by just the common occurrence of this activity, that these practitioners of these religious beliefs are the healthy ones. So if these alien chaps viewed Nazi Germany, they would conclude that the Nazis were healthy per this rule of thumb?

Atheists are just as emotional as theists--rationality needs emotionality in order to guide our actions. Being a theist does not make a human more human. And being an atheist does not make a human less human. Atheists can be emotional without believing in the supernatural, and theists can be rational, despite believing in the supernatural.

The trigger that I see generating the stirring of the pot by the likes of the bored Benway, is that religious folks have been so pampered by lack of criticism, that this new flow of criticism coming from atheists via new technology like the web, is causing them to feel badly. Drug addicts/alcoholics feel badly also when they are challenged as to the danger of their drug/alcohol related activities, so why don't we just let them wallow in their problem because it makes them feel badly?

As many atheists point out, it is because atheists do NOT regard theists as being stupid that we are so passionate about them listening to our criticism and for them to respond to the core debate--faith-based beliefs without any significant evidence/proof and its consequences. Atheists do realize that we humans are the dominate species and we have the power to work together for the good of all. In other words, those alien critics need to learn human language in order to understand that atheists are not brain damaged.

966. Is God poison?

Comment #31716 by Logicel on April 14, 2007 at 1:33 am

Qball, thanks for the thoughtful post, and I hope your disagreeable experience will not interfere with your continuing posting.

Posts apparently get timed out on this site. If that happens you can use the back icon to go back to the comment window, copy its contents, sign back on, and paste it in a new comment window. Some just type long posts into a word processing vehicle and then copy and paste it directly into a comment window on this site.

There is no editing of posts on this site by site management. The posters themselves can flag other posters as being trolls, spammers, or users of offensive language. But no censorship or tapering with content via editing other then by the posters, themselves, who can delete or edit their own comments via the delete/edit icons in the upper right corner of their own comment (as long as they are logged in).

967. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31498 by Logicel on April 13, 2007 at 2:01 am

6. Comment #31495 by Rtambree on April 13, 2007 at 1:31 am
______

nice post, with which I happen to agree.

968. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31354 by Logicel on April 12, 2007 at 5:31 am

Veronique, thanks to your attention, I may start to refer to myself as Logicel outside of virtual circles, but I doubt I will ever change it legally as I abhor legal crapola and bureaucracy and I don't want to feed it any more than I already do. When I got married about 20 years years, the main reason why I did not change my name to my husband's, is because I could not be bothered.

969. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31353 by Logicel on April 12, 2007 at 5:29 am

Hip_Priest, nice post, thanks.

970. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31330 by Logicel on April 12, 2007 at 3:20 am

very true, Philip1978, and since Great Britain is not a non-profit setup, it is very wise to use its royal traditions as tourist attractions. However, I still think it is asking a lot from just ordinary folks to force play the royal role.

971. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31319 by Logicel on April 12, 2007 at 2:35 am

Great post, Veronique. English royalty and the Pope both live in goldfish bowls, their ordinary lives are given so much more meaning than there actually is. I had thought that if Princess Diana really wanted to shake things up, she would take her boys and raised them up to be the ordinary people that they are--take them out of the inherited fishbowl . Maybe someday, these ordinary people thrust into these ridiculous roles of supposed significance, will just do that. Leave the goldfish bowl and live normal lives. If Benedict is intelligent as you surmised, then the chap is for all practical purposes, trapped. His trappings may be lush, but that is what they are. And the Catholic peeps are the ones to blame more than the Pope--they give him his power. Catholics need to go on strike, and put the Pope out of business.

972. Sex, Love, and SSRIs

Comment #31310 by Logicel on April 12, 2007 at 1:47 am

I have found psychiatrists to be useless, and the American kind, prohibitively expensive. Freud and Jung both make me gag. Feynman's description of that loony psychiatrist vetting him for a government job described the prejudiced, blinkered narrow-mindedness, all protected by the psychiatrist's 'expert and professional' stamp, to a T. Another kind of psychiatrist, not so filled with themselves, basically listens to you, and admit if you can find someone else to listen to you, the effects will be very similar, like the neighborhood priest or bartender. And as pointed out, medical doctors also can prescribe psychiatric drugs, so a psychiatrist is not needed for that often wonderful boon to be given to long-time sufferers of clinical depression.

Psychiatrists have done so much harm to minorities, gay people, and women that they should all move in with the Pope, and mutter about in that festering pustule together, mumbling doublespeak until they can no longer talk, therefore rendering them harmless to the population. And yes, I know, just like there are with priests, there are some psychiatrists that are worth their worth in gold, but they are the exception.

