101. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93584 by NormanDoering on December 3, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Thank you, arogop, for giving me your reasons. They are exactly what I thought - stupid.

I will take each one apart on my blog later tonight:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

102. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93572 by NormanDoering on December 3, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Come on, arogop. Either you have a reasonable, intelligent reason to be a Republican today or you have a stupid reason to be one. I assume it's stupid because I can't imagine a good reason to be a Republican.

Now is your chance to prove me wrong.

103. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93555 by NormanDoering on December 3, 2007 at 1:25 pm

See, I told you arogop was stupid.

Do you lump in the Log Cabin Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans, Libertarian Republicans, Kemp Republicans, etc. with your broad statements.

Yep. I do. They were all dumb enough to vote against their own self interests. The Log Cabin Republicans got Bush trying to add a marriage amendment to the constitution, the Rockefeller Republicans got the highest debt yet along with Libertarian Republicans who also got Terri Schiavo.

Would you like to actually win the atheist argument?

Yep, but that can wait. This time out I'm asking why are you so stupid. To answer that question you'll have to tell us why you are a Republican.

So, why are you a Republican considering everything they've done these last years? What do you think they did right?

104. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93532 by NormanDoering on December 3, 2007 at 12:00 pm

arogop wrote:

I am an atheist-Republican. I support science.

I would like to point out that that this makes arogop even stupider than a theist. It might be okay to have been a Republican, but it's not okay to be one now.

The Republicans have betrayed every principal of old fashioned conservatism they espoused. They're the ones driving up spending under Bush. Yea, Bush cut taxes, but he racked up trillions in debt.

Did you even see Bible-boy at the last Republican debate?
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/11/roves-frankenstein.html

105. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93221 by NormanDoering on December 2, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Science won't save the Republican party, but alas, it's not going to crush it into a bloody pulp either -- and that was something that could have been seen on the horizon back in 2001 and 2002. If embryonic stem cells had led to the incredible cures of the kind imagined (and outdated) in Ron Reagan junior's speech at the 2004 Democratic convention then Bush would have been toast. So, the Republicans are getting off easy -- they were lucky this time.

106. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92978 by NormanDoering on December 1, 2007 at 9:15 pm

7Fred7 wrote:

...It seems that the majority of people are rather less amenable. They seem to be more susceptible to the sort of emotionally charged claptrap delivered by many a dictator and religious zealot.

And I think there's a connection between being susceptible to emotionally charged claptrap and thinking that you're in "excellent mental health" when you hold a Bible in your trembling hands and say: "... how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book?"

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-evidence-of-republican-delusions.html

107. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92342 by NormanDoering on November 30, 2007 at 10:16 am

If you do not like what you saw in the Republican Primary then please help us all by voting in the Republican primary and make sure that the "sky fairy lovers" do not make it through. There are candidates out there that are not as bad.

Name one.

108. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92291 by NormanDoering on November 30, 2007 at 8:41 am

al-rawandi wrote:

George Bush said that the "jury was out on evolution".

Huckabee, along with Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo, was one of the three Republicans who raised their hands during the debate where they were asked if they don't believe in evolution. As for what should be taught in public schools, Huckabee said he wants "schools to acknowledge that there are views that are different than evolution."

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/11/roves-frankenstein.html

109. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92286 by NormanDoering on November 30, 2007 at 8:22 am

Of course they do, if anyone else here bothered to watch the most recent Republican debate you already know how bad it is. They had questions from average Americans and one guy waved around a Bible saying, I paraphrase from memory: "...how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? ... This book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?"

Every Repug candidate said they believed the Bible (which Bible?) was the word of God. They know nothing of the books real history.

This is one of the reasons Huckabee, a pastor, is on the rise:

Rove's Frankenstein

110. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91655 by NormanDoering on November 28, 2007 at 9:44 pm

yyuryyub's idea:

... to truly shake things up they should spend whatever money they can raise to translate TGD into as many languages as possible and post them on the net.

That's a pretty good idea. The net would reach the most people for the least cost. But how much internet access do they have in Turkey and the other Islamic / Middle Eastern countries and can their governments block sites? (Didn't Microsoft help China block access to certain sites?)

And would TGD be the best book to use? TGD fires its guns at Christianity.
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-to-end-islamic-terrorism-by.html

111. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91637 by NormanDoering on November 28, 2007 at 7:28 pm

35bluejacket wrote:

I have a sailboat that can haul about 5 tons of books. Anyone want to help in the smuggling business?

