This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

jhuxley's Profile

jhuxley's Avatar Joined almost 3 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by jhuxley

More Discussions by jhuxley

Latest Comments by jhuxley

Go to: The Invisible Burka: Why women need secularism

jhuxley's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by jhuxley

By one analysis women are the most important bloc for this upcoming election, and yet it seems that the Republicans are proactively seeking to remain unelectable by courting the theocrats that are seeking to persecute this very demographic. The more the religious push their agenda into policy, the greater the alienation of moderates and reasonable people--and these are the folks that decide election outcomes. I wouldn't be surprised if this intrusion into women's reproductive healthcare and erosion of their civil rights proves to be a defining moment in the GOP's failure this coming November.

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 22:41:16 UTC | #929451

Go to: Alvin Plantinga and Intelligent Design

jhuxley's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by jhuxley

“You really can’t sensibly claim theistic belief is irrational without showing it isn’t true,”

Curious how people who believe in the supernatural, whether unlettered or respected academics, always eventually insist that their interlocutor prove a negative. I'm very tired of this predictable dishonesty.

“I think there is such a thing as a sensus divinitatis, and in some people it doesn’t work properly,” he said, referring to the innate sense of the divine that Calvin believed all human beings possess.

I'm reading Dr. Andy Thompson's book right now, and it appears that he would be in vehement agreement with this point, but he critically notes that there are probably evolutionary reasons why most human beings believe in (mostly) anthropomorphized god(s). (On this point it seems more reasonable to defer to credentialed neuroscientists and psychiatrists rather than philosophers). But the highly educated do not because reason and critical thinking unarguably usurp these base, superstitious beliefs in most subjects.

...who was raised as a Presbyterian and who embraced the Calvinism of the Christian Reformed Church...

With this subject not fitting into the 'most' category due to indoctrination and social conditioning. As a Presbyterian he will hold dear the Westminster Confession, a core doctrine that labels the Pope as the anti-Christ in the original edition (article V.). And he's making an argument that non-theists are irrational... Extraordinary.

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:49:00 UTC | #898944

Go to: Godlessness has doomed Britain

jhuxley's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by jhuxley

" the faith-based values of the country’s founders"

Excuse me? If that was true the founders would have been appalled at the idea of a constitutionally secular nation, surely. (Not withstanding the overwhelming evidence that the most lauded founders were deeply critical of religion). Why are people of faith so predictably dishonest?

"Atheism is a philosophy of nihilism"

I think this is what psychologists called "projection".

Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:35:54 UTC | #846441

Go to: Creationist literature attacks human chromosome number 2 fusion point

jhuxley's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by jhuxley

Also, the man, Jerry Bergman, who has supposedly done this research to "prove" that the human chromosome 2 did not fuse or whatever, is also a professor or science at a real college, has NINE degrees, SEVEN of which are graduate degrees, (!!!!!!!)

Including an associates from a community college and a PhD from a non-accredited institution. He'd better be careful prefixing him name with 'Dr.' when traveling, because in some states that could get him in trouble (i.e. Oregon, and especially Texas where it is a misdemeanor).

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:09:04 UTC | #842350

Go to: Creationist literature attacks human chromosome number 2 fusion point

jhuxley's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by jhuxley

The creationist I was debating provided me with this link:

Why bother rebuking? It doesn't remotely qualify as credible, and as a consequence your creationist friend has acquitted himself of being qualified for honest debate. One: three references are included but not referenced in the text so it is not possible to reconcile what point relates to what journal on what pages for validity and further research for interested scholars. Presumably they are only listed to give the source some kind of credibility, because two of them are respected peer-reviewed journals. Two: the source of one reference is not a respected peer-reviewed journal (and in fact self-published by the disgraceful ICR) and the only author which is expanded upon as a footnote in italics is for the non-respected journal to presumably give him some credibility. A cursory glance at this author's '' page shows that he has does not have any published work in any respected peer-reviewed journal. It is probably reasonable to assume that the two respected journals have been cited in the unqualified paper by an author that does not appear to have any peer recognition.

I'd consult the referenced article in the Acts & Facts 'journal' for giggles, but it is not available at my University, presumably because it has no academic or intellectual value.

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 19:54:23 UTC | #842345

More Comments by jhuxley