Comments by Logicel

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

1252. '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.

1253. '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.

1254. '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.

1255. 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!

1256. '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.

1257. '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!

1258. '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?

1259. '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.

1260. '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.

1261. 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.

1262. 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.

1263. 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."

1264. '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

1265. 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.

1266. 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

1267. 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.

1268. 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.

1269. 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.

1270. 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.

1271. 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.

1272. 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.

1273. 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.

1274. 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.

1275. [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.

1276. 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!

1277. 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.

1278. 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!

1279. 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.

1280. 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.

1281. 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.

1282. 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.

1283. '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.

1284. 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.

1285. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19261 by Logicel on January 26, 2007 at 1:34 am

Another aspect of Andrew's response of which my friends who believe in religious superstitions share is his reference to his admiration for the 'stoicism' or courage presented by atheists. It is nice to be admired, but however it is for the wrong reasons.

Atheists, as far as I know, as a group do not opt for dental treatment without proper pain control, and I would imagine that it would be much more 'courageous' for a lover of rationality to suspend critical thinking and rationality in order to become religious than it would be for them to remain atheistic.

As many posters have pointed out previously, supporters of religious superstitions project their world view and style of 'reasoning'--more like rationalizations--onto non-theists. They cannot perceive that non-theists do not believe because there is no evidence for such beliefs, not because they unflinchingly support pain a la stoicism or are courageous. If there were reasons, non-theists then would accept such beliefs as being reasonable. Instead, because they, themselves--the theists--cannot perceive their lack of reason in the sense of believing without real, provable evidence, they go round and round with their contorted rationalizations trying to comprehend without success the mental state of non-theists.

1286. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19257 by Logicel on January 26, 2007 at 1:14 am

Regarding Andrew's opinion since God can neither be disapproved or proved, we, therefore, cannot not do anything else but 'respect' the other's stance is a wonky one because the existence of a personal God is much more highly improbable than the existence of a personal God (or personable in the Christian version!) is probable. It is not a 50-50 proposition.

1287. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19255 by Logicel on January 26, 2007 at 12:54 am

Like Andrew, the few friends of mine who believe in religious superstitions, think they are rational. They do not think it is at all odd for them to respond to their being challenged as to the absurdity of the contradictions and muddle of their religious superstitions by replying with various versions of don't you think God is upset and saddened with us because we have twisted his beauty and truth?

As if that 'answer' does anything else but dismally points back to the complete absurdity of their position--their God is not caprious, is not mean, but simply misunderstood or not easy to follow. That little glitch in their God's identity is not His problem, but His follower's problem.

Nowadays, in the western world at least, if a parent is difficult to understand or read, if a child feels to be 'pushed' and 'pulled' because of ambiguous behavior, therapists deem that parent to be a dysfunctional one.

However, parents are real and not sky buddies, so one can work therapeutically with the said parent. What to do with the sky buddy that is dysfunctional? Only thing I can come up with, is to challenge the superstitional belief itself, to expose the complete irrationality of it. And that is what the 'new' atheists are doing--we are now no longer respecting the delusion, we are no longer enablers of dysfunctional behavior.

It must feel like a slap in the faces of the believers of religious superstitions as they were always able to garner respect and even admiration for their irrationality and now, they are getting dollops of cold reason instead.

1288. Randi and 800 Other Amazing Skeptics

Comment #19122 by Logicel on January 25, 2007 at 4:10 am

Richard D, Thanks for the clarification regarding the Hitchens' brothers.

1289. Send The God Delusion to your MP

Comment #19120 by Logicel on January 25, 2007 at 4:09 am

great suggestions, Homo economicus

1290. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19119 by Logicel on January 25, 2007 at 4:03 am

My understanding is that Brights refer to the 'brightness' or light of reason which conquers the darkness of irrationality, not necessarily pointing to superior intelligence. People of average intelligence are more than capable of being 'bright' in this regard.

However, the term is being taken in the latter sense, meaning superior intelligence. So it does not matter what the original intention was because it is being misunderstood.

