401. Lou Dobbs Interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #37494 by MelM on May 4, 2007 at 4:08 pm

At the end, Dobbs says "...you call for ???? enlightenment..." I've tried several times and can't make out what was said. Anybody know what this is about?

Yes, a nice interview. Other spots that would help the cause:
>The C-Span early morning show. One-on-one for a long time and some viewer call-in questions.
>The Charlie Rose show on PBS. This could be a half hour or even a whole hour.
>The News Hour on PBS. He would get a nice long segment but the book would have to stir up a lot of dust first (I think).
>One of the late night comedy shows. (One had Julia Sweeny on last year.) There would be a few jokes but the basic tone would be serious and far far better than O'Reilly.
>Day time talk shows. I find these kind of dumb but they would most likely be better than O'Reilly.

One of the most difficult spots is a 5min debate on some news show; you get about 2.5min of talking time. I saw one guy do a pretty good job recently by using his time to say what he wanted to say and didn't "bite" on the crap his opponent was dumping.

402. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #37267 by MelM on May 3, 2007 at 11:41 pm

Multiculturalism simply recognizes that a society comprises many different cultures and people should try, in the interest of harmony, to learn a bit about other cultures and not condemn differences just because they're strange.

403. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37261 by MelM on May 3, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Stay on "existence."
It would be nice to see a debate that sticks to "existence" instead of spending 90% of the time sidetracked onto "ethics" or "Stalin" or "giving comfort" or "what the U.S. founders thought" etc. As soon as a debate slips off the "existence" track, the believer has escaped his unsolvable problem and is on much safer ground; a failure here does no harm to his primary claim. If these characters claim to be able to prove anything, keep them spinning their wheels right there; no moving on to something else! Just keep rejecting their evidence and arguments. Soon, the half hour will be over.

A debate takes a lot of homework.
I think it best to assume that these guys have gone to wingnut school (there's plenty of them around) and have learned lots of ways to throw ink into the water and make claims that are breathtakingly weird (dirty tricks to con people into belief or to convince people that reason does not exist or is just crap). Atheist debaters should go into such "existence" debates with knowledge of Christian apologetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics
In a debate, there just isn't enough time--at least for me there isn't--to figure out how to debunk any and every one of the religious fallacies. If these guys have written anything or there are videos of discussions, be sure to look at them. However, there are some general rules of reason that apply anytime. Don't let the believers defend one unsupported claim with yet another unsupported claim and then another...Most believers are, in fact, irrationalists and have satisfied themselves via rationalized hacks. Don't let believers inject unsupported concepts into the debate. If a concept doesn't refer to some aspect of reality, it's invalid; "miracle" is an example. Either religion is a body of scientifically supported observations and logical conclusions or it isn't. If this "body" of claims is vacuous, then there's no alternative but to reject it; there's no validity at all to accepting what is actually only a fantasy.

A non-existent doesn't leave footprints.
As to the challenge "You can't prove that god doesn't exist", remember that a non-existent doesn't leave footprints. It can't condition an entity's action--such as perturb a planet's orbit or leave any trace of itself. Therefore, any observations point to something that exists and never to something that doesn't exist. From what is one can only get to something else that is. You can debunk or "prove non-existence" by showing that the thing claimed to exist is self-contradictory or that it contradicts known facts. If "god" is more than a visual or auditory smybol, the theist has to say what it is; one can't refute a zero.

404. The Damned

Comment #37232 by MelM on May 3, 2007 at 7:43 pm

A new anti-religious psyop?

More than name dropping.
While I've seen lists of famous atheists (name dropping?), I've never seen this particular approach before. This video presents several people who are generally admired for their achievements and immediately connects them to what religion says should happen to them--no evasion is possible. Each viewer is faced with the choice of sticking with the judgement of their own mind--admiration--or going with the Bible's judgement.

It's a psyop.
It's a psyop and not an argument but, with religion, maybe it'll take psyops to even induce people to listen to a rational argument. I'm not a great fan of psyops because they are non-rational and therefore fragile--the other side can easily mount psyops of it's own. (Psyops are much easier to do than reasoned arguments and most people, I think, can weather being called names.) In the case of this video however, it is far far more effective than cartooning religion; it's very serious and has solid intellectual content although I've no idea what "organic atheism" is. I think the current ending dilutes the message. If I were fixing it, I'd put Dawkins and Edison right at the end and drop the current ending altogether.

