Comments by kkant
101. Polish woman wins abortion case
Comment #26644 by kkant on March 20, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Yes Beth, when I said "religious stupidity" I was referring to the doctors and the government, not this unfortunate woman.
102. Polish woman wins abortion case
Comment #26623 by kkant on March 20, 2007 at 5:49 pm
[[When Alicja Tysiac became pregnant in February 2000, three eye specialists told her having another baby could put her eyesight at serious risk.]]
I think the article makes it pretty clear that she was told about the problem after pregnancy. I am glad she got the money, but what a terrible scandal. Do we need a more drastic demonstration of the stupidity caused by religion? When will it end?
103. The Fourth Flea!
Comment #26616 by kkant on March 20, 2007 at 5:38 pm
iwentdowntotheriver, I think you are right about reading the material before judgment. However, after hearing the same illogical nonsensical fallacies repeated again and again and AGAIN from theists, one can perhaps be forgiven for being a bit hasty with the latest anti-atheist polemic.
104. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible
Comment #26614 by kkant on March 20, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Yes, I agree Nails. If the teacher was really just doing what you did, the parents wouldn't have found issue with it. He obviously went way out of line with Nazi comparisons etc.
105. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible
Comment #26571 by kkant on March 20, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I'm glad to see common sense and justice prevail. The gall of that teacher, pretending that he was just teaching "critical thinking". If that's all he was doing, it is almost certain that no one would have raised a fuss about it--in fact, I'm sure most of the parents would have been pleased. So, once again, the religious person is *lying* in order to spread his gospel.
But you just know the religites are going to claim they're being thrown to the lions. Look at the wording of the headline.
107. US TV Commercial for The God Delusion during Countdown with Keith Olbermann
Comment #26541 by kkant on March 20, 2007 at 7:43 am
This is pretty cool! Will this ad be shown more than once? Is it a part of Keith Olbermann's show, or is a standalone ad? It looks like the former to me. Will RD be getting an interview on that show?
An NYT bestseller for 6 months. This is really great news. I just hope all the sales aren't going to fundie book burnings. :D
108. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village
Comment #26492 by kkant on March 19, 2007 at 5:43 pm
phiwilly: It's true that moderates don't *agree* with the likes of Pat Robertson. However, their support of the ideas of faith and religious toleration does give legitimacy to the fundamentalists' view, as something that is taboo to criticize. When someone says "I believe in creation", it is considered cruel and insensitive and mean and intolerant to say that this belief is not true. Any other belief can be discussed reasonably. If you say "it's going to rain today", we can disagree and have a discussion or argument, and neither one of us feels insulted. This general difference in the treatment of ideas leads to bigger problems. Someone can say "God told me to go to war", and that is enough. We back off, it's a matter of faith, so we don't ask for evidence, and we turn to other arguments for/against war. We respect that person even more for having that faith--such is the nature of religion. That whispering from God hangs in the back of the discussion as a silent pro-war force in the mind of the moderate, because the moderate can't deny faith. Imagine the difference in treatment, if the speaker had instead said "The planets are aligned, so it's time to go to war". Both statements have the same evidentiary basis: none.
On the issue of onus probandi: I think you are correct in your assessment. Rationalists assume God doesn't exist, while religious folks of any flavor assume God does exist. I am a rationalist, so I am biased. Yet I still think that the rationalist position is the objectively correct one. The reason is simple. I can make the following statement to a religious person: "I walked on water today. Really I walked on the surface of the water all the way from New York to Liverpool." If the religious person questions me or doubts me or assumes that I am lying until I prove otherwise, then their assumption about God is logically inconsistent. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as Sagan said, and there is no objectively legitimate reason to exclude God myths from that requirement.
Phil writes:
[[A bit too sophisticated wasn't quite what I had in mind.]]
Yes, indeed. It's funny how they can simply proclaim their completely made-up theological contortions as something too sophisticated for the likes of us, thereby "legitimizing" them with no basis whatsoever. The argument from big words.
109. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village
Comment #26471 by kkant on March 19, 2007 at 1:55 pm
phiwilli writes:
[[The rational skeptics should be (but aren't) willing to say that moderate/liberal religious folk do not support religious fanaticism.]]
Maybe this was a typo, but... Do you think religious moderates do not support fundamentalism? I think the argument that Sam Harris (and RD too I believe) make is quite convincing--that religious moderation idolizes and legitimizes faith (belief without evidence), which is what fundamentalism depends on. Once you make faith the ideal, you can't criticize fundamentalism. Anything goes, so a "fundamental faith" is as legitimate and valid as a "moderate faith".
110. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village
Comment #26423 by kkant on March 19, 2007 at 8:17 am
Mango writes:
[[I was bemused by his daughter's feeble attempts at understanding the world. I hope you all were as well. She's seems like the kind of young woman you often overhear at a coffee shop waxing philosophical to her friends, "I mean, like, there's totally too much irrationality in the world for there not to be a rational Creator, right?"]]
