401. Face to faith

Comment #57840 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 2:03 pm

And the Wikipedia article (includes a bit on evolutionary psychology of religion) on Psychology of Religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion

402. Face to faith

Comment #57838 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Another excerpt from the Wikipedia article:

Religion, for Durkheim, is not "imaginary," although he does strip it of what many believers find essential. Religion is very real; it is an expression of society itself, and indeed, there is no society that does not have religion. We perceive as individuals a force greater than ourselves, which is our social life, and give that perception a supernatural face. We then express ourselves religiously in groups, which for Durkheim makes the symbolic power greater. Religion is an expression of our collective consciousness, which is the fusion of all of our individual consciousnesses, which then creates a reality of its own.

403. Face to faith

Comment #57837 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Here's the Wikipedia article on Sociology of Religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_religion

Interesting quote from Marx: To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs to the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of tears, the halo of which is religion.

Note that the quote is not cited.

404. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57805 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 6:48 am

Beachbum wrote: My point is that we need a tact that appeals to their religious (intellectual) vanity.
_______

Ah, advertising/publicity/persuasion is my weak point. Though I admire many commercials for their entertainment value and lessons in psychology, as very smart people work on them and their results are admirable, they have very little effect on me from a consumer's perspective.

I make a poor salesperson, because my only edge is: This product does this and here is some hazy 'evidence', and if you want what this product does, then buy it. But if the product is pricey and/or not crucial to your survival/fulfillment, be smarter than me and learn how to live without it and certainly find a better way of earning a living than peddling the stuff like I do. F minus for me in 'salespersonship'.

Each atheist can experiment and decide which approach(s) to use in terms of debating/conversing with which theist(s), and they can improve their approach(s) through time and learn from their mistakes. However, each approach, even different ones used by the same atheist, can be grounded within a consistent theme. Mine, is lack of evidence for religious beliefs. So, though my style may differ depending on the theist with whom I am conversing, my theme is solid and steady.

I like all your t-shirt slogans because they reflect your edge. However, keep in mind that an important aspect of edges is that they can become blunt through time or even obsolete if the context in which they are used changes significantly enough.

405. Face to faith

Comment #57795 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 4:26 am

jonecc, It was heartening to hear Dawkins say in his talk at Kepler's book store in CA (http://one.revver.com/watch/334799 --hat tip to Pharyngula), that his Foundation, once they are given charitable status, wants to conduct sociological studies regarding religion. The one potential study he mentioned was to determine if there is any correlation between a particular academic discipline and religious beliefs.

EDIT: That mention of the possibility of sociological studies done by Dawkins' Foundation may have been said in the Q&A--I can't remember for sure. Here's the Q&A vid: http://one.revver.com/watch/334799

406. Face to faith

Comment #57783 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 2:17 am

Yep… these theists should be ashamed of their believes,

LeeC, belief(s) is the noun form for the verb, believes. Though not wanting to be an obnoxious stickler for grammatical detail, I, myself, often wondered why I was allowed to walk around for minutes with my skirt jacked into my panties/bloomers before someone had the decency to inform me of my state. I have encountered this particular grammatical error often on this forum, so I have finally decided to open my big mouth. Forgive me.

407. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #57778 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 1:49 am

Common sense delivered with punchy humor. Starts off with a bang and keeps exploding religious nonsense non-stop to the end. Listen to that enthusiastic applause shortly after the beginning of the audio, greeting the comic's plea, "Can the rest of us have our planet back?" We are fed up and sickened by religious believers. Not only has Brigstocke read TGD, he has UNDERSTOOD it. Not a small feat, as the academic, lofty likes of McGrath was unable to pull that off.

Some fave bits:

precious, petulant, pugnacious pricks

If you want a ring that tells everybody that you are not having sex, get married like the rest of us.

find a cure for James Blount

put on a Cat Stevens' record and chill out

Brigstocke's revealing, with distinctive, preemptory flair, what criticism will most likely be directed at him, cleverly deflates the self-righteous, indignant sails of religious believers before they can even puff them up.