405. Jordan opens children's museum

Comment #36946 by MelM on May 2, 2007 at 10:10 pm

I dare any male to look at that face and remaim "pious". Yet another reason not to believe.

406. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #36938 by MelM on May 2, 2007 at 9:10 pm

How about serial jail time for serial wife bashers?

407. Jordan opens children's museum

Comment #36933 by MelM on May 2, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Behold: Queen Rania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Rania

Queens are most definately not my type.

408. Jordan opens children's museum

Comment #36923 by MelM on May 2, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Ok, but a few centuries late I'd say. And what kind of a place has waited for a Queen to push for educational reform?

I wonder how evolution is treated; Islam is also a "creationist" religion and U.S. wingnuts have been busy exporting their drivel. It's pathetic really; we can't sell Islam on the Bill-of-Rights but creationism is a hot item. So goes the war of ideas as a solution to Islamic totalitarianism.

409. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #36919 by MelM on May 2, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Why doesn't the German gov put a stop to this?

It might get worse.
But, I read somewhere about an EU plan somebody is advocating whereby couples would select which country's laws would govern their marriage thus potentially allowing people to opt out of basic rights. So, a woman--through extreme pressure or the ignorance of a newcomer--would sign such a thing and be stuck with the consequences. That would put EU countries in the position of enforcing the marriage laws from Iran or Saudi Arabia or... How could any judge keep up with such laws or even know how to administer them? Gosh, a holy man might have to be consulted or the whole matter sent over to a religious court. If stoning needs to be done, would the German (French or UK...) police do that? This entire scheme violates the idea of reason/reality as the proper source of justice and law. Silly tradition and superstition may still be in the law but the whole point of enlightened culture is to get rid of such things and certainly not to import vile nonsense from every backwards pest hole in the world. For the sake of civilization on this planet, I hope that the EU will reject this barbarous idea.

410. The Damned

Comment #36886 by MelM on May 2, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Why doesn't the view count go up after multiple viewings?

411. The Damned

Comment #36878 by MelM on May 2, 2007 at 3:47 pm

According to Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, Pat Tillman is "worm dirt."
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257967.htm

Cheer up; the Universe isn't haunted!

412. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36644 by MelM on May 1, 2007 at 10:07 pm

Conclusion: Faith is a vice!

413. Religion & Culture Panel

Comment #36625 by MelM on May 1, 2007 at 7:16 pm

The audience
I thought that it was a good mix. Seems to me that, in a debate, one wants some supporters but mostly, one wants to talk to the supporters of the adversary or to those who have no opinion yet. If Hitchens beats his adversaries right in front of their supporters, then he's accomplished something.

414. Religion & Culture Panel

Comment #36615 by MelM on May 1, 2007 at 6:36 pm

C-Span is an excellent gig. Perhaps this appearance helped push his book from #10 (amazon.com) at the time of the discussion to #5 last night (which is where it is now).

Kirch wants us to quote-mine the Bible to fight the fundies. This means keeping the Bible as our basic frame of reference instead of reality--which is accepting a basic premise of religion. I wouldn't consider doing that and I don't think it would work; the fundy holy men arn't hicks, they have some "aplogetics" that we'd better look at. I think that one other thing that needs to be done is to go after the irrationalism that keeps religion going. Most Americans really have no idea what the logical fallicies are and can't spot them being used by the holy men.

Christian apologetcs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics
Presuppositional apologetics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

Anyway, this is where I'm going to be putting some effort; this seems to be the kind of stuff that even a wingnut like Ken Ham uses to support his faith and therefore his absurd views on science.

415. The God Delusion

Comment #36586 by MelM on May 1, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Introduction To Objectivism (video: 42min lecture, 33min Q&A)
http://www.aynrandnovels.com/ARIdeas.php?pagename=intro_course

A well structured overview and summary.

416. Religion & Culture Panel

Comment #36358 by MelM on May 1, 2007 at 1:45 am

On the question: "Is there a way to teach fundamentalists...?"
I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.

417. Religion & Culture Panel

Comment #36328 by MelM on April 30, 2007 at 11:57 pm

Wow! Right now the Hitchens book is #5 on Amazon.com. Instock and shipping.

