1151. Faith

Comment #23223 by Logicel on February 27, 2007 at 2:17 am

MouthAlmighty suggested the following title, "Disrobed by Dawkins? - reclothing the emperor" for his/her up-and-coming bestseller. Will it include nude pix of Dawkins? None of David Robertson, please. You would not be that cruel!

1152. Faith

Comment #23220 by Logicel on February 27, 2007 at 1:59 am

This jihadist, Dawkins, who is mentioned in the above article, must be a little known terrorist who just happens to have the same name as the 'sarcastic bon viveur'* who wrote The God Delusion. Clearly, this is just a case of mistaken identity.


*Some wonderful author of an article here coined that hilarious description of the big, bad Dawkins.

1153. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23192 by Logicel on February 26, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Mr. Mark wrote:

I'm dying to hear about the "DNA analysis"! To what does one compare Jesus's DNA?"

I'd think any communion wafer would do...
_______

The award for best post of the century goes to Mr. Mark!

I can envision evidence-destroying Catholic feasts becoming suddenly popular where the church's minions stuff themselves with communion wafers and wine to obliterate any existing DNA evidence! Priest will be forbidden to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ to ensure that no new DNA evidence will surface.

Though there were so many odd and stupid aspects of what I was taught when being raised a Catholic which allowed me to remain the atheist that I was born (like everyone else, though that atheist needed to be in the closet until she turned 18), transubstantiation had me in stitches even when I was a kid, and was one of the Catholic tenets that ensured my closet atheism stayed viable.

From Wikipedia: Transubstantiation – the substance (fundamental reality) of the bread and wine is transformed in a way beyond human comprehension into that of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, but the accidents (physical traits, including chemical properties) of the bread and wine remain; this view is that taught by the Roman Catholic Church (both the Latin and the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches) and by the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, and is held by many Anglicans, especially in Anglo-Catholic circles.

Seriously, no evidence-destroying feasts would be necessary--the Catholics would just say well, yes, it is the body and blood of Christ, but it is still bread and wine, so it is perfectly understandable if no DNA is found.

Their slippery and protean rationalizing has allowed them to continue practicing their idiotic beliefs by selectively rejecting/accepting any evidence that will allow them to continue to practice their nonsense.

1154. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #22974 by Logicel on February 25, 2007 at 5:01 am

NormanDoering, Though I don't mind your notifying posters at this site of new entries in your blog, I would suggest your eagerness for others to read your blog would be perceived in a better light, if in your regular posts (and as Champ has noted previously, we hope you continue to post here as well as your blog), you just put your blog link down at the bottom of your posts. This way, interested parties can follow the link if so desired.

1155. Biology and Bullshit

Comment #22970 by Logicel on February 25, 2007 at 3:45 am

"However the tensions eventually play out between our opposing worldviews," Wilson observes to his imaginary pastor at the end of The Creation, "however science and religion wax and wane in the minds of men, there remains the earthborn, yet transcendental, obligation we are both morally bound to share."
_____

Like Fonex_86, I don't get this paragraph either especially the earthborn, yet transcendental bit. Remove transcendental, and the paragraph makes sense to me.

Both sides, the non-theists and the moderates, recognize the need to preserve the delicate natural balance on earth. The Fundies could care less as their earthly life is just a test run for the real thing which will be theirs following their death--the demise of our universe will usher in their long-awaited rapture reward.

1156. Biology and Bullshit

Comment #22968 by Logicel on February 25, 2007 at 3:22 am

"As to that longing for god, Francis Collins asks "Why would such a universal and uniquely human hunger exist, if it were not connected to some opportunity for fulfillment? … Why do we have a 'God-shaped vacuum' in our hearts and minds unless it is meant to be filled?" As his spiritual mentor, C. S. Lewis, pointed out "A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water." Many people would love to live forever. Does this mean that there is immortality? (I guess so: if they believe in the right religion.) Indeed, why would Janis Joplin have sung, "Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?" unless a Mercedes Benz exists? Evidently the existence of a Mercedes-shaped hole in Ms. Joplin's heart means that it was meant to be filled."
______

Yet again, LMAO!

