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

Comments by rrh1306

Go to: A Baltimore Catechism for the New Atheists

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by rrh1306

This is off topic Quine, but I think you'll enjoy hearing that David Barton's book "The Jefferson Lies" has been pulled by his publisher's because they've quote “lost confidence in the book’s details".

Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:40:32 UTC | #950682

Go to: A Baltimore Catechism for the New Atheists

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by rrh1306

Let's take a look at the most strident accusation's that Atheist makes versus the Theist.

Atheist " Your belief in god is deluded and irrational. You can't hack it in reality so you have to live in a ridiculous fantasy world. You and your beliefs are dumb".

Pretty mean spirited. Now for the Theist.

Theist
Atheist have no morals and only reject god so they can be horrible, sinful people. An Atheist thinks they are the most important, intelligent being in the universe. An Atheist is their own god. If Atheist had half a chance they wouldn't think twice about committing mass murder on an apocalyptic scale to farther goals.

It's mean to say call someone stupid but I think it's on a whole other level to call someone a murderer in waiting. I don't know about you Susan, but that kind of thinking still shocks every time I hear it. I've heard it enough that it shouldn't, but I'm still blown away that anyone believes that.

Comment 15 by susanlatimer :

It is a fortress of impenetrable dogma over there.

The same old canards. Over and over and over.

Here's the last comment:

I wonder what atheists would say about the state of nature where God was "nowhere" in society of the brutish? Granted that even if there is a social contract to keep the weak alive, what will the norms or framework of this contract be based on? Between the survival of the fittest and the protection of the weak there has to be an 'equalizer' that keeps the weak from being annihilated. In a state of nature, it is safe to assume that all who survive in that state are atheists.

Will it ever end? They need to villify atheists in order to protect themselves from the reality of their own poor reasoning and moral stuntedness. It's a stink pit.

Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:45:56 UTC | #950629

Go to: A Baltimore Catechism for the New Atheists

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by rrh1306

I missed the big Atheist canonization event were all atheist decided to have the same opinions on free will, and were the first something came from. I also find it perplexing and lame that Theist so love to sarcastically joke about Atheist's hope that humanity can make a better future for it's self.

Oh and what's their great answer to every major question.....Magic. Shame on us for proposing answer's that don't involve magic.

Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:00:57 UTC | #950448

Go to: Teaching science in public schools without stepping around religion

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by rrh1306

It's funny to listen to more liberal religious people talk about huge natural disasters. God has a great plan and is controlling everything until a tsunami kills a hundred thousand people. Then they become naturalist all the sudden and explain that it was simple plate tectonics that is to blame.

Comment 58 by VrijVlinder :

Yes one would think that and it is true in everyone who studies the universe.

The theist indoctrinators also want the kids to learn science and be inspired and filled with awe !! But not at the universe or science but at god's magnificent creation. And after the awe worship the creator bail on science.!! And of course never mention god also creates floods and forest fires and earthquakes and tsunami that kill thousands ....

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:21:16 UTC | #949530

Go to: Refuting supernatural

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 102 by rrh1306

Big assed natural. I might have to steal that one.

Comment 64 by susanlatimer :

I try to remain open-minded. So far, "supernatural" might just as well be called "superdupernatural" or "big-assed" natural or "Extreme" natural.

Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:47:57 UTC | #949333

Go to: Refuting supernatural

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 101 by rrh1306

I think when most theist say supernatural what they really mean is off limits.

Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:40:52 UTC | #949332

Go to: Prayer at a working lunch?

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by rrh1306

I guess if your intent on not "outing" yourself then next time he trys to bless your food or something just tell him that you appreciate the gesture but talking religion at work makes you uncomfortable. If he asks you about your religions beliefs tell him that you have your own ideas about religion and again don't feel comfortable discussing them at work.

I nonchalantly tell anyone who asks that I'm atheist and I've never had a problem with it but I don't know your situation so you've got to do what you think is right. Good luck.

