Comments by jimbob

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

Ain't religious morality wonderful!?

152. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

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

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

153. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

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

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

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

;-)

154. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

155. Hello Again, Michael Behe!

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

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

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

156. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

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

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

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

157. You can't be moral without God!

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

I just had a revelation!

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

158. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

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

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

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

159. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

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

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

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

;-)

160. You can't be moral without God!

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

keep it simple:

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

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

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

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

Oops, there goes #9 again!

162. 'Dirty War' priest gets life term

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

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

163. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

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

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

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

164. The Price of Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

165. The Price of Freedom

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

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

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

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

Maybe IPV4 could take a shot at an answer?

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

166. The Price of Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

169. A Face-Off Over Faith

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

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

170. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

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

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

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

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

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

171. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "out" campaign must have reached Winnipeg.

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

JESUS IS A C**T

I checked, and he wasn't Richard!

;-)

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

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

Right after I posted the one above I found:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

176. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

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

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

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

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

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

Oops, there goes #9 again!

178. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

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

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

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

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

Hope somebody asks the shrub about this one in public!

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

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

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

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

;-)

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

Comment #72027 by jimbob on September 20, 2007 at 7:08 am

Hey Jimbob,

I'm a Brit living herre in the states but haven't gone for citizenship yet. I am curious, do they still make you swear allegiance to the flag and one nation under god?

That was a downside --- not to the pledge in general (I made the choice to become a yank after all) --- but the god bit came right after the presiding judge had stressed that in the US you are free to believe, or not to believe as you wished. Oh well, it was the catholics we can blame for the god bit in the pledge, and one of these days it will gone again I hope.

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

Comment #71686 by jimbob on September 19, 2007 at 1:02 pm

He might be a 'Merkin referrin' t' the Irish?

Actually, I'm a "Merkin who used to be a Brit. You have to imagine the feeling of pleasure that ran through me at the naturalization ceremony when I swore to renounce all allegiance to "foreign princes and potentates!"

Sorry Charlie! ;-)

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

Comment #71678 by jimbob on September 19, 2007 at 12:56 pm

I meant millions of you BRITS you doofus!

183. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71675 by jimbob on September 19, 2007 at 12:54 pm

While we're all on a C-bashing roll, here's a piece from the Catholic League web site:

September 7, 2007

Lying About the Scandal

The evidence is unmistakable: 81 percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse were male, the majority of whom were postpubescent. Since 100 percent of the victimizers were male, we're talking about homosexuality, not pedophilia. Yet the cultural elite refuse to deal with reality, and have indeed waged an unprecedented cover-up.

Two items in today's New York Times are relevant. There is a review of a mime performance, "America LoveSexDeath," that makes mention of one of the acts, "The Priest and the Altar Boy." From another source, it is reported that this act "depicts a priest undressing a child clearly meant to be five or six and leaves little of the ensuing activity to the imagination." It is a sure bet that not a single artist in the nation would ever do a performance based on the typical case, namely one which depicted a gay priest hitting on a postpubsescent male.

The Times also has a news piece by Ian Fisher covering the pope's trip to Austria. He writes that among many Austrian Catholics, there is "lingering anger over pedophilia scandals." But the scandal has been a homosexual one all along, and anyone who reads the data knows this to be true.

Lying about the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is commonplace. And the central reason why the lying continues is because the elites do not want to bash gays (which is fine). They just want to bash priests.

So now you all know --- it's NOT pedophilia --- it's them elitist-supported gays!

"Alter boys" indeed! ;-)

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

Comment #71665 by jimbob on September 19, 2007 at 12:35 pm

"Are we really happy to sit back and pay for this?"

Apparently so, or millions of you would be out in the streets protesting about it!

185. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71660 by jimbob on September 19, 2007 at 12:32 pm

While I can't help liking Whoopi, she came over here as more like the Whoopi in Whoopee Cushion --- and she was the smart one in the group!

186. Radical Christians in Iraq

Comment #71655 by jimbob on September 19, 2007 at 12:19 pm

What's this about "my god is real, and theirs is an idol?"

Isn't it the one and the same Yahweh (who, as RD observed, "has to be the meanest character in all fiction!").

Onward christian soldiers -- Holy Shit!

187. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71333 by jimbob on September 18, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Question for the Catholic Church: In 50 years time what will you be apologizing for with regard to this present decade?

188. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #71330 by jimbob on September 18, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Part of me wants to laugh and go "Yay!" but part of me cringes too -- she'll undoubtedly be advanced as the stereotypical atheist -- and all of us will have to be on the defensive against the caricature.

