101. Praying for the Apocalypse

Comment #30771 by Fishpeddler on April 9, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Question: Has anyone ever personally met anyone that seriously believes in the Rapture?

My neighbor. He is about 75 years old and is hoping to live long enough to see it. I don't understand the theology well enough to see the difference between dying and going to heaven, and going as a result of the rapture. The rapture just sounds like more work -- all that stair-climbing.

102. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30750 by Fishpeddler on April 9, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Nice vid, Brian! I loved the juxtaposition of Stalin and Jesus at the end. Now you just have to solicit donations for a less fuzzy microphone. :) Oh, and a larger font might be a good idea.

103. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30742 by Fishpeddler on April 9, 2007 at 4:02 pm

"a higher pitch than all, his soul is mounted on the wings of contemplation … he soars with the eagle to attain those heavenly mysteries that God Himself hath revealed, and never leaves till he hath seated himself … in the high tribunal of that Holy of Holies"

Are you sure that wasn't a quote from James Clerk Maxwell? That has theoretical physics written all over it.

104. Praying for the Apocalypse

Comment #30738 by Fishpeddler on April 9, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Comment #30730 by ksskidude

He is a right wing ultra conservative, pro-God, anti abortion, anti stem cell, anti gay, friend that would have my back.

Heh, I know the type. I have a great friend who is similar. We go to see a lot of loud bands, so it minimizes the opportunities for uncomfortable conversations, like the one that exploded last week when I made the mistake of casually commenting, "That guy by the door looks just like Al Gore."

105. Praying for the Apocalypse

Comment #30728 by Fishpeddler on April 9, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Comment #30725 by ksskidude

Listening to them talk is like listening to Stalin, Lenin, or Mao.

That's pretty funny. How many languages does your friend speak, anyway. I would have thought if he was listening to Stalin, Lenin or Mao talk, he'd spend the whole time asking, "What did he say? What did he say?"

And why is he sitting around listening to dead people? ;)

106. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30726 by Fishpeddler on April 9, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Comment #30723 by shetlandforpeace

It so happens I was born 'Scottish' but this fact is becoming increasingly irrelevant in our globalised world.

I think I'm moving in the opposite direction. Living in the melting pot of the U.S., most of my family history is lost or obscure, but I find so many intelligent Scots frequenting this site that I'm ready to start trumpeting my Scottish last name of Maxwell (just don't tell anyone named Armstrong -- I've heard there was some ancient feud between us). :)

107. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30682 by Fishpeddler on April 9, 2007 at 10:32 am

In one respect, atheists have an easier task than theists. In order to deny the existence of God, it is only necessary to accept one proposition.

108. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30662 by Fishpeddler on April 9, 2007 at 8:59 am

Comment #30659 by Logicel

BrianCoughlandworldcitizen and myself, are also both deeply committed to ending nationalism and patriotism.

That just shows how cruel you both are. I, for one, need to believe that when I die I will be buried in the ground of the best country in the world, blessed by God and destined to economic dominance for eternity. The despair of believing otherwise would lead me to new and dangerous outlets. Nationalism and patriotism are just elemental forces that should be embanked, as great rivers are so that they can flow to the sea without...

Excuse me -- I thought I would have some fun with parody, but even just faking this garbage has made me need to go throwup.

109. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30650 by Fishpeddler on April 9, 2007 at 7:44 am

Comment #30611 by Logicel

I suspect death in itself would be much less fearful if we were prepared for it properly

You hit the nail on the head, Logicel. Christian beliefs seem necessary for coping with the fear of death because we have done so little to encourage and develop alternative, reality-based belief systems that better prepare us for it. The major religions are largely to blame for that, not only simply by their dominant mindshare, but by actively working to stamp out the growth of alternatives.

I feel fortunate to have never believed in God or life after death, because it has allowed me to come to grips gradually and naturally with the fact that consciousness ends upon death. Acknowledging that should not be so very difficult, UNLESS you have been taught your whole life that an eternity of bliss is available to you. Many atheists come from this kind of background, and I wholeheartedly admire them for having the courage and insight to reject this intoxicating painkiller and face the totality of their own mortality. This is seldom an easy task, and I resent religion's role in making it so difficult.

110. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30647 by Fishpeddler on April 9, 2007 at 7:10 am

Comment #30606 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

I reckon if I can hang on for another 100 years full body transplants should be all the rage:-)

You should read the short story "Fat Farm" by Orson Scott Card for an interesting take on full body transplants. I read it just once, 27 years ago, and I still think about it occasionally. That's a story with staying power!

111. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30517 by Fishpeddler on April 8, 2007 at 9:39 am

Comment #30505 by atheisticism

"Unfortunately, most atheists will not concede this point of life being meaningless..."

This is a valuable point. I think we need to be aware that we are attempting to breakdown an entire world view. Just saying "No,no -- life still has meaning even without God" in response to a theist's concerns isn't going to satisfy them, because the source of meaning in their lives is being eliminated.

I do not, however, endorse the idea that we need to concede the point of life being meaningless. A distinction needs to be made between objective meaningfulness and subjective meaningfulness. I believe theists are claiming the former, and atheists are claiming the latter. We can concede one without having to concede both. Though subjective meaningfulness may not provide the absolutes that a theist craves, the rewarding lives being led by innumerable atheists is testament to its equal power to inspire.

112. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30486 by Fishpeddler on April 8, 2007 at 7:47 am

Brian, a more stark transition -- from 'reasonable atheist' persona to 'tyrannical god' -- would have helped. Since the camera was always a bit below you, it just went from close and intimidating to REALLY close and intimidating!

Let us know if you get any video rebuttals. They might be amusing.

113. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30482 by Fishpeddler on April 8, 2007 at 7:27 am

Comment #30465 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Not bad, Brian! One thing that struck me right away, though, is that fundies seldom seem very bothered by what we atheists would consider gross miscarriages of justice by God. A typical response is, "That seems unjust to you and me, but God is simply acting justly in a way that isn't apparent to us." I think any effort to show a theist the absurd injustices upon which their faith is built must also show them why it is reasonable to hold God to our sense of justice. A vexing task, but necessary, I think.

I like your "He is risen!" title. A lot of people might accidentally watch it expecting a heartwarming Christian message. Joke's on them!

114. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30477 by Fishpeddler on April 8, 2007 at 6:41 am

Can disbelief in God be considered "religious"? Sure.

A recent New York Times Magazine cover story detailed the big debate among academic psychologists...The possibility that it developed in response to a living God was not considered.

Frankly, the success of the new atheist faith would be hard to imagine without today's soaring levels of societal religious illiteracy.

115. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30322 by Fishpeddler on April 7, 2007 at 3:18 pm

In the interest of fairness, can anyone think of a selfless act?

116. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30315 by Fishpeddler on April 7, 2007 at 2:16 pm

I think their argument is very simplistic. Take for example, the recent attempt to allow Sheria law in family arbitration in Ontario, Canada. The people who were most vocal in compaigning against it were moderate muslims (many of them women).

117. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30310 by Fishpeddler on April 7, 2007 at 1:55 pm

They are especially frustrated with religious "moderates" who don't fit their stereotypes.

He attracted a following and took his movement to Jerusalem at the season of Passover. There he challenged the authorities with public acts and public debates. All this was his passion...

118. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30164 by Fishpeddler on April 7, 2007 at 5:49 am

And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath.

119. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29970 by Fishpeddler on April 5, 2007 at 7:58 pm

"That's a cult. I'm sure of it."

That's my impression, too. Any one here know enough about cults to do an analysis for us? I've been out tipping a few pints, so I don't feel up to doing the research right now.

120. Guinness 'Evolution' Ad

Comment #29969 by Fishpeddler on April 5, 2007 at 7:54 pm

"Great commercial, but does it really make you want to drink beer?"

Absolutely. Of course, I can't think of anything that DOESN'T make me want to drink beer.

121. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29787 by Fishpeddler on April 4, 2007 at 5:05 pm

My Dad was criticizing me one time, saying "Can't you at least be open minded and say you're an Agnostic instead of an Atheist?" I consider myself open-minded AND an atheist. There is clearly a common misconception that atheism necessarily entails a rejection of even the possibility that god exists. This, I suppose, is due to the mistaken assumption that if one says, "I believe", what one is really saying is, "I am certain".

If you combine this agnostic's perspective with Descartes, you'd have to say you are agnostic about everything except that you exist. Nobody lives that way. If we're honest, we acknowledge the uncertainty, but we don't have to pretend that all possibilities are equally likely.

122. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29779 by Fishpeddler on April 4, 2007 at 4:26 pm

"I think I'm convinced I can meaningfully talk about the ten commandements. They are intended to state explicitly how people should and should not behave. They're in the bible.
Are you seriously saying there isn't anything in the bible intended to dictate peoples' behaviour?"

