151. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28207 by Fishpeddler on March 28, 2007 at 10:51 am

They sure like playing off the title of Dawkins' book. I think his response to the response should be The God Contusion: How the Religious Beat Us Over the Head with this Crap.

152. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #28205 by Fishpeddler on March 28, 2007 at 10:45 am

"Okay, so...how come God didn't make cows easy to peel? Or come to that, coconuts, watermelon, brazil nuts etc?"

Bananas -- just peel and eat
Carrots -- just rinse and eat
Hot dog -- just eat (no cooking required)

I think this tells us that God wants us to consume phalluses.

153. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28199 by Fishpeddler on March 28, 2007 at 10:05 am

I thought your list was fun, Spinoza, but I have some serious doubts about how smart any of these guys were:

1. Goethe -- A polymath, like Liebniz. That's just another way of saying he couldn't decide what he wanted to be when he grew up.
2. Einstein -- couldn't figure out how to work a comb to save his life.
3. Liebniz -- couldn't even remember there was a letter 't' in his last name.

Etc.

Also, two glaring omissions: Da Vinci and myself. Presumably I'm in the 11th slot, though, so I won't make a fuss. Now I gotta go, because for some strange reason the can of corn I just put in the microwave is sparking like crazy.

154. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #28030 by Fishpeddler on March 27, 2007 at 4:18 pm

My best friend is recovering from a somewhat fundamentalist upbringing. One of the things she is struggling with the most is her residual fear of hell. She heard so many fire-and-brimstone lectures when she was young that, despite her newfound ability to intellectualize that hell doesn't exists, it still haunts her at a very primal level. I'm not confident she'll ever completely get over the damage that was done. It makes me sad and angry that the Pope felt it necessary to reinforce the incalculable misery this absurd notion has caused.

155. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27918 by Fishpeddler on March 27, 2007 at 8:39 am

I still haven't figured out why they decided to single out peanut butter, of all things. According to the video, "Evolution teaches that energy, such as lightning or heat, plus matter can occasionally create new life." So why not simply pick up a rock (thereby adding energy and matter) a few times and say you've disproved the theory? I think Chuck Missler just wanted an excuse to open a new jar of peanut butter -- everybody loves doing that!

156. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27878 by Fishpeddler on March 27, 2007 at 5:29 am

What I find most interesting is simply the idea of "an atheist's nightmare". The assumption is that atheists and theists are similarly emotionally attached to their beliefs about the existence of a supreme being. However, if I was confronted with undeniable proof of god's existence (something which these videos of course fail to accomplish) I would simply say, "Gosh. I guess I was wrong" and move on. I'm not devoted to the idea of a godless universe, it is just where the evidence has led me. Facts which contradict or disturb my beliefs about the world are not at all 'nightmares'. I wish the fundamentalists could approach the world with the same intellectual courage.

157. God and His Gays

Comment #27533 by Fishpeddler on March 25, 2007 at 7:34 am

"That sidesteps, however, the conundrum that a gay person may follow the same God-given instincts as a straight person... and end up damned while the straight person ends up saved."

No one sidesteps logical conundrums quite as blissfully as Christian fundamentalists, so I don't hold much hope for this development having much effect on that community. Hopefully, though, this will further encourage the vast numbers of people who have simply acquiesced to anti-homosexual bigotry to reject it once and for all.

158. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27362 by Fishpeddler on March 24, 2007 at 8:28 am

Yikes. We certainly don't want to be blown by trumpets of doom. Nor by tubas of destruction, for that matter.

159. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27255 by Fishpeddler on March 23, 2007 at 4:30 pm

A notion evident in a couple of posts here, and worked to the hilt in the conservative press, is that climate scientists are pushing bad science on us because they are trying to advance their careers, their liberal agendas, or are trying to bring in a bit of payola. Does this not strike everyone as bizarrely counterintuitive? We are being asked to believe that your typical scientist thinks it's a great career move to promote a bad theory. The first chapter of "How to Succeed in the Sciences" would probably be, "1. Try Not to Look Like a Complete Idiot." No scientist is going to willfully stick his/her neck out for a theory they aren't convinced is backed by sound evidence.

