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

John_T's Profile

John_T's Avatar Joined about 5 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by John_T

More Discussions by John_T

Latest Comments by John_T

Go to: No, not Eagleton again!

John_T's Avatar Jump to comment 177 by John_T

Styrer - Comment #156

Styrer: ..than being termed a 'cunt' three hundred times over.


You incredibly idiotic, foolish child, you termed yourself a "thick cunt" (in just one case I saw), you "thick cunt".

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:07:00 UTC | #375057

Go to: Fault Lines - Religion in the military

John_T's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by John_T

Hypnos7 - Comment #24

Hypnos7: It seems that we require data comparing the religiosity of the military with that of the civilian population..


Michael Shermer, in the SkepticBlog I posted above [#8], reports:

M. Shermer: That is more than a little unfortunate, because the military has actually lagged behind the general population in religiosity, with 20% of the roughly 1.4 million active-duty personnel telling the Department of Defense that they have “no religious preference,” which is higher than the 16.1% of the American public who tick the same box on similar surveys conducted by Gallup and others (although among active military only .5% — one half of one percent — call themselves “atheist” or “agnostic”, whereas around 8% of the general public does). The other 80% identify with evangelical or Pentecostal (22%), Catholic (19%), another 20% as “Christian” (incorporating other Christian sects), and assorted other religions, but next to no Jews (1/300) or Muslims (1/400).


Michael is also referencing this interesting piece by Jeff Sharlet:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/0082488

As to some of the comments about personal experience - I may add, obviously without knowing all the details of the situation or personal experience (and I don't pretend I know at this time) - that it seems from the Sharlet story, Shermer's account and a bit from the Fault Lines video that this is a rather "new" movement, or more engaged as a movement at this time.

Sharlet, after briefly providing a background of fundamentalism in the military over the past decades offers these thoughts:

Sharlet: Today, fundamentalism, based as it is on a vigorous assertion of narrow and exclusive claims to truth, can no longer justify common cause with secularism. In its principal battle, the front lines are not in Iraq or Afghanistan but right here, where evangelical militants must wage spiritual war against their own countrymen. In a lecture for OCF titled “Fighting the War on Spiritual Terrorism,” Army Lieutenant Colonel Greg E. Metzgar explained that Christian soldiers must always consider themselves behind enemy lines, even within the ranks, because every unsaved member of the military is a potential agent of “spiritual terrorism.” Even secularists with the best intentions may be part of this fifth column, Air Force Brigadier General Donald C. Wurster told a 2007 assembly of chaplains, noting that “the unsaved have no realization of their unfortunate alliance with evil.”


[emphasis added]

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:22:00 UTC | #374616

Go to: Pastor Urges His Flock to Bring Guns to Church

John_T's Avatar Jump to comment 164 by John_T

Steve Zara,

I have found one quote that goes along with what I remember Richard forwarding.

It's from The God Delusion [pg. 196]:

R. Dawkins: My original purpose in advocating memes, indeed, was to counter the impression that the gene was the only Darwinian game in town - an impression that The Selfish Gene was otherwise at risk of conveying.

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:25:00 UTC | #374526

Go to: Pastor Urges His Flock to Bring Guns to Church

John_T's Avatar Jump to comment 162 by John_T

Steve Zara - Comment #165

I wouldn't disagree with you there, Steve. That is basically the "subject" I am referring. If I can find Richard's quote on the issue, I'll post it up. But, I do recall him saying the reason for offering the discussion and word in The Selfish Gene was to distract in a way from the book being viewed as an argument for genetic determinism.

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:11:00 UTC | #374519

Go to: RDF TV - The Baloney Detection Kit

John_T's Avatar Jump to comment 215 by John_T

MarshallEvans - Comment #211

MarshallEvans: in fact the IPCC model does take into consideration natural forcing (like solar activity, volcanos, etc) but those variables must be assumed to make predictions into the future. Would the analysts have had the ability to measure into the future the IPCC model would have made the correct predictions. This is a STRAWMAN argument..


To play devils advocate, since it would appear I agree with much of your argument, but capitalizing these words, like "strawman" and "shameful" brings out my evil side.

It almost appears that you are arguing "solar activity" has no predictive power? It would appear some data may disagree, such as past temperature events on planet earth and recognized increases in temperature on at least one other planet that I know of, Mars. One interpretation of this of course could mean that if we can accurately correlate (recognizing the problem of drawing correlations) changes in temperature on other planets with our planet earth, then "solar activity" may predict to some degree our own temperature rise. Also, predictive power can also be said in that what are likely explanations for observed phenomena.

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:54:00 UTC | #374512

More Comments by John_T