Whoa, Kell -- huge misreading of my comment. First, I was coming to your defense, just with qualifications. Second, you did not single out The Ten Commandments in your first post, making it an entirely different assertion. If someone questions you when you say pizza comes from cows, it's not reasonable to come back and say, 'Are you seriously saying there isn't anything in pizza that comes from cows?' (OK, weird analogy, but I've gone too many posts without mentioning cows or pizza).

Cool avatar, btw.

123. Kansas State School Board Bans Pokemon Due to Evolution Content

Comment #29744 by Fishpeddler on April 4, 2007 at 2:15 pm

It's a hoax, which is too bad for Kansas -- a big bonfire like that would be a great time for them to get rid of some of their heretics as well.

124. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29716 by Fishpeddler on April 4, 2007 at 12:00 pm

"The bible, on the other hand, is clearly intended as an instruction manual for how people should behave"

"No I don't think it is. It has more of a soteriological purpose than a moral one."

I'm not sure you two are debating the same topic. Bringing Protestant theology into the discussion implies that Cheshire is reading "clearly intended" in relation to the intent of the bible's users, and I think Kell is speaking in relation to the bible's authors.

Either way, I'm not entirely convinced that one can meaningfully talk about the intent of a book written by so many different authors over such a great length of time, and used in such a vast variety of ways by so many different readers.

125. Aids Victims Risk Lives

Comment #29542 by Fishpeddler on April 3, 2007 at 10:55 am

Stories like this remind me of the remarks critical of Harris, Dawkins, et al made by Scott Atran in a post after Beyond Belief. Here's an example:

"Rather, core religious beliefs, like poetic metaphors, are literally senseless in that they altgether lack truth conditions; that is, there are no logical or empirical criteria for judging whether such utterances are true or not."

Nice try, Scott. There is no dodging the fact that the above story is the result of empirical claims based on core religious beliefs. As I believe both Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have pointed out in one way or another, there is no sound justification for supposing that people don't actually believe the empirical claims of their own religious doctrines, or the claims which are their natural outgrowth. Scott likes the line, "The plural of anecdote is not data." Well, I sure hope he considers the resulting deaths data, because these anecdotes are becoming a bit too horrible to bear.

126. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29416 by Fishpeddler on April 2, 2007 at 9:39 pm

"I guess that was god punishing me."

At least God punished you and Susan directly. Sleep with someone of the same sex and he drowns a thousand people in New Orleans.

127. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29345 by Fishpeddler on April 2, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Next up -- her review of Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon:

"Golly, this one even took even longer to listen to than that book The God Defusion (or something). I think Dennett said something about we are religious because of evolution, but I missed a lot of it because I was listening to it in the car. People are SUCH bad drivers these days! Anyway, the author sounded really nice, much more so than that Dawkins fellow, so I'll give his book two thumbs up!'

Oops, I fell in the pool again!"

128. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29337 by Fishpeddler on April 2, 2007 at 3:29 pm

79. Comment #29318 by september

"so what youre saying is, that because i dont communicate the same way as you, with the same goals, i will be dismissed?"

I'm grateful for this website and forum. It's my favorite spot for sharing an atheist perspective on recent news. Once you start alienating the person responsible for the site by calling him a "jackass" -- just for assuming an uncapitalized user id lacking a surname was not your real name -- you also start to wear out your welcome. You wear it out even more when you accuse that person and many others on this forum of being uneducated and stupid simply on the basis of their criticism of postmodernism.

I'm not going to just dismiss your future posts, but I do wish you'd stop being a jerk to nearly everyone and making this a forum nobody wishes to visit.

129. The God Debate

Comment #29097 by Fishpeddler on April 1, 2007 at 3:50 pm

"WARREN: Can you have spirituality without a spirit?"

This is the one area where I think SH regularly sounds a bit awkward. The problem is with the terms 'spiritual' and 'spirituality'. Non-religious people love these terms to express their sense of awe, wonder, beauty, and a diminished sense of self. Religious people, however, will invariably interpret these terms more strictly in terms of a human spirit or soul.

My impression is that SH doesn't really believe in a human spirit as something distinct from our biological selves (or maybe I'm just projecting my own beliefs onto him). I think he should abandon these problematic terms altogether, because whenever he uses them his Christian opposition treats it as a confession of a budding religiosity.

130. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28923 by Fishpeddler on March 31, 2007 at 3:50 pm

OK, Hightrekker. We see your post already! ;)

131. U.N. Panel OKs Measure on Islam

Comment #28868 by Fishpeddler on March 31, 2007 at 12:01 pm

"urges countries 'to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence.'"

