201. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49568 by NormanDoering on June 12, 2007 at 12:03 pm

This Fishie Stanley sounds a lot like Chris Hedges:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/06/chris-hedges-new-face-of-anti-atheism.html

Their arguments self-destruct, crumbling under the weight of their own contradictions and sink into a black hole of obfuscations from which neither light nor reason can ever emerge.

202. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48439 by NormanDoering on June 8, 2007 at 1:18 am

With enemies like Chris Hedges you don't need friends:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/06/chris-hedges-new-face-of-anti-atheism.html

Did anyone else here think that Christ Hedges, in both his debate with Hitchens and Harris, was dressing up atheistic humanism in religious language and trying to pass that off as religion?

203. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43331 by NormanDoering on May 21, 2007 at 6:08 am

I've got a-want-to-be Christian writer who wants me to look over his book for error reports and opinions from an atheist perspective.

I was going to tell him I thought it was terrible and wouldn't sell, but then I read stuff like this and realize -- maybe he can sell.

Here's a sampling of the arguments He makes against Sam Harris:

3) Logical error. Harris says that certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one. But since Sam Harris is tolerated and left unmolested in a nation where 150 million people, by his account, possess such certainty, this is obviously wrong. This statement is particularly ironic given how he argues explicitly against tolerance for the religious faithful. It seems that it is certainty about the nonexistence of the next life that is incompatible with tolerance.
4) Factual error. Harris claims that human standards of morality are what Christians use to establish God's goodness. This is incorrect. Christians do not believe that God is subject to human morality. This should be obvious from simply considering the 10 Commandments. Is God prone to have another god before Himself? Does God have a neighbor whose wife he might covet? Who is God's father and how might He fail to honor him?
--skip 5--
6) Logical error. Harris claims religious moderates are responsible for the actions of religious extremists. But no individual can possibly be held responsible for the actions of another individual over whom he has no authority or influence and has never even met.
7) Logical error. Harris asserts that competing religious doctrines have shattered the world into separate moral communities. He also claims that the objective source of moral order is distinguishing between better and worse ways of seeking happiness. But is there any evidence that Christians seek happiness any differently than Hindus? How, precisely, do Jews seek happiness differently than Muslims? It's worth noting that Harris has probably caused greater human unhappiness with his books then Jeffrey Dahmer ever did with his unusual diet, so by his own reckoning, Harris is less moral than Dahmer.

8) Factual error. Harris claims that religious prudery contributes daily to the surplus of human misery while bemoaning the existence of AIDS in Africa and other sexually transmitted diseases in the United States. But this widespread disease is the direct result of the sexual promiscuity that Christians condemn as immoral and which Harris praises as the pursuit of happiness. More to the point, scientific research shows that religious individuals are both happier and more sexually satisfied than non-religious individuals.

204. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #38937 by NormanDoering on May 9, 2007 at 3:15 pm

why was it not mentioned that many world-respected scholars are convinced the evidence (and lack thereof) clearly shows that the three-headed Middle Eastern cult of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is founded on nonsense--if not outright lies?

Can you name some of these "many world-respected scholars" who think Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad are fictional?

You're not thinking of Joe Atwill's book "Caesar's Messiah," are you?

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

205. Martin Amis reviews The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left by Ed Hussain

Comment #38490 by NormanDoering on May 8, 2007 at 10:26 am

knox knox thejoke wrote:

Doubtless you are up to date with current figures on 2007 bombings!

Yes. It's easy.

You just don't know how really easy it is these days to be much better informed about the world than some idiot whose only information about the Tamil Tigers is a one sentence, out of context, factoid in an old magazine. Today you can get more information than you can handle about the Tamil Tigers on the internet. Like this:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/23/news/lanka.php
http://www.tamilnation.org/tamileelam/fundamentalism/hindutemples.htm
http://www.globalengage.org/media/article.aspx?id=3094
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/asia/TDA0N7U24NJR1J1TS

It shows the lie at the heart of your argument. The Tigers are mostly Hindus in what is actually a religiously inspired war.

And you still have blinders on, it seems, with regard to the meaning of "secular."

206. Martin Amis reviews The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left by Ed Hussain

Comment #38054 by NormanDoering on May 6, 2007 at 9:40 pm

knox knox joke wrote:

The basic tenets of secularism. There is no God. Naturalistic philosophy. Materialism. Logical positivism.