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 22:22:58 UTC | #948661

Go to: Watch Sneak Preview of FFRF TV commercial starring Julia Sweeney

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by rrh1306

"Letting go of god" is worth a watch.

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 17:26:27 UTC | #946586

Go to: In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by rrh1306

It's funny how these kind of polls are almost never mentioned on major news channels in the U.S. I bet if a poll came out that said 46 percent of American's believe that the sun revolves around the Earth, there would be news segments with people asking how we could improve science education in America and get out of sad state were in. But a poll like this comes out that is equally staggering, and everyone is mute on it. Maybe because talking about the subject has an air of political incorrectness about it. Or maybe it's because a hand full of cooperate entities control the major media outlets in the U.S and the current anti-science, believe what you want mind set is good for business. Either way there's a giant elephant in the room that no body in the media seems to care to talk about.

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:09:52 UTC | #945556

Go to: In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by rrh1306

Comment Removed by Author

Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:52:08 UTC | #945334

Go to: In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by rrh1306

41 percent of democrats polled think that the planet is 10,000 years old. That's real encouraging.

Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:51:26 UTC | #945333

Go to: Why I watched a snake-handling pastor die for his faith

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by rrh1306

“His faith is what took him home,” said his sister Robin Vanover, 38.

That's why religious belief is such a tough nut to crack. Even when it doesn't work (he's not protected from the snake), it works (his faith took him home).

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:05:30 UTC | #945046

Go to: Evolution skeptics will soon be silenced by science: Richard Leakey

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 43 by rrh1306

Here's a comment from yesterday on another thread.

"Let's see, how many skeletons have been reconstructed from a tiny amount of actual bone and the rest from human imagination ? How many "neanderthals" and other human forms, or what was hoped to have been some intermediate, have been reconstructed from very small amounts of actual remains and very large amounts of human imagination? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, you can't just rebuild an animal or human to fit what someone, who already doesn't want there to be a creator, would like for it to be with so little actual remains to prove it and call it good. Surely you also must know that scientists, that are wanting Darwin to be completley right, assume an age for something, then choose a dating method that they believe will yield them a result that closely matches what they already wanted it to be. Then if it doesn't match, they keep testing it until they get the result they are looking for and don't report all their finds until they have what they want.

Dating methods have assumptions built into them to start with. Those dating methods are built on assumptions that certain things, like the amount of carbon in the atmosphere for example, have remained constant forever. But exactly what the atmosphere was like millions of years ago, or before anyone was measuring it or could measure it, no one can really know, but they can only assume. The method is not nearly as unbiased as one would be led to believe."

There ya go. Science is one big atheist conspiracy. Didn't you know?

Tue, 29 May 2012 17:56:27 UTC | #944268

Go to: Update - Podcast June 5 Interview with Peter Boghossian - "Faith: Pretending to know things you don't know"

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by rrh1306

Hi jimbojim.

I've seen Christian's use this example of faith before to show that it can be practical but the problem is I've never seen anyone use the word faith like that in real life. Such as....I've got faith my wife went to Walmart instead of Target. Or I've got faith my dog will greet me when I get home. People just don't use the word that way. People that make this argument seem to be mixing up the word faith with the word expect. Your wife expects the train to come because it comes just about every day. I don't see how the example of your wife expecting to catching a train that's almost all ways there has anything to do with the religious faith it takes to believe a deity exists and loves you personally.

Comment 50 by jimbobjim :

As I said Faith has more than one meaning but if I was to define what I mean by faith (in this context) is ""trust" in the unseen based on previous experience/evidence" and on that basis we all have faith. For example, my wife catches a train every morning, she stands on the platform at 7.15am and atrain comes, she gets on and 15 minutes later she arrives at work. Tomorrow she will do the same, not seeing the train, she has faith that the train will turn up and take her to work. (granted it might not) but she has faith that it will.

