251. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35586 by roach on April 27, 2007 at 5:09 pm

Well for the record (as if there is one) I have many issues with Reza Aslan and Andrew Sullivan other than their faith. But whatever. So what if Maher is glib and obnoxious? He's right about religion. This thread is pretty crappy.

252. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35555 by roach on April 27, 2007 at 3:35 pm

I think this thread is sheds light on a problem with us atheists. We all so much fancy ourselves as freethinkers that often we do not see allies when they are right in front of our face. Even if you do not like Bill Maher, his comedy, or his refusal to proclaim himself as an atheist, you cannot deny that he is on the right side in the war against religious superstition.

I would even argue that people like Reza Aslan and Andrew Sullivan are allies in some respects. No?

253. New Planet Could Be Earthlike, Scientists Say

Comment #35336 by roach on April 26, 2007 at 10:52 pm

I really hope that we have solid evidence to believe that some type of life exists (or existed) on another planet before I die.

254. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #34686 by roach on April 24, 2007 at 11:07 pm

ratio said: "I agree that's possible but what I'm looking for here is empirical evidence. At first sight Nazism and Communism are examples of atheist regimes but not ones that would be held up as examples of ethical regimes. Both failed, probably not due to their atheism, but are there any successes to point to? I sense the possibility of a bit of social evolution at work."

Apologies for my terribly short and inadequate response to your original question.

I believe some empirical evidence does already exist. Apparently Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Japan and many other countries have a significant percentage of the population who do not believe in "a personal god". http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html. All of these countries are getting along just fine with their lack of belief. They are not slowly imploding or falling into chaos and anarchy.

*puts on Sam Harris mask* A big problem with Nazism and Stalinism (or totalitarian regimes in general) is that they function too much like religions. They are lead by a charasmatic father figure and demand unquestioning loyalty. Instead of being a servant of God you are a servant of the State. These are not governments that have encouraged rational inquiry among the people. Nazism and Stalinism were not the result of reason run amok. They did not come about because people demanded too much evidence from their leaders in order to justify the national policy.

255. Brian Lehrer interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34621 by roach on April 24, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Thrall said: " I've recently read an article that shows that some apes' genes have evolved beyond ours to help them survive. Which is an interesting point to think about."

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Got any links?

256. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34617 by roach on April 24, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Russell Blackford said: "I'm just not buying the whole noble savage thing."

Yeah. Read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate and watch the doctrine of the noble savage (along with the blank slate and the ghost in the machine)
get obliterated. Civilization is making us, well, more civil. We are becoming more moral as we go along.

257. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34332 by roach on April 23, 2007 at 8:18 pm

It does sound like a fun read. I'm looking forward to his political and historical approach. Religion and the God hypothesis need to be criticized from all angles. The God Delusion isn't a popular science book anyway.

Cheers.

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

Comment #34327 by roach on April 23, 2007 at 8:11 pm

That's it? It was so short. What a shame. As always, Richard was well-mannered and polite.

I did think it funny that Fox simply put "Athiest" in the title bar under RD. Why not "Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University" or "Evolutionary Biologist" or "Best-selling popular science author"?

Oh well. All of O'Reilly's arguments were weak. Especially the "well it's true for me" nonsense.

I agree with Russell Blackford's post. That was probably as good as could reasonably be expected.

259. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33972 by roach on April 22, 2007 at 11:47 pm

How would an atheistic society survive?

Government and The Social Contract.

260. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33591 by roach on April 20, 2007 at 4:42 pm

krogercomplete said: "A good point. Maybe it is too limiting to break the world of morality into two spheres. Though, what you are describing sounds like subjective morality to me in that it is a matter of societal consensus. In other words, morality is what we decide it is. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting you."

All I'm really saying is that morality should be open ended. We should treat it the same as any other sphere of human discourse. Science, government, the legal system, education standards, etc are all open to update and revision. Why should we treat morality or ethics any different? This is not to say that we cannot develop some moral absolutes. For example, slavery, honor killing, and rape are absolutely immoral. But we simply do not need or want an objective morality that is set in stone (pun intended). A purely objective morality will forever be out of rationality's grasp (and that's a good thing)

261. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #33588 by roach on April 20, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Laroquod: I did have a visceral reaction to your post. I really don't see the relevance of that though. Anyway, there is a very big difference between saying the truth is approximate and saying the truth is relative.

You also ignored the bulk of my post.