189. Argentine Church Faces 'Dirty War' Past

Comment #71018 by jimbob on September 17, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Wonder how Donohue will spin this one as a nasty attack on catholics?

190. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70901 by jimbob on September 17, 2007 at 7:51 am

Great choice of pictures! Is that nude guy giving god the finger the first documented antitheist?

Maybe Hitch in his younger days?

Just thought I'd change the tone of this discussion a bit!

;-)

191. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70182 by jimbob on September 14, 2007 at 9:16 am

"the sheer inaccuracy of Hitchin's rant" tweaked another nerve in me too. It reminded me of Donohue's incessant charge that The Missionary Possition book has no reference citations (see also 08-24 entry at: http://www.catholicleague.org/chatterbox.php for more of the same.

In each case (especially when you go ahead-to-head with Donohue again Hitch!) the responding challenge should be "OK, just what is not accurate?"

The bee in my bonnet about "Oops, there goes #9 again" is largely because us (supposedly amoral) atheists keep missing easy opportunities to nail the lies of the religious zealots.

When Donohue invited Hitch to continue the debate outside, a comment about how easily religious folks resort to violence wouldn't have gone amiss either.

Not altogether direct comment of Stanford's piece -- but perhaps pertinent to the underlying issues?

192. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70131 by jimbob on September 14, 2007 at 7:34 am

Oops, there goes #9 again!

193. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69679 by jimbob on September 12, 2007 at 7:05 am

Like most others who have commented I chuckled at this report, and I shook my head at the hypocrisy of Donohue.

However, I would humbly suggest that we take a note from the cool dignity of Hitch when he debated Donohue, and not make comments that could be used by opponents as evidence that atheists are inflammatory rabble.

If we claim to prefer educated reason to zealous defense of ancient dogmas, then it behooves us to role model such behavior -- just like Hitch, RD, et al.

Having preached that sermon, I do have to admit that any reasonable human can be forgiven for snorting and guffawing at this story!

;-)

194. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69451 by jimbob on September 11, 2007 at 9:36 am

Richard asked:

"I wonder whether we have a Dutch or Flemish volunteer out there who would like to have a look at these articles, with a view to possibly translating them for our website?"

How about asking Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

195. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69441 by jimbob on September 11, 2007 at 9:03 am

Two comments:

1. Ayaan Hirshi Ali's book "Infidel" is a must read for anybody who wants to support this initiative -- and it should be required reading for all politicians and educators too!

2. When are the leaders in the UK going to get brains enough to officially separate church and state? Anybody in the UK who wants to help get that idea going might find it helpful to work with American's United for Separation of Church and State.

196. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68452 by jimbob on September 7, 2007 at 7:55 am

Set fire to a strawman -- oops, there goes #9 again!

197. Creationism raised as Ont. election issue

Comment #68291 by jimbob on September 6, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Thank you Jefferson and Madison for sparing us this nonsense!

198. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68204 by jimbob on September 6, 2007 at 10:53 am

More on "Oops there goes #9 again!"

To reinforce the idea, here is a link to a likely rich source of material:

http://www.patrobertson.com/PressReleases/tenoffenses.asp

An example from that source: "The Ten Offenses: Reclaim the Blessings of the Ten Commandments, asserts that America was founded as a Christian nation and that recent efforts to deny or revise that fact are dangerous to our society."

199. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68176 by jimbob on September 6, 2007 at 9:43 am

This gives me the opportunity to post what I wrote privately to RD a few days ago. What about the idea (below) Richard?

It has often amazed me that the more that religious folks thump their bibles claiming god as the source of morality, and the 10 commandments as holy law -- then the more likely they are to ignore #9 in the decalogue by deceiving, distorting, or just plain lying to support their dogma (In the US the religious right do this all the time to advance their political agendas).

Thus, my suggestion is to have a dedicated section on the website. Maybe call it the "Oops, there goes #9 again" section?

My feeling is that such a section would bring considerable attention to both the invalidity and hypocrisy of claiming religion as the basis for morality.

(Hey Hitch, if RD doesn't like the idea, then how about using it as the title of an article?)

200. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66511 by jimbob on August 30, 2007 at 7:20 am

"Dogmatic atheist!?"

What a shame Hitch didn't give the windbag a quick one-two about the difference between blind faith and evidence-based reason.

IMO, it can't be belabored too much that atheism is NOT a religious belief, and ALL religions are dogmas.