201. Praying for the Apocalypse

Comment #30717 by sane1 on April 9, 2007 at 1:49 pm

The root of all evil: -

Apocalyptic visions like this one have, throughout history, cowed populations and inspired genocidal killers. They have enticed societies into collective suicide. These visions nourished the butchers who led the Inquisition, the Crusades and the conquistadors who swept through the Americas converting and then exterminating the native population. These visions sustained the SS guards at Auschwitz, the Stalinists who consigned tens of thousands of Ukrainian families to starvation and death, the torturers in the clandestine prisons in Argentina during the Dirty War and the Serbian thugs with heavy machine guns and wraparound sunglasses who stood over the bodies of those they had slain in the smoking ruins of Bosnian villages. Those who promise to purify the world through violence, to relieve the anxiety of moral pollution and despair, appeal to our noblest sentiments, our highest virtues, our capacity for self-sacrifice and our utopian visions of a cleansed world. It is this coupling of fantastic hope and profound despair, along with visions of peace and light and absolute terror, of selflessness and murder, which frees the consciences of those who call for and carry out the eradication of those they have banished from moral consideration. When leaders of this movement, such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, sanction, as they do, pre-emptive nuclear strikes against our enemies, and therefore the enemies of God, they fuel the passions of terrorists in love with the same apocalyptic nightmares. They march us to our own doom cheered by the delusion that once the dogs of war, even nuclear war, are unleashed, hundreds of millions will die, but because Christians have been blessed and chosen by God they alone will arise in triumph from the ash heap.

We may indeed be doomed by religious insanity. Oppose it where ever you see it!

202. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30570 by sane1 on April 8, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Here's mine:

To the Editor
Re: David Klinghoffer

Your recent article "Prophets of the New Atheism," by David Klinghoffer, main contention is that the "new atheists" are promoting a "religion." This is nonsense and an insult. Atheism is the conclusion that there is no god. It is based on the complete lack of any evidence of the kind we routinely require to prove the existence of any other thing. No faith required.

Thanks, Ken Bromberg
Denver, Colorado

203. Reading of The God Delusion in Menlo Park, CA

Comment #30546 by sane1 on April 8, 2007 at 2:36 pm

LionelA. You are right about the intro, and the talk is great too.

204. Sociable Darwinism

Comment #30545 by sane1 on April 8, 2007 at 2:14 pm

I don't know, Beth, but you can read the first chapter from its link above...

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

Comment #30543 by sane1 on April 8, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Lithium: "Hoax" means it is NOT true. Not true. A joke. Not real. It didn't happen.

206. Sociable Darwinism

Comment #30537 by sane1 on April 8, 2007 at 1:23 pm

As he sees it, all of life is characterized by a "cosmic" struggle between good and evil, the high-strung terms we apply to behaviors that are either cooperative or selfish, civic or anomic. The constant give-and-take between me versus we extends down to the tiniest and most primal elements of life.

Natalie is on the ball, as usual! Way to put the whole good and evil story in the appropriate context, and OUT of the whole bible/god/religion relm .

207. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30514 by sane1 on April 8, 2007 at 9:31 am

Brian asks: "Does it though?"

Sure it does. Ask them they will tell you all sorts of things like the purpose of their life is "to be closer to god," or "to do gods work," or "to be a good christian."

208. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30509 by sane1 on April 8, 2007 at 9:19 am

Interesting point, 65. Comment #30505 by atheisticism –

The whole god thing really does give life a purpose, and a sense of community, religites are loath to surrender. I am loath to surrender those things that give my atheist life purpose: my kids, and my other my goals, hopes and desires. But there is a difference between purpose and meaning.

Purpose comes from many places, some of which are independent of "religion." Meaning comes from purpose.

209. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30295 by sane1 on April 7, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Christianity is not about moral arrogance," Novak insists. "It is about moral realism, and moral humility." Of course Christians in practice often fail to live up to this elevated definition of their creed. But atheists are capable of their own forms of arrogance. Indeed, if arrogance were the only criterion, the contest could well come out a tie.
If you make them feel stupid by the force of your argument, they call you arrogant and dogmatic, and you don't change minds. http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html
If you attack their ideas as "rat excrement," you do even more poorly

210. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30221 by sane1 on April 7, 2007 at 8:24 am

On the pseudonym question – I never participated online before beginning on this site after reading TGD, I chose a username, not my own, in the spur of the moment to be sure to protect my privacy (and to make a bit of a comment). Were I already famous, I would find it dishonest. Since I am not, I'd prefer to stay that way.

211. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30217 by sane1 on April 7, 2007 at 8:18 am

I hasten to say that I am not arguing against cleverness. Intelligence is a great gift, and should be cultivated, if possessed, by all possible means. All these atheist thinkers I have mentioned are conscious of possessing big, bulging brains and I share their admiration for them. They are the mental equivalent of bronzed body-builders on the beach, kicking sand in the face of us seven-stone weaklings.

