Disqus - Friends of berimbauone

Re: The Dodo Graveyard

Calladus — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:39:02 -0000

Carl,

I find the term 'Fossil' as used in this article confusing. Forgive an electrical engineer for being out of his depth in biology - but I thought that fossilization only applied to matter preserved through mineralization. It was my understanding that this process took a lot longer than 3000 years.

Am I incorrect? Were these Dodo bones already mineralized, or partly mineralized? Can 'fossil' be applied to bones this early in the process of mineralization?

Re: The Dodo Graveyard

Calladus — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:39:02 -0000

Carl,

Am I incorrect? Were these Dodo bones already mineralized, or partly mineralized? Can 'fossil' be applied to bones this early in the process of mineralization?

Re: The Dodo Graveyard

Calladus — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:17:40 -0000

Thanks Carl!

Actually, your analogy is probably the explanation that I grasp best; "how old is old?"

The more 'vague' definition of fossil explains Dr. Mary Schweitzer calling demineralized tissue from a T-Rex bone 'fossil' where I would have just called it 'tissue'. I guess both are correct?

But this does undo a long held assumption of mine - that 'real' fossils were mineralized and that everything else was just 'well preserved.' I never asked myself at what point in the mineralization process does the subject become a fossil. Time for some reading!

Re: The Dodo Graveyard

Calladus — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:17:40 -0000

Thanks Carl!

Actually, your analogy is probably the explanation that I grasp best; "how old is old?"

The more 'vague' definition of fossil explains Dr. Mary Schweitzer calling demineralized tissue from a T-Rex bone 'fossil' where I would have just called it 'tissue'. I guess both are correct?

Re: A Lesson in When Not to Speak

Calladus — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:08:59 -0000

Mollishka, It's an Answers in Genesis sort of thing that I've run into before. Daniel J. Lewis, a AIG spokesperson has it in his own blog:

...and I also covered a couple basic science examples that confirm the Bible’s history and oppose the world’s teachings of millions of years.

It is as if imagining an infinite God actually limits their worldview - they just can't bring themselves to imagine vast amounts of time.

Re: Atheist Podcasts

Calladus — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:48:39 -0000

- SETI: Science and Skepticism - Are We Alone?

Dr. Seth Shostak is the host - excellent show on skepticism & science. He works for SETI - but is (rightly) skeptical about UFOs and alien visitors and such. Some shows on religious skepticism.

Re: I can guess what the crop was

Calladus — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:09:27 -0000

It's a stereogram. If you stare at it long enough, you see a dolphin!

Re: Left Behind: The Prank

Calladus — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:04:50 -0000

Way back in High School, I saw some of the "in" crowd fake a girl into thinking she belonged to their clique, then made fun of her in the cafeteria until she cried and ran from the room. That was cruel.

This was fucking worse. Christian bastards.

If there *is* a Hell, then there will be a special place in it for these assholes. Unfortunate that it isn't true. jerks.

Re: Atheists: How Do You Process Your Guilt?

Calladus — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:26:02 -0000

First to the Harvey commenter – you assume a lot about Atheism that is not real. As long as you’re talking about gambling, what if you die and come face to face with Allah, who immediately sends you to Hell for the blasphemy of believing that the only God had a son named Jesus? You too are gambling that there are no other Gods. My “gamble” just goes one god further than your gamble.

Now, to answer the author’s question – I was a Christian for over 20 years. I de-converted about 10 years ago and am in my mid-forties now. I have no proof that there isn’t a deity, but I’ve shown to my own satisfaction the inherent contradictions in any deity described to me by a book or by a person. Since I can’t prove that Yahweh, or Allah, or even the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn’t exist then I just don’t worry about it – and I live my life as if they did not exist.

I feel guilt when I do things that do not take others into consideration. I base my morality on sympathy and empathy for others, and I attempt to reduce the suffering of others by what little bit I am able. But I’m only human and sometimes act selfishly. Asking for forgiveness from someone else is difficult, but it isn’t nearly as difficult as asking forgiveness from myself. I’m very hard on me. To deal with guilt I make amends – or to use the religious word, I “atone” for my guilt. For example, if I broke something that belonged to someone else, I would fix it, replace it or pay for it.

Of course there are many things that can’t be atoned for so easily - and sometimes I may not receive forgiveness from the person wronged. That’s difficult! To resolve the guilt I must work at forgiving myself, and my atonement becomes a kindness to others, a willingness to forgive them for their wrongs toward me, and even a “pay it forward” action of goodwill.