The Economist, recently, had an article discussing research regarding that our increasingly sterile environment, just as it has played a role in the increase of asthma in kids, may also be playing a role in the increase of depression. Apparently some organism has a positive effect on our mental/emotional state of well being.

973. The Human Body as an Evolutionary Patchwork

Comment #31243 by Logicel on April 11, 2007 at 5:10 pm

I interpreted Walker to mean that the co-hunters, the other hunting members of the same tribe, needed to be able to see where the spear was being thrown, so they, themselves, would not become the target accidentally. And in that way, the eye whites did serve a co-operative and communicative purpose in lieu of shouting, "You mother, get out of the f'cking way!!!" Perhaps Cheney lacks eye whites, and that is why the lawyer whom he shot in the face could not identify he was Cheney's target?

974. Sex, Love, and SSRIs

Comment #31239 by Logicel on April 11, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Depression severely interferes with normal functioning. While sadness may slow it down a bit, but after a reasonable time, sadness will lift. Clinical depression stays there, a millstone of crushing blackness, sapping the individual of motivation, meaning, and purpose, and contributing to suicide. Clinical depression is correlated with an imbalance of neurotransmitters, hence treatment via drugs which aim to regulate the imbalance as much as possible. However, tailoring medicine to an individual is still fairly crude resulting in various problems. A person with clinical depression has no choice but to work with medical specialists(s) to come up with the best drug treatment. Some are more fortunate than others in this often demanding trial and error approach in finding the best drug for the depression sufferer.

It is my experience that nutrition plays an important role in holding some kinds of depression at bay.

975. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31181 by Logicel on April 11, 2007 at 9:14 am

"What is the collective noun for religious fanatics anyway?"
_______

Fine, nobody play this game with me.

A bouquet of bollocks?

976. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31177 by Logicel on April 11, 2007 at 9:09 am

"What is the collective noun for religious fanatics anyway?"
________

A galaxy of galloping goons?

977. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31174 by Logicel on April 11, 2007 at 9:01 am

"What is the collective noun for religious fanatics anyway?"
_________

A lot of loonies?

978. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31173 by Logicel on April 11, 2007 at 8:59 am

"What is the collective noun for religious fanatics anyway?"
________

A zero of zealots?

979. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31171 by Logicel on April 11, 2007 at 8:56 am

"What is the collective noun for religious fanatics anyway?"
_____

a vacuum of votaries?

980. Sex, Love, and SSRIs

Comment #31169 by Logicel on April 11, 2007 at 8:48 am

timothygmd, very astute comment, thanks.

981. Is God poison?

Comment #31125 by Logicel on April 11, 2007 at 4:44 am

Fishpeddler, your humor is precious. Hope you have not maltreated any cans of corn lately! (:-)))

982. The Human Body as an Evolutionary Patchwork

Comment #31122 by Logicel on April 11, 2007 at 4:22 am

A superb lecture from a working scientist. Walker comes across as a very creative, hardworking, and gentle guy, and this demeanor enabled me to really listen to what he was describing. His presentation was simply charming, especially his use of football yard lines to peg various stages of evolutionary development. His responses to the audience's questions showed his immense knowledge and experience, and his willingness to share what he knows in a friendly and non-threatening manner.

Listen and you will learn why testes are on the outside and men have nipples. I found his opinion that we are Homo Erectus to be a blast of fresh air: populations of our species died out like Homo Erectus, but not our species. He thinks that naming so many hominid species was a little too energetic. Occam's razor, anyone?

983. Study shows humans and plants share common regulatory pathway

Comment #31103 by Logicel on April 11, 2007 at 2:39 am

Fascinating stuff. Our mitochrondia evolved from bacteria and now an activating protein in plants is found in humans.

984. On Desire

Comment #31102 by Logicel on April 11, 2007 at 2:29 am

Damg, I selected no rank and submitted. I wanted to select excellent! I enjoyed this interview and will check out the NYT for more science presentations in the future. Could the NYT finally be waking up to the digital world?

Yorker, I don't know if I am becoming a dirty old lady or what, but I found watching Corcoran and Fisher interacting in this interview very sexy--2 attractive and intelligent people discussing sex is quite a frisson. I am convinced Corcoran wanted to jump Fisher's bones.

985. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31099 by Logicel on April 11, 2007 at 1:45 am

Schrommer In reading your comment to scooterNYC, I am now informed that you love Jesus who is the human incarnation of 1/3 part of Yaweh, and not necessarily religion in its organized inanity.

You are one kind of believer in the supernatural of whom I have met several examples. You have decided that you know your interpretation of Jesus and his meaning to humanity is the real and only one. Your interpretation fills you with joy, purpose, and meaning. I can accept that, though I certainly do not understand it!