And Brigstocke even covered the ground that moderates occupy in silently encouraging extremists.

408. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57594 by Logicel on July 20, 2007 at 4:54 am

Beachbum wrote: My question is: When we infer or imply either directly or inadvertently that religious people are stupid, do theologians or apologists, in their heart of hearts, feel this a good thing or a bad one?
_________

That theologians and apologists either want or regard the mass of religious believers to be stupid, well, at least as not as smart as them?

Psychology, relating to religion, has a ways to go in order to shed meaningful light on the psychological mechanisms involved in religious beliefs, including the relationship dynamics between religious leaders and followers, mainly because religious beliefs have been so long given protection from critical examination.

From the many articles posted here by theologians and apologists who vehemently oppose/reject the conflating of religious believers with stupidity, I would offer that theologians/apologists clearly regard such labeling of religious believers as a bad thing.

More interesting, is why they would? Is it because such labeling would trigger self-righteous indignation at being so labeled--or even self-doubt, resulting in their followers learning more about the atheism/theism debate, therefore encouraging and allowing the replacing of theist beliefs with factual knowledge, or even worse, embracing critical thinking?

If the religious relationship between leaders and followers is regarded as a power structure, then the knowledge base (knowledge and access to it is empowering) needs to held by the leaders, while any such shifting the knowledge base towards the followers would be discouraged. So stupid followers are not necessary. Making access to knowledge difficult is more an effective way to keep the power structure intact.

However, starting from the printing press leading up to the present instantaneous global communications, it is impossible to keep knowledge hidden from the masses easily. Perhaps, we will find that religions will eventually focus on folks with less than average intelligence to become their flocks! LOL. Churches need smart folks, who can earn good bucks, to keep the religious coffers filled to bursting.

Since knowledge is now fairly accessible, the approach is to label certain knowledge as being inadequate, false, misleading, etc. The religious leaders rely upon their so-called divine connection to identify which knowledge is good/wise, thereby relegating critical thinking to the useless bin, or so they may think. However, critical thinking is so cool, so satisfying, so empowering, the arbitrary knowledge base on which religious beliefs rest, is getting a good shaking up.

409. Is there an Artificial God?

Comment #57377 by Logicel on July 19, 2007 at 4:08 am

This transcript is great. It has a similar, pleasing effect on my mental/emotional well being as doing a comprehensive brain teaser--every lobe in my brain was exercised.

410. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57351 by Logicel on July 19, 2007 at 2:29 am

I appreciated his delineating why the global response to the violence triggered by the Danish cartoons was shamefully wrong. And I adored his equating Liberation Theology with callow piffle, and saying that Liberation Theology, a contradiction in terms, bores him.

Other faves: pinched and flabby faces of the faithful and the ghastly tubby form of Falwell.

411. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57327 by Logicel on July 19, 2007 at 12:30 am

Here's an excerpt from a comment written by Jamie at the original site, summing up my opinion of this rant:

I agree with you, though, that it isn't my place to pipe up out of the blue and start telling everyone what I think they should think...nor should they do it to me. Where I disagree, though, is your statement about the anti-apologetics sites, etc. During my own deconversion I found (and still find) such sites invaluable. I needed them to help me find my way. I also needed them to help me in my defense, since as most ex-christians must know, I will have people who believe they need to 'reason' me back to the faith. (Come now let us reason together).

412. Phony Piety on the Far Right

Comment #57324 by Logicel on July 19, 2007 at 12:12 am

Among the most durable myths of American public life is that conservatives are more authentic in their religious faith than liberals and progressives.
______

More authentic? The conservative adheres to such a rigid interpretation of non-evidential faith, that the believer is bound not to keep all its rules, while the liberal has cherry-picked faith so thoroughly, it is unrecognizable as any collective code, being just a personalized worldview, again based on no evidence.

