301. The Out Campaign

Comment #60062 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Henri Bergson, you are incorrect in your assertion that Nietzsche was not an individualist. Schopenhauer als Erzieher (Schopenhauer as Educator), Jenseits von Gut und Böse. Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft (Beyond Good and Evil, Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future) are two of his seminal works where individualism and originality are touted as being almost supremely important -- this being a recurring theme in his writings.

Also, as I am intimately acquainted with a christian presbyterian minister, I can assure you he is an individualist as well. Many of that denomination's ministers are individualists, and are constantly bucking the system. Which is why that denomination has been at the forefront of social progress for a couple hundred years.

Perhaps you are confusing them with the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) which is staunchly conservative, not allowing non-whites or women as ministers (for instance).

302. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #60056 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 5:28 pm

As a sample of religious thinking as it relates to science, I was just flipping through channels, and passed by EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network) and watched a nun speaking before a crowd of people.

She was saying "It's gotten so bad that I can't even order a pork chop any more, because I might not get a pork chop, but a cloned pork chop. And why is that bad? For one thing, a cloned pork chop has a lot more fat in it, and we all know how bad fat is for you."

I couldn't listen to any more, because it was just too silly. I thought it was a comedy, a satire, a joke of some kind, but it is a real show -- Mother Angelica of the nuns of Olam.

You see demonstrated that minds unaccustomed to rational thought can be made to believe just about any farce -- it is silly, dangerous, and needs to stop.

303. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #60002 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Perhaps fides_et_ratio should change his name to stultior_stulto_fuisti just in the interests of accuracy.

304. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59995 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 11:49 am

If I were some kind of egomaniac, I would say it is somewhat gratifying to see that fides_et_ratio realizes he is clearly outmatched and so doesn't respond to my posts (except for the time he chose not to actually read mine).

However, that would be giving him far too much importance. He's just another silly theist (although that is somewhat redundant) with too much time on his hands and not enough thinking in the brain.

Veronique, you're doing great! I enjoy reading your posts.

Philip1978, your Comment #59917 is NOT bleak -- it serves as a warning, as an example of the dangers of religion. When some theist tries to claim religion is innocent or harmless, we can point them to a specific example of the kinds of harm done to thousands (or millions).

Hobbit, 11 times or 11,000 times repeating the truth will not help if fides is determined to remain ignorant. Remember the Flat Earth Society still in existence in the 20th century?

BAEOZ, excellent point that too many christians veer away from when you try to pin them down on who's going to hell when they're in the company of other religious denominations. Suddenly they're all about metaphors and symbols and not taking the bible literally.

305. The Out Campaign

Comment #59991 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 11:28 am

Sara, go to www.zazzle.com/cr/home and make your own custom t-shirt (or mug, hat, postage stamps, etc.). Only put on it what you want, to express exactly the sentiments YOU want. That's the best way.

306. The Out Campaign

Comment #59989 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 11:23 am

Don't forget Philip1978, until very recently, many religions (including the catholics) did not deem it a sin for a man to hit his wife -- in fact, they encouraged it if the man felt she deserved it for not being subservient enough.

Of course, going to the peace-loving islamics, a woman can be killed by her husband for a number of sins (from going out in public without a male relative, to refusing to wear the habib or burka, to adultery).

I am just surprised that more women don't kill their husbands in their sleep -- except that traditionally they would be passed, as the chattel they are told they are, to another male relative. Not exactly trading up. But this is only found in religious societies.

307. The Out Campaign

Comment #59974 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 9:48 am

The Wee Flea is certainly silly. I was considering whether to respond to his posts, but they are so poorly written, so internally inconsistent, so blatantly wrong in terms of facts or comprehension (as demonstrated by being completely wrong in the summary of people's writings), that it would be a waste of my time.

The Wee Flea would not be able to understand what I wrote, but only reply with non sequiturs or petty insults.

I weep for anyone who has to suffer through his "teaching" efforts. Of course, they could merely laugh at him, as we are all laughing at him. That would be the only appropriate response from the entire audience -- laughter! He's just so silly.

His opinions about "original sin" are silly. So is the fact he doesn't appear to realize they are silly. It's like someone rather stupid trying to explain something they clearly don't understand, in front of a group of experts in the subject. You just feel sorry for the person, after the initial laughter.