I'm really glad he mentioned the outrageous reaction of Western religious leaders to the cartoon jihad and to Salman Rushdie. One might have thought these folks would have learned, over the centuries, to love freedom of speech. Guess not. I still remember the shock I felt hearing a Vatican spokesman saying that they had hoped that Islam could be an aly against unbelief. This was in a news video at the time the Pope visited Turkey--and I've never been able to find the video again. Does the Pope hate the Enlightenment so bad that he'd team of with Islam to crush it? If anybody can find the video, it needs some publicity because it's so damned appalling. If Hitchens ever saw it, I think he'd explode.

Anyway, looks like Hitchens will hit the NYT bestseller list, and do it soon.

{Edited: Salman Rushdie inserted.)

418. Huge rally for Turkish secularism

Comment #36013 by MelM on April 29, 2007 at 10:28 pm

The Turkish military has intervened before and Turkey has come out of it ok.

Democracy does not equal freedom.
I am not interested in substituting the "will of the people" for the "will of God". I want my rights and if it takes the military to push back a takeover by an oppressive theocracy, then I'd prefer that. It's freedom that's most important and democracy does not equal freedom. The Bill-of-Rights exists to protect individuals from the government which is elected. Hell, once a theocracy comes to power in Turkey, it will either kill or retire the secularists in the military and then Turkey is stuck with no way out of the theocracy. These days, when I hear people talk about democracy as the primary base of government, I know damn well they're not interested, fundamentally, in freedom--they're trying to get away with something. Example: Bush!

The U.S. Dominionists hate Federal courts.
In the U.S., notice the Dominionist hatred for the Federal courts and the attempts to keep some laws away from review by the courts. This allows a bunch of my neighbors to make whatever laws they damn well want and keep me from even going to court to protect myself. Any nation whose priority goes to democracy instead of rights is going to loose their rights sooner or later.

Turkey is lucky to have a secular military.
The U.S. call for letting democracy have control of the outcome--no matter what--is really an outrage. Nobody has a right to impose tyranny by voting. And, once a tyranny takes power, it's not long before democracy is lost as well. That Bush would allow some ritualistic exercize of "democracy" to impose a death cult on Turkey is just disgusting. When democracy ceases to be an aid in keeping freedom and an emergency is at hand, then a coup is ok. Turkey is lucky if it has a military that will save it from disaster; when the time comes, the U.S. won't be so fortunate.

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

Comment #35994 by MelM on April 29, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Hitchens speaks to an audience that hasn't heard from Dennett, Dawkins or Harris...

420. New Noah's Ark ready to sail

Comment #35981 by MelM on April 29, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Tom Paine got it right:

The christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense. Why is man afraid to think?

421. New Noah's Ark ready to sail

Comment #35782 by MelM on April 28, 2007 at 9:00 pm

There's no fool like a religious fool!

422. Atheism's Big Night In Little Rock

Comment #35761 by MelM on April 28, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Comment #35742 by h2g2bob
...school teaching on religion places emphasis on teaching multiple faiths.

423. A Brief History of Disbelief

Comment #35748 by MelM on April 28, 2007 at 7:03 pm

Considering the amount of time I've spent countering the wingnut attack on reason itself via theist statements like "atheism is a religion", I'm livid to see a title such as "The Atheist's Bible." Thanks loads Ms Konner!

424. Atheism's Big Night In Little Rock

Comment #35741 by MelM on April 28, 2007 at 6:03 pm

Lessons in reality and reason.

...what the young man described wasn't belief, but hope.

425. Atheism's Big Night In Little Rock

Comment #35740 by MelM on April 28, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Hmmm. "Official religion", "four old ladies". I wonder why religion in the Islamic states isn't reduced to "four old ladies."

426. Bill O'Remix

Comment #35326 by MelM on April 26, 2007 at 9:50 pm

So, science doesn't know all the answers. But, what does faith know? Zero, NOTHING! By its vary nature, faith can't "know" anything; all it can generate is dogma. And, it's all subjective, usually depending on the cult to which a person is born. Let's face it, "objective" dogma is an absurd idea.

427. Iran Exonerates Six Who Killed in Islam's Name

Comment #34665 by MelM on April 24, 2007 at 8:50 pm

Any ideology that defines "blasphemy" and punishes it coercively is brutal.

Islam is a brutal religion.

So, I think it's obvious what losing the war with Islamic totalitarianism would mean to us.

And, I wonder what Iran does with atheists?

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

Comment #34382 by MelM on April 23, 2007 at 11:26 pm

Dawkins wins, about 6 to 2.