Okay, where do the 5 tons of books, all translated into the proper Turkish language, come from?

Don't you need a translator and a printer first?

And what about all the other languages you'll need for Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia...

112. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91521 by NormanDoering on November 28, 2007 at 1:41 pm

A movie? Even better than a book in some ways. But a book can be more easily smuggled:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-to-end-islamic-terrorism-by.html

113. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91518 by NormanDoering on November 28, 2007 at 1:34 pm

It gave me an idea.

How to end Islamic terrorism by engineering a violent revolution:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-to-end-islamic-terrorism-by.html

114. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91414 by NormanDoering on November 28, 2007 at 8:58 am

Would it be possible to print copies of the atheist books in all the common Muslim languages and smuggle them into places like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc..

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Hitchens could waive copyright for all Muslim language editions of their books and encourage black market smuggling of them.

Turkish law couldn't touch a publisher in England, Sweden, the U.S. or Canada.

Though, if you're going to do something like that you might consider writing a new book that's specially for Muslims and getting help from Ibn Warraq, Rushdie and others who know Islam better.

How far could you push that book? Could you suggest violent revolution against such laws?

115. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91246 by NormanDoering on November 27, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Arcturus wrote:

Every action that the christians take are offensive to infidels. Do you see any of us boycotting and making noise?

Every action? Like walking down the street?

As for seeing us boycotting and making noise... well, I've been boycotting every televangelist who has ever asked me for a dime since I was born. I've got a blog and I try to make noise when I have time.

Boycotting Christian rock and televangelists would be less effective than women boycotting Playboy, beer, wrestling and sports cars. (Was that sexist?)

116. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90394 by NormanDoering on November 25, 2007 at 2:04 am

'The terrorist killings in New York, Madrid and London were wrong. They were indiscriminate, un-Islamic and based on ideas abstracted to the point of insanity.' I was firmly told this by an ex-Mujahideen who fought in Afghanistan 20 years ago. He was an Islamist. I strongly doubt he was murderous.

So, how did your ex-Mujahideen friend feel about the death penalty for apostasy? Afghanistan certainly did, and in some places still does, have some pretty barbaric laws.

I'm sure it is complicated and I'm sure there is a wide variety of views in Islam -- but still, in the Arab world apostasy is still punishable by death, women in some places have to hide their faces and can't go anywhere without a male escort.

Dr Younus Shaikh's story:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/Younus_Sheikh/blasphemy.htm

117. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89674 by NormanDoering on November 21, 2007 at 1:01 pm

jimbob wrote:

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!

First, note that Rudy G is not on my short list of acceptable Repugs.

And if you think Huckabee won't nominate supreme court justices from the same mold as Thomas and Scalia then you haven't been paying attention.

118. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89627 by NormanDoering on November 21, 2007 at 9:31 am

Romney mustn't be elected, and his religion is part of the reason, but Mormonism is no worse than most religions.

There are only two Republicans in the race that would not be total disasters, possibly worse than Bush, and they are McCain and Romney.

If you think Romney is bad, think about Huckabee's religious beliefs. Huckabee thinks there will be duck hunting in heaven.

If Mormonism is no worse than most religions, than you have to admit that Romney is no worse than other candidates unless you have other reasons to think him a bad candidate.

119. Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

Comment #88421 by NormanDoering on November 16, 2007 at 2:35 pm

arogop wrote:

Reason enough to buy E85 fuel.

Reason enough to invest billions in creating the infrastructure needed for a wind/solar/hydrogen fuel economy.

120. Was religion beneficial to the development of society? Is it now?

Comment #82438 by NormanDoering on October 26, 2007 at 10:30 am

Here's an even more controversial statement that I fear might be true:

Religion was necessary in the development of embryonic civilization, and so was slavery.

121. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #82052 by NormanDoering on October 25, 2007 at 3:38 pm

I like Steven Mading's answer. He hits the basic points in the least words.

Even more condensed:

"How" and "why" ...way - they differ is that "why" is asking about motive instead of method. "Why" is asking what the INTENT was. ... in a debate about whether or not god exists then the moment you - ASK the question "why instead of how" the universe is the way it is, you have already generated a circular argument - ... very question... ASSUMES some sentience made things the way they are on purpose. ... to debate honestly, - FIRST you have to establish the sentient designer existing, and THEN you can act as if the inability to answer "why" is some kind of a weakness or deficiency. ...