To make matters worse, The Wee Flea appears completely unwilling to even accept the possibility of error on his part, which is the clearest sign of religious indoctrination, and the clearest sign that science/reason hold no importance to his life.

Every point The Wee Flea has made is so easily refuted, but why make the effort? He clearly doesn't want to be educated. He doesn't care about being wrong. He doesn't care how silly he looks and is. He's like someone walking into a crowded elevator and passing smelly gas -- not caring the effect on others.

Is this merely an ad hominem attack? Not really. It's a description of someone's actions. Rude is rude. Ignorant is ignorant.

If he were to post "but, of course, I could be completely wrong" or "but, of course, I know there is no evidence to support what I'm saying" or "but, of course, all evidence runs counter to my beliefs" then he might have some legitimacy. Until then, he really is just fodder for mockery.

And as such, he isn't contributing to these posts, seeking honest dialogue, but is merely passing smelly gas, so I haven't responded to him in the past, and probably won't in the future. I'm surprised he hasn't been flagged as a troll and ejected.

308. The Out Campaign

Comment #59970 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 9:10 am

To any of you wanting a coffee mug (and so many other ways to express yourselves), you can go to http://www.zazzle.com/cr/home and get mugs, t-shirts and even POSTAGE STAMPS with your message.

Imagine a postage stamp with the words: Proud Atheist! You can put that on all your correspondence. They frequently have sales where the cost of the customization is almost nothing.

I've used this for stamps and custom coffee mugs (with photos of my dog) as presents. Use your imagination!

There are bound to be other companies making custom products, but only Zazzle is authorized by the U.S. Postal Service to make the custom stamps.

309. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59686 by gr8hands on July 30, 2007 at 7:40 am

Imagine what would happen if Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Schermer or Dennett were to come out with a proclamation telling us NOT to read a certain book, NOT to watch a certain film, NOT to eat a certain kind of food, NOT to associate with a particular person/group?

That alone should tell anyone that non-theism is not a religion, and that we don't have any kind of priests/popes/etc. Nor do we need or want any!

310. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59685 by gr8hands on July 30, 2007 at 7:36 am

Veronique,

Most religions make it a sin (blasphemy) to question the tenets of their religion -- because it comes from the very mouth of god (or directly inspired by the holy spirit).

Some religions are fanatical about that concept, actively punishing (even killing) those followers who voice dissent, ask the "wrong kind" of questions, or don't follow every jot and tittle of the dogma with the "appropriate" amount of enthusiasm. Questioning is wrong, evil, satanic, and deserving of punishment (even death) -- and so is tolerating anyone who does this.

So you end up with a militant religious Big Brother gestapo state that actively looks for thoughtcrime. The end product is a layer of mental insulation to try and prevent the possibility of anything other than approved religion from getting into your brain.

"They" watch your friends, associates, clubs, etc. They tell you what books/magazines you can read, what television/films you can watch, what classes you can take, what foods you can eat, what beverages you can drink, and what you do with whom in the bedroom (just to name a few things).

They also keep up the indoctrination throughout your life -- frequently multiple times a week (Sunday, mid-week, perhaps another day mid-week), besides the daily prayers and daily holy book study. They don't want to take a chance you'll have the free time to consider anything outside the teachings of the "one true" religion.

To make matters worse, if by some chance you have an idle thought . . . they have instilled a built-in guilt mechanism, your conscience, which is supposed to be triggered by such blasphemy. It truly is insidious!

I'm amazed that anyone ever escapes. Which, of course, demonstrates that religion can't possibly be the truth -- I know of no one in the sciences who has gone back to believing in a flat earth, or belief in the need for virgin sacrifices to appease the volcano deity.

Science (and rationality) doesn't need the constant reinforcement of preachers. It stands on its own. It is available to everyone, regardless of social caste, gender, wealth or sexual orientation. Amazingly, you don't have to be part of a secret society for the math, logic or experiments to work the same for you as they do for a Nobel prize winning scientist!

Which is why the heads of religions are so afraid of losing their power, status and wealth to the teachings of science and reason.

311. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59132 by gr8hands on July 27, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Veronique, thanks for your comments.