Is one liar more authentic than other?

Is one deluded person less deluded than the other?

But despite this fractured lens, through which the author is peering, it still was gratifying to have the hypocrisy and anti-Christian attitudes espoused by high-profile American Christians taken out to the cleaners.

413. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57238 by Logicel on July 18, 2007 at 4:10 pm

The titmouse has a headache still from that pile of red herring dumped upon its head. Nasty, stinky, "shut the fuck up" herrings are never a welcome gift.
________

Oh Tuffy, we can't have that, fly, fly, fly to the special beer birdbath I have placed in my balcony garden, next to the Morning Glories. We need you headache free so your poop-a-meter will be able to function optimally.

(Don't worry, the two cats are locked in the bathroom, chomping on the red herrings)

414. Convict sues God for broken contract

Comment #57174 by Logicel on July 18, 2007 at 1:08 pm

We can all file a complaint against religion via this site (I did about a month ago--I am asking 10,000 bucks in damages from my childhood Catholic parish church, which btw, I found was recently involved in the on-going child sexual abuse cases):

http://www.earthsgreatestlawsuit.org/

bluebird, I suppose sacrificial offerings could be food, flowers, and books (preferably The God Delusion)? Not all sacrifices need be bloody, I suppose, but still, reading the word, sacrificial, was a bit jarring.

415. Convict sues God for broken contract

Comment #56883 by Logicel on July 17, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Micera said that God had accepted his prayers and sacrificial offerings without providing any services in return.
______


Sacrificial offerings?

416. The New New Atheism

Comment #56736 by Logicel on July 17, 2007 at 4:41 am

the new new atheism
_____

The intellectually dishonest view of this author could be termed, the old old faith. The just plain old faith flourished because science was either absent or in its infancy, while the old old faith, so proudly embraced by this author, is characterized by its lethargic milling of the same old non-evidential/faith-based god-stuff despite the fact science is the reason why the standard of living for many is as excellent as it is.

Science has proven itself for our well being, while religion has not, certainly not in the time-tested, results-oriented, scientific and factual way. Scientific theories have pronounced explanatory and predicting power, religion has none, just the blunt and dull edge of a defunct knife unable to cut the rational mustard, that humanity and the universe was designed by God for humans.

This guy's approach is beyond old; it is null and void.

417. The New New Atheism

Comment #56727 by Logicel on July 17, 2007 at 4:15 am

Profitability is not the only feature distinguishing today's fashionable disbelief from the varieties of atheism that have arisen over the millennia.
______

There is the implication here that the recent best-selling atheist authors KNEW--apparently through some atheistic revelation--that books on atheism would sell like hotcakes. However, Dawkins has frequently expressed his surprise at encountering the choir to whom he is directing his 'lucrative' product, as being much bigger and enthusiastic than he had thought.

Also, the market knows best: these writers are filling a demand.

418. The New New Atheism

Comment #56724 by Logicel on July 17, 2007 at 4:01 am

I agree, Philip, Tuffy, the glorious tufted titmouse, with its accurate poop-a-meter, keeps this site intellectually honest.

419. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56718 by Logicel on July 17, 2007 at 3:28 am

rokort wrote: ...perhaps showing compassion on an atheist basis might help. I say this because i got (and get) the impression lots of Africans are very sensitive to religion only because this way they are presented a "better" future and excuses for their hardship. Religious organisations are the ones building hopitals and schools for the needy.
______

This secular couple with their project,
http://www.freewebs.com/livingstonetheatreproject/thetheatreproject.htm

are focusing on local art and cultural traditions in Zambia to create an economic focus; in addition, they are working on improving the local school, all without, religion.

420. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56351 by Logicel on July 15, 2007 at 8:25 am

Idealistic theism? Sorry, it has no appeal whatsoever to me. I don't understand how it is possible to shove reality out of its all-encompassing, breathtakingly compelling picture longer than a millisecond in order to embrace a wonky and begging-the-question idealistic theism with its emphasis on humans being intimately connected to a God, who made us so we can be eventually fulfilled and be with It for eternity. Certainly, humanity thrives on improving themselves, but please, accomplish it within the finite reality in which humanity exists.