Perhaps RD (and the rest of us) could do a better job persuading people. Any suggestions as to how we do this? Keep in mind, if we say the truth is relative we will forever be at a stalemate.

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

Comment #33535 by roach on April 20, 2007 at 2:00 pm

WOW. Everyone should watch the youtube vid posted. How can O'Reilly not call himself an atheist? The congitive dissonance is astounding. Just watch the vid. Unreal.

263. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33265 by roach on April 19, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Douglas Wilson said: "Christianity is injurious, you say, but I would want to inquire why it is bad to be injurious. What standard do you appeal to here . . . Okay, so I am part of a divisive, injurious and retrograde movement. Is that bad?" (LFACC, p. 10).

What? I seriously do not understand the rationale here. How are division, injury, and regression not bad? I suppose you'll argue that it is God who allows us to make distinctions about what is good and bad. It's a not so artful move that I'm sure many here have encoutered before. I am in no way engaged by this selection of your writing. It's at best utterly confusing and at worst completely nonsensical.

264. Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford

Comment #33251 by roach on April 19, 2007 at 5:48 pm

This is an amazing discussion. It's a pleasure to watch.

265. Flea Circus!

Comment #33242 by roach on April 19, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Douglas Wilson said: "If there is no God, what could possibly be wrong with theocracies? They provide high entertainment value, and they give everybody involved in them a sense of dignity and high moral purpose. They get to wear ecclesiastical robes, march in impressive processions to burn intransigent people at the stake, believing that they are better than everybody else and that God likes them" (LFACC, p. 7).


What?

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

Comment #33229 by roach on April 19, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Frostbit said: "It's a waste of time Mr.Dawkins, go golfing instead."

Word. Let's all go play some golf and drink some pints.

I'm actually looking forward to the interview.

267. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32951 by roach on April 18, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Why do we all seem to think that there are only two options when it comes to morality? Why does morality have to be either objective or subjective? Can it not be progressive? I would argue that since morality is part of the human condition, it evolves and progresses along with us. Is there something wrong with this line of thought?

268. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #32320 by roach on April 16, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Laroquad said "The way to "rehabilitate" science in the eyes of the public is to show that it *survives* relativism (and it does) -- not to mount a counterattack against relativism itself, which is now the accepted norm for moral thinking in the educated world. What we need is not a 'You are wrong' argument, passionately made, but a 'You are right BUT' argument, just as passionately made."

I say screw this. I'm not a professional scientist. My scientific training extends litte further than high school. But I do not think we should yield to relativism even if it is the "accepted norm for moral thinking in the educated world".

The truth is approximate. No one has a monopoly on the truth. But what we need is for people to understand that science provides the best method for discovering the truth about our circumstance. As such, we should try to apply it to as many aspects of life as possible. The problem is that people seem to think that since the truth is approximate, it is also relative and all propositions are potentially equal and valid. We all need to get over ourselves. It's okay to be wrong and it's even better to admit when you are.

269. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32309 by roach on April 16, 2007 at 8:48 pm

I found this article to be quite enlightening. I didn't know God: The Failed Hypothesis was out.


I mean, what's the point of an honest response to this?

270. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #29976 by roach on April 5, 2007 at 9:09 pm

When I first heard Andrew Sullivan speak I was quickly engaged. The man makes reasoned and articulate arguments when it comes to politics, foreign relations, economics, etc. This isn't true when he discusses religion. But I'm happy he decided to participate in this dialogue with Sam Harris. I will respect Andrew Sullivan until the day I die.

271. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #29817 by roach on April 5, 2007 at 1:38 am

Bonzai,

perhaps I'll do so sometime soon. I can't right now because I'm pretty tired. But even when fully rested I will not do them justice. I'd wager others will provide you with a brief summary. By the way, referring you to the books is not an appeal to authority. The books are full of logical arguments, articualte reasons, and clarifying examples. Which you can certainly disagree with and provide reasons for your disagreement. An appeal to authority would be if I said something like "Hey Richard Dawkins has a PhD, and he's a Professor at Oxford. You better beleive what he says" or "Carl Sagan was an extremely intelligent man. He must be right." or "Sam Harris is a best selling author and is obtaining a PhD in Neuroscience. We must accept what he says." and so on. Unless of course you are using "appealing to authorities" as a substitue for "referring to books". But I'd be puzzled as to why you would do that. I suppose it could in some lame way make me look stupid an unimaginitive. I have no problem with that because it's largely true. Have you read the God Delusion or The End of Faith? Anyway, thanks for the wink.

272. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #29809 by roach on April 4, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Bonzai, read Dawkins' and Harris' books again if you already have. Read Sagan as well. All of your concerns and arguments are addressed and countered in depth.

273. It is possible to respect the believers but not the belief

Comment #29661 by roach on April 4, 2007 at 12:03 am

@TedWak
Who's Gart Ashton?

You're completely wrong about Harris or Dawkins or atheists in general not respecting believers. In fact both men make clear distinctions between people and the beliefs they hold. They are only criticising the beliefs and not the people themselves.

I very much doubt most atheists would go out of their way to change their Muslim tennis partner's mind. But I see no reason why if a conversation turns to religion/theology we should feel compelled to stay silent and not engage in a civil discourse with our friend and tennis partner. The father of one of my best friend's is getting a Masters degree in theology and I very much enjoy talking to him about all things religious. The ability to converse about our differences is something for which I am thankful. It would be dishonest and disrespectful of me if I simply kept my thoughts to myself and didn't engage with my friend.

What are these Judeo-Christian values of which you speak? And how is it difficult to imagine modern society without them? I would wager that any values you name are not Judeo-Christian values but rather are human values. That is, they are not exclusive to Judiasm/Christianity. They most likely transcend religion and culture.

Of course many terrible things would have happened even if religion was never invented. And many terrible things will happen even if we rise abover our primitive superstitions. In-group out-group thinking is hardwired into our brains. There will always be conflict and divisions between humans. But religion is privleged above all other forms of tribalism that divide this world. Why?

274. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #29656 by roach on April 3, 2007 at 9:18 pm

larrysu183 said: "The sense I get from reading the responses on this forum is "Screw them!" This is not an adequate response. Assuming that atheists feel a sense of social responsibility (which I know they do-- they are not all nose-picking solitary physics students), it seems to me important to offer people who depend on their churches for comfort some substitute."

"Screw them" is not the sense I get at all. But we do have a problem when it comes to comfort. As humans, we can come to realize that there is something intolerable about seeing others suffer and take actions to relieve that suffering. We, as atheists or secular humanists or whatever can provide comfort but it will not be the same type of "comfort" that churches provide. We simply cannot say things like "I understand you are saddened by your son's death. But remember, he is in heaven with God and when you die you will join them." It's pretty obvious why we cannot say these apparently comforting words. We cannot provide comforting thoughts when they amount to little more than lies. But we can provide many levels of comfort. We can reminisce about the departed, or offer constructive advice for a troubling situation, etc. without claiming to know things we do not know.

I have not heard anyone argue that humanism can't or shouldn't provide comfort. If I did hear such an argument I would quickly disagree. And from what I've read of Dawkins, Harris, and Sagan all of them would disagree as well. In fact, I felt comforted after reading their books. The problem is that many people want more comfort than reality can provide. Many people do not understand just how lucky they are to be alive. Instead, it appears they want to be told that this life is only the beginning and that death isn't the end. Humanism cannot provide a comforting answer to people with this mentality.

You speak of trancendence. When reading about evolution or cosmology, I cannot help but feel awe-struck by the interconnectedness of everything we see. Science is a tremendous source of trancendence and euphoria. But many are turned off by it's brutal honesty and choose to ignore it's beautiful truths. It's kinda sad actually.

275. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29395 by roach on April 2, 2007 at 6:38 pm

smurrish, your last sentence is basically a summation of Dawkins' article. While postmodernism does literally mean "after modernism", the word has taken on a much greater and nebulous meaning. I still haven't found anyone who can give a concise definition of the word. Postmodernist thinkers almost seem to seek refuge in vague, confusing, and complicated language. I was exposed to a great deal postmodernist thought while in college. I have come to know the word as political correctness run amok, or cultural relativism. Hence, I do not agree with postmodern thought. What's wrong with Enlightenment/modern thought?

september, why don't you just tell us your motives? That'll be much easier on everyone.

Postmodernism is far from over. But hopefully it's on it's way out of civil discourse.

276. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29384 by roach on April 2, 2007 at 5:56 pm

september, you still need to give us a proper definition of postmodernism. I'm sorry people have given you grief for your name but that is hardly relevant. You say your "reasons...tend to be very different from most peoples". Please give us your reasons because so far you haven't.

277. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29377 by roach on April 2, 2007 at 5:27 pm

"Relax. Anyone would think she killed your grandmother. She just gave her opinion which was that the tone was a bit sarcastic. Which is true. Its a faultless description of Dawkins rhetoric. He is a bit sarcastic. I'm a bit alarmed it she was listening to it on tape and it took her a month to get through. She might have made the effort and actually read it. Maybe it was the way Dawkins reads it, that put her off. I don't know."