Northern Bright, you certainly hit the nail on the head with your explanation of subjective religion. And such pleasant phrasing.

the_assayer, in Comment #59072 you asked "When does something becoming imposing?" Simple. Whenever you don't give someone a real choice. "Do this or be punished," is not a real choice. "Do this," is even less of a choice.

Another "imposing" would be to pray out loud where someone can't get away from the praying (such as at the dinner table, or in a classroom).

I'm certain that if you took a little time, you'd see that all kinds of things you might do are actually imposing your religion on others, particularly your children.

312. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59124 by gr8hands on July 27, 2007 at 1:11 pm

fides_et_ratio, in regards to your Comment #58902, you could do a simple text search for 'gr8hands' for the posts to see which one I meant. (Comment #58805)

313. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58890 by gr8hands on July 26, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Duff, I wish you were right that only 50 or so theologians believe like Hedges. However, his concept is actually commonly heard around seminaries, divinity schools and progressive bible colleges.

But, and this is important, those people are not preaching it in the pulpit! They are teachers, writers, speakers, but not ministers/pastors/preachers. So they are, in effect, in an ivory tower, isolated from the outside world. In their own minds, this is what everyone thinks. They are unaware that they are completely fringe. And they do not take kindly to being told.

They are incestuous, reading each other's books, speaking at each other's institutions, and thinking how progressive they are, when they are so out of the loop it isn't funny!

Yet, because they have a bunch of letters after their names (and book sales), they are sought after for sound bites from the media. Sad.

314. Richler defends atheism

Comment #58886 by gr8hands on July 26, 2007 at 2:22 pm

If you want to make a fundie gasp, have them read Ezekiel 23:20 "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

I was going to teach a 6-week course "Everything you think you know about the bible is wrong" featuring passages from the scriptures that most people have clearly never read. However, I was talked out of it by my partner.

315. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58879 by gr8hands on July 26, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Excellent points, Elli.

For a long time, Jews were not taught the Kabbalah until they were 40, because it was thought they were not wise enough to understand it until that age. This has since been revised. http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=545&o=1290

fides_et_ratio seems to have ignored my post explaining what he claims nobody has explained. So much for his login (which means "faith and reason").

Keep up the good work, Elli.

316. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58805 by gr8hands on July 26, 2007 at 7:31 am

fides_et_ratio (actually, not much on the ratio portion), you yourself pointed out that it appeared inconsistent that Dawkins would use "childish" for adults with faith, and then say children don't have such faith. He is clarifying his use of "childish" to NOT mean "child like."

Hawkings has repeatedly stated he does not believe in any kind of personal god, so we don't have to guess or use exegesis or heremeneutics. Same with Einstein, who (as others have pointed out) made clear he didn't believe in any kind of anthropomorphic divine god. We don't have to do any interpreting.

Believe me when I say that even atheists sometimes use the phrase "good god!" when something sudden or awful happens, or "bless you" when someone sneezes -- and that isn't some kind of admission that they believe in god or blessings as a cure. They are merely expressions of speech from our current culture.

317. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58799 by gr8hands on July 26, 2007 at 7:18 am

the_assayer, confidence in the evidence is not "belief" except in the most diluted understanding of that word -- particularly in a conversation about religious beliefs.

318. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58696 by gr8hands on July 25, 2007 at 8:29 pm

In response to Hedges, I am "encumbered by serious theological or biblical knowledge" having studied the subjects at great length at the university/seminary level. Therefore, I cannot be so swiftly cast aside (amazing that Hedges does not state his theological/biblical credentials).

Hedges appears to be under the belief that somehow "ossified forms of religious orthodoxy that have been misused for centuries to instill fear and obedience" are no longer the norm in America. Where does Hedges attend church? What denomination does he belong to?

He is confused thinking "great theologians from Paul Tillich to Ernst Kasemann to William Stringfellow" somehow "write with a deftness, nuance and erudition that shame the tired clichés that pad out" the Hitchens book. Clearly Hedges has been using a thesaurus without knowing what the words mean.

Tillich was condemned as an atheist by almost all theologians for years, and his writing is anything but deft. Käsemann felt Jewish apocalypticism was the basis or mother of christian theology -- in stark contrast to almost all other theologians -- and his nuance was of the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" kind. Stringfellow (a lawyer, unencumbered by serious theological or biblical training) is best known for finding manifestations of demonic powers (described in the bible) in contemporary governments and other organizations. He is definitely fringe, and his religious writings clearly not erudite.