And where exactly is the profit coming from, if you are arguing the profit motive? Are tree-huggers handing them briefcases full of cash in the parking lot? The quickest way to get rich in the climate sciences right now is to come out AGAINST global warming. The political right LOVES these people, and they can make a mint at speaking engagements.

The 'liberal-agenda' motive doesn't add up either. A rigorous program to address global warming doesn't have much appeal except as an end in and of itself. It is actually an unfortunate distraction from other issues that I -- and all the liberals I know -- would prefer to be addressing. The threats posed by global warming are like having a toilet back up in your house -- whatever you had planned for the day gets put on hold until it's cleared up.

160. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27118 by Fishpeddler on March 23, 2007 at 7:50 am

I haven't read every single post yet, but let's clear one thing up: the statement "A caused X, or B caused X" says nothing about the relationship between A and B, so it is silly and incorrect to criticize the author for comparing gay sex to killing kittens. What's more, the point was that those are examples of acts that WOULD get people up in arms, not that they SHOULD get people up in arms (well, maybe killing kittens. I love them cute little guys).

I think Luthien hit on the best idea yet: say that global warming causes gay sex! Heck, if we could convince fundies that global warming, species extinction, and unsustainable development cause gay sex, they might finally get interested in saving "God's creation".

161. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27027 by Fishpeddler on March 22, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Lodestone, there is no reason to be offended. I would not myself claim any correlation, since I haven't seen any data, but if it exists, that wouldn't necessarily reflect on you personally. It would, however, certainly point to some interesting research to be done. For example, one might study whether creationists pursue careers in engineering as a way of experiencing logic, reason, and rationality, since those pleasures are completely absent from their religious lives.

And Yorker, I am NOT AT ALL one of the engineer bashers, but I have to point out: saying you 'rely' on science isn't the same thing as saying you 'do' science. But I agree with your basic argument. How lucky we would all be if everyone had as much knowledge and understanding of the sciences as engineers typically do.

162. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27023 by Fishpeddler on March 22, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Toivo, stop being yet another person who has deceived himself into believe he's achieved a higher plane of understanding. "I don't care" this, "I don't care" that. Then stop wasting bandwidth. Leave those of us who do care about... well, anything, our tiny little niche so we can discuss things we foolishly care about. Like the planet, and humanity. You know -- dumb stuff like that.
Go post to your heart's content on www.Idontgivearip.com. Actually, don't even post there. Live up to your creed and go eat Cheetos on the couch.

To everyone else, I'm sorry to be so ornery, but I'm tired of reading interesting articles and than having to sort through "I don't care" posters who make absolutely no effort to add to a discussion about what we just read.

A variety of viewpoints is great. Telling us you can't be bothered to have a viewpoint is insulting and a waste of our time.

163. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26634 by Fishpeddler on March 20, 2007 at 7:33 pm

"Dawkins would either have been an advocate of one or the other."

I'll consider myself lucky, then, that purely through a roll of the dice rather than through a lifetime devoted to the pursuit of knowledge and reason, Mr. Dawkins ended up an advocate for a non-theistic perpective on the world.

164. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26630 by Fishpeddler on March 20, 2007 at 6:39 pm

I'm not sure where the "supposed revelatory statements" bit comes from, Cheshire. But to any extent the book has been or could be called revelatory, I'd attribute it to, among other factors, Dawkins' particular blend of passion, erudition, timeliness, and breadth. Perhaps most importantly, though this fact may be a bit obvious and prosaic, the book is being read by a wide audience, many of whom are clearly new to these concepts -- and the audience is as much a component of 'revelation' as the speaker.

165. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26609 by Fishpeddler on March 20, 2007 at 5:17 pm

I'm somewhat interested in this book. Every unfavorable treatment of The God Delusion I've seen so far has clearly been from the "I didn't actually read it" camp or the "I didn't actually understand most of it" camp. I would be quite pleased if, finally, someone critical of Dawkins' book truly ENGAGED THE TEXT in their criticism. What a breath of fresh air that would be, and useful in evaluating and improving our own arguments.

166. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26603 by Fishpeddler on March 20, 2007 at 5:02 pm

September 2007 is probably correct. Steven Pinker's new book has already been announced, but it isn't being released until Sept '07 either.

167. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

Comment #26569 by Fishpeddler on March 20, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Another great example of how you have to judge people on their actions rather than their words. I would have been ready to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, especially after a line like "Critical thinking is vital to scientific inquiry." Just good old intellectual integrity at work, right? Wrong. His supplemental lesson did not just happen, by pure coincidence, to make links between Nazis and two of the things fundies hate most in this world, evolution and Planned Parenthood. Take one thing EVERYONE is convinced is evil, add another two things you WANT everyone to think is evil, mix them all together, and presto, no one can tell the difference.

I'm concerned about the headline, "Biology teacher fired for referring to bible." The Christians who are portraying themselves as a beleaguered, oppressed minority are going to have a field day with that one. Shouldn't the headline have read, "Science teacher fired for failure to teach science"?

168. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26274 by Fishpeddler on March 18, 2007 at 9:05 am

It is exciting that gaps in the fossil record continue to be filled. However, I do agree with fonex_86's sentiment above. The battle against the foolishness that is Creationism will be won on a much more fundamental level than simply increasing the body of evidence, which is already overwhelming. The battle will be won only when our society is no longer under the sway of people who reject weight-of-evidence and logic as the best methods of discovering truths about our world. And that won't happen at least until we being to do a better job of developing sound critical thinking skills and understanding of science in our children. A small percentage of children are more or less 'science tracked', and the rest are condemned to an lifetime understanding of the universe dominated by the supernatural and absurd.

169. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26180 by Fishpeddler on March 17, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Amazing! Not only did God ingeniously place this creature in the strata such as to further deceive us into believing in the theory of evolution, but he conveniently placed a penny there for us to see that this fossil is only as old as Abraham Lincoln. Praise baby Jesus!

170. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26149 by Fishpeddler on March 17, 2007 at 8:30 am

I love the bit about how homosexuality would still be a sin even if it had a biological basis. So the doctrine of original sin, possibly the stupidest idea of a religion that has been a cornucopia of stupid ideas for 2000 years, just hatched another evil offspring. Man, this would be hilarious if only it were fiction.

171. Interview with Steven Pinker

Comment #26029 by Fishpeddler on March 16, 2007 at 7:03 am

Pinker's new book, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature, comes out this September. Can't wait. Also, he has an excellent article called "A History of Violence" in the 3/19 issue of The New Republic, discussing the somewhat counter-intuitive trend of diminishing human violence.

172. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25616 by Fishpeddler on March 14, 2007 at 10:29 am

This article has so many serious problems it's hard to know where to start. I'll just pick one and leave it at that:

"Rather than burrow beneath the surface of faith and ask why it is that people increasingly take on religious identities, Harris takes both religious texts and the pronouncements of believers at face value."

I'm fairly certain Harris addresses this supposed mistake in The End of Faith. Though I don't recall his exact argument, I believe it was along the lines of: 'Why the heck shouldn't we take their pronouncements at face value?' Many people actually believe all the absurdities in the Koran and the Bible. How do we know this? Because these beliefs not only color their speech, but demonstrably influence their behavior.

Further, while it is doubtless true that many adherents of a faith don't believe each and every tenet of the faith, how can it possibly be the atheist's responsibility to argue based on assumptions about theists' beliefs? How can we engage in any dialogue at all if there is a complete disconnect between what people say (or deliberately imply through, say, church-going) they believe and what they actually believe? It's time for people of faith to either openly disavow the most vile tenets of their faith, or to accept the harsh criticism that deservedly comes with endorsing them.