Also, I do not understand why it is even appealing--would we even recognize the Ideal if it bit us in the arse? How can one know good if good is the only thing that exists, how can one know joy without sorrow? The so-called absolutes of religion leave me cold, and I regard them as being vastly over-rated, sort of like sex (yeah, I know I am probably wrong holding that particular view!).

Not everyone reacts to narcotics like I do, but I would like to add this anecdotal bit to this discussion. Thanks to my particular biochemistry, being under the influence of a narcotic (prescribed for chronic/acute medical conditions) makes the Idealistic Theism discussed by some in this thread seem like a puny, wobbly, vague joke. However, despite the immense impact narcotics have on me, my brain was always able to inform me that what I was experiencing was my brain on narcotics, and that I was not truly and really an immortal being one with the perfect and infinite universe--though it certainly appeared and felt like that to me while under narcotics.

Idealistic Theism with its corresponding natural narcotics that the body most likely secretes under its influence, appears to be a clever, very diluted narcotic, that one can keep drip, drip, dripping into their needy, finite veins to feel better about something they just can't accept. It is loose and vague enough not to cause too much problem with reality, so no nasty withdrawal and extreme toxic effects will result. In that way, it is very dangerous, because it is mild enough to keep you drugged without your conscious recognition of that fact.

JUST SAY NO TO IDEALISTIC THEISM! LOL.

Regarding the comparative religion course that Paul teaches, sounds like an excellent and needed course.

421. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56330 by Logicel on July 15, 2007 at 5:12 am

16. Comment #56283 by Russell Blackford on July 14, 2007 at 6:25 pm
avatarZwartz is entitled to use passionate language, if he wishes, as we all are, but it seems a bit odd after such a rant to end up with the bit about reasoning together.
______

This is the aspect that gave me the chills--the usual logical fallacies, strawmen (lost count, but it must have at least reached three strawmen, which is the minimum number allowing Dr. Benway/Tuffy--the potent pooper of a tufted titmouse--to poop on this author with impunity), and ad homs are par for the course, so no surprise there. However, after not responding to atheists' arguments, but rather to the way they frame or in which style they present their opposition to religious superstitions, and/or shockingly misunderstanding atheist arguments, the author then suggests that the object of his rant needs to 'reason' with him and theists.

I have no intent or reason to communicate with this author or any other theist who does not make an effort to respond to the content of atheist arguments. Spending their time focusing on style/framing of the atheist argument, and/or mangling and twisting the atheist position beyond recognition, they mistakenly think this tactic will weaken the atheist argument and lessen the focus on the reality that non-evidential faith allows religious superstitions to support and encourage dangerous activities, that there is no significant evidence as to religion being true or doing anything particularly crucial for our well being, and that religion needs to be subjected to the same scrutiny as any other activity or belief.

However, I am sure that there are many other topics with which I could discuss with Zwartz and other theists, even if they are unable to respond with intellectual honesty to the atheist stance against religious superstitions.

422. American Taliban on the warpath against evolution

Comment #56212 by Logicel on July 14, 2007 at 1:58 pm

This post from Pharyngula says that this guy has been identified:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/colorado_kook_identified.php

423. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56139 by Logicel on July 14, 2007 at 1:48 am

Ayann Hirsi Ali is at the Aspen Ideas Festival also:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B7Yo74YF14M

She is lovely, calm, and very meticulous in her observing skills regarding Europeans/Americans.

424. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #56135 by Logicel on July 14, 2007 at 12:59 am

Orthodox Jews, whose God is really OCD as far as I am concerned, need to be studied with this aspect in mind: does their many obsessive-compulsive activities ease anxiety (if so, what is causing this anxiety and is it treatable?), and/or is this OCD behavior attributed to genetic underpinnings (as there is a bit of inbreeding in orthodox communities).

