Dalicious

Barack Hearts Ronnie: An Old, New Song
I agree that Obama was not endorsing Reagan. He was commenting on Reagan's popularity and his best characteristics. Anyone who thinks that is horrible to say is extraordinarily narrow minded. Politics ain't religion, folks. Demonizing or deifying a politician is always a mistake. posted 01/18/2008 at 11:58:10
Monsters in the Democratic Id
The real problem is that the Democratic Party is possibly the most racist organization in the United States, at least among those that are considered mainstream. Everyone's knee-jerk solution to every controversy is to accuse a person of being racist, or sexist, or both. Since fighting racism has become a kind of cottage industry, there is always someone looking to make a little coin off of an accusation, regardless of its merits or lack thereof. posted 01/17/2008 at 10:15:11
Is It Possible? A Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton Ticket?
The easiest way for Obama to lose my vote in November is to put Hillary on the ticket. I want to see the Clintons retired once and for all. posted 01/16/2008 at 14:43:48
Why Paul McCartney Wants Me to Eat My Veggies
As a Taoist, I go with the Tao. Animals eat each other, and have been since there have been animals to eat. We are animals. We eat animals. If you don't, you are creating an artificial society with a lower chance of survival. posted 01/15/2008 at 12:32:34
Your health. If vegetarianism were natural, wouldn't all early humans have been vegetarians? Instead, they were meat eaters first and plant murderers much, much later.I had a vegetarian buddy who died at 45 with colon cancer. Anyone who thinks being a plant eater is a guarantee of health has some very unhealthy thinking going on. posted 01/15/2008 at 12:30:45
Bill: I Have "List Of 80" Obama Attacks
"Seems to believe" = Clark made it up. He is campaigning for SecDef, and in the process using up his good political capital. He's starting to wear like a cheap watch. His bug-eyed stoned chipmunk look would fit better in Alvin and the Chipmunks than it does in real-life politics. posted 01/14/2008 at 16:28:54
You forget that until 1964, LBJ had been in federal office for 28 years, and he had only one good year -- 1938, the year he successfully fought for rural electrification. As Senate Majority Leader from 1952 to 1961, he pandered to the Southern Democratic segregationists there, never attempting to improve the civil rights picture. One good year in 28. There was nothing in his background that suggested the good things he would do in 1964 and 1965. Under those circumstances, it is reasonable to hope for good things from Obama or the similarly inexperienced Hillary. posted 01/14/2008 at 16:25:15
What she was really saying was that it takes white folks to take care of black folks -- which is a typical thought for liberals of the last 50 years. posted 01/14/2008 at 16:21:07
Sounds like you're already doing the job for them. Are you a Rethug? posted 01/14/2008 at 16:19:23
I don't hate Hillary, but I am so sick of Bill I am ready to hate her if he doesn't shut up. They both make all these claims about Obama, but I never hear him talking about them, except in response to their attacks. I'm tired of it. How about we make Bill Governor of Gitmo? But only if he goes and lives there. posted 01/14/2008 at 16:17:59
We Deserve What We Get
Speaking of Grover Cleveland, the only Democratic president between 1861 and 1913, did you know that when he went to DC for his first inauguration in 1885, it was his first visit to the capital? And even then, he was already more experienced than Hillary is today! posted 01/14/2008 at 11:24:05
Funny you should mention GQ and running for president. In 1960 Bobby Kennedy, as his brother's campaign manager, declined to allow Jack to be interviewed by GQ because it was, to use Bobby's words "too faggy".Hehehe. Spin that one. posted 01/14/2008 at 11:21:30
John Edwards Is A Loser
Thank you for reminding me that liberal racism is the most common form of racism. I was thinking about voting for Obama, but since you reminded me that I need to stay loyal to my race, why would I bother? John Edwards is the only male WASP in the, er, race, so of course I should vote for him. You liberals and your racism -- no wonder the Democratic party was the party of slavery. posted 01/11/2008 at 17:16:42
John Kerry Endorses Barack Obama
I do a better job than Kerry every time I take a breath. posted 01/10/2008 at 16:01:14
Kerry was so weak that his undergraduate GPA was lower than Bush's. posted 01/10/2008 at 16:00:22
Edwards' wife is dying and Kerry's wife is richer than Edwards. I doubt Kerry is envious. posted 01/10/2008 at 15:59:22
Senator Clinton's Fearmongering Won The Day
Yes, we do think you are that stupid. posted 01/10/2008 at 10:19:09
You may be right about Obama, but you are completely delusional about Hillary. Was Martha Washington qualified to be president? Mary Todd Lincoln, who pushed her husband into the White House? How about Edith Wilson, who with an 8th-grade education ran the White House for more than a year after Woodrow's stroke? Or better yet, how about Barbara Bush? If Hillary becomes the Democrat nominee, I may never vote Democratic again. posted 01/10/2008 at 10:14:05
I agree about this point; I've been saying the same for month. I think either Clinton or Obama would be tested. If you fear the test, vote for McCain. They won't test him! posted 01/10/2008 at 10:11:49
If Hillary wants to be treated equally to a man -- which I am not really convinced of -- then I will treat her like a man: I would never, ever in a million years vote for a candidate for President who cries on the campaign trail. What, she cries over a little campaign pressure but not when her husband humiliates her in public with his philandering? What a phony. America needs Hillary the way a fish needs a bicycle. posted 01/10/2008 at 10:10:05
Clinton Allies May Dump Millions Into Anti-Obama Group
Kucinich is revolting on issues. He is the most vain and ego-driven of all of them. He ran his home town into bankruptcy. Why should we trust him to do anything right? He hates America in much the same way that Hillary's feminist friends hate men. posted 01/08/2008 at 16:46:30
We won't waste more money invading another country, we'll just waste more money giving away our wealth to other countries, probably African ones. Every time we try to help Africa we just make things worse. posted 01/08/2008 at 16:43:51
Seriously, the only reason Bush was worse than Carter is because he's been in office longer. If Carter had been a 2-termer we'd be speaking Arabic or Farsi today. posted 01/08/2008 at 16:42:22
Carter was humiliated. Even Jerry Brown beat him in the primaries. He was so bad that Ted Kennedy ran against him -- Carter's last glorious victory, LOL. Carter's arrogant moralizing was his undoing. posted 01/08/2008 at 16:39:05
Reinvigorated the economy? You're kidding, right? Stagflation reached its pinnacle under the Carter Catastrophe. Remember how effectively he supported his favorite tyrant, the Shah of Iran? posted 01/08/2008 at 16:36:24
What happened to skiing, shooting, and skinning? posted 01/08/2008 at 16:34:14
Gen. Colin Powell on the Obama Moment
I think you all are missing the point about Powell. His credibility with you is unimportant, because he is not trying to convince you of anything. He is simply relating his take on Obama's candidacy and how important it is for black Americans. Sure, he's made mistakes, but that does not lessen the significance of his excitement. We all know he never ran for President because he said he lacked "fire in the belly", which was a very self-honest thing to realize; Fred Thompson should be so smart. This and his political past makes his excitement for Obama all the more interesting, and all the more telling. posted 01/08/2008 at 15:48:09
Man, if you're gonna dream, dream all the way. Obama-Rice in 2008! posted 01/08/2008 at 15:44:02
More Than Just "Mars And Venus" Going On In New Hampshire
I do get a kick out of watching Hillary call herself a feminist, and pretending to get where she has gotten without a man's help. Without question, all of her post-college accomplishments were the result of marrying well. Nothing she has done in her adult life has been more significant than who she married, and how her husband helped her. She is so dependent upon him she had to put up with the Flowers and Lewinsky scandals, for fear she would have no political future of her own.Some feminist! posted 01/07/2008 at 14:05:51
Paul Begala on Hillary's Chances
I think a lot of left-leaners completely misunderstand the opposition to Hillary. I have never voted for a Republican for president, but if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, the likelihood of me voting Republican will go from 0% to 95%. Give me Obama or Edwards and I will continue to vote Democratic. posted 01/06/2008 at 00:10:45
The National Interest and 2008
You folks are so sad. Hart has stated an immutable truth, and done so so easily that it went almost unnoticed, and all you can do is carp at him for not being an asshole like you! Exactly why I left the Democratic party, folks like you. Mr. Hart, I salute you. We lost your statesmanship much too soon. posted 01/01/2008 at 00:03:34
Chuck Norris Never Cries, He Sues
I admire Chuck a lot for his early accomplishments. In fact, I admire him more than any politician I can name. His upbringing had some of the same difficulties that Bill Clinton's did. Like Clinton, he had to stand up to his drunk dad, a 16 year old who could not fight. After he got back from Korea, everything he did in his life was a success, although he had to put some tournaments under his belt before he started winning. They guy is now about 70, believe it or not. I had to see him do this Christian stuff, but it's his life and his business. Despite his Christian background, he wrote a book about his experiences with Zen, of which he heartily approves. It's not a terribly deep book, but it beats 99% of what I read on HuffPo.posted 12/28/2007 at 22:49:54
The Most Inappropriate Bush War Smirk of 2007
ONCE AGAIN THE ANTI-CAPS BIGOTS ARE OUT IN FULL FORCE. APPARENTLY THEY ONLY BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION WHEN THEY GET TO CHOOSE THE FORM OF EXPRESSION AND WHAT IS EXPRESSED! AND IF YOU HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT, WHY DID YOU MENTION IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? CAPS RULE! posted 12/28/2007 at 23:02:26
Happy Holidays From The Huffington Post
Merry Christmas! HuffPo, do you realize how absolutely ridiculous it is for you to say "Happy Holidays"? If your goal is truly to be nondenominational, why did you wait until Christmas Day to say "Happy Holidays"? I'm not a Christian, but even I realize that the holidays are all about Christmas, not Hannukah or Kwanzaa or any of those other wannabe holidays.Have a Super Saturnalia! And a very, merry Christmas. posted 12/25/2007 at 09:25:28
The Problem With Obama
I hate to tell you this, but we did not provoke the Cuban missile crisis: Khruschev did. He was testing Kennedy's mettle, because he knew JFK was inexperienced. All three of the "top tier" of candidates have less experience than JFK did, and he was singularly unaccomplished. If any of them are elected they will be tested by Putin, Iran, and Chavez. A positive outcome is by no means assured, especially by someone trying to prove they are tough, as Clinton and Obama would be certain to do. Edwards I am less sure of, because his background as a successful trial lawyer suggests he has diplomatic skills that are not evident in a political campaign. Lawyers like him live to win. He might be the only one tough enough! posted 12/24/2007 at 14:32:25
These arguments are as old and tired as the Bush-Clinton dynasty. Ironically, your father (although already a respected historian) came to political prominence through the administration of another unaccomplished politician, John Kennedy. My concerns about Obama and the unaccomplished (except for marrying well) Mrs. Clinton are about the same: because of who they are, they will be sorely tested in the international arena, just as Khruschev tested Kennedy with the missiles in Cuba. With a McCain or a Biden or even a Giuliani in office, I do not see that happening. posted 12/24/2007 at 14:25:43
Bush Aims To Rebuild US Image In '08
An honest person will admit that Bush has started turning things around a bit in the past six months. Of course, restoring three inches out of a ten-foot hole is not worth bragging about, but I do think the hole is slowing getting smaller, not bigger.The surge has cleared the air in Iraq a bit, Bush is coming around on global warming (too slowly, but even for him it is becoming conventional wisdom), he is cracking down on the hiring of illegals, and he is even taking a harder look at the budget, which he is willing to veto only because Democrats are in charge. This is thin gruel, truly, but better than the stagnant water we were getting before. Time to quit looking backward and start moving forward. posted 12/24/2007 at 14:47:27
Hillary's New Pitch: Time For The Restoration
I voted for Clinton before, but I don't want him back. Been there, done that, bought the tee-shirt, saved the cum-skirt. So framing her candidacy as a restoration not only reduces the chance I will vote for her, but it makes me lose all respect for her. She's done nothing but trade on Bill to get elected. Her greatest accomplishment in life is marrying well. Some feminist! posted 12/22/2007 at 21:55:22
Primary 2008, Part I -- Democrats: When Inevitability Isn't So...Inevitable
I agree that Biden has some things going for him in the foreign policy arena. In other matters, though, he is a 60s-style liberal, and that does not make me happy. I don't trust his instincts on social matters. posted 12/27/2007 at 10:43:54
You yourself are a racist for calling Obama black, since by genealogy he is just much "white" as he is "black". You call him "black" because his skin is a little darker. It is time to dispense with such political bigotry and look at the real man for who he is. posted 12/27/2007 at 10:42:33
Only the closed-minded insist that the president must be a Democrat at all costs. After voting for John Kerry I, like my youthful son who voted for President for his first time in 2004, swore to never again vote for a candidate who is obviously a lying phony -- as anyone can tell of Clinton. Furthermore, I am absolutely sick and tired of Bill Clinton and his bullshit. I voted for him, but I never would again. I now understand that he made more mistakes than any President should be allowed to make -- which may be what has emboldened Bush to be incredibly bad (just as Johnson's civil liberties depradations gave Nixon the justification he sought).If Hillary gets the nomination, there is a high probability I will vote Republican for President for the first time in my life. There is a zero probability she will get my vote. posted 12/27/2007 at 10:29:17
Huckabee: "Don't Mormons Believe That Jesus And The Devil Are Brothers?"