BUT, after wrangling with and being exposed to the inanity presented by supporters of religious superstitions in the last several months, I now delight in regarding myself as BRIGHT whether or not the term is understood correctly.

For the non-theists--which was my former favorite--who balk at this appellation, just spend more time closely with supporters of religious superstitions, and you too, will be compelled to go to the highest point in your neigbhorhood and scream at the top of your lungs, "I AM BRIGHT."

I will at this time not actually join the Bright organization because though I am fed up with religious nonsense enough to regard myself proudly as BRIGHT I am still adverse to joining clubs of any kind. In using this term bright to describe myself, I will always qualify it, emphasizing that bright means the LIGHT OF REASON.

1291. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18913 by Logicel on January 23, 2007 at 3:37 pm

NormanDoering, lovely, smart Skatje does not count as she still has one more year to go before the wimpering weakness of seventeen-year-oldness brutally descends upon her reducing her to a pathetic jelly of helplessness.

1292. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18908 by Logicel on January 23, 2007 at 3:16 pm

In addition, saying that a cousin died like a man was also stupid--did my sister who died from breast cancer somehow died without dignity because she happened to be a female?

1293. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18905 by Logicel on January 23, 2007 at 3:06 pm

That derogatory reference to the apparently innate and pathetic weaknesses of 17 year-old-females was disgusting. That comment also shows literary bankruptcy--from all the possible similes/metaphors available that one was chosen?

1294. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18902 by Logicel on January 23, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Excellent, intellectually rigorous and totally stimulating response from Harris.

I can see why some posters here were dismayed with Harris' statements on torture and 'spiritually' because his ability to hold onto the core of the real debate is so admirable and needed, we don't want that ability to get sidetracked by criticism regarding Harris' more dubious opinions.

1295. Activation Of Brain Region Predicts Altruism

Comment #18868 by Logicel on January 23, 2007 at 10:12 am

Linda, Mother T always horrified me, decades ago. I will read Hitchen's essay, thanks.

1296. Activation Of Brain Region Predicts Altruism

Comment #18864 by Logicel on January 23, 2007 at 9:43 am

"The scientists suggest that studying the brain systems that allow people to see the world as a series of meaningful interactions may ultimately help further understanding of disorders, such as autism or antisocial behavior, that are characterized by deficits in interpersonal interactions."

and

"...adding that such information may help determine how the tendencies toward altruism are established."
_____

Fascinating and encouraging.

1297. Do You Believe in Magic?

Comment #18832 by Logicel on January 23, 2007 at 5:27 am

"Reality is the most potent check on runaway magical thoughts, and in the vast majority of people it prevents the beliefs from becoming anything more than comforting — and disposable — private rituals. When something important is at stake, a test or a performance or a relationship, people don't simply perform their private rituals: they prepare. And if their rituals start getting in the way, they adapt quickly."
______

Fascinating article. Religion is magical thinking run amok?

1298. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18829 by Logicel on January 23, 2007 at 5:02 am

Andrew is cleaving to an ideal of love so completely that he can dissolve all the contradictions involved in his religion. For him, faith is less important than this need for absolute, perfect, enduring, neverchanging, always present love. The guy is a love junkie.

1299. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18828 by Logicel on January 23, 2007 at 4:52 am

If one has to be imbued with the love of Jesus in order to do what is the bottom line for humanity--to respect, aid, comfort, stimulate, encourage, etc. others, than something is very wrong with these people and we are not focusing on what needs to be done to teach the young that what the religious preach is the BOTTOM LINE and nothing special.

1300. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18826 by Logicel on January 23, 2007 at 4:48 am

"They are stories about and by a man who preached the love of the force behind the entire universe, and the need to reflect that love in everything we do."
______

In recent years, I have finally concluded that LOVE is highly over-rated. I do not love everybody nor do I want to love everybody nor do I think it is necessary for prosperity, fairness, and human rights.

That aspect of cleaving to Jesus because he is the force of love is totally repellant to me and not attractive, and yet Christians bitten with the Jesus meme keep on trying to sell me something I do not want or need.