251. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47676 by Riley on June 5, 2007 at 8:58 am

I agree with you in part Bonzai, but still you can't deny that young earth creationists are making 'bad science' claims.

252. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47668 by Riley on June 5, 2007 at 8:29 am

In the 2006 Baylor Religion Survey of 1,721 U.S. adults:
- 69% thought prayer should be allowed in schools

This question critically misses the point: prayer "allowed" in schools is not at issue.

At issue is weather or not students should be officially led to pray in school. Nobody questions that students should be free to pray however and whenever they like in school so long as they are not disrupting other students. It's a straw man.

I wonder what the response would be to a question that accurately reflected the issue? I'd especially like to see the response to a question that specified the type of ritual prayer in which the students would be instructed to participate. How about a poll question phrased like this:

Do you think that a teacher from the Church of Jehovah's Witnesses should be allowed to lead your children in prayer at school?

253. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46475 by Riley on May 31, 2007 at 12:09 pm

"The adoption of the principles of Spinoza and Jefferson and Thomas Paine and Albert Einstein would have the same effect on any dictatorship weather it was formally atheist and consisted of the worship of human beings or formally theistic and consisted of the worship of human beings who claim to represent god." - Christopher Hitchens

This was the highlight of the interview for me.

254. Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier Than Thou With Christopher Hitchens

Comment #44894 by Riley on May 25, 2007 at 2:04 pm

They mentioned the recycling "myth". I've heard this now from many in the skeptic community and I don't know what to believe.

This: recycling myths or this: anti-recycling myths

255. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43660 by Riley on May 22, 2007 at 8:06 am

Seldom have I seen someone so effectively expose the hypocricy and irrelevance of Sean Hannity - this waste of a human life has built an *entire* career from manufacturing pugnacious and personal attacks against others (without regard for the feelings of their families) and still seems to think himself morally superior.

Particularly amusing was watching Hitchens out compete Hannity in the feux-civilility and feux-polite discourse; Hannity couldn't handle having his own smug superior debating tactic reflected back in his face --- it was very entertaining to watch the slimy two faced double talker shrink and complain.

256. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42582 by Riley on May 18, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Daniel Larison wrote:"... men have always been slaughtering and oppressing one another and they have tended to do more of it when they are less in thrall to their religious tradition than when they are strictly obedient to it."

Does the author expect that we accept this claim on his authority alone? Why don't we examine history and human nature to determine weather or not people are in fact more likely to slaughter and oppress others when in thrall to a traditional religious authority or are they better behaved in communities of religious free-thought?

The author obviously thought his was a valid point, so let's examine it so that we may better understand the world, have wisdom, and act upon what we discover.

Daniel Larison wrote: "The religious man not only assumes that paradox will occur, but he takes the paucity of reason to explain paradox as an indirect confirmation that there are realities that not even reason, as estimable and valuable as it is, can penetrate or comprehend."

The greatest paradox in life is how any man can acknowledge his lack of comprehension on a subject (e.g. God's will) and yet still claim to be an authority in it.

257. The Fastest-Growing Religion

Comment #42562 by Riley on May 18, 2007 at 12:15 pm

I've decided to start my own: "country's fastest-growing religion".

There's just me right now; so I need 19 more converts by the end of this year to realize my dream.

258. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #41711 by Riley on May 16, 2007 at 4:22 pm

FYI: Dinesh D'Souza is an American Enterprise Institute Fellow and former senior domestic policy analyst for the George W. Bush White House.

He is just one more reason why I say: The American Enterprise institute is a leading force behind the religious wedge being driven into American society.

read more here: The American Enterprise institute's record on promoting religion in government

259. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41706 by Riley on May 16, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Nice comments and observations steve99.

260. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41695 by Riley on May 16, 2007 at 3:39 pm

On the day the news of Falwell's death was announced, I drove past a guy in my town who was waving a large sign in the median of the street which read:
"ding dong the witch is dead!"

...lots of honking in appreciation by those who saw it.

says it all about the way people felt about him.

261. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off (more info)

Comment #41426 by Riley on May 16, 2007 at 5:39 am

stuartM02 wrote:"Riley : I don't see how the RSS did any of the things in the debate you claim in your post. Please provide some examples. "

Stuart,

My opinion is based on listening to one of the RRS podcasts which featured "Kelley" making baby noises in an attempt to publicly humiliate an atheist from the RRS's own forum. Her humorless, pre-pubescent whiny and attacking rant against this person was punctuated more than once with the term: "atheist pussy".

Like I said: "name calling, childish pouting, and juvenile ranting".

I wish the link to that audio clip I heard were still active, but the person who posted it has taken it down apparently.

262. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41104 by Riley on May 15, 2007 at 1:49 pm

"Textbooks are Soviet propaganda."-- Rev Jerry Falwell

263. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41101 by Riley on May 15, 2007 at 1:42 pm

"Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions."-- Rev Jerry Falwell

"I am such a strong admirer and supporter of George W. Bush that if he suggested eliminating the income tax or doubling it, I would vote yes on first blush." -- Rev Jerry Falwell

264. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41096 by Riley on May 15, 2007 at 1:39 pm

"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."
-- Rev Jerry Falwell

265. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41090 by Riley on May 15, 2007 at 1:32 pm

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
-- Rev Jerry Falwell

266. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41079 by Riley on May 15, 2007 at 1:25 pm

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."
-- Rev Jerry Falwell

267. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41075 by Riley on May 15, 2007 at 1:21 pm

I'll keep it respectful, and just quote the man's own words:

"I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians, ... the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this [terrorist attack: 9/11] happen." - Jerry Falwell, 700 Club, Sept 13, 2001

268. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off (more info)

Comment #40854 by Riley on May 15, 2007 at 5:18 am

DarwinsPitbull wrote: "I just think atheist need to stop ranking on others who are on our side and who are at least doing something to fight religion from taking over."

The RRS = irrational name calling, childish pouting, and juvenile ranting; that's 'our side' ???

269. Pale Blue Dot

Comment #40512 by Riley on May 14, 2007 at 11:36 am

I used to skip my High School science class so that I could sneak to my basement at home, turn the lights off, and watch "Cosmos".

270. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39302 by Riley on May 10, 2007 at 9:32 am

The offices of Jack Van Impe are based in my home town!

I've been watching this guy and his wife Rexella since I was in high school and have always found them genuinely entertaining. They were especially fun watching as the end of the world approached in 1999.

Always entertaining - and almost no one takes them seriously.

271. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37790 by Riley on May 5, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Hey James/v4ri4bl3,

Thanks for providing the audio clip. That was the first time I'd ever listened to an RRS broadcast.

I thought the initial personal attacks against you in the first few seconds were juvenile and stupid -- taunting and baby noises? wow. We know why getting on TV is definitely not a distinction of honor don't we? you do what you got to do I guess.

But in the rest of the audio they addressed your comments and the problems they had with them. They had rational arguments for what their position on the matter was, and defended it specifically and reasonably enough - they were even constructive at times. Unless you can point to an inaccuracy in what they said or a misrepresented fact, then what can you say? You don't like their style. As long as they're promoting rationalism and honesty, I hope what they're doing works.

I Never would have thought it possible to promote rationalism while acting like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, but hey - maybe they've found a way.

I can definitely see why their verbally abusive behavior and personally insulting attacks would make you angry (you'd have to be a dismissive, haughty, condescending, self absorbed moron not to see why, right?) -- but I suggest you swallow your pride and let it go.

272. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37609 by Riley on May 5, 2007 at 11:09 am

I'm sobbing...
.. . . . w - h - a - t -- a - r - e -- p - e - o - p - l - e -- t - h - i - n - k - i - n - g . . . .

273. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37583 by Riley on May 5, 2007 at 6:21 am

James/v4ri4bl3 wrote: "When asked what he has against God Mr. Sapient felt it was a good time to laugh...Is this the portrayal that Atheists want?

To be fair James, the question posed to him was like being asked: "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" -- it was an ambush question. Yes, maybe there was a better way to handle it, but Brian did not handle it badly. How can you have feelings one way or another about something that doesn't exist?

I'm shocked that they attacked you the way they did for sharing your comments with them however. There's no lame: "different approaches for different people" type of excuse for irrational behavior. Irrational behavior is just simply irrational behavior - why are there atheists trying to justify it?

justme wrote: "That is why Richard is getting criticism from other atheists ..."

Richard gets criticized by other atheists with good reason because they fear that he is mobilizing and re-energizing the most extreme figures in the religious right -- and last I checked they outnumbered us by at least 8 to 1.

For the record, I'm not one of his critics in this regard - but I can't ignore it either; there's a real danger there.

justme wrote: "Mock or laugh at an individual person? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the person."

When you're broadcasting your message over the Internet and on TV, you are talking to every kind of person - both the receptive and unreceptive. All of them will respond and react to you in keeping with the way that you behave -- appeal to emotion and act like a pig, and you will attract like minded people to your cause.

In no way do I want to be associated with the comments sent to James. I haven't heard both sides of that story, so I'll reserve my opinion, but certainly, there's no justification for it and I would not want my 'moderate' position be used to support irrational activism.

274. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #37549 by Riley on May 4, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Mr. Grape wrote: "Just remember that the democrats pull the religion card as much as the republicans."

30% of the 2008 Republican candidates state that evolution is a myth! Do you seriously think that even one Democratic candidate is in denial on this?

The Republican Party is a Theocratic party.

It's the party of:
- The Christian Coalition
- The Family Research Council
- The Office of Faith Based Initiatives
- The display of the Ten Commandments in schools and courtrooms
- Abstinence only sex education
- Prayer in school
- Intelligent Design
- Gay bashing
- And declaration that the U.S. is a "Christian" nation.


wake up.

seriously.

wake up.

275. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #37454 by Riley on May 4, 2007 at 1:49 pm

I was more shocked, and befuddled by the performance of candidates falling over themselves to be favorably identified as the most extreme "pro-life" candidate in the field. While in stark contrast, when the topic of health care came up, all they talked about was how "the U.S. has the greatest health care system in the world!".

Either they are criminally ignorant or they haven't even the slightest bit of real compassion for life. The U.S. has the very worst infant mortality rate among its technological peer nations, and these "pro-lifers" think that is a successful health care system?!?!!!!!!!!!

With the exception of Ron Paul (who has integrity) I really hate these guys. They are completely lacking in even the most basic intellectual and moral credibility.

Even Guiliani (whose policies I more agree with than disagree), had to tell that stupid lie in which he credited Ronald Reagan for the release of Iranian hostages. How stupid are people?

My most basic litmus test is really simple:
you lie or misrepresent yourself, you wont get my vote. no compromises. no excuses.

276. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37407 by Riley on May 4, 2007 at 11:53 am

note: the following are inspired and/or plagiarized from Sam Harris

Positioning Statement: What's good about atheism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is more moral to help people purely out of concern for their suffering than to help them because you believe there's a god demanding you do it."


Problem Definition: What's wrong with religion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Faith leads people to do good things for bad reasons, when good reasons are actually available. Moreover, faith leads people to do very bad things that they would not otherwise do."

I love reading Sam Harris. I suggest everyone on this thread that hasn't already, read:
"Is Religion 'Built Upon Lies'?" - it contains some of the most brilliant and well articulated arguments I've ever read.

I think this above stuff, or something like it is useful to have in mind but, I have to say, anything that contributes to the misconceived notion that atheism is a doctrinally-based membership, instead of an all inclusive default position, is a bad idea both because it's wrong and because it lends itself to the ability of critics to frame atheists as (among other things) a cult - and more specifically a satanic cult.

277. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37336 by Riley on May 4, 2007 at 6:05 am

Thanks Logicel,

I visited the Rational Response Forum and I'm a little afraid based on what I read there that this group's identity is too much centered on a somewhat anti-social, outcast-based camaraderie. If Brian and Kelly take even a hint of that attitude into this debate, they will be mopped-up by the warmth, charm and good humored character of Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. So, above all, I hope they take an inclusive and welcoming approach.

In addition to the other "recommendations" I listed in my previous post, I've thought of another issue-framing device to introduce into the debate. It re-enforces the "we are all atheists" theme and could be presented something like this:
"Ray and Kirk, you are certain - perhaps even more certain than we are - that 99.999% of all the gods ever worshiped on earth don't exist. Since you reject our evidence and our arguments concerning the non-existence of the Bible's god, perhaps you could explain to us what types of evidence and arguments you DO accept. For example, what evidence and arguments do you use to disprove the existence of one of these other gods that you're certain don't exist? Perhaps, if we understood you better we could find a common language with which to discuss these issues."

In addition to promoting the inclusive "we are all atheists" theme and keeping the burden on Ray Comfort, this approach will also flip Comfort's argument that: "Atheists do not exist" against himself.

It's very possible that the response to this will be a cop-out like: the existence of the one true god is proof that the others don't exist. If they say this, then smile, shrug your shoulders and gently and earnestly invite him again to share with you the type of evidence he relies upon to disprove the existence of other gods. And that's enough; you've gotten your victory. You look friendly, you've reached-out in an attempt to find common language with your opponent, and your opponent has rejected your friendliness.

If he does present a real argument for why another god does not exist, all the better - focus on what constitutes evidence for him: what kinds of evidence counts. You don't have to win the argument outright here, just get him on record.

Also, when Ray Comfort challenges your atheism (because you can't prove with 100% certainty the non-existence of anything), respond with:
"I am as much an atheist with respect to the god of the Bible as you are an atheist with respect to Poseidon."

This is a stronger and a more easily absorbed response for a general audience than I think the "Tea Pot" atheist response is (the "Tea Pot" atheist response suffers from being impersonal and hypothetical, like "spaghetti monster", unicorn and tooth fairy references, it can come across as cute, unaccessibly intellectual, and/or even juvenile).

Atheism is natural and inclusive! We are all at least 99.9999% atheist!

278. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37212 by Riley on May 3, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Unless I'm wrong about the format, I don't think it is possible to "win" this debate on rational grounds. The best you can achieve is to look friendly and reasonable. And not allow Comfort or the moderator to catch you lacking something to say.

Here's my advice:



First and most importantly, clearly frame the issue:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you are challenged to disprove the existence of god, your first response should be:
"Define which god it is you want me to disprove."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't get caught in a defensive position. While it may be a perfectly reasonable argument, it feels like a back-tracking cop-out to argue that: "it's impossible to disprove all notions of god". Instead, force them to acknowledge their own atheism. If they try to define god in such a way that "God" is an uninvolved creator -- then call their bluff: "Ray, you yourself are an atheist with respect to this sort of god". You can politely turn your defensive position into an offensive one and make the others look quite unreasonable in this fashion. This is a simple and easy-to-communicate idea that will provide a great feel-good victory (which I think is the best kind of victory you can hope for in a tv format).

