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

Comments by severalspeciesof

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 136 by severalspeciesof

Comment 133 by cynicaloptimistrealist :

2: The opponents of secularism and humanism are in the majority, not just in the, US but throughout the world. So sometimes it's best to fight the bigger battles in more liberal areas, thus winning more people over and isolating the more socially backward areas. After all the Westboro Baptist view on homosexuality wouldn't have been out of step 50 years ago, now they're so isolated that they have to resort to inbreeding, pretty soon they'll "evolve" a 6th finger which would make for amazing organ playing at their Sunday meetings.

Both the small and the big battles can be fought. And should be...

4: In taking a case you are relying on the legal interpretation, which is fraught with danger in a society where a large proportion of lawyers and judges hold superstitious beliefs, there examples are too numerous to mention where clearly incorrect legal decisions were made based on interpretation. I'm not sure if you've factored in the possibility of a publicity hungry wealthy evangelistic group setting up a well funded defense campaign backed by veterans groups and accompanied by the usual dirty publicity campaigns that such groups use to silence their opponents.

Always a danger, yes, but not taking it on will guarantee a win for the 'small stuff' for the religious by default...

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:08:59 UTC | #938465

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 126 by severalspeciesof

Comment 105, severalspecies of,

I suspect the cross in this case IS religious in nature (though it CAN fullfill other purposes)

How could a Latin cross not be a religious one? What do you mean?

Going to try and get some sleep now...

Good discussion.

I see your point, which actually reinforces (I hope) the gist of what I was trying to say. That even if one allows for the historical factor to keep the cross, in the end the cross IS religious and is giving respect (establishing preference) to christianity if other religious symbols are rejected. That, in the end, is in violation of the 1st amendment...

If this should go to court, it would be in the best interests of the fire department to make it abundantly clear that other religious symbols would be more than welcome on memorials, if they want to keep the cross...

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:29:52 UTC | #938414

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 105 by severalspeciesof

I find it interesting from some of the comments that think this is basically petty because it was erected over 90 years ago and that it is a ' cultural relic of remembrance appropriate for its time' and not a 'religious one' that that is some of the basic reasoning that the religious right uses to proclaim that erections of crosses on public lands is 'non-religious' for these reasons: 'They aren't really religious in nature' 'They don't establish or promote one religion over another', yet they cry foul and claim religious persecution when the crosses are rejected...

I suspect the cross in this case IS religious in nature (though it CAN fullfill other purposes) and I back the FFRF because of 1st amendment reasons, regardless of when the cross was erected since it was erected after the 1st amendment was passed...

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 03:41:44 UTC | #938284

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

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 107 by severalspeciesof

This may have been said already, but I think the issue 'Religion as comfort to people in distress' would depend on their core personality, though I can't even hazard a guess as to what type personality religion would be a comfort to...

And obviously it would depend upon the situation at hand...

My suspicions are that, in general, it may have been in the past more comfort than distress, otherwise it wouldn't still be around evolutionarily speaking...

Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:34:26 UTC | #938235

Go to: Church Puts Legal Pressure on Abuse Victims’ Group

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by severalspeciesof

What I want to know... Why isn't god defending the church? Why the lawyers? ;-)

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:49:10 UTC | #928543

Go to: Westboro Baptist Church to attend Reason Rally with special message for atheists

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 117 by severalspeciesof

Comment 111 by Quine :

Re Comment 103 by susanlatimer, thanks Susan, I made it through but have to go purge now. After a rest from it, I will write a blog entry taking apart their "arguments." President Nixon learned that its not the crime but the attempt to cover up the crime that can really get you. Some of this book it like that; the attempt to cover up their nonsense by constructing "reasonable" excuses only goes to make it stand out all the more. That would be useful to get up on the tubes before they try to "stump" us with it at the Reason Rally (which you know you should be attending!).

Consider posting it also on RDnet as a discussion...

Comment 113 by susanlatimer :

I can imagine. I just read an excerpt from the first chapter and I had to run and put on safety goggles half-way through.

I read that excerpt too... They have definitely slimed the terms 'faith' and 'reason' to the point of them becoming very slippery and devious...

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 04:26:39 UTC | #927332

Go to: Catholicism, Contraception and Secular Morality at Notre Dame by Sean Faircloth

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by severalspeciesof

Comment 21 by dandelion fluff :

Wait, wait, wait!

Paraphrasing: "If 98% of the people were tax cheats and liars, would the government claim it could force everyone to do that?"

No-one's trying to force anybody to use contraception. Mr Conference of Catholic Bishops, are you stupid or are you lying?

Ditto...