Indeed. These theists seem to think it lends credence to their cause if they find someone who "tried" atheism and came back to theism. Fortunately for their purposes "tried" doesn't have to mean "thought about seriously". I have heard people actually lying about their past (claiming to be past atheists) in order to convert people to theism. When you're bringing people to God, it seems any kind of dishonesty is justifiable.
Comment #26363 by kkant on March 18, 2007 at 11:15 pm
cham writes:
[[This has been an great opportunity for people to hear wonderful arguments against the logic of it, but Sam has done nothing to offer a different alternative, a different view of the history of religion, an idea of how the Bible could have evolved]]
The history of religion has not really been the subject of this conversation. However the Bible evolved, it's still a non-factual fairy tale. If you want to find out more about the early history of Christianity and arguments demonstrating that there probably was no historical Jesus, see:
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/
112. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'
Comment #26362 by kkant on March 18, 2007 at 10:59 pm
mrcosine, that's a hoax. Don't believe everything you see. There are lots of scam artists around. :) All it takes is a couple of people in on the scam, and the whole crowd in that audience (the "first hand witnesses") think they're seeing a miracle. There are plenty of non-Christian con-artists who do miracles too. For example the hindu guru Sai Baba: I heard someone say they saw him turning flowers into golden chains or something--another "first hand account" of a "miracle". These are cheap magic tricks, nothing more.
Ask yourself this: if God answers prayers, why wouldn't God answer the prayers of all the other blind people in the world? Why just this one guy? If God answered prayers, all the diseases of the earth would be miraculously cured out of existence long ago. For more information on the illusion of prayer, visit this site:
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
113. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village
Comment #26322 by kkant on March 18, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Hmm. AEI. Where's Pantore? ;) One line from him, and all this tedious rubbish from Michael Novak can be put in the bin.
Actually, let's just toss it in the bin regardless. What a waste of pixels. Yet another idiot who wishfully thinks Hitler and Stalin represented rationality; when in fact they were both exactly the opposite. What really sucks is that there are probably a whole lot of people who will read this article and believe it.
Like a lot of theists, Novak just ignores the arguments that he doesn't like or that he can't deal with. Like the fact that Sweden and many other countries are very healthy societies, while also being predominantly atheist.
Novak has also written that the US is founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and that Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of Christianity. Someone find me the "no graven images" section of US law.
Here's hoping to the day when we can finally put all these lies behind us.
BTW, nice post BaronOchs.
114. Interview with Steven Pinker
Comment #26081 by kkant on March 16, 2007 at 3:04 pm
After making my comments above, I just watched RD's appearance on Colbert again:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/10/colbert_dawkins.html
And I've gotta say, that was pretty funny. RD does a great job handling the curve balls, and Colbert is in fine form.
115. Interview with Steven Pinker
Comment #26066 by kkant on March 16, 2007 at 12:20 pm
tieInterceptor writes:
[[Colbert use to be funnier I think.]]
I agree. It's really too bad. :(
His funniest moments are when he is interviewing the religious right types, or when he can continuously lampoon himself, the character he represents. Remember his interview of Congressman Westmoreland, about the 10 commandments? That was really absolutely brilliant:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/06/ten_commandment.html
Also his insanely funny speech at the national press dinner--you can see Bush is not happy at all, sitting next to him and listening:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879
And of course, the famous "godless sodomites" thing, which got Fred Phelps (the godhatesfags guy) all upset. :)
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/28/jon-stewart-and-stephen-colbert-are-winners-at-the-emmys
He is not nearly as funny when interviewing the "good guys": Dawkins, Pinker, etc etc. I think this is mainly because the positions of the religious right (ID, 10 commandments, etc) are so ignorant and ridiculous that they are easily lampoonable. But when Harris or Dawkins come on his show, they have a serious and thoughtful message that you can't make fun of, and all that's left is Colbert lampooning his own act. Which he does well, but it is of necessity intermittent, and the serious message doesn't mix well with it.
Comment #26042 by kkant on March 16, 2007 at 7:54 am
Atticus_of_Amber writes:
[[Though I agree it's an effective strategy for making oneself feel better.]]
Calling the facts is an effective strategy for making oneself feel better? Fine, then what's the problem? If you think my facts are wrong, please feel free to show me how. I prefer not to treat adults with kid gloves. We've been treating religion with kid gloves for quite a long time, and it hasn't worked--although I can agree with Logicel's point that it probably depends on the individual.
Conversation or debate, whatever; this is clearly an *argument*, whichever style it is (and I do agree of course that this is a *conversational* argument, not a strictly defined debate). My only reason for bringing up a rule of debate was to point out how Andrew was unfairly unbalancing the conversation. Ignoring most of the other guy's points until way later does not make a reasonable conversation. It muddies the waters and makes for a very confused conversation, where it appears that both sides have merit when in fact that is not the case.
