Comments by debaser71
101. Call for 'post-9/11' RE teaching
Comment #50361 by debaser71 on June 17, 2007 at 7:28 am
I am American and I went to high school in the 1980's. As part of our Social Studies classes I learned about religions. I distinctly remember reading comic books about Indian gods (vishnu kali etc. I remember learning about Iriqoui(sp)american indian myths (earth is a giant turtle, humans were bron from one mother who had twins, the bad twin came out the mothers arm pit, etc). In English class I learned all about ancient greek myths. But for me, what seemed to help nudge me on a path of not being religious was what I learned about christianity's history. FUll of violence, power seeking, wealth hording, and nonsense.SHit, I even learned about creationism in advanced placement biology class (basically a lesson in debunking it).
I guess my point is that I learned abour religion in classes that were already teaching me about other things.
102. Americans believe in both evolution, creationism: poll
Comment #48979 by debaser71 on June 9, 2007 at 8:44 pm
For me I alway question people's truthfulness when they take these polls. I mean seriously, who is going to risk slighting their faith for some pollster? I can remember when I was a very uncommitted catholic in seveth grade (age 13 or so). I'd still answer polls the way I thought the church would have wanted me to. Shit, I can remember the first time I put down "non religious" or something on a poll. It was like a test of my intellectually honest vs a commitment to my faith. Remember that faith is considered a virtue, that to belive something despite the evidence is a noble act. Some poll isn't going to get people's real answers on subjects but rather what they have been told to answer.
Another gripe I have with polls is that once you start answering them (like those calls at dinner) the more poll calls you get. The pollsters call people who already like taking polls. This means that polls aren't really random selected people but rather randomly selected people from a certain subgroup, not randomly selected people from all of the US.
103. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos
Comment #48482 by debaser71 on June 8, 2007 at 6:18 am
I really like Sam Harris but I have a gripe with a certain atheist argument. Sometimes atheists like to argue that religionist think they get their moral from the bible or that god set up laws to follow but IMO these arguments are flawed. The religious are saying (and yes I realize that they abuse language) that god gave humans the capacity for morality. That humans can be moral at all is a gift from god. One doesn't need to read the bible or fear god to be moral, just that god gave morality as a gift (in His image sort of thing) to all humanity. So secularists can be moral (according to the religious) without having read the bible and without fearing/loving god because god gave them the gift of morality anyway, that the secularist just doesn't attribute their morality to god.
Yes some do claim that they get their moral guide from the bible but when pressed they often retreat to the position I decribed above.
104. Protesting the Creation Museum
Comment #48477 by debaser71 on June 8, 2007 at 5:55 am
I have to say it because Krauss seemed to echo these sentiments when regarding other people's activism regarding atheism and science. "This just makes atheists look like big party poopers and negative ninnies; aren't there more imp[ortant things to worry about; people will always have their irrationality; these actions do more harm than good; this won't reach out to the religious; etc"
ANyway I'm glad to see Krauss doing this. I just wish he wouldn't try and undermine other people.
105. Why Do Some People Resist Science?
Comment #46425 by debaser71 on May 31, 2007 at 7:07 am
Interesting article but I don't particularily agree wsith it. For instance when talking to children it's important to realize that they haven't grown up in a vacuum, that their caregivers and teachers have already imposed some false perceptions about the nature of reality onto them. Also children haven't learned all the intracicies of language so to talk about mind vs brain or whatever doesn't make me reach any conclusions about what their specific beliefs are. For example this notion of dualism, I call BS on it.
Anyway that these things get talked about and looked into at all IMO is a good thing, even if they get some things wrong at first.
RL call.
Comment #44666 by debaser71 on May 25, 2007 at 6:52 am
written by a 12 year old?
107. Angry atheists are hot authors
Comment #44463 by debaser71 on May 24, 2007 at 9:46 pm
The way I see it is that these articles talk about what's IMO an important topic, ATHEISM! Even though it's full of insults the very fact that atheism is being talked about at all is a good thing. That more people are open to talk about such things favors us. We have reality on our side.