1157. Biology and Bullshit

Comment #22967 by Logicel on February 25, 2007 at 2:58 am

"...but – not surprisingly for a renowned evolutionary biologist – demolishes (yet again) the hoary "argument from design." This chestnut has had numerous stakes driven through its heart, but like a cinematic version of the undead, it keeps resurrecting itself, staggering, zombie-like and covered with flies, back into public view."
_____

LMAO

1158. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22965 by Logicel on February 25, 2007 at 2:16 am

JJoe wrote: "He's the ONLY conservative I've read who has repeatedly called out Bush on his incompetence, profligate spending, torture policies, etc.. And did so earlier than anyone else on the Right."
_______

The bar of intellectual honesty is set so low at the moment for American conservatives, that when a conservative does raise it a bit higher than most, he becomes a role model or a hero even.

And just as Sullivan can remain a Catholic despite the despicable things his church does, he remains a conservative despite all the despicable things his political party does. The guy is consistent.

1159. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22956 by Logicel on February 24, 2007 at 11:53 pm

justme wrote: That said, did you see the two slam dunk replies?

1. "That people with artificial hearts are not soulless zombies?"

and

2. "Heart transplant patients don't resurrect the soul of the donor?"

_______

I was ploughing through the deluded ramblings of Sullivan's 'intellectual' readership in dismay and boredom until I reached those two brief beauties of comments--brief but all the same cuttingly effective for excising instanteously all the gangrenous intellectualism that went before, and sickeningly, went after.

1160. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22953 by Logicel on February 24, 2007 at 11:42 pm

I don't like Sullivan at all. He is as rabid as Ann Coulter and as intellectually dishonest--his 'honesty' lags. His veneer may be more congenial than Coulter's, a veneer of education, style, and gentleness, but under that veneer is a person of no integrity at all, just simply an addicted user of a tailor-made dogma.

Sullivan did the impossible in my sanity book, he actually could accept easier the notion of an evil God than the notion that there is no God at all.

He also strikes me as being spoiled and pampered. His declaring that once the AIDS victims in the western world, that is, his world, stopped dying because of the anti-viral cocktails that they could afford to take, that the horror was over. His blinkered and selfish conclusion was given while the Catholic prients were poking holes in condoms in Africa where this cocktail of drugs were not available, so the people would get AIDS and not think that the use of condoms which Sullivan's despicable church opposes could prevent AIDS.

Sullivan disgusts me. His intelligence and education are wasted on him.

1161. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22811 by Logicel on February 23, 2007 at 7:03 am

314. Comment #22810 by LookToWindward on February 23, 2007 at 3:01 am

"The world of the religious is so, so, SO tiny, so trivial, so uninteresting. You've got to feel for them."
______

A valid point. I do know how much richer my life is without religion, and how much potential for further fulfillment there is in as I continue down my particular road in life without religion. Do I feel guilty because I am freed of religion and so many are under its delusional shackles? Do I want to spread the non-religious approach because it works so well for me? The answer is no to both questions. But I do support making non-theism known, and for non-theists to work to together to keep governments secular.

1162. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22809 by Logicel on February 23, 2007 at 2:10 am

Perhaps what we all need now is some 'spirituality' with attitude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIgYBx2HxP0

1163. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22808 by Logicel on February 23, 2007 at 4:53 am

Sancus wrote: "Furthermore, I know you Europeans don't very much like where you come from (my ancestors didn't like it either), but that's no reason to expect that everyone should be the same. Actually yours is probably good reason for everyone to not like where you come from."
_____

In my years of living in Europe, what I encounter is a quiet respect which Europeans have for their particular set of customs and traditions. As it has been pointed out by other posters, Europe, unlike America, was practically destroyed by two world wars because of nationalism. Just because Europeans are cautious and critical of nationalism, it does not mean they are not pleased with their culture. They respect, enjoy, and are proud of that, they are just not nationalistic in expressing that pride, and being Europeans, they are reserved compared to rambunctious Americans.

And your experience is not mine, my parents who came from Germany and The Czech Republic, were very proud of their origins, and I know many more Americans who are proud of their European heritage also.

1164. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22807 by Logicel on February 23, 2007 at 1:29 am

Convertedchristian, I don't frequent the forum that much at this site, but there has been a bit of America bashing on these threads connected to posted articles.

As an American, that has lived in Europe for almost 20 years, in various countries, I don't have a very strong identity with any country. BrianCoughlandWorld Citizen, and I think Denoir also, have posted about not being identified with a country. For me, America is the Constitution, not the land, the people, the customs, etc. The American Constitution is a great document. Along with many other developed democratic countries, America is a decent place to live. I don't think it is the greatest country, I don't think any country is.

