301. The Only One in Step

Comment #18769 by roach on January 22, 2007 at 10:43 pm

What's God's will again?

The Bible sure is an interesting book. And the ability of the human mind to bend the words into any meaning will never cease to amaze me.

302. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #18586 by roach on January 21, 2007 at 9:03 pm

Awesome.

303. Religion's Real Child Abuse

Comment #18447 by roach on January 20, 2007 at 11:56 pm

I wish I could claim I came up with this argument myself but I can't. I also can't remember the name of the guy who said it (he appears in The God Who Wasn't There). Anyway, it went something like this...

When you think about it, there really is no difference between Heaven and Hell. Let's assume that what the Bible says about Heaven and Hell is true. And let's say I was no different than I am right now but I believed in God and Jesus so when I die I go to Heaven. Great. But knowing that millions (billions?) of people are being punished and tortured for eternity in the fires of hell and knowing that there is absolutely nothing I could do to help them wouldn't be Heaven. To me, that would be Hell.

304. A Middle Ground for Stem Cells

Comment #18319 by roach on January 19, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Sancus,

Your entire argument rests on the outlandish and unjustified claim that cells have choice. I see no reason why we should even give credence to such a thought. Individual cells do not have choice. They don't choose to multiply and divide. They simply do or they don't. Why is this the case? Because the environment is either hostile or hospitable. Choice never enters the equation. Even much more complex forms of life do not have choice. Do plants choose to grow? Does a tulip ever stare at the sun in defiance and refuse to photosynthesize? Of course not. It has no choice. Humans do not have choice in many respects (even when it comes to our own bodies).

305. Beyond the Believers

Comment #18186 by roach on January 18, 2007 at 10:39 pm

This certainly isn't my favorite Harris article. Sam is criticized for often repeating his talking points and after hearing many of his interviews I would have to agree. But then again, he is often asked the exact same questions so I can understand why he gives the exact same answers. I actually think Sam shines brightest when involved in an actual debate. He's able to think quickly and come up with comprehensive answers to tough questions. I watched his debate with Atran and thought both presented interesting arguments (of course I side with Harris). I am keen on reading Atrans book "In Gods We Trust". No doubt it offers a compelling case for his stance. But already there are some things that make me weary of Atran. He stated at Salk that Dawkins, Harris, et al. need to "be scientists and do science" that they "have an n of 1". This strikes me as somewhat strange. I would concede that Harris' "The End of Faith" attacks religion on mainly philosophical grounds (this is a completely legitimate stance) and does it quite well. But to suggest that Dawkins and Weinberg and others need to do more science and research in order to hold make a valid criticism of religion is simply mind boggling. Now they may not have done Atran's anthropological/psychological scientific research (which is worthy of respect and evaluation) but that in no way makes Dawkins' biological arguments, Weinberg's physics based arguments, or Sam Harris' philosophical arguments any less valid. (I'll type more on this when people point out my shortcomings but for now i'm moving on)

I must say that I am puzzled by Atran. I'm just not sure of his position (this is why i need to read his book). It seems that the biggest gripe Atran has is that Harris apparently misses the mark when he argues that terrorists and suicide bombers are driven by faith. Based on what i heard from the Salk conference Atran seems to argue that suicide bombers aren't killing themselves for the reasons Harris alleges i.e. the 72 virgins. Okay. Let's say that suicide bombers don't kill themselves for the virgins but do so out of "love" for their family (after all, families of martyrs are guaranteed paradise). How is this any less absurd and tragic? Perhaps no religious delusion is the case and it's true that no one (not even terrorists) are driven to madness because of his/her faith in some invisible moral superintelligence. Why then did Atran chose "In Gods We Trust" as the title of his book? I'm still confused.

306. Send a Message to God: He has gone too far this time

Comment #17837 by roach on January 17, 2007 at 12:23 am

condorfree:

WHAT?

307. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #17832 by roach on January 16, 2007 at 10:40 pm

kkant:

I watched the Colbert Report clip and enjoyed it very much. While I don't think the crowd's initial reaction was necessarily hostile, the boos or ooohhs/ahhhhs or whatever you call them weren't "a demonstration of the their appreciation of the monumental nature of the task of removing delusion" but were rather a reflection of the prevailing attitude toward religion among secularists. That is, most secualrists don't subscribe to any particular religion but at the same time do not criticize religion at all out of "respect" for people's unjustified beliefs. Criticism of religion is often viewed as intolerant and tolerance of others is a top priority. Hence the boos/ahhhs/oohhhs.