OK, I admit it, Jesus and Satan ARE my little brothers. I do my best to keep them apart, but you know how it is. Jesus can be so god-damned moralistic, and Satan keeps stealing my pot (and planting it in Jesus' underwear drawer), so what can a big brother do? Just ask my best buddy, Mohammad. I do know this: I can't allow Huckabee and Romney to defame my family this way. Keep my family OUT of these incestuous political love spats. posted 12/11/2007 at 23:42:43
Hillary Tried To Join The Marines
One reason I don't believe this story is because she was indeed young enough -- what, 27 in 1975? When was that ever too old? I almost joined during the Gulf War, but I topped the maximum age -- 35 -- by a year. posted 12/09/2007 at 18:41:26
She doesn't talk about it because if it is true (and I suspect she has no documentation to back up this story), the very idea is laughable. As much as Bill Clinton hates the military, I suspect she hates it even more. posted 12/09/2007 at 18:39:09
Hillary No Longer the Inevitable Democratic Presidential Nominee
She DOES have a lot of experience: covering up for Bill's foibles. Ironically, that experience is needed only if she is elected. Otherwise, who cares? posted 12/07/2007 at 16:50:51
Mitt Romney's Jesus is Just as Good as the Leading Brand
Actually, kinda new agey. Was he a certified Reiki "master"? He was almost certainly a channeller or medium, don't you think? posted 12/09/2007 at 19:09:48
I think a lot of folks here are mistaking the true word of Jesus for the garbage that the evangelists spew. In Christianity, Jesus started out as, and remains simply, the son of God and the savior of mankind -- the one who absorbed the punishment for all our sins. Whether you believe it or not is of no consequence to me (since I don't believe it either), but one think I am confident of is that all the stuff about loving and hating and rewarding and punishing was made up. It's standard fare for any run of the mill religion, especially one that stole it trappings from other more popular religions of the day. I suspect Jesus was just another political troublemaker like Galileo, who really got off easy. posted 12/09/2007 at 19:06:52
Your bigotry is hilarious. Jesus is no more or less than what you choose for him to be, right? And no one else gets a say, right? Hoo-haw! posted 12/09/2007 at 19:01:44
Yes, please elaborate. For instance, someone is claiming the Book of Mormon claims Jesus is the brother of Satan. Does it really say that? That means either Satan is also a son of God, or at least a son of Mary -- or maybe Joseph, since myth of the virgin birth was a mistake of translation. So, is Satan older or younger than Jesus? Equally powerful? They seemed pretty mismatched when I saw them fighting on South Park.posted 12/09/2007 at 18:58:56
The funniest thing of all, for me, is that before the speech I could have easily ignored Romney's Mormonism (since I think all Christians are weird, I can't allow that to be a factor). Now that I've heard him announce that religion in America is mandatory, I'm going to have to add him to my DO NOT VOTE FOR list, just below Hillary's name. Huck isn't on the list yet, but I get the feeling he is on the verge of making a major mistake along the same lines. posted 12/09/2007 at 18:54:18
Jesus just TALKED about love, while Brigham practiced what he preached. What's wrong with that? Sounds refreshing to me. posted 12/09/2007 at 18:49:49
It's entirely possible to be an atheist AND believe in God, so I don't know what your problem is. The answer is staring you in the face. posted 12/09/2007 at 18:48:34
Is this the same Jesus who used to mow my lawn until I turned him in to I.C.E.? posted 12/09/2007 at 18:46:05
Jack Nicholson: Anjelica Huston Beat Me Up
I love hearing from a Hollywood liberal who is secure enough in himself that he doesn't feel the need to pander with a bunch of PC garbage. What is a real man? One answer is: A man who can be himself, be comfortable in his own skin. That appears to describe Jack Nicholson quite well. posted 12/06/2007 at 15:15:43
She's ugly, mean, and nasty. Other than that she's great. posted 12/06/2007 at 15:13:31
Piss off, bitch. posted 12/06/2007 at 15:11:56
What, women are allowed choice but men aren't? posted 12/06/2007 at 15:10:54
Documents Expose Huckabee's Role In Serial Rapist's Release
Darn tootin'. If Huck was a Dem, they'd all love 'im. posted 12/05/2007 at 12:56:12
Jeez, the Republicans give you a bleeding-heart liberal like Huckabee -- raises taxes, embraces illegal immigrants, lets criminal out early -- and you still complain. If he was a Democrat you would embrace him like a god. posted 12/05/2007 at 12:52:44
How to Reverse Global Warming
Even if your actions make things worse? posted 12/06/2007 at 10:37:21
I'm not a naysayer, but a skeptic -- and I was a straight-A math and science student from early childhood through college. I wrote a statistics book when I was 26. My risk management models helped bring down Enron. And now, in my 50s, I may go back to college for a Ph.D in physics.Here me now: the cause of global climate change is undetermined and quite likely indeterminate. The relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide is still undetermined. Our climate models are far too crude to make a determination possible, at least for now. By the time they are good enough, it will be "too late" according to the political hacks who use and abuse science, but never understand it. Since our models are too crude for a diagnosis, they are also too crude for prescribing a cure. posted 12/06/2007 at 10:34:32
Could it be that no rational person thinks that 100 days of manic political action will make up for 100 years of environmental destruction? posted 12/05/2007 at 10:29:21
Mr. Hart, I have long admired you, but in this regard I think you are way off the mark for a wide array of reasons. Others have pointed out that assistance by China, India, and other countries will be required to achieve the impact you hope for. More fundamental to the problem is the fact that we do not know the actual role of carbon and carbion dioxide in global climate change. Our climate models are still grossly inadequate to the task of fully understanding why things are occurring as they are, which is why it is still possible to debate about the impact of fluctuating solar radiation. Until we know for sure what is causing it, we have no reason to think we can prescribe a remedy. Assuming everything you think to be true is correct, I still do not buy the idea that four years of fast, furtive activity will turn around a problem that has been (by your reckoning) accumulating for a century. We need less political action and more scientific action. I will not believe this problem is solveable until the politicos on all sides stop talking about it. posted 12/05/2007 at 10:28:12
Not much to talk about. The problem appears to be a virus. Knowing that makes it a solveable problem. Meanwhile, there are a lot of food plants that do not require bees for pollination. We won't starve. posted 12/05/2007 at 10:20:56
Frank Rich, the New York Times, and Yet More Lefty Soft Bigotry
Looks to me like you could almost be talking about yourself and this article. I have to say, I know lots of blacks who grew up in segregated neighborhoods, but I no longer no any whites who did. posted 12/04/2007 at 17:46:04
Bah, Hitchens
You could ask me if I am an atheist and I could say no, and you would think you know something about my attitude toward God. Or if I said yes, same thing. In either case you know nothing unless you know my definition of God.Pollsters love to tell us that something like 95% of the country believes in God -- a meaningless poll. That make it sound like a monolithic point of view. The real test? Run a poll of the definition of God -- and see how many agree. I think the answers would be all over the map. posted 12/04/2007 at 18:05:41
I agree. I still enjoy sitting in mass, though I am not a confirmed Catholic and can't find any part of the catechism I actually agree with. I've discovered the priests and church goers can't tell the difference between me and them, which is fun in a "secret club" kind of way. It makes me feel good. What's wrong with that? posted 12/04/2007 at 17:59:03
Saturnalia, anyone? posted 12/04/2007 at 17:54:09
Fiddling as the Planet Warms
It's not more efficient if it can't carry all my stuff. posted 12/03/2007 at 17:34:51
Every time political activists pretend to know something about science it scares me -- ever since my first anti-nuclear protest, when I found out none of my fellow protesters knew what radioactivity was. When you Dems try to tell me the debate is closed, that's when I know there is still much to be learned. But not by you! Your mind is already closed! posted 12/03/2007 at 17:33:45
Global warming is GREAT! I'm looking forward to moving to fresh new farmland in Siberia; the Russians will have to find somewhere else to send their political dissidents. Maybe they can rent their own space in Cuba, like we do! posted 12/03/2007 at 17:31:49
Britney Rejects Rolling Stone
They can't even promise what magazine it will be? What load of hooey. Sounds like a setup. Good call, Brit. posted 12/03/2007 at 15:38:33
Huckabee Chooses Jesus as Running Mate
Santa is the Democrat nominee. posted 12/03/2007 at 11:20:23
Huckabee Claimed Jesus 'On The Cross' Supported The Death Penalty
This raises the question, Who Would Jesus Kill? posted 12/03/2007 at 17:38:53
Hillary, Not Barack, Is The One
I see no reason to think Hillary can achieve the health plan she claims to propose, given her history. Given her campaign contributions, I have no reason to think her proposal, even if it passes, will benefit anyone except the insurance companies. It doesn't matter what they propose now if they can't deliver the goods, and Hillary has no record of such delivery. Neither does Obama, of course, but at least he has no record of abject failure either. posted 12/03/2007 at 11:25:37
As a recovering Democrat who is not a Christian, I find the prospect of Hillary so appalling that I am considering voting for Mike Huckabee -- and I've never voted for a Republican for president before. At least we actually know who the guy is. Hillary doesn't even know who Hillary is. posted 12/03/2007 at 11:22:59
Do You Want Tucker Carlson's Car?