When I bring this aspect up, I am usually told I am anti-semitic, but perhaps things have changed enough in terms of being able to criticize religion, that studies regarding the psychological aspects of religious practice will become more and more common.

As a teenager, I lived in a Brooklyn, NYC neighborhood which was close to a large, Orthodox Jewish community, and I would always think, if they did not have their distinctive dressing style to differentiate them, the whole lot of them would be treated for OCD, but no, behavior that is considered abnormal is excused for religious reasons once again.

As for the poles described in this article, they know where they can stick 'em.

Corylus, yes, the order of our posts, MINE FOLLOWING YOURS, THAT IS, is absolutely ACCIDENTAL.

425. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55955 by Logicel on July 13, 2007 at 3:05 am

Best interview with Hitchens so far that I have read. I had no idea about the founder of American Atheists having such an odd life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

I always learn some interesting tidbit from Hitchens.

Yes, I also have noticed the recent noting of being the first to comment--I would prefer to have the last word and post the last comments in all the threads!!! LOL

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

Comment #55695 by Logicel on July 12, 2007 at 2:15 am

Wilson's last response was full-blown Christian preaching at its worse. And it was in that 'sermon' in which Wilson finally responded, however indirectly, to Hitchen's stating several times, believe what you want, but just leave me and other non-believers out of it. Wilson's response was but our news is so fantastic, so uplifting, so wonderful we must cram it down your throats every chance we get (and also have big tax-free structures which balk at being criticized and have the power to indoctrinate children to assist us in this unasked-for "helping.")

Wilson is the kind of a person that thrives on the authority, purity, and loyalty bases for morality. Change is a problem for him; it causes anxiety and doubt in him. It can only be accepted if it is regarded as an illusion where events and changes are filtered through the unchanging God lens. Change for Wilson is not really authentic change, but just the fulfillment of the absolute notion of Godliness.

Without change, society can't evolve in a positive manner--the bad needs to be taken along with the good. I regard Hitchens as doing an excellent job in debating this Christian, a Christian so wedded to absolutes that he can't see that they are the illusion. Accepting reality based on facts and scientific knowledge has been our best way to proceed forward and will continue to be so.

427. A force for good?

Comment #55411 by Logicel on July 11, 2007 at 3:33 am

66. Comment #55382 by Luis_Cayetano
________

Luis,Thanks for posting that comment; I really enjoyed it.

428. Praying to a milk jug

Comment #55405 by Logicel on July 11, 2007 at 3:09 am

I also am not a fan of the guy's voice. The tone, inflection, and other qualities of voice pack a hefty dose of information that is additional to the content of the words themselves.

His voice is a droning and almost fatigued one, reminiscent of a preacher's voice, but without the buzz of fire and brimstone. Preachers can often take the place of a cup of coffee in waking you up, this guy's voice made me want to take a nap, or just maybe slap him to wake him up. This voice reminds me of the voice of the guy that intoned the video about humans being just a bunch of monkeys, which is not one of my favorites either from the voice or content aspects.

429. Police plea on genital mutilation

Comment #55404 by Logicel on July 11, 2007 at 3:00 am

Let's see if the 'impure' lure of money can trump the need for enforcing 'purity' on dependent and helpless girls.

430. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54615 by Logicel on July 8, 2007 at 6:52 am

PaulEmecz, Corylus was referring to this discussion as being mostly civilized, a discussion primarily evolving Dianelos who believes in God, going on at present to 23 pages of comments--my link is to the last page at this moment:


http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews,page23#comments

431. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54612 by Logicel on July 8, 2007 at 6:48 am

PaulEmecz, Regarding your specific question for Dawkins: Do you think rape is wrong, and that no man should ever rape a woman?--Perhaps you are not aware of this feature:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/index.php?c=9&sid=83e197f3eb106b06883c7f6d30d3f206

432. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54482 by Logicel on July 7, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Corylus, Thanks for letting us know about POMA. I am cracking up. The POMA approach is like a band-aid being applied to a gushing arterial rupture--maybe it will stem the spurting of atheist bloodletting, if we can make believe we have a solution in the form of a medicinal POMAde!!!!!!