Just loved that line! It must hurt the head to believe in nonsense when sense is staring you in the face, and coming at you from all sides. Imagine the fear that makes one hold on to the nonsense nonetheless. Shame really.

212. Dawkins vs Haggard: the Python Edition

Comment #30066 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 4:23 pm

17. Comment #29928 by Goshzilla on April 5, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Actually, the follow up is more twisted than selling used cars. Haggard has claimed he was cured of his gayness.

Worse still! He and his wife [huh?] are seeking a counseling degree or something like that so he can become a professional therapist!!!
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5330690,00.html

213. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #30065 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Simian, you appear to have totally misunderstood Bonzai. And you resorted to name-calling. Apologize, or you'll get no dinner.

214. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #30057 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 2:16 pm

@Donald: Excellent contribution. You wrote:

This links to the continual debate about whether atheists have any intrinsic morality and goodness. It's an important element of debate with religites. I think there are insufficient articles about atheist morality in circulation, considering the emphasis religites give to it.

This is a major major issue. As long as people think atheists are amoral, or might abandon their veneer of morals in a moments' notice, we will be socially unacceptable among the religious, and will never make headway against the god delusion. There have to be well-thought out writings on the topic of the sources of humanist, secular, atheist and other morals. Aren't there such things? I must admit, I do not know what they are.

I remember some time back suggesting in the forum part of this site that RD write a book on that topic. It would give the "movement" and the discussion a critical push in the right direction

215. TED : Richard Dawkins (2005)

Comment #30054 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Great great great lecture. Helps get past the "I don't get it, you can't adequately explain it, so there must be a god" argument.

216. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #30053 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 12:26 pm

debaser71 - Thanks for the link. Always glad to see scientific articles that inform (and confirm) my thoughts.

217. Even Stephven: Islam vs. Christianity

Comment #30046 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 10:58 am

I have got to get another working link to this "debate." It is a fantastic clip.

Does anyone have a working link? YouTube took it down over the copyright lawsuit...

218. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #30043 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 10:37 am

@59. Comment #30038 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Nice thoughts - After reading your comment, I see some of what apparently went into choosing your name!

219. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #30042 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 10:27 am

@Helian - so you say, among other things -
"justify your statement that human suffering is bad," in part, I assume, because not everyone agrees with that statement.

This proves my main point - that we can have a rational and logical discussion about it. We are doing so now.

You conclude by making the point that: We need to reevaluate "good" and "bad" in terms of what really does promote our survival, rather than what we are comfortable with, or what feels good.


I agree that our survival would be "good." And I would argue that that is a higher good than avoiding suffering - maybe within limits. In other words, I suppose I could conjure up a condition of survival so full of universal suffering that it would not seem "better" than extinction.

So, there are various things that we would agree are "good." And, some of these things that are "good" are in conflict with one another. And we can rationally debate which good is a higher good. In fact, as you suggest, we have to do so.

220. The God Debate

Comment #30039 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 10:13 am

RonnieG -

Thanks for the link - made me thirsty.

221. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #30035 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 9:57 am

@502. Comment #29973 by AtheistAcolyte "I guess Love is a personal god when Andrew wants it to be, and an ephemeral feeling which can't be argued with whenever someone argues against him."

That about sums it up. Sullivan's faith was tested, he was not deprogrammed, and therefore his faith is stronger. Sullivan's faith is strong enough, his belief system - contradictory though it may be to me - is so well wrapped in his "logic," he will never let it go.

It is no easier to argue a smart believer out of his faith, than a moron.

222. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #30032 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 9:19 am

@helian -

You objected to my arguments when I appeared on this blog. In other words, you "felt" that what I said was "not good." Your comments demonstrate your belief that your version of the "good" should apply to me.

BTW - I think you read too much into this one - I objected because I thought certain of your comments were "wrong" or "incomplete," not "not good."

223. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #30030 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 9:14 am

@Helian -

Ok - Human suffering is "bad."

Your turn.

224. The God Debate

Comment #30027 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 9:02 am

106. Comment #29725 by truthseeker on April 4, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I detect not a small amount of envy in you atheists, and a not so small amount of fear. Yes, envy of the certainty of "born again" Christians; fear that you may be going to Hell. Somewhere, deep-down in your inner-most being, your soul perhaps, you wonder that you may be missing something by looking at life from only a "head trip" perspective. Otherwise, why don't you just "live and let live"? "You protesteth too much, sir!"

Here is some truth for you:

I do not envy "the born again" any more than I envy the confused.