It would be interesting to see if this would criminalize the behavior of the guys who ran around drumming up outrage over the cartoons, some of which they had added themselves completely out of context. They violated the spirit of this resolution far worse than the Danish newspaper did.

132. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28860 by Fishpeddler on March 31, 2007 at 10:18 am

96. Comment #28841 by Yorker

"I think the following needs to be clarified."

You're probably right about the need for clarification of my remarks, because I can see they have not quite been understood the way I meant them to be.

"Perhaps you should have said unfounded accusations, if the accusation is supported by evidence it's not an incitement, it's a factual statement!"

Actually, it is still an incitement. I wasn't offering that as a value judgment. An incitement is just a spur to action. I was trying to distinguish between the passions that are legitimately aroused in response to criminal/immoral wrongdoing, and those that aroused against innocents purely as a result of carelessness in one's accusations.

"A debatable point, I would contend that people living in a true democracy could be held responsible for governmental actions."

By saying "I presume the rationale is..." I wasn't in any way advocating for that point of view. In fact, I'm not ready to advocate for your refinement of the idea, either. No matter how 'perfect' the democracy, like in any other system of government there are still winners and losers. Debate eventually ends and action is taken. If someone devotes all their energy to dissuading their fellow citizens from a course of action, yet fails, I'm not ready to condemn that person as equally guilty of the result.

133. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28843 by Fishpeddler on March 31, 2007 at 8:01 am

LOL! I'm going to print your comment, Brian, and bring it out during my next argument with my girlfriend. That will show her. :)

134. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28837 by Fishpeddler on March 31, 2007 at 7:19 am

OK Brian, you've managed to take this to such lengths that even I can't agree with you anymore, and I'm usually quite sympathetic to complaints about the US.

I'll answer for Helian: point #4 is hate-mongering.

It is reasonable to say that accusing someone of criminal and immoral acts is an incitement to hatred. And to make the accusation irresponsibly can be considered hate-mongering.

I consider the accusation made in #4 to be irresponsible. I presume the rationale is that people living in a democracy can and should be held responsible for the actions of their government. That is, of course, absurd. First, you have to subtract all the people with no voting rights (children being the most obvious example). To counter with "that was assumed" is not enough; when making criminal accusations, lack of specificity is unethical.

Next, a more interesting question is how much responsibility to assign to people who voted against all the political leaders who initiated the war. Since there were no doubt people who did this (I know because I was one of them), I would suggest that this alone refutes the "equally responsible" charge.

But I'll allow that maybe this should not be considered enough. Perhaps public picketing, letters to the editors of major publications, and/or refusal to pay taxes are necessary. There are certainly many Americans who engaged in all those pursuits. According to your accusation they are nonetheless equally responsible. So I'm left wondering what an American could have done to escape culpability under your notion of justice.

Actually, I already know the answer is 'nothing'. You wouldn't have painted with such a wide brush if there was a possibility that one of the 300 million did not meet the criteria for blame.

Or would you have?

Edited: I deliberately included children because some these children, four years after the start of the war, are adults and being readily tarred with the same brush being used on us old farts. I thought a reminder of their innocence was appropriate and necessary.

135. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28777 by Fishpeddler on March 30, 2007 at 6:48 pm

"If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby..."

"Not a very good analogy is it?"

The problem is with the vagueness of the word 'religion'. In the context of a debate about the existence of God, I think it quite reasonable to expect that the word religion be defined as 'the service and worship of God or the supernatural'. However, another popular usage of the word is to describe 'a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith'.

Now, in the course of this on-going clash of beliefs, inevitably the word is used in both ways. Unfortunately, the speaker rarely troubles themselves to alert the listener to their intended meaning. An atheist, thinking his or her a-theism is being described as "the service and worship of God or the supernatural", would of course find that to be nonsensical. My own impression is that this was the understanding of the person making the analogy (who was that again?). In this light, I think the analogy is quite apt.

I'm not particularly fond of the other definition of 'religion' in the context of this debate, because I feel it causes unnecessary confusion and is usually used as a pejorative against atheists by (strangely enough) the religious. However, it is a otherwise valid use of the term, and to anyone who generally uses it this way, I guess the analogy wouldn't seem very good.

So I guess the answer to your question, then, is "It depends."

136. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28735 by Fishpeddler on March 30, 2007 at 2:35 pm

JRG: I genuinely regret lowering my standards of debate in reaction to your similarly low-standard "OMG..." comment (which apparently was meant to be a version of "rational discourse"). I thought I was being obviously ironical. Now I see my deliberate irony has been trumped by the accidental irony of your attempt to shame the rest of us.

Rather than take further umbrage over that, or your "groupthink clique" comment, or the one about the supposed offense caused by your honesty, or the one about "parroting propaganda", I'm just going to let it rest from here on. I'd say we all gave as well as we got. No harm, no foul.

I'm here to learn to play ball with the fundies, anyway.

137. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28637 by Fishpeddler on March 30, 2007 at 7:51 am

Since I'm largely responsible for this theme of "how can RD stand to keep answering the same questions?", I should note that I in no way resent the questioners. There are over 2 billion adherents to Abrahamic religions alone. I acknowledge that they are not all going to get the message from a single interview. I mostly wanted to express my admiration for RD's willingness to do this. He is widely criticized for being curmudgeonly (undeservedly, I feel. I would call him 'impolitic'), but it's amazing that he doesn't just go postal (hope that isn't too much of an Americanism).

I really like the idea people are tossing around of a format for serious and engaged atheists to ask RD some questions. I have found a lot of excellent books about atheism, but most of them start from the basics, assuming this is the reader's first introduction to the topic. I feel like I'm ready to take on the masters-level course. Can anyone suggest a place to start? Or is TGD essentially the top of the heap?

138. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28607 by Fishpeddler on March 30, 2007 at 5:06 am

"In the teeth of such consensus, to do nothing, to champion doing nothing, to activley restrain and obstruct the people intent on doing something is surely irrational?"

Wow. You can drop the question mark, Brian -- this is a powerful statement that stands on its own.

Well, except for the typo. :)

139. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28605 by Fishpeddler on March 30, 2007 at 5:01 am

"We refuse to back down from First World civilization at the behest of a bad marketing campaign."

I admire JRG for this comment in that it, at long last, drops the pretense that skepticism of GW is primarily about real scientific skepticism. It is about fear of being asked to give up some of our creature comforts.

I believe this fear is based on an incorrect assumption that we are in a zero sum game, that we have to choose between human comforts and protecting the environment. But at least this is something that can be discussed. It is a big improvement over the intractable stance of being skeptical of GW as long as ANY scientist is still skeptical of it.

140. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28564 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 7:41 pm

As long as lame encapsulations of opinions are being thrown around, here's one of my own (borrowing heavily from JRG):

I disagree utterly with JRG's and Scooter's skepticism regarding global warming/climate change, and I'll tell you why. It's the language they use. I can translate it into a single sentence:

OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF WE CHANGE A THING!!!

141. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28563 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 7:33 pm

"OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE"

That is your synopsis of the literature on global warming? Grow up.

142. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28561 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Thanks for the tip about the Francis Collins interview, pdiff -- I just listened to it. It did, however, make me feel like I'm becoming bipolar. Terry would ask Collins a dna/genomeproject/evolution question and I'd think, "This guy is sensible and interesting. I could listen to him all day." Then he'd field a religion question and I'd think, "This guy is out to lunch. I can hardly stand to listen." Logical errors a 10 year old would be ashamed of.

Oops. Pizza is done. Gotta go.

143. Snake Oil and Holy Water

Comment #28542 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Comment #28274 by phil rimmer on March 28, 2007 at 3:25 pm:

This is an important consideration (attack the dogma, not the god), but I've come to reject this tactic. From the discussions and debates I've been involved in about religion, you will lose every argument once you allow the ultimate false first premise -- that god exists. There is no idea so ridiculous that it can't somehow be shown to be plausible given an omnipotent, unknowable supreme being. No, I say attack the problem at its source.

144. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28525 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 3:09 pm

More than one person called me up last night to say, "Turn on NPR! That God Delusion guy is on!" I must be gaining a reputation as a zealot.

This is a nice program for a writer to appear on as a guest -- the host actually lets them speak in complete sentences. But I must admit that even I am getting tired of RD being asked the same old questions; I don't know how he can stand it.

Keep on spreading the good news, RD!

145. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28516 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 2:24 pm

I'm with you, Brian. I'm not sure when "scientific consensus" became a term of disrepute, because I love it. If 9 top doctors were to tell me my daughter has cancer and I must act now, and 1 doctor tells me she's healthy, I'm getting the chemo anyway. If a dozen electricians tell me my house is dangerously miswired and may burn down, but only a couple tell me my house is probably fine, I'm gonna fix the wiring.