There's another, more subtle, point to add to this because another assumption hidden in that question is the assumption that "intents," "purposes" and "motives" don't have "how" answers.

The hows and "whys" of why we have desires, intentions and motives are assumed by those of us with naturalistic beliefs to be rooted in biology, physics and the hows of the universe's workings. It's the root of most of neuroscience.

122. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77240 by NormanDoering on October 8, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Janus wrote:

Uh, Sam did say that.

Well, I blew it.

I'm really surprised and disappointed that he would say that.

123. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77227 by NormanDoering on October 8, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Conrad wrote:

...But when he [Sam] literally says that we shouldn't call ourselves anything, he doesn't seem to simply be against using the label as a crutch, he seems to against the label altogether. And that is where the contention is and where I'm sure he knew it would be. In opposition to his ideal, well meaning as it may be, I contend that not only is the label not a crutch, but a boon, and is just now at the very beginning of gathering steam. This of course, is in regards to the social climate in the US.

I hope you're right. I hope it picks up steam. However, I don't share your confidence. One of the things that happened in the polling done after all the atheists books came out was that more people decided they wouldn't vote for an atheist president.

I only hope they'll stop voting for fundy presidents.

The label is only as good as the hearer's comprehension of its meaning and most people, especially theists, don't comprehend it. They don't know how the brain "believes" anything:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-religious-mindfuck-really-works.html

On the other hand it is a "flag" we're all gathering under and there is no other good alternative. So, you've got a good point and you might be right.

124. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77212 by NormanDoering on October 8, 2007 at 7:28 pm

PZ claims that Harris said:

"We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar--for the rest of our lives."

I don't recall that "for the rest of our lives" part being said by Sam. Now, who is using a dishonest rhetorical tactic rather than addressing the issues brought up?

Sam was muddled in his little essay and talk, that's all you have to call him on: "What the hell are you talking about, Sam? Please explain what exactly you think we should do?"

I tried to interpret him here:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1723,Response-to-My-Fellow-Atheists,Sam-Harris,page2#77186

But people are making some good points against that interpretation.

125. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77186 by NormanDoering on October 8, 2007 at 5:34 pm

sbe wrote:

Whether people like to believe it or not, atheism is in fact a choice. Even if you "just always knew god didn't exist", you still arrived at a conclusion about religion and the supernatural and *CHOSE* to accept the non-existence of god/the supernatural as the most plausible or obvious conclusion.

I don't think that makes as much sense as you seem to think it does.

If atheism is a choice, then there should be some alternative choice - or there is no choice. So you should be able to chose to be a theist.

But can you really choose your beliefs? Could you chose to believe in Zeus? In unicorns? Beliefs are supposed to come from our best efforts to determine how the world really works. Beliefs are not supposed to be choices.

Rational people are supposed to come to the same rational conclusion -- but we don't. The only real conclusion is this: "I don't know if there is a God." I don't even know what someone else means by the word "God." But I sure ain't taking that kind of crap on anyone's human authority.

If God wants me to know -- he'll tell me. He hasn't, so the rest of the religious world can shut its trap.

The point of Sam's last essays is not to get rid of the labels, but rather to stop leaning on them like a crutch -- like they were part of any argument. Atheism is the conclusion, it can't be a step in the arguments. No one will consider you open minded if you don't admit you don't know.

Not knowing, however, doesn't mean swallowing all the bullshit religious people throw at you. You don't have to see yourself as an atheist to start rejecting the bullshit. That's where a lot of people are, they're "not knowing" and trying to reason it through.

126. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76063 by NormanDoering on October 4, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Bonzai made some good points:

There is no overarching "enemy" in the form of religious belief (or believers) unless you think all religious beliefs inevitably leads to reactionary religious meddling in politics and anyone who has a theistic belief automatically favours some degrees of theocracy. It is a very simplistic view it doesn't give enough credit to people. Many religious believers do understand that society should be governed by secular laws because they are well aware that believers of the "wrong religions" often suffer the most under a theocratic regime, even more than non believers.

and:

I don't see that as "war" except in a very, very loose metaphorical way but obviously the "we are at war" crowd are not talking about philosophical bantering. It is war when you debate something on actual political importance (like teaching creationism and same sex marriage) but in those cases the religious moderates are not the enemies.