Anyway most of these articles are just scrubs jumping on a badwagon and recycling the same set of negative adjectives (angry, militant, vehement, assault, etc) over and over. IMO they pretty much play into our hands by keeping the debate going.
108. 'Einstein - His Life and Universe'
Comment #44049 by debaser71 on May 23, 2007 at 8:21 am
yeah he did and I rolled my eyes
109. The Creation Museum: Prepare to believe
Comment #40991 by debaser71 on May 15, 2007 at 9:47 am
Over at some museums there are creationist tours where people can go through the museum and get a tour about the bible and whatnot. Maybe some folk do something similar but to talk about science on the tour through the creationist museum.
Comment #40972 by debaser71 on May 15, 2007 at 9:15 am
I read all these negative articles about the so called "new atheism" and all I can do is smile. These articles are clear examples of the wishy washy thinking involved in religious claims. And although many people will simply nod their head in agreement others will surely see right through their charade.
I seem to say this often, conversation favors those with realityu on their side. Let's keep talking, keep them talking, giving them enough rope to hang themselves with.
111. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens
Comment #39413 by debaser71 on May 10, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Other use it, I've used it, Hitchens uses it in the video. I like it. I think it's a great phrase.
"appeal to the supernatural"
Comment #38166 by debaser71 on May 7, 2007 at 6:55 am
Nice article. I especially like the sarcasm.
113. Bonobos and chimps 'speak' with gestures
Comment #37360 by debaser71 on May 4, 2007 at 7:26 am
This doesn't surprise me because I taught my infant children to sign several words. Like "more" "milk" "drink" "eat" etc. There's also a ton of non verbal communication between infants and parents, like arms raised to be picked up, smiles, etc.
114. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins
Comment #33234 by debaser71 on April 19, 2007 at 4:32 pm
I look foward to watching it.
IMO it's Bill'O who needs to watch out.
115. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.
Comment #31994 by debaser71 on April 15, 2007 at 6:42 am
Dawkins has said that he's interested in fighting the larger battle of reason vs. superstition over the smaller skirmishes like evolution or global warming. That to get people to think clearly and reasonably in the first place would mean that the smaller issues would fall into place as well. I agree that this isx good for at least some people. But the bottom line is that we need people doing things from all angles to appeal to as many people as possible. See where Dawkins might scare some folk, he's inspiring others. Where Mooney appeals to people's political hatred of neocons Dawkins is appealing to people's skeptism regarding religon. All this infighting amont supposed reasonable and rational people disturbs me. In my opinion one could focus less on each other and more on "the enemy".
/rant off....fed up with the notion that there's only one way to get the publib on board with a scientific outlook.
Comment #30985 by debaser71 on April 10, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Disturbing however the camera is hidden and I know that personally I'd rather not have hidden camera recording me in my worst moments. It's just unfair.
Anyway this is a good example of the attitude some people have towards atheists. So even though the video is IMO unfair, I'm still glad for it.
Comment #30050 by debaser71 on April 6, 2007 at 11:53 am
I'm sure this has been posted elsewhere but this article is a must read for people who like to confront others about their beliefs.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html
"Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die
Because beliefs are designed to enhance our ability to survive, they are biologically designed to be strongly resistant to change. To change beliefs, skeptics must address the brain's "survival" issues of meanings and implications in addition to discussing their data."
118. Are You Right Eyed Or Left Eyed?
Comment #27742 by debaser71 on March 26, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I am right handed and left eyed. Interesting.
119. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)
Comment #27347 by debaser71 on March 24, 2007 at 7:25 am
Sam Harris did a very good job at moving this conversation foward. His tough remarks and critical views on religous moderates has opened up some space behind him for others to step into. It's a damn shame that some choose to step into this new space only to point fingers at Sam Harris to make theior own wishy washy views seem more palpatable.
Anwway thanks for the publicity. Conversation favors those with reality on their side.
120. Your Mom Was Wrong: Horseplay Is An Important Part Of Development
Comment #26583 by debaser71 on March 20, 2007 at 3:35 pm
"For example, adult rats deprived of peer interaction, (and thus rough and tumble play)..."
"Rats that are reared in isolation have impaired ability ..."
Sounds very flawed.