The supposed "array of mysterious nonrational forces such as beauty, grief, love, the yearning for meaning, alienation and the specter of our own mortality. These forces do not lend themselves to rational deduction" -- in fact are being investigated by neuroscientists as I write, and they have been making wonderful progress towards removing the mystery.

Science, not religion, has the possibility of answering those questions, quantifying those "forces" and god/religion will not be part of that process or answer.

Hedges mentions "the authentic religious life." There can be no such thing, because religion is based upon fraud and lies. There is nothing authentic about that.

Hedges is wrong about Bonhoeffer. If he were to read "Widerstand und Ergebung: Briefe und Auszeichnungen aus der Haft (Letters and papers from prison)" he would see that Hitchens has him characterized reasonably well. Of course, remember that Bonhoeffer believed that singing in harmony was a sin (see "Gemeinsames Leben (Life Together)"), a religious notion which he appeared to have pulled completely out of his butt!

I agree with Hedges that "God is a human concept." (God is also a human construct.) He has confused "religion" with "philosophy" (or "ethics"). He has diluted the term until it is meaningless. And he doesn't see how fringe he is in that thinking.

Oh, there are academics who agree with him, but they are not the ones preaching in churches. Those who are, even seminary graduates, are not preaching what he's spouting. I suggest he actually attend church to verify what I'm saying.

Hedges, of course the question is whether god exists or not. It is THE central question about religion. The rest of that paragraph is pure drivel. Transcendence? The word itself is strictly religious (although there are transcendent functions in math), and deals with the supernatural BY DEFINITION.

Hedges, Hitchens' "moral certitude" is completely different than the theists because the theists insist their moral certitude comes from god, which is blatantly untrue. Hitchens says his moral certitude is totally natural and man-made. Certainly he can see there is a difference.

Hedges states Hitchens has a "disregard for the rule of law" -- I hope he will provide evidence for this. I know that as a religious person he is not used to having to provide evidence, but without evidence he is merely ranting, and poorly at that.

Maybe he'll read my post. Most likely, not. But I couldn't let it slide by without comment.

319. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58643 by gr8hands on July 25, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Sorry, Riley, but when they include the word "sacred" they prove my point -- it's about supernatural.

When I Google "define:religion" I do not come up with any of those you reference in your response. Where are you getting them from? Clearly not "common" in usage, the overwhelming majority, but rather on the fringe. A graduate student's definition is somehow authoritative? Please.

The only reason anyone is "grappling to reach a useful definition for the word" is because they don't like the existing common definition. I can only wonder why? It's a perfectly good word, easily understood. The only problem comes when theists (and others) argue that it applies to things it clearly doesn't.

Hitchens and I don't "claim to have the uniquely correct definition" of anything, but I've shown you what Google searches (from the millions/billions of entries) demonstrate, which coincide exactly with what we've stated. I'd use THAT as my authority.

320. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58626 by gr8hands on July 25, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Riley, please go to Google and put in:

define:religion

You will come up with a whole group of definitions, none which match the one you provided, but include something to do with supernatural/faith/god.

I don't know anyone who uses the word "religion" in the non-theistic way you're presenting it.

The same can be said of "spirituality" -- those who try to hijack it to mean something other than the common meaning are simply in error. (However, enough of them have made the error, that the error is now an accepted definition.)

321. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #58624 by gr8hands on July 25, 2007 at 12:18 pm

BN2, in your Comment #58618, first, my login is plural (gr8hands). Second, you should have used the phrase "all the scientific measurements in the world aren't going to tell me YET . . ."

This is because it is easily probable that science may in fact make it possible to objectively view other people's subjective experiences (see the film "Brainstorm" for a sci-fi treatment of the topic). To deny that possibility flies in the face of all the other denials of science's ability which have been proven wrong. I'd say science's track record has been pretty good, so I'm going to stick with that until something better comes along.

Please supply a single instance where "oppression of women" is actually good for the individual women and women as a group. If you can, then possibly your comments about that might have some merit, but you'll have to do some serious research. ("Feminism" is not the opposite of "oppression of women," so your comments on it are not germane.)