In my opinion, atonement seems to be missing from modern Christianity. It seems to be fashionable to seek and receive a cost-free forgiveness. My respect for a “forgiven” person is very low when their only atonement was what was forced upon them. It makes me think that their guilty conscious is easily salved.

Re: Atheists: How Do You Process Your Guilt?

Calladus — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:29:56 -0000

You're right John, there is hostility between believers and non-believers. It becomes increasingly difficult for an Atheist to stay civil when they keep hearing the same tired old arguments that have been defeated over and over again.

The Atheist community in America has been forced, by the uber-religous environment of the last 20 years, to start banding together in order to have a voice. The Internet has become a great tool for this, and non-believer groups have been starting up everywhere. I'm one of the founders of two such groups.

This organization allows us to combine our knowledge of science and philosophy, and we have discussed many refutations of favorite Christian "proofs" and arguments. These have become familiar to many of us. When a Christian mentions one of these a polite Atheist will point out that it has a counter, and perhaps discuss it a little.

At least for the first 20 or 30 times!

After that it becomes difficult to hear another flawed version of "Pascal's Wager" (post number 11) or CS Lewis' "knowledge of Good and Evil is proof of God" (post number 42) without thinking, "Geeze, didn't I just tell this guy that his argument is flawed and why it doesn't mean anything intelligent to me?"

You start to see the reason why Atheists get a reputation for being disgruntled?

And the idea of the "Angry Atheist" is self fulfilling. I've had a few people who barely know me, upon hearing that I'm an Atheist for the first time, comment, "Oh you're just angry at x. When you get over it you'll come back to God." Yes, after saying that I'm not angry a few times, I start to sound angry!

When an Atheist finally does come forward with the purpose of explaining why bits of religion are unconvincing, or why they are inherently contradictory, then we are attacked by the religious for not "respecting" their religion! Douglas Adams (Of "Hitchhikers Guide" fame) made a wonderful speech that you can read online about the foolishness of the idea that religion automatically deserves respect.

"Respect my religion" is also a source of hostility between believers and non-believers. We are being preached at, relentlessly, to accept religion because it "makes sense" or it "saves our soul", or a hundred other reasons. But as soon as we start pointing out the reasons why religion seems like nonsense to us, we are declared disrespectful and condemned for "attacking" religion!

And I agree with "Happy Atheist" about another point of hostility, where Christians in American government try to legislate Christian ethics on non-believers. Christian morality is based upon unchanging biblical rules (I'll ignore the shifting Christian position change on the treatment of women and slaves) that actually ignore the fact of human suffering! Historically suffering has been considered to actually be valuable in saving a sinner's soul. Sam Harris points out that Christians actually divorce the question of suffering from morality, which is why so much religious energy is spent on moral questions where suffering isn't even an issue.

Is it no wonder that I get angry that every Presidential contender has a high profile position on Gay Marriage, but none of them have an equally high profile position on child poverty in America? Or universal children's health care? Whether or not these things are valuable isn't even discussed, because they are drowned out by the candidates trying to "one up" each other with demonstrations of piety. Empathy and sympathy for the suffering of Americans does not make a good campaign platform.

Do I seem angry or hostile because of this little rant? Probably. It is because I've said much the same thing over and over, with little result. But I keep on doing it because I hope to plant the seeds of rational thinking, and to let closeted non-believers know that like-minded people actually exist and are willing to offer support and company.

Re: Atheists: How Do You Process Your Guilt?

Calladus — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:49:59 -0000

John, I'm not saying that a dismissal of suffering is integral to Christianity or Christian morals. I'm saying that suffering is not even a consideration in many of the Christian moral teachings.

Suffering isn't mentioned in the 10 commandments. When Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans, he doesn't comment on their suffering - he says they are "worthy of death". Jesus' teachings about divorce, or about putting God before family never even consider suffering - and often Christians have allowed these teachings to swamp his teaching of the Golden Rule.

Even the Golden Rule may or may not imply the consideration of suffering because it is flexible in accordance to the person applying it. How would a Christian Monk apply the Golden Rule if he believes that the mortification of the body is good for the soul?

Sure Christians are sympathetic toward suffering. Humbling yourself to relieve the suffering of others is considered to be a tenet - until it bumps against certain real-world examples, such as the current internal conflict that religious pro-lifers are having over the question of abortion in the case of saving the woman's life or to prevent her suffering or the suffering of the child. It is too bad that the relieving of suffering isn't a commandment because that would go a long way toward resolving this conflict.

I agree that many, even the majority of Christians are deeply concerned about suffering - but I must disagree that suffering is a consideration in the biblical rules of morality. And when suffering and rule-based morality collide in America today religious leaders usually advocate legislation toward biblical morality at the expense of human suffering.