Boy have those fundy wing nuts lied to you. It's Orwellian how they've redefined the word "secular." Secularism is what our founding fathers wrote into the U.S. constitution, the wall of separation of church and state. Secular is the opposite of sectarian. When the Tamil Tigers say they are secular, they don't mean they're atheists, they mean that their government shouldn't endorse one religion over another. They mean only that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the function of the state especially into public education. Religion is your own private business, it's not the business of the state. The reason Hindus would go for that is because they know they are a minority.

Not only that, Logical positivism has nothing to do with either secularism or modern atheism either.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/secular

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sectarian

My Blog

207. Martin Amis reviews The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left by Ed Hussain

Comment #38024 by NormanDoering on May 6, 2007 at 6:03 pm

knox/WeePee wrote:

The information came from Prospect's August 2005 edition under their 'In fact' section. The exact quote is "The secular Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka are responsible for more suicide bombings than any other terrorist organisation in the world—up to two thirds of the total."

You're information is out of date. The issue of Prospect is 2005 (it's 2007) about two years old and it uses an older book as a source.

Read this for more in context informnation:
http://www.taoofdefiance.com/2007/04/12/professional-revertard-yvonne-ridley-misquotes-misrepresents-self/

And again, you fail to acknowledge your bigger lie of confusing secular with atheist. Just because the Tigers are secular doesn't mean they're atheists, they're mostly Hindu (also some Christians and Muslims). Their motivation is at least partly Hindu, Hindu temples were destroyed and it goes way back.

Little factoids like the kind you toss about are never the real picture.

208. Martin Amis reviews The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left by Ed Hussain

Comment #37838 by NormanDoering on May 6, 2007 at 12:44 am

I would suggest that you sue 'Prospect' magazine (the intellectual British magazine which voted RD as one of the top three intellectuals in the world). I normally take them as a reliable source - I just don't have time to go and check all the suicide bombings in the world myself.

Two possiblities:

1) You misunderstood (or lied about) what 'Prospect' magazine wrote -- provide an in context quote. Sri Lanka is where Arthur C. Clarke has lived for a long time, by choice. People go on vacations there. Your claim just doesn't add up.

or

2) You're talking about old information. In the 1980s the Tigers may have been the most deadly. Maybe even in the 1990s. But I don't see how they could be now with what seems a suicide bombing or two almost every day in Iraq.

Thank you. That was all I was trying to say.

Nope, not all. If it were you wouldn't have said more. You're lying again.

209. Martin Amis reviews The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left by Ed Hussain

Comment #37779 by NormanDoering on May 5, 2007 at 4:47 pm

BaronOchs wrote:

The fact that the Tamils are Hindu and the rest of Sri Lanka is predominantly Buddhist is relevant, the situation would be at least less ferocious without the religious divide.

I really didn't know how to estimate the effect of the religious divide, but there probably is a significant effect and I think it's going to get worse:

With full-scale war blossoming once more in a country beset by a quarter century of ethnic conflict, an ever more assertive government has found a sturdy ally in what might seem an unexpected source: hard-line Buddhist monks.

The monks have long been active in Sri Lanka's deeply polarized politics, but for the first time they have joined the governing coalition with their own political party. Called the Jathika Hela Urumaya, or National Heritage Party, they now hold 9 seats in Sri Lanka's 225-member Parliament.

The party sits at the extreme end of ethnic Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism here, as the government battles a separatist rebellion among its mostly Hindu Tamil minority.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/23/news/lanka.php

210. Martin Amis reviews The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left by Ed Hussain

Comment #37676 by NormanDoering on May 5, 2007 at 12:54 pm

weefree wrote:

The largest number of suicide bombings in the world have been done by the Tamil Tigers...

That's one big fat lie. While the The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or "the Tamil Tigers," are in general Marxist and secular and do use suicide bombers, but they have not done "the largest number of suicide bombings in the world." The Tigers may be called secular, but they aren't mostly atheist, they're mostly Hindu. Secular and atheist are not the same thing.

The honor for most suicide bombers once went to all the Palestinian rebels sending suicide bombers into Israel, but now the suicide bombings in Iraq may have them beat on all levels, number of bombers and numbers killed by them.

I would agree that the question "if Islamists shout 'God is great' as they crash passenger planes in to buildings, what do secularists shout?" is rather silly.

The only myth about "only religious people are motivated to do really bad things," is the myth so many ignorant religionists believe, the one where they think that us atheists believe it.