O'Reilly's talk about an increasing percent of unbelivers in the U.S. and the huge percentages of unbelivers in Europe are stats that his audience has, most likely, never heard before and a nice win for our side.

O'Reilly's whack on science was really lame. Notice that he didn't blame all the worlds problems on "Darwinism" as so often happens with the wingnuts. Interesting, I think, and a win for our side.

O'Reilly said he wasn't "positive that Jesus was God." This was quite a statement indeed! He's showing uncertainty about the entire pile of Christian dogma. Wow! Win for our side! I don't think Pat Robertson and the other Dominionists are going to like this at all. O'Reilly seems to be uncertain and belligerent at the same time. I don't think the Apollo crack saved him from not being able to come back from Dawkins point--a win for our side.

As to Hitler etc, it's murderous totalitarian ideologies that kill so many people. Some are atheist, some are not. And, we have atheist ideologies that are not totalitarian. I think this would be a better rebuttal than the mustache comment. But note also that O'Reilly didn't ask the "where do you get ethics" question.

O'Reilly accepted the secularist point (a win for us) then countered with the "moderating influence" bit. Clealy, religion is a destabilizing influence that was brought under control by the "wall of separation". Anyway, Dawkins may not have heard this before and I'd like to know where O'Reilly gets it. American history is being rewritten by the wingnuts. So, you can't trust anything wingnuts say about American history. They will rewite and corrupt any domain of knowledge to fit their dogma and politcal agenda. See the book "Liars for Jesus".
http://www.liarsforjesus.com/

Except for the "moderating influence" idea and the Communist murders, I think Dawkins did very well. Really, O'Reilly didn't try to portary Dawkins as a baby eating monster which is what I expected him to do. It seems that O'Reilly is not as much of a religious fanatic as I'd thought; he's got some real uncertainty going on inside I'd say, and it shows. Win for our side.

O'Reilly even had praise for the book: "your book is fascinating". Win for our side.

429. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34250 by MelM on April 23, 2007 at 4:17 pm

OT

Some piece of U.S. Islamic Imam puke has decided that Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves a death sentence.
I dropped off a message of support on her blog; maybe a few others here will do the same. Frankly, I'm livid that some faith-head would condemn a person of independent mind.

And people can't understand why we want to stamp out religion!

Ayaan Hirsi Ali blog:
http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/ayaanhirsiali/2007/04/ayaan_hirsi_ali_1.html#comment-18956222

430. U.N. Panel OKs Measure on Islam

Comment #28943 by MelM on March 31, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Re: UN video
I also watched the video about some comments where the speaker was "thanked." Wow!

Bad news from Romania.
I sometimes go to the American Atheists site and this post reminded me of something I saw months ago about an ominous law being pushed in Romania.
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-29-oct-2006.php
The article starts with:

Across the world, religious groups and their supporters are attempting to muzzle any remarks which criticize, question or "mock" their beliefs. They cite a number of disingenuous rationales – everything from combating "hate speech" to the claim that we must "respect" religious opinions.
The Romanian Humanists (http://www.humanism.ro/) are asking for international support in their campaign to stop the latest effort by government and religious authorities to muzzle criticism of religion. That country's Chamber of Deputies may soon adopt a rule that stipulates: "Any form, means, act or action of religious defamation and enmity, as well as any public offense against religious symbols, shall be prohibited in Romania."

431. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

Comment #28559 by MelM on March 29, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Non-existence, a rich source of characteristics.
God can have any power required to get him out of the terminal grasp of a logician. This is a big advantage when arguing in favor of something that doesn't exist; there's just no end to the handy characterists it can have. Even better, everybody knows you have no evidence and they don't want to be embarrassed by your embarrassment; so, they don't bring up that inconvenient fact.

Inate ideas
A religion gene? Arn't we getting close to the "inate idea" business that Locke had to fight against. One of the best arguments ever is to claim that we're all born with someone's favorite idea; shuts people up right away.

432. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28557 by MelM on March 29, 2007 at 5:43 pm

In some ways, a disappointing interview!

"...Christain culture..."?
What about Greek science and philosophy? I suppose this is an unfortunate incompete answer by Dawkins but it's exactly the position taken by the wingnuts--they use it to push a Christion version of history.

"...should be taught the Bible..."?
Right! The National Council On Bible Curriculum" and the "Bible Literacy Project" Trojan Horses will love to hear this from Richard Dawkins. Fits right in with the April 2 Times article. He surely doesn't advocate these wingnut curriculum ideas but the quote can be picked up anyway. Damn.