When I first moved to Europe, specifically Great Britain, the anti-Americanism that I encountered could be paraphrased, "Why isn't America perfect? It is rich enough, educated enough, powerful enough, why does it have so many flaws?" The bar for Americans/America are set very high. Anti-Americanism, which by the way has existed for decades, is now focused on its ferocious consumer-based, hostile-to-the-environment capitalism, its invasion of Iraq and subsequent disaster, its hubris, and its religiousity.

In my work, it is Americans with whom I deal on a daily basis. And they are wonderful, kind, intelligent, reasonable, creative, entreprising, fair, and open-minded on the whole. Then I watch or listen to media coverage, and I think who are these American idiots! Then I remember the many Americans with whom I work, and I keep it in balance.

I would suggest that posters here should consider that when you bash America in these threads, you are causing discomfort to many that are on your side, and who are real people that deserve respect despite the accident of their birthplace. These people are fighting the good fight, and they are remaining within America to do so.

1165. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22792 by Logicel on February 22, 2007 at 11:18 am

MouthAlmighty wrote in his response to Biz: "Your 'reasoning' is very familiar. I used to counsel alcoholics who were absolutely certain that they were dealing with their problem merely by virtue of the fact that they attended all the meetings, talked to all the advisors, kept their appointments, etc. Since they were making all the right noises, the fact that their problem survived the intervention and persisted was 'reason' enough to continue to indulge. Of course, the reality is that what looked and certainly felt like constructive intervention was merely a diversion for themselves and others. They never actually intended to let go of their indulgence. The fact that your belief in god incorporates doubt and entertains evidence and logic ensures that it has the look and feel of reason, but it's last refuge will always be belief without evidence… "well, you can't disprove it!"
_______

Excellent insight. Thanks.

1166. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22773 by Logicel on February 22, 2007 at 7:48 am

Sancus, I have not forgotten your response to a much earlier comment of mine! I just have not the time to do it justice. An excerpt from that comment of mine: If an individual uses observation based on self knowledge/experience to learn about themselves via lucid dreaming, meditation, biofeedback, etc, does that constitute scientific knowledge just because some aspects of that approach--such as observation--is used in science?

Your response: This is white noise to me. I became lost when you said "observation based on..." Observation is not based on anything. Observation is the base.
_______

Observation is a skill/ability that we all have, sometimes we do it alone, sometimes in groups, sometimes we observe the external world, sometimes the internal. Observing accumulates data which we file, mentally, on paper, and in computers. We can sort them in various categories; we can retrieve them when we want. Knowledge comes from this base of accumlated observations which can be tested in various ways.

For example, since the knowledge acquired over many years that I prefer savory over sweet is there when I finally encounter a sweet dish that I can't get enough up and would give up every last savory dish in the world so I can just continue eating this sweet one nonstop has to accomodate this new information. Observation contributes to our knowledge base, but the ability to observe, for me, regardless in the manner that is conducted, is a skill/ability. Observation is not the base, but a tool.

1167. Presentation on Atheism

Comment #22769 by Logicel on February 22, 2007 at 3:00 am

ambulocetus, thanks for the vid link, here's one with atheist quotes--a bit long, the music sometimes is irritating, and a few of the quotes hard to read, but really a tremendous vid all the same, worth a watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZuknsnphEU&NR

1168. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22765 by Logicel on February 22, 2007 at 5:05 am

Sancus, Studies have shown that the brain chemistry involved in the feeling of passionate love is similar to the one involved in insanity. As extreme passionate love usually does not last much longer than a couple years, it is a reasonable amount of time to be 'insane' in order to make a committment in a long term relationship. However, the Godders and the Jesus freaks, maintain their insane passion for all their lives, whipping it up every chance they get, especially the ones that are addicted to the Holy Spirit, the Pentacostals, etc.

1169. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22764 by Logicel on February 22, 2007 at 1:34 am

Sancus, Regarding my much earlier post regarding my attitude towards love, it was in response to Sullivan's focus on God is Love, a love-force to do good in the world. My comment did not include what I would call personal love, love that people give to one another. Also my comment focused on even that love, personal love, is not necessary for peace in the world, that adherence to basic human rights, using the process of democratic law to accomplish that, learning from our mistakes, and applying proven knowledge would go much further than even if we managed to love everyone.

It is just a realization on my part that we do not love everyone and that loving everyone is not necessary to accomplish good in the world. I don't want to be loved by everyone! I am just fed up with the triteness of this love-force being bandied all over the place. I don't buy it, and I think it is silly, actually.

I think that many are love-junkies, and certainly Sullivan is. They are addicted to love. If you live long enough you see that love is not absolute, that it means many different things to different people, and that it changes even between two people, especially if they live together long enough.