As for the Nazis - check this out:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-atheist.html

211. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #37384 by NormanDoering on May 4, 2007 at 10:47 am

I just posted on Andrew's latest:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/05/hes-back.html

Here's a taste:

Andrew claims that he really is bound by reason but only up to the point where reason tells us little or nothing at all. What Andrew fails to understand is that the only thing you can say when reason can tell you nothing is "I don't know." All you've really got left without reason is hope, not faith. Religious faith takes an extra and irrational jump that defies reason. Real faith, which is not religious, has to be earned by those who want our faith. It's just like Sam said, Andrew offers only "contradictions, dressed up in velvet."

Andrew is claiming to have a source of information that goes beyond reason, but he cannot provide evidence that this source has ever given anyone else accurate or tested information. In fact, his supposed two sources of information are flawed because they are the same source used to make a lot of wrong assertions, the Bible and religious experience. That's having faith in something that goes against reason.

...

A raw experience cannot give you that kind of information without being heavily interpreted. An example, an African tribesman and an anthropologist, the tribesman says that he knows there are demons because he has experienced them, and in fact he's experiencing one at that very moment. The anthropologist asks, "What is the experience like?" The tribesman says, "I can feel the demon pounding away inside my skull." So, the anthropologist gives the tribesman some aspirin and the demon appears to go away. What is an experience of a demon to the tribesman is just a headache to the anthropologist. The experience was not proof of the tribesman's conclusion.

[By the way, I think that story about the tribesman and the anthropologist comes from George H. Smith, not Sam Harris or Dawkins. Smith was an earlier atheist author who never got the kind of recognition Dawkins or Harris has yet probably deserves more.]

212. Are You There, God? It's Me, Hitchens

Comment #36319 by NormanDoering on April 30, 2007 at 11:07 pm

I'm amazed no one here has noted that Hitches thinks Rove and maybe Bush are atheists. (Well, Bush is just not sincere about dumping the booze.)

Did you catch this:

Has anyone in the Bush administration confided in you about being an atheist?

Well, I don't talk that much to them—maybe people think I do. I know something which is known to few but is not a secret. Karl Rove is not a believer, and he doesn't shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, "I'm not fortunate enough to be a person of faith."

What must Bush make of that?

I think it's false to say that the president acts as if he believes he has God's instructions. Compared to Jimmy Carter, he's nowhere. He's a Methodist, having joined his wife's church in the end. He also claims that Jesus got him off the demon drink. He doesn't believe it. His wife said, "If you don't stop, I'm leaving and I'm taking the kids." You can say that you got help from Jesus if you want, but that's just a polite way of putting it in Texas.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/is-karl-rove-atheist.html

213. Atheism's Big Night In Little Rock

Comment #35726 by NormanDoering on April 28, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Rutherford, a church-going Methodist, said the left got mad at him for bringing in Karl Rove, so it was fair for the right to get mad at him for bringing in Dawkins. Those probably are symmetrical devils.

Actually, Karl Rove may be an atheist according to Christopher Hitchens. I got the quotes on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/is-karl-rove-atheist.html

http://normdoering.blogspot.com

214. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34634 by NormanDoering on April 24, 2007 at 6:31 pm

I added a post to my blog on that "Hitler was an atheist" claim:

If Hitler was an atheist...
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/if-hitler-was-atheist.html

215. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34291 by NormanDoering on April 23, 2007 at 6:21 pm

I caught the tail end. Bill'O made the tired old claim that Hitler was an atheist.

Here are some Hitler quotes:
Mostly from:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

"National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.... For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech at Koblenz, to the Germans of the Saar, 26 Aug. 1934

"God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work...."
-Adolf Hitler, in a radio address, 30 Jan. 1945

And here is the belt buckle that says "God is with us" in German, as well as some Nazi used symbols that combine the Christian cross with the Swastika:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

And lest you think it was all Hitler pretending, there's this page:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitlerchristian.htm