Logicel writes:
[[And carefully listening and responding to the concerns of another is the intellectually honest basis to conversation. And Sullivan has only managed to accomplish this aspect in this last letter.]]
I definitely agree with the first sentence. But I think Sullivan has only started to address Sam's points. There are several consequences to Sullivan's admissions, which Sam has already discussed previously, and Sullivan continues to ignore those. Hopefully Sullivan will answer the rest of Sam's points. I'll believe it when I see it.
Comment #25980 by kkant on March 15, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Atticus_of_Amber-- I agree with Janus. Furthermore, the rules of debate are not just for creating a "sporting event". They are there to create a balanced argument.
Andrew is smart enough to know when he is ignoring an argument, and he did this willfully. I'm going to call him on it, whether he is emotionally attached or not. Treating this as a conversation is no excuse. In conversation or debate, whether I am emotionally attached or not, I listen to the person I am talking to and do my best to not ignore what the other has to say. So does any intellectually honest person. Right at the outset, for example, he could have admitted to his specific Christian beliefs. Why didn't he do this? He was too emotionally attached to...what? No. He's not a fragile baby. He didn't admit those things because he didn't want to discuss an argument that he knew was a losing proposition. IMO that was a cold, reasoned decision.
And yes I do think Sam happens to be right, and I'm going to cheer him on.
If calling Andrew on his intellectual dishonesty is "denigrating", well, if the garment fits... I'm perfectly fine "serving reasoned conversation" if he is able to converse reasonably. Perhaps if he really does answer or concede the *myriad* points and questions that Sam brings up (and are so far *still* ignored), then I will admit that we have a reasonable conversation.
118. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'
Comment #25971 by kkant on March 15, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Robert-- I don't remember that study. Do you have a page number in TGD to point me to it?
In any case, I think the problem with this particular ASU analysis is that it imports the problems of the most unscientific tests in the group, while simultaneously attempting to import the good reputations of the properly done scientific experiments.
I would agree with Mr. Stenger quoted by John P above. Individual well-formed experiments can prove a point. If all the experiments "proving" a hypothesis are flawed, then the hypothesis remains unproven. A compilation of results which mixes the former with the latter, with the intent of "proving" the latter's previously unproven hypothesis, is fraudulent and dishonest. Such is the case for this ASU study.
Furthermore, repeating good experiments is fine--but it's not an excuse for accepting poor experiments. Regardless of how many good experiments are performed, the poor experiments should be rejected from both consideration and "meta analysis".
Comment #25967 by kkant on March 15, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Diabolics writes:
[[I don't think andrew is subjected to wishful thinking, I think he wholeheartedly belive in the miracle BS of the bible etc etc, but surely if he understands that his religiousity comes from fear of death then he should be able to take it a step further away from "organized religion".]]
I would say that both things are perfectly compatible, i.e. he may really believe all that nonsense and still be thinking wishfully. In fact, such is the case. He admits it outright. If you really have faith, and there is no basis for that faith, and if the truth of that faith implies something you want to be true, then you *are* engaging in wishful thinking simultaneously with wholehearted belief.
Atticus_of_Amber writes:
[[I must say, while I think it's clear that Sam Harris has won this debate, I've developed a lot of respect for Andrew Sullivan's intellectual honesty.]]
Honestly, I disagree. A truly intellectually honest person would have been willing to admit and defend his beliefs far earlier in this exchange. He purposely ignored Sam's questions until just now, at the end, when the admissions were forced from him.
This willful ignorance is not a legitimate debating tactic. Debate organizations recognize the inherent unfairness and dishonesty of this "tactic". That's why, in organized debate contests (high school and college debate for example), you are not allowed to continue arguing a point that you "dropped" in an earlier rebuttal. If you drop or ignore a point made by your opponent, that point is conceded to your opponent for the rest of the debate. This prevents some of the nonsense from Andrew that we have seen in this exchange: Andrew says some things, Sam refutes it all, Andrew igores that and builds on his previous points, and on and on...until the end, when Andrew finally explicitly concedes the implications of Sam's initial questions.
120. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'
Comment #25955 by kkant on March 15, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Oh, and in case you folks haven't seen it yet, check out this site on amputees and prayer:
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
Methodical, easy to understand, step by step hand-holding analysis. It's great for convincing all but the most heavily indoctrinated religites.
121. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'
Comment #25951 by kkant on March 15, 2007 at 7:22 pm
steveroot writes:
[[If there really were an all-powerful, omniscient being responding to prayer, there should be no doubt about it. "Consistently did better" and "statistically significant difference" don't cut it: the results should be BLACK and WHITE.]]