I think that passion, compassion, and familiarity has a lot to do with what we refer to as love. Passion definitely has a short life span, compassion can be highly selected, we are compassionate concerning people with whom we can identify, and familiarity comes into play within the family. I have a strong emotional connection with my siblings because I know them so well.

1170. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22708 by Logicel on February 21, 2007 at 2:21 am

CFI, Thanks for that fantastic Humphreys link, I especially enjoyed his saying Jesus becomes whatever we wish him to be. Andrew's Jesus concept is exactly what Andrew wishes Jesus to be.

I also enjoyed Humphreys saying that Christians indulge in a twilight zone of special pleading regarding historical evidence of the existence of Jesus.

1171. Battle for Europe's secular values

Comment #22620 by Logicel on February 20, 2007 at 5:07 am

stephenray, Yes, believers in the supernatural who think they are confronting the 'irrational and illogical faith' of non-theists by dismally failing in their attempt to apply the same non-theist approach and tools which the non-theists themselves use so remarkably well to consistently dismantle the nonsense of supernatural beliefs are a hoot! I always get a picture of a car with its wheels helplessly spinning in mud, unable to move in any direction.

In their misguided attempts to use our critical thinking tools to dismantle what they think is our belief system, they unwittingly succeed in adding to our already successful body of work in dismantling their own beliefs!

1172. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22346 by Logicel on February 14, 2007 at 11:44 pm

Cham, I agreed with your comment #22342 which was beautifully stated.

However, you were receptive to challenging your superstitious beliefs, and the process of letting go of God took you awhile. You made that process your own. And though many nontheist writers discuss the importance of spirtuality outside of religion, those writers will encourage and leave such spirituality up to the individual to do what they see as fit for themselves. And that is why such a quest for spirituality for nontheists is the real thing, because it is truly CONTINGENT upon the individual that creates it.

Again, emotion is integral to human functioning--we could not get up in the morning because of reason and logic alone. Emotion, however, needs to be grounded and filtered through reason, logic, critical thinking and evidential proof. My husband loves me because he shows me he does, via ways I can observe directly and connect the casuality back to him. Can't do that with Sullivan's imaginary Love fiend in the sky, and yet despite all his intelligence and education, and despite a precious dialogue with Harris that many of us would give our eye/teeth for, Sullivan insists on remaining immersed in his sea of merde.

Sullivan is more fundie than the fundies. His truthiness is so bound with his need for it, that the circular, mental/emotional contortions that he puts himself through on a daily basis keeps feeding his delusions. Hopefully, there are people like you that can let go of God, let's concentrate on those.

1173. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22345 by Logicel on February 14, 2007 at 11:05 pm

"For this conversation to have coherence, Sam needs to accept that religion meets a need within people, that these needs are important to Andrew. The best that Sam can do is to show Andrew how spiritual needs can be met when there is no god. Andrew may still choose Christianity, but at least he will be shown that life without a god does not have to be morally reprehensible."
_______

Harris and others do accept that religion meets a need within people, and they also emphasis because religion fulfills certain needs, that fulfilling does not make religion true or even necessary for meeting those needs. Many atheistic writers have commented on how sprituality is available outside religion.

Sullivan is educated and intelligent--he knows that these writers accept his need and belief in religion as being important to him, and he knows that nontheists are moral and have found spirituality outside of religion.

As far as Sullivan's honesty being admirable, the guy has been blogging about himself, his life, his ideas, his opinions since 2001. Frankly, I know more about Sullivan, the individual, than I really want or even need to know!

1174. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22334 by Logicel on February 14, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Regarding Sullivan's horror at his misinterpretation (is the guy that dense?) of Harris' imposing 'the clean glass' approach on people awashed in contingency (let's see if we can exceed the number of times we use that word in our posts than Sullivan has!), what Harris means is that people like Sullivan let go of God a la Julia Sweeney. Let go of God and see that nothing has changed. Everything is the same, except that one is thinking more clearly and is now drinking from a cleaner glass, a glass that eagerly asks to be filled with evidential proof and truth based on that search. Start with yourself, Andrew. Then the next supporter of religious superstitions lets go of God, and then the next. That is what we are talking about, not some fascist imposition. Really, Andrew, your intelligence is wasted on you since I must imagine that you can see the importance and utility of consciousness raising in the gay community, but can't see how it can be used outside of that community?

1175. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22333 by Logicel on February 14, 2007 at 10:19 pm

"I was then able to move to a different continent and country and walk into a church that was itself part of that universal inheritance. There is no free place on earth where I cannot find a home."
_______

Some feel that way about McDonalds.