Put Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on the defensive:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relentlessly demonstrate that Ray and Kirk are atheists too with respect to most gods and suggest implicitly that it is hypocritical to demand that you disprove the existence of a god that they themselves do not believe in (it does not even meet their definition of "God").
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as Ray is concerned, the only god that exists is the "god of the Bible". Before even attempting to disprove the god of The Bible, challenge Ray to disprove the existence of the god: Poseidon. This gives you the opportunity to appear (after making him squirm a little) generous by eventually acknowledging that there's no controversy about the non-existence of Poseidon, like many other types of gods.

Keep pushing the "you're an atheist too" theme by comparing and contrasting the reason for not believing in the god Poseidon with the reasons for not believing in the god of the Bible. What arguments do Christians use to disprove the pagan gods? If there are any, my bet is that they can be used to disprove the god of The Bible too. Don't use our arguments (science & reason) against them, use their own arguments against them.

Appeal to the audience:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're all atheists with regard to most gods. We're no different than you in that respect. We just go one god further."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This has got to be the strongest and most sympathetic argument that can be made. It's welcoming, and positive. It breaks down the natural wall that will exist between you and theists in the audience. So I definitely think that you should adopt this as a single minded theme upon which you focus throughout the debate. "We are all atheists". Everyone can understand that argument on an emotional level and that argument can be made into a sound bite.

Seek to give television stations only one good sound bite, and do your best to make it the one that you want them to promote (by far the larger audience will only get a chance to see/hear that sound bite).



And last but not least:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never refer to "god". Always refer to the specific god that is the subject of the conversation. "the god of the Bible", "the god of Joseph Smith", "the god of Spinoza", etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always make it crystal clear, that the debate is about one specific kind of god. There's nothing at all universal about the Christian god. After 2000 years only 1/3 of our tiny planet even believes in such a god, and even then those that do still can't even agree on what His message is. This fact alone is a powerful indictment of the notion that The Bible is the chosen medium through which an all knowing and all powerful being, wanting to share an all important message, has chosen to communicate. And as far as Christians go, The Bible is everything.

279. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37181 by Riley on May 3, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Ray Comfort:
"we can prove that God exists, scientifically, absolutely, without mentioning faith or even the Bible."

Or even the Bible !?!?!?

Of course, Comfort makes it sound as if though by not mentioning The Bible, he is handicapping himself, when in fact, it's just the opposite. By not referring to specific falsifiable claims made in The Bible, Comfort can make arguments that are immune to disproof. Clearly his strategy is to reduce the debate to a "he said she said" argument, and then appeal to emotion to "win" the argument in the hearts of the audience.

The key focus in the debate from the Rational Response crowd should be to clarify the difference between any god, specifically an uninvolved god, and a god like the god of The Bible. Ray Comfort needs to prove that "The God of the Bible" exists - not just any Flying Spaghetti Monster type of god. If the topic is a disproof of a god that answers prayers, then a positive and aggressive argument can be made, otherwise you'll be on defense the entire time.

Also, I expect the moderator to attack the "Blasphemy Pledge"and strongly associate it with atheism in order to make atheism out to be "just another religion". Another major problem with the Blasphemy Pledge is that (in a public setting such as this televised debate at least) it will be seen as angst-ridden and hypocritical (or at best 'cute' and juvenile), both because it implicitly acknowledges that there exists someone/something to be blasphemed and it focuses on being negative (attacking others). You will lose the sympathy of most if not all believers right off the bat because of that - it will be seen as hate-speech (i.e. "atheism" = a religion of satan). Better figure out a way to clarify your position in a positive way.

Also, I sure hope there is no talk about the "poor oppressed atheist" - I don't think that would come across well. Much batter to be strong, confident, positive, matter-of-fact, and humble.

good luck!

280. The Damned

Comment #37062 by Riley on May 3, 2007 at 10:07 am

TheCelestialTeapot: I totally agree that connecting famous people to atheism is a weak message, but, I gotta say: "Smile, there is no hell" is a perfect response to religious nonsense I most commonly hear leveled against atheists. Atheists are criticized for believing in nothing and not having any "good news" to share. Pointing out the preponderance of bad news spread by religion and doing it in the context of a "good news" message ("Smile, there is no hell") is brilliant I think.

281. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36473 by Riley on May 1, 2007 at 9:13 am

Nice video briancoughlan, very worthwhile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmsis-motuY

282. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36459 by Riley on May 1, 2007 at 7:41 am

The author suggests that economic disparity and insecurity is a cause of religiosity in society.

Maybe, but in the United States at least, I think the cause and effect is reversed; religiosity is the cause, and economic disparity and insecurity in society the effect.

A fiercely guarded identifying belief here in the U.S. holds that government can not be relied upon to help people. Government is considered inherently a-moral and even an adversarial power, a necessary evil at best. The job to help people (it is believed) can not be left up to government, we must rely upon moral authorities such as the church and its self proclaimed speakers for God.