Indeed...but the faith-heads have an excuse. The reason it isn't black and white is because "god works in mysterious ways", or, "sometimes the praying people don't have enough faith", or other such nonsense. That's why a proper statistical analysis (by "proper" I mean NOT the bullshit "analysis" done by ASU in this article) is important--if you can show no statistically significant prayer effect, the above two faith-head excuses no longer apply.
122. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'
Comment #25949 by kkant on March 15, 2007 at 7:13 pm
bruno_burned writes:
[[Hodge admits that prayer can't come close to meeting the APA standard ("These criteria were rarely met"). Hodge doesn't like these standards, though, because they a) require clear, measurable concepts (yea, right, with prayer?!) and b) require therapists to administer the technique, not faithheads.]]
Wait, so the Benson study didn't use faith-heads to pray? I am surprised at that. I don't see why they couldn't use faith-heads. If Benson didn't do this last time, then I'm sure he could repeat the experiment with actual faith-heads doing the praying. But it probably won't make a difference to the religites...they'll just come up with another lie "explaining" the results to keep themselves deluded.
But I think the better experiment is the one Eamonn Shute alludes to: amputees, who have a flat zero percent recovery rate for both praying and non-praying groups. Here we have a HUGE sample size, and IDENTICAL results, with ZERO variation. You can't beat that for a definitive answer. :)
123. God's dupes
Comment #25947 by kkant on March 15, 2007 at 6:51 pm
the great teapot writes:
[[Bush is Sober?
Good god, that's my theory out the window.]]
LMAO. Very nice. :D
Another awesome article by Sam Harris. He is always such a pleasure to read.
124. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'
Comment #25882 by kkant on March 15, 2007 at 2:17 pm
[["This is the most thorough and all-inclusive study of its kind on this controversial subject that I am aware of," said Hodge.]]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yes, all inclusive. They included both the legitimate studies and the illegitimate studies.
Hey, we can be dishonest too! The legit studies show a 50-50 non-effect for prayer, the christian studies show a 70-30 effect. What we need is a non-legit 30-70 study that shows that Satan is punishing people who pray to god. That'll bring the "average" back to 50-50. :)
Comment #25806 by kkant on March 15, 2007 at 8:13 am
Ha! Sullivan has finally responded! And lookie here, he has finally admitted to the basic tenets of his Christian faith. Isn't it funny how getting these religious people to admit in an argument even the slightest bit of their fairy tale beliefs is like pulling teeth. It is as if they are quite embarrassed by those silly beliefs--as well they should be.
Well, now I think it's officially over. This brandishing of silly beliefs and brazenly-displayed wishful thinking are really the last gasps of a floundering man, throwing caution to the wind. Once you get someone to admit to such silly beliefs, and admit that their beliefs are totally baseless, there are a thousand ways you can attack that proposition. All the ridiculous contradictions within and outside of his scripture can now be brought to bear on him. Basically all of Sullivan's previous arguments go completely out the window, including all the "god is love and truth" nonsense (not that there was any hope in those arguments to begin with). Sullivan's only refuge is in claiming (as is usual with theists) that "science is faith too". What a laugh. Anyone who really thinks that, and also drives a car or flies in airplanes or sues pharmaceutical companies for improper scientific research (thanks Dan Dennett*), is a hypocrite.
And look how he begins this essay. He knows he has lost, and blames it on his lack of theological training and priesthood. As if his arguments are not the pinnacle of apologetic "thinking". No Andrew, the answer is simpler: you lost because your beliefs are wrong.
* Check it out: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html
Comment #25251 by kkant on March 11, 2007 at 9:51 am
Bizarro wrote:
[[I find it inconsistent that Dawkins would apologize for scorning a passage from a book that has been taken out of context, yet he continues to actively engage in the exact same sort of behavior by attacking verses from the Bible that have totally been taken out of context. It's certainly effective in destroying a strawman version of the Bible, but in all respectfulness, it just doesn't seem very honest.]]
When did you stop beating your wife?
The reason he doesn't apologize for his criticism of the Bible is that he does not, in fact, take it out of context.
Oh but wait, you have a much more sophisticated and deep knowledge of the Bible than the rest of us, don't you Bizarro? With your superior knowledge, would you mind giving us the "context" for the following Bible verses:
Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
Numbers 15:32-36 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses."
Comment #25122 by kkant on March 10, 2007 at 8:57 am
Cham:
Sullivan's justification for the truthfulness of Christianity is that a lot of people believe it.
Harris correctly points out that this same justification can be used to justify anything, even many other things that are false and/or which directly contradict Christianity (such as Islam). Therefore, Sullivan's justification does NOT provide evidence of the truth of Christianity. This is a direct refutation of Sullivan's argument.