"Another indication of Hitler's beliefs about religion comes from his private library of numerous books. Although most of Hitler's books came as gifts from writers and publishers, those where he penciled and underlined sections reveal, not only the books that he read, but also those that he commented on and had an interest in. Timothy W. Ryback, who examined Hitler's books, found more than 130 books devoted to spirituality and religion including the teachings of Jesus Christ. Some of the titles included, Sunday Meditations; On Prayer; A Primer for Religious Questions, Large and Small; Large Truths About Mankind, the World and God; a German translation of E. Stanley Jones's 1931 best seller, The Christ of the Mount; and a 500-page work on the life and teachings of Jesus, published in 1935 under the title The Son: The Evangelical Sources and Pronouncements of Jesus of Nazareth in Their Original Form and With the Jewish Influences. Ryback also found a leather-bound tome -- with WORTE CHRISTI, or "Words of Christ," embossed in gold on the cover -- According to Ryback, it "was well worn, the silky, supple leather peeling upward in gentle curls along the edges. Human hands had obviously spent a lot of time with this book.... I scanned the book for marginalia that might suggest a close study of the text. A white-silk bookmark, preserved in its original perfection between pages 22 and 23 (only the portion exposed to the air had deteriorated), lay across a description of the Last Supper as related by Saint John. A series of pages that followed contained only a single aphorism each: 'Believe in God' (page 31), 'Have no fear, just believe' (page 52), 'If you believe, anything is possible' (page 53), and so on, all the way to page 95, which offers the solemn wisdom 'Many are called but few are chosen.'"

We know what books were in Hitler's library, and it contained for more Christian theology than it did anything resembling science. The evidence is there and if you can look at all that evidence, words Hitler said, the Christian symbolism of the Nazis, and still say Hitler was an atheist, then you are willfully ignorant and simply prefer your delusions to reality.

216. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #31476 by NormanDoering on April 12, 2007 at 9:51 pm

BluntDissectorBotha asked:
"Why has Sam's response not yet been posted here?"

What response?

There's no response from Sam on beliefnet.com yet:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/214/story_21446_1.html

217. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #30634 by NormanDoering on April 9, 2007 at 4:54 am

Martin Brooks wrote:

Dammit but Sam's just wasted on zealots, because no matter what he says it just won't change their minds.

Not necessarily. First, the debate was public and it's possible to see who has the more rational arguments. Second, even if Andrew didn't change his mind, he probably had his "Overton window" shifted. Learn more here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/dont-try-this-at-home.html

And I'm blogging the last part of the debate here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/whats-love-got-to-do-with-it.html

Here's a taste:

As for friendship, I don't see much in the New Testament that makes Jesus out as a great friend. He spoke in riddles and parables even to the apostles. Did he tell a good joke? Did he stay up all night with Peter when Peter was sick? Maybe he cured the disciples whenever they got a cold? Jesus in the New Testament comes across as arrogant, aloof and haughty to me, full of secrets, condescending, impossibly idealistic, not giving people direct answers and more free with criticism than praise. In Luke 11, 37-40 a Pharisee has Jesus over for dinner and when the Pharisee sees that Jesus did not first wash before dinner he comments on it and Jesus says to him, "Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools ..." Reading that I wouldn't get the impression that Jesus is a polite guest. He did miracle charity work, supposedly, he supposedly fed a bunch of people with fewer loaves and fishes than should have fed them, he supposedly healed some blind people and lepers but why didn't he just eliminate all blindness and disease? Why not something really impressive that would have made a real mark on history? Something that would really prove a god had been here? Add up all the people Jesus might have fed and cured and you're not going to get that large a number. No pagan writer in Christ's time seems to have wondered at all the well fed and disease free people in Judea.

Now, when we talk science, we're talking about some real marks made on history. You want to talk about feeding thousands? How about feeding a billion?

218. The God Debate

Comment #29132 by NormanDoering on April 1, 2007 at 7:40 pm

MIND_REBEL wrote:

Only someone with no understanding of evolution or science could think Warren didn't get destroyed.

That would be about 80% of the American population who think Warren won.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com

219. The God Debate

Comment #29085 by NormanDoering on April 1, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Did Rick Warren control the editing on that or did Harris just leave his best arguments behind?

http://normdoering.blogspot.com

220. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #27728 by NormanDoering on March 26, 2007 at 11:06 am

Phaeonix wrote:

"Monty Hall Paradox, ... I wish I were a theist, just so I could see what my mind would be doing right now... "

I don't think Andrew Sullivan is going to have a problem with that. His faith is so ambiguous he thinks he can get the benefits of all three positions. He can doubt the pope (1) when he wants to, if everyone goes to God, great (2) believing that specific proposition is not required. If it depends on Jesus, well, he thinks he's got Jesus too. (3) -- What advantage does he not have?

Andrew will just claim he doesn't have to pick or know and admit he doesn't know. Knowing isn't important. His faith is not in those particulars. His faith is in a vaporous, ill-defined, religious hope for what his religion promised him. He's never had to make such a choice and Sam can't give him that.

The Christian's who made choices that meant something are the Christians who became lion food in ancient Rome.

