251. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93534 by walk on December 3, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Monoape (281), thanks for the Hitler quotes, I've needed them for a while in a friendly debate I've been having.

Someone asked about upcoming DDS debates. Pat gave a list in comment 88. Loved the coining of the term (on this thread) "dineshing". (Can't remember who coined it).

I was a bit disappointed with Dan (with all due respect). It seems he wasn't prepared for DDS' debating style or fallacious arguments (which he could have been ready for by viewing the two previous debates), and let him off the hook a number of times. I was dying to have him say, "You haven't addressed my opening questions." Towards the end he seemed rattled. I agree with the posters here who would like to see a point-by-point debate with DDS. That would be VERY interesting.

252. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #93493 by walk on December 3, 2007 at 9:25 am

rhlong,

I agree. It IS a bit troubling, however, that the stated purpose of the Mormon church is to establish a theocracy in America. That of course would entail the overthrow of the US government.

It looks like Romney will finally address his Mormonism in a speech he will deliver this Thursday (12/6) in Texas. I'm sure it will be generic and candy-coated to appeal to evangelicals, but at least it will hopefully open the door to more direct questions, re his wacky beliefs, in future interviews.

253. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92704 by walk on December 1, 2007 at 9:08 am

Ruht,

You sound pretty much like a biblical literalist. (BTW you can stop the schoolyard threats, we're trying to have an adult discussion here). If in fact you are a literalist, do you REALLY believe that the earth is stationary and that the sun and stars revolve around it? Do you believe the sun LITERALLY stopped in the sky for hours and none of the historians writing at the time noticed it?

You keep using "supernatural experience" as some kind of evidence of god's existence, and yet (I've asked you twice now) you don't seem to have the courage to describe your OWN said experience, and why you think it's a real experience as opposed to a common hallucination.

Also, I'm sure you don't consider The God Delusion (which you haven't read) as authoritative, so I'm sure you don't mind that we don't consider the bible (which most here HAVE read) as having any authority. To continue using the bible to prove your points is a waste of your time and ours.

254. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92392 by walk on November 30, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Ruht,

Why do you suppose that evolution is taught at almost every school and universtity worldwide? Why do you suppose evolution is verified by every field of science and accepted by almost all scientists worldwide? Are they all idiots? Should they all bow to your superior intelligence?

BTW, you still haven't described your personal supernatural experience of god.

255. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91436 by walk on November 28, 2007 at 9:52 am

Yes, and as stated in the great link posted by posiedon (48), they're supposed to wear the magic underwear constantly, (even during sex), to protect them (supernaturally) from fire, bullets, knives and SA-A-A-TAN.

At least if Romney were president we could probably save some money by disbanding the Secret Service. Who needs the feds when you've got the sacred skivvies!

256. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91410 by walk on November 28, 2007 at 8:53 am

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe one of the (modern) stated purposes of the Mormon church (corporation?) is to take control of the US government.

Here are some of Joseph Smith's interesting prophecies (received as "revelations from god").

ALL NATIONS SHALL BOW: March 1831. Doctrines & Covenants 49:9-10. The nations of the earth shall bow to the Mormon gospel or they "shall come down" and "shall be laid low of power."

NEW YORK WILL BE DESTROYED: Sept 22-23, 1832. D&C 84:114-115. New York, Albany and Boston will be destroyed if they reject the gospel. The "hour of their judgment is nigh..."

US GOVERNMENT WILL BE DESTROYED: May 18, 1843. History of the Church 5:394, also Mill Star 22:455. Joseph Smith prophesies "by virtue of the holy priesthood... and in the name of the Lord" that if Congress or the United States will not redress the wrongs which the Mormons suffered in Missouri, and grant them protection, "the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted," they shall be "broken up as a government" and there will be nothing left of them. (A similar prophecy was made Dec 16, 1843. See Quinn p 641, Chron JS 189)

257. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90906 by walk on November 26, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Ruht 337

Tell that to those who have experienced him in the supernatural.

258. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89793 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Okay, you got me! Good one!

259. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89791 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 5:47 pm

BAEOZ,

I didn't mean to imply you said anything illogical - quite the contrary. You were absolutely logical, HE just doesn't understand logic.

260. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89789 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 5:41 pm

GoatBoy,

I read the Krakauer book last year. Shocking.

I wish I knew where to find it, but on satellite radio a while back there was a song "Secret Underwear" sung to the tune of Secret Agent Man. It was hilarious! You know darn well SOMEONE will eventually ask Romney that question (and, are you wearing them NOW?).