I don't think Carlson's prediction is a stretch. Bush was never terribly consistent, and it is clear he has been warming to the idea of global warming over the past year or so. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine Bush caring enough to become a true advocate for anything except making megabucks from bad speeches. posted 11/29/2007 at 15:35:26
Why I Heart Huckabee the Anti-Evolutionist (at least I did Wednesday night)
Actually he got nailed pretty good on the Hitler/isolationism attack. The attack was not completely valid, but it did have some merit. Paul's response about isolationism vs. non-interventionism was valid, but it was not delivered well; it made him sound like the nerd he is. If it went over well in middle America I would be quite surprised. I would be interested in hearing him explain how a non-interventionist policy would have prevented any of the major conflicts in recent times prior to the invasion of Iraq -- Korea would be a good place to start. And how did he feel about the Lend-Lease Act? posted 11/29/2007 at 15:57:53
Grace? Edwards? Are you joking? Edwards is a divisive attack dog; Huckabee is a conciliator and uniter. That doesn't mean Huck has my vote, but he sure has my respect. The Breck Boy will have to shave his head if he wants to regain my respect. posted 11/29/2007 at 15:53:12
Let's not forget that polls showed Reagan's supporters disagreed with him on issues more often than not. I stopped voting for candidates purely on issues a long time ago, because issues morph, but a candidate's character does not.I actually think this is an unusually insightful blog. I feel the same as a lot of folks about Huckabee & evolution -- it's been my problem with him for a long time. But, God help me, in every other respect he seems like the most sane, humane man up there (there are no sane, humane women in the race). Since I have zero trust or respect for Hillary, I would be forced to give Huckabee serious consideration in a Huckabee-Clinton matchup. posted 11/29/2007 at 15:45:55
Live HuffPost Coverage Of GOP YouTube Debate
Yeah, watch me go into a department store and try to buy some clothes made in America. Watch me come out empty-handed. Sad but true. posted 11/28/2007 at 22:35:13
McCain did not say Paul was a Hitler lover if he opposes the war. He pointed out what is widely believed, that American isolationism helped cause World War II by not standing up to the threat earlier. I think that's a flawed conclusion because all it did was delay the war, not cause it.Paul made a good debating-points comeback that was fairly ineffectual. He told McCain that he was a non-interventionist, not an isolationist, and that in non-military affairs he wanted the U.S. to be quite active on the international stage. He just thinks we should be a republic, not an empire. posted 11/28/2007 at 22:34:01
You may be right, but until they are changed with new amendments they stand as they read. posted 11/28/2007 at 22:30:28
That was a fascinating exchange. At first it seemed Rudy had a trump card, about Mitt having illegals working in the Governor's Mansion. Then Rudy turned it back at Rudy, making him looking like the authoritarian he is. In the end Rudy ended up looking small minded. posted 11/28/2007 at 22:27:35
John Ashcroft: I'm Willing To Be Waterboarded
If he's willing to be waterboarded, I'm willing to do it. In fact, I volunteer for the job, eagerly. Ooops, I goofed! Accidentally used gasoline instead of water. Accidentally lit a match .... darn! I've got to be more careful next time. posted 11/28/2007 at 12:22:11
A Contract with the Planet
The fact is that our climate models are still quite crude, and there is no certainty at all about what is causing the climate change. So if we start trying to tinker with carbon dioxide or similar concerns, we could be making things worse and not even know it. posted 11/28/2007 at 11:48:53
If it's Global Warming and not Global Climate Change, please explain the snow in London this past summer. Why didn't they have a heat wave instead? posted 11/28/2007 at 11:47:13
I agree with that last remark. It's just a stupid idea. A contract is a two-way agreement, and the planet will just do what it will do, regardless of any silly "contract". posted 11/28/2007 at 11:46:13
The lesson I got from Gore's film is that if your lies (also called "assumptions") are outrageous enough, people will not only believe them, but act upon them as if they are Gospel. Oh, wait! We already learned that from Hitler! posted 11/28/2007 at 11:45:02
The Death of Oswald, the Birth of Conspiracies
I would say it is not valid to compare slave and coolies. Coolies were extremely well paid, by their standards, for their work, and they did the work voluntarily. In fact, they deliberately sailed thousands of miles from home to do the work, and they knew what they were getting into. The work at home, largely Canton for the coolies, could be just as dangerous and nowhere nearly as lucrative.posted 11/27/2007 at 16:13:01
Oprah and Obama
Be careful. Chuck's watching you. posted 11/27/2007 at 16:17:41
Oprah turns my stomach, but compared to Barbra she's a breath of fresh air on a beautiful spring day. posted 11/27/2007 at 16:15:28
Perino Offers Comment On McClellan
You have no more evidence for that than you do for Hillary's lesbianism or Bill's transgender "girlfriend". posted 11/27/2007 at 22:57:18
You have no more evidence for that than you do for Hillary's lesbianism or Bill's transgender "girlfriend". posted 11/27/2007 at 22:56:43
You have no more evidence for that than you do for Hillary's lesbianism or Bill's transgender "girlfriend". posted 11/27/2007 at 22:56:30
I don't think Rice needs jail. Exile to a rural community college would be sufficient. Preferably in East Texas. posted 11/27/2007 at 22:54:18
Scott McClellan Grabs A Seat At The Former-Bush-Aide-Turned-Author Table
His father, Barr McClellan, wrote a book a few years ago taking partial credit for the assassination of President Kennedy -- as an attorney at LBJ's personal law firm in Austin. He said the law firm acted as project manager for Kennedy's murder, in the fear that JFK would dump LBJ from the ticket in 1964. Let's see Scott top that tell-all. posted 11/20/2007 at 13:01:38
Richardson Displays Presidential Courage
Yes, Richardson has a great foreign policy: he wants to continue to allow the invaders to flood over the Mexican border until they just take over the southwestern United States. posted 11/20/2007 at 13:11:12
Snap! Hillary Says "It Takes A Clinton To Clean Up After A Bush"
Which one are you referring to as the fascist? posted 11/19/2007 at 18:33:15
Prediction: George Prescott Bush marries Chelsea Clinton. When that happens, start handing out the cyanide Kool-aid, 'coz it will all be over. posted 11/19/2007 at

Zanti

There Are No Atheists in the White House
The myth that our nation is under the control of Christian fundies is a myth that will persist so long as people need it. I ask people to name our state church. I ask people to explain how come we're not all forced to pray once in the morning and twice and night. I ask for proof that we are under religious rule, and they provide sound bytes and cite religion-friendly laws. Yet they can't show me this fabled state church. It's there, but we just can't see it, apparently.Sort of like God. posted 01/09/2008 at 15:40:57
"Nice to see someone out there with the balls to speak the truth that religion is a mere fairy tale."Right. That's such an uncommon point of view nowadays. And so rarely expressed. posted 01/08/2008 at 16:42:38
No atheists in the White House? Didn't Karl Rove hang around there a lot?posted 01/08/2008 at 16:35:35
Atheism as a Stealth Religion II: Let's Get Real
Dap,I called myself a skeptic. Look up the word. posted 01/11/2008 at 17:10:04
HeevenSteven,You misrepresented my position. I don't claim that no God entity exists. Rather, I feel it's improbable yet possible.I am a standard-issue skeptic, in other words.By Dr. Wilson's definition of atheism, yes, I'm an atheist. He writes, "If theism refers to a belief in supernatural agents capable of intervening in natural processes, then I am 100% an atheist and proud of it."Same here. I don't believe in magical beings, either. But I feel that definition is far too narrow. It's out of date, to say the least. It presumes that being a person of faith automatically equals believing in supernatural agents. Like it or not, this isn't the case. And hasn't been for quite a while.I'm always inviting atheists to check out that last claim--specifically, to acquaint themselves with the mainline Protestant position instead of offering up a dumbed-down version designed to make believers into square, behind-the-curve stooges. For instance, try reading the Christian Century. Don't feign acquaintance with a point of view you haven't investigated. posted 01/11/2008 at 03:07:19
Which you interpret as an excuse to play the smart guy with people having no choice but to endure you? That's an odd reading.I don't care for your smarter-than-thou act, and one form of turning the other cheek is to walk away. Which I did, thus acting in accordance with the instruction in question. You're the one missing its spirit. Zero points for irony. posted 01/11/2008 at 02:47:06
As I was saying,You're very good about not suggesting that anyone has to agree with you. I'd said that in the last small post, but everything got cut off after my smiley-face symbol. I've had that happen at Google, too.The smiley-face symbol combination must act as HTML for "The end." posted 01/11/2008 at 02:29:54
Oh, and..."I worry about people who suggest that I have to think as they do." This wasn't in reference to you, btw. ( posted 01/11/2008 at 02:25:26
Ouch. I meant to type, "Astonishingly, my eye doctor had never bothered to explain that I'VE HAVE depth-perception issues when I returned to two-eye vision."Of course I meant, "I'd have...."posted 01/11/2008 at 02:21:37
Dap,Sorry--I didn't know you were dyslexic. There was no intention to make fun of anything but your boastful attitude. And to answer your unkind comments about believers. You did, after all, sign in by announcing that "religionists" have no use for the logical method because we live in a fantasy world. You didn't expect any response? And in a discussion forum, no less?For what it's worth, I myself have vision problems that impair my reading and typing skills. The official name for my condition is a mouthful--something to do with dystropia. As a kid, I was an A student and a bookworm. I was a hard-working learner with a lazy eye. When the clip-on patch was taken off the left lens of my glasses, I started walking into things. And my reading slowed down to a trickle. My grades dropped. Astonishingly, my eye doctor had never bothered to explain that I've have depth-perception issues when I returned to two-eye vision. That my brain had never learned to process 3-D. And never would, it turns out.The for-example statement you quote strikes me as perfectly reasonable. I feel you're using irrelevant data to try to prove something. We're talking about the objective, factual reality of God--as in, is there one. No amount of brain theory will answer the ultimate question UNLESS we've first established that God is a thing of the mind and nothing more. We know he's a thing of the mind, but the question is whether or not a factual God exists in league with the various gods constructed in man's image. Who knows? I sure don't. posted 01/11/2008 at 01:58:38
"Looks like we did pretty good by our metaphysics."But weren't we supposed to do pretty good by answering Dr. Wilson's points? I wonder how he feels about the general failure of this thread to do so.I thought he wrote one hell of a good piece, and I was hoping people would take up some of its points.posted 01/11/2008 at 01:38:36
Muse,And put me down as believing in God the Unproven. There's no proof that God isn't solely an extension of man, to quote my Marshall McLuhan phrase. Dr. Wilson's piece deals with practical vs. factual reality--my term for the latter being objective reality or "real reality." So I've tried to keep my comments within the scope of his piece, which is only courteous.This is not to suggest we have to toss out our own definitions or to agree with the blogger, but we do need to frame our responses in terms of what he's offered. Otherwise, we are off topic.You have faith that there is an actual God, but on what are you basing that assurance? I believe we're living in harmony with "real reality" when we admit when we're not sure.Yes, others here say God is absent. But trained skeptics say, instead, that God is unproven. Even richard dawkins--as much as he plays to the No-God crowd--admits this. It's a matter of probability. Odds.Anyway, where else will I ever have the chance to play believer AND skeptic at the same time? To defend religion against neo-atheist attack while praising skeptics and skeptical thinking? Faith and reason may be opposites, but "opposite" doesn't have to mean opposed. Only to absolutists, who live in a this-or-that world, do contrary states represent a threat. I worry about people who suggest that I have to think as they do. Diversity of opinion and belief is a gift from God. It's very important to be aware of the difference between fantasy-based thinking and thinking informed by "real reality." But people are using this distinction as an excuse to make all kinds of absolute assertions, all toward the end of proving (without proof) that they, and only they, have the answers.The distinction is valid. Their broad, subjective use of it is not.It's not about us. It's about the greater reality, whatever that is. That greater reality is the host, and we are its guests. posted 01/11/2008 at 01:34:12
Is "your brilliance is evades me" your usual take on grammar, or is it something my untrained mind just isn't understanding? Probably the latter.Sorry, it's just that your arrogance was such an irresistible target. If you're so much smarter than the average poster, why the short fuse? Did Einstein blow up every time someone said, "Huh?" Walk the walk of your fellow geniuses, most of whom take insects like me in graceful stride. Have pity on us slower folks.posted 01/10/2008 at 04:57:06