The real question for Andrew is : "If you were in ancient Rome and you had a choice -- would you bow down to a Roman god or would you rather get fed to the lions?"

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

221. Artificial Intelligence, With Help From the Humans

Comment #27528 by NormanDoering on March 25, 2007 at 7:12 am

Both of you guys seem to know your way around neural nets, so let me ask you about Stuart Hameroff and Penrose and their theory:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/debating_the_bi.html

First, by soul I mean that consciousness (and/or unconscious processes) may be accompanied by: 1) nonlocal interconnectedness among living beings, 2) interaction with a Platonic wisdom, or cosmic intelligence inherent in the universe, and 3) existence outside the body.

I am not claiming proof of the soul, but of a scientifically plausible explanation for it based on these three factors.

Is that total Woo-woo? It sounds like it.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com

222. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #27204 by NormanDoering on March 23, 2007 at 2:12 pm

I've blogged Sam Harris' new response to Andrew:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/sam-harris-very-politely-disagrees.html

223. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26792 by NormanDoering on March 21, 2007 at 5:08 pm

the earth is probably not flat, babies are almost certainly not brought by storks,

Probably not flat? Ummm we've sent people to orbit and to the moon, we have a station in orbit now - there is no "probably" about it. When the shape of the Earth is a significant part of your technology considerations it's a fact. There's no "probably" about it. It's not a theory any more - it's a fact we live with.

"almost certainly not brought by storks?"

If you're a doctor who has watched babies pop out from between women's legs on a regular basis I think you'd be justified in not using the word "almost" in that sentence.

When genetic algorithims can produce new computer code and invent new radar devices and we see bacteria growing resistant to antibiotics you can't really question the basics of evolution.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

224. US TV Commercial for The God Delusion during Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Comment #26558 by NormanDoering on March 20, 2007 at 12:11 pm

justme wrote:

"While I'd like to see that (well, minus John Lennon -- not a fan), it would not be effective advertising for a wider audience. As a targeted add? Yep; that would work."

Maybe the marketing people should think about more targeted ads. Perhaps on MTV or VH1 with a celebrity endorsement from someone like Trent Reznor?

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

225. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26547 by NormanDoering on March 20, 2007 at 8:43 am

tinisoli, I tried to make a comment at your blog, in your Sullivan post, and nothing showed up -- but I got a message saying your comments were moderated. Did you know?

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

226. US TV Commercial for The God Delusion during Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Comment #26505 by NormanDoering on March 19, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Why did that commercial remind me of older commercials for Dianetics/Scientology -- was it the narrator's voice?

I'm not sure that is good marketing. Why not go with John Lennon's song instead of just a couple lyrics from it? Somehow it seemed cheap. Maybe do a meddly - John Lennon imagine, then Trent Reznor / Nine Inch Nails "Heresy": "Your god is dead and no one cares." Then use lots of clips of religious figures - bin Laden, Pat Robertson -- even George Bush -- Waco and David Koresh, Jonestown, Sun Yung Moon in full get-up...

http://normdoering.blogspot.com

227. Atheism hasn't hurt Fremont Rep. Stark

Comment #26496 by NormanDoering on March 19, 2007 at 7:02 pm

sirreal wrote:
"Not long ago I was pessimistically expecting to be living in a theocratic fascist state."

I seriously doubt things could get that bad. But while I see hope for atheists making some nice political waves in the near future I don't think we'll see an atheist majority in America for several generations - if ever. But what we have on our side now is that the religious amoung us are more seriously divided. They can't agree on what God is supposedly telling them to do about politics. Even evangelicals are figuring out that they can't automatically trust their fellow fundies to be competent, honest or sane.

228. Atheism hasn't hurt Fremont Rep. Stark

Comment #26225 by NormanDoering on March 17, 2007 at 8:17 pm

mark1958 wrote:

...if he ran for president, I am sure it would become a big issue. Moreover, if he were a congressman in any but a few states (e.g. CA), it would be an issue.

Don't be so sure. The broad fundy Christian embrace of such an incompetent and corrupt administration as Bush's may have done more damage than we know to religion in politics.

George Bush and Ann Coulter have been very good to atheism. The tide may be turning agianst them.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

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

Comment #26132 by NormanDoering on March 17, 2007 at 6:19 am

karlJ asked:

Is Your Baby a Conservative Christian? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

There's an article, "Religion's Generation Gap Growing," on beliefnet.com. They claim there is an alarming increase in religious belief in young people.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/213/story_21317_1.html

The nominal Christian and liberal parents discover that they don't actually like what is happening to their kids.

