Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by jimbob


101. Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers

Comment #99071 by jimbob on December 15, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Graffiti scratched into the staff toilet cubicle wall at Creation College:

Here I sit, my cheeks a flex'n,
Trying to graduate another Tex'n!

;-)

102. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99067 by jimbob on December 15, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Now before you all get carried away with this Newton thing, remember, gravity is ONLY A THEORY!

;-)

103. Believe it or not

Comment #97540 by jimbob on December 12, 2007 at 9:43 am

The prefix "a" simply means "without." Perhaps it's helpful to point that out in conversations about atheism --- and follow by illustrating with other a-words (amenorrhea, amorality, amotivation, etc.). The final emphasis could be to point out that believing in deities necessarily means a person has become arational. If that doesn't clinch it, my usual last shot is to emphasize that a rational atheist's view of humanistic morality is (fortunately) not impeded by the common obstacles found in most religious dogmas.

104. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97117 by jimbob on December 11, 2007 at 1:02 pm

This notion of atheism, or secular humanism as just other kinds of religion, and having lots in common with religion is such a pain!

I keep on thinking of the Fundamental Bill of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) when this comes up. To me, the FBHR is akin to the US Constitution as a secular "We the people" kind of script.

A good question for writers such as John Gray is to ask how they would categorize the FBHR. Is it some sort of religious proclamation, or is it a secular statement of a moral code. If it's the latter, then how do most religions measure up to it?

In my opinion, such a comparison highlights how religion typically constitutes an obstacle to humanistic morality --- which is quite a contrast to the views the Pope expressed recently!

105. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97108 by jimbob on December 11, 2007 at 12:45 pm

One of the "four horsemen" needs to satirize this sort of view. I.e, write the script for such articles in a way that reveals the cliches, the straw men, and the lies.

Kind of "how the be a flea" manual?

106. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96981 by jimbob on December 11, 2007 at 7:51 am

Catholicism is struggling, and as such, badly needs to create an external enemy to divert attention away from its own shortcomings. Atheism is that convenient enemy.

Perhaps the loudness of the noise from the Holy Father Morris is because he is experiencing a Mother Teresa-like crisis of doubt?

107. Of Dickens and Darwin

Comment #96446 by jimbob on December 10, 2007 at 2:48 pm

In a didactic caucaupheny, interdicted by hermeneutic spiraling sympathetic manifestations, there will be the epistomological seminalistic gestations of the new cosmic altering paradigm.

Yeah, well I don't know what it means either, but I'll fight anybody who says it makes less sense than "postmodern science!"

108. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96211 by jimbob on December 10, 2007 at 7:03 am

A married relative opted for circumcision in his late 30s because of persistent irritation that efforts at good hygiene failed to stop. He reports that it made no difference to "sensitivity" for him or his spouse, and he wished it had been done in infancy.

An n of one I realize, but then it's hard to get a controlled study on this one approved (let alone get volunteers to participate!).

109. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #96208 by jimbob on December 10, 2007 at 6:56 am

Double Bass, you sound pretty tasty right now (speaking as one deprived of English beer).

Apart from that, you are dead right. All the real scientists I know don't believe in evolution. However, seeing the overwhelming evidence, they are highly confident that the theory represents reality.

Let's always point out that the language of faith and dogma is inappropriate for science.

110. Keith Olbermann talks about the Romney 'Religion' Speech

Comment #95554 by jimbob on December 8, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Wasn't George H the guy who said you can't be a patriot unless you are religious?

A very choice for Mitt's intro!

111. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #95391 by jimbob on December 8, 2007 at 8:54 am

I vote that Chuck Norris should tatoo a picture of Mother Teresa on his forehead.

112. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95388 by jimbob on December 8, 2007 at 8:45 am

...and then there's always the point about it being unlikely that a human brain could have evolved without meat-eating ancestors.

113. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95201 by jimbob on December 7, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Yep, it's good to see this political race evolving.

Oops, wait a minute, let me re-think that!

114. Colouring book warns kids of pedophile priests

Comment #95122 by jimbob on December 7, 2007 at 11:44 am

But hold it! According to the humble Donohue the problem isn't pedophilia --- it's homosexuality!

115. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95010 by jimbob on December 7, 2007 at 6:55 am

I read Romney's speech, and I read JFK's

Mitt, you are no John Kennedy!

Why? Because JFK actually appeared to understand the 1st amendment.

While everybody in the USA should pay more heed to the prohibition on religious tests (Article 6 of the constitution), it's probably about time US voters started asking for a different test for those running for public office:

A test of their actual knowledge of the content and application of the constitution.

Maybe, then they'd note the difference between "One nation under god," and "We the people."

116. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92377 by jimbob on November 30, 2007 at 11:25 am

It just occurred to me that it was probably reading this type of tripe that turned mother Teresa into an atheist!

117. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92328 by jimbob on November 30, 2007 at 9:52 am

History has proven wrong ideologies such as Marxism which say humans had to establish social justice because God did not exist, the Pope wrote.


Never a truer thought written in ignorance?

He's right, it's ideologies that are the problem --- and religious ideologies are at the forefront.

Watch out for the atheism = marxism slur. It's going to be a common dishonest strawman strategy as rationality continues to chip away at religious power.

118. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91368 by jimbob on November 28, 2007 at 7:08 am

Lashes for the rape victim, now the same for the teddy bear lady! Then, when you thought it couldn't get any nuttier we get the "Turkey Delusion!":

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/28/dawkins.turkey.ap/index.html

119. Discover plagiarism at the Discovery Institute

Comment #91091 by jimbob on November 27, 2007 at 7:32 am

Oops, there goes #9 again!

120. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89654 by jimbob on November 21, 2007 at 11:38 am

The question is how much will the religion of any candidate figure in their presidential actions? Rudy G has said more than once that he would nominate supreme court justices from the same mold as Thomas and Scalia. That's far scarier to me than some mumblings about duck hunting in heaven!

121. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89597 by jimbob on November 21, 2007 at 7:59 am

Rudy G needs the same scrutiny after what he has said about nominating supreme court justices!

122. Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

Comment #88403 by jimbob on November 16, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Ain't religious morality wonderful!?

123. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88402 by jimbob on November 16, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Now we know that when the religious right talk about "activist judges" they are referring to those judges who are prepared to uphold the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

124. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88066 by jimbob on November 14, 2007 at 1:24 pm

But aren't they ALL theories? So if someone says that evolution is a theory, one can counter with the argument that creationism is also a theory.


No Goldy! That's playing THEIR game! Explain the difference between theory and dogma darn it!

;-)

125. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88060 by jimbob on November 14, 2007 at 12:58 pm

It's time to realize that we're simply never going to school enough of the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words. We're never going to fully communicate what's beautiful and noble about scientific caution and rigor. Public discourse is inevitably political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the political battle — in no uncertain terms.


I'm afraid I disagree. I'm very reluctant to play their game (politics).

In contrast, I'd humbly suggest that we all need to do much better with our terminology. We have to consistently point out the differences between:

Scientific theory: Propositions based in evidence which have stood up to rigorous testing. The more these theories stand up to scientific examination, the greater the degree of confidence we have --- it's confidence in the weight of evidence.

Dogmas/doctrines: Notions based on belief which are untestable, or are defended against any tests.

The attitude of scientists to their theories is to cherish them, but attack them. The better they stand up to attack, the better we can use the theory as a guide to practice. Scientists are grateful when theoretical weaknesses are exposed for obvious reasons.

The attitude of proselytizers to their dogmas is to cherish them and defend them. Defenders of the faith resist attack, and they often find ways to threaten or discredit heretics and apostates. (They also seem to lie and distort, and we should expose this immorality every chance we get).

So what? Well, don't say "theory" when a dogma is involved, and don't say you "believe" in a scientific theory. Rather, say the "evidence is overwhelming!"

Better, say "No, that's a dogma, not a theory!" when some ID advocate tries to hijack the term.

Bottom line: Let's get better at playing our game instead of playing on their terms!

126. Hello Again, Michael Behe!

Comment #86429 by jimbob on November 9, 2007 at 7:55 am

Behe -- rhymes with "Tee Hee" doesn't it?

Check out http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2005/12/18/doonesbury_12_18_05 for an appropriate cartoon!

127. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85272 by jimbob on November 5, 2007 at 11:45 am

...has had the gall to excerpt these sentences and intentionally mislead readers the way Dalrymple has. His summary of my views is among the least honest I have come across, and his criticism of the "new atheist" bestsellers the least enlightening. This is more of an accomplishment, in fact, than it may appear. The race to the bottom has been fast and furious.


This is why this site needs a "Oops, there goes #9 section." Let's let the list of falsehoods speak for itself when it comes to the argument about religion vs non-belief and morality.

128. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #82361 by jimbob on October 26, 2007 at 6:37 am

I just had a revelation!

I realized that the reason our government is so corrupt is because all its members are religious!

129. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #81907 by jimbob on October 25, 2007 at 11:32 am

I've only had time (so far) to listen to the first 10 minutes, but a thought occurred to me as I listened to Sam Harris (on the topic of the "label "atheist").

That thought is a possible counter when dealing with the derogatory baggage of "atheist" that we are often confronted with. So why don't we counter that we actually stand for reason (not blind faith in dogma), and thus, it would make more sense if the religious, not us, had a label --- which in this case would be "areasoners," or maybe "arationalists."

130. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #81891 by jimbob on October 25, 2007 at 11:12 am

The idea that all scientific knowledge is provisional, able to be challenged and overturned, is one thing that separates matters of science from matters of faith.


Let's be fair -- the catholic church routinely apologizes for everything it does about 50-100 years later!

;-)

131. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81790 by jimbob on October 25, 2007 at 7:27 am

keep it simple:

Religion is not the source of morality --- in contrast, it is an obstacle to humanistic morality.

Examples are easy (consequences of sexual repression, oppression of women, gays, etc.).

132. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #81203 by jimbob on October 24, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Oops, there goes #9 again!

133. 'Dirty War' priest gets life term

Comment #77938 by jimbob on October 11, 2007 at 7:06 am

It'll be interesting to see how the likes of Bill Donohue will pass this one off as "catholic bashing."

134. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77502 by jimbob on October 9, 2007 at 12:48 pm

A course in proctology should be part of the preparation for all those jobs.

That way, there would be at least a chance that they would find their religious raison d'etre staring them in the face.

135. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77497 by jimbob on October 9, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Hey IPV4, I never said there were easy answers. I just asked a question which doesn't seem to occur to many of the people who are getting all hot and bothered by this issue.

With regard to Darfur, and other horrors, I'd like to see some organized political pressure on China.

I'd also like to see the UN actually try to live up to their "This will never happen again" slogan from their founding days.

Bit like the "United We Stand" 9-11 slogan, eh?

136. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77421 by jimbob on October 9, 2007 at 8:57 am

Please give us a clue as to what an answer to your question about the Middle East might look like.


Well, I guess the Israelis thought they knew the answer when they bombed Saddam's reactor in the early 1980s. That facility was being constructed with lots of French and Russian assistance if I recollect accurately --- and talking of "neocons," Ronald Reagan was one of the first to denounce the attack.

I guess the Kuwaitis and Saudis also had a clue when they welcomed coalition forces to their territory to prepare for Desert Storm?

Maybe IPV4 could take a shot at an answer?

Of course, definitive answers to my question are very hard and very uncertain --- especially compared to quick and easy slurs and slogans.

137. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77396 by jimbob on October 9, 2007 at 7:47 am

Dunno about a Nobel peace prize --- it kinda lost its aura after the architect of the Munich massacre got one!

With regard to the Iraq issues, here's a question: What would the Middle East look like today if nobody had confronted Saddam Hussein?

To me, Hitch and Hirsi Ali are some of the rare folks who have both the experience and the intellectual tools to address issues with a broad perspective. Like everybody, they are never always right -- but they darn well ought to be listened to carefully!

138. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #76294 by jimbob on October 5, 2007 at 11:22 am

Repent now you infidels and worship the one true Teapot -- otherwise HOLY WAR!

139. Hirsi Ali Returns to the Netherlands after Losing Body Guards

Comment #75719 by jimbob on October 3, 2007 at 1:01 pm

I wonder if a book could ever illustrate the difference between humanistic morality and theistic morality better than Infidel.