And of course, Dr Benway's adorable avatar would change your plucked to pooped.

433. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54478 by Logicel on July 7, 2007 at 11:50 am

OT: bluebird, My avatar is indeed a morning glory (Ipomoea). Though I have tons of photos of morning glories since I once flanked the entire length of my forty-foot-long balcony, ten floors up from a major blvd, with zillions of morning glories, this public domain photo was gotten from this Flickr photographer:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/heartlover1717/227867562/

I was tempted to change my user ID to The Girl from Ipomoea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_from_Ipanema), but decided to stick with Logicel at this site. I am glad you find it nice; it calms me every time I see it. And your bluebird avatar was an indirect inspiration, as every time I saw it, I realized how wonderful the color blue is.

434. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54473 by Logicel on July 7, 2007 at 11:29 am

Have they no arguments?
______

The only real argument they have is faith, to take it on faith. And as the author of the article has clearly stated, people are too educated and sophisticated for the old messages which are primarily based on faith. Without faith, religion does not have a leg to stand on.

As for science not answering why questions, this author needs to focus on sophisticated folks being more interested in how questions; the why to it all--the meaning of life--these folks are ready and able to supply it themselves. Again, as it has been pointed out many times, evolution is not a chance happening because of the role of natural selection.

The pleading that church officials fight back the atheists better than the way they have been doing speaks volumes. And a large part of that volume is filled by the viral nature of religious criticism at present because of the Net, which is apparently quite a shock for some because religious believers have been isolated from critical confrontation for so long.

The clamoring for religious officials to fight back is so sad to me. This pleading is reminiscent of the shock and disappointment when a child finally grasps that their parents are just ordinary folks, and not gods. These religious believers are getting a similar wake-up call regarding their religious leaders who are only ordinary folks with no real connection to the supernatural and with no unique handle on meaning and truth.

435. Ah, the fervour in returning to my flock

Comment #54418 by Logicel on July 7, 2007 at 1:57 am

This article did make me chuckle so perhaps it is somewhat a parody. Some theists do regard atheism as a religion and other theists say that atheism was a temporary and rebellious departure from their childhood religion, so there are existing elements to parody.

The author's departure from her atheism seem mostly induced by societal pressure, to be able to do stuff her peers were doing, and not an authentic embracing of monotheistic religion which also ties in with the genre so expressed by McGrath, that he dallied with atheism in university because it was the thing to do, as everybody else were atheists.

436. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54123 by Logicel on July 5, 2007 at 1:10 pm

At the Guardian CommentisFree thread under the article written by a British Muslim regarding how moderate Muslims need to challenge the extremists, someone suggested that perhaps the smart thing to do is to have a protest march, protesting both the violent and irrational Islamists/US Christian wingnuts AND the often exploitative nature of US foreign policy which can't disguise the obvious, which is the US, as the most powerful country in the world, abuses Human Rights and pushes it's economic and political agenda, relying on its reputation--which is undeniably tarnished at present--to be a predominately beneficial global force.

The mind reels. Moderate Christian and Muslims along with atheists, political followers of both the left and the right, clamoring in an united voice.

437. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54121 by Logicel on July 5, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Politics are divisive. The right and left are often domatically cleaved to their respective approaches.

Reading through Fanusi's and Xenocratic's posts, festooned with insults and ad homs, this is what I get:

Fanusi: It is important to identify the enemy to our way of life and to act accordingly and decisively.
Xenocratic: It is important to identify the role we have played, are playing, and will most likely continue to play, in promoting the growing menace to our way of life.

Perhaps I am just afflicted with lukewarmness, but I agree with both of them.