Thu, 24 May 2012 19:30:38 UTC | #943338

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 61 by rrh1306

That question has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus was a divine being.

Comment 53 by T. stillson :

One last question... How did life begin???

Wed, 23 May 2012 19:05:24 UTC | #943165

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 60 by rrh1306

Hello again. I didn't assume any of those scenarios happened. I was merely trying to demonstrate that there's more than way one to get an empty tomb. And that's considering that the tomb was even empty in the first place. The claim that Jesus was resurrected from the dead is a hell of a claim and for me, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can believe whatever you like. But if you post your beliefs hear expect them to be challenged because debate and evidence based evaluations are the basis of this site.

Comment 41 by T. stillson :

@rrh1306

The answer would be, that I DO NOT know as a result of having been there to witness it. The empty tomb is only a possible indicator you see. If there were bones in that grave site, then we would have to deal with that, but there are no bones in either of the two possible locations. And wouldn't you agree with me that all the things you're assuming could have happened is no more, solid, undeniable proof that it actually happened that way, than what I'm assuming happened is, solid, undeniable proof that it happened the way I choose to believe?? Thank you!!!

Wed, 23 May 2012 19:02:41 UTC | #943164

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 32 by rrh1306

Hi again.

Comment 17 by T. stillson :

Comment 11 by rrh1306

Hi T.stillson

Proof that Jesus was a deity or the son of a deity would be a good start.

OK, well I would probably start with the fact that we do live some 2000 years removed from the time that Jesus was on the earth. The reason I say that is because any part of history, that we haven't actually seen with our own 2 eyes, must be taken by faith in the writings of those who did witness the event(s). For example, I never saw Napolean or Alexander the Great, and what they did or didn't do, with my own eyes, and neither did anyone that's alive today. But I choose to believe, or reject, for myself what history tells us about them.

S. Cat pretty much nailed it but I would like to add that your never forced to choose to believe or reject whether or not Napoleon or Alexander walked on water, or cast out demons, or rose from the dead or preformed any other feat that's never been seen in the whole of human history.

I have actually spent quite a lot of time researching what secular writers, from the first century, had to say about Jesus. You'll find that Flavious Josephus (who was a Pharisee)mentions Jesus in the Anitquities of the jews, and that Jesus did wonderful works. I am aware of the people who say that those writings have been altered so I went elswhere too. Tacitus referred to "Christus" (Christ) in Tacitus: Annals Book 15 [44]. http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a15040.htm....Also,Pliny the Younger comments on the "Christians" who's name came from Christ.

All ready covered by other people.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm#text5

So, if we believe what even secular writers, people who, in their day were VERY much like the Richard Dawkins' of today, have to say regarding the existence of Jesus, then we can agree that He, at least, was a real person that lived. From there we can look at what is said about Jesus and the TRUE first century followers of Jesus. (notice the links above)....And what Jesus said about himself. I know, I know, you're saying, but what difference does it make if he says it about himself. The primary difference lies in what Jesus claimed about himself as compared to ANY other spiritual leader of all time. No one claimed to be the Son of God, no one healed people that were born blind, and no one ever healed anyone that had been crippled for 40 years. Jesus said.."John 14:11 Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me. Or at least believe because of the work you have seen Me do." And.."John 15:24 "If I hadn't done such miraculous signs among them that no one else could do, they would not be guilty. But as it is, they have seen everything I did, yet they still hate Me and My Father". Either someone else could do what Jesus did , or they couldn't.

Your just quoting the bible.

What other spiritual leader has done, or even claimed to do, what He did ? I personally know of none. Jesus also rose from the dead after three days. I understand that that's a difficult thing for one to believe, but either He did or He didn't. We know where the bones of Muhammad are, where the ashes of Buddha are, where the bones of Confucious are and so, but the grave of Jesus is empty.