Dap,I posted this simultaneously, as I anticipated you wouldn't answer my question below. As you didn't. And you nevertheless continue to make the same unproven claim.The "man made" qualifier is nonsensical, since it's a presumption. It's as if you were to write, "God is b.s., therefore he is b.s." and then point to the circular truth of the statement. You can't PRESUME God's nonexistence, no matter how remote the possibility.And, as Moderationsmuse points out below, you're conflating "God" and "religion." Much as dawkins behaves like religion itself is nothing more than a scientific hypothesis for God's existence. Therefore, prove God ain't real, and you've done away with religion. It's that simple. Wow.But, as Muse notes, not only does religion survive the absence of God (or a God), any reasonable person has to concede that there's a devil of a lot more to faith than a mere claim (or series of claims) for God's existence. The Christian Bible, for instance, is not 500 zillion variations on "God is real." It's a little more nuanced as a text.The point is, we can effortlessly erase anything we reduce to a mere speck. But nothing gives us any logical justification for doing so.The way you cling to No God, we can only conclude that No God is your God. Like many neo-atheists, you can't get by without something to disbelieve in.posted 01/09/2008 at 19:59:53
I didn't ask for a testimonial. I asked that you prove your statement. Either you can or you can't."As it is with beauty, proof is in the eye of the beholder."Nonsense. Haven't you heard of the scientific method? An atheist is a skeptic. Like any job, there are rules of conduct that go with the job of being a skeptic. The primary requirement being that you both ask for proof AND present it.Like so many others in this thread, the moment you're asked to substantiate an assertion, you offer some analogy re the difference between believers and skeptics. We know what that difference is--we hear about it all of the time. You have to exemplify that difference OR stop pretending to be a skeptic. Walk the walk, as Dr. Wilson challenges you to do.And please explain how your profound understanding of the human mind proves or disproves God. Assuming you can prove that the God we construct is just that--a construct--then what have you proven? You haven't disproved the factual reality of God, assuming there is such a reality. You've helped established the overwhelming IMPROBABILITY thereof, but you haven't disproven it.Remember, we're not talking about a religious claim FOR God. We're talking about your claim for NO God. Claims require proof.I didn't make the rules, so please don't shoot the poor messenger. posted 01/09/2008 at 17:14:58
"I'm startin' to like you."Wish it were mutual. I've had as much of you as I can stand. Nothing personal. posted 01/09/2008 at 16:53:54
Ladies and gentlemen, courtesy of Dap:"Each and every man made God can, and without any doubt be disproved. Fact!"I don't know about you, but I can't wait to read his follow-up post, in which he backs this up.Someone get some media coverage lined up--this is front-page stuff. Back to you, Dap. posted 01/09/2008 at 15:13:17
"Atheists and environmentalists can be expected to pride themselves on their rationality."--Markus7."Everyone who claims to be guided primarily by science and reason has an obligation to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk."--Dr. Wilson.posted 01/09/2008 at 14:33:50
"Yet, each and every man made God can, and without any doubt be disproved. Fact!"Then do it. We're waiting.posted 01/09/2008 at 13:35:23
"Eureka! Stealth Atheist!" I know, I know. I saw that coming. It was just a matter of when.Labeling things is the only way we have of understanding the world, and so I've never come out against labels or the practice of labeling. The problem is never in the fact that we label things, but rather in the fact of HOW we label them. As in, effectively vs. ineffectively.A theist? Someone who believes in God. Next question. An atheist? Why, someone who doesn't. Woo hoo. Doesn't THAT give us tons of data to argue with? Jeez Louise. Boy, have we traveled to the outer limits of the issue and beyond. Whew! What an exhausting journey.Me believer, you unbeliever. It takes less time to come up with something that uninstructive than it does to TYPE it.Yes, sir--one piece of data vs. another, along with any and all broad generalizations we care to make. Since we're starting from such a dumbed-down base, there's no potential for the argument to get anywhere. "Me believer/you disbeliever" forms WHAT basis for critical discourse? None.We can pile up as many labels as we want--a thousand, two thousand. But if they're all of a "me this, you that" nature, any argument we construct has no chance of standing. The good news, of course, is that it has no chance of falling, either....posted 01/09/2008 at 01:31:50
"Are you a lawyer per chance?"No, I have too much respect for English--I could never mangle it like they do, even if they paid me.Well, maybe if they paid me.My advice was not to make up your mind before seeking a conclusion--that's all. And if your mind isn't closed to the possibility of a thinking Christian, then that's good. Problem is, you obviously view it as highly unlikely and highly novel. That makes for a bias that might be difficult to maneuver past. That, plus you seem to have reached that conclusion through your own personal experience. Generalizing from personal experience is the first thing we have to forgo when looking for answers. Nothing is more subjective than personal experience. I mean, I'm sure you know that, but it's the easiest temptation to give into.As for my know-it-all nature, I don't know where that comes from. Genetic, most likely. It's no way to win friends and influence people, but it's just me.I can't allow for an afterlife, because it's not up to me. If life continues, it does so with or without my permission. Ineffable superior intelligences, ditto. What I don't like about the concept of a higher intelligence is that it seems to be an unnecessary explanation. We seem to be wired to think in terms of a creator, but isn't that simply a symptom of wanting to anthropomorphize everything?I have a theory that every living organism needs to reinvent reality in its own image before it can interact with reality. We make Nature into something human; cats make it into something feline. Our nature is the hub around which our actions revolve.God is reality in our own image. If we can somehow transcend that image (or the need for same), we've taken the next step. Atheists, correctly, see the need to go beyond the construct called God. But we can't do that merely by rejecting it. We can't circumvent our needs or our nature by denying them. We can't wave a skeptical wand and banish illusions. posted 01/08/2008 at 10:49:15
"The problem of subjectivity vis a vis scientific claims."Exactly. It's a brand of is-or-ain't, black-vs.-white, true-or-tripe thinking. The kind Dr. Wilson tells us to be careful to avoid.He's specifically warning atheists against adopting an "Atheism rational, religion irrational" certainty. ("Me atheist, you Jane.") They listen, but do they hear?I think you and I have taken on the possibly impossible task of trying to explain to black-and-white thinkers the concept of black and white thinking. posted 01/08/2008 at 08:49:05
"I posted the following under Wondering's recent remark. I see that part of it originates with you, so I copy it here as well, Zanti."Thanks. And I initially misread the original remark, thinking that the last part of the Wondering quote was YOU. And I mis-responded accordingly. I have no excuse, really, having gotten a decent night's sleep. Let me re-apologize for sloppy reading.Great points, though I'm really referring to Christianity itself as myth, i.e. a body of mythology. With the understanding that myth doesn't denote true or false, or magical versus realistic, but simply refers to a shared body of belief. Cultural myths being things whose truth or lack thereof aren't dependent on their being factual.Which is why I'm not in love with the "stealth religion" term. The concept is terrific, but I wish it were more something like "stealth mythology." That would be more inclusive.However, I've fallen in love with "factual reality." It's the term I've always been looking for.Anyway, you couldn't be more correct that we have to have a metaphor for the unseeable, the unperceivable, etc. And we have to stay in touch with it if we harbor any hope of interfacing properly with What Is. Some, but hopefully not most, scientists get to thinking there ain't anything that can't be borne out in a lab, without realizing that "lab" is a very specific reality WITHIN a reality. Labs are subjective. But interesting, isn't it, the way labs can serve as the Church of Science?The mistake so many make is to carelessly construct a series of associations without making any adjustments--logic becomes the ACT OF TESTING FOR logic, which, in turn, comes to be symbolized by a series of tests, which, in turn becomes a specific experiment in a lab, which, in turn, becomes the lab itself. Suddenly, the LAB is the symbol for logic, which in turn is a symbol for reality. People who don't recognize symbols as such don't realize that erosion of meaning occurs when symbols are placed in series.posted 01/08/2008 at 08:34:15
Oops. Rather, a rationalist is someONE who thinks rationally. Not something. posted 01/08/2008 at 07:54:01
Well, Atheism should be capitalized if we're talking about it as a belief system--but while religions are belief systems, the reverse is not necessarily true. If I'm getting Dr. Wilson's points right, a form of atheism isn't a religion unless it distorts factual reality.And distorting factual reality is something we're bound to do unless we take precautions against it. We have to work to find reality. And work to shape our ideas and theories to same. That's why I submit that skeptics, like anyone else, can't CLAIM the authority of logic and reason unless they've made sure each and every claim from their person has been tested. Unfortunately, it's easy to fall under the spell of a label such as Bright (in its noun form), rationalist, seeker of truth, etc. Labels do not bestow qualities upon the holder. A rationalist is something who thinks rationally--otherwise, the label means nothing.Too much of this thread has been an instance of "religious" meaning irrational, unquestioning, stupid, etc., with "atheist" meaning the reverse. We're placing such stock in labels and not the people and actions behind them.As for your journey toward understanding C.'s like me (and there are a lot of us), my best advice is to start by admitting that you consider "thinking Christian" an impossibility. And to challenge that idea. Otherwise, you"re doomed to keep arriving, for eternity, to that original premise.Let me also point out that you're generalizing from personal experience, which happens to be THE logical-thinking no-no.posted 01/08/2008 at 07:52:24
Moderationsmuse,Thanks! Beautifully put. Wish I had your familiarity with scripture, but I'm playing catch-up, not having been raised with or by the Bible.And another apology for not reading your reply carefully enough (the one to Wondering).Though I could point out that (ahem) you didn't highlight it properly. I saw the closing quote and thought it ended there.Proper punctuation must be observed. At all times. Or else (we don't). I, myself, never make mistakes. I am: perfect. in my punctuation/? posted 01/08/2008 at 07:32:30
Moderationsmuse,My apologies. Your entire first paragraph was a quotation. Oops!!I didn't realize that.I'm always asking people to read carefully, but I need to lead by example. Sorry!And good post. posted 01/08/2008 at 07:26:32
"Zanti often uses the terms 'your side' and 'my side'."Yup. Have you ever heard of debating? Do you ever take part in it?I wonder about you sometimes. posted 01/08/2008 at 07:16:48
"How can god be either end of a metaphor if god doesn't exist?"(Long sigh)Are not metaphors things that exist? Can't you even entertain that possibility?"Coming back here to debate with people who willing adopt a fiction as their world-view makes me queasy."Human nature is no fiction, unless humans are fiction. Human mythology is no fiction, unless human nature is fiction."Why have you chosen to believe in a myth you know to be a fantasy? Convenience? Peer pressure? To get a job promotion?"Please. My sister has done infinitely better in the corporate world as an avowed atheist than I have as a former church organist.Peer pressure? Hardly. I come from an agnostic family and I spend lots of time on the Internet, where any mention of being religious is tantamount to saying "Oh, by the way, I'm a moron."Re your questions, you're asking that I pass Wondering's test. And Wondering's test consists of clichés about religion (do I pray, where do I go when I die). Luckily, Christianity has evolved way beyond the dumbed-down version that atheists, as a group, seem to be saddled with.Of course, according to you, you're not reading this.posted 01/08/2008 at 07:12:23
Yes, but no one's suggesting atheists aren"t allowed to speculate on anything they want to! I think that's a misinterpretation of anything Dr. Wilson said, and certainly anything I've babbled. I think Dr. Wilson and I are saying the same thing, overall--that we can't claim to be making logical, rational claims until those claims have been tested and refined until they fit factual reality. In other words, an idea may be correct and fair and eternal on paper, but there's the next step of applying it. Ideas by themselves are... ideas.I think a lot of people are missing the reality that assertions, principles, beliefs, et al. have to be tested constantly against any given situation. It's as basic as asking "How does this apply to the situation or problem at hand?"For instance, many secularists invoke the Establishment Clause as if it forbade any mention of religion in public. Never mind that the E.C. is primarily concerned with not establishing a state church. This is not to say it has no applications or implications past that point, but it DOES mean we can't simply make of it anything we choose to, all the while citing the original clause as our holy, unimpeachable authority. The E.C., like the right to bear arms, is something that has changed drastically in context over time, because society has changed so drastically. Yet there's violent opposition to changing our reading of these principles, even though they sorely need to be refined in such a way that they mean something in the here and now. The Founding Fathers WANTED us to fine-tune the founding principles with time. They'd be furious that we've done such a shitty job of it.Principles, ideas, and theories become dangerous things when they aren't tested and retested. When they aren't refined across time and across situations.In suggesting that atheists (or any group of skeptics) have the responsibility to fine-tune and test their claims, we're simply asking them to assume the same burden as everyone else.posted 01/08/2008 at 06:56:58