The burden of proof is on Christians, not the other way around. It is Christians who must provide reasonable evidence of their claims, since their claims are absurd, over-the-top, and extraordinary. If I said I could walk on water, wouldn't it be reasonable for you to ask me to prove it?
Furthermore, as Kergillian points out, Sullivan has repeatedly ignored Harris's many pointed questions. I invite you, Cham, to read Harris's essays in this debate, and attempt to answer Sam Harris's questions yourself. Maybe you can do a better job than Andrew Sullivan. :) But I am not holding my breath for it.
Comment #25117 by kkant on March 10, 2007 at 8:28 am
OK, thanks for the info Richard. I'll hold off on the letter and let it lie; this seems to be the sensible course as you say.
I hope this nonsense doesn't affect the polling for the book prize. And I hope this doesn't happen to you again. It's difficult enough making the contrarian case for rationality without this sort of thing getting in the way.
Comment #25112 by kkant on March 10, 2007 at 7:35 am
God DAMN it!! Is there no level to which these people won't stoop to protect their "invisible friend"? I can see no other reason for this deliberately constructed lie and baseless slander. Richard: if the journalist wasn't the one you spoke to, would you be willing to tell us who these hired goons were who spoke to you directly, and what organization they represented?
And by the way, that was a very well-worded apology and explanation. I hope anyone who read the original article also takes time to read your apology.
But regardless, I will be writing to the Guardian in response to this outrage, and demand that this Jeevan Vasagar (1) recant his statements, (2) admit he was duped into publishing deliberate lies, and (3) make a very public apology to RD, all in his regular column. This kind of "journalism" does not even qualify for the Weekly World News.
130. 'Don't discuss polar bears': memo to scientists
Comment #25025 by kkant on March 9, 2007 at 6:33 pm
My first thought was that this was dogma at its finest. How silly, to have a "position of the administration" in a scientific meeting. But on second thought, this may not really be a scientific meeting; rather it may be a diplomatic meeting, in which case of course you'd need to maintain all these protocols etc.
If this is really a regular science conference, then what the Bush administration says means squat. It only applies if this is a diplomatic meeting.
Isn't it great, how fluidly nations communicate with each other. :D
Comment #24835 by kkant on March 8, 2007 at 7:17 pm
This was absolutely hilarious. Thanks for the link. :)
132. British Book Awards shortlists 2007
Comment #24833 by kkant on March 8, 2007 at 7:11 pm
The Bible and the God it describes are so embarrassingly deplorable that any honest description of them certainly looks like a strawman, doesn't it Bizarro?
Too bad for you that your own cherry-picking "interpretation" of God's Holy Word is the real strawman here. What's He gonna say at the pearly gates? "Tsk Tsk Bizarro, did you really think you could ignore my commands? Don't blame me, blame those 'Christian' friends who deluded you into thinking I was a nice guy!"
And back on topic--I wouldn't call RD's book a work of literature in the Shakespearean sense. I think perhaps RD would be the first to admit that he is no Plum Wodehouse. But he has a scathingly truthful message (for the most part ;)), and the real story here is that RD's extremely blasphemous book even made it onto a "book of the year" list. To me, that's a really great sign. Would that such a thing could happen here in the US.
Comment #24392 by kkant on March 6, 2007 at 11:24 am
nvlawyer writes:
[[Yet another narrow minded approach to life. If a man believes in a higher power, you assume that he is dumb.]]
No, of course he is not necessarily dumb. However, if he makes policy decisions based on faith, then that is dumb behavior. That is equivalent to making decisions for no reason at all. For example, "God told me to invade Iraq."
The problem is, if someone is very vocal about his faith, I think it is more likely that he will make public decisions based on his faith.
nvlawyer writes:
[[First, we cannot prove or disprove divinity. Second, a person's faith in something that does not necessarily make that person dumb or untrustworthy.]]
Do you think some faiths "make people dumb or untrustworthy", and others do not? How do you distinguish between them faiths in assigning dumbness? If someone believed in The Invisible Pink Unicorn that created the universe, do you think that "makes that person dumb"?
nvlawyer writes:
[[A scientist might have faith that there is life on other planets, but he may not believe in God. It still takes faith to motivate him towards doing something more than what has been done in the past.]]
Incorrect. The scientist may be motivated by a dream, but that is not faith. Faith means belief without evidence. A scientist doesn't believe that aliens exist, unless he has evidence for them. He can speculate about their existence, but he won't say "they exist, I have faith." Faith implies certainty--there is no evidence, so either you believe or you don't. There's nothing to weigh. However, a scientist can dream about the existence of aliens, and wish to find honest evidence of that existence, and that can be a motivating factor. That is a very different thing from faith.
134. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son
Comment #24367 by kkant on March 6, 2007 at 7:46 am
Ox223: If you are interested in evidence against the historicity of Jesus, check out the link I posted above to The Jesus Puzzle.