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:41:40 UTC | #924139

Go to: The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 373 by severalspeciesof

Comment 371 by Steve Zara

and prevent far-right groups, who are anything but allies in reason and science, from re-using material.

Wish I shared your optimism...

Being pedantic here, I would say "and lessen the chance that far-right groups, who are anything but allies in reason and science, from re-using material." ;-)

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:21:16 UTC | #915309

Go to: The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 370 by severalspeciesof

I've only had the chance to read through small sections in this thread, so correct me if I’m wrong and forgive me if someone else has said this earlier...

It appears that in this thread there have been two major (I’m generalizing) camps established. One camp is uncomfortable with this video being associated with a nutter, the other camp not at all uncomfortable with it. Both camps do however seem to agree that the issues of the video are grave...

My views are predicated upon the above (at this time) opinion…

I’m with the first camp…

Whether or not a view is correct, it will have a greater impact when it comes from a neutral source as any opposing view will have a harder time using a smear campaign against it by using the 'character' of the promoter as the smear. That’s reality. This is a site claiming to ‘promote reason’. Promotion is also campaigning...

It’s that simple…

As someone stated earlier (wish I had time to give proper credit), “My enemy’s enemy isn’t always my friend”. So one should be careful with one’s choice of enemy, even if they agree with you on a particular item.

There is no control over who comes across this site. Someone may be coming here puzzled/interested/whatever over the whole Muslim vs. other societies situation. They see this video, associate it with this site, a site that proclaims adherence to reason. They see the DH ‘stamp of approval’ to the video, and by sheer association of the video with this site, could think that DH may also be reasonable. It’s only human…

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:12:11 UTC | #915299

Go to: Something from nothing? A conversation with Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by severalspeciesof

I'll become an atheologian...

First order of the day: Make nothing out of something...

Second order: Review the term "argumentum ab rectum"

Asks question: Is this a paying job? :-)

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:11:47 UTC | #915020

Go to: Searching under the lamp-post

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by severalspeciesof

Comment 26 by Steve Zara : . Even an incredibly slow process of colonisation would have filled the galaxy on a timescale of millions of years, because of the exponential nature of growth. If any culture had launched replicating probes, they would be here because they would be everywhere.

I'm curious Steve, why would it necessarily have to be exponential growth? Couldn't there be extenuating circumstances (of what I'll admit to not knowing) that would prevent such growth?

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:03:45 UTC | #902903

Go to: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 279 by severalspeciesof

Some spot on humuor (from the Onion)

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:53:29 UTC | #899854

Go to: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 274 by severalspeciesof

...speechless... :(

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:41:08 UTC | #899842

Go to: The 50 Most Brilliant Atheists of All Time

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 39 by severalspeciesof

Yawn....

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:31:29 UTC | #889942

Go to: From where should atheists draw their "comfort"?

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 435 by severalspeciesof

Back to the topic at the beginning of this thread...

“If you take that away, what can atheism offer as comfort for people who are facing death, disease, deprivation or danger?”

‘Atheism’ can’t offer these things per se.

People can…

Indeed, even religion can’t offer these things per se though it 'thinks' so.

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 03:03:52 UTC | #872459

Go to: From where should atheists draw their "comfort"?

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 357 by severalspeciesof

No one has detected a thought molecule!

I did once, but then I woke up... ;-)

Sat, 17 Sep 2011 18:07:59 UTC | #871958

Go to: Evolution threatens Christianity

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 247 by severalspeciesof

Comment 246 by BJohn :

Caudimordax, your missing the point. We're not talking about the details of Eden and apples (I made a long comment about those details somewhere on page seven or eight when Quine asked the question in the first place). All I am trying to argue for is the existence of a single common human ancestor for all living human beings. So let's talk about that, okay? Don't try to win the argument by painting a straw man and ridiculing it. And please don't curse.

If any one created a strawman, it was the writer(s) of Genesis...

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:04:08 UTC | #865736

Go to: Morality without 'Free Will'

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by severalspeciesof

BJohn...

I'll take the bait at the moment:

But before anyone thinks too badly of me for my position, I might rephrase Mark's question and throw it right back at you all: Since monogamy and abstinece until marriage would effectively eliminate the HIV virus in one or two generations, do you support them?

First off, it wouldn't eliminate it completely, but for the sake of argument, let's say it does...

I would support that in the same way you would support the idea that if EVERYONE believed in and adhered to the religion of Islam, this would be paradise, right?

Second, if everyone followed these ideals, what good then is 'freewill'? (Comment 952)

P.S. lest there be any confusion, I do support monogamy and abstinence until marriage... For those who choose to do so and feel it's appropriate to do so...

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 01:32:17 UTC | #28

Go to: Jesus opposed the minimum wage?