I gave specific concrete examples of "evil" -- I have not been presented with any examples of when killing humans (not a fetus, blastocyst, zygote, or other unborn collection of cells) is not evil. Execution, war, self-defense, etc. are not acceptable. But please, supply an instance where killing another human (not suicide of a terminal patient) is not evil.

Please provide an example where slavery is not evil. (Don't insult anyone by comically suggesting "sex slave" or "slave to fashion" or anything equally silly.)

Lacking those specific examples, I stand by my assertion that any person who says god told them they are to be done or tolerated, is lying/deluded.

I understood, as a kid, that the dentist would be painful, but also necessary. I never considered him "evil" only skimpy with the Novocain. But I do understand that for some things, it is situational, and that attitudes evolve.

But for others, like the three examples I gave, there is never a good non-evil reason for them -- although many societies/religions have made them appear acceptable.

322. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #58579 by gr8hands on July 25, 2007 at 8:47 am

BN2 wrote: "Therefore those who purport to talk for God are either liars, delusional, or actually *are* talking for God. But it's impossible to tell the difference, so that's not much of a basis on which to form life-and-death moral codes."

Sorry, but it is clearly not impossible to tell the difference. If the supposed revelations directly from god are internally inconsistent or self-contradictory, then they can't be from an infallible or omniscient being.

If they advocate evil (such as killing, slavery or oppression of women), then they clearly are not from an all-loving god.

If it gives you directions for having eternal life, you follow them, and yet you still die, then clearly those directions are wrong and can't have come from an infallible divine being.

You see how easy it is to detect man-made "revelations" as such?

If these "revelations" said something like 'love your neighbor as yourself' then they are just mouthing philosophies that were around for thousands of years -- again, evidence they are not from god.

An honest god would say something to the effect "the principle of 'love your neighbor as yourself' that you've known about for thousands of years is in line with my divine wishes." Unless the god were trying to pass it off as original to them, which would certainly make them less than a deity.

As for your statement that science cannot objectively measure our feelings, thoughts and emotions . . . well, neuroscientists are actually able to do some of that already. And they're making strides every day.

In fact, measurement itself is a concept of science. Only science and technology can objectively tell you how "red" something is (look up metamers), how "loud" something is, how "sweet" something is. Our everyday language hasn't caught up with all of this, but science certainly is not at a loss to explain, measure and quantify these things.

I suggest taking a course in scientific measurement (often in the physics department). You will be amazed at what has been quantified.

323. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58574 by gr8hands on July 25, 2007 at 8:13 am

fides_et_ratio, Dawkins clearly is using "childish" in the sense of "unreasoned, unsophisticated, silly, stupid, not as a measured adult would." He is clearly not meaning "child like."

Does that explain it for you? No hypocrisy on his part, just misunderstanding on your part.

You are also wrong that there is a consensus on the points you brought up in Comment #58555.

The presumption is that if there was something better to believe in, you would believe in that, therefore what you believe in is what you believe is better than all others.

Or are you suggesting that you have told your child that your beliefs have no evidence to support them? That there might be other beliefs which are superior to your own, but you still choose to believe in something inferior? That all religions are equally false and man-made?

Have you told your child any of those things? I doubt it. And if you haven't, then you aren't being honest with your child.

324. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58423 by gr8hands on July 24, 2007 at 6:41 pm

I discussed this topic with a professor at a seminary, who said that they don't teach such beliefs (about god, as described by Hitchens) any more.

When I replied that regardless of what is being taught, this is what is being preached (as proved by the inclusion of the Apostle's Creed as part of religious services we had attended recently [long story]) she replied that the pastors don't actually believe that creed any more. They only preach it to satisfy the wants of the congregation.

It is a game to keep people coming in to chuch, and then you can introduce them to really important theology (loving people, helping the disenfranchised, etc.). When I said that was just another word for "hypocrisy" the conversation ended.

325. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58421 by gr8hands on July 24, 2007 at 6:31 pm

fides_et_ratio, if you're confused about the use or acceptance of the concept "meme" by the scientific community, you can do a little research. When you're finished, I'm certain you'll see that it is accepted (even if not everyone knows the specific word -- just describe the concept and see if the scientists you contact agree with it or not).