Re: Atheists: How Do You Process Your Guilt?

Calladus — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:58:42 -0000

(sigh) Ross (comment number 67) just brought up the, "You were never a "True Christian" (TM) argument. Which has also become a cliche'.

When Josh McDowell or CS Lewis or Kirk Cameron claims to have been a previous Atheist converted to Christian, I'm tempted to make the, "You were never a True Atheist" argument. I'm sorely tempted (pun intended) to do so, especially when I see these people use or have used such worn arguments for God like Pascal's Wager.

It is an insulting argument with a built-in arrogance that is almost calculated to lose friends and create enemies among the faithless. A sort of anti-witnessing program to drive people away from your faith.

It's great, though, if you are merely interested in feeling superior to non-believers.

Re: What the Atheists Taught Me

Calladus — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:47:55 -0000

Way to go John! Much appreciation and applause!

You're welcome to attend our local Atheist meeting any time. You won't be the only Christian in attendance either - our welcome mat is out for any Christian who is willing to listen and discuss.

But don't bring Windy, or anyone like him/her. Part of the reason we hold meetings is to get a break from that sort of arrogance.

Re: What the Atheists Taught Me

Calladus — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:38:43 -0000

Faith in science? Oy yi yi. I think you use the wrong word. I TRUST the findings of science because I can see the results of science and what it predicts.

I trust the findings of Darwin because biology makes a lot more sense when based upon the premise of evolution. I trust in the findings of physicists like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman because I use their results every time I hit the ENTER button on my keyboard or the PLAY button on my DVD player and IPod.

Sure, it is almost impossible to teach everyone to understand what goes on inside of Hawking's head, or even inside of Isaac Newton's head. But using their methods they can predict things like solar eclipses, or design a better lever, or figure out quantum weirdness and turn it over to an engineer who turns it into a practical application. I can observe their predictions, and I use their findings!

I don't have to be there beside Einstein and understand his theory of special relativity - with enough education and work I could understand his discoveries - or I could listen to an engineer as he explained why GPS satellites have to correct for time dilation due to relativity.

This is the neat thing about science - it doesn't require faith! It makes provable predictions that can be tested as true over and over again. And the test is often as easy as answering your cell phone or observing a Boa constrictor's hip bones. [WELL, THIS PRETTY MUCH WRAPS UP THESE POINTS. WAY TO PUT SOMETHING IN THE OL' BAGGIE AND JUST SEAL THAT BAD BOY RIGHT UP, CALL. OF COURSE, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL. BUMMER.]

Re: What the Atheists Taught Me

Calladus — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:44:14 -0000

Ross,

What can I say? We'll never be able to teach each other. [Calladus: You SO rock.]

Re: What the Atheists Taught Me

Calladus — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:18:37 -0000

Ross,

You say that there is no justice or morality outside of God. But that fails in logic.

Is something morally good because God says it is, or does God say something is good because it is inherently good?

Either "morally good" is defined on God's whim (and since he is God he can give us all a 'moral sense', as defined by CS Lewis, that is aligned to his whim.) Or there exists an inherently moral good that does not require God.

If one way, then you worship a deity's whim, which may not be moral (although how could you tell?) If another way, then why do you need God to tell you what is right or wrong, since we could discover what is inherently good for ourselves.

You can try to answer, but the "Divine Command Theory" has been argued for centuries and I've yet to read a satisfactory answer. Let's just say I find your reasoning unconvincing.

Re: What the Atheists Taught Me

Calladus — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:31:07 -0000

Ah, sorry, I meant to mention something else. A small problem that I have with Heaven and Hell.

Assuming that Hell exists, and that it is a bad place and it is permanent...

How would you, as a Christian, be able to bear the eternal joy of Heaven knowing that there are people who are eternally doomed to Hell? Won't it bother you that your noontime tea and crumpets are heated up by the flames of the damned? (Excuse my hyperbole!)

What if it was someone you knew in Hell. A friend, a relative, someone you loved.

Your child.

Would you then be truly happy in Heaven, forever and forever, knowing that your child is in hell? (A child who everyone admits was a great person, but a firm Atheist, or perhaps she had a fuzzy definition of Christianity that just didn't make the grade.)

How then is this Heaven? Is it really Heaven if you have to live there with a broken heart?

Or worse, I've had some Christians tell me that all their cares will be lifted in Heaven. This is horrible! God wouldn't make me not care about my child.... would he? Would he just erase my memories of my kid?