I have no fear of hell, (though I give you credit - the idea is pretty scary), and I resent you and your kind for scaring me when I was a child.

I wonder what is driving you to delusion. Is it the fear? If so, I also feel sorry for you.

If you are indeed seeking some truth, thank your lucky stars - you have come to the right web site. Perhaps you will find some solace here. There is nothing to be afraid of.

225. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #30025 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 8:52 am

Isn't it also curious that when they are asked if they believe certain unbelievable things the answer is something like: "Well, the bible says x and y and z, and I believe the bible."

They don't just say "yes I believe all species and the dinosaurs were all on a boat during a 40 day flood."

226. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #30020 by sane1 on April 6, 2007 at 8:29 am

@ Helian -

There is no logical basis whatsoever for considering one thing "good" and another "bad."

There you go again. I thought I straightened you out on this point regarding good and bad (and "noble") before. (In reference to Pinker's article, you will recall.)

I suppose on some level you are right. Without defining the terms, thay are meaningless. As in, there is no logical basis for considering the color white to be the term "white." However, once we define the term to mean that color, it certainly is rational and logical to call it "white," and to call something that is not white, "not white." Maybe on some intermediate gradations we would disagree, and resort to logical argument to resolve the disagreement.

Similarly, (and maybe we do agree here) good needs to be defined, and bad needs to be defined. As I have argued on another thread, "morals" and concepts of right and wrong differ among people, cultures, and over time within cultures. Clearly they are human constructs. But that is quite different from saying the concepts are not rational or are illogical. Granted the terms are relative and amorphous, and require careful examination. We could debate on a 100% rational basis what is good and what is bad. I can predict we'd agree on what we'd both consider the "easy" problems, and differ on the more difficult ones. The process would help us understand the underpinnings of what we consider good and bad, in a perfectly rational and logical discussion.

Maybe what you are saying is that there is no "good" in an absolute sense. If that is what you are saying, then I fully agree.

227. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #29942 by sane1 on April 5, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Read it. Interesting but disappointing. Sullivan "put down his raquet" and retreated into "god is love." I predict Sam's response will be cordial and lethal.

228. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #29939 by sane1 on April 5, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Queen - where? I do not see it...EDIT - shoot - soory i see it is half way down the page...

229. Dawkins vs Haggard: the Python Edition

Comment #29922 by sane1 on April 5, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Comment #29912 by Bluesman on April 5, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Anyone posted this version here before?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBC5L6cyq2Y&mode=related&search=

Yes, and that version is even funnier!

230. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #29878 by sane1 on April 5, 2007 at 9:50 am

Hey - Lionel A -

Just noticed your post citing wikipedia as proof that "pabulum" is the correct spelling.

Did you notice on that exact page the following: "Today, the word pablum and the original Latin word pabulum are often used interchangeably"?

231. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29872 by sane1 on April 5, 2007 at 9:02 am

42. Comment #29870 by briancoughlanworldcitizen -
In general, I'm with you. I do have to get to work at this particular point though. Good luck to you.

232. Send The God Delusion to your MP

Comment #29871 by sane1 on April 5, 2007 at 8:59 am

This really is a fabulous effort. I am considering how I might make it happen here in the US...I'm not sure I have the online resources to coordinate it though. Has anyone already taken up the effort?

233. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29869 by sane1 on April 5, 2007 at 8:48 am

@39. Comment #29866 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

In my comment 35, I agreed with Helian. And I agree with you: doubt is essential, self-reflection and self examination is esssential. Other wise you fall in the "dogma/fundamentalist" trap. No way I want to be in that hole!

And that is what is going on, if I may be so bold - we all use reason - some of us just don't seem to apply it to the bible. EDIT - its believing without adequate evidence (ie, "faith") that gets in the way.

234. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29867 by sane1 on April 5, 2007 at 8:43 am

@Bremas - yea - including me.

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

Comment #29864 by sane1 on April 5, 2007 at 8:38 am

@42. Comment #29862 by DGN

Good for you. It does seem several people were intially fooled. That is not surprising, though, given that it appears here, and that there are other true but incredible stories that are not much different.

236. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29863 by sane1 on April 5, 2007 at 8:29 am

Bremas - I second your post 36 - Did you also see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBC5L6cyq2Y&mode=related&search=

Its funnier.

237. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29860 by sane1 on April 5, 2007 at 8:19 am

@Helian - Good points, well taken.

238. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29856 by sane1 on April 5, 2007 at 7:59 am

@Helian: Thanks for the nice well written post.

"Indeed, when I glance around me on this site I notice a host of atheist "fundamentalists" with ideological notions that, though secular, are nearly as inaccessible to reason as the faith of a theist. Why, surely, they all belong in the asylum, too! It seems the hardest truth for me to face is that it is not inappropriate that I, too, am an inmate."