1176. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #22329 by Logicel on February 14, 2007 at 8:51 pm

Andrew Sullivan bores me--I have been patient and read his replies and I am so bored by his narcissitic interpretation of truth, meaning, and wonder of his religious superstitions, that I will continue to read his mush only so I can better understand Harris' responses. Hopefully, Harris won't decide that this dialogue has reached the 'dinner guest' stage, causing Harris to politely withdraw.

Sullivan is not only passionately imbibing from a shit-stained glass, the crap is overflowing and he is drowning in a sea of merde.

1177. Meet the Relatives. They're Full of Surprises.

Comment #21688 by Logicel on February 10, 2007 at 3:56 pm

"However, the belief that mans intelligence and capacities are merely the result of random processes allied to a process merely concerned with survival is surely fatal to our fulfilling our potential."
______

Mutations were random, natural selection was not.

Though my genome is shared with all living creatures, my uniqueness rests on the very fact that I came into being. I do not need a divine presence for me to be humbled and gratified that this evolutionary process made my being possible. The actualization of the possibility of me is astounding enough, in itself. The recognition of my unigue life is enough for my motivation to fulfill that actuality to the best of my natural abilities. As I age, and study more about history and evolution, I am even more astounded and humbled about my coming into being.

I also feel immensely connected to the zillions of hominids that preceded me and made my own being possible. This recognition gives me a profound respect for humanity despite the terrible actions humans have done, do, and will do. It is the passing of the human torch, and that torch is hope.

Julia Sweeney, when she was in the early phases of 'letting go of God' would walk outside her home and just pretend at first that there was no God, and was astounded that what she saw was what she always saw, that without God, she was the same and so was the everything else around her.

One of my religious friends, though he disdains the institutional structure related to religions, insists that God is a tool that he uses to motivate himself to be the best that he can. The implication is that it does not matter if God exists or not (and this was the conceptual preference of my very devout Catholic mother), it is just the means to get to an very important end. But if this divine tool does not exist, as they both imply, then WHO is doing the work involved in their goals to be the best they can be? They are. My mother is dead so she can no longer do what Julia Sweeney did, but perhaps my friend may be able to.

1178. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21608 by Logicel on February 10, 2007 at 5:29 am

The comments by Nuclearman, Janus, and Steven Mading need to be united into a collective essay.

I particularily find Mading's using How instead of Why for the question, "How did it happen?" to be a crucial edge in debating supporters of religious superstitions.

To quote Mading: "In other words, the notion that science's inability to answer "why" is some sort of gaping hole that needs to be filled by religion is already assuming the existence of god before you even begin. It's a dishonest line of inquiry to ask the question "why" before you've established that there is a creator. The notion that the question "why" is a valid STARTING point to lead one to the conclusioon that there is a creator is not honest because the act of asking the question already assumes a creator."

As science continues to give us satisfying explanations to how it all works, it also leaves to us the choice of meaning that we decide to give to our lives. Once you know the How, you can work with facts and reasonable possibilities to fulfill and develop your life. It will be a challenging process for sure, but it will be your process.

While I was growing up in a very devout catholic family, the why never interested me, it was the how that kept me going, kept me wanting to understand life. The why was my own personal business, not God's--the silly and ineffective dictator that he is.

1179. Meet the Relatives. They're Full of Surprises.

Comment #21595 by Logicel on February 10, 2007 at 3:38 am

Very important points from the article:

One issue cannot be entirely sidestepped in any public presentation of human evolution: that many people in this country doubt and vocally oppose the very concept. In a corner of the hall, several scientists are shown in video interviews professing the compatibility of their evolution research with their religious beliefs.

Standing nearby at the end of a tour of the exhibition, Michael J. Novacek, a paleontologist and the museum's senior vice president, said that a previous show on Darwin had been a reassuring test case. The exhibition was popular, he said, and provoked "very little negative response."

Dr. Novacek said the new hall was "an emphatic statement about the theory of evolution and its power to tell us our origins and history."

"We emphasize that a scientific theory is an argument that is very carefully tested against scientific evidence," he continued, "and this one has withstood much scrutiny."

1180. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21582 by Logicel on February 10, 2007 at 2:32 am

Here's a very appealing montage vid on Aslan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-bLZbkYk-I

and Boomgen's website:

http://boomgen.org/BoomGen/Welcome.html

1181. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21393 by Logicel on February 9, 2007 at 2:42 am

And this reasoning which the religites are lambasting is the very kind of reasoning that they themselves use to dismiss other supernatural beings, like the tooth fairy, Zeus, and gods that are not their religion's. It is similar to how they cherry-pick their holy books, they also cherry-pick the occasions when they will use the power of reason.