I don't think this point can be brought up often enough. The sooner this tragically flawed idea that morality requires a belief in God can be shattered, the sooner this viscous cycle of poverty and injustice can be broken.

283. Huge rally for Turkish secularism

Comment #36175 by Riley on April 30, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Denoir, I read that BBC article about the 63% of women being "covered" outside of the home, the next paragraph is worth reading:

"According to information leaked from an opinion poll due out later this month, 63% of Turkish women now cover their heads outside the home.

However the majority of those wear a traditional, non-Islamic head covering. A tiny percentage choose the full cover of the chador and just 11% of respondents wear the turban - or religious headscarf - which is neatly pinned at the sides, leaving the face exposed.

Perhaps more interesting is that all the figures have fallen since the last survey on the same issue six years ago."

------

284. Huge rally for Turkish secularism

Comment #36169 by Riley on April 30, 2007 at 12:04 pm

mrjonno wrote: No constitution or institute is any better than the people who work in it.

That's too simplistic. The constitutional process itself determines who works in it! Moreover, who we are is in large part determined by the institutions that train and prepare us to be the future workers and citizens inside the very institutions that train us. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Also, more to my point, a constitutional democracy is supposed to represent the will of the majority (limited by constitutional "rights"), but in reality, deception, misinformation, and poor institutional structure in government can allow minority interests to be served by government without the majority being aware of it.

Laws that make transparency and accountability a requirement along with a structure of powers that can enforce it, along with cultural traditions that expect it, are all necessary parts of a healthy government system.

However, first there must be the right to organize and demonstrate against government and freely broadcast your complaints to all people who would listen. In this regard, it's inspiring to see the passion demonstrated by peaceful and freedom loving people in Turkey! I love it!

mrjonno wrote: The fact is most people are just indifferent

This is nieve and too cynical. Have you ever taken action yourself? It's hard to make a difference. Who do you trust? Who has the right answer to the right problems? How do you reach agreement?

People care ... but organizing and trusting are very difficult - especially when there exists a well funded minority of people actively dedicated to the spread of spin, distraction, and outright misinformation.

285. Huge rally for Turkish secularism

Comment #36067 by Riley on April 30, 2007 at 5:27 am

mrjonno wrote: "There is no such thing as bad government only bad people who support them (whether in a democracy or dictatorship)."

No, I think that a country can contain a majority of good people, but be manipulated by a bad few in control of government. Even in a democracy, if the government is poorly structured, a few "bad people" can control a majority of "good people" by dividing and conquering.

Democracy is not enough, other institutions and perhaps a constitution are necessary to create essential decentralization of power and properly directed incentives.

Government's are systems and institutions that can be well designed or poorly designed. Without proper structure, a democracy will reflect whatever power group most successfully manipulates information and access.

The Islamic party in Turkey, did not receive a majority of voter support --- as a party, it is the largest unified political block, but it does not represent a majority of Turkish citizens.

286. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34165 by Riley on April 23, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Looking at the Map of school shootings presented in that first video, I couldn't help but notice that the shootings disproportionately occur in some of the most conservative and religious areas of the United States.

By statistical averages alone, I'd expect to see the strong majority of the shootings to occur in high populated areas around Boston, NYC, San Francisco, and LA. If you buy into the idea that "Godless-Liberalism" is at fault, you'd expect that Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle would be overwhelmed by shootings and violence, and yet these are three of the most pleasant cities to live in the U.S. - lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, etc. etc.

Why are these people so mind-numbingly stupid?

287. Faith

Comment #33109 by Riley on April 19, 2007 at 7:59 am

scottishgeologist wrote: This is one of those areas where if you were to push a lot of "believers" then they would start to shuffle about uncomfortably. That is why, hell seldom gets mentioned in a lot of churches. Including so called "bible believing " ones.

(That comment of Robertsons will NOT go down well with the conservative members of his church BTW)

My entire 'debate' with David Roberson (aka "The Wee Flea") and critique of his article on "Respect", has been removed from his website.

Looks like you may have been right scottishgeologist, his comments did not go down well with his church.

You can still view the cached version here:
My debate with David Robertson, part 1

My debate with David Robertson, part 2

--

288. On Desire

Comment #32626 by Riley on April 17, 2007 at 4:00 pm

I'm a Waffle House enthusiast !

289. For God's Sake

Comment #32011 by Riley on April 15, 2007 at 8:08 am

On the topic of weather or not there is a well organized, well funded, and serious attempt
to infuse theology into American government policy, I refer everyone to:

The American Enterprise Institute. This powerful political institute plays a prominent role promoting the merger between religion and government.

I would also like to point out that in this story by Paul Krugman, Monica Goodling (faith-healer Pat Robertson's law school graduate) held the number three position in the Department of Justice! She oversaw the performance of every federal prosecutor in the nation, and yet was only 30+ years old, had no experience as a prosecutor herself, and graduated from a law school widely regarded as among the worst in the country. She was only one of 150 lawyers from this faith-healer law school to be hired by the executive branch of the federal government!