My conclusion is that you need to believe, and I do not need to believe in the supernatural. Your believing in sin is incomprehensible to me. In order to believe in sin, I would need to believe in the whole enchilada, with its excessive supernatural trimmings which is a feast that would make me vomit and not nourish me at all. Since sin is non-existent to me, I am not saddened by something that is non-existent, and therefore I have no need to be liberated or saved from it via Jesus.

I have often encountered in my life, the perverse human trait of 'identifying' a problem just so it can be solved. Oh, what satisfaction there is to revel in the joys of a solution of your own making for a problem of your own making. Your spiritual quest seems to fit that bill.

986. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31089 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 11:55 pm

Shrommer, In addition, I would like to point out that the meaning of life is for genes to be passed on. That makes complete sense to me. Humanity, however, has been able to transcend the selfish gene and work together for the common good to benefit both the individual and society in which individuals need in order to survive. This makes sense to me also.

Our brains and its ability to think critically are responsible for our impressive progress, and our brain is a result of our evolution. It is in this transcending of the selfish gene, that humanity comes into its own and can decide what meaning it can apply to the underlying one of gene replication. This is exciting stuff to me.

As a very nice and kind Christian once said to me, "Don't worry (I don't), you will go to heaven and many Christians won't" because she grasped my 'truly Christian' focus to be good to myself and to be good to others without even being a Christian.

987. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31088 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 11:43 pm

Shrommer, Human morality is, in part, hard wired, it resulted from our need to co-operate in order to survive, and then it got 'coded' into various holy books along with a lot of silliness if taken literally.

Humans are finite beings, at this stage of our development anyway, and we are subjected to limitations. We work within those limitations to further the quality of our lives. Absolutes leave me cold, they do not add anything more to my basic morality resulting from the evolution of my species. Humans have the capacity to learn from their mistakes. Anyway, that is the Christian view also. Not surprising since Christianity, in my view, is human-made. We have made God in our own image, the creative, imaginative bunch that we are.

Free will as described in Christianity which I regard as ridiculous, since Yaweh knows everything what his subjects will do, is a religious feature also. Any human, regardless if they are atheistic or religious, chooses in part--there is current research in neuroscience which is broadening our understanding of what really constitutes human choice--within the limitations of being human to act in the way she/he does.

Frankly, religion does nothing for me---I don't need it at all in order to be fulfilled, happy, and productive. If such religious beliefs as God is love, God is the absolute purpose and meaning, floats your boat, so be it. I regard religious belief in the supernatural to be ludicrous, but if a religious believer wants and chooses to believe, then I got no problem with that, as long as it is kept out of the public sphere and not forced into children's minds. However, it is my experience that it is very rare for believers in the supernatural to be able to compartmentalize fully the supernatural from the natural.

Critical thinking is no miracle--it is what the human brain is capable of doing. It is an on-going process in which I get better and better at doing as time progresses. It is a wonderful activity, allowing me to learn from my mistakes and improve the quality of my life. Its value increases because it works for me, the more effort and energy I put into critical thinking, the more I understand my universe and the roles in which I can choose to play. It is a wonderful and exciting experience to be human and living in the natural world. I find the supernatural to be boring.

988. Is God poison?

Comment #31077 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 10:43 pm

Veronique, thanks for the link to that very comprehensive article--I agree with its major points. How wasteful, to ignore the youth of the rest of the world and the older folks that can and want to contribute via working, and to focus instead on paying women of your nation to beget children that really are not wanted or even needed!!! And to scare everybody for the wrong reason, not for overpopulation and global warming, but instead because their pension checks will not be provided by the fruit of their own national womb.

989. Is God poison?

Comment #31075 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 10:21 pm

Helian wrote: "Huge numbers of people worldwide are obsessed with the United States, to the point that they sometimes become indifferent to what is going on in their own countries."
_______

I disagree. In my personal experience of living abroad for 15 years, Europeans are mostly indifferent to American culture, and more focused on their own. They like their own, and mostly dislike American. They are not in denial of their feelings, and when asked can respond clearly to why they are not fond of many aspects regarding American lifestyle. I, as an American, have NEVER been subjected to hate because I happened to be born and raised in America. I have only experienced wonderful acceptance of my humanity, in a way, that I have never experienced in America.

Ironically, the more I read of Helian's comments, the more I dislike--in my indifferent manner, of course--America and its obsession with itself and its perceived 'great and central' role it plays in the world.

990. Is God poison?

Comment #30988 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Here is a summary of what Anti-Americanism is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism


I agree with Fishpeddler's feedback to Helian. It is still very hard for me to take Helian's comments seriously. I have read about Anti-Americanism for about 30 years, and to equate hate-mongering with it is wrong.