In regards to the lad running the streets in his shorts, there are reports of an alarming rate of teen suicide among Utah Mormons. It has to do with trying to live up to impossible standards. It's a shame what illogical faith can do.

261. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89777 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Ruht thinks he's "killed" Darwinism with his illogical, unclear thinking. - - - Funny.

262. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89773 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Well said, BAEOZ.

However, I'm not sure he has the ability to understand. All he can do is propose the same illogical argument over and over. He's not listening and not thinking.

263. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89761 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Thankfully they teach the truth in the classroom. Perhaps Ruht was actually a member of the Dover schoolboard, and is still pissed that he got bitch-slapped by reality!

264. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89755 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Ya know, Ruht, the guys here have been patient. They've offered sound arguments. All you offer is bullsh*t. If you are postulating an intelligent designer and are afraid to offer some proof, you're a coward.

I don't give a crap if you disagree with almost every scientist on the planet.

Your god must be very proud.

265. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89748 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Thanks very much, wednesday.

She knows about the tithing, and how hard it is to leave. Believe it or not, it's her BOSS (a chiropractor, and bishop of the local LDS church!) who has been forcing this on her. I know what he's doing is highly illegal, but we both like him very much as a person and she wants to keep her job. It's really a mess. I've been fighting this for 8 yrs. now (videos, books, etc.) She hasn't joined yet, but we just got remarried, and now they'll ACCEPT her.

I WILL tell her about the highest-level-of-heaven thing (forgot about that one). Thanks again.

266. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89741 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Ruht, are you postulating the existence of an intelligent designer? Can you offer some proof? Or can you only offer nit-picking?

Come on, you're a big boy, why are you avoiding these questions?

267. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89738 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Thanks, Steve.

268. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89734 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 3:49 pm

GoatBoy36,

I believe most Christians (that understand Mormonism) don't consider them Christian. Mormons say all Christians are damned, and no better than the "whores of Babylon". I believe this would be a deal-breaker! The Mormons are desperately trying to court the support of evangelicals by CALLING themselves Christian, but the more their beliefs are exposed the harder it will be.

269. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89727 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Steve (106), thanks for the correction. I sometimes forget to start a statement I'm not sure about with "I think - - - "

270. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89722 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 3:29 pm

Ruht, are you postulating the existence of an intelligent designer? Can you offer some proof? Or can you only offer nit-picking?

271. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89720 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 3:24 pm

See how you are, Steve?

272. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89706 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Scientsts readily admit that they don't know how life began. The inception of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Evolution only describes what happened AFTER life began.

Are you postulating the existence of an intelligent designer?

Also, I don't have to prove evolution, every branch of science agrees that it's fact.

273. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89700 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 2:34 pm

ruht,

Of course an intelligent designer COULD have created everything. But if your premise is that it's true, it's up to YOU to prove it.

274. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89697 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm

ruht,

I hope the more qualified posters here will answer this for you, but let me attempt to get it started.

AFAIK, science has not succeeded in creating life from inanimate material, but they CAN watch evolution take place all day long in the lab with bacteria evolving to counter new antibiotcs. Whether they can guide this process, or only watch it, I don't know.

BTW, evolution has been proved over and over again. ID has been conclusively shown not to be science.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

275. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89690 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 1:57 pm

dazzjazz (39.),

Well, the Book of Mormon WAS translated from golden plates carved by a guy named Moroni! Or, should it be spelled Moron-i.

oxytocin (40),

Thanks for the sympathy and the suggestions. She DOES realize that if she grew up in Iraq she'd believe in Mohammed and Allah. So she KNOWS that her beliefs were indoctrinated during childhood. The problem is, she's crazy about Jesus, and becomes highly offended by the suggestion that he may not have existed, and that some of his biblical quotes are less than admirable. It's really a tough one.

276. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89681 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 1:27 pm

wednesdayguevara,

Tell me about it! I've presented my wife (the Mormons are working hard to get her) with tons of info (Abraham included) to try to show her the truth about Mormonism. But she WANTS to believe badly because they've scared the crap out of her with the "Christianity won't get you to heaven" ploy. She's actually said, "Joseph Smith COULD have seen god. So, maybe he did a few dishonest things afterward - - - after all he's only human." Whew!

277. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89673 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 12:54 pm

jimbob,

Agreed, although Romney should make it clear that he will NOT be taking orders from Pres. Hinckley of LDS, the way that JFK assured the people he would not be taking orders from the Pope.