How do you know that, and why does an empty tomb automatically mean Jesus can back to life? Maybe the roman's moved him so the tomb wouldn't become some sort of shrine. Maybe a couple of followers tried, unbeknownst to the larger group, to move his body to a site they found more fitting. In the process they were seen by roman guards. They tried to fight them but were killed and their bodies, along with Jesus's, were dumped in a common grave leaving all the other followers to wonder what happen to the body(B.E.). Or maybe some faithful follower who really believed Jesus was the messiah thought that if he moved his body and made it seem like he'd disappeared they could win more converts and make the world a better place. A little white lie for the greater good.

Last but not least , is the question of who would willingly die for something they KNEW was a lie. I'm talking about the first century followers and the Apostles that knew Jesus personally and witnessed the miracles that God performed through Him and were killed by people who opposed them.

I don't believe that they thought it was a lie. I'm sure they did believe. The Heaven's Gate alien cult believed enough to commit mass suicide in order for their souls to hope aboard the ufo following the hale bopp comet. That doesn't mean the their beliefs were true. And all we have regarding the apostles are stories written down 40 to 80 years after Jesus's death, informed by oral tradition, and written down by god knows who in a language Jesus didn't speak.

Tue, 22 May 2012 19:25:38 UTC | #942922

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by rrh1306

Hi T.stillson

Proof that Jesus was a deity or the son of a deity would be a good start.

And if you click the quotation mark at the bottom of someone's comment it will highlight their previous statement and you can response to it without having to rewrite what they said.

Comment 8 by T. stillson :

I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. What kind of evidence are you looking for.

Mon, 21 May 2012 18:57:42 UTC | #942640

Go to: Texas's war on history

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by rrh1306

Yeah he nailed it. AmeriGod.

Comment 17 by Quine :

The Thinking Atheist has a podcast up on YouTube, The Marketing of Religion, in which (starting at about 0:21:30) Jerry DeWitt from the Clergy Project presents his concept of the AmeriGod as a mutation of Xanity produced by these bible belt conservatives.

Fri, 18 May 2012 18:20:32 UTC | #942207

Go to: Texas's war on history

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by rrh1306

I watched the video a few days ago from your link on the "The Myth of America’s Christian Heritage" thread and all I can say is, what a fucking liar. I've been trying to understand the mentality of this guy and and other religious history revisionist. It's one thing to misrepresent a subject like evolution that I think most creationist don't properly understand in the first place. But for a (supposed) historian to purposely misquote someone or just plain make up a quote to support their narrative is something else. It's not being ignorant, or incredulous, it's straight up lying. If I was going to take a stab at the mind set of people like him it would be this.

I'm not sure if other people from the U.S. feel this way but it seems to me that the religious right in this country have their own unique religion. It's a religion were America is the center of the universe and U.S. conservative's are god's chosen people. And since that is true, of course America was founded as a Christian country by staunch evangelical Christians. And if there's no way to prove this truism at the moment, just make up something until all the real evidence shows up. Because they'd hate for people to get the wrong idea in the mean time...

Comment 13 by Quine :

This was a very good article. See my comment on another thread about the need to counter the lies put out by David Barton.

Fri, 18 May 2012 17:42:25 UTC | #942201

Go to: The Myth of America’s Christian Heritage

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by rrh1306

Your observation embiggens us all.

Comment 12 by ZenDruid :

Comment 11 by mjwemdee :

re Comment 9 by JCarr

'irregardless'

        ....?

Perfectly cromulent.

Wed, 16 May 2012 01:26:41 UTC | #941735

Go to: Unbelief in the pews

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 300 by rrh1306

Hi Matt. Sorry for the belated response. I've been out of town.

Comment 283 by Matt50 :

I am questioning if we should be so confident that the evolutionary explanations that form the central discourse on this site are so definite that one can base ones world-view upon them.