That seems a normal, rational way to live. Should I be open to the possibility that the consensus is wrong? Of course, but I can't forever shun my responsibilities while I await certitude. In fact, I welcome challenging the consensus WHILE ONE TAKES ACTION. In my cancer analogy, for example, I'm going to start treatment while I look into the claim by the one doctor that my daughter does not have cancer. If we find out a month, a year, or a decade from now that the consensus was wrong about global warming, then we can change our policies appropriately. Right now, though, I would describe the delay as mere procrastination and avoidance disguised as rigorous skepticism.

146. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28479 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 10:38 am

"there is an undeniable hysteria surrounding GW ..."

Hardly. Guess how many people in my office were talking about global warming today. That's right, zero. On the bus? Zero again. At the grocery store last night? As far as I could tell, zero. I cannot name one person who I would describe as hysterical on the subject. Heck, I have trouble finding anyone I would describe as 'exercised' about it.

We have finally reached the energy of reaction necessary for this topic to be taken seriously by people other than climate scientists. Are a lot of people concerned, asking questions, and writing articles? Sure. That's a completely rational response upon learning that there is a strong scientific consensus that we are likely making the world much less hospital for ourselves.

I must admit that I'm becoming upset with the The-jury-is-still-out-on-GW crowd. Are we supposed to just sit on our hands until every naysayer on the planet has been convinced? The cost of doing nothing and GW being true is far greater than the cost of doing something and GW being false.

Call me lazy, but there are a limited number of topics in which I can become an expert. Climatology is not one of them. I rely on astronomers for my belief that Pluto is cold. I rely on chemists for my belief that air, water, earth, and fire are not basic elements. And I'm going to rely on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community for my belief that global warming is a real threat.

Again, call me lazy, but to insist on absolute certainty rather than reasonable weight of evidence before acting on any belief is to condemn oneself to stasis.

147. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

Comment #28428 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 7:07 am

Comment #28405 by Rtambree raises an important point about the 'God' that is being debated. My limited experience has shown that the god being defended by theists in just about any debate of this type could be defined as "something other than whatever the atheist just persuasively argued against". I'm sick of them taking advantage of the vagueness of the concept. They remind me of my brother in the old days:

"You can borrow my bike if you can do 50 push-ups right now without stopping."

50 push-ups later...

"I meant with one arm. Anyone can do 50 REGULAR push-ups."

I don't know why an atheist would still participate in these debates without insisting that the theists' god be defined in advance.

148. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

Comment #28423 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 6:47 am

Our genes may well predispose us to religious belief. Fortunately, we all share a trait which helps counteract this effect -- the gag reflex.

149. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28349 by Fishpeddler on March 28, 2007 at 10:26 pm

I hate to be put into the position where I'll sound like I think The God Delusion is the greatest book in the history of the planet, but some of the criticisms I'm seeing even just within this thread are absurd:

Complaint #1: The book isn't scientific enough (as exemplified in the line "He claims that religion damages society but produces no statistics or evidence to back it up except for the tiresome arguements about Hitler and suicide bombers.")

How many thousands of pages was this book supposed to be? And why should an argument be avoided simply because of the intellectual fatigue of a few readers?

The question "Does religion do greater good or harm to society?" is not one that can be answered by one man in his spare time, especially not if it's to be done with scientific rigor. Dawkins' claim was fairly simple: that a great deal of human suffering is the result of religious belief, while any alleviation of suffering which could be attributed to it could be achieved through other means. He gave a few examples of the suffering caused, probably relied on the reader's familiarity with human history for many more, and briefly discussed alternative ways people are motivated to do good. This approach is certainly not exhaustive or scientific, but appropriate within the context.

Remember, the main message of the book was not that religion is bad for society. That point was made only in service of the larger message that belief in God was unjustified. And that point was offered not as proof of the larger message, but to demonstrate its monumental importance.

There have always been unheard voices saying, "The emperor has no clothes." But now Dawkins has screamed it, and even some of the emperor's sycophants have heard. I, for one, am glad he raised his voice BEFORE waiting until all the lab tests were in.

I guess I'll stop at Complaint #1, because I am up WAY past my bedtime.

150. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28238 by Fishpeddler on March 28, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Fedler: The corn was inedible -- too many new life forms had been spontaneously generated. That's what I deserve for combining matter and energy. Damned evolution! All I want is a hot lunch!

(I guess I just haven't been able to let go of the peanut butter video)