As for your child praying -- to whom is the child praying? Are they praying to a supernatural deity, divine, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infallible and loving creator who resides in heaven? Do they understand those concepts and how there is no evidence that any such being exists? Or are they mimicking something they saw members of your family do?

I am certain that the prayer activity didn't spontaneously start without having observed it from someone else. Much like writing to Santa doesn't happen organically, but at the direction of parents/friends/television/others.

What kind of reaction do you think your child would have if you actively discouraged prayer or punished them for doing it? Would they still continue to do it?

I presume you would still insist they eat veggies they might not like, or refrain from hitting siblings -- two things they may continue to do even after repeated punishments. But I really doubt they'll keep up praying if you chastise them for it, punish them, tell them that there is no god listening to them (and is just imaginary), and not let them see anyone else praying.

Try that as a little test and see just how devoted your child is to prayer. Or just do it as a thought experiment, and you should come up with the same results -- they'd drop prayer like a hot brick without positive reinforcement!

326. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #58411 by gr8hands on July 24, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Please review current cosmology thinking about how the Cyclic Model explains that there does not ever have to have been a "beginning" because it is cyclic:

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/

By the way, no god necessary for any of this. Nor any foolishness about "god always was" or "god is outside of time."

This is all just the current state of the current cyclic Big Bang - Big Crunch system that's been going forever. Each has different laws of physics, some which can support life, some which actually evolve life, some which even evolve intelligent life, all which die when the cycle repeats.

327. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58409 by gr8hands on July 24, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Dr Benway, if it is an infectious disease, then it has infected every mammal species on earth -- unlikely, according to modern medicine.

Yes, disease, by definition, is a bad thing. (Otherwise it would be called symbiosis or some other word.)

The reverse question is equally legitimate: is heterosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease? I believe you can see how silly THAT question is -- silly, not dangerous.

328. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58344 by gr8hands on July 24, 2007 at 2:52 pm

sbooder wrote "any statement that has opposing views is automatically a question." It appears you are confused about what a question is, so I suggest a good dictionary. ALL statements have opposing views (some of which may be wrong).

=======================

The "unnatural" statements of homosexuality are made out of ignorance -- ignorance that all mammals exhibit homosexuality. Ignorance that numerous animals change sex under known circumstances (female clown fish, for instance, can turn into male clown fish if the male is killed -- and they can then reproduce).

The ignorance for this comes from religion, and is relatively recent in human history.

So any statements about it being a disease, side effect or symptom are easily dismissed as being made in ignorance about homosexuality. Particularly ignorance of the fact that 90% of all humans are bisexual to some degree on the Kinsey scale. True heterosexuality is in the extreme minority for humans.

329. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58125 by gr8hands on July 23, 2007 at 3:06 pm

His "dangerous to air dangerous ideas" section is weak, but only because the arguments themselves are weak, and it is clear that he doesn't really believe in them.

However, he is right in that it should be debated -- which, of course, defeats the purpose of not airing dangerous ideas.

330. An Atheist Responds

Comment #57461 by gr8hands on July 19, 2007 at 12:24 pm

fides_et_ratio, I doubt that Hitchens is lacking in an understanding of "psychology, sociology and certainly theology" as you suggest.

Actually, he is merely cutting through the crap to the essence of the ethics/morality argument. It might even be argued that he is being more subtle than you're imagining in his challenge.

I suggest we all stop straining at gnats and grasp the larger truth -- theists get their morality from the same place as non-theists.

331. Christians disrupt Hindu Prayer at Senate Invocation

Comment #56777 by gr8hands on July 17, 2007 at 7:22 am

The sooner these unconstitutional and illegal prayers are abolished, the better.

332. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56453 by gr8hands on July 15, 2007 at 8:55 pm

In response to the Comment #56446 by BeyondBelief, perpetuating non-truth is ALWAYS a bad idea. Period. Calling it "tradition" to make it easy to swallow doesn't make it useful.

The only reason people feel they need to replace the force fed traditions of untruth is because they have been taught that those traditions are integral to them. Wrong!