Jesus On Love: (The Brick Testament)
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_love/lk06_17p20p27.html


The interviewer did her homework though. She asked a lot of questions that listeners might ask. Man, we (Americans) are really all screwed up about religion. It makes me sad to see so many take it all so seriously.

BTW, the same questions over and over again is what will happen; get used to it. When Dawkins can't stand it anymore, then worry.

433. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #28537 by MelM on March 29, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Another resource: Chris Rodda's "Liars For Jesus" book and other writing at the Talk to Action web site. (Note: It looks to me that Talk to Action is not an atheist site.)

Book site:
http://www.liarsforjesus.com/

Paging down, we find a list of her articles connected to the National Council on Bible Curriculum.

Her theme here is the outrageous revision of history undertaken by the wingnuts. I've only started reading her material but it looks like a gold mine of rebuttals to wingnut American History. "Liars For Jesus" looks great but I can't find it locally and will have to order it.

My interest in this was upped when I read about the use of historical and cultural sidebars in the "Bible Literacy Project" book "The Bible and Its Influence." From the radio broadcast I mentioned in a comment above, the statement "...the Bible is the foundation document for Western civilization..." is so absurd that I expect little of value from the book's history sidebars. I also don't expect to see much worthwhile in the Art History sidebars, for example.

Rodda's expose of wingnut American History reminds me of the corruption under way in the sciences. Conclusion: Fundamentalists have chosen a head on collision with all domains of knowledge that get in the way of their dogma and agenda. They will rework and corrupt every field of thought to suit their "faith."

Rodda will be taking a closer look at BLP at some point. I hope she will dig deep enough to show that it's just another Trojan Horse although she thinks that it appears, at least so far, that they are being careful to stay within the law. My concern is whether or not the law is strong enough to keep this Trojan Horse out of the schools. I don't know, but if it isn't, we're screwed.

434. Believers are away with the fairies

Comment #28090 by MelM on March 27, 2007 at 10:52 pm

Defend reason, bash irrationalism.
An understanding of the nature of reason as well as the nature of irrational modes of thought (specifically, "faith") have to be promoted. For example, in the debate between McGrath and Atkins, Atkins would not let McGrath slip in any claim that atheism is just a faith. You've probably seen statements like "science is a religion" or "evolution is a faith". I think that theists understand that if they can wipe out the concept of reason, then their own pathetic indulgence in irrationalism can go uncriticised. Having watched the debate video, I think McGrath seems like a perfect example.

Wingnuts just don't get it.
An intellectual life based on the concepts of "reason", "reality", and "knowledge" is much different than one based on "fantasy", "faith", and "dogma". In particular, for a rational mind, reality is the ultimate reference and not any book--especially a holy book. To start any inquiry, wingnuts want to absorb the inerrant material in some holy book. I think religious people are lost when it comes to the very foundations of knowledge and reason. They also don't seem to understand that causality is inherent in nature--nothing outside is needed. Everyone uses this fundamental idea every day but religionists haven't integrated it into a general abstraction. Even creationists who would accept "God did it." in science, would never accept such an answer from an auto mechanic tracking down a strange noise.

Reason is under attack from elsewhere.
But, reason is under attack from sources other than religion. I think this general philosophical envirenment is why religion has gotten so powerful--there are few around these days who would disagree with its anti-reason basis. (If reason were alive and valued in the world, religion would be dead.) During a period of my life when I wasn't looking, something happened that I thought was impossible. When I found the book "The Flight From Science and Reason", I was shocked.
http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Science-Reason-Academy-Sciences/dp/0801856760/ref=sr_1_1/104-7079336-6081544?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175058283&sr=1-1
You may recognize the author Paul Gross. He's also co-author of "Creationism's Trojan Horse" with Barbara Forrest.

Write e-mails or letters fighting the Trojan Horses.
In the short term, it's important to be able to identify and dissect Trojan Horses like "ID", "teach the controversy", "teach critical thinking", and "teach Bible Literacy" as well as other bits of ideological "spin" such as wingnut claims about "free exercize of religion"--a fairly regularly seen gimmick in the U.S. Sadly, it looks like people who didn't fall for "ID" are falling for the "Bible Literacy" scam. It'll be interesting to see if all those so interested in protecting biology from religion will be as interested in protecting all other domains of thought.

435. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #28061 by MelM on March 27, 2007 at 7:07 pm

It must be pointed out that the BLP curriculum project contains lots more than just Bible reading. Note the sidebars.
http://www.bibleliteracy.org/Site/Book/index.htm

The student textbook [The Bible and Its Influence] is a hardcover, full-color, 387-page volume that covers the content of Genesis to Revelation. It is described as "a feast for the eyes" for its spectacular beauty and contains some of the world's most famous art, as well as sidebar features on how the Bible has influenced literature, poetry, music, art, history, public rhetoric, and Western civilization. Special one-or two-page features include Abraham Lincoln and the Bible, Handel's Messiah, The Bible and Emancipation, Shakespeare and the Bible, plus many more.

436. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #28059 by MelM on March 27, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Are the two "Bible Literacy" curriculum organizations and their supporters interested in "Bible Literacy" or is this just another Trojan Horse with the aim of creating believers?

National Council of Bible Curriculum
http://www.bibleinschools.net/sdm.asp

"The Bible was the foundation and blueprint for our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, educational system, and our entire history until the last 20 to 30 years"
...
"The world is watching to see if we will be motivated to impact our culture, to deal with the moral crises in our society, and reclaim our families and children."

"Through your own children and friends is there a local principal, teacher, curriculum developer, superintendent, or school board member who would be interested in considering our curriculum? All we are asking for is a few minutes of your time and influence."
...
Summarizing some of Sheila Weber's (VP of Comunications for BLP) comments on Pilgrim Radio: "...the Bible is the foundation document for Western civilization..." "...unfortunately, because of the law, we can't present the Bible a bit more like it would be presented in Sunday school in a church setting..."

"It seems clear to me that Stetson, the 59-year-old founder of the BLP, has a sectarian, rather than an academic, motive for his campaign."
...
"Ac­cor­ding to a Sept. 28 column by Colson, Stetson is a "Wilberforce Cen­tur­ion," a graduate of Col­son's year-long training program in­tended to recruit Christian men and women who will "restore our culture by ef­fec­tively thinking, teaching, and advocating a biblical world­­view as applied to all of life." Cen­turions "make a life­long commitment to…shape culture by living out a biblical worldview in their spheres of influence.""
...

"... but at the same time, there is little acknowledgement that the Bible has also served as a major resource for pro-slavery and pro-segregationist forces or that women have been — and still are, in many cases — treated as subject to male authority because of fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible."

437. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #27808 by MelM on March 26, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Link to a list of written descriptions of images in the Bible. "The ABC's of the Bible" Comiled by the "Freedom From Religion Foundation"
http://ffrf.org/timely/abcsbible.php

Seeing a list like this might convince a school board that teaching the Bible in schools is not a hot idea.

Then, there's always the Dark Bible.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

438. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #27802 by MelM on March 26, 2007 at 7:09 pm

We'll just have to insist on "teach the controversy" and "teach critical thinking" within the "Bible Literacy" classes. Maybe a little sticker could be added to each book: "This is just fantasy, not a fact."

439. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #27800 by MelM on March 26, 2007 at 6:52 pm

davyB,

Yes, I read somewhere that the states were now going to get lots of attention. There's more to this than one person on the phone.

I found a link: "The Theocratic Agenda Is Heading for a Statehouse Near You"
http://www.alternet.org/rights/48977/

440. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #27797 by MelM on March 26, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Here's a link to the Creation Evidence Museum mentioned in the article. A most excellent literary resource indeed!
http://www.creationevidence.org/


Note the artricle's conclusion:

And, oh yes, there should be one faith test. Faith in our country. Sure, there will be bumps along the way. But in the end, what is required in teaching about the Bible in our public schools is patriotism: a belief that we live in a nation that understands the wisdom of its Constitution clearly enough to allow the most important book in its history to remain vibrantly accessible for everyone.

441. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #27785 by MelM on March 26, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Note that the article is from April 2, 2007 Time Magazine--a big deal in the U.S.

"Bible Literacy" is yet another Trojan Horse! Fanatics cashing in on the noise and controversy created by the fanatics themselves:

"Take creationism," he offers. "Unless enthusiasticyou are literate in the first two chapters of Genesis, you have no idea what people are fighting about."

442. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27481 by MelM on March 24, 2007 at 9:42 pm

Making something from nothing--an open question it seems. Hmmmm. How can one make a car with no parts or a house with no building materials? Tough problems indeed; very tough!