As Krugman points out, this conspiracy theory is not "just a theory" - it's real and represents a serious ongoing threat.


--

290. The Moral Necessity of Atheism

Comment #28503 by Riley on March 29, 2007 at 1:04 pm

I agree and disagree with a lot of what Hitchens has to say . . . the only problem I have with him is that he too often speaks with an air of absolute certainty, often to the point of being dismissive and arrogant on points for which he's factually mistaken (i.e. evolution) or simply by the nature of the suject, he cannot be certain.

I may from time to time fall guilty to this same vice myself, however, I recognize that it's a fault and honestly try to curb such behavior when I catch myself. Hitches on the other hand is gleefully unapologetic and as a professional public speaker has time and money and responsibility to be better prepared.

That being said I enjoyed his thoughts on: God creeating us vs. we creating Gods were thought provoking (to me at least). It's a nice and simple point: If God had made us in his own image, it's hard to explain why the world full of so many versions and images of God. On the other hand, if we created God then the pluralism of god-beliefs we see in the world are exactly what we'd expect. I think it's a good simple point to bring-up in conversation with theist friends. I cherish such tidbits of ammunition.

--

291. Cold is hot in evolution -- Researchers debunk belief species evolve faster in tropics

Comment #27906 by Riley on March 27, 2007 at 7:33 am

The Public Library of Science ( http://www.plos.org ) has published some articles based on research from the "Global Ocean Sampling Expedition".

found here:
http://collections.plos.org/plosbiology/gos-2007.php

The principle investigator on the expedition (Dr. Rusch) has described the diversity of oceanic microbes to be so great and so subtle that standard genomic markers are unable to differentiate between "species".

--

292. Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

Comment #27177 by Riley on March 23, 2007 at 11:17 am

Daniel Dennet has given some thought about what makes some religions more successful than others and to identifying which of the strategies of successful religions can be appropriated in the cause of spreading a culture of rational thought.

--

293. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #27139 by Riley on March 23, 2007 at 9:10 am

David! (aka "The Wee Flea") I'm glad to see that you have come around to the mainstream way of thinking concerning the importance of citing examples and evidence! And even demanding it in an informal chat thread such as this one no less! excellent! I will forever more expect you to uphold a similar standard of accountability for claims made in your formally published letters and books, and expect you to acknowlege that your own claims should be regarded as baseless unless they are accompanied by substantiating evidence and citations.


I have listed several examples of misrepresentations in the following thread of your website's forum:
"FCOS Message Board: Topic: Dawkins- Respect", but your forum has been taken down!!!

So, to give people on this forum a flavor of the run-away misrepresentations typical in your critiques of TGD, I'll cite the following from one of your published "letters" to Dr.Dawkins:

"Dawkins– Childhood Abuse and Gap Theology", by David Robertson (end paragraph):
"[Dr. Dawkins] Your final sentence declares 'Even better, we may eventually discover that there are no limits'. Of course you don't mean that. Because you draw the line at God. You cannot believe in a God who created the universe (that's a limit). You refuse to believe in a God who raised Jesus from the dead (another limit). And you ridicule the notion that this God could communicate with human beings through his Spirit and his Word (another limit). [...] Indeed you want to replace God with humanity."

I find this quote particularly amusing because not only does it demonstrate gross misrepresentation of Dawkins (i.e., not only is the above TGD quote taken out of context, but in order to correctly represent Dawkins position in the book, you need to replace "believe in" with "assume a-priori, the existance of", and add "without evidence" at the end of each sentence above), but I'd like to draw partucular attention to the final sentence; It is more of an accusation than a misrepresentation, but I point it out because it's ironic in its almost perfect description of what, in effect, religion does.

Christians, for example, claim that the words they write down in books are not their own words, but are in fact God's word. They claim that the will to codefy their morality into law is not their own will, but is God's will. So who is it again, that is replacing God with humanity? Clearly, in effect at least, it's you David.

--

294. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #27121 by Riley on March 23, 2007 at 7:59 am

scottishgeologist wrote: "Once you start 'proving' stuff, it drops from the 'supernatural' to the 'natural" and therefore in a different frame of reference. Believers on the other hand DO accept the idea of a supernatural, which cannot be proven by empirical evidence.

You hit the nail directly on the head with this one scottishgeologist. Science makes no distinction between the supernatural and the natural - science is simply concerned with falisifiability (testibility).

The term "supernatural" is just a suggestively misleading term for: "that which cannot be proven". Believers such as the "The Wee Flea" (aka David Robertson) claim that science is incomplete (or biased) because it does not include "supernatural evidence", but when you break this claim down you can see just how utterly and absurdly ridiculous his complaint and claim is:

1) "supernatural" = "that which cannot be proven"
2) "evidence" = a basis for proving the truth of an assertion.

So, this above key objection made by David (aka "The Wee Flea") and others concerning science can be summed up as: They think "that which cannot be proven" (e.g. the supernatural) should be an acceptible basis for proof!