Relax. Both my grandmothers are dead. I just gave my opinion which was that the article was stupid and unfunny. Which is true. It's a faultless description of the article. The article is a bit moronic and lame. Maybe it was the way I read it. I don't know.

278. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29355 by roach on April 2, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Oh the pool bit was a joke? Well if that's the case the article is not only stupid but also unfunny. It fails on more than one level. Nice catch cheshirecat.

279. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29333 by roach on April 2, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Of course this whole article is rubbish but let's pick it apart a little at a time.
From the article: "Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and his careful explanations of why evolution works and religion does not are extremely interesting."

Not only are they extremely interesting, they're also true!

280. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29317 by roach on April 2, 2007 at 2:46 pm

not a fan of postmodernism. As a political science major, I spent almost my entire time in college listening to that nonsense. I just ended up confused and frustrated. As if that time of your life isn't confusing/frustrating enough!

281. 'The Evolution of Homer' Intro

Comment #29152 by roach on April 1, 2007 at 10:32 pm

The Simpsons Seasons 2-10 are better than anything Family Guy will ever produce. This is a fact.

282. The God Debate

Comment #29075 by roach on April 1, 2007 at 2:10 pm

I disagree that these debates are a waste of time. Of course it's fair to say that Sam Harris (or Richard Dawkins, or Atkins, or whoever)will probably never convert the fundamentalist or the moderate he is debating. But I think these debates (just like the books) address a broad spectrum of people who can and do change their minds as a result. Why do I think this? Well I it would be fair to say that I was a secular liberal apologist for a good long while before I read The God Delusion and The End of Faith. It was political correctness run amok. I simply didn't want to offend anyone. After reading some books and listening to Sam Harris speak, I stopped apologizing for religious belief. I think the debates can start a snowball effect. For example, an open-minded moderate hears/reads a debate between an atheist and a believer, the debate piques his/her interest, he/she goes out and reads The God Delusion or The End of Faith or some other book, she changes her mind about religious faith.

Perhaps that's overly optimistic. But it's not the only possible outcome. Even if the hypothetical moderate is unconvinced by the books, perhaps she will be interested to read other books/articles about evolution/cosmology/neurology. So yeah, I don't think the debates are a waste of time.

283. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28651 by roach on March 30, 2007 at 8:48 am

Rtambree said: "As for AI, progress after 50+ years is not encouraging. Minute nematode worms are more intelligent than the most advanced supercomputers."

Could you elaborate a little? I've heard a vastly differing opinion. I suppose it has to do with the definition of intelligent.

As for the multiverse or bubbles, I hope it's true.

284. Believers are away with the fairies

Comment #27954 by roach on March 27, 2007 at 11:58 am

*Puts on Scott Atran mask*

Grayling says that suicide bombers are "driven by religious zeal". This is so far from the truth. My own empirical studies coupled with my superb mental gymnastics prove that suicide bombers blow themselves up and kill innocents because of love. But let us remember that God is love. So they're doing it for God. Wait I don't know what I'm saying.

285. God's dupes

Comment #26218 by roach on March 17, 2007 at 6:32 pm

I agree with agedheretic. I've seen some question Sam's use of the word "spiritual" and his hopes for a universal human spirituality that is open-ended and scientific. But we must remember he is using the word in much the same way Carl Sagan did. Here's a paragraph from Sagan's The Demon Haunted World (I've just started reading it and it's awesome):

"Spirit" comes from the Latin word "to breathe." What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word "spiritual" that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profund source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and sublety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary seflsess courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that sciene and spirituality are somehow mutually exculsive does a disservice to both."

286. Atheists come in last

Comment #22879 by roach on February 23, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Just read some of Thomas Jefferson's quotes on Christianity and religion in general to see proof that the US has already had a nonreligious president. It's fair to say that Jefferson was a deist (as many Enlightenment thinkers were) but they didn't have the scientific knowledge that is available to us today.

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)


That man knew how to write huh?

287. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #22243 by roach on February 13, 2007 at 4:54 pm

How to deal with religious irrationality?