443. The many forms of fundamentalism

Comment #27470 by MelM on March 24, 2007 at 6:53 pm

One way or the other, they're getting into the U.S. schools.

Caution: starts with loud music. National Council on Bible Curriculum.
http://www.bibleinschools.net/
Claims curriculum has been voted into 382 school districts in 37 states.

Then we have the book "The Bible and Its Influence" from Bible Literacy Project.
http://www.bibleliteracy.org/Site/index2.htm
Claim: "After first 18 months, The Bible and Its Influence, is used in 83 school districts in 30 states" Note that the Time Magazine article link is for April 2, 2007. (Yup, that's what the cover looks like.)

I wonder if there will be any "teach the controversy" or "critical thinking skills" content to this curriculum?

444. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27448 by MelM on March 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Teach the controversy. Teach critical thinking skills.

445. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #27245 by MelM on March 23, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Comtemptible, irrational, religious superstitions should not be indulged and should not be woven into regulations and laws. The more superstition is indulged, the worse it will get. If some people feel hurt, it's their own fault and not ours. "Sensitivity" to the irrational is wrong, wrong, wrong.

446. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #27233 by MelM on March 23, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Hopefully, this outrage will put an end to the idea of two sets of laws.

"Reaction to the decision has been almost as sulfurous as it was to the cancellation of the opera."

447. Brain Injury Said to Affect Moral Choices

Comment #27020 by MelM on March 22, 2007 at 9:59 pm

I'm reminded of a show in the "Secrets of the Dead" series about a connection between some really crazy behavior of early "witches" and a disease in wheat. As I recall, there was even a case in France in the 1950s. I thought the scientists had a pretty good case. On the other hand, a "twinkie" defense for murder is probably stretching things a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense

I remember some pills giving me unusual anger pangs; I got myself off them immediately--and didn't wait around to find out what would happen. Seeing what was happening but allowing the anger to grow would, I think, have made me guilty if something had happend. And, drinking too much (thus impairing the brain) doesn't get one out of a drunk driving charge--and shouldn't.

448. Brain Injury Said to Affect Moral Choices

Comment #27017 by MelM on March 22, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Save your brain - such damage could even turn you religious!

449. Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

Comment #26996 by MelM on March 22, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Riley,thanks for your response.

Yes, a critical issue is the cognitive priority believers (and others) give to feelings above thought and respect for reality. My approach is to take such "feeling" statements and convert them into statements about real things, thus trying to give people the chance to see what being in focus is like.

I absolutely agree that something positive is necessary. That's why an answer to the ethics challenge is so important.

As to using God in my discussions, I don't think I'm capable of doing that; but, thanks for your example.

Part of my thinking is that a religious herd is a way of trying to escape the fear of using our own minds when faced with the fact that we are all fundamentally cognitively alone in the world. Belief in a revealed religion gives people the "benefit" of not having to think--it gives them "knowledge" that they feel themselves completely inadequate to discover; indeed, thinking becomes dangerous because it threatens salvation. If this is the foundation of religion, it should provide a base for designing attacks. Anyway, this is one approach I'm giving some thought to.

450. Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

Comment #26836 by MelM on March 21, 2007 at 10:34 pm

"Saving" wingnuts? When someone completely rejects reason, he can't be reached. Believers erect mechanisms that lock them out of reality. Re this from AiG:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/canada/newsletters/0303lead.asp#f1

"Time and time again, we have insisted that it is essential to understand that all evidence is interpreted on the basis of 'pre-suppositions.' As Christians, we must recognize that all of our thinking—in every area—should be built upon the history revealed in God's Word. By doing this, you then have the correct 'big picture' way of understanding the universe so that the evidence of the present can be interpreted correctly.

Sadly, many Christians often succumb to the non-Christian's challenge to provide evidence for the existence of God, creation and the Christian faith, etc., without using the Bible. When you agree to these terms of the debate, however, then you are answering a person 'according to [i.e. within the terms of] his folly.'

In other words, the Christian has accepted the non-Christian's presuppositions (that thinking is not to be built on the Bible), and thus, by default, he has only the non-Christian's way of thinking to interpret the evidence. Such a person cannot 'win' the argument because he has no true foundation (God's Word) on which to correctly (and differently) interpret the evidence. The Christian might try to use a different interpretation of the evidence (consistent with a Biblical foundation), but without acknowledging the foundation, the argument will likely fail."