Friendly outgoing eclectic agnostic seeks one gram of soul
58% of USAians don’t realise that people might try and scam them online, and probably trust everything they get via email. In other news, 55% of USAians believe that God created humans in their present form.
Anybody see the correlation?
(Via The Consumerist)
Popularity: 18% [?]
I’m really struggling with the fact that Scott Adams continues to display a dogmaticly ignorant view of atheism. I realise he’s generally writing just to stir people up (or, as the about atheism blog describes it: trolling), but that doesn’t make it acceptable.
I like Dilbert. I often enjoy Scott Adams’ blog posts, because they do make you think. Sometimes he actually comes up with some really good thought experiments. As another commenter on my blog wrote:
I always liked thought experiments that went beyond “I saw the flaws in this argument when I was three years old.”
If he stayed away from things he clearly has no idea about, or actually took on board someone else’s opinion every now and then, it would be fine. But I’m finding it harder and harder to stay away from the “unsubscribe” button…
Popularity: 11% [?]
Update: a reply! Supposedly, my comments were blocked by a rule which removes posts with more than two links. Given both my comments1 only had one link, this seems unlikely.
Just to being with, I’ll just say that in general, I don’t agree with Atheistic evangelism. I get really pissed off when Christians (I only single them out because no one else has ever tried to convert me, but I’m sure they’re not the only evangelists) don’t understand that I have no interest in joining their religion (or any other, for that matter). It is for exactly that reason that I disagree with atheists doing exactly the same thing. I don’t care if we’re right – I’ll happily debate with someone, and explain my position, but I’m not arrogant enough to think that everyone else should necessarily share my views. Before you say “why are you giving these religious people so much respect?” (as I’m sure many Dawkinians might), I would treat peoples political beliefs or choice of ice cream flavours in exactly the same way. “You don’t like rocky road? But what could possibly be better than the mix of smooth sticky marshmallow with crunchy nuts?” … “You don’t like nuts? Well ok, then…”.
I’ve had three discussions/arguments with various Christians/creationists recently2, two of which have been quite interesting, and possibly even productive.
That said, blatantly stupid comments still draw my ire – fine – be religious, believe in a personal God. I’ll disagree with you, but it’s still your right. Claiming that “we’re working on it” is not a better answer than “goddidit”, and you’ll get my argumentative juices flowing. Further trying to claim a law professor is somehow an expert in evolutionary biology, and even further that biology is not a natural science is beyond me.
I can’t imagine (note: sarcasm) why the Gay Conservative didn’t post my most recent comment3:
Last time I checked, biology IS a natural science.
Secondly, if you want to quote someone reputable about evolutionary biology, an ex-Berkley law professor4 is not my idea of a credible source… Find me a reputable biologist (or even a reputable scientist in a related field), and I might take more notice…
Did I have a point? Was I too argumentative? Feel free to read through the comments on Gay Conservative’s post, and see if anyone else can get their comments published.
Popularity: 13% [?]
Here are some of the sites I’ve been looking at recently, that I wanted to share:
Popularity: 32% [?]
Dawkins (we all know him, right?) is suggesting that, while we all are aware of the threat to science by creationists and religious fundamentalists, there are other threats which must also be taken seriously.
“I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism – the view that scientific truth is only one kind of truth and it is not to be especially privileged.”1
Sure, Dawkins has a point. While I certainly would disagree with his implied (correct me if I’m wrong) view that scientific truth is the only legitimate form of truth, suggesting that scientific truth should not be privileged above that of, say, religion or even philosophy would certainly be a mistake. Religious “truth” seems almost an oxymoron, but philosophical truth does have some merit. Perhaps we could also talk about “personal” truth (gotta love Dr. Phil). Of course, if science and philosophy (or science and my “personal truth”) were to ever disagree, I’d side with science – no question.
That said, I found the link to Dawkins’ quote from Atheist Revolution, who seems to take Dawkins’ argument to some strange extreme. I started reading:
For a more current example of Dawkins’ concerns, we turn to Philadelphia where police officer Kimberlie Webb sued her department for their refusal to allow her to wear a hijab while on duty…
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actually concluded that the police department had violated Webb’s rights by prohibiting her from wearing Muslim garb while on duty.
Fortunately, federal judge Bartle had more sense2
Now, the judge’s reasons might have some validity – he suggests that (and this is me paraphrasing) by disallowing “religious symbols and attire” puts officers in a better position to deal with varying cultures/religions of people who they have to interact with.
But, I digress. My issue is not with the judge’s decision, as I clearly don’t know enough about the facts to disagree with him. I do, however, take issue with the comments made on Atheist Revolution:
Why must freedom to practice one’s religion become freedom to practice one’s religion in public?3
Isn’t that exactly the point of the legal right to practice one’s religion freely? Things that we do in the privacy of our own home are protected by the mere fact that the government cannot enter our homes without a warrant. The only practical benefit of providing a legal freedom to practice one’s religion is to allow people to freely do this in public.
Popularity: 19% [?]
… and you thought Creationists lived with their head in the sands.
I found a podcast recently by The Infidel Guy, where he discusses a group I couldn’t believe actually existed today – The Flat Earth Society.
On this podcast, he discusses the beliefs of the Flat Earth Society who still believe that the earth is actually flat. A round disk, centred at the north pole, with a 150ft ice wall which keeps all the water in. How is it, then, that us “Round Earthers” are utterly convinced that the earth is actually round? Well, it’s a world-wide government conspriacy. One of the most disturbing things about this, is these views are apparently not motivated by religious dogma, but rather… just plain stupidity!
Have a read of their FAQ to fully understand just how nuts these views are. While it appears that the actual number of members who believe what they preach is small, I’m still hoping it’s just a big joke, but even Pastafarianists don’t take things that far.
(I wanted to find a nice picture of Discworld to use on this post, but I couldn’t find one that I could use without breaking copyright)
Popularity: 10% [?]
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman
Atheist Manifesto by Michel Onfray
Design by Beccary and Weblogs.us
·
XHTML
·
CSS
Powered by His Noodly Appendage
Posts