Well we both agree that humans evolved over time. You think god controlled it (but you all so except that natural selection plays a part in evolution which is kind of strange. Seems like you'd call it god selection) and I don't find any reason to believe in deities so I think that humans and their brains evolved naturally. I'm willing to except the possibility that sometime in the future scientist will show that natural selection was overemphasized in some respects when it comes to the evolution of animals. But what ever the missing piece is, if it does in fact exist, I think it will fall within the frame work of natural, unguided (by a deity at least) evolution.

And to be honest I'm not sure how much of my world view is based on evolution. It only tells me how I got here. It doesn't tell me how to live my life. I make those decisions.

Yes - I confess I do like mystery

I love mysteries too.

Sometimes the best common ground is just talking - its gets boring talking with people we agree with all the time.

I agree.

Thu, 10 May 2012 18:33:01 UTC | #940908

Go to: Unbelief in the pews

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 277 by rrh1306

Comment 276. Idol not ideal

Thu, 03 May 2012 21:50:34 UTC | #939446

Go to: Unbelief in the pews

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 276 by rrh1306

Hi again, Matt.

Maybe so. I suppose we'll have to wait and see. Though it has a lot going for it at the moment.

It seems like to me, from reading many of your post, that the point of you putting natural selection into question when it comes to explaining human behavior is to move human motivations into the area of mystery and then anything goes. I find you intelligent and can tell you've thought a lot about these issues, but if I were to level one criticism towards your scientific approach, it's that you seem to be more interested in finding mysteries then solving them. You might say that in finding these mysteries and paradoxes your actually figuring something out about reality. Figuring out that it makes no sense without an all loving creator. But I think in that kind of approach one can run the risk of making an ideal out of our current lack of knowledge.

It's tough to find come ground on issues like this when we both see the world so differently. But I do want to applaud your manner and willingness to respond to so many questions.

Comment 270 by Matt50 :

To be clear, I'm not really attempting to bring into question the idea of evolution or of natural selection. I'm trying (and failing) to point out that the current understanding of the significance of the role natural selection plays may well not remain as it is

Thu, 03 May 2012 20:51:24 UTC | #939434

Go to: Unbelief in the pews

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 250 by rrh1306

Maybe you'd find the idea of punctuated equilibrium more satisfying. In any case fossilization is a rare event and makes finding every gradual little change difficult.

Comment 244 by Matt50 :

Comment 241 by Tyler Durden :

Comment 239 by Matt50 :

As far as I know the evolution of the feather by gradualism remains un-evidenced.

Feather Evolution - Carl Zimmer (National Geographic): See: Sinosauropteryx

According to Zimmer:

"It was the fossil of a small, short-armed 125-million-year-old theropod, Sinosauropteryx, which had one extraordinary feature: a layer of thin, hollow filaments covering its back and tail. At last there was evidence of truly primitive feathers—found on a ground-running theropod. In short, the origin of feathers may have had nothing to do with the origin of flight.

Later, different lineages of theropods evolved various kinds of feathers, some resembling the fluffy down on birds today, some having symmetrically arranged barbs. Other theropods sported long, stiff ribbons or broad filaments, unlike the feathers on any living birds.

In the bird embryo these bristles erupt from tiny patches of skin cells called placodes. A ring of fast-growing cells on the top of the placode builds a cylindrical wall that becomes a bristle. Once the first filaments had evolved, only minor modifications would have been required to produce increasingly elaborate feathers."

I am suggesting that natural selection may not occupy the same dominant role in the scientific study of the mechanism of evolution, as it does in the discourse at Dawkins.net. However, in response to my post, you have provided evidence of feather intermediates which seems pretty clear-cut, for which I thank you - more power to you. (though para 2 seems a bit "creative")

But the point, of course, is that this gradualism is not well-evidenced in the fossil record, (except degenerately), and we can pick this up in the sense of the unusual relevance of the find in the article. This is not so much my view to have a go at you, but a well-known evolutionary main-stream view that questions the central role of natural selection in the overall process of evolution.

Matt

Tue, 01 May 2012 17:54:36 UTC | #938748

Go to: Religion as "comfort" to people in distress: fact or myth?

