251. Face-Off: Can You Prove God Exists?

Comment #40474 by Mango on May 14, 2007 at 10:28 am

I don't think it's harsh to say that it's lamentable that this excellent opportunity to speak out about atheism was, as someone above has said, so middlebrow (on both sides). After all, the national audience largely doesn't know Dawkins or Hitchens from Adam, so they mistakenly assume these two are the "cream of the crop."

"Not every atheist can have a PhD and top-of-the-draw debating skills." Of course I agree -- but why not book one for such a high-profile debate as this?

252. Face-Off: Can You Prove God Exists?

Comment #40429 by Mango on May 14, 2007 at 9:34 am

Unfortunately, this nationally-televised program did not have more well spoken, erudite, neatly dressed atheists. It sends the message to the country that this young man and woman are the best that atheists can muster to debate theists, which is very far from the truth. Hitchens has said he will enter a debate anytime, anywhere -- ABC should've called him instead.

253. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36581 by Mango on May 1, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Usually the statistics I run across about self-deception concern a person's sexual prowess as well as whether they will get into Heaven.

But anyway, the "deception" of a person's religious beliefs probably do help proselytizing considering how modern religious minds are compartmentalized. A theist is just unable to marshal and comprehend the counter-evidence because his/her "deceit" is so ingrained into his/her worldview.

254. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #36514 by Mango on May 1, 2007 at 11:51 am

A reasoned review from a moderate Christian, but not very substantive.

He seems to argue in favor of richer philosophical rather than theological dialog.

This person might make an excellent new Humanist, if he could totally surmount his God delusion.

255. Just 120 Trillion Miles From Home

Comment #36086 by Mango on April 30, 2007 at 6:51 am

Why don't scientists pay close attention to the dialog in Star Trek (especially TNG) to figure out how warp engines work and then invent them!

256. Pundit Christopher Hitchens picks a fight in book, 'God is Not Great'

Comment #35985 by Mango on April 29, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Hardly a case of getting a slice of the "cash cow." Hitchens has had this book inside him waiting to be written for years (obvious when you read "The Missionary Position").

And the cash is with Jesus, as any "megachurch" should tell you.

257. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #35935 by Mango on April 29, 2007 at 11:22 am

My interpretation of the events is that the group did leave pre-meditated.

Also, why did no one from the school (a parent or teacher) attend a prior performance to ensure its appropriateness before they bought 87 seats??

Ultimately the students are the victims of their parents and teachers who are teaching them to ruin something they disagree with rather than, say, merely writing a letter or protesting OUTSIDE the theater.

258. A Brief History of Disbelief

Comment #35672 by Mango on April 28, 2007 at 7:40 am

The website's calender says that only Roanoke, Wichita, and Muncie are airing it. So most Americans are going to have to contact their local stations.

I'm not surprised that it's not being picked up, but I am surprised it is those particular (conservative) markets.

259. Scientists look to disrupt the brain chemistry of violence

Comment #35530 by Mango on April 27, 2007 at 1:39 pm

This sounds very familiar to the work of "neurotheology" which posits that spiritual feelings are manifested through the physical structures of the brain. Makes you wonder just how much free will we all really have.

260. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35279 by Mango on April 26, 2007 at 6:52 pm

He's not as eloquent as Dawkins or necessarily as deep a thinker as Harris, but he DOES bring attention to some pertinent issues, such as the stacking of the US Justice Dept. with theists loyal to Bush. And he comes out and says that if you believe Jesus rose bodily to heaven, you are deluded. So I have no beef with the message or the messenger himself.

And remember to vote for Dawkins at Time.com

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100walkup/article/0,28804,1611030_1612457,00.html

261. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35237 by Mango on April 26, 2007 at 4:44 pm

It's the gov't trying to legislate morality and that doesn't work, in America or even an Islamic theocracy. The "moral Zeitgeist" moves forward regardless albeit slowly.

262. Vote for the Time 100 - Are They Worthy?

Comment #35125 by Mango on April 26, 2007 at 9:41 am

Vote. I'm sure Dawkins could not care less about this popularity contest but if he finishes in the top 10, it will be good publicity.

263. New Primate Species Found In 42 Million-year-old Texas Fossils

Comment #32205 by Mango on April 16, 2007 at 7:17 am

As Rtambree says, fundamentalists at least pick a clear side and do not try to have it both ways. Or to paraphrase Harris, "They betray their reason and their faith equally."