It's not something I would want:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/are-we-losing-this-generation.html
Are we losing this generation?

230. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #26038 by NormanDoering on March 16, 2007 at 7:27 am

Philip1978 wrote:
"Mr Sullivan, hearing voices in your head is not good and I suggest seeking professional help."

Auditory hallucinations are usually associated with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, and hold special significance in diagnosing those conditions. But they are also more common in non-psychotics than most people realize. You don't have to be psychotic or schizophrenic. They usually happen when normal, non-psychotic people, are fatigued or because of extreme anxiety or stress. They also happen with high doses of cocaine, amphetamine or other stimulants.

If the only time it happened was in a stress situation, Andrew in all probability is of normal sanity.

Christian dogma has anxiety inducing elements (will you be damned to hell or go to Heaven for those who take it seriously) thus Christian dogma can help create the conditions for auditory hallucinations and born again experiences. Also, extreme religion does attract psychotics.

But Andrew is not extreme in his religiosity. The question is if he hears voices on any kind of regular basis. I don't think he does.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

231. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25950 by NormanDoering on March 15, 2007 at 7:17 pm

Diabolics wrote:

I guess andrew arrived at the end station of the religious train route, fear of death.

Rob Knop at:
http://scienceblogs.com/interactions/

is another Christian who ultimately doesn't want to die. He's got two posts going on and on about how he is a Christian but doesn't believe a lot of stuff you think is standard Christian dogma. So, why? He admits he doesn't want to die.

Here he says:
http://brahms.phy.vanderbilt.edu/~rknop/blog/?p=43

Well, I want to believe in something like an immortal soul, for that really does take some of the sting out of the idea of thinking ahead to my own death. But I'm not sure if I do believe in something immaterial (and not subject to material measurement) that (somehow) lives on after death.

It's not really that weird that Andrew realizes that his faith is rooted in the fear of death. It's typical for all religious people. I don't want to die either, but religions have no credibility in my book. I just hope the Singularity comes around while I'm still here. Don't think it will though.

232. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25920 by NormanDoering on March 15, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Logicel, you noted that my comment setup is very rigid. I just changed it. Try it now and see if you like it better.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

233. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25890 by NormanDoering on March 15, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Logicel wrote:

Attitudes towards death are culturally based.

I'll quote my blog post:

Christians force their fear of death on the rest of us. Consider the right-to-die advocates like Jack Kevorkian. Proponents of physician-assisted suicide have been advocating its legalization for those who are terminally ill but our Christian society resists. Some of us think a suicide is the best way to die if you're terminally ill. You have choice. You have control. You're ready.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/andrew-sullivan-talks-death.html

234. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25631 by NormanDoering on March 14, 2007 at 11:46 am

I blogged it and fisked it:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/andrew-sullivan-talks-death.html

Here's a little taste:

Sam, according to Andrew, argued that Andrew's:

...notion of God "doesn't have much in the way of specific content (apart from love)." I have indeed held back a little (although God-as-love is no small idea; it is an immense idea).

It's also an immense contradiction considering this God-as-love supposedly damns people to eternal Hell. In the Old Testament God's character is fairly consistent, the Bible portrays Moses as someone who talked God and took orders from him. This God then told Moses to go around and kill people for various absurd reasons, and that's in addition to his own previous terrorist actions like flooding the Earth. This is what the Old Testament tells us about how the Midians are killed, all of them except the virgin girls:

...

Remember "1984" and the Party's slogan: "WAR IS PEACE." Using the term "GOD IS LOVE" is also doublespeak because if we look at God's behavior in the Old Testament he more often acts out of hate, he punishes and destroys. He drowned the world, flamed 2 cities, ordered Moses to kill thousands... He sends non-believers to hell for eternity in the New Testament. What is love if it is not nurturing and helping? What does punishment that last for eternity accomplish in shaping behavior? At the very least God's love is highly conditional. "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY" applies to Christian thinking too. While I might feel free doing what I want, it just makes me a slave of Satan. Believing eventually comes down to obedience out of fear, the same reason a slave obeys, but it is supposed to make us "free." The Old Testament is a record of the horror God supposedly inflicted, the New Testament is a promise of horrors to come when the Jews failed to inflict those horrors on the Romans and then got pushed out of their land in 70 AD.

