Comments by walk

Comment #101638 by walk on December 20, 2007 at 4:21 pm

frankie1958 (71)

In 1000 years, the Church of Elvis and Graceland will be America's answer to Catholicism and the Vatican.

Sign me up! At least the music will be a HUGE improvement!

And we've got pretty good evidence that he actually existed!

152. This Week's Flea

Comment #101630 by walk on December 20, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Eric (84),

I had some trouble understanding what you are trying to say (my fault), but I believe you're agreeing with Haught. I think you're saying, 'Science has proved evolution and how the universe works, it can't detect god, but it doesn't address emotions. As humans we need to feel love, transcendence, hope, and purpose, and science doesn't give us that.' - - Is this what you're saying, or did I miss your point?

At any rate, I believe we all need the miracles of science, medicine and technology, and also to experience the joys of love, transcendence, hope and purpose. But, unlike Haught, I just don't need to believe in a divine dictator to experience all these wonderful things.

153. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101611 by walk on December 20, 2007 at 3:08 pm

BJohn, you said:

Things don't just pop into existence, they are created or "caused" by other things.

Okay, so what created god?

154. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101558 by walk on December 20, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Paula, I see you've changed your screen name to your real name as Steve Zara did. - - Cool! (Now, let's see, my nickname among my musician friends is Walk, but maybe - - )

Lobdog (48)

Santa is an anagram of Satan?????

How convieeeennient!!

155. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101454 by walk on December 20, 2007 at 11:32 am

BJohn,

Thanks for the response. You said:

The creator of the universe must transcend or "be outside" the universe or else he would be "inside"

Here you simply assume that a creator exists. Although science so far cannot tell us exactly how the universe began, it can describe almost everything that happened after that with no need for the intervention of some supernatural intelligence. Why do you believe that the simple chemical structures that existed shortly after the big bang had to be put there by a BEING? And how, do you believe, did this infinitely intelligent entity arise out of nothing?

Until you can show proof of this, I don't see a need to go any further.

156. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101439 by walk on December 20, 2007 at 11:12 am

NormanDoering (72)

walk wrote:

"...You can make your own decision as to what you want to believe."

I don't think you phrased that right.

I see your point, Norman. I thought about how that sounded before I wrote it. I guess I was thinking of my Christian wife, who has actually said, "If there is no god, I don't want to know!" So, I realize that people believe what they believe, but in some cases it seems they believe what they WANT to believe.

157. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #101407 by walk on December 20, 2007 at 10:16 am

Big City (309),

Thanks for the info. I was unaware that someone could smoke occasionally without feeling the addictive effects. Anyone have any additional thoughts on this?

158. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100976 by walk on December 19, 2007 at 6:00 pm

My Mom was a free-thinking Italian and raised me north of Boston, MA, USA. She didn't attend church, never mentioned god (I think she hoped it might be true), and sent me to a Protestant church to, "Give me a chance to hear the story" and decide for myself. I was baptized, "just in case".

When I was about 12, she said "How'd you like Sunday school this morning?" I said, "They wouldn't answer my questions, 'If Adam and Eve where the first people, and had Cain and Abel, where did Cain's wife come from? Did he marry his sister?' "

She said, "Do you still want to go to church?" I said "No", and that was that. But in her mind she 'gave me a chance, just in case'.

If atheists are open minded, they should be willing to at least expose their kids to these beliefs held by many, but in the case of, say, a Catholic wife, and a deal with the church, I don't believe Clegg (or bammfreethinker {21} ) would offend his wife by saying something like, "This is what your mother believes, and you and I will respect that. Some people have different beliefs. You can make your own decision as to what you want to believe."

159. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #100863 by walk on December 19, 2007 at 1:20 pm

BJohn,

Thanks for the in depth post. Admittedly, I'm not the best one here to answer, as I cannot quote scripture off the top of my head the way many here can do, but I'll try to respond to the best of my ability.