Thanks! That's a very kind thing to say. posted 01/08/2008 at 06:33:08
Oh, but not before answering a few of your questions."Did Jesus actually live - and if so, was he divine?"I have no idea whether or not Jesus actually lived. Religious scholars think it's very likely, but I'm not a religious scholar, so I dunno. Was he divine? No. If he existed, he was mortal and human and like you and I.It's highly possible he existed, in which case the basic account of his life may be correct, albeit embellished with magical details and made to conform to certain conventions. For instance, the harvest-god business of Christ being planted like a seed and popping out of the ground. Creepy, if you ask me. And we won't go into the part about consuming the Christ-plant."If god is just a culture-wide myth, then what do you REALLY think will happen to you when you die?"I plan to be cremated."What is the ultimate source of your morality?"Well, it ain't anything by Ayn Rand or M. Scott Dreck. Or Pat Robertson, for that matter.posted 01/07/2008 at 15:38:15
"So apparently, Zanti's religious belief is based on numbers."To you, perhaps. I don't have time to explain to you what "popular" means. But I assure you I'm not talking about numbers. Taking part in a shared belief system is not synonymous with going with the herd. Nor is going along with common conventions (such as wearing clothes, closing the door when we pee, saying "Thank you," not eating with our feet, refraining from crime, etc.). We don't give up our identity by taking part in our own damn society; to a great extent, we find it. If you want to argue that, go ahead. I truly do not care.Frankly, you're thinking in absolute terms that are more absolute than I guess I realized terms could possibly be. Yes, you can quote me.And when I talked about the culture-wide mythology of Christianity, do you think it's possible I might have been talking about Western culture? (Hint: Yes.)"Zanti's thinking seems dangerous to me. Such people are easily swayed by ANY culture-wide myth, like fascism. Am I being too harsh?"More like ridiculous. I don't think you can help insulting people--you live in an all-or-nothing realm. Your conclusions are broad and record-settingly subjective. To put it as nicely as possible, you are not in an ideal position to be questioning my critical judgement. I'm not, in fact, sure that you even know what critical judgement is.posted 01/07/2008 at 14:45:07
"Like our friend, Zanti, he wants atheism to be a simple skeptical response to theism - the only thing atheists are allowed to say is, 'Prove it.' Then they are never allowed to say anything more on the subject."Please don't blame Dr. Wilson for my idea. That was me, not him (he?). I'd like to think it fits in with his ideas, but I have no way of knowing for sure. He may not even agree with me.And I'm not suggesting atheists have no right to go beyond "Prove it." I'm suggesting that, so long as skeptics properly invoke the scientific method, they are immune from counterchallenges. But ONLY so long as they do so. Otherwise, they are subject to the same rules of engagement as anyone else. Do you have a problem with that? Is it unfair to hold the claims of skeptics to the same standards we would hold anyone else"s?Too many neo-atheists, in my experience, are in the habit of pointing to their atheist label as proof that everything that issues forth from their person enjoys the pre-approval of the Logic God or something. But logic is not a label one wears--rationality is not a club we join. No one has the right to suggest that their claims are logical by default. No one has the right to opt out of the burden of proof.Of course atheists have a right to move outside of challenge mode"however, immunity from counterchallenge only extends so far as that mode. When you leave its umbrella of protection, you're in the same boat as the claimant. I'm not questioning your right to make claims! Nor damning you for doing so. I really can"t see why you think so.Logic and reason are invaluable tools. They can also serve as dangerous smokescreens when we cite them without actually applying them. I can label any claim as rational or logical, but simply labeling it as such don't make it so.posted 01/07/2008 at 13:26:29
I find Dr. Wilson's original essay more helpful in regard to what he means by "stealth religion." He talks about beliefs and belief systems that, while they don't invoke supernatural agents (his phrase), "are just like religions when they sacrifice factual realism on the altar of practical realism."He includes scientific theories in the raw--i.e., unrefined by repeated testing--as one set of examples. I love this example. It emphasizes that something can contain a general truth yet lead to disaster if insufficiently focused and corrected. A big, fat, general truth isn't something you can light the house with. General principles, if they fail to evolve beyond a blob of good intentions, won't start your car or run your PC.The "stealth" part refers to a surface soundness that hides a distortion (or distortions) of factual reality. What I wish he hadn't included was the "for the purpose of motivating a given suite of behaviors" part, because distortions of reality don't have to be willful or enacted for a purpose. Which he himself acknowledges. Maybe he"s going too far in his definition. If so, that"s far better than the reverse sin of under-defining.posted 01/07/2008 at 10:05:54
Hold on--an atheist is, what? Someone who recognizes myth as myth? If that's your take, then you're labeling an awful lot of believers as atheists, including the great German theologians of the 19th century (and beyond). Or simply liberal believers in general.My foster parents' minister said, in his farewell sermon, that we mustn"t limit our search for truth to the "mere Christian God." His church got in the national news for being "gay-affirming." So, I take it he's an atheist, too?It seems to me YOU have a choice. Namely, to either cling to your narrow definition of what a Christian is, or to open your mind to other possibilities. You've claimed the ability to think rationally as unique to your group (or your kind of group), and maybe you've been given the chance to learn the folly of that presumption.Your definition doesn't allow for thinking Christians. Well, we exist, anyway. How you deal with that truth is your choice. If stepping out of the stereotype equals rocking the boat, then there"s something wrong with the boat.And please stop glorifying your opinions as mere observations and the like. You're just an ordinary mortal thinker, like the rest of us.posted 01/07/2008 at 09:39:26
"I must say that I am done with this 'debate'. I've got more important things to do."Sorry you think I've been jerking your chain. In fact, I've been trying to follow the point/counterpoint form of debating.Very often, I don't know when to pack up and leave, but I sense this is one of those times.posted 01/07/2008 at 09:24:23
"Atheism, bluntly spoken, means you don't believe in the Invisible Man(Carlin). You likely don't believe in the Hereafter, either, but rather more along the lines of Burt Monroe, that when you're dead, you're dead."Atheism is nothing less than a branch of skepticism. It's more involved (and proactive) than casually deciding there's no Big Guy in the Sky.I'm not comfortable when any kind of skepticism--atheistic or otherwise--is described in terms of a conversion experience. When it's related in the manner of a testimonial. As you've done here.You claim to be walking the skeptical walk, but all I hear you doing is decrying religion as b.s. in so many variations. Anyone can do that, especially at the moment, when it's so fashionable. Frankly, your essay sounds like an introductory statement at a meeting of Atheists Anonymous....posted 01/07/2008 at 08:29:14
Oops. Actually, it drove right past me! My bad.Exactly. Can we really be sure that we aren't really sure? Got it.Maybe that's a uniquely human abliity--i.e., the ability to sense that there's more than we can sense at any given moment. To sense beyond our senses. Plenty of species can reason via the information they gather from their senses, but we seem to be able to interact with our own mental constructs. I doubt that animals can do that. Animals think, but they don't know that they think. Or think they think. They're focused on marking territory and finding food and sex. We humans are way more advanced than... um....Er....Yeah. Let me think about that.posted 01/07/2008 at 07:46:16
And you lost me. You're painting everyone with the same, very broad brush. You're arguing in such absolute terms that it's impossible to know how to respond. I don't mean that in an unkind way--I'm just saying.I believe you are sincere in every way, and I hope you perceive the same about me. But we're hitting a wall here. The simple fact is that many, if not most, believers do not practice a text-literal, supernaturally-based faith. Nor are they required to do so. Even if they WERE required to do so, people are notorious for bending the rules. How many Catholics, for instance, who SAY they obey the Pope actually do? In my own (subjective) experience, very few!You may feel that believers ARE required to believe everything and to follow this or that, and you may fault us for not being obedient, but the fact remains that religion on paper and religion in real life can be vastly different things. Thank God.In challenging the "absence of belief" cliche, I'm suggesting that what works out on paper (A does not equal -A) may not work out at all in real life. Theory and reality have a way of not always occupying the same page. And, to be sure, a skeptical point of view, by definition, is a critical one. Critical points of view HAVE to be based on beliefs and perceptions. They cannot otherwise exist.Therefore, it's irrational to assert that any skeptical stance, including atheism, can consist of (or function by virtue of) non-beliefs. A skeptical stance is NOT a neutral stance, not even in the context of invoking the logical method. Why? Because no one invokes the logical method unless he or she perceives a reason to do so. Such an assessment doesn't come from nowhere. It doesn't magically pop into existence. It's a product of critical thought.Critical thought is profoundly proactive. After all, it forms the basis for challenging beliefs and belief systems. posted 01/07/2008 at 04:42:35
"But you have made a blanket statement about atheism (it being a belief system) that you now seem to want to restrict to particular claims made by a few atheist authors."Those few authors are enjoying a heck of a lot of influence. And my chief concern is that atheism, as a form of skepticism, remain true to the rules--i.e., the rules of skeptical investigation and challenge. Namely, that only those claims made in the service of the logical method be considered immune from counterchallenge. To wit,"Prove it" is not legitimately answered with "No, you DISprove it." The burden of proof principle forbids it.To put it in a way consistent with Dr. Wilson's points, so long as atheism applies and abides by reason, great. Once it starts making claims all over the place, all the while using logic, reason, and science as its cover stories, we have a stealth religion happening."Fair enough, but I think that takes us far afield of the current discussion."Hardly! Reality vs. the perception thereof is one of the main themes in Dr. Wilson's first essay. It"s vital to the discussion. posted 01/07/2008 at 04:16:16
I apologize for the previous cut-and-paste error! That was not an echo you were hearing.... posted 01/07/2008 at 04:00:00
"And belief in gods is not fantastic? Why not?"If the belief in a god or gods is literal--i.e., if we truly believe in an invisible "And belief in gods is not fantastic? Why not?"If the belief in a god or gods is literal--i.e., if we truly believe in an invisible being pulling the marionette strings of eternity, then we're making one hell of a fantastic claim, yes.I, on the other hand, claim (along with a great many Christians) that God is a metaphor, a culture-wide myth, a human construct. Those are not fantastic assertions in either the sense that I'm making any claims for the supernatural OR that they conflict with what we can easily observe. Metaphors aren't supernatural. Culture-wide myths do exist.By the way, when atheists ask me the standard "Why don't you believe in Zeus?" question, I respond that Zeus isn't the popular god of the moment.I regard myths as real in their own right, as true but not factual. Myths are never factual but they can, and do, reflect or represent facts. Facts about human nature, facts about human perceptions, human needs, human aspirations, morality, and so on.I know--it"s fine to see religion as myth but don"t most believers take it literally? No, it"s not my impression that they do. Furthermore, even if (God forbid) we"ve reached a point where the majority of believers are text-literalists, what does that actually mean? Spiritual texts can"t really be taken literally. The chief danger in taking such texts literally is that we lose any chance of ever understanding their essence. posted 01/07/2008 at 03:58:47
Er... that atheist belief systems exist as such.Where's my grammar? (In the kitchen, baking cookies.) posted 01/06/2008 at 15:44:52