And to Veronique's remark in comment 2 about humans entering North America, bear in mind that anatomically modern humans evolved from the Australopithecines in Africa, a species that evolved over 2 millions years ago. Homo sapiens only evolved about 100,000 years ago in east and northeast Africa, at which time we radiated around the globe (in various waves) and entered North America by 15,000 years ago.

264. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31411 by Mango on April 12, 2007 at 1:52 pm

I agree with ericross that it doesn't matter what Einstein thought about God. It's interesting to read his thoughts the genius he was, but his opinions on God have no bearing on the existence of one. But the infatuation with Einstein makes people hang on his every word, same as today's movie stars who because they are cultural icons have a disproportionate amount of attention paid to their religious and political thoughts.

265. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31014 by Mango on April 10, 2007 at 3:47 pm

At first I thought, "This could be staged." But after I viewed it 2 or 3 more times I realized that the mom was so panicky and frazzled that she said some gibberish about God and Christmas presents that could not have been rehearsed.

266. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

Comment #26566 by Mango on March 20, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Was there no support from parents who actually champion the teaching of this rubbish? If not, then that's hopeful.

267. The Religion Clause Divided Against Itself

Comment #26424 by Mango on March 19, 2007 at 8:40 am

Even though Bush cannot eliminate the Establishment Clause he can make it harder to enforce. Check out this despicable piece of legislation that the Republicans introduced in the last session that would have denied attorney's fees in cases that argue for the enforcement of the Establishment Clause. Let's hope it doesn't get reintroduced ever again.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-2679

"In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court shall not award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys to the prevailing party on a claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion brought against the United States or any agency or any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity in any court having jurisdiction over such claim, and the remedies with respect to such a claim shall be limited to injunctive and declaratory relief."

268. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26388 by Mango on March 19, 2007 at 4:38 am

I was surprised by how breezily he dismissed Dennett's book with a fillip. No, the notion that religion is a natural phenomenon is not new, but Dennett's specific interpretations are. And the very fact that so much is being written about the subject means it deserves attention, not dismissal. What a snake-like maneuver on Novak's part.

I was bemused by his daughter's feeble attempts at understanding the world. I hope you all were as well. She's seems like the kind of young woman you often overhear at a coffee shop waxing philosophical to her friends, "I mean, like, there's totally too much irrationality in the world for there not to be a rational Creator, right?"

269. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24990 by Mango on March 9, 2007 at 3:31 pm

This guy also has a double-standard for the behavior of humans and animals. Dogs act like dogs, cats like cats, and so forth. But he says he sees people not acting like people -- obviously we are more complex in our deeds than animals so he just needs to broaden his accepted limits of human behavior.

If we do it, it's human behavior by the very fact we do it! QED.

270. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24988 by Mango on March 9, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Watching this guy was like watching David Brent from "The Office" -- he says something completely inane and then gets this self-satisfied look.

There is no "bad" science, only science that works and science that doesn't. Eugenics isn't "bad science." It works. We can breed horses, and we can breed people. But to actually implement that science is bad. Guns are a great product of science, they work just like they are supposed to, but *how we use* them can be bad. Same with nuclear science, lasers, and just about anything. So he's mixed up about the truths of science and the way science can be used detrimentally sometimes.

271. Darwin's God

Comment #24075 by Mango on March 4, 2007 at 4:17 pm

As far as Atran's students putting something in his box, I had the same thought as Donald in post #8, which is that the students probably thought the box was rigged. I highly doubt any bright university students actually thought it was possessed of a supernatural power. Atran is a fool if he mistook his student's nervousness to be anything other than suspecting a trick pulled off by Atran himself.

272. The return of God?

Comment #24018 by Mango on March 4, 2007 at 8:33 am

Humphrys says that Wolpert's book title is "stolen" -- it is not, Wolpert credits the title in the book's preface. That was sloppy or biased writing by Humphrys. Logically, it would make Wolpert a thief.

273. Religion in Conflict: Are 'Evangelical Atheists' Too Outspoken?

Comment #23298 by Mango on February 27, 2007 at 5:00 pm

I agree with the author that the phrase "sectarian violence" is a euphemism.

274. Meet the Relatives. They're Full of Surprises.

Comment #21633 by Mango on February 10, 2007 at 8:24 am

Having the video in the corner that shows scientists reconciling the fact of evolution with their faith is important to have. The museum recognizes that many Americans still need to get on board with evolution as a fact.
So when every theist leaves the museum they will have no rational option but to accept that evolution is true. That is, they'll feel terribly stupid for ever having said, "I didn't come from no monkey!"

275. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20452 by Mango on February 2, 2007 at 4:07 pm

I just want to echo an earlier post about how these kinds of programs would never air on American television.

276. What a Friend We Have in Dawkins

Comment #20305 by Mango on February 1, 2007 at 4:41 pm

It's a sorry state of affairs when a brilliant man like Dawkins is seen as a "hard-liner" for asking for evidence for what people believe about the nature of the universe and man's place in it.

Hopefully, TGD will be read by future generations and they will have no idea why Dawkins was so forceful in his argument, and they will think to themselves, "Of course supernatural beings are false -- even children know that!"

277. God and gorillas

Comment #20303 by Mango on February 1, 2007 at 4:12 pm

The emergence of religiosity in our australopithecine ancestors is a great topic to research, but shouldn't this study ipso facto lead her directly to atheism? I do not, I cannot, understand her "beautiful agnosticism." She calls atheist scientists "arrogant," no doubt directing that barb to Dawkins. Yes, he tells people the truth and backs it up a reasoned argument. Are scientists arrogant who espouse evolution, global warming, et cetera? No, only if you break the taboo of calling religious beliefs made-up (or naturally evolved) do you get the label of arrogant scientist. She even distances herself from the work of Boyer and Dennett because they have perfectly natural theories for the emergence of religion that are not as mystical as hers. She has abdicated her position as an intellectual.

278. No stoning, Canada migrants told

Comment #20296 by Mango on February 1, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Even the most liberal and pro-multiculturalism among us wouldn't even try to rationalize stoning or honor killings, or even I suspect female circumcision, as showing respect for other cultures, so the town's declaration isn't necessary. Wearing the hajib and a mosque receiving funds from Saudia Arabia to support Wahhabism are fuzzier matters, and I wonder why the townspeople didn't address those substantive issues.

279. Neil deGrasse Tyson - Death by Black Hole

Comment #20059 by Mango on January 31, 2007 at 7:24 am

deGrasse is much like Carl Sagan, trying to educate people about the beauty, vastness, and majesty of the universe. Yet no matter how humbling and awe-inspiring the universe is, I do not think that it will necessarily plant any doubt in a theist's mind about the existence of their god. deGrasse isn't promoting atheism directly, but he confronts religion directly when it is raised by a questioner, and his explanation of his atheism might "break the spell" of a theist.

280. [Warning: Graphic] Children's foreheads slashed in Muslim saint's name

Comment #20031 by Mango on January 31, 2007 at 5:54 am

The damage done to the children' scalps pales in comparison to the damage their parents and clerics are doing to their minds.

281. The Ego and the ID

Comment #19907 by Mango on January 30, 2007 at 3:34 pm

What is Dawkins' "almost theological espousal of atheism"? The author is trying to make Dawkins sound religious, an atheist fundamentalist. There is no reason to suppose the existence of any supernatural power(s) or leperchauns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If Dawkins in strident in his refutation of those things, good for him, he's merely championing reality. The author, if he is a man of reason, should be shoulder-to-shoulder w/ Dawkins and not knocking him.

282. 'Friends of God' Documentary

Comment #19905 by Mango on January 30, 2007 at 3:20 pm

The theists teach their children young what the "truth" is so that by the time they open a high-school level science book they are unprepared to accept reality as presented by secular scientists. It's their strategy -- there's no other reason for them to be indoctrinating their children so stridently against evolution.

283. Benny Hinn examined

Comment #19760 by Mango on January 29, 2007 at 8:00 pm

Benny Hinn is obviously preying on desperate people and he's despicable.

It's easy to blame his "flock" for deluding themselves, but he is enabling them to give away money they probably can't afford to in return for nothing except his lavish lifestyle.

284. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19686 by Mango on January 29, 2007 at 9:16 am

The interviewer essentially said, "But religions make people do good things." But as Dawkins has replied to such statements, and I paraphrase, "Yes, but I'm concerned about what's true!"

285. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19685 by Mango on January 29, 2007 at 8:55 am

Closing places of worship will be meaningless unless those who worshiped at them did it themselves willingly because they have become rational atheists. Otherwise, there will only be violent backlash and deep-seated resentment.

Religious schools, however, are a little different and the gov't forcing all children to attend secular schools will surely do much to integrate theist children (esp. Muslims) and perhaps soften their militancy.

286. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19494 by Mango on January 27, 2007 at 3:39 pm

I was responding to a post that mentioned physical characteristics that "give that person a natural advantage at basketball" and I was conceding that as I made my point. sorry for the confusion.

287. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19491 by Mango on January 27, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Firstly, sdit, obviously you can practice to become good at any sport, even basketball if you're just 5'2". All I was saying was that of course being 7 feet tall predisposes you to be naturally adept at basketball. So I don't see what your point is.

nine9s, you bring up gender like bugaboo did, and I addressed that by remarking that gender is out of context in this discussion of genetics. Obviously there are genetic differences between men and women in their physicality and basic behaviors that are genetic and evolutionary psychologists and evolutionary biologists make a living studying these differences. But, political leanings inherited from a parent? Now that's the question. Your parents might give you intelligence in your genes, they might also give you dexterity and imagination, but what you do with those with your conscious mind is an entirely different ballpark. You can be intelligent, dexterous, and imaginative and be a flaming liberal but change your mind and be a staunch conservative and not a bit of those opinions or the change from one to the other can be genetically explained.

288. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19485 by Mango on January 27, 2007 at 3:11 pm

nine9s. Exactly right that there is no criminal gene, and that was my point.

Basketball players are genetically gifted to be good players, but besides testosterone what you list for criminals are not so easily placed upon genes (empathy, concern for others, ability to anticipate the future) -- those sound much more social/learned.

289. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19476 by Mango on January 27, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Bugaboo. I haven't read the studies you cited but I will concede that they confirm what you have stated.

However, please respond to what I have been saying about NYC and Fargo. What is going on there is social, isn't it? Is genetics even on the radar when exploring the salient explanations for the differences between two cities' politics and crime rates?

290. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19474 by Mango on January 27, 2007 at 2:01 pm

"It seems inevitable that genetics also has something to do with this." Really, you're going to have to show me the "criminal" gene before anything becomes inevitable. In the light of the article, show me a gene that has been isolated that gives a person a personality that's more likely to make them conservative/liberal or any other social dichotomy.

Many of us change throughout our lives in our social beliefs. How do you propose to bring genes to bear on that?

291. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19470 by Mango on January 27, 2007 at 1:33 pm

bugaboo... Let's get back on track with the article, which supposes that political flavor might be inherited from parents ("family resemblance in social attitude"). Now granted, males more than females are are responsible for crime. But is a child of a criminal more likely to be a criminal himself based upon his genetic inheritance? That is the question that relates to the topic, and I aver that there is no genetic heritage for either politics or crime (and your breakdown by gender is not in the context of "genetics" in which we are here using it).

NYC and Fargo. In both cities males commit the preponderance of the crimes, but what is the crime rate in those cities? Higher in NYC, and not because the criminals are children of criminals by dint of genetics but rather the social factors involved.

292. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19467 by Mango on January 27, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Responding to bugaboo... Even if we we are all born with, how should I say, genetic susceptibilities to certain political mind-sets, that does not diminish the primacy of inculcation and (as NoLongerHaveBelief observes) life experiences. Using my example of New York City and Fargo again, it does not seem reasonable to suppose that people born in those cities were any MORE genetically predisposed to conservatism or liberalism, or any other terms you might use for political-mindedness. Rather, it shows that we are all born with the same genetic predispositions to any worldview and the one we end up with is from cultural-familial-experiential forces.

Saying people born with certain varieties of traits makes them more likely to support a certain political party is no different than saying your genes make you more/less likely to be criminally minded. To say genes have some sway over politics you have to say it does for crime as well, don't you? I won't assert that it does, and I return again to our upbringings and life experiences for the primary (only?) explanation.

293. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19454 by Mango on January 27, 2007 at 9:36 am

If genetics had any sort of role, then why are sections of the U.S. predominantly liberal or conservative? Is it mere coincidence that residents of New York City are overwhelmingly liberal, and those of Fargo are in like fashion conservative? At this point, with the information from the article, I simply believe that politics is derived genetically only in so much as you learn your social beliefs from your parents through inculcation (and often a holy book!)

294. Durham Council Votes To Continue Saying Lord's Prayer

Comment #19452 by Mango on January 27, 2007 at 9:25 am

The non-denominational prayer idea, if not strictly Christian, still represents the gov't giving succor to religious/theist notions. It's akin to Bush's "faith-based initiatives" -- the initiatives do not support any particular religion, but all of them, and thereby represent gov't encouraging everybody to at least believe in SOME kind of supernatural power. To not have any supernatural beliefs is beyond the pale in their eyes.