It does bring up the issue of "moderates" being "enablers" and being confused about what atheism is, for example, this post on Sullivan's site:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/spinning-atheis.html

The problem with having no name for atheism is that it allows the atheists (people who choose to believe there is no god) to fudge the distinction between themselves and agnostics (people who assert that they do not know whether there is a god, and/or that it is impossible to know whether there is a god). That would be beneficial P.R. for the atheists, because agnostics are quite a bit more popular than atheists.

What the atheists are avoiding is that their position, no less than that of theists, rests squarely on faith. ...

A lot of people just don't understand how belief works:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-religious-mindfuck-really-works.html

127. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75725 by NormanDoering on October 3, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Jack Rawlinson wrote:

NormanDoering writes: "...it [the word 'atheist'] focuses attention on the least consequential part of the atheist arguments -- whether there is or isn't a god."

Firstly, I'm staggered to think you regard that as the least consequential part of it. It's the central part from which all else flows!

Nope. I don't think anything much flows from mere atheism except a defense against getting taken in by religious bullshit. There's a lot of non-religious bullshit to be taken in by too. (And it hasn't defended Sam from some parts of Buddhist and paranormal bullshit, the guy is still learning.)

What exactly do you think flows from mere atheism?

There are also quite a few theists with political views very similar to my own. They are not all fundy, right-wing conservatives. I think some theists, like Andrew Sullivan, in spite of having a few crazy religious beliefs, are on to something more workable with his ideas of a "conservatism" of doubt. He's rationally defended against some of the worst of theistic thinking. While I'm not so conservative I think he's on to something with the "doubt" part.

Sullivan would agree: No one has the right to speak on behalf of God in a dictatorial political sense. That's what the enemy we all have to fight together believes.

... once we start discussing things other than our shared lack of belief, we're all over the map! So it makes total sense to unite behind that one central thing which definitely does unite us.

I think you'll find that discussing only our shared lack of belief gets pretty old fast. There's really not much to say until we start actually looking at what others believe.

128. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75644 by NormanDoering on October 3, 2007 at 7:49 am

Yorker wrote:

We label Intelligent Design supporters as Creationists with a new name. Religites will say:

"Those people (insert name here) are just atheists with a new name".

They will do so rightly, but only if your new name becomes well enough known to be talked about. The chances of that I estimate, are close to zero.

Not necessarily. Not if we come up with something more inclusive for political purposes only. If we can come up with a name that will include theists like Andrew Sullivan and such.

You have to think about where you want to draw the line. I'd suggest looking at the political candidates running for president and find a label expansive enough to at least include one of them, like Barack Obama.

You either include yourself in the political process or you exclude yourself.

129. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75636 by NormanDoering on October 3, 2007 at 7:22 am

I agreed with Sam on the idea that "atheism" is a bad label to stick a movement with before he wrote this. I liked "Bright" though. One of the things wrong with it, (and I wrote of it here):

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/thank-you-mother-teresa-youve-shown-me.html

is that it focuses attention on the least consequential part of the atheist arguments -- whether there is or isn't a god. It's not about whether something like God exists or doesn't exist so much as whether you can make any claims about knowing anything about God. It's those claims that screw up people's heads so badly when they believe them. For example, consider how much there is to agree with in the works of non-atheists like Thomas Paine and Voltaire in their criticism of religion. Much of what they had to say about religion is still relevant today and is still rejected by most religious people.

130. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75423 by NormanDoering on October 2, 2007 at 3:29 pm

revcort quotes Michael Grant:

Michael Grant, from his book, Jesus: An Historian's Review:

"...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Let me get this straight, revcort, you actually believe that Jason, of Jason and the Argonauts, fought a giant many headed Hydra and stole a magical golden fleece? You think that Odysseus fought the Cyclops? You think that Alexander the Great was really a god? You think that the Buddha could really levitate, multiply his body and read people's minds?

131. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75321 by NormanDoering on October 2, 2007 at 10:15 am

gr8hands wrote:

NormanDoering, sorry, but the Josephus entry about jesus has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, ...

Did you bother to check out the link I provided?
http://www.jesus.com.au/html/page/josephus

It's all about "The 'Testimonium Flavianum'" probably being forged -- or rather altered. But I've never heard anyone say that Josephus' entry about the execution of Jesus' brother, James, was forged. Christians wouldn't have forged something that suggests James and Jesus were violent rebels. That part is different than the 'Testimonium Flavianum.'

132. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75300 by NormanDoering on October 2, 2007 at 9:14 am

brother john wrote:

Plenty of verifiable evidence or indicators for your 1) and 3).