How am I calling them equivalent? You're human, I'm human. Does that make us the same person? Obviously not.In insisting that a belief is a belief is a belief, I'm not suggesting that all beliefs are equal. I'm saying that all beliefs are beliefs. And I'm parodying Gertrude Stein, which I'm in no position to do as someone who's virtually poetry-illiterate.I'm making that point in response to the common atheist assertions about absence of belief, about how atheists aren't advancing beliefs but instead challenging them. And so on. In other words, that there's no such thing as an atheist belief system. Well, I've never bought that, and I can't say how much it means to me to have a distinguihsed scientist confirm that atheist belief systems exists as such. In fact, it's kind of funny that his assertion is getting the same general response as mine. After all, I have no scientific credentials, while he has an impeccable resume. I can see why people would wonder where the hell I'm coming from, but I would think they'd tread more softly in his presence. He is, after all, a scientist and an atheist. I'm neither."Nowhere did I assert that a 'that a religious worldview dictates a person's entire worldview'."Assert, suggest--whatever. Then what, pray tell, are you assuming in regard to the believer's worldview? You've presented it as being fundamentally different from the atheist's, yet you have ME as an example of a believer who, outside of the context of religious myth, is in full agreement with people like James Randi, Carl Sagan, and even richard dawkins.posted 01/06/2008 at 15:43:19
"How do you know that?"That's the scientific consensus."Isn't that EXACTLY what the religious do with argument FOR god???"The religious? I'm religious, and I don't accept the existence of God on blind faith nor ask others to do so. Most of the believers I know are not of that literal-minded ilk, either. We're not all of the "God exists because God exists" mindset."Atheists are the ones who say test, test, test."In fact, I'm always saying test, test, test. Which does not make me an atheist.... posted 01/06/2008 at 15:19:58
This is going to sound impolite, but the atheist-on-deathbed motif is something of an urban legend. That doesn't mean it can't happen, or that I'm calling your experiences fiction, but it IS a common theme. The most common form of which has Darwin recanting his theories at the last earthly moment.If there are atheists who soften their stance in the face of death or tragedy, it's because they've elected to share in a common myth--the afterlife idea being an extension of the myth of God's love. Please note that I'm religious and that I therefore consider myths to be very, very real in their own right. Many fit into the category of being true while not being factual.And what is God's love but a metaphor for shared compassion and concern? In other words, when faced with tragedy or death (our own or a loved one's), we need to feel connected with the greater family of our species. At which point we share in a common metaphor. We join the prayer circle. What seemed silly suddenly seems meaningful.It's not a matter of someone's logic fading away, by any means. What could be more logical, really, than turning to a metaphor for universal worth and love? Myths are valuable because of what they represent; their literal truth or lack thereof is of no consequence. Maybe THAT'S what some people discover when their final check comes due. They suddenly realize that much of the myth and ritual MEANS something, and that there is reality in meaning. What is meaningful is real.posted 01/06/2008 at 13:15:09
I already have a sinus headache, actually....Yes, the posting lag is a problem, and I always keep it in mind. I don't expect you to respond to points that haven't appeared yet, and I'm sure you give me the same courtesy.posted 01/06/2008 at 12:38:19
"We're still playing semantic games."No, you are. A quick Google search yields this definition of "belief": "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something." Nothing to do with faith or with accepting without proof. Belief doesn't imply right or wrong, or valid or invalid. It implies accepting something as true.By insisting on a special word for what YOU believe, you're assuming that the beliefs of religious people are inherently idiotic and YOUR beliefs are inherently rational and noble. Glad you think so.Your third paragraph contains meaningless generalizations. You're suggesting that believers all believe the same thing(s) and that a religious worldview dictates a person's entire worldview, as if religion on the brain renders a person unable to think in any other terms. Really?"So the non-intersecting part of the atheist circle is filled with disbeliefs...like an empty cup full of nothing."Empty cup of nothing. You said it, not me.Disbelief refers to a state of disbelieving something, so what does the plural mean? Does a sad person live in a circle of depressions?You're touting atheism as nothing but a skeptical stance. In theory, sure. In reality, a skeptic displays his prejudices at least as loudly as we inferior, irrational believer sorts. Now, so long as you invoke the logic method, you are safe from counterchallenges. I'm without an excuse to shift the burden of proof to you (assuming I initiated the claim). Understood.Move out of the "prove it" zone, and the protective umbrella is gone--your assertions become fair game. You can insist that every challenge made by an atheist constitutes a disbelief, but that's a transparent way of suggesting your views and assertions are of a higher order than mine. That they are somehow based on, or around, rationality. But logical thinking is a process, a way of testing things. It's not a label we tack on, or a club we join.As far as religion goes, please review Dr. Wilson's essay to see what he means by "stealth religion." posted 01/06/2008 at 12:12:18
"Now are you going to argue that refusing to acknowledge the existence of fairies is a belief system equivalent to 'fairy-ism'?" No, I'm not. A skeptical stance does not constitute a belief system that is in any way equivalent to the claim being challenged.Now, back to what I'm actually saying. In a perfect world, atheism functions totally (or primarily) as a skeptical response to claims made on the behalf of religion. It does not share the burden of proof attached to religious claims so long as it addresses those claims without making *equivalent* counter-claims of its own.I'm not suggesting at all that "Prove it" is an equivalent claim. Rather, it"s an instance of invoking the logical method.However, even when atheism functions properly--i.e., primarily as a skeptical response to religion--it will inevitably STILL contain questions, points, and assertions that function independently of the basic skeptical function/response. Claims which, therefore, exist outside of the protective umbrella of the latter. Claims which, therefore, are open to challenge. THOSE are the claims I refer to.You would have us believe that all claims made on behalf of atheism (or any version thereof) are non-assertions, that they all function in "Prove it" mode. That is not the case. To give an easy and dramatic example, take dawkins' claim that religion is a dangerous virus. Does his assertion in any way stem from a skeptical response to religion? No. Does it facilitate same? Hardly. Is it called for? No, it's a bold (and somewhat wild) assertion that dawkins has sneaked in under the cloak of skeptical inquiry. And here we have returned to the main point of Dr. Wilson's piece.posted 01/06/2008 at 03:35:11
"In other words, the absence of belief IS belief."Actually, if you insist on micro-splitting hairs, yes, it is belief. When I challenge someone to prove an assertion, what beliefs am I expressing? For one, I'm expressing my belief that empirical claims can only be proven true or false through testing. That's a belief. And a fairly recent one, historically.I'm also clearly indicating that I find it necessary to test the claim. If someone tells me he was picked up by a UFO, for instance, I'd ask him to produce evidence. If he claimed he had eggs and waffles for breakfast several hours ago, I likely wouldn't ask him to barf up the proof so that it could be lab-tested. Why demand proof for one and not the other? Because the first claim is fantastic and, if true, requires that we alter our universal perspective just a tad. The second claim, by contrast, is mundane and of a (literally) everyday nature, and its truth or falseness is of zero consequence.To be continued.... posted 01/06/2008 at 02:59:26
But I see nothing wrong with ATHEISM laying claim to (pure) reason."On what basis can it make that claim? Its rejection of the supernatural? You may think it's purely reasonable to reject myth on every level, but a belief system doesn't magically become true and correct and rational by virtue of what it rejects."And because atheists wish to differentiate themselves from these god-based belief systems, they will want to claim rational thinking (at least in this arena) as their own."Sure, they'll want to, but the question is whether or not they're qualified to do so.And you seem to be suggesting that the antithesis of religion is reason. The opposite of religion is atheism. Like many people, you consider atheism the rational choice compared to choosing religion. But what do we know about your brand of atheism beyond the fact that, for you, it symbolizes that choice? Nothing. We can't judge its merits until we find out more about it. "I think any atheist would be swayed by a religionist if the religionist would provide just one scrap of empirical evidence for their position.""Their position (singular)"? Which would be...?I myself have never made a claim, literal or otherwise, for an invisible being who created the universe and who overlooks its functions. I'm a "Kingdom of God is within you" Christian."But by your argument, the burden of proof as to the existence of Santa lies on both my child and ME."No, not unless you're making the same assertion. When I said that the burden of proof works both ways, I mean that it applies to the respective claims of both sides. And, of course, there are usually many more than two sides to any issue, though on the "Net, debate over religion tends to be pro vs. con.posted 01/05/2008 at 23:10:05
Well, it's Dr. Wilson's definition we're supposed to be dealing with, so he's the one to ask, really. It's certainly not my impression that he equates belief with religion--and I know that I'm not doing so. Yes, religion is a belief system, but it's a TYPE of belief system. Just as science is a type of belief system. All beliefs being anything but equal.So, no, belief systems aren't religious (or religion) by definition. Nor are they scientific. Or necessarily rational or irrational.It's obvious that many atheists dislike the b-word (belief), but it's vital that we keep in mind at all times that our brains are interpreters of reality, that perceptions are, consequently, beliefs. Otherwise, we get to believing in the infallibility of our perceptions, and we confuse constructs with facts. Our brains fashion WAYS of seeing reality, because there's only so much data we can take in at a given moment. Our perception of reality is always incomplete, and therefore inherently distorted. When we get to thinking that our perceptions ARE facts, we're confusing our means of discerning reality with reality itself. The B-word keeps us humble. It reminds us that, while reality may be perfect, our ability to process that reality is so far from perfect as to be laughable.When I talk about atheists invoking logic, I'm referring to the cloak that Dr. Wilson writes about. New atheists are constantly citing rationality, science, truth, wisdom, etc. as their authorities, and these things sure make for an attractive resume, but we have to look beyond that cloak to make sure it isn't functioning as a smokescreen. The alternative is to accept, on blind faith, that a given atheistic argument is sound and factual because the claimant SAYS so. Is that really what you'd want anyone to do? posted 01/05/2008 at 16:21:12
It depends on which atheist belief system we're talking about. Dr. Wilson has already done a far better job than I could do--his first essay gives some terrific examples. That, plus I don't want to go any further in paraphrasing his ideas, so that I don't mangle them any further than I may have already.Atheism IS a belief system--the "absence of belief isn't belief" idea is nonsense. If atheists had no beliefs, then to what in the world are they comparing religious beliefs? To test the validity of an assertion or group of assertions, we have to test them AGAINST other ideas--specifically, ideas that have survived critical testing. An atheist without beliefs has nothing against which to test religious claims and therefore is in no position to judge. It can't be had both ways--we can't denounce someone else's views as nonsensical (or, a la dawkins, as dangerous) and then insist we have no POV of our own.The whole stance is analogous to my saying, "I had no opinion about the movie whatsoever. But, boy, did that movie suck."What claims need testing? Depends on the atheist or group thereof. Dr. Wilson wrote about the tendency of new atheists to condemn religion in highly black and white terms (purely evil, with few or no redeeming qualities) and to liken it to a virus. Those (evil, virus-like) are claims, are they not?He warns against falling into the trap of comparing things in absolute, all-or-nothing, good-guys-wear-white-hats terms, and damned if he hasn't described New Atheism to a tee. Note that New Atheism is a type thereof, and a very general label, at that. But because we're talking about ideas--and popular ideas, at that--and large groups of people, there's no choice but to generalize. Dr. Wilson uses my approach of trying to balance very specific examples with broad assertions--it's a kind of triangulation, really. posted 01/05/2008 at 15:19:13