Also, I've taken the time to read and examine carefully some of what David has written about "The God Delusion", and have noted that on the infrequent occasion that David actualy addresses one of Dawkins' arguments directly, and substantively criticizes it, he usually misrepresents the Dawkins argument to the point of being intellectually dishonest.

----------------

Concerning labeling a child "middle-class" versus labeling a child "Christian":

1) There is a doctrinal philosophy invovled in being a Christian. There is no doctrinal philosophy involved in being "middle-class". That being said, I would still agree with MartinSGill that labeling a child "middle-class" probably isn't a helathy thing for the child either as it might unnecessarily limit the child's self-image and thinking.

2) I've re-read this chapter of TGD now for the 4th time, and so I say with some confidence: Dawkins in his book does not describe the teaching of a child about God to be child abuse, any more so than teaching a child about the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus to be child abuse. In fact, Dawkins states no problem with the idea of teaching the bible as literature - he in fact encourages it! But, teaching children about religious and political philosophies is distinctly different than labeling them as adherents.


--

295. Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

Comment #26956 by Riley on March 22, 2007 at 3:06 pm

MelM,

Actually, I think I have gained some traction arguing with believers and here's a list of a few things that I have learned:



1) The problem that I think most atheists run into is that they don't realize (or accept) that there is a language barrier that needs to be crossed before a believer can be reasoned with. The language of faith is a language of feelings. Certain words and phrases just feel like they mean something. So I suggest learning to speak the language.

2) Also, related to communicating in the laguage of feelings, I have learned that many believers must (it seems) at all times be full of good postive feelings - you can't expect to get them to give up their good feelings without giving them a replacement something to feel good about. As such, you wont get much traction by simply arguing against something, you need to also argue at the same time for something else.

3) I have come to accept that "god" can mean all things to all people, so I don't even argue "god". Instead, in fact, I like to use "God" as a powerful metephore (meaning whaever I want it to mean) to add feeling to my arguments . . . in much the same way that preachers do, or Einstein did.

4) I try to limit my attacks to religious claims that wholly venture out into the magisteria of science and reason - where they can be slayed, not just wounded.

-----

Here is an example of an argument I use that focuses on attacking the claim that The Bible is the "Word of God":

"The Bible is a parochial message, limited by language, and geography, and time, and in a medium vulnerable to counterfit and misinterpretation. God on the other hand, through His Creation, has provided direct access to all people, of all times, and of all places, in a medium impossible to counterfit and which reveals its truths in an unmistakable manner. What an affront to God, and an act of extreme hubris it is to suggest that the authority of God's Creation, universal and timeless, should be usurped by your personally selected book. "

And I might follow this up with:

"Ironically, when we put aside our personal hubris that we know God and know what God wants and simply observe and learn from God's Creation itself, we learn a lot: we learn how to feed the hungry, cure the sick, bring the dead back to life, and even more ironic still - when we humbly submit our prideful claims to that same processes that has proven itself unparralled in its ability to substantially reveal the truths of God's Creation, we find that we also have a universally applicable tool-set with which to resolve conflicts and potentially as such (to the extent that this tool-set is adopted) enjoy peace on earth."

yes, I'm an optimist.

---

296. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26814 by Riley on March 21, 2007 at 8:01 pm

cheshirecat, your posts have been reduced to nothing more than flailing rants. It's unfortunate because I enjoyed your first posts.

Of course I know that Gould was the first (or at least, most prominent) person to articulate the idea of non-overlapping magisteria. However, this notion only works so long as religions aren't making claims about the testible world. In an ideal world, religion and science could co-exist in these non-overlapping magisteria, but unfortunately there are hundreds of millions of people promoting the truth of their religious-based claims and these claims intrude dramatically into the magisteria of what is scientifically testible (i.e.: creationism, Intelligent Design, young earth, effecacy of prayer, faith healing, etc. etc. and etc.). And our cause (me and whoever else agrees with me) is not to let such claims slide unchallenged into schools, into the basis for lawmaking, and into moral arguments.


I'd also like to throw-in my voice of support for comments made by iwentdowntotheriver concerning "irrational atheists".

--

297. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26739 by Riley on March 21, 2007 at 12:46 pm

First off, cheshirecat, a question: In cases where Pope Gregory and the Bible are in disagreement about the truth, should we appeal to the authority of Pope Gregory or the authority of the Bible?


And I'll try answering your question below:

cheshirecat wrote: Can you apreciate that theologians feel the same thing about Richard Dawkins books. I don't know what the God delusion says thats new. If someone could put one of Dawkins supposed revalatory statements about religion to me pithily i'd be grateful.

The modern-day relevant "gap" in literature filled by "The God Delusion" I believe is this:

1) Dawkins addresses the flaws in the notion of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria": this is the notion that religious claims are outside the realm of science and implies as such that science should not comment on religon. Dawkins in his book has identified several claims made by religions that CAN be scientifically tested and argues that all such religious claims should be subject to the same testing and scrutiny to which all other public claims get subjected, and that likewise we should characterize such claims (and the people who adhere to them) as reasonable or unreasonable based on the same standards.