Every teacher, politician, and western female should read it (and so should everybody else!).

Good luck to you Aayan -- your intelligence and courage are inspirational!

140. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75634 by jimbob on October 3, 2007 at 7:14 am

Richard, I hope you get a chance to ask John Lennox why so many religious (moral?) folks blow off #9 almost every time they defend their faith, or argue against us rational naturalists (atheists).

141. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75333 by jimbob on October 2, 2007 at 11:10 am

As a side note I would like to add that the Superior Court refused to hear the appeal so the defendant named in the case will be taking it to the Supreme Court on the basis of infringment of Constitutional rights.


That would be nice if you could have any confidence in the supreme court on religion-related matters -- especially since the catholic bishops just gave their annual pep talk to the 5 catholic justices:

http://hnn.us/articles/16677.html

It's time there was pressure put on justices like Scalia to recuse himself from cases influenced by church doctrine. After all, since he has freely opined that "god's law"trumps human law, he can hardly said to be unbiased.

142. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75307 by jimbob on October 2, 2007 at 9:37 am

Perhaps we need to elaborate on the differences between humanistic morality and theistic morality?

Maybe a good elaboration of the former is at: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Note that this (and other) example(s) of humanistic morality allow freedom to practice religion -- but they don't say you can force it on others.

Contrast that with theistic morality whose advocates generally try to force it on everybody else.

143. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75266 by jimbob on October 2, 2007 at 7:39 am

The "out" campaign must have reached Winnipeg.

I was there last week, and I saw a gentleman walking about in the street with the following message written large and bold on the back of his shirt:

JESUS IS A C**T

I checked, and he wasn't Richard!

;-)

144. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75042 by jimbob on October 1, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Right after I posted the one above I found:

http://www.slate.com/id/2175047/

No doubt this bit of Hitch will have its own spot on this site. Have to endorse everything except the very last sentence though.

145. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75038 by jimbob on October 1, 2007 at 12:24 pm

The US and the current administration should be criticized for marching around the globe.


Maybe, but many of those critics change their tune when it's their turn to be oppressed or invaded. Ever heard the old one about the French hating the Americans until the Germans reach Paris?

I'm not saying the US does not legitimately attract criticism for its foreign policy. However, it's worthy of conjecture to consider how many inhabitants of various countries might actually welcome the appearance of US military right now?

146. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #74999 by jimbob on October 1, 2007 at 10:16 am

I would like to free everyone from the assumption you have to be religious in order to be a decent person or to be moral.


Perhaps we should argue more forcefully that religion is actually an obstacle to humanistic morality? While nobody disagrees with "the golden rule," it's the god squads who want to subject everybody to their (belief) version of god's rules --- gay = sinful for example.

147. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72191 by jimbob on September 20, 2007 at 2:00 pm

I don't where I saw this acronym (not my original idea), but perhaps we should lump all gods under the term "PESTS" (Putative Extraterrestrial Supernatural Things).

148. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72034 by jimbob on September 20, 2007 at 7:28 am

The ideology Dawkins is selling is the worship of competition. It is projecting a Thatcherite take on economics on to evolution. It's not an impartial scientific view; it's a political drama. It is wrong to link science with this one-sided contemptuous stuff, as if making out that people who disagree with him are idiots. There are many believing scientists. It's very misleading to reduce the debate to this level.


Oops, there goes #9 again!

149. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

Comment #72032 by jimbob on September 20, 2007 at 7:24 am

The implications of this may be more profound than they appear at first glance.

When you consider that radical islam claims that the jihad is against the "crusaders" you can, perhaps, see how some extra juice might get squeezed out of this lemon!

Also, it just occurred to me that RD mentioned in TGD that Bush I said atheists cannot be patriots because the US is "one nation under god."

Hope somebody asks the shrub about this one in public!

150. Faith schools should not be tax-funded, and here's why

Comment #72029 by jimbob on September 20, 2007 at 7:10 am

Jimbob,
Are you aware that the use of two first names in the states classifies one as an inbred, retarded, less than human, moonshine slurpin, hollows habitating, cousin marrying, bible thumpin, southern nitwit? Just thought you should know.


Of course I am Duff, but it's worse than that --- I'm also an atheist!

;-)

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next