1182. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21387 by Logicel on February 9, 2007 at 2:28 am

What an odd presentation. I giggled a bit at the beginning and then got a headache from boredom and became irritated at the lameness of the parody.

Despite a giggle here and there, it was confusing, beyond silly, and very ineffective because there is Tommyrot sounding like Dawkins lambasting himself and then concludes near the end of the interview that he, Tommyrot, should be followed instead of Dawkins. Huh? So it is ok to follow Dawkins as long as he is disguised as another person, that is, Tommyrot?

And I agree that our camp's side at parody is much more effective--the basic premises of religiousity is presented, and then the inane and rediculous behavior which would result if the basic premises are accepted to be valid is shown with relentless consistency, and that is the power of parody:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

1183. World's oldest rocks show how Earth may have dodged frozen fate of Mars

Comment #21049 by Logicel on February 7, 2007 at 12:10 pm

linck, I admire your ferocious hunger for God(s). If only all believers were like you.

1184. No exemption from gay rights law

Comment #20549 by Logicel on February 4, 2007 at 3:36 am

the great teapot said, "All of the rapists had erections.How many people under normal circumstances would be "attracted" to eighty year old women whilst still in their youth."
_______

Rapists get aroused by the power over their victims and the fear shown by their victims, not by sexual desire.

1185. The Chronicles of Kearnya, or, Principles of Evolution Observed in the Field at Kearny High School

Comment #20548 by Logicel on February 4, 2007 at 3:25 am

The mayor of NYC took the power away from NYC's school boards and in the process improved the schools. Keep up the nonsense, New Jersey School Boards, and your schools will deteriorate to the point that you will lose control over your schools.

1186. The Chronicles of Kearnya, or, Principles of Evolution Observed in the Field at Kearny High School

Comment #20547 by Logicel on February 4, 2007 at 3:18 am

The Kearny's forum at their website during December displayed shocking backwardness in the comments registered against this American citizen who happens to be a high school teenager--a backwardness heavy with apathy and viciousness. The dual themes were of 'oh why must we go through this trivial case again, I am so tired of this discussion, we have discussed it enough, so let's stop' and/or 'the teenager in question is a fag and anyone who supports him is one also.'

Kearny's school board action of not allowing students to record their teachers is ridiculous--university students do it all the time.

Unfortunately, the mindlesss people who live in Kearny and attend the high school in question won't do the correct action which is for every single student in that pathetic place tape record each and every teacher.

1187. God and gorillas

Comment #20384 by Logicel on February 2, 2007 at 5:01 am

"So if I'm going to think about religion as compassionate action, how do you look for that in prehistory?"
__

And now in the light of the Buber connection, it seems that this 'scientist' with an entrenched philosophical/religious stance is using that very stance to do science? She has the peg already and is looking for a shallow hole that can be plugged.

1188. God and gorillas

Comment #20382 by Logicel on February 2, 2007 at 4:54 am

Regarding King's 'mentor', quoted from Wikipedia: "Buber was a scholar, interpreter, and translator of Hasidic lore. He viewed Hasidism as a source of cultural renewal for Judaism, frequently citing examples from the Hasidic tradition that emphasized community, interpersonal life, and meaning in common activities (e.g. a worker's relation to his tools). The Hasidic ideal, according to Buber, emphasized a life lived in the unconditional presence of God, where there was no distinct separation between daily habits and religious experience. This was a major influence on Buber's philosophy of anthropology, which considered the basis of human existence as dialogical.

Buber's interpretation of the Hasidic tradition, however, has been criticized by scholars such as Chaim Potok for its romanticization." (boldface is mine)
________

I have to say that is the same objection I have to King's viewpoint as shown in this article--her scientist's eyes are a bit misted over from flirting with romanticization concerning the reality of highly successful evolved monkeys--humankind.

1189. God and gorillas

Comment #20378 by Logicel on February 2, 2007 at 4:38 am

Russell Blackford said, "What struck me is the way interviewer and interviewee treated the question of whether or not she actually believes in God as an incredibly private and sensitive matter."
_____

That aspect of the interview gave me the creeps and made it very difficult for me to seriously consider her points.