Briefly, the evidence is that the epistles never placed Jesus as a human on earth--rather he was a spiritual son of god who lived and existed only in the heavens. None of the gospel stories were known to Paul, because those stories were not made up yet! Paul didn't know about the virgin birth, slaughter of innocents etc etc. The gospels were written much later, and attached a Mithras-like mythical story to the spiritual savior character of Paul--thus creating the Jesus myth.
The Jesus myth is a standalone story, with no corresponding historical evidence. Rather the opposite, there is much positive evidence that it was just a story. Just like any fairy tale, there's no reason to suppose it is anything but a work of fiction.
You take the default position that Jesus existed. But as with Cinderella and Darth Vader, the default position should be Jesus does *not* exist. You should be asking for convincing evidence that Jesus *did* exist historically.
135. Atheists Take On Religion
Comment #24305 by kkant on March 5, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Bruno-- Actually it's even better than that. Several of the founding fathers of the US and most repsected historical figures in the US were actually non-Christian, and/or had a lot of critical things to say about Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Abe Lincoln, and Ben Franklin too I believe.
Read up some Tom Jefferson quotes especially--he really trashed Christianity.
136. Darwin's God
Comment #24299 by kkant on March 5, 2007 at 6:39 pm
cheshirecat said:
[[I will never support a party that discriminates against others holding lawful beliefs and engaging in the lawful practice of their faith.]]
There's no discrimination involved. When you choose one candidate over another, you're not "discriminating" against the other candidate. And a secular rational party would still allow people to hold their lawful beliefs--of course. As an example, that was what the US was in the early days--a secular government with freedom of religion and seperation of church and state.
And "lawfulness" is not the issue. The issue is stupidity. People are free to hold stupid lawful beliefs, but you don't want your president (or other elected official) to be stupid. If a candidate says he makes policy decisions based on the alignment of the planets, presumably you wouldn't vote for him. Why not? Because that's a stupid and dangerous way to make decisions. Similarly, if a candidate says he was told by God to nuke North Korea, that would be a stupid and dangerous reason for making such a decision.
Comment #24296 by kkant on March 5, 2007 at 6:21 pm
davyB: I did some reading up on Sidhartha, the Buddha, founder of Buddhism. For a long time I thought Buddha was certainly a historical figure--he was tied to history by being a King's son, how can you fake that? On the other hand, I used to think Jesus was historical too (how can you fake the ties to Roman authorities?), and when I discarded that belief I started questioning the historical Buddha as well. The story of Buddha has at least one similarity with the Jesus myth, which is the virgin birth (an elephant came to his mom in a dream and pierced her womb with his tusk). As far as I can see, the first written records of the life of Buddha are dated to about 400 years *after* his supposed life. So that doesn't really speak well for the historicity of Buddha. What makes it worse is that, in the Buddhist scripture itself, an excuse is given for the delay in recording his story. Get this--they say that up until now (400 years after the supposed events), it has been blasphemous or disrespectful to commit his story to paper. What a sorry excuse!! Why did it all of a sudden become "legal" to write his story just then? Apparently no one cared to ask.
But anyway, it also seems that certain sects of Buddhism has broken ties with faith. Statements by the Dalai Lama seem to indicate this, for example.
steve99: Actually I admit not having seen the movie (Constantine). :) But I think if you had to make a casting choice for the character of John Constantine, Keanu Reeves seems like just about the polar opposite of what you would want. His most fitting moment was the dumb clueless pothead "woah" in Matrix 1. For Constantine, maybe Jason Statham would have been a good fit. Clueful, bitter, smirking bastard.
Comment #24282 by kkant on March 5, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Keanu Reeves is Buddhist? A plague on Buddhism! May he suffer many reincarnated lives as a tapeworm for his selection as Constantine!
139. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son
Comment #24261 by kkant on March 5, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Ox223, read the book "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty. It is available at amazon, and it is also available online at http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/
This book makes a good case that there was no historical Jesus at all, that Jesus was as mythical as any other religious story (including several *very* similar myths which were circulating at the same time).
140. Dawkins v. Collins Debate
Comment #24256 by kkant on March 5, 2007 at 3:14 pm
First of all, Bizarro, let me say that I am glad you are continuing this discussion rather than posting the same old stuff in new threads. Once again, let's see if we can keep the conversation going. This is an interesting line of discussion.
Bizarro writes:
[[This is where the distinction between empirical science and historical science becomes of the utmost importance. We can repeatedly observe planetary motion for it is not a one-time event, but rather is continuous. This allows us to formulate models of planetary motion which can be verified through repeated experiments and observations. This is only possible with events or processes that occur in the present and/or occur repeatedly.]]