Just because some of us disagree with you and have pointed out where you have been mistaken, doesn't make us fundamentalists. The problem is your inadequate arguments, not our "inaccessibility."

239. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29854 by sane1 on April 5, 2007 at 7:51 am

Brian - Thanks for that link - it lead me to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBC5L6cyq2Y&mode=related&search=

Excellent!

240. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29751 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Introduction actually starts at 5:30 ...

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

Comment #29732 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Great plan - Let's also eliminate the study of the AIDS virus - apparently it "evolves" just like pokemon. This can't be real can it?

242. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29731 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Check out Collins' views just posted today on CNN.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

Please add your comments...

243. The God Debate

Comment #29729 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Check out Collins' views at http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html posted today, and add your comments...

244. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #29709 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 9:10 am

Buddha...I went to that site you mentioned and dropped a comment. There were only 4 there. I did find the thoughts of the "moderates" there interesting and thoughtful, to a point.

245. Creationism debate continues to evolve

Comment #29698 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 8:05 am

7. Comment #29605 by ghostbuster on April 3, 2007 at 2:46 pm

If religous people insist on invading secular science classes with relgious views then I see no reason why secular science cannot invade religious institutions and give their scientific views on religious topics

Right On! The door has been openend, and its time to rush in.

Just started reading Victor Stenger's "God - The Failed Hypothesis - How science shows that God does not exist". This book should be the main text book on the topic. Highly recommended.

246. Time in the Animal Mind

Comment #29697 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 7:49 am

@5. Comment #29500 by nancy2001:

Good point on dogs remembering painful experiences. One of the most remarkable things about a dog is how incredibly quickly and permanently, a puppy will learn to stay away from something that unexpectedly hurt him. Lasts a lifetime.

My dog was pulling on a toy attached to a tetherball pole and hurt himself. He never went near that pole again. I'm still not sure that shows that his memory is episodic, however. Although he readily learns, his planning is 100%piss-poor.

247. A History of Violence

Comment #29694 by sane1 on April 4, 2007 at 7:29 am

@Helian:

The claim that one group of human beings is "nobler" than another implies a value judgment. There must be some standard for making the judgment. The question is, what is it? What is that objective standard?

Less violence, as measured empirically by killings, etc. is one of the standards Pinker used. He also talks about and compares the incidents of various barbarous acts over time.

248. A History of Violence

Comment #29549 by sane1 on April 3, 2007 at 11:18 am

@Helian - You say:

"What, exactly, does Pinker mean by "nobler?" It is logically impossible for an atheist to make such a statement without qualification. It implies the existence of some real, objective standard by which one can make moral judgments that apply to groups of human beings. Pinker has elevated a subjective moral judgment to a real thing. Dawkins, it seems to me, shows a similar tendency to transmute subjective morality, a construct of the human brain, into a real, objective good-in-itself, a "thing" independent of the human mind, in his recent discussions of the "moral Zeitgeist." He fallaciously perceives things as "really good" and "really bad."

Well, the adjective "nobler" isn't such an obscure or difficult concept in this context. It is commonly understood to mean "civilized," as in the phrase "Noble Savage" used since the early 1700's to describe man's contradictory (hence the oxymoron) nature. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's writings are influential in this area:.


"In his early writing, Rousseau contended that man is essentially good, a "noble savage" when in the "state of nature" (the state of all the other animals, and the condition man was in before the creation of civilization and society), and that good people are made unhappy and corrupted by their experiences in society. He viewed society as "artificial" and "corrupt" and that the furthering of society results in the continuing unhappiness of man." -

And –

"Perhaps Rousseau's most important work is "The Social Contract" that describes the relationship of man with society. Contrary to his earlier work, Rousseau claimed that the state of nature is brutish condition without law or morality, and that there are good men only a result of society's presence. In the state of nature, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men. Because he can be more successful facing threats by joining with other men, he has the impetus to do so. He joins together with his fellow men to form the collective human presence known as "society." "The Social Contract" is the "compact" agreed to among men that sets the conditions for membership in society. "(http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96jun/rousseau.html)

So, I do not think there is anything to your objection that "It implies the existence of some real, objective standard by which one can make moral judgments that apply to groups of human beings."

249. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #29535 by sane1 on April 3, 2007 at 10:26 am

@148. Comment #29469 by Philip1978 on April 3, 2007 at 2:52 am

Yup. I can't add to that.

250. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29534 by sane1 on April 3, 2007 at 10:22 am

@50. Comment #29514 by rosswiley.

Yes the comments are far more interesting than the article, which is indeed useless.

And, no, the term "useless" is not a crutch of intellectual elitism anymore than my computer is. Ooops - Sarcasm!

Seems I've double "crutched."