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 112 by rrh1306

The comment was only with respect to his invitation. " I invite you to join me in the truth as I have experienced it."

I do want to live. But to think that all is pointless and horrible without a god. That life can only be enjoyed if it last forever. And to grovel at the feet of a deity and beg it to tell me I'm important.... Well if I did that I wouldn't have wish to die because I'd all ready be dead. I do want to live Schrodinger's Cat. How true it is!

Comment 56 by Schrodinger's Cat :

Comment 52 by rrh1306

I'd rather die.

I find myself somewhat bemused by these sort of ' who wants to live forever, anyway ?' comments from atheists.

An appropriate comment from Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment....

"Where is it," thought Raskolnikov. "Where is it I've read that some one condemned to death says or thinks, an hour before his death, that if he had to live on some high rock, on such a narrow ledge that he'd only room to stand, and the ocean, everlasting darkness, everlasting solitude, everlasting tempest around him, if he had to remain standing on a square yard of space all his life, a thousand years, eternity, it were better to live so than to die at once! Only to live, to live and live! Life, whatever it may be!... How true it is!

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 19:08:36 UTC | #938439

Go to: Unbelief in the pews

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 227 by rrh1306

It's not just that the universe is big but old. And for 99.999 percent of it's existence it managed to get by with out us. It reminds me of the Mark Twain quote about man and the age of the Earth.

"Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno."

Being that it was 1901 he got the dates wrong, but our current understanding of the age of man and the Earth only amplifies his point.

No one is saying that there is no value to humanity. The contention is whether the Universe is all about us. And are you saying that your significance only comes from god? You don't feel any from your family or friends? Surely your significant to them.

Comment 213 by Matt50 :

Why does it follow from the observation that the universe is big and I am small, that I am insignificant? I guess that it does seems intuitive – and fits what we experience in life. But I can’t see any logical or rational reason that it must be so in your comment. (I don't think Prof Dawkins pursued this natural logical step)

However, I actually agree with you that I do not count – the Christian faith presents this in the context of difference in nature rather than difference in size or lifespan - that the God who made the universe, is so different in character than I am, that my "goodness or God-likeness" is insignificant. My significance does not come from myself but from God's love for me. This is why God's love is not a peripheral characteristic to comfort those scared of the dark. It is the primary principle of human significance, IMO.

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:20:22 UTC | #938425

Go to: Religion as "comfort" to people in distress: fact or myth?

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by rrh1306

I was just about to say more power to you until I read your comment on the genocide thread. Now I can only say one thing.......

Comment 50 by Nordic11 :

My faith has been an immeasurable comfort to me as I have battled cancer for the past seven years. God has given me peace where I should be experiencing depression. He has given me many glimpses of heaven, which have been a tremendous comfort to me. I often fear for my two young boys, but God has made it abundantly clear that they are in the palm of His hand. I also know that I will join the great cloud of witnesses when I die and cheer my sons on as they run their own races of faith. Despite overwhelming tragedy, my faith has given me peace, joy, contentment and a secure knowledge of an amazing eternal future.

When you guys face your own morality, I invite you to join me in the truth as I have experienced it.

I'd rather die.

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:35:16 UTC | #937538

Go to: Genocide: What is behind irrational evil perpetrated by ordinary people?

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 216 by rrh1306

Comment 214 by Nordic11 :

Again, I thought you guys did not believe in evil?

She's using it as an adjective to describe an act she finds horrible.

Isn't genocide just a product of evolution that serves some evolutionary purpose?

You tell us. Regardless, humans are sentient beings with the ability to think abstractly, to put our selves into other peoples shoes and empathize with them. Maybe you need omnipotence to help you feel pity for other people but some of us don't.

You don't lose sleep when one chimpanzee clan exterminates the members of a rival clan.

News flash. Humans aren't chimpanzee's. Just because someone doesn't think the whole universe was created for man doesn't mean they don't think humans are special.