1190. God and gorillas

Comment #20377 by Logicel on February 2, 2007 at 4:35 am

"So if I'm going to think about religion as compassionate action, how do you look for that in prehistory?"
_____

Compassionate action cannot exist outside of religion? Compassionate action allows group survival which allows the survival and passing on of genes.

Is she saying that religion-based compassion, that is a compassion based on the belief of an all loving, sublimely compassionate creator, elevates mere social compassion which is useful for the survival of genes to a cutting-edge species survival tool that allowed homo sapiens to zap out their competitors? If so then religion certainly is a way of life that favors the insiders and is lethal to outsiders.

If this is the case, then as another poster commented, religion in this way is no longer fruitful, valuable, or necessary, and in the light of religion being lethal to outsiders, dangerous.

1191. [Warning: Graphic] Children's foreheads slashed in Muslim saint's name

Comment #20215 by Logicel on February 1, 2007 at 5:31 am

I also think that this article was written fairly, and though the activity itself is shocking, it is not surprising to an adult with any experience/knowledge of the world, in the sense that humanity does awful things to each other, especially to women and children, in the name of religious tradition, regardless what tradition it is. As other posters have stated, equivalent bloody practices are done in the name of Christianity, and with these I am already familiar, and when reading this article, I just added this particular one to the number of bloody religious practices that I already know exist.

That is what the content of this article delivered to me, something that I already know in general, but packaged in a cultural way that is unfamiliar to me. This particular Islamic custom as revealed to me for the first time in this article is not going to make me hate Arabs or Muslims or even the deluded, dangerously ignorant people featured in this article who are allowing the cutting of their own children's foreheads. I do not consider the content of this article to be inflammatory in itself, but if someone hate Arabs/Muslims than such an article can be used by the hater to fan the already existing flame of hatred within.

Without emotion, filtered through reason, humans would not get up in the morning, they would not do anything--as the man whose areas of the cerebrum which initiate and sustain emotionality were destroyed because of a terrible accident proved in a very concrete way, he was listless and completely unmotivated. Reasonal, rational people are emotional, or they would not bother to learn about increasing their critical thinking skills or learn about science. The concept of a rational person being without emotions is inane and dated.

As for the quality of mainstream journalism, regardless in which vehicle it is delivered, it is woefully biased, driven by commercial/political goals. And it is suffering, losing its audience because they are not giving their audience what their audience wants and now can get via the Web.

1192. Neil deGrasse Tyson - Death by Black Hole

Comment #20207 by Logicel on February 1, 2007 at 3:51 am

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia: "Tyson has written a number of popular books on astronomy. In 1995, he began to write the "Universe" column for Natural History magazine. In a column for the magazine he authored in 2002, Tyson coined the term "Manhattanhenge" to describe the two days annually on which the evening sun aligns with the cross streets of the street grid in Manhattan, making sunset visible along unobstructed side streets."

During the 40 years in which I lived in NYC, I did catch this sight of "Manhattanhenge" a couple of times, and I had always thought the sun did it just for me!

1193. Neil deGrasse Tyson - Death by Black Hole

Comment #20205 by Logicel on February 1, 2007 at 3:34 am

Tyson is the embodiment of the love of knowledge. He is also a very sexy embodiment, especially the sensual dynamite which is his voice.

All that is necessary is to expose your mind to this guy's irresistible and inspirational appreciation of the POWER of science to want to empower yourself with it.

I adore his reference to the "pollination of disciplines" that has occurred fairly recently in science. Tyson has his pulse on what is important to people--empowerment in understanding the physical universe and how we humans intersect with it.

1194. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20046 by Logicel on January 31, 2007 at 6:28 am

This interview was excellent--I will also inform Nightline of my being impressed with their coverage.

RRS ROCKS!!!

As Sapient suggests, if you got any better suggestions for doing what they are doing, tell them--go to their excellent site:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/

I admire RRS, and how they consistently conduct the kind of in-your-face, no-holds-bar responses and activities that makes me happy that I was born and raised in America, though that aspect of me probably makes the nice Europeans among which I have lived for nearly two decades wince!

1195. Grief Without God

Comment #19650 by Logicel on January 29, 2007 at 5:24 am

andmarsmi, I admire your passionate comment very much. I have read it twice so far and I am speechless. Thank you for the time and effort spent to elucidate some very tricky and tough points regarding non-theism and grieving.

1196. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19647 by Logicel on January 29, 2007 at 4:46 am

Surveys are highly suspect--much useless slag surfaces along with some precious nuggets of usable information.