I've heard speculation that he only plans on addressing the Mormon issue IF he gets the GOP nomination.

278. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89640 by walk on November 21, 2007 at 10:19 am

Will Young,

Thanks. We should also mention that, according to the Mormons, god was once a man, he had a mother and father (therefore NOT the creator of the universe), he has many wives in heaven, he had physical sex with Mary to give birth to Jesus, he is a being of "flesh and bone", and he lives on a planet next to the star "Kolob" which is an immense star that shines on the sun!!! (Gosh, how did the Hubble miss THAT one!?). Oh, yes, and the earth is 6,000 years old, Satan if the brother of Jesus, blacks are a different species, and the American Indians and the Polynesians are of Jewish descent!

On another note, if the president of the Mormons, Gordon B. Hinckley (who receives divine revelations), tells Romney that god has instructed him to nuke Europe, he HAS to do it, or go to hell!

279. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #89416 by walk on November 20, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Scooter,

Thanks for the great Ken Miller link! It made me curious as to what Miller's god-belief is all about. I found this excerpt from his "Finding Darwin's God"
http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html
which gives very little insight, except to sort of say "god is possible", and "the Creator gives life meaning". He describes himself as Roman Catholic.

I apologize if this has been covered on RDnet somewhere, but if anyone has a link which explains WHY he believes, and being that he so eloquently explains why evolution is fact and ID is bunk, what kind of god could he possibly believe exists? He mentions hell in the excerpt I've provided, but doesn't elaborate. This is definitely confusing.

280. For the glory of God

Comment #89395 by walk on November 20, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Kraut,

So far I don't believe you have made ONE positive statement concerning what might be GOOD in this world. Correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't read every word).

It would be interesting if you would offer some suggestions as to what we should do to address the multitude of horrendous problems you describe.

Also, is there anything that you are FOR, and what are your religious or antireligious beliefs?

281. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88662 by walk on November 18, 2007 at 12:28 pm

robert s,

You're probably right.

282. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88655 by walk on November 18, 2007 at 11:24 am

robert s,

Yes, I agree. However, I think the problem we are facing is that the god-believers state that evolution is NOT a fact. So if everytime evolution is mentioned (in a non-descriptive way) it is called a fact, this would slowly undermine those who insist that it is untrue.

283. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88654 by walk on November 18, 2007 at 11:13 am

Scooter,

Thanks for the great links. Dershowitz was fantastic! Hitch, brilliant!

284. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88651 by walk on November 18, 2007 at 9:58 am

My suggestion (and this has been used in passing on some above posts) is simply the "fact of evolution". The unscientific may never understand (purposely or not) the use of the word "theory" as used in science. If evolution is referred to simply as a "fact", the doubt element is removed. Just a thought.

285. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #86209 by walk on November 8, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Hi John,

I offered an answer to your original post with my posts 59. & 65. Perhaps you could make a deal with her - - - if she promises to not try to change your mind, you'll promise to not try to change hers. (Basically agree to disagree). The main theist problem with this is that they think if they don't HELP you, you'll burn in hell. I told my sweetheart that if god is a loving god, he'll know I tried my damnedest (no pun intended) to believe, I just couldn't find any evidence, nor have I ever had a "spiritual" experience that could not be explained naturally. I try to live with the upmost of morals and to love my fellow man.

This may not help but it's the best I've come up with so far. I've found that any slight foray into the subject (like debunking the book she gave you) usually only leads to further, fruitless argument.

Best of luck, keep us posted if you'd like. I'd be interested to see how this turns out.

286. God Hates the World

Comment #86165 by walk on November 8, 2007 at 1:32 pm

I came in late, and haven't read the entire blog, but have to say a big welcome, Nate. I know we are all curious to hear any information you can give us that you feel comfortable with.

Also, (sorry if this has already been mentioned) if god hates the world, and all it's people, wouldn't that include the sweet folks who are singing, along with all the members of WBC?

287. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #86151 by walk on November 8, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Clodhopper,

I can't stop vomitting long enough to weep! Revs Carlisle and Jones have got to be kidding! And Jones is a possible future Archbihop! The RC church should really try to muzzle these fools. (I guess it's good for us they don't!)

288. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86149 by walk on November 8, 2007 at 12:00 pm

ADH,

Thanks for the conversation. I'm sorry your're feeling poorly, hope you have a speedy recovery. If you do return some of us would still like to hear your answer to my post #99.