Remember your mentor's quote, "the universe has no purpose, no evil and good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."  Humans are part of that pitiless indifference, and we are locked into our evolutionary tendencies.

Because this site is called Richard Dawkins.net doesn't mean we hang on every word he says. The idea of non-worship seems to be hard for the religious to understand. And once again just because the whole universe isn't holding it's breath with regards to the fate of humanity doesn't mean that were a worthless species. But I suppose only your deities opinion matters to you.

Wow, your philosophy is really not very cheery.

Only when viewed through a prism of cowardice and entitlement.

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:13:09 UTC | #937532

Go to: Unbelief in the pews

rrh1306's Avatar Jump to comment 148 by rrh1306

Hello.

Comment 133 by Just me :

If you believe that some of us are experiencing this, as science is trying to explain, then why on earth are you not trying to experience this same state of being? Maybe you're right about it being just an altered brain state. But even if you are, why not give it a shot?

Maybe I should. But I'm relatively content in the first place and frankly (sorry this is going to sound pretty condescending) I think these experiences could be a kind of coping mechanism for people desperately unhappy with how life is treating them.

Is listening to Krauss talk about getting two barely detectible particles from previously existing energy really getting you the same kind of satisfaction in your remaining short years that people described by scientists have in these spiritual states, or even how drug bugs feel when they're high?

No. My main appreciation of the beauty of life comes from my family and friends, and playing guitar with a bunch of people around a fire, listening to music, being outside on a cool autumn day, drinking a few beers and having a conversation was a good friend etc... You know the little things. But science does inspire me deeply. I do also feel a sort of "spiritual" state when I look at the Hubble deep field pictures. Or when I imagine the elements in my body being made in the heart of a star. Or when I think about the epic cosmic process that has lead to beings that can think for the universe, allow it to ask questions about it's self. The process that has allowed me to think, and feel, and enjoy life. It makes me feel very grateful that I get to be part of this experience.

I'm still reading articles/links and watching the conversation, but your final position is extremely depressing and hopeless - no matter how you shuffle and reshuffle it. Depressing and utterly hopeless. Yes, that obvious fact wouldn't make your position any more or less true.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I asked myself if this push to make people come to terms with knowing there isn't a god does not have a misery loves company aspect to it. I'm still considering it. Extremism in all faiths are clearly dying. It's not about making people believe there is no god vs annihilation anymore.

I personally don't have a problem with belief in a deity. It's the people that try to interrupt the will of the deity, I.E the religious, that I have a problem with. But if you come to an Atheist site and ask for explanations for experiences you've had with god I'm not sure what you expected them to say. Of course their going to offer an alternative explanation.

But if you believe that - then why not try to experience it? As scientists, or scientist wannbes - what greater science experiment is there?

I pray sometimes. Not because I'm depressed or unsatisfied with life but because I want to remain as open minded and non-dogmatic as I can. Nothing happens. Ever.

Dawkins explained how faith and science are on opposite spectrums. Faith is blind (btw, whatever my "faith" can be classified as now, it would no longer exist if not for my experiences, so I can't really call it faith - maybe faith in the sense that I tend to believe that it's not something else scientifically explainable), but science is a method of repeated attempts to falsify. Why on earth haven't any of you tried to meditate or pray in an attempt to falsify this presence - not a prayer for money, to see an undeniable miracle, or to have god show up at your front door - but an ernest knock and it shall be answered/seek and you will find kind of prayer?

See my previous comment. I get the idea that prayer is a self fulfilling prophecy. Believe and god will reach out to you.

What could you possible have to lose? Don't tell me "dignity". Some of your favorite scientists performed experiments that would make you blush. Most of you know this.

And don't tell me you know too much. I did too when I first asked. One more thing...I'm not trying to be a judgmental asshole. Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to offer something I think could help.

Thanks.

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:37:54 UTC | #937504