And honestly, I don't care if it is my loved one's fault that they got stuck in Hell. I love them despite their mistakes! I'd rather comfort my loved ones in Hell than spend an eternity of regret in Heaven.

Re: Christians and Atheists in Communion -- in Harmony, I Mean! Now What?

Calladus — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:58:31 -0000

(perks up) There's cake here too?

Re: What the Atheists Taught Me

Calladus — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:38:51 -0000

I'm sorry you don't see the difference between trust and faith Marcy. It is pretty easy. Faith is belief without the need of proof. Trust is reliance on something based on past experience. I understand how they get mixed up because they are all the time.

I trust in science because of proof. You can have faith in God without the need of proof - and although many Christians say they DO have proof, many (most?) would say they don't NEED proof.

But that's my point. When I'm told that I must believe in God I ask, "Why?" I'm told he's real and I say, "Okay, show me." I DO need proof. But all such proofs are slippery, and unconvincing. It finally comes down to pure faith - if I only believed, then the vague proofs that were not convincing would suddenly become convincing.

But I can't MAKE myself believe! And further, I suspect that if there is a God, he would know if I was faking belief. I assume he would frown on that sort of thing - and if he accepted my faked belief then I wouldn't respect him. I assume God would frown on that too.

Saul had his conversion on the road to Damascus, even Thomas got to put his fingers in the wounds of Christ. Is it too much to ask for my own personal miracle?

Here's my problem folks - it isn't just Christianity I hold no faith in - I also hold no faith in Islam, or the Jewish faith, or Hinduism. And to me their claims seem equally valid, and they all claim to have "proof" (which I've found to all be equally slippery). My choice isn't merely whether or not to believe in Christianity, my choice is a multitude.

As for the truth of the Bible - I'm the first to admit that it is full of good stuff. I read it all the time, and I agree it makes predictions of human behavior and gives moral philosophy that is true and useful. But... so does the Koran (which I also read). And... so does many sorts of other human written fiction. And much fiction offers wonderful explanations of the world around me that seem very rational - but that doesn't make them true.

And I find I have problems with the bible. What I see is a book that contains mistakes, and chunks of hatefulness and several just absolutely horrible moral lessons. I'm told that it is either the literal "Word of God" or a divinely inspired book written by man (depending on which Christian I speak to that day). Some Christians take it literally and use it to justify a 6,000 year old Earth, while others take almost the whole thing to be metaphor. And when I naively ask which I should take it to be, I'm told something like "take it to God in prayer". You know, that guy I don't have faith in? (sigh)

Penn Jillette said it well. If you tell me you believe because of Faith, then you win. I can't say anything to that. The discussion is over. But as soon as you offer proof - even that of the Bible - then we have something to talk about.

Re: He Lives!

Calladus — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:01:51 -0000

Blue eyes, fair skin, auburn hair. All he needs is a surfboard to be complete.

Re: Scott Adams on PZ Myers

Calladus — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:06:28 -0000

I read Dilbert - as a guy in a cube, sometimes his stuff strikes close. But not as much as it used to. These days I think he just phones it in half the time.

I don't read Scott Adams. I've tried, but he very quickly pegs his stupidity meter so I move on.

For those who want a better geek comic I'd recommend XKCD.

Re: He Scored Her

Calladus — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:14:21 -0000

Oh my! I never realized that Leisure Suit Larry finally "got lucky" and had a kid.
He's got more hair, but he has the same obsession and dresses like a 2000's version of that sleazy Lounge Lizard.

Re: Ignorance (and bloviating) pays

Calladus — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:55:42 -0000

I keep thinking about a lucrative livelihood selling homeopathic sleep aids, instead of real life electrical engineering. I'll bet I could become a millionaire selling woo instead.

But I'd have to get rid of all of my mirrors and start growing a beard, 'cause I wouldn't be able to look at myself anymore.

Having a conscious is a definite liability to easily becoming a multimillionaire.

Re: The Golden Compass, Reviewed by a Catholic and an Atheist

Calladus — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:26:56 -0000

Members of our Atheist group saw it along with members of the local religious community, all of which were interviewed by the local TV news.

I wrote up the entire experience on my blog here.

In a nutshell, I went in really wanting to love this film, but came away disappointed.

Re: Ray Comfort Tells You Why You’re Wrong

Calladus — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:30:50 -0000

That's what I like about Ray Comfort. No formal training in science, education, or even theology for that matter, and he can still consider himself an expert, with credentials as a biologist, physicist, or whatever else he needs for his latest errors.

He's really nothing more than a high pressure salesman who sells "God" in a similar manner to how some people sell used cars.