Cheers

289. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85960 by walk on November 7, 2007 at 3:27 pm

I've always been somewhat of a skeptic (why would god ALLOW Satan to exist?)(where did Cain's wife come from?)(what do you mean all the animals were created simultaneously?), but have searched for god for the last 40 years (since I was 20). I've read tons of books (near-death experiences, reincarnation stories, Conversations with God, etc.) trying to find some definitive evidence of the supernatural. I was always disappointed. It only took one atheist book, TGD, to get that AHA! moment. The more I read and blog, the more I'm convinced. I've never had a "spiritual" experience that could not be explained naturally. So - - - what's a guy to do?

Thanks, mejdrich. I was wondering why ADH skipped over my last 2 posts - 96. & 99.

290. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85941 by walk on November 7, 2007 at 2:25 pm

ADH, you say:

On the other side there will be "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth". But that is NOT physical torture.

In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

"In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."

Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."

291. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85928 by walk on November 7, 2007 at 1:49 pm

ADH,

Thanks for the response. You said:

God does not "torture" his beloved creatures. On the other side there will be "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth"

292. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85913 by walk on November 7, 2007 at 1:10 pm

coretemprising (82) - Whew! Now that's what I call Core Temp Rising! It must have felt good to get that off your chest! Despite your virulent rant, I will continue to treat my fellow man with respect. Best of luck with your method.


ADH (87) - Could you clarify something for me? First you say

if it is true that indifference to God has eternal consequences, that it results in eternal separation from God

people who would rather spend eternity in hell

293. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85821 by walk on November 7, 2007 at 9:17 am

Nightripper,

I understand your concern, and agree that the Christians who are brave enough to post here should be treated with respect. ADH seems like a nice guy, and yes, some of the posts have been a bit aggressive. If ADH is the first Christian you have encountered here, then you've missed quite a bit. The atheist posters have dealt with some very pointed (and sometimes nasty) comments from the believers, and patience wears thin.

My post to ADH that you critcize for being "not fair," "sarcastic" (point conceded), or "degrading" was:

So you teach your children about the "consequences" of deciding not to believe in your imaginary friend. Christianity teaches that if you reject god, your all-loving creator condemns you to burn in hell. Is this the free "choice" you are extending to your innocent offspring, who look to you for love, protection, and truth?

But I am not going to alienate them by coercion. They know what we believe about the consequences of shutting God out of their lives. We don't mince our words about that. But we will not resort to fear tactics.

294. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85686 by walk on November 6, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Well said, Fuller, and welcome aboard.

295. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85655 by walk on November 6, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Wow, this God guy sounds cool! Where do I sign up?

296. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85652 by walk on November 6, 2007 at 3:51 pm

ADH,

So you teach your children about the "consequences" of deciding not to believe in your imaginary friend. Christianity teaches that if you reject god, your all-loving creator condemns you to burn in hell. Is this the free "choice" you are extending to your innocent offspring, who look to you for love, protection, and truth?

297. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85600 by walk on November 6, 2007 at 11:09 am

Thanks, Bonzai, well said.

298. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85589 by walk on November 6, 2007 at 9:47 am

Dr. Benway (60.),

Thanks, and welcome back! I hope everything went well!

She and I HAVE agreed to disagree, and we have some pretty funny conversations, poking fun at each other. As far as I can tell her beliefs haven't had a negative effect on me or us. - - - Arguing faith with a true believer is extremely frustrating, especially face to face with a loved one. Unless the person of faith is questioning themself with an open mind, it's pretty futile and sometimes destructive. I've tried different approaches, but it usually boils down to "You're just trying to prove you're right and I'm wrong."

This website has provided me with a wonderful outlet for discussing my favorite subject. (My close friends are thankful for the break!)

299. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85399 by walk on November 5, 2007 at 5:42 pm

John Done (29.),

Any suggestions for dealing with my mother?

300. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #84539 by walk on November 2, 2007 at 10:20 am

DalaiDrivel,

Yes, good point. I guess that by trying to distance myself from the "nasty atheist dictator" thing, my idea actually suggests there was a real connection in the first place. So - - back to the drawing board!

I also agree that labels are to be avoided, but in light of the fact that theists are going to label us anyway, it would be nice to choose our own. Although due to the "herding cats" condition of non-believers, this may remain an impossibility. ("individualist" does have a nice ring to it).

Of course if we don't come up with a better idea, we'll always be called atheists (as a group) by default. We can each answer the "what are you?" question to our personal taste, but for me, every time I use something less potent than atheist, I feel like I'm bending to theist pressure.