There is no evidence that humans must have long-held religious traditions in order to feel satisfied. Those lucky few whose parents never exposed them to religious lies as children have not grown up to be amoral freaks, causing tremendous evil. Nor are they wailing about feeling there is a hole in their psyche, or that they are incomplete. Totally silly to think they would.

Give up the phony tradition, and be amazed at how whole you feel.

Where is the atheist/rationalist equivalent of pat robertson's 'liberty university'? How about most every non-religious university or technical institute throughout the world! 93+% of academia are atheist/rationalist.

Reason doesn't feel it necessary to foist off lies that have to be constantly shoved down the throat just in order to be temporarily believed. Only religion knows that it has to be constantly reinforced, otherwise the falsity will show through.

333. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56306 by gr8hands on July 14, 2007 at 9:10 pm

As for the ethical statements/actions, my only question is what the theist thinks they should do in those cases where their religious teaching tells them to withhold help to someone that obviously needs it, against everything their natural humanity says they should do.

Look at the story of the good Samaritan -- the jew walked by on the other side of the road to keep from touching someone obviously unclean. His religion told him that he would be committing a sin if he assisted someone who obviously needed help. But the person who didn't share that religion gave assistance, and was shown as an example of a good neighbor.

It seems clear that even jesus thought the jew should have helped the man beaten on the side of the road. Yet he was being a devout jew, trying to follow god's very specific unchanging laws.

Why don't the religious see the contradiction?

334. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56305 by gr8hands on July 14, 2007 at 9:03 pm

What is being overlooked, is the little comment about the religious retreating to the idea that you shouldn't be too literal about the commandments, etc.

If their source of morality is absolute, unchanging, the direct word of the supreme divine god -- which is claimed by theists -- then you would have to be literal. Anything else would be open to interpretation and confuse the absolute nature of the morality.

So anyone claiming that being too literal is bad is admitting they don't believe god's morality is absolute.

335. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56181 by gr8hands on July 14, 2007 at 10:03 am

Downunder, in Comment #56127 you claim "Religion (with all its shortcomings) has and does "offer hope...."."

Wrong. Religion only offers FALSE hope, like the paper seatbelt I use in my post.

As for the suggestion to put "for me" after my statements, they are not necessary. That's the beauty of science and reality -- they don't require faith to be effective or exist. It works for everyone regardless of their background. Unlike religion.

336. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #56044 by gr8hands on July 13, 2007 at 1:31 pm

The experiments were by Dr. MacDougall -- http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Results? Flawed tests, poorly performed, leading to inconsistent results. Not repeated.

337. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #56040 by gr8hands on July 13, 2007 at 1:08 pm

ignored_ethos2, I apologize if I came across too strongly.

338. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56039 by gr8hands on July 13, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Bizarro Dawkins, in your Comment #55924, you attempted to take me to task for suggesting you not pray for me but do something practical. You failed.

You see, of all the things you claim to have done (and I have no reason to disbelieve you, so good for you), only prayer would be useless. Prayer has NEVER been proven to be effective, so it really is "all talk."

If I'm dying of cancer, don't bother me with prayers, candle vigils, chicken sacrifices, rattling of bones, magnets or crystals. They might make YOU feel better, like you've actually done something, but you haven't. You've only wasted your breath -- just like you waste your breath suggesting I wear a paper seatbelt to be safe.

Keep up the other, useful activities which actually help.

And as for your Comment #56037 about people not understanding what goes on at your school, don't be too sure that there aren't people here that haven't been there (or at other similar institutions, including seminaries).

339. A force for good?

Comment #55908 by gr8hands on July 12, 2007 at 8:10 pm

Vallely is merely repeating the teachings of the theologian Paul Tillich (http://www.theology.ie/theologians/tillich.htm). Most mainstream theologians considered him an atheist.

That kind of "god as being" is only in the mind of a very few theologians, and is certainly only being preached by a small fringe micro-minority of religious people. The overwhelming supermajority of religious people believe in a god who is physical in some way, interacts with the physical world, and has communicated his wishes to us specially created humans.

Which is completely unsupported by evidence.

340. A force for good?

Comment #55907 by gr8hands on July 12, 2007 at 8:02 pm

philos, the "Atheist-directed organizations at the prisons, counseling people" you are overlooking are the social workers and staff counselors. Every inmate is assigned one of each, and it is not optional -- because religious people have such a poor track record, whereas the secular social workers and counselors have a much better track record. If religion were equally effective, it would probably be mandatory.

341. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55904 by gr8hands on July 12, 2007 at 7:49 pm

I refuse to wear a paper seatbelt while in a car, regardless of how many people tell me it comforts them or makes them "feel safer." It is worthless.

I'd rather have the truth in every situation, so that I can make the appropriate decisions. False hope, false security, false information -- they really help no one, and are an insult.

If I'm dying of cancer, don't tell me you'll pray for me -- how about donating to a cancer research organization? Or volunteering at a cancer ward? Or donating blood (or being an organ donor)? Or spending time with me just talking, watching movies, or listening to good music -- helping improve the quality of my remaining life?

Those practical suggestions are infinitely better than prayer, because they will actually work and make a positive difference. I don't want or need the placebo affect.

All religion can offer is false hope, false security, wrong answers, and good music. Take the music and leave the other crap behind.

342. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55900 by gr8hands on July 12, 2007 at 7:41 pm

My only comment is to wonder why perpetuate a tradition that has no useful purpose? His participation in a seder solely for "tradition" is a little silly. It reminds me of some of the silly things I do.

I guess that makes us human . . .

343. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55893 by gr8hands on July 12, 2007 at 7:19 pm

ignored_ethos2 wrote "... and were it true he might even have a good argument." Incorrect, as I have demonstrated in my post.

In order for Wilson to "have a good argument" ALL of his suppositions would have to be true (god exists, created the world/mankind/morality, has all the characteristics as described in the bible) -- a feat which is made impossible due to the internal inconsistencies within his "source" the bible.

We have to be vigilant with theists that they cannot produce any examples of "holy" texts that are internally consistent in terms of morality (history, accuracy, etc.) -- thus proving they could not possibly come from an infallible, all-knowing, divine god. If there is any change or inconsistency whatsoever, then there can be no absolute morality.

344. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55846 by gr8hands on July 12, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Dear Mr. Wilson,

Atheists get their morality from the exact same place as theists -- from within their own mind, making choices that usually fit in with the culture they live in. Only the theists have the arrogance to say theirs is from god, making it absolute, unchangeable, and definitive for all time.

Let's look at that, with an example from the new testament shall we? Mark 10 discusses divorce and what Jesus is reported to have said about it. He was clear that divorce was always wrong, that Moses only authorized it because the Jews were so stubborn, but that it had always been a sin anyway. "11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

If the Moses was wrong about divorce, and his explicit instructions were actually causing people to sin for generations, why didn't god tell anyone about this mistake until Jesus came around? Or, is it simply more likely that this is a change.

Change, of course, means that the standard it was based upon could not possibly be absolute and unchanging. You see, the bible is internally inconsistent on this significant point, just as an example.

Of course, the best example is that one of the 10 commandments is "thou shalt not kill" and then shortly after giving that to the people, god tells them to slaughter the occupants of the land of milk and honey. So, either the rule is absolutely "thou shalt not kill" or not.

Of course, that conflicts with the admonition in Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Or all the many reasons in Leviticus that you shall be put to death.

Perhaps the commandment was "thou shalt not kill, except when god tells you to, or if you're executing someone that has committed some crime or sin to be announced in the future."

And Mr. Wilson, saying that Jesus came to "fulfill the law" doesn't alter the fact that his teachings changed the law. If something was a sin before Jesus, and isn't a sin now, then something has CHANGED. It hasn't been fulfilled, it's been changed. That can only mean the basis was not divine, absolute, unchanging morality.

Even if you believe that you're no longer under the law of Moses, THAT is a change! Something is either a sin or it isn't. It can't be both. If it depends, then the term "sin" is relative, which contradicts what you've said.

So, if you don't hold yourself to the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament, you're choosing to be sinful. The internal mental mechanism of your choice is exactly the same as the internal mental mechanism of atheists -- you choose a morality that fits in with what you have already thought is good/evil based on internal instincts as part of a society. It is completely relative.

Had you been having this discussion 200 years ago, you might have tried to have Hitchens killed, and might have been successful. THAT is demonstration of the changing nature of morality.

Sincerely,

gr8hands, a Bright and an atheist