The horrendous atrocities commited in Islam's name certainly explains the anger and determination revealed in TheCodeCrack's opinion. He asks how can one be rid of Islam? The answer obviously is with great difficulty. Banning the building of mosques and the ending of immigration of muslims to Australia is too blunt and crude of a solution to work, like slapping a puny bandaid on a gaping wound, and it is also reminiscent of the American shock and awe nonsense in Iraq which apparently also had sounded so surgical and straighforward to Rumsfeld.

Australia will not suddenly become enveloped in a selective information bubble by closing the physical borders of Australia--which of course in itself is impossible, just ask the American border patrol regarding illegal Mexican immigration--in order to stem the tide of violence committed in Islam's name. Banning mosques is not going to prevent interested parties in worshipping together via Web communities or plotting to carry out terroist attacks via Web connected terror cells.

All faith believers, including Muslims, are human beings. Treat them as such. Work at keeping all faiths out of the public sphere, and expose children to all faiths as well as non-faith when they are growing up. This fight will take time, courage, determination, wisdom, patience, guts, decisive action, and a deep sense and appreciation of the power of human reason and rationality when it is given a chance to flourish. Any citizen breaking its country's law regardless of their faith will be prosecuted. We need to work to keep our laws relevant to the preservation of our way of life.

1197. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19445 by Logicel on January 27, 2007 at 8:35 am

Old Coppernose, very interesting scientific experiment regarding the likely anti-obscenity bot on patrol at this site--that is the trouble with censorship, it does not work as it is so righteously planned.

1198. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19441 by Logicel on January 27, 2007 at 8:08 am

All I could see in RD's so-called 'arrogance' is RD's passion about a subject of which he is undisputely knowledgeable.

It has been suggested that RD should have chosen this time to 'educate' a person, Haggard, who clearly shows no desire to be educated about evolution. Why don't you just advise RD to bang his head against a stone wall until it is bloody? And because RD wisely chose not to do this, he is smug and arrogant, for avoiding a valuable opportunity of educating the opposition as if books/info on evolution are hard to find, including the brilliant ones authored by RD.

Since RD is apparently guilty of consistently of being arrogant everytime he speaks his mind, at Lynchberg, at the Beyond Belief event, to Haggard, all non-theists must be concerned and worried about this 'clear' trend of smugness and arrogance.

If non-thesists speak their minds consistently, backed with logic and critical thinking while spiced with passion, then that is what we are doing and not actively courting neither arrogance or smugness.

1199. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19414 by Logicel on January 27, 2007 at 2:56 am

Sancus, can a scientist be a tribe of one? Can a scientist truly exist all by his/herself without peer review?

If an individual uses observation based on self knowledge/experience to learn about themselves via lucid dreaming, meditation, biofeedback, etc, does that constitute scientific knowledge just because some aspects of that approach--such as observation--is used in science?

In your quest to find a non-theistic handle to attract the people who crave/need to believe in something pure and absolute, you need to focus that one can do subjectively based 'soul' searching and fulfillment without violating science. That such spiritually (and Stephen Fry summed it up excellently on that audio posted recently here, the discussion with Hitchens, Fry's bit came at the end) in itself is not a scientific endeavor is exactly the aspect you want to nourish, to attract folks that need to have a subjective feeling of their uniqueness.

Religion, as you know, squashes this search, makes it impossible by subcontracting the soul out to the divine dictator, though the deluded believe that it furthers their search instead of actually leaving themselves 'sans espirit'!

Science on the other hand gives a comforting support to subjective experience by showing how cerebral biochemistry gives way to it. Science leaves the subjectivity up to the subject, it does not dictate what kind of subjectivity in which the subject can indulge. Science gives a natural background to our subjective 'spirituality', guiding us in the right direction by red-flagging the supernatural as a creatively impoverished pit of inanity and uselessness.

1200. In defense of atheism

Comment #19281 by Logicel on January 26, 2007 at 4:39 am

Simply superb writing!

That wonderful paragraph to which others have referred is a bit long, but I have to at least copy this bit out:

"...any minute now, the professor is bound to see through the miserable shallowness of being a bestselling author, holding a chair at the world's greatest university, and enjoying marital bliss with a beautiful television actress."

I also adored the author's reference to RD as a "sarcastic bon-viveur" because it is so apt and hilarious at the same time. Next time, someone calls RD an atheistic fundamentalist/jihadi to my face, I will just say, "Oh, do you mean the Richard Dawkins that I think you mean, the sarcastic bon-viveur?" That should put a wrench in their irrational wheels for at least a few seconds.