God is completely outside of the universe

You simply state this as a fact. How can you reasonably know something like this? Is it just what your church believes or do you have some rational proof that this is true? Where did god come from? If you say he always existed or he created himself, then you could apply this same claim to the universe itself, negating the need for god.

70,000 people witnessed the sun "spin" for several minutes and then appear to "dive" towards the earth before pulling back and returning to its normal position.

If this ACTUALLY happened, any astronomer would tell you our entire solar system would fly apart. Seeing as how we're still here, this could not have happened.

he didn't create us to "get" something from us.

Then why does the bible keep asking believers to praise him continuously?

If you could address these questions first, I'll respond to the rest later. Thank you.

160. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100764 by walk on December 19, 2007 at 9:53 am

steveroot (151)

It's The Steve Club! :-)

Cool! - - - Sign me up!

Steve

161. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100511 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Steve Zara (former screen name Steve99),

I also consider you one of the heavies. Your posts are always inciteful and I look forward to them with relish. You are very generous, patient, and polite with even the most vexing faith-heads.

I lift my cup!

- Steve Walker (secular upbringing, lifetime skeptic, recent full blown atheist, college physics major, career rock singer/guitarist/entertainer).

162. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100481 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Paula (38),

Thanks for the great new word (for me) "incentivised " (to provide {someone} with an incentive for doing something). I can't wait to use it in conversation!

You know I think I'm kind of offended at being called "faithless"! Get in line Christians! What, am I some kind of book store punching bag?" - - - That's it, I'm organizing a protest in front of Borders. Oh come all ye atheist bashers! Faithless is it? Just becase I have no faith, you have the unmitigated GALL to call me what I am! Hello ACLU? Call your best lawyers, I see $$$$!

163. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #100459 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Graham,

I've never smoked, but do you suppose there are actually those who just "have an occasional smoke"? It seems that given the nature of the addiction, only the beginning smoker would smoke infrequently. - - - Perhaps someone with incredible will power?

164. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100455 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Brian (140),

Thanks. Yes, I think it can eventually all be explained naturally. This certainly is a fascinating subject and as we know conciousness in general will hopefully be the next big field of study.

165. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100454 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Thanks, Steve.

166. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100431 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Steve, I can see where you're coming from, but I feel there's enough serious, well reasoned discussion here to outweigh the occasional (sometimes not so occasional) outburst of silliness or frustration. Although it certainly doesn't hurt to bring attention to it. I cherish this site also, and want it to be the best it can be. Thanks for caring!

167. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100425 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Brian,

I'm intrigued. Do you feel there might actually be an explanation beyond simple hallucination for these experiences?

Ricey,

The reviews seem to say that most of the anti-religious content had been removed. Would you have gotten that message if you weren't looking for it? How blatant was it?

168. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100405 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 3:11 pm

To ES' credit, at least he asked short, non-preachy questions, and gave the good professor ample time to answer.

169. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #100403 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Hah!

170. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #100401 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 3:04 pm

This is way off topic, but do you notice the size of Sam Harris' pupils in the close-up above! I think he's having one o' them thar' meditative experiences during the discussion! ;)

On a serious note, (can't recall which comments), but some posters have accused Sam of belief in reincarnation, afterlife, etc. Lead me to a quote if I'm wrong, but I believe Sam has only said that's there's enough anecdotal evidence of certain phenomena to warrant further study, and while he does reap rewards from meditation, he doesn't ascribe any supernatural explanations for these internal benefits.

171. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100382 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Agreed.

172. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100372 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 2:33 pm

phasmagigas (126),

Sounds like you're talking about the likes of Peter Popoff and Slyvia Browne! That fact that these frauds are still getting away with it is truly depressing.

173. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100364 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Rtambree (85) and czrpb (82),

I stand corrected. I was confusing altruism with simple human kindness. I wasn't thinking that true altruism implies a loss to the giver. Although I think the best of us would, for instance, push a child out of the way of an oncoming bus. But I suppose a good question would be, at what level of risk to ourselves would we attempt it?

174. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #100300 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Thanks, Northern Bright.

175. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100234 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 12:08 pm

czrpb,

If you came upon an old lady who had fallen in the street, would you help her up?

176. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #100230 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 12:01 pm

BJohn,

Okay, I'll bite - - - do you believe the Abrahamic god (I assume that's the one you're talking about) answers prayers?

177. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100227 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 11:56 am

If the faith-heads could only see the fallacy of the Stalin argument. "Yes, I know the Chistians killed many people, but Stalin killed lots of people too, and he was an atheist, so atheism is just as bad as Christianity, therefore god exists."

I think Richard might find a better word than "mis-fire" to describe altruism to strangers. It conveys the sense that altruism towards strangers is somehow wrong. I realize he's saying that the evolutionary purpose is being extended to a (supposedly) non-evolutionary application, but there might be a better descriptive word. I know I help stangers because it just feels good to know I've helped someone. If they show gratitude, all the better. Doesn't take a god-belief.

178. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #100161 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 10:31 am

BJohn (151)

Some beliefs are more probable than others, and others are simply irrational. (...)
one does not have to violate his reason in order to believe that a "Supreme being" exists outside of the universe.

So, let's see, one does not have to violate reason to believe that an immensely powerful entity, which is so powerful it can arguably create universes, move huge stars around at will, etc., created this incredibly large universe with the sole purpose of giving rise to the species homo sapiens in this tiny corner of space. This incredible entity, although totally invisible, (and undetectable even to our most sensitive instruments), nevertheless reaches into our material world and manipulates it (again undetectably) in response to some of the silent wishes of some of his creatures (only the ones he favors).

If these creatures follow the almost indecipherable rules set forth in a badly flawed 2,000 year old book, think the right thoughts, behave properly in the bedroom, etc., this being will grant them (or some illusive, undetectable part of them) eternal life somewhere beyond space and time. However if they violate any of these strange conditions, or have the audacity to not believe his son (who is actually him) was born of a virgin, then he condemns them to burn for eternity with great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Yup, sounds perfectly rational to me.

179. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #100140 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 9:41 am

I realize this thread is finished (phew is right!), but I would like to congratulate Goldy for landing the coveted comment number 666!

180. This Is Not a Test

Comment #100135 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 9:36 am

Duff (39),

Yes, I love the phrase "that smirking hick" (vintage Hitchspeak), but I'm also drawn to Circumspect's "Reverend Huckleberry". Of course the scariest (and most open to the world's ridicule) would be (please forgive me) - - President Huckabee. Ugh!

The best thing that can be said for this guy is that he's taking votes away from Romney.

181. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99726 by walk on December 17, 2007 at 12:31 pm

JayD,

I agree. I thought it was cool that they often asked questions of each other, and also seemed to try to keep the discussion coherent, often returning to something that hadn't been completed. In effect, they moderated themselves.

I believe the "episode 1" designation has to do with upcoming talks by others. Hopefully they will appear together again.

182. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99723 by walk on December 17, 2007 at 12:26 pm

kris,

It's like a breath of fresh air having an open-minded believer like you on board! Thanks for the New Scientist link. - - Interesting.

183. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99710 by walk on December 17, 2007 at 11:35 am

Having Hitch onboard is like sprinkling cayenne pepper on your fried eggs. Dennet can be a bit dry and slow-paced, Richard a bit genteel, Harris always superb, but Hitchens is like a fantastic slap in the face. I'm afraid without him things would be intellectually stimulating, but somewhat bland. He was included for good reason. He entertains. For an old partier like me (finally put the bottle down 15 yrs. ago) he's a hoot! I realize his delivery can be off-putting to believers (and obviously some non-believers), but it's a great antidote to the pomposity we see from the faith side of some of the debates we've seen.

184. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99692 by walk on December 17, 2007 at 10:26 am

krisking,

Because the fossil record is so sparse (most bones turn to dust), I believe the most definitive proof of evolution comes from genetics. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the proof is fairly conclusive, right up to the ape to man connection. You also might ask yourself why evolution is taught at almost every school and university throughout the world, and is corroborated in all the science books and encyclopedias.

185. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99687 by walk on December 17, 2007 at 10:16 am

Going back to some posts by Sara (36) and monkey2 (45) on the existence of Jesus (and I realize this has been mentioned elsewhere), there's an investigation named "The Jesus Project"
see: http://www.cfiwest.org/calendar/JesusProject.htm
and: http://www.jesus-project.com/
which, over the next 5 years will try to come to a conclusion on this question. The participating scholars will be made up of theists and atheists. Should be interesting.

186. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99479 by walk on December 16, 2007 at 6:30 pm

I could be way off here, but it seemed to me that Dawkins jokingly accused Hitch of wanting to keep faith around just to give him someone to debate, and Hitch jokingly went along, wink, wink. I thought he was really saying something like, 'It's always going to be here, and truthfully, some people seem to need it to handle life's uncertainties'.

At any rate I love Hitch's bad boy attitude, coupled with his amazing grasp of literature and history. After spending some of my time during the day around believers, I really need a good dose of Hitch (preferably video) to feel right again.

187. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97831 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 5:26 pm

"Do this or we kill the puppy"

Now, THERE'S a reason I can understand!

188. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97772 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 4:02 pm

If I were a secular suicide bomber, I'd sure be thinking, "Can't we come up with a better way to do this?" Certainly, a living terrorist would be more valuable to the cause than a dead one.
Or would they?

189. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97766 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 3:54 pm

The Viet Cong has launched suicide attacks against U.S. troops in the 1960's. They were as atheist as you can get.

Amazing! What do you feel was their motivation? It's truly hard for me to imagine (spoiled American). Sacrifice for family? For country?

190. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97746 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 3:13 pm

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Do YOU believe if you don't accept Jesus and God you will go to hell?

191. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97743 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Bonzai (369), thanks for the brief history lesson - I was totally unaware of these facts. I think we all realize that the reasons for 9/11 are complicated. However, and this goes back to the sign, do you think these educated guys would have suicided if they were atheists?

192. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97737 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 3:04 pm

kris, what is your view of homosexuality?

193. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97734 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Kris (368) Yes, but if you don't believe in Jesus, does God forgive you?

194. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97730 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 2:56 pm

kris, seeing as there is no convincing evidence of God's existence, do you believe he exists because it's comforting and that you WANT it to be true?

195. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97727 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 2:51 pm

krisking, I think you're headed in the right direction. You've made some friends here. They're good people, and are willing to converse with logical open minded people of any philosophical persuasion. If you have questions, they have studied belief and reality from every angle, and just might have some good answers for you.

it's not important whether I belong to any particular denomination.

Agreed.

196. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97706 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 2:34 pm

krisking, do you belong to a particular denomination, or is your interpretation your own? (Sorry I was a bit confrontational earlier).

197. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97697 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 2:26 pm

A whole reading of the Bible points to its central message.

Ya, worship ME or else!

198. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97690 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 2:18 pm

krisking, as Brian has mentioned there are approx. 33,000 Christian sects in the world all living by the same book, and all swearing that they are the only ones going to heaven and all the others are going to hell. Which of these is right (i.e. which one do you belong to) and why?

199. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97685 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 2:13 pm

If a person is about to die, it might ease their suffering to believe that they will join previously deceased loved ones in heaven

I saw a video clip of a Christian teen leaving church one day. He was asked if he was going to visit his mother, who was dying quickly and only had a short time to live. He said, "Well, I'm going to see her in heaven some day, so why should I?" - - - Tragic

200. Holy Nonsense

Comment #97543 by walk on December 12, 2007 at 9:55 am

scott715,

Thanks for posting. As an ex-Mormon, you're in a much better position to see the possible danger of having a Mormon president. It's too bad the general public doesn't have the information you possess. I don't believe Romney will get the Republican nomination, but hopefully the attention that has been brought to Mormonism, and having some of the bizarre beliefs come to light will be a good thing.