308. Conservative Atheists

Comment #17729 by roach on January 15, 2007 at 6:38 pm

I hope that more people on both sides of the political spectrum continue to come out in support of reason and evidence. We'll finally get the chance to have a real debate on social policy. I can't wait.

309. Wash. school board restricts Gore's global-warming film

Comment #17710 by roach on January 15, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Wow. I'll trust that Frosty actually did just post above. Isn't the information age amazing? How very sad it is that many of us still rely on an Iron Age text for our worldview.

310. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #17667 by roach on January 15, 2007 at 11:47 am

At least he criticized postmondernism. But this: "Chiristians feel particularly aggreived because we believe that Jesus invented secularism..." makes my brain hurt.

311. The Only One in Step

Comment #17528 by roach on January 14, 2007 at 2:10 pm

gimlibengloin says:

Infinite regress is a good question but nevertheless is surely a seperate one. We see structures all the time that we recognise as examples of ID even though we don't know the designer or his purpose. If life looks designed then it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that it is. Once we've drawn that conclusion we can then start debating identity and purpose.

Separate from what? I don't understand. Maybe it's because i came into this discussion late.

The designer conclusion strikes me as very unsatisfactory because while i suppose we could start debating indentity and purpose, we have no way of objectively knowing. Is it one designer or is it a team? What does this designer want of us? Who/what is this designer? All these questions and many more would be asked and I don't see how any of them could be properly answered. The designer would be subject to every variation the human mind is capable of dreaming.

More importantly, if we were to accept that the only way to explain the amzaing complexity of the natural world is to conjure a designer, that designer would have to be very very complex indeed. In fact, the designer or God (let's be honest) would be so complex that the only way to explain it's existence would be to postulate yet another designer. Repeat this forever and that's what you get when you assert that it is reasonable to conclude that life is designed because it looks designed. It explains nothing.

312. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #17417 by roach on January 13, 2007 at 1:58 pm

The fact that very intelligent people can pull off such mental gymnastics in order to belive in an entity as brutal as the God of Abraham and a superstition as absurd as Biblicl prophesy makes me marvel at the amazing capabilites of the human brain. It also terrifies me.

313. The Only One in Step

Comment #17189 by roach on January 11, 2007 at 3:17 pm

I've seen a greater number of engineers supporting ID than any other scientist. I suppose this makes sense given the fact that engineers make their living designing things. I respect engineers. Their practical application of science is directly responsible for civilization as we know it. But with all their knowledge of thermodynamics and their ingenuity, I don't understand how they can escape the infinite regress and simply magic God/The Creator into existence and be satisfied with that explanation.

314. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16751 by roach on January 8, 2007 at 12:55 pm

I can't believe some think that Dawkins should distance himself from Harris. Do we think Dennett should distance himself from Dawkins because Daniel is slightly less strident in tone? Or that Dawkins shouldn't align with Weinberg because Steven supports the Jewish state of Israel and briefly suggested that the anthropic principle is "little more than mystical mumbo jumbo"?

As disgusting and vile as torture is, it is nevertheless a reality and something which has to be addressed. Sam Harris was brave enough to tackle the issue head on using no euphemisms and I commend him for it. I haven't read anything from Dawkins on the subject of torture. Has anyone?

315. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16496 by roach on January 6, 2007 at 11:55 pm

More ad hominems and an army of straw men.

316. God-less

Comment #16495 by roach on January 6, 2007 at 11:46 pm

8 paragraphs to say absolutely nothing. Way to go Martin.

317. Atheists challenge the religious right

Comment #16124 by roach on January 4, 2007 at 5:56 pm

"Their books have spurred widespread commentary, much of it a strong critique of their arguments and lack of religious knowledge. But in a culture immersed in combativeness in politics and the media, the intemperate books are selling well."


I've never heard this interpretation before. The fact that "atheistic" books are being bought and read is because we live in a combative culture. This truly saddens me. It suggests that people do not read books or watch the news to be informed and engage in dialogue but rather to feed their insatiable appetite for conflict. How does someone's view of others' intentions become so distorted?

318. Letter From America: Atheists throw down the gauntlet

Comment #15889 by roach on January 3, 2007 at 2:03 pm

"Books no doubt do sometimes change people's minds, but more often they help to foster a sense of solidarity among members of an existing group, whether believers in alien space abduction or disbelievers in God."

Well that was a depressing article. It's almost as if the author doesn't think much can be gained by reading or writing books. I think this type of pessimism comes from an "all or nothing" line of thought. That is, unless a book or argument is so insightful that it instantly changes everyone's mind it must be useless. Luckily, social change is a slow, gradual process (sound familiar?)and thankfully we have people who are willing to give it a little nudge.