Points 1 and 3 are:
1) Jesus actually existed.
3) The Bible is an accurate account of what he said.

I would say there is probable evidence that some man (not a god) named Jesus did exist and preach in the time and place attributed to him much the same way there really was an L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, living in the time and place attributed to him, but that real Hubbard wasn't the man Scientologists think he was.

However, it should be noted that Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish writer who lived in Jesus' time and place and who wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean never once wrote anything about Jesus Christ. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea and his views foreshadowed Christian theology:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#9

Jesus does show up curiously late in the historical texts, decades after he preached, in the writings of Flavious Josephus with some note of probable Christians in Tacitus and other places. Josephus wrote decades after Jesus allegedly died (dying about 30 or 40 AD/CE), while Josephus writes also of the battles of 70 AD/CE, after the destruction of the Jewish Temple, after Judea is sacked and turned into a Roman city, and even events beyond that time. Tacitus also includes much later events.

http://www.jesus.com.au/html/page/josephus

As to the Bible being "an accurate account of what he said" that is seriously doubtful. Are you aware, brother john, of the Gospels that are not in the Bible? The Gospel of Thomas? The Gospel of Judas? The documents concerning Jesus life are contradictory and only the editing out of some books makes the story coherent.

Also, Flavious Josephus writes not only (and briefly) about Jesus, but about the death of Jesus' brother James and what's there suggests there was another, purely Jewish and more violently rebellious and anti-Roman, "Christianity" that never made it into any of the Gospels or the New Testament. If you read the New Testament as a history of the beginnings of Christianity, you may not even notice James, who suddenly appears at verse 12, Chapter 17, of the Acts of the Apostles without introduction or explanation, as the head of the community of believers at Jerusalem.

Jesus brother in both Josephus and the NT may be one of the few good hints, from my view, that there really was a historical Jesus, but the historical Jesus is not the one we see in the NT. There are, as I said before, other Gospels than the 4 that have been included in the New Testament. Which ones got in and which ones were left out was not decided until about 300 years after Jesus' crucifixion. It was decided by people who had no real knowledge of which of them were more accurate.

It just suits your purposes to deny its existence. ...

You are right say "Most here would argue...no reliable extra-biblican evidence..." Of course you argue that. If you once admit that there is reliable evidence around - biblical or extra-biblical - then your case falls.

No, it doesn't. It's one of many theories. And the reason there are many theories is because no one really knows. You, brother john, do not have as much evidence as you think you do.

133. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75093 by NormanDoering on October 1, 2007 at 7:02 pm

revcort wrote:

When Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he was not saying than an adulteress is not worthy of death. He was simply saying that God was the only one in a position to condemn her. The purpose in the Old Testament of stoning the adulteress was the responsibility of the nation itself, not individuals within that nation. A nation has right to inflict judgments and punishments that individuals have no right to inflict. This is the way God has set it up. The purpose of this command was to keep the nation pure.

Yea, that's about what the Muslim theocrats say in societies like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan about God's law when they execute gays, adulterers and apostates.

Sharia law still has stoning verdicts against aldultering women in Islamic states, Google it. It's happened in Nigeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In every case of adultery I've heard of, it is only the woman who is to be stoned to death, just like in Biblical times it seems. The man on the other hand does not get as much as a reprimand.

Doesn't adultery require two?

The Old Testament describes various adulterous acts and stipulates that those indulging in them should be "put to death" (Leviticus 20:10-21).

According to John 8:1-11, it was only for those who were free of sin themselves, resulting in that it did not take place.

Revcort would have us go back to Old Testament/Taliban rules as long as it's the "society" and not any individual who throws the rocks.

In Islam all three Abrahamic religions are viewed as a continuation of each other.

The Koran does not prescribe stoning as the punishment for adultery at all. It prescribes flogging, "(giving) a hundred stripes."

134. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #74983 by NormanDoering on October 1, 2007 at 9:32 am

Bonzai wrote:

I know someone working on a Ph.D. in theology. Her thesis is a comparison of some aspects of Christianity and Confucianism. To do so she has to acquire a reading knowledge of Latin and ancient Chinese. To me that sounds like a legitimate Ph.D.

So I am afraid I disagree with Dawkins on this one.

Did you miss the last paragraph?

Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God", a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today's universities.

It sounds like your Ph.D. friend is really working on language, ancient literature, psychology and "conceptual archaeology." Studying people's different ideas about God is not a study of God, but of the human mind dancing with ideas and beliefs.

135. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74810 by NormanDoering on September 30, 2007 at 3:29 pm

walk wrote:

WE are not claiming ANYTHING.

Speak for yourself.

I'll make some claims:

1) Religions evolve. We have a fossil record of dead religions, Egyptian, Sumerian, the ancient Norse religion, Aztec, etc. etc.. Modern religions reflect on their memetic inheritance.

2) There are dead religions far older than Judaism, the root religion of Christianity, that are distinctly different in many respects.

3) Evidence wise, the believers in all other religions will make similar claims and none of them can beat the others on evidence (except maybe, today, Buddhism because of meditation effects).

4) The vast majority of believers in any religion inherit their belief from their parents and local culture. Conversions to and from local religions is rare -- conversion to atheism and agnosticism is more frequent.

5) These claims are facts and a part of the evidence against religion.

136. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74577 by NormanDoering on September 29, 2007 at 3:30 pm

brother john's evidence for the demonic:

I've read reliable accounts. I've had some experience of it. It happened in Jesus's day. It happens nowadays. Open to genuine research if someone took the trouble, beginning with an open mind – not so open that everything falls out. That's not an open mind. That's credulity.

A few quick questions for brother john:

What makes for a reliable account of anything?

How does one know that one is interpreting ones experience correctly?

What constitutes "genuine" research?

137. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74563 by NormanDoering on September 29, 2007 at 2:34 pm

brother john wrote:

I realise demon possession may be a big problem for many, but, it is factual.

There's a big problem with religion right there.

How exactly is demon possession factual? Because it's in the Bible? Because it's in the Bible and a few priests have supposedly performed exorcisms?

There's a lot of crazy shit in the Bible -- Christians are supposed to drink poison and handle snakes. If you have a mustard seed worth of faith you should be able to move mountains. I've heard theologians arguing for the bodily ascension of Jesus into the sky. I mean, dude, where did his body go? You think heaven is up in the sky? What's up there is 350,000 feet worth of atmosphere and then the vacuum of space and the Van Allen radiation belts. Where did Jesus' body go? To the Moon? Is Heaven hiding behind a cloud? If it all weren't so tragically insane it would be funny.

There's a lot of news stories like this about exorcisms:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0729exorcism0730.html
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17508/fatal-exorcism
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20070220/ai_n18622668

Modern scientific evidence just doesn't support any claims for demons and demonic possession. Where is the evidence for this being factual?

138. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74413 by NormanDoering on September 28, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Brother John,

I asked before, here:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them,Richard-Dawkins-The-Independent,page17#74136

You say your Christianity is all about being good and nice:

It obviously DOES NOT MEAN that if you think it's fine to torture, kill, rape, abuse children and adults etc ...

But it seems to me the actual content of the Bible will undermine that belief because the Bible does torture, kill, abuse children and adults etc... Moses, supposedly by God's orders, had the Hebrews killing Golden Calf worshipers, Midianites and plenty others. Jesus started talking about hell, a place of eternal torture.

Don't such stories undermine "What our conscience tells us"?

What are the consequences of believing in God who damns people to hell, orders his followers to war, and tells you if you really had faith you could move mountains with it.

139. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74234 by NormanDoering on September 27, 2007 at 10:26 pm

CHeard wrote:

...and Hitchens makes several elementary errors when talking about the Bible (and I do mean just objectively false statements, never mind religious convictions or lack of same).

Oh, really? That sounds a bit like the stock criticism Dawkins was talking about in the leprechology article above. You assume your sources are more correct than Hitchens?

And revcort would assume that the "Answers in Genesis" web site is a more correct source on arguments about the age of the Earth than your average geologist.

Why be vague. What are these errors?

140. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74233 by NormanDoering on September 27, 2007 at 10:05 pm

BAEOZ wrote:

Do christian scholars (or did they) think that Plato was an honarary christian? His dialogue Crito talks about souls, heaven and hell (sort of) and immortality.