The difference between the two cases is not that one is "historical" and the other is "empirical". According to your definition, all science is "historical". All our experiments and observations are in the past, in our memories. Light takes some amount of time to reach us from the planets. For that matter, the light from distant galaxies is far in the past--yet we see it right now, today. This is where we get some of our insights into the distant past. It is just as silly to doubt the evidence of the distant past from those galaxies, as it is to doubt the evidence of your immediate memories.
The difference between Newton's time and ours is that we are dealing with different scientific problems than he was. As time progresses, more and more of the questions of reality are removed from the province of religion and given over to science. Religion has been proven wrong many times over. If you had lived in Newton's time, would you have thought that he was right to invoke God at his particular scientific frontier? For that matter, would you have believed the Sun was pushed about in a divine chariot if you lived in ancient Greece?
Bizarro writes:
[[Considering this, it is easy to see why the God explanation is the most reasonable. We simply don't observe matter creating itself, nor is the existence of such a phenomenon implied by any existing evidence. Likewise, all of the natural laws, as well as the principles of logic, strongly suggest against the occurrence of such a phenomenon. Therefore, since the event was a one-time event that occurred in the past, it is most reasonable to infer a supernatural creator.
Now, assume for a moment that there was a phenomenon that could spontaneously produce matter. We would still be left with the question of what caused the phenomenon, for we have observed that phenomena are always caused. They do not cause themselves. This would violate the Principle of Universal Causality. Therefore, proving the existence of such a phenomenon would bring one who assumed the non-existence of God only one step closer on an infinitely regressing causal chain.]]
You make the intuitive claim that everything needs a creator, and therefore the original creator must be supernaturally outside the chain of cause and effect. You base this intuitive claim on your everyday experience that everything that we see has a cause.
What you need to understand is that science is not necessarily intuitive. It is based on evidence, but the evidence may lead us in a very counter-intuitive direction. General relativity and quantum mechanics are extremely counter-intuitive, and even evolutionary biology is in some sense counter-intuitive. Our intuition and instinct evolved in a world where we didn't have to consider these extremes in space and time. Take the example of evolution. We look at life and see something that is extremely complicated, and our intuition tells us that it *must* therefore be designed. There's no evidence for a designer, this is just our intuition speaking. Evolutionary biology and quantum mechanics are based on evidence, but are also counter-intuitive. Just because our intuition says "there must be a designer of life" or "rocks are completely solid matter", does not mean it is true. I recommend the book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene as a layman's guide to modern physics, and for more instances of the truly mind-bending and unintuitive nature of physics.
In the same way, your intuitions regarding the origins of the universe do not necessarily reflect reality. Your intuition was not designed to deal with questions at that extreme point in time. Especially if you are not an expert in cosmology or physics, your intuitions are almost guaranteed to be wrong. There are possibilities other than the mundane cause and effect familiar to our everyday experience (and familiar to the experience of the bronze-age authors and readers of the Bible). For some other explanations of natural laws of physics and the spontaneous generation of matter/energy, and other cosmological questions, read Victor Stenger's books.
Bizarro writes:
[[kkant: "Do you believe with "reasonable faith" that your hypothetical "supernatural creator of the universe" is the perfect and truthful author of the Christian Bible and is exclusively described by the Christian religion?"
Yes, but I would rather not digress.]]
Oh no. You're not getting away that easily. ;) This is not a digression, it is quite central to the debate. We are assuming the existence of a supernatural creator for the sake of argument, and I want you to lay out at least some of the evidence you have for believing that this featureless creator and the Christian God are one and the same. Furthermore, please describe what evidence you have that all other religions are wrong, and have nothing to do with our assumed featureless creator. By the way, are you a young-earth creationist?
141. Atheists Take On Religion
Comment #24129 by kkant on March 5, 2007 at 12:33 am
As usual, Sam Harris gets about 2 seconds of airtime, while the usual anti-atheist representative is allowed to spew falsehoods unrefuted. Don't you just love the interviewer's leading questions ("isn't it true that atheists are just as bad as fundamentalists")? But I'm glad Sam was able to trot out the "killing each other for ancient literature" line, that's pretty effective.
One of the problems is that it only takes 5 seconds to spout lies about atheism and religion, but 10 minutes to explain the truth and expose the falsehood of each lie--even to an educated audience that is willing to sit still and pay attention (good luck finding an audience like that for TV news).
142. Houses of the Holy
Comment #24115 by kkant on March 4, 2007 at 10:14 pm
I agree, the thing that ABSOLUTELY pisses me off the most is the reaction and continued support of the congregation. You idiots: open your eyes, and leave the church!!
Another similar article that will get your blood boiling: http://tinyurl.com/29ye95 (it's a google cache link, the original article has been purged)
143. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming
Comment #23836 by kkant on March 3, 2007 at 5:38 am
It's not Falwell's position on Global Warming per se which is scary. What's scary is the reasons he gives for taking that position. "Satan is misleading us from evangelism", and "Jesus is going to take care of the Earth, until he returns." His followers don't give a damn about the subject under discussion. They want to hear the dogma: Jesus and Satan and Fire and Brimstone. Falwell can put any injunction he wants in between those buzzwords, and they'll submit to his direction.