438. Unorthodox Atheist

Comment #54116 by Logicel on July 5, 2007 at 12:20 pm

I recently had a conversation with a friend who identifies himself as an Atheist. He took a few stabs and guesses at the origin of the universe and the origin of life that were not too far off from pre-existing theories.
________

Reed is indeed a role model for other young atheists.

Reed's friend sounds like a smart young person who needs to continue to trust in his/her stabs and guesses, despite having a father who is censorious. Reed's friend can use the Net to dig out supporting evidence for his/her hunches.

439. Scientists Link Housecats to Wildcat Subspecies

Comment #54036 by Logicel on July 5, 2007 at 4:06 am

Dr Benway, I applaud your upping the poopage ante with your latest avatar. It just cracks me up--such a tiny bird and such an attitude!

440. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53753 by Logicel on July 3, 2007 at 3:04 am

The bishop restricts himself to condoning the actions of a terrorist God, while the human fireball appointed himself as a direct tool of divine wrath.
________

Excellent article. The faith connection is enough of a connection between so-called moderates and extremists--non-evidential faith and its touting as a virtue.

In addition, though the Bishop is not advocating direct violence against gays, he is indirectly setting up scapegoats. If and when global warming's deleterious effects grow, there will be a ready group to silence, gays. There will be some panic-stricken and ill-prepared people of faith who will act like dangerous fools, who will be compelled to do hateful and criminal acts based on their faith, in order to appease their God and to save their imaginary eternal souls.

It is important to keep allowing these supporters of religious superstitions to yap and yap and yap, and it is equally important that articulate rational people target and pinpoint the dangerous irrationality lurking behind that stoopid-looking crozier of the bishop's.

441. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53745 by Logicel on July 3, 2007 at 2:34 am

epeeist, Enjoy and prosper with your new lifestyle changes! Looking forward to your return.

442. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53744 by Logicel on July 3, 2007 at 2:31 am

phil rimmer wrote: Dualism is getting half way and giving up. For you we're making no progress. For me we're galloping along.
_______

Yes, I agree, the research and discoveries being done at present regarding the mind/consciousness are going so fast and furious, and it is a complete delight to keep up. How silly of Dianelos to miss the implications of all this superb science just because he has such a need for objectivity and absolutism, convinced that such a stiff, rigid, unrelentingly boring worldview is a boon for humanity.

443. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53554 by Logicel on July 2, 2007 at 3:23 am

The West is also being punished for the way that it has exploited poorer nations in its pursuit of economic gain. "It has set up dominant economic structures that are built on greed and that keep other nations in a situation of dependence.
______

Globalized capitalism, though far from perfect, has done, is doing, and will continue to do, more to lessen poverty throughout the world than religious superstitions ever had or ever will. Without poverty, how can the Christian church have any leverage to induce conversion? Poor people have been an captive audience for them--here's some tasty food and make sure tomorrow you swallow the tasteless but divine wafer. Speaking of keeping people in a situation of dependence!!!

This bishop greedily believes he will enjoy eternal bliss with his unproven God, and he is willing to make everybody's else life on earth to be miserable, pinched, and filled with guilt so he can continue to cleave to his nonsense under the pretext that he truly cares for everybody, just like his neurotic God in whom he believes.

Fear and guilt. Guilt and fear. Whatever way you mix them, they are losing their clout, but these tired and lackluster supporters of religious superstitions keep using them, deluded in their power as much as they are deluded in their God belief.

444. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53531 by Logicel on July 1, 2007 at 11:59 pm

He expressed his sympathy for those who have been hit by the weather, but said that the problem with "environmental judgment is that it is indiscriminate".
____

So all you 'good' people who don't break God's law better get down hard on those who do, since God's wrath is indiscriminate. Clever manipulation.

How depressing to know that there are religious nuts in power in the Western world who--by only following their NON-EVIDENTIAL faith--will, if only indirectly, encourage their faithful flock to do the necessary things to stave off God's wrath if and when global warming effects become worse and worse--necessary things like bombing gay clubs and abortion clinics, etc.