"I've thought about that. During the exam I'll hide under some coats and hopefully everything will turn out okay." - Homer Simpson

288. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21683 by roach on February 10, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Reza Aslan is a passionate and intelligent individual. I hope he is right about the impending reformation of Islam. And from what Sam Harris has said and written, it would appear that he very much supports people like Reza in the Muslim world. However, this does not mean that Reza's moderate and nonsensical religious views are valid. Aslan coins the term "sacred history". What the heck is sacred history? It seems to be no more than religous myths and ideas that hold weight for a large number of people even though they are largely false and outdated. He holds other ideas that I disagree with but I don't really want to get into it as I think he and people like him are what we need in the Muslim world at the moment.

Reza Aslan is the personification of Sam Harris' "religious moderate paradox".

289. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21549 by roach on February 9, 2007 at 10:59 pm

When I read the title of this article I was expecting a fascinating piece discussing the fundamental questions science cannot currently explain. Instead we get more tripe from Alister McGrath. Weaksauce.

290. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #21452 by roach on February 9, 2007 at 8:49 am

Agreed Phaderus.

Sam's latest essay is simply awesome. It was a pleasure to read.

291. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21331 by roach on February 8, 2007 at 6:25 pm

Agreed Jonah. But maybe tomorrow night will provide for a larger audience. I'll be watching with great interest.

292. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #20818 by roach on February 6, 2007 at 5:29 pm

I simply can't trust someone who says "...and he's very naughty about this" about another grown man.

293. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20320 by roach on February 1, 2007 at 7:00 pm

cheshirecat,

About half of your sentences make sense. The other half is just postmodernist/cultural relativist claptrap very similar to the crap I was forcefed throughout college. It's the kind of thinking that sounds profound because it is completely nonsensical. It often manifests itself kinda like this: "There really is no such thing as the truth. Truth is a human abstraction and your version of truth is based on your faith in the scientific method and rationalism. Hence, it is no different than the religious faith because people use it to form their own personal versions of the truth." What a bunch of bs. The very fact that we are posting these comments on a website demonstrates the awesome power of science. What has faith ever given humanity? I think it is fair to say that faith had very important functions in the past. But we have had better alternatives for faith and religion for quite some time now. I think it's about time that we embrace them.

There is no doubt that we can produce evidence of the good and bad effects of religion. I happen to think the negative outweighs the positive(especially since we have other and better reasons to be good). But no one has produced any evidence for the existence of God. However, God and religion in general have been debunked over and over again. From what we now know about the universe (thanks to science and rational thought) the existence of any supreme being is very highly unlikely.

I suppose you could just be messing around though.

294. God and gorillas

Comment #20269 by roach on February 1, 2007 at 11:28 am

A very interesting article. Our ape cousins are truly fascinating. But King essentially defines religion out of existence when she says "I think religion is all about emotional engagement and social action." and "I'm not talking about a set of beliefs". This is a serious issue when it comes to religious discussions. The words religion and God have become infinitely elastic. We really need to start using the language in a specific manner if we are ever going to understand each other.

King also misunderstands the so called "New Atheism" and the arguments attempting to explain the evolution of religion.

295. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20189 by roach on January 31, 2007 at 10:37 pm

Death isn't a natural phenomena?

I don't think any athiest wants to take away anyone's hope. I certainly don't want anyone to take away my hope that Jessica Biel is deeply in love with me. (credit to Sam Harris)

Death is a difficult subject though. I can't remember who said this but I agree with it: I imagine being dead will be exactly the same as not being born. And I wasn't inconvienced at all before I was born.

If it turns out that I'm wrong about this I'll simply be pleasantly suprised.

296. Atheists in Jail

Comment #19797 by roach on January 30, 2007 at 1:06 am

The term "agnostic" doesn't really make much sense in the context of God/religious faith given that it deals with belief and not knowledge. It's true that no one, from a devout believer to a positive atheist, can technically be anything other than an agnostic.

297. Did humans wipe out Australia's big beasts?

Comment #19733 by roach on January 29, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Those megafauna are awesome.

298. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19725 by roach on January 29, 2007 at 2:18 pm

I'm not a fan of the blasphemy challenge. It seems immature. But I also think Kasich isn't a very good journalist. Did anyone see Sam Harris when he was on Scarborough Country? The woman sitting in for Joe was insane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=traRmwGEunQ

299. The Only One in Step

Comment #19018 by roach on January 24, 2007 at 11:40 am

I've never heard God's voice. I'm thankful of this because it would suggest I was going insane.

Jesus doesn't even seem like that a nice of a guy actually.

"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." Luke 19:27

What's up with that?

300. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #18770 by roach on January 22, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Dennett is the man.