Wondering,He labels atheism (in its various forms) as having the *potential* to become a stealth religion or series thereof. Any belief system does, according to his definition. A very interesting idea, and one that gives a careful reader much to think about.As Mr. Wilson wrote last time, "The discerning liberal (or any intellectual) would be a fool to assume that atheism stands for pure reason, just because it doesn't invoke the gods." Amen. Or, as I put it, nothing is rational or logical by default.And, sure enough, you write (as if eager to prove his point), "Are you implying that the existence of gods is a proveable fact, and atheism distorts this?"In other words, right off the bat, you're pointing out that atheism, unlike religion, makes no claims for a God or Gods. As if atheism is therefore rendered immune from charges of distorting the facts of the real world. A belief system, however, has to do a LOT more than eschew superstition to earn rational-thinking kudos. It has to test its own claims, for instance.Furthermore, he wasn't talking about what people of faith assert--he's talking about what atheists assert. The burden of proof is a two-way street, which means my side AND YOURS."I am stunned. If you're going to toss science and reason into the irrational-belief-system pot with religion and nationalism, then we might as well go back to living in caves. Do you even know what science is?"I'm guessing yes. From his Huff-Po bio: "He is a distinguished professor of biology and anthropology at Binghamton University, part of the State University of New York."As for his tossing science and reason in with religion and nationalism, we're back to his point that all belief systems have the potential to become stealth religions. Okay? posted 01/05/2008 at 08:32:11
Mr. Wilson identifies atheism as a belief system that has the potential to become a religion if its ideas and assertions aren't properly tested, if they are simply accepted as true, never mind how they play (or don't play) in the real world. Which is too often the case around these parts. To wit, many neo-atheist assertions are presumed to be true simply because they counter ideas that are demonstrably false--never mind that nothing is true by contrast or default. And atheist assertions are often presumed to be true when formed in a sort of accordance with tested notions, simply because they thus *appear* to buttress known facts. But nothing is true because of an apparent consistency with a fact--something can take on the shape or the tone of a tested theory but contain none of its logic or consistency. We only know that something is true or false by testing it. Ideas don't come with credentials--they have to acquire them."To imply that asking a theist for proof of the basic proposition 'there is a god' before being willing to accept it is 'stealth religion' is an odd view of the role of faith and reality."I'm not aware that he's implying that at all. And he's not talking about the assertions of the faithful but, rather, the assertions made by atheists. Your side engages in infinitely more activity than challenging my side to prove God's literal existence (a claim many of us are NOT making, incidentally). To wit, your side asserts that religion is dangerous, that faith is dangerous, that fundamentalism is the true form of religion, and so on. These constitute claims, and, as such, they are testable. And on a per-claim basis.Asking theists for proof that God exists (IF they assert as much, and only if) is utterly justified. If your side were doing no more than asking that question (along with logically related questions), there'd be no need for Mr. Wilson's essay. But there is a very sore need for it. posted 01/05/2008 at 02:42:51
HeevenSteven,I believe (pun intended) that you're splitting hairs. To believe something is to hold it to be true. That's all it means. I suspect you're invoking the imaginary diffence between believing and knowing--as in, KNOWING that Darwin was correct because evidence supports his main views, vs. BELIEVING that God exists, because one can't possibly know as much in the absence of evidence. Sorry, but belief is involved in both instances. The real distinction lies between beliefs that are based on the best evidence presently available vs. beliefs that are based on wishful thinking, tradition, superstition, etc.Both are beliefs, but one is rational and probably correct; the latter is irrational and likely NOT to be true. The problem with labeling one belief as a fact and the other as a mere belief is that it second-guesses probability. All assertions have to be tested. And retested. And tested again. The virtue of scholarship, scientific or otherwise, is that it endlessly subjects ideas and beliefs to testing--that way, what doesn't hold up is either modified or, at worst, tossed out. The moment we decide to accept something--anything--as absolutely true, as something incapable of being wrong, we have become fundamentalist in our thinking. Even the most valuable and rigorously-tested principle becomes a thing of magical thinking when removed from critical testing.I think that's mainly what Mr. Wilson is saying--that anything treated religiously (or like a religion) becomes religion."Isn't it the job of science to be suspicious of all arguments?"Yes. As I'm always suggesting, nothing is exempt from critical testing, so we're on the same page. Problem is, very many of the atheists at this site invoke logic as if it represented a side to be on. Or a club to belong to. When logic is something we apply. It's a process, not a mode of thinking, though the latter has literally been suggested again and again by both bloggers and comment-section scribes. posted 01/05/2008 at 01:27:05
Whitewashing and Cherry Picking Religion
Your horrific experience was not the norm, but I sense you want very much to assert that it somehow is. You're generalizing from what happened to you. You're applying your case to everyone else's, and even writing as elegant and intelligent as yours can't transcend such a fallacy. Please consider that there's a vital difference between suggesting that something doesn't represent the spirit of a given religion and suggesting that it is not related in any way. Christian crimes, yes, are Christian crimes any way you slice them. Just as the genocidal behavior committed in the name of Darwin--while, at best, perversions of Darwin's theories--is still behavior enacted in the name of Darwin. But it's crucial to make the distinction between acts that truly stem from Darwin's writings and those that don't, as well as behavior that is consistent with Christ's teachings and behavior that is not. You seem to treat that distinction as meaningless."When you say you are a Christian, you become everything that is or was Christianity."In other words, all Christians are responsible for the behavior of all other Christians? If you mean that in the sense that I have a duty to acknowledge that much evil has been done (and continues to be done) in the name of C., then I agree. If you're suggesting that I'm literally responsible for the behavior of other Christians, sorry, that's frankly absurd. I call myself an American, but that doesn't mean I supported invading Iraq or that I'm personally responsibility for our poor standing in the world. I didn't vote for Bush either time.By insisting as much, I'm neither making excuses for those who did vote for Bush, nor am I suggesting our country isn't responsible for the evil it's done. I am suggesting, however, that people are individuals. You were born into a cult and desire to make that a metaphor for the Christian experience. Just as illogically, I could do the same with my agnostic upbringing. Except that cult narratives are readily accepted as universally applicable; agnostic narratives are not. posted 01/05/2008 at 03:29:19
Faint Light for the New Year
Wondering,Please learn to read. In your eagerness to ridicule the poster, you skipped over three qualifying phrases. Don't be so intent on showing someone up that all you demonstrate is your inability to successfully read a couple of short paragraphs. posted 01/05/2008 at 03:59:24
"no right, no wrong..."Then why are so many all fired up over the behavior of evangelical Christians? On the basis of what?If there's no right, no wrong, I mean. posted 01/05/2008 at 03:33:53
"Atheists don't control any form of the media - point out one TV show or major movie that contains a blatantly atheist message."TV--The Simpsons.Movie--The Golden Compass.Bestselling book--The God Delusion.You could at least have made it challenging.... posted 01/04/2008 at 06:13:43
Huckabee, Romney Courted Evangelicals Sunday: Christian Conservatives Close To Half of Republican Caucus-goers
Well, though, isn't that better than if, say, candidates had to make promises to powerful donors to get elected? Which would make them beholden to such people?At worst, we could see lawmakers dropping the ball on protecting the environment or ensuring toy safety or ensuring that workers have one or two rights to their person--stuff like that--because they'd be in a position of having to pay back the rich and powerful.So, be happy that all we have are religious requirements. God help this country if it ever becomes a place where you've got to have (or be able to get) dough to get in office. That would really suck.posted 01/05/2008 at 08:46:31
Really? We have a state church now?posted 01/02/2008 at 11:42:29
Romney's Founders
Your points lack any point. posted 12/13/2007 at 13:28:21
Hm. "jesus," but "Europe"?Selective capitalization?Not in MY america! posted 12/13/2007 at 00:00:05
"Established," in First Amendment context, also means favored. Promoted over others. An established church is, in effect, the official church.The church (er, Church) is therefore a country club. The Country Club. Nowadays, class membership has replaced Church membership. If you think about it....And I just thought of a distinction worth making--many are equating a state church with a theocracy, but theocracy seems to mean rule from (or based on) sacred texts. A system is which only ONE religion exists. By contrast, a society with a state church may very well allow other churches to exist. And to what extent the Church would dictate or influence matters of state isn't (no pun intended) set in stone. posted 12/12/2007 at 23:58:13
It's all over pop culture, so all I can suggest is that you watch (or listen to)examples. And the fashionable faith-bashing form of the moment is generational in nature. Notice the trend of picking on "organized" religion? And the trend of insisting there's some vast difference between spiritual and religious? (I'm sure the difference is a "nuanced" one, to use the most misused adjective of the moment.)Reading between the lines a little, we see that the real target is traditional, sit-in-church, sing-from-hymnals religion. That stopped being cool long ago. The Simpsons is one of the popular forces that helped establish "organized" religion as a metaphor for conformity, as anti-rock-and-roll, though that point of view predates the show. As ever, popular TV shows reflect ideas as much as they promote them.The main problems with old-style (I mean, organized) religion: No Goddess hymns allowed, "warfare" metaphors accepted, God the Father (along with faith, one of the two religious F-words), suit and tie, formal order of service, organ music, and so on.Choirs and organs and chimes, oh, my!The Boomer concept of church is New Agey, less formal, entertainment oriented, with less "judgmental" services, and featuring a shared sense of snarky superiority in our being "different." Different meaning any departure from the way of life documented in 50-year-old sitcoms like Leave It to Beaver.It explains how and why it's possible, in a country where most people are religious, for religion-bashing to exist on a popular level. As we speak, some new (read: retreaded) version of pop faith is coming out. And, no, not "retarded," though that'll work, too.Meanwhile, I"m enjoying the whole state/church argument, if only to marvel over the misreadings (on both the left and right extremes) of a tersely-worded, utterly straightforward clause. I've learned, among other things, that to avoid establishing something, the govt. is required to ban it from mention and consideration. posted 12/12/2007 at 23:35:39
I sense there's little point in arguing with him, even nicely. He has all the answers, and that's that.This site is filled with people whose concept of history is "It happened THIS way and THAT way, and THIS document reflected THESE ideas, and for THESE reasons, and THAT's that." And whatever THEIR take is, it has to be the right one, because there ain't more than one way to be looking at any one thing. Good folk wisdom there.Luckily for all of us, the evolution of ideas is way, way more complicated than that. But God help anyone who suggests the founders--in spite of abundant evidence to the effect--were influenced by a myriad of ideas.Of course they were influenced by Christian ideas, among others. It's the "among others" part that seems beyond so many otherwise smart people. They try to process stereo reality in mono mode.Inclusive thinking--what a concept. posted 12/12/2007 at 23:03:47
Um... because people are allowed to think for themselves and form their own conclusions.Or hadn't you heard? posted 12/12/2007 at 22:56:19
"'There are very definite and strong Christian ideas that underpin the American government.'This predicate does not lead to the conclusion that Christianity influenced the Constitution."Yes, it does! That's precisely what it means.posted 12/12/2007 at 22:53:56
Oops. "According to that playbook," I menat. posted 12/12/2007 at 12:40:00
"Something that is generally lacking in these discussions is that Separation of Church and State was designed to protect the Church."Right! The clause in question is specifically about not having a Church of America. Which is why I wonder who came up with this stuff about government not so much as acknowledging the existence of religion (nothing you said, of course). It's about govt. not promoting or favoring any one religion over another--which, of course, doesn't prohibit the representation of faith; just unequal representation. Endorsement.I often wonder what life would be like if, instead of having a baby over religion in the "political square," people rioted anytime a politician tossed a baseball for the TV cameras. You know--imminent Sports-ocracy.Or Imminent Big-Business-ocracy, to the extent Congress passes laws regarding corporations. Can't have that. (Actually, I think I just tapped into the prime neocon position.)Only laws that FAVOR business can be permitted according to that playback.If we're to believe the only alternative to a state church is a government that's not allowed to deal with (or even deal with the fact OF) religion, then someone's conned us but good.However, you've got it completely correct--I agree with every point you make. Thanks for making them. posted 12/12/2007 at 12:38:53