This Christian doublespeak is used by politicians like George W. Bush now. Consider the way Bush throws around terms like "evil" as in "axis of evil." Like bin Laden he tries to paint a picture of a battle between good and evil. But "good" is NOT the opposite of "evil." The opposite of "good" is "bad." The opposite of "evil" is "'gracious,' 'nuturing,' 'merciful,'" etc.. The opposite of 'that which deprives of benefit' is 'that which shares benefit.' "Nothing is evil lest thinking make it so" and "evil" is simply an ungracious assessment of ungracious acts. Thus good and evil are relativistic unless clearly defined in terms that remove them simply from "what God wants." If this were not a Christian country more voters would have seen through Bush's Christian doublespeak.

235. Out There

Comment #25267 by NormanDoering on March 11, 2007 at 1:36 pm

According to quantum theory, particles can pop into and out of existence.

Particles that pop into and out of existence isn't just theory. It's an observed fact and a potential source of energy. Look up "the Casimir effect" or Casimir-Polder Force.

A Blog from Hell

236. Out There

Comment #25266 by NormanDoering on March 11, 2007 at 1:15 pm

bruno_burned wrote:

There is far more "spirituality" (of the material monist variety) in this article than any holy text I've ever read.

I'm not sure that Mr. Dawkins would approve of your use of the term "spirituality," even of the material monist variety. The word "spirituality" should imply spirits, shouldn't it? It can imply dime store psychics that read your palm and gaze into crystal balls and Ouija boards and you want to mix that with the feelings one gets from cosmology?

And yet I know what you're talking about and you did put quotes around the word.

A Blog from Hell

237. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25178 by NormanDoering on March 10, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Here's my favorite:

If atheism is just another religion, then health is just another disease.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

238. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24975 by NormanDoering on March 9, 2007 at 2:53 pm

There's this Christian libertarian, Vox Day, who wrote "The case against science" for World Net Daily and he declared there:
"...is real cause to doubt the continued benefit of science to modern society, or even its right to a respectable place within it."

I blogged on the vile thing here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/religions-war-on-science-part-1.html

It gets worse than I quoted above.

It's like karlJ wrote: "The selective mind of the religious is completely astonishing!"

239. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #24773 by NormanDoering on March 8, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Hey Kergillian,

I like your picture of the pope and I used it on my blog, here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/censorship-at-huffpo.html

If you mind, I'll take it down - it doesn't really fit the post it's on and will be replaced eventually. It's just marking a spot until then.

240. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #24243 by NormanDoering on March 5, 2007 at 1:24 pm

I wrote a review of the show here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/tv-review-lost-tomb-of-jesus.html

One thing I liked was when, quoting my own blog; "Mr. Jacobovichi also argued how his own evidence was better than that of an archeologist who believed that back in 1990 the tomb of the "Caiaphas" family had been discovered and that this tomb had the bones of the very "Joseph, son of Caiaphas" that was the Jewish high priest who organized the plot to kill Jesus. The Caiaphas who convinced the Sanhedrin that Jesus should die and was also involved in the trial of Jesus after his arrest in the garden of Gethsemane.

If this Jesus isn't the Jesus of the New Testament, then why believe that their Caiaphas is the Caiaphas of the New Testament? Did anything in their tomb suggest any of that Caiaphas family had been high priests? Well, if that archeologist had anything it was edited out. It was a point that didn't boost Jacobovichi's own credibility but rather one that gave me less confidence in biblical archeology overall, which was pretty low to begin with."

I noted this over at Bruce Feiler's blog on HuffPo:

Then I discovered, maybe, I'm getting censored at HuffPo:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/censorship-at-huffpo.html

Turns out, Bruce Feiler may have a stake in the Caiaphas claim.

241. The Silence That Kills

Comment #23793 by NormanDoering on March 2, 2007 at 7:45 pm

This newspaper column brought to mind another article I read, in the Christian Science Monitor called, "The myth of Muslim support for terror" about a poll conducted by an organization called "Terror Free Tomorrow" that claims to show that Muslim countries have fewer pro-terrorist attitudes than Americans do.

The article begins with this paragraph:
"Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria."

I try to rip it apart here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/terror-free-tomorrow.html

Mostly though, I just ask questions that aren't really resolved. It just doesn't add up.

242. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23635 by NormanDoering on March 1, 2007 at 10:28 pm

Graham wrote:
"...to see what kind of a magazine Christianity Today magazine is. I see it is the publication started by Billy Graham...."