If my memory serves me right, Dante's Inferno put a pope in hell and in his The Divine Comedy he put some famous pre-Christian Greeks in heaven, I think Plato was among them. When the main character narrating the poem asks an angel "how could this be? They didn't know Christ -- how could they believe?" (badly paraphrased that) the angel just tells him that it's none of his business, he was told what he needed to "believe," not what others needed.
In some ways Christianity is more Greek than Jewish. The New Testament was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew, and the Jews had been under foreign rulers, sometimes puppet rulers (like Herod), since before Alexander the Great conquered Persia. The Romans inherited Judah/Judea/Israel from the Greeks.
In Greek history, the Jews hardly show up as a footnote in Alexander's conquests. When Alexander got the Jewish lands they were already a conquered state in some primitive backwater that needed civilizing.
The concepts of heaven and hell don't really show up in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament a few people got physically taken up into the sky (heaven) while they were still alive and a few got swallowed by the Earth, but it's not like the strange new concepts that show up in the New Testament after the Jews started hearing and incorporating Greek ideas, and Plato's ideas.
Religions evolve and cross breed.

141. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74185 by NormanDoering on September 27, 2007 at 3:21 pm

steve99 wrote, RE: "The Fabric of Reality," by David Deutsch :

... some of his ideas are definitely on the margins,...

I know. But the incredible scale of the universe he imagines -- take our already incredibly large universe and multiple that by trillions upon trillions upon trillions more parallel universes linked at the quantum realm.

He ties it to other theories well -- to evolution, for example -- no matter how improbable such an event is in Deutsch's universe it is inevitable.

It's a "wow!" theory whether it's true or not.

142. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74173 by NormanDoering on September 27, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Goatsbane J wrote:

James Gleick's Chaos is on my reading list! I'll look forward to it.

It's not on my list - yet - but I'd suggest "The Fabric of Reality," by David Deutsch for a good "WOW!" experience.

143. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74136 by NormanDoering on September 27, 2007 at 11:25 am

brother john, a priest of 70 years, wrote:

No wonder we Christians get on atheist nerves and some of them spit blood at the mention of us.

You don't get on my nerves as much as revcort. But I've got a few questions for you about problematic scriptural texts to mull over:

Some Christian individuals and groups have given enormous scandal over the centuries by their hatefilled, intolerant, un-Christlike behaviour...

... God is concerned about using the concept of CONSCIENCE. ... those parts of the Scriptures that give us the mind of God ... God wants us to follow our consciences: those feelings about right and wrong that we have in us. It is our moral duty to do this... He will judge us: on how well we have followed that inner light - even if it leads us to say: I can't believe in God... It obviously DOES NOT MEAN that if you think it's fine to torture, kill, rape, abuse children and adults etc - as the military junta in Burma do, to give just one present horrifying example - then God will accept you. HE MOST CERTAINLY WILL NOT.

But the god of the Bible does torture, kill, abuse children and adults etc... Moses, supposedly by God's orders, had the Hebrews killing Golden Calf worshipers, Midianites and plenty others. Jesus started talking about hell, a place of eternal torture. Don't such stories undermine "What our conscience tells us"?

What our conscience tells us is CRUCIAL as a guide to individual and social life.

Not all humans have the same sort of conscience. A certain segment of morality and conscience (such as sexual mores for example) is culturally determined. It's better to recognize these parts as cultural creations than attribute them to God.

God does expect us TO GIVE SERIOUS THOUGHT to our moral principles.

What about giving thought to the moral principles of God? A God who floods the Earth, fire bombs cities, tortures unbelievers in hell, etc..

... what we believe can have enormous consequences for our well being and that of others.

Indeed. So, what are the consequences of believing in God who damns people to hell, orders his followers to war, and tells you if you really had faith you could move mountains with it.

Those moral principles that we accept as our personal code must reflect, as best we know how, love, fairness, compassion, mutual respect, the inalienable right to freedom, commitment to truth and peaceful coexistence etc.

Does that really come from the Bible? Or does the Bible undermine that?

144. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74095 by NormanDoering on September 27, 2007 at 8:13 am

revcort wrote:

As I was praying this morning, God revealed something to me that is very important.

Like others have said -- I'd like to know how you know it was God who revealed this and not the people here.

... my arrogant attitude at times has been nothing short of blasphemous. So, I am sorry to all of you.

I realized this morning that I know almost nothing of God. I have no right to speak for Him in matters that are not clearly spelled out in the Scripture, and I have at times.

You now admit that you know almost nothing of God, so how far does that go? What matters are "clearly spelled out in the Scripture" and which are not?

Is the creation of the Earth 6,000 or so years ago spelled out? Is the sun standing still in the sky spelled out? Is the anti-abortion plank of the Republican party spelled out? Is no marriage for gays spelled out?

Are they spelled out any clearer than the fact that you're suppose to be able to handle snakes, drink poison, move mountains by faith and castrate yourself?

145. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73847 by NormanDoering on September 26, 2007 at 10:43 am

Trilobyterian quoted thusly:

I love Northern Bright's comment: "You have to show that God exists AT ALL before it can be a serious undertaking to analyse whether or not he takes sugar in his coffee."

Before you can show that God exists you have to define what you mean by God. People will say things like "math is God. Math exists. Therefore God exists," and stuff like that.

And I really don't think that's the best place to start. You are focusing on the wrong assertions. It's not about whether something like a God exists or doesn't exist so much as whether you can make any claims about knowing anything about God.

revcort makes his claims based on the supposed revelations in an ancient book and some sense that God has acted on him.

In the end there is a lot to agree with in the works of non-atheists like Thomas Paine and Voltaire in their criticism of religion. Much of what they had to say about religion is still relevant today and is still rejected by most religious people.

I made that point here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/thank-you-mother-teresa-youve-shown-me.html

I add more weight to that argument here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-religious-mindfuck-really-works.html

146. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73844 by NormanDoering on September 26, 2007 at 10:29 am

Would you guys help me with something?

revcort isn't the first fundy I've met on the net who has said ignorant crap like: "Do you realize that a person who claims with absolute certainty that there is no god must claim absolute knowledge? Atheism is intellectual suicide." Or believed in creationism, demons and that the sun once stood still in the sky.

There once was this guy, called himself AFdave, who said very similar stuff on another forum like this.

So, what I wanted to do was to collect website links where you could find these guys making these kind claims and compare.

If you know any others, drop by my blog and leave a link to the site where you found them. Here's the blog:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/mindfucked.html

147. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73615 by NormanDoering on September 25, 2007 at 2:36 pm

This one is from Origen (lifetime c. 183–253 CE, writing in On First Principles, IV.iii.1). The great Jerome—you know, the one responsible for translating the Bible into Latin—called Origen "the greatest teacher of the Church since the apostles," in his preface to his Latin translation of Origen's Greek Homilies on Ezekiel

Origen--you know, the one who who took this passage literally and castrated himself:

Matthew 19:12
"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

148. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73607 by NormanDoering on September 25, 2007 at 1:02 pm

God: "What should we do with this CHeard fellow?"

revcort: "Well, I was kind of upset with the way all the atheists kept complimenting him and deriding me, so I was kind of hoping you could, well, turn up the heat on him, if you like."

God: "I knew you'd say that, I'm omniscient you know. But I asked that because I wanted you to understand what's going to happen next... You apparently have never heard the Gospel According to Fred, 3:1 -- It states thusly: The Hell Law says that Hell is reserved exclusively for them that believe in it. Further, the lowest Rung in Hell is reserved for them that believe in it on the supposition that they'll go there if they don't."

God pulls a lever and revcort starts falling into hell.

revcort: "No fair! I never read this Gospel According to Fred."

God: "That's your fault. My Discordian followers had it all over the internet."

revcort: "But it's absurd!"

God: "Not as absurd as what you believed."

149. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73603 by NormanDoering on September 25, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Galactor wrote:

revcort (630)... You reel off a list of preposterous, laughable, derisable, contemptible biblical tenets in which you have absolute faith and belief. You clearly understand what it is that atheists and moderate Christians have trouble with - the plausibility of it all which has been highlighted to you in this whole thread - one ridiculous notion after the other.

Don't blame revcort, God reached into his mind and turned him into a loony. He knows no one can believe this crap until God induces the proper brain damage. You just have to pray to God until you're insane enough to be saved.

150. The Saudi connection that belittles Britain

Comment #73553 by NormanDoering on September 25, 2007 at 9:12 am

tieInterceptor asked:

Have you guys seen the president of Iran, Ahmadinejad pulling an Al-taquiyya move? He is asked about gay executions, and he starts rambling about drug trafficking, then he is asked again, he is cornered "why we execute homosexuals in Iran?"

Ahmadinejad is dangerous and religiously delusional, but keep something in mind: There may be radically different cultural concepts and translation problems going on when trying to talk about homosexuality. Ahmadinejad speaks Farsi, not English, and has to be translated. It sounds like "gay" got translated into something that means merely "sexual criminal" with the emphasis on the "criminal."

I don't think Ahmadinejad was able to understand the question due to an Orwellian distortion that's happening to the Farsi language.

I blogged on it:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/no-gays-in-iran.html