Comment #23797 by kkant on March 2, 2007 at 8:06 pm
That's true Robert, and I don't mean to suggest it is nearly as bad here in the US. But I think that line of the poem should make those people who "watch the Flintstones as a documentary" even more ashamed for what they are trying to do to science education in the US.
Comment #23792 by kkant on March 2, 2007 at 7:27 pm
"When religion has control over science — you can be sure that you are in an Arab country."
Did anyone else from the US think these words somewhat ironic? Here in the land of Kent Hovind, the Kansas Board of Education, and the Sumerian-era dino fossils?
146. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming
Comment #23710 by kkant on March 2, 2007 at 6:55 am
fonex_86 writes:
"But wait, if god takes care of everything, why should anyone be environmentalists at all?"
Indeed, he never really gets into that, does he? Jesus will care for earth until he returns: check. Christians should be responsible environmentalists: huh?? Oh wait, I know, we must be using that special "god-logic" here.
Sometimes people are skeptical of the viewpoint that Sam Harris in particular pushes very strongly, that the Christian fundamentalism associated with this "second coming" bullshit is really extremely scary for the future of our civilization. In just a few words, Falwell has dramatically justified Harris's fear.
BaronOchs: that's absolutely hilarious.
147. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins
Comment #23646 by kkant on March 2, 2007 at 12:09 am
Excellent point, Jonathan Dore.
148. Dawkins v. Collins Debate
Comment #23645 by kkant on March 1, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Hey hey hey! Looks like he responded to one post at least! Welcome back Bizarro. Let's see if we can continue the discussion this time.
"If my arguments turned out to be false, then it is not probable that it would be that I was lying (why would I desire to propose what I knew to be false?)"
Oh, there are certainly people who lie to defend religion. People have way too much invested in their faith. But I can admit to being uncharitable. Perhaps you don't have time to respond to all counter claims. If so, it makes little sense to repost your same original argument in new threads after not having refuted the counter claims from before, does it not? If you are really interested in an honest discussion, you'll go back and examine the old threads before posting in the new. It's nice to have a lively debate, and for my part I welcome you here--but it has to be an exchange of ideas, not a series of trolls.
"In fact, research in the realm of astrophysics continuously re-affirms that the creation event cannot be explained using naturalistic methodology."
Exactly the same thing could have been said (indeed *was* said) about the details of planetary motion 300 years ago. In hindsight, we can see that it was incorrect to adopt a supernatural explanation for planetary motion, as Newton did. If even a great scientist and genius like Newton could have mistakenly assigned the mystery of planetary motion to the "god of the gaps", isn't it possible that you could be mistaken as well? Are you even an expert in astrophysics or cosmology, to be making such claims?
The correct answer is: I don't know if and how the universe started, and neither do you. And it actually does not make much of a difference one way or another for religion--UNLESS of course there is a connection between this hypothesized creative entity and some particular religion.
Which leads me to the question I posed earlier in this thread, which you ignored (or perhaps you didn't have time for it). I notice that Bremas has also asked a similar question. Suppose we assume the existence of a supernatural creator. Do you believe with "reasonable faith" that your hypothetical "supernatural creator of the universe" is the perfect and truthful author of the Christian Bible and is exclusively described by the Christian religion? If so, what evidence do you have to support this claim?
149. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son
Comment #23628 by kkant on March 1, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. On one hand, it's absolutely hilarious to see the various deluded camps having a meaningless and baseless pillow fight with each other. DNA analysis? Communion wafer indeed. :D
On the other hand, it is somewhat depressing in the same way that "Da Vinci Code" was depressing. A bunch of controversy is raised, but the real story is ignored: that Jesus very likely did not exist historically, any more than Mithras or Osiris. In fact these controversial stories lend credence to the historicity of Jesus--just by defining the boundary of acceptable criticism in the public eye, and stopping well short of where they should.
150. Dawkins v. Collins Debate
Comment #23624 by kkant on March 1, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Christians such as Bizarro are perfectly comfortable with muddying the waters, lions or no. I wouldn't be too concerned for his well being or his sensibilities. He knows what he's doing, and we've seen many times over that lying is perfectly acceptable when it is in a godly cause. Related topic, I'm sure you've encountered this phenomenon before, where someone will claim to have been an atheist and then converted to Christianity--only later it turns out they were lying about it. They might accidentally let slip that they've always believed in God. But lying is acceptable, if it might help you convert and be saved!
Throwing crap into a thread and then refusing to answer any counter-arguments, and doing this repeatedly in multiple threads...if that isn't a troll, I'd like to know what a troll is.
More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