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 74 by severalspeciesof

Comment 71 by rebro5

I don’t know of any better documented ancient historical event or person.

I don't know of any better propagandized ancient (claimed) historical event or person...

There, fixed it...

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:45:54 UTC | #638861

Go to: Jesus opposed the minimum wage?

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by severalspeciesof

Ah yes, to metaphor or not to metaphor...

Using metaphor in a life or death situation is the worst time and way to use it...

Think about it christians...

The whole crux of the bible is that of 'saving' your 'life'... and it's nearly all metaphor, starting from Genesis...

Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:37:34 UTC | #638400

Go to: Happy Birthday to Richard Dawkins

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 207 by severalspeciesof

Happy belated Birthday...

Sun, 27 Mar 2011 03:23:42 UTC | #607761

Go to: A clockwork revolution

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 106 by severalspeciesof

Comment 91 by Schrodinger's Cat

Even if they do find the neural correlate of consciousness....all you then have is a mapping, not an actual explanation. It doesn't explain WHY this neural state should have awareness associated with it, and can't just get on with being a bunch of physics without that awareness.

Seriously, for some reason, when I read this I see 'WHY' all the way down, just like it's 'turtles' all the way down...

Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:59:53 UTC | #585708

Go to: A clockwork revolution

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 89 by severalspeciesof

Is the 'new' evidence 'IS'? If so, that's not much evidence, or maybe it's too much (like the argument "'god' just IS")...

That should read:

Is the 'new' evidence 'IS'? If so, that's not much evidence nor is it even new, or maybe it's too much (like the argument "'god' just IS")...

Sat, 29 Jan 2011 04:46:02 UTC | #585559

Go to: A clockwork revolution

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 88 by severalspeciesof

Comment 84 by Schrodinger's Cat

Sure, there's a configuration element to it, and no doubt a functional one too.......but it's quite clear that mere configuration and function are NOT going to explain the 'extra' factor.

How so? (Look at Comment 85 by Quine before you answer)

I'll turn your own argument against you:

THAT is the science I know. One that is constantly having to re-evaluate the world on the basis of new evidence.

Where's the 'new evidence' that is cause for re-evaluation?

Not even the most ardent dualist argues that consciousness has some 'feel' based mystery woo factor. They don't argue that consciousness 'feels'....they argue that consciousness IS

Is the 'new' evidence 'IS'? If so, that's not much evidence, or maybe it's too much (like the argument "'god' just IS")...

Sat, 29 Jan 2011 02:52:27 UTC | #585537

Go to: T-shirt slogans that do not offend

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 91 by severalspeciesof

"God is pro-life..."

Num. 16:35
2Kings 2:23-24

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:45:07 UTC | #582212

Go to: T-shirt slogans that do not offend

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 79 by severalspeciesof

"God doesn't have freewill" (think about it)

Or

"God is Love"

            Exodus 10:20

or put any other verse that patently shows god's 'non-loving' grace

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 17:43:56 UTC | #582119

Go to: God was behind Big Bang, pope says

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 179 by severalspeciesof

Comment 180 by Agrajag

Remember the "BRAIN THE SIZE OF THE PLANET"? :-)

LOL...

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:04:25 UTC | #581860

Go to: God was behind Big Bang, pope says

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 176 by severalspeciesof

The planet sized UFO's around the sun link reminds me of this...

Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:28:02 UTC | #581715

Go to: Pope paves way to beatification of John Paul II

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 163 by severalspeciesof

Comment 148 by funinthesun

No, I think that just like love, actions cannot be worth anything unless they come from freewill

So god's actions are worthless... seriously

According to the christian faith god cannot commit evil, or apparently even be involved with or accept evil. That, according to your definition of freewill, means god doesn't have freewill. So therefore god's actions cannot be worth anything unless god were to have freewill i.e. the ability to commit and accept evil acts, which the RCC most definitely says god can't do...

If you say that god has chosen to not be evil, do evil things, accept evil, etc., it would infer that god knew about evil before our creation. That evil actually existed alongside god. In fact the bible infers this via god's injunction against the tree of knowledge (A whole other can of worms) Yet god has not done evil. How did it then know about evil before evil even happened?

'It's a mystery' doesn't count as an answer... ;)

Tue, 18 Jan 2011 15:04:30 UTC | #580438

Go to: The Complete Idiot's Guide To Biology...

severalspeciesof's Avatar Jump to comment 147 by severalspeciesof

Comment 109 by Zaytoon

What are your views on people having profound life-changing spiritual experiences?

First time I had sex was a life changing spiritual experience... Must mean my wife is God...

Yup, she's a Goddess...

Sun, 16 Jan 2011 05:37:54 UTC | #579177