And what of rats that aren't isolated but who also do not roughhouse. Didn't the author of the article (and perhaps the pyschologists who did the experiment) consider the possiblity that isolation of the rats is bad for them instead of saying that the lack of roughhouse play was bad?
Anyway I call BS. Any link to the actual study, I enjoy finding flaws.
121. God's dupes
Comment #25877 by debaser71 on March 15, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I added Sam's last sentences to my favorites quote list. Glad to see others seeing how well he put it.
"Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music."
122. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places
Comment #23856 by debaser71 on March 3, 2007 at 8:07 am
Conversation favors us with reality on our side. So all the criticisms etc that get written about Dawkins and atheism, when viewed from the bigger picture, is good. It's like advertisment, not only for Dawkin's book and atheism but an advertisment for discussion.
To not be dismissed and ignored is a good thing.
123. The questions science cannot answer
Comment #21618 by debaser71 on February 10, 2007 at 6:52 am
I only know this Alister guy from his comments made against Dawkins. Is he obsessed? Anyway the way I see it is that everytime someone writes an article about Dawkins or talks about Dawkins it's like PR for atheism, science and reason. Thanks Mr. McGrath, you keep people intersted in the discussion. And IMO discussion favors us.
124. Does Richard Dawkins exist?
Comment #21480 by debaser71 on February 9, 2007 at 11:47 am
The way I see it is that these parodies do little other than compare Dawkins to God. I don't know how religionist / anti-Dawkins types think this is going to somehow help them.
/boggle
Comment #20389 by debaser71 on February 2, 2007 at 6:23 am
If you are in MA and get arrested of a crime, say something minor, like spitting on the bus, but while you spit you say "God damn it" or something, a prosecutor can add extra offenses like blasphemy to tack on extra time to a possible conviction.
So until that happens the law most likely won't change.
btw, I went to BU too. I noticed that this week during that terror alert in Boston one on the bridges that had that electronic toy thing hanging from iot was the BU bridge I would walk across everyday to get to class (and to Kenmore Square).
126. Arguing for Atheism
Comment #19292 by debaser71 on January 26, 2007 at 5:47 am
Sherman is ok but he attacks a strawman when he suggests that atheists think that certain conflicts are ONLY caused by religion. All I like to suggest is that religion plays a role and people should stop denying the role religion plays. Both the bad and the good. What some people refuse is to acknowledge is that people divide themselves based on religious identity. Remove the religion and these people might just be part of the same group. That religion can cause very harsh ingroup/outgroup dynamics. Religion is an artifical division.
For the record Shermer is also motivated by self interest, he can not be too harsh on religion because he's vested in not being so. I've also heard SHermer say that he's skeptical about the claims of global warming...(there was an Al Gore TED presentation where he commented on this).
I also think it's important to point out that to cause change activism and effort must come from different angles, from harsher Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins type barbed rhetoric to nice pleasant accomodation from other folk (like say the ebay atheist guy). Different people respond differently to these efforts and when there are many different efforts going on at the same time, it is a good thing!
Comment #19051 by debaser71 on January 24, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Godfrey is an awesome idea!
Comment #19014 by debaser71 on January 24, 2007 at 11:26 am
I call myself an atheist and I too dislike the Bright label but I am glad people are doing something to help promote ideas most of us agree about. If the term Bright helps some people get into the fold, good for it.
Rather than suggest people are wasting their time or doing more harm than good I revel in the fact that activism is coming in all forms and from all angles. Even angles that I might not like or agree with.
Comment #18857 by debaser71 on January 23, 2007 at 8:49 am
The goal of a debate isn't to get your opponent to switch sides. The goal is about the audience. That Sam Harris gets to reach an audience directly, an audience that might just otherwise take zero note of Sam Harris (or maybe even have an opinion of Sam Harris based on filtered down out of context quotes) is a positive thing. This audience gets to read what Sam Harris is suggesting for themselves. To just put Sam Harris's (and probably most of our) ideas on the table for people to do with as they please is a positive thing.
Don't fret that Andrew Suliivan will never admit defeat or dare challenge is sacred beliefs. Maybe he's just a chump like that. It's not about Andrew Sullivan.
More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3
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