445. Scientists Transplant Genome of Bacteria

Comment #53280 by Logicel on June 30, 2007 at 2:21 pm

In addition, the ability to synthesize living organisms may provoke philosophical comment.
___

Like Papal yapping perhaps?

446. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53278 by Logicel on June 30, 2007 at 1:57 pm

From Newfies to Yorkies, from Weimaraners to water spaniels, from Dalmatians to dachshunds, as I incredulously close this book I seem to hear mocking barks and deep, baying howls of derision from 500 breeds of dogs — every one descended from a timber wolf within a time frame so short as to seem, by geological standards, instantaneous.

_______

The above is my favorite bit. Great review.

447. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53191 by Logicel on June 30, 2007 at 3:08 am

If the belief in personified goodness became universal, in the form of Dianelos' God, with its accompanying boon of providing emotional security, then is that not cheating on his God's plan of giving His created humans a chance to find out that goodness is correct on their own? Sounds like God's creation is more clever than Him.

Or would such universal embracing of this belief instantiate heaven on earth? Connection with God for eternity? In other words, a rapture where no one is left behind.

448. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53188 by Logicel on June 30, 2007 at 2:56 am

In addition, not only could it be impossible to provide emotional security for all, it would also be a great challenge to provide it for everybody in each and every stage of their lives. Emotional security for a child is different for an adult.

Dianelos' belief is not going to work because it is an one-size-fits-all approach to the provision of emotional security.

In my opinion, and to add to Steve99s able describing Dianelos as cherry-picking of philosophy in order to provide the semblance of a reasonable backbone to his beliefs, Dianelos particular religious worldview is a creative patchwork quilt of select components of deism and theism. I have encountered this melange of deism and theism previously, also not surprisingly, superbly custom-made for the believer.

449. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53179 by Logicel on June 30, 2007 at 2:05 am

Dianelos wrote, Observe that what matters here is not whether a person of unconditional love and protection objectively exists, but only that one believes such a person exists.

This is belief in belief. You have decided that your belief is beneficial, so you believe it. Your belief that God is giving you a chance to be good so you can be with God forever is absurd to me, and is as impossible for me to embrace as it is for me to pray--both attempts result in peals of laughter of incredulity. Your belief is custom-made, it fits Dianelos to a tee.

The underlying oomph of your belief apparently is that in providing emotional security it will foster goodness in us. Emotional security for all may not be possible, but it is a worthy goal nonetheless. Your particular belief system oddly does not provide any emotional security for me whatsoever, therefore I have no need to believe it. Emotional security for me consists of humanity working together to provide it, and in my own tiny life, humanity has does a great job of it, and I am thankful for our efforts.

Emotional security for me would be eroded if I would believe the way you do. Funny, isn't it? Your God, who is personified goodness as far as I can make it, sounds like a glorious bore. Opposites enable us to appreciate love, joy, productivity, etc. If we had nothing to compare goodness to, would goodness even exist?

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

Comment #52754 by Logicel on June 28, 2007 at 2:13 am

I think so, yes. I think all of our hominid ancestors were ensouled in some way, but that does not rule out the possibility that as evolution continues, the shape of the soul can vary just as it does from individual to individual.
____


How can an immaterial concept have a shape?

...cite the ideas of Thomas Aquinas, the 13th-century philosopher and theologian who, Dr. Haught said, "spoke of a vegetative and animal soul along with the human soul.
_______

Recently someone here chided my connecting spirituality with humans--I am one of those pesky non-supernatural spiritual atheists--by responding with cabbage spirituality, which made me laugh at the time, and it still triggering a few chuckles at present.

So will there be kitty cats of the female persuasion sporting burkas? Specially designed, low communion railings replete with wafers died green for rabbits? Purple robes and gilded circular running tracks for gerbils? Special and tax-free meeting places with lots of trellises for Ipomoea?