I looked at their science articles, they've got the more infamous Intelligent Design advocates William Dembski, Phillip Johnson and Jonathan Wells writing against evolution.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

243. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23367 by NormanDoering on February 28, 2007 at 6:53 am

This is the dark side of science fiction; it's the lure of pseudoscience that sucks in some of science fictions most popular players. Remember Leonard Nimoy hosting a program called "In Search of"? Remember Jonathan Frakes narrating Alien Autopsy?

Cameron and Jacobovichi, who made this show, have already shot their credibility by making a documentary that claimed to have "proved" the Exodus.

I've got more information on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

244. Dawkins v. Collins Debate

Comment #23365 by NormanDoering on February 28, 2007 at 6:29 am

MIND_REBEL wrote:
"Francious Collins ... I wish there was some sort of standard system to prevent theists from making it 'in', ..."

That's being too bigotted in a way that's not smart for our minority situation.

Science is for those who can do it well no matter what their beliefs.

245. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #23284 by NormanDoering on February 27, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Well, I did some research, and it looks like York has got a right to say what he does. Checking it against Jane Goodall's views, he's basically right:

http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/chimpanzees/gombe/tool.asp

"Jane observed David and other chimps actually picking leafy twigs then stripping the leaves so that the twig was a suitable tool. This was modification of an object to make a tool — the crude beginning of tool making."

While not Earth shattering, biting a stick and gnawing it to a spear point still requires a different knowledge of the materials and how they can be shaped. But it should not be unexpected considering what's been observed before.

It would be more remarkable if they ground the sticks into points with a sharp rock, filing it to a real sharp point, but they don't, so it's rather disappointing. But I wonder if they could be taught to do it?

246. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #23277 by NormanDoering on February 27, 2007 at 1:21 pm

A More recent comment:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/the_jew_thing.html

"Sam Harris and I have been debating God online (I'm at work on my latest epistle but had to finish my D'Souza review first), so why not debate the Jews?"

247. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #23232 by NormanDoering on February 27, 2007 at 3:18 am

Yorker wrote:
"I think there's no doubt that early humans developed spearing weapons, I just very much doubt it would have been one of the first."

I have no idea what kind of distinction you're trying to force on me that I never said. "One of the first" is a very vague statement and if you want to put found tools like thrown rocks and clubs ahead of spears, you'd be right no doubt.

However, how about this; spearheads found dating back to the earliest known ritual:
http://www.apollon.uio.no/vis/art/2006_4/Artikler/python_english

You claim:
"Your last comment about shaping is irrelevant to my question and also wrong."

I disagree. I think it's one of the keys, one of the unique things about this find.

"We have known for a long time that chimps regularly shape sticks for use as termite probes and manufacture other tools,..."

I'm sorry, but breaking off a few branches to get a straight stick to shove in a termite hole is not the same as giving the stick a point by biting on it and grinding it between the teeth. If you have any other examples of chimps actually changing the structure of something to make a tool, present them.

Right now you're just making assertions. I have no reason to trust your assertions over those of a writer for newscientist.com.

248. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #23203 by NormanDoering on February 26, 2007 at 6:39 pm

Logicel wrote:
"The bar of intellectual honesty is set so low at the moment for American conservatives, ..."

It's getting lower still.

And you thought Ann Coulter was going as low as you could go, didn't you? Watch it sink lower in the coming years. You haven't seen nothin yet.

249. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #22993 by NormanDoering on February 25, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Yorker asked how I knew that spears were one of man's first tools.

I watched some nature shows on the Discovery channel -- the cavemen are all walking around with spears but no digital watches.

"I would've thought that throwing rocks and wielding clubs (as chimps do) might have been our first tools and weapons."

I said one of the first -- I didn't say first. And the information comes from the chipped stones that archaeologists find... Look here:

http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/c_research.shtml#ExperimentalArch

"I don't see how the spear would change our views."

They shaped it, biting to make the point. It's not an entirely found tool.

250. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #22992 by NormanDoering on February 25, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Chris Davis wrote:
"I've utterly lost faith in Koko... a transcript of an open webcast by Koko and Dr. Penny Patterson, her companion. To call it disappointing would be a massive understatement: it was pathetic."

That was pathetic.

My cat could communicate better with me -- but she forced me to learn her language, she wouldn't learn mine. Her language was one of position -- meow in front food bowl; wants to be fed, meow in front of litter box, wants box changed, scratch door -- wants out or in depending on position.

Damn selfish and lazy cat, don't know why I put up with her.

Seriously, though -- learning this has been disheartening. What about the other language users? Like Washoe?