There are many aspects of America that not only do I criticize, but I don't like. It is not hate, it is dislike, and it is my prerogative after living in America and other countries to be able to decide that I dislike much about America, so much in fact, that I prefer not to live there. I am not in denial, I am in touch with my feelings. My feelings may not be acceptable to others, but I am truly indifferent to that aspect.

Hate-mongering does not constitute criticism nor dislike, hate is hate. To attach that sentiment to Dawkins is ridiculous.

991. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #30928 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 11:06 am

I agree with anotherclinton. Poor kid, poor mom. She sounded incredulous as she thinks her child turned atheist overnight. That may seemed that way to her, probably because he kept his atheistic stirrings secret. I wonder when a gay child comes out to his parents, if they say a similar thing: "You can't just turn gay OVERNIGHT!!!"

992. Is God poison?

Comment #30891 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 8:47 am

Yorker, I did describe my batteries as L0NGLASTING. I will leave the rest up to your imagination.

993. Is God poison?

Comment #30884 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 8:24 am

Yorker, I am Logicel after all--in part I chose the id Logicel to stimulate an image of an indefatigable logic machine running on long-lasting batteries (the suffix borrowed from Duracel batteries).

994. Is God poison?

Comment #30849 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 4:15 am

I have now read this artcle once through, and will give it a second read. But my first reaction is that it is a very odd article!

While describing atheistic concerns fairly well with comparatively little sniping, Bethune seems to be saying that moderates are the main focus of atheists, and atheists with their insistence that there is nothing of value in religion, will alienate them sufficiently and therefore fail in their endeavor of encouraging the religious moderates to let go of non-evidential faith in the supernatural.

Bethune seems very sympathetic to that charmer, Hitchens. I do not know if he is disappointed in atheists because he wants them to succeed, and thinks that this new vocalism will prevent their success, or he regards the quest for the discarding of faith-based beliefs to be wrong.

Perhaps Bethune will do a follow up article.

995. Is God poison?

Comment #30845 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 3:59 am

"Aren't the ungodly in charge now, the churches empty on Sunday, religious leaders and religious viewpoints shouted out of the political arena? Are not contraception, abortion and, very soon, homosexual marriage the norm across the Western world? Who's winning this war anyway?"
______

The radical religious right in the most military powerful country in the world, America, is not a figment of the atheistic imagination. This radical religious group is focused on eroding the American constitution to fit their faith-based agenda. Supporters of democratic freedoms and secularism cannot ever think the battle has been won forever--we need always to be vigilant.

996. Is God poison?

Comment #30842 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 3:54 am

"That contempt, along with the stridency and a totalitarian disdain for everything to do with religion, is rooted in fear and failure."
______

More proof that either Bethune did not read with intent to understand or he did not read the books he is discussing: Harris and Dawkins have both discussed the merit of benign religions. The contempt is not for the believer, but for the beliefs. Lastly, the recognition of failure and fear is human, and atheists handle that fact admirably well.

997. Is God poison?

Comment #30840 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 3:39 am

"...to be the only one who admits to having religious friends, the atheists' own dirty little secret..."
_______

Maybe because it is obvious that atheists would have many friends/acquaintances, colleagues, and family members who believe in religion, that atheists don't scream that obvious fact from the rooftops?

998. Is God poison?

Comment #30829 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 3:03 am

The segment of atheists who considered themselves to be Brights, will appreciate--as RD as pointed out above--Bethune's unintentional compliment by describing atheistic confrontation with theism as sparkling and glittering via his sloppy use of coruscating:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coruscating

999. Is God poison?

Comment #30828 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 2:59 am

"Whatever else God may be, he is most assuredly not dead. You can take his critics' word, and the depth of their passion, for that."
_______

Again the old canard. Atheists are concerned with the BELIEF in God. They, themselves, do not believe in God, and therefore God does not exist for them. But the reality of many people believing in God(s) is the reason why atheists discuss such belief in God. It is not a question of whether or not God is dead since God does not exist to atheists, but it is a question of people who believe in God(s), existing. Hence the need for such spirited discussion as atheists regard beliefs based solely on faith in the supernatural to be dangerous.

1000. Is God poison?

Comment #30826 by Logicel on April 10, 2007 at 2:50 am

I will be honest, it is next to impossible to read with serious intent for understanding an author's viewpoint if they have gotten the wrong end of the stick so much that they have concluded that RD is both anti-American and a cold-hearted automaton impervious to beauty and wonder. I am unable to take these kinds of authors seriously.

And they very well may have some good points to make, but they do themselves an injustice by not taking the time and effort to understand the core issue which is under debate: the dangers and implausibility of faith-based beliefs which are held without significant evidence, and the corresponding thinking such faith-based belief is good simply because it is faith-based belief along with the collective consent not to criticize such non-evidential beliefs.