"Tolerant believers of any faith provide a ready pool of potential intolerant ones."Excuse me????I've heard many variations on that one, and it has yet to make sense."When Senators tell us we don't have to deal with climate change because 'God is still up there' (Inhoffe); well then many of us know that, sweet Jesus, we have a problem."Yes, Steven, we have a problem--that of politicians serving the interests of polluters, damn the environment. Those folks put them in office, and they pay them back by ignoring global warming. If you seriously think they're doing it because they believe God is in the house, I have some lunar craters at 83 percent discount, but only until Friday.I don't suppose it's possible politicians use the God stuff as an excuse for serving those who bankrolled their campaigns? Do we really think they're above such deception, especially given our willingness to doubt (with good reason) everything else they offer?Like, when did these con artists ever speak from their convictions? posted 12/12/2007 at 02:21:58
" It's the idiot leaders."Not the people who vote for them?posted 12/11/2007 at 23:11:49
Actually, I meant to post this elsewhere--my eyes aren't so good my age. Someone had two posts in a row of "religion sucks" posts by the Founding Fathers.My bad. I actually get lost on these pages sometimes. And this is a comparatively well-set-up board. ( posted 12/11/2007 at 23:10:02
There is, if we consider my actual point. Namely, if the most popular show on TV presents an atheistic point of view, whom are they presenting it for? It's not as if The Simpsons were airing on a low-power pirate TV station out in a mountain someplace.Do you honestly think popular culture would be full of anti-faith shows, songs, comics, etc. if the point of view being served weren't a widespread one? The "Simpsons" writers aren't tenured--they either keep the ratings coming, or they're out of a job. posted 12/11/2007 at 23:03:22
"Scientifically illiterate," I wrote. posted 12/11/2007 at 22:59:43
Wow. Great points! Great post.I, too, wonder a little about why the essay is telling us all of these things. That is, Romney's crime was not in suggesting that Christian ideas influenced our founders--his crime lies in suggesting that those ideas were the sole (or worse, the proper) ones. The founders were influenced by ideas from everywhere. They apparently believed in keeping the best and most rational ideas from various faiths and philosophies and discarding the rest. Which sounds like the perfect plan to me.A lot of people are using Romney's narrowminded attitude as proof that any acknowledgment of religion on the part of government is wrong and dangerous. But it's only wrong and dangerous when fascists do so.What if Romney had said something like, "We musn't ignore the influence of various religious beliefs and principles on our way of government. Which is not, in any way, to suggest that we are a relilgious nation, let alone specifically a Christian one"? I think, had he said something to that effect, I might consider voting for the guy.However, the probability is on par with pigs sprouting wings or Britney Spears getting a PhD.posted 12/11/2007 at 22:07:13
"Religion is for the weak and cowardly."Oh, gosh. How can I be more like you, O Tough Guy?posted 12/11/2007 at 18:21:51
"It's clear now that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are both subversive documents and part of the War on Christianity and must be..." etc.This is poor satire and an equally poor straw argument. In my opinion. posted 12/11/2007 at 18:17:16
It's gotten to where I don't know who's being insulted in this thread....Thank God for the "Parent" function. posted 12/11/2007 at 18:15:45
Especially ones provided in cyberspace for easy cutting, copying, and pasting. posted 12/11/2007 at 18:13:55
Your qualifiers (all of them pretty standard) make me suspicious. They're too close to the I Don't Care What People Do So Long As They Stay in Another Neighborhood cliche. Which is the essence of bigotry. Segregation by any other name is just as indefensible a policy.And I really mean that. What are we telling people when we demand they keep their customs and beliefs and ways and smelly socks off our turf? Where the hell is good ol' American tolerance in such an attitude?The age-old nonsense of tellilng someone you're fine with him so long as he zips up--it shouldn't pass muster on the left for for two seconds. Yet, we seem to be in the middle of Liberal Intolerance: The Musical.And I fail completely to understand why, if you have such disregard for Christian beliefs, you care for one moment whether or not people have what you consider an acceptable relationship to Christ. Don't write off a group of people as fools and then proceed to tell them how to act. It's not a high-EQ thing to do. posted 12/11/2007 at 18:12:30
Oops. I meant, "And IF I responded, 'Nobody's being hateful....'"posted 12/11/2007 at 18:01:55
Collectively, cyber-atheists ridicule and condemn and stereotype believers, and they do it with enough fervency to suggest they're fulfilling an entrance requirement for the Faith-Bashers' Club. If this isn't hate (or something motivated by same), what is it?Rather than questioning me for calling it hate, explain the behavior in question. If someone talked out YOU in such a fashion, you wouldn't hesitate to label it as hate. Or so I strongly suspect. And I responded, "Nobody's being hateful," you'd accept that? posted 12/11/2007 at 18:01:12
"Not certain what Einstein meant."Maybe he meant what he said...? posted 12/11/2007 at 17:44:56
Which is, um, why the latest atheist titles are hawked all over the MSM?Which is why The Simpsons (isn't it the most popular show on TV or close to same) makes fun of religion in precisely the same manner as people at this blog? Some of whom quote from the show?Why do I sense a disconnect here? posted 12/11/2007 at 17:43:49
"Do you know many liberals?"LOL! I feel sorry for people who assume that anyone who criticizes the left must be an enemy.Yes, I know many liberals. Lots of them! I see one every day when I look in the mirror, and most of my friends fall under that heading. Politically, I'm to the left of the Clintons (though I love them dearly). Because I'm liberal, I worry a lot about the bigotry we're broadcasting these days. Just as society has become too danged liberal for conservatives, society is becoming too, shall we say, common for many liberals. Too vernacular, if you prefer. (I'd say "popular," but no one knows the meaning of that word anymore.) We're threatened by the growing empowerment of plain, average folk, and so we cling to our hip, retro jazz and watch sitcoms with "sex" in the title. Too many common voices in the public square. Attacking religion is a symbolic way of protesting the over-vernacularizing of our culture. Our snobbish ways are being threatened. Eek!We are living down to the (too true) stereotype of the left as the realm of clueless big-word users. Our foes (not without cause) are laughing at us. posted 12/11/2007 at 16:06:52
"Huh?"I see. Try to succeed in cyberspace by saying positive things about religion.Go ahead. Then tell me how it works out. posted 12/11/2007 at 15:58:16
I feel bad for Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and those others. Apparently, they didn't make a dime from their best-selling titles....I do think before I speak. I'm trying to set an example for folks like you. posted 12/11/2007 at 15:57:23
Oh, re your first question--many answers, so little time.Much of it is a rant against the middle class and middle class values, which is old news. The left is famous for its disconnect with average people and average values. Think NPR.And middle-class-bashing, thanks in part to rock culture, has become a popular institution. "Simpsons," MTV, even TVLand. What was once very countercultural is now old hat. Which of course is always how it works. The Beat poets were showing courage to pick on the vernacular values of their time; these days, it takes guts not to.And we have a closely related trend wherein anything "traditional" in religion is denounced as shallow (or worse). Witness the flood of spirituality-vs.-religion entries and comments. Which all come down to the cliche that organized religion is bad but New Agey religion is good. The former meaning our parents' version of faith--going to church, singing hymns, saying "Our Father," and so on. Too Their Generation for us.In the post-Moral-Majority period, religion is the easiest, most convenient target ever handed to the left. Of course, we're required to believe that every nut who says "We are a Christian nation" is two days from making that happen. But we can't let rationality get in the way of hysteria. It's not American.The behavior of far-right believers also opens the door to bashing middle class values, though we have to pretend that mainline believers are directly (or indirectly) accountable for the actions of abortion-clinic bombers. That's why we're always hearing the "Why don't good Christians speak up?" stuff. Well, why don't we all speak up about things that are wrong--at which point, the wrong things magically vanish. Not.Never mind that mainline C.'s do, and continue to, speak up about such things. But who gets the mike? The MSM is too busy covering the latest Jesus-on-toast story to cover religion. posted 12/11/2007 at 15:54:43
"Were you at all troubled by Mitt's speech?"Not as much as I would have been had I not heard it before. I mean, it's pretty par for the far-right, "Christian Nation" loonies. The usual lies, and no support offered for them. What distinguishes Romney's blather-athon is the way he contradicted himself several times per clause. I describe the essence of his blather as "We are not a Christian nation; however, we ARE a Christian nation." The man is an idiot.Probably not a horribly evil person himself (I'm just guessing), but one who will gladly sell his soul to people who are. For power. posted 12/11/2007 at 15:33:13
Problem is, they make up 99.9 percent of progressives in cyberspace. Note that I qualified my statement by saying "these pages."posted 12/11/2007 at 15:23:40
The problem, HeevenSteven, is that I do not belong to the community of Bible literalists. Hence, why should I read books based on the weird presumption that, because I'm a believer, I'm a slave to religious myth, and so on and so forth? posted 12/11/2007 at 10:50:21
I would need a lot more evidence to convince me a theocracy is imminent. I think that what we're mostly seeing is Repubs playing to a very gullible demographic. And I think we're assigning WAY too much power to that small group. Two examples come to mind. 1) We have the myth that a small percentage of voters put Bush in office, when in reality Bush would never have gotten into office--even with all the stolen votes--had he not had a significant base of support. Meaning we can't blame it all on far-right C.'s. SOMEONE other than them (they?) voted for the clown.2) We have the idea that the same demographic is primarily responsible for the erosion of abortion rights and opposition to stem-cell research. Isn't it far more likely that we live in a highly science-illiterate culture and that too many people are willing to thoughtlessly relinquish the right of reproductive choice (never considering the possibility that the issue might affect THEM?). Huge numbers of people will knowingly support wrong things, unless they envision themselves suffering the consequences at some point. Then, of course, it's a different matter.Back to topic (sorry!), even if the majority of people were O.K. with religious rule (and it wouldn't surprise me, given that the average person has no idea how our govt. is supposed to work), no one would be able to agree on WHICH church. Mob rule is fine with a lot of people, but it's got to be THEIR mob. Which, ironically, is probably the only thing that saves us from mob rule. In a free country, people may favor a Hitler figure, but it's got to be THEIR Hitler figure, not someone else's.Similarly, church rule is only going to happen when enough people can agree on which church. And try, in our country, to get ten people to agree on what brand of pop to bring to the potluck, let alone which church to put in charge. posted 12/11/2007 at 10:28:13
"Ask the question - why were the founders so weary and suspicious of religion?"Hopefully they'd answer that it's because the founders were escaping the tyranny of a state church.And hopefully THEY'D ask, in return, why so many continue to be weary and suspicious of religion long after the threat of a state church has passed.You see, what we REALLY need are people with the spine to start challenging the Church of America myth, to loudly object to the practice of attacking faith based on a false threat (much as Bush attacked Iraq by way a nonexistent missile threat).You're free to believe the Repub Party is analogous to the Church of England, and I'm free to find that idea humorous and overblown. posted 12/11/2007 at 09:52:50
You concluded that how? Because I talked primarily about religious rights? And why not? Everything doesn't have to be written from, or in regard to, an atheist perspective. That's virtually all we hear on these pages.I'm trying to provide some balance. posted 12/11/2007 at 09:45:00
"I am willing to tolerate religion, as long as it is not forced down my throat."Precisely my feeling regarding richard-dawkins-style secularism!Re "under God," our founders were worried about infinitely bigger state/church issues, such as not repeating the British model. So I think they would have laughed at the Pledge controversy and shifted their thoughts to something worth pondering. posted 12/11/2007 at 09:21:31
Yes, the evolution of ideas. A very confusing concept to most people. The popular myth holds that ideas simply drop from the sky or pop up from the ground. Just ask richard dawkins, who thinks the concept of human equality is something one figures out with a little bit of rational consideration. He falsely reduces a concept many centuries (no, millennia) in the making to a matter of common sense.I'm afraid the idea of idea evolution is too abstract for many. They don't mean to miss out on it, they just do.posted 12/11/2007 at 09:17:41
Yes, but the FUNDING fathers did.