This is a revolutionary thought for me at least.

Also, Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" - the most significant scientific theory yet to refute arguments for the existance of a "creator", is only 150 years old. Moreover, the discovery of genes (further evidence supporting Darwinian evolution) is only 50 years old. Most of the theological arguements and the intelligent people who made them pre-date the scientific establishment of Darwinian evolution and so Dawkins has revisited some of the old arguments in light of relatively new and overwhelming evidence.

Beyond these updates, there are two arguments that Dawkins poses about religious thinking in general that are either new or particularly topical given the rise of religiously motivated violance in the world:

1) RELIGIOUS THINKING IS THE CAUSE OF MUCH OF THE EVILS IN THE WORLD: Dying, sacrificing lives, threatening non-adherents, killing in God's name and being rewarded for it after death are common and major themes found in the holy books of the major western religions. Adherents to the values expounded in such books contribute to much of the world's violence and killing. There are already plenty of good reasons to do good things, we don't need religious thinking to motivate us. But religious thinking provides bad reasons for people to do evil things, and tries to justify the whole by exclusively pointing out the good behaviors.

2) RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINIZATION OF CHILDREN IS ABUSE: Children should be allowed to explore a wide range of ideas and be given the tools to think critically and independently about them so that they can decide for themselves what to believe. By contrast, religious teaching often isolates children, pre-maturely labels them as adherents to religious belief, and otherwise pressures them to accept religious notions before they are old enough to properly examine them.

If I've misrepresented Dawkins' views and/or the book here, someone please correct me.


--

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

Comment #26727 by Riley on March 21, 2007 at 11:24 am

bruno_burned,

What's your rationale for limiting modifications to "corrective" (e.g. therepeutic) enhancements?

I hear you saying that it would be alright to modify the genes of a "mentally retarded" child in order to enhance the child's mental capacity, but it's not alright to genetically modify a "normal" child to enhance mental capacity. Why?

Also, how about creating "designer babies" WITHOUT genetic modification? This could be done simply by examinining the genetic make-up of the sperm and eggs of a husband and wife, selecting the the most promising combination for fertilization, and inseminating it. The result would be by all standards "normal" and "natural" -- only the selection process itself would be artificial. Do you believe this selection process would be immoral, and if so, how do you square that position with otherwise "normal" human sexual selection?

Basically, my point here is that "normal" and "natural" are arbitrary standards that shouldn't be the basis for accepting or rejecting new technologies that have great potential to improve people's quality of life.

--

299. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #26559 by Riley on March 20, 2007 at 12:14 pm

-
Carl Wunsch, MIT professor of physical oceanography, was one of the scientists interviewed in this movie: "The Great Global Warming Swindle" linked above by Aussie. Wunsch had this to say about the movie:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration."

"The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'."

"I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. [...] I am the one who has been swindled."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While watching this movie you can pick-out the very same strategies employed by the Intelligent Design promoting crowd now being employed by the producer of this movie:
1) Make much ado about disagreements in the details of a theory in an attempt to make it seem like the theory itself is in doubt.
2) Reintroduce old arguments that have already been fully addressed by scientists.
3) Enlist a few scientists (or scientific seeming people - a political appointee to the head of an agency perhaps?) to take your side of the argument, or misrepresent them as needed.
4) Imply a grand conspiracy among the broader scientific community.
5) Preach the controversy.
6) Since the facts are ultimately not on your side, mire the debate in issues concerning political partisanship and speculation about conspiratorial motivations.

The conspiracy theory promoted by this movie that is most precious: the idea that there exists a powerful lobby of climate scientists. priceless.

---------------------------
Here are links to sources worth reading with regard to that movie:

- "The Great Global Warming Swindle Questions Answered"
Especially read the portion on Sun spot and solar radiation activity., covered in more detail here
- "Deconstructing Channel 4's Great Global Warming Swindle"
- "Swindled"

----------------------------------
The Forum section of this site also exhaustively discusses the "Great Global Warming Swindle" movie: here
And there is another lengthy discussion thread on Global Warminig science issues in general: here.

300. Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil

Comment #26545 by Riley on March 20, 2007 at 8:13 am

Barnacle, the viewpoint you patiently explained to Spaghetti Monster has been the view point he repeatedly expouses in-part and in-part repeatedly mocks, I'll paraphrase him: "You believe what you want. I'll believe what I want. I don't care. There's no basis to claim that your values are better or worse than mine; all values are subjective. However, if you value anything that doesn't impact you here and now, you are no different than the religious fundies. So, don't claim religion is a delusion, because you're just as deluded."


But MeIM cuts right to the heart of the debate by pointing out that all value systems are not equal; there are some that are more subjective (or arbitrary) than others. Reason and consistancy may be an arbitrary basis to construct a value system, but not nearly as arbitrary a basis as feelings, wishful thinking and/or revelation.

Most value systems (just like science) rely on claims that can be the subject of testing and reason. The result of this testing and reason is that we find some values to be more legitimate than others, and some value systems to be so illegitimate that they should be discarded entirely.

--