timeforchange -- All Comments -- In These Times

All 6 comments by...

timeforchange

- 08 Dec 06
- 11:29 pm
I'm really surprised In These Times would print such a puerile essay. As many who argue against Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and the like, this essay begins from an assertion that God and revealed-religions are supported by objective evidence. It is this foundation these authors suggest you re-consider. I suggest reading Dennet's "Breaking the Spell" --but you must do it with an open mind, that is, "as if God might not exist" to understand his thought experiments. This essay says the following: "Yes, the laws of nature and those of God might still exist without human beings....That the vast majority of us …

Posted to The Godless Fundamentalist
- 13 Dec 06
- 10:49 am
Two things bother me about recent comments. For one thing, Dawkins hypothesis is "you can't prove god exists," so it is misguided to put all of this effort and rancor and money into fightng about it or supporting it. That is very different from saying he has proof there is no god. He simply says the changes in infinitely small and go against every other principle we have regarding how nature/life works. The second thing is the "attack the messenger" syndrome. Dawkins and others are attacked for being sure of what they know--and sure of what they don't know--and they have …

Posted to The Godless Fundamentalist
- 13 Dec 06
- 12:14 pm
Au contraire. It is a real disservice to equate science with relgion in terms of how they work and how the practioners think. Dawkins was recently quoted in Time magazine as saying "There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our understanding." He clearly believes there is insufficient evidence for any of the particular gods now in vogue, and certainly doubts strongly the existence of any, including his "something" in the above quote. I suspect the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" or on a sliding scale. Atheist to me means someone who doesn't believe there is any satisfactory proof to …

Posted to The Godless Fundamentalist
- 16 Dec 06
- 10:54 am
Semantics have become a problem in this discussion. One doesn't have "faith" in a truth (here defined as a fact). That is belief in or knowledge of... Similarly, a son doesn't have faith in his father without some experience of how that father treats him. But "faith that needs no proof" does define reveled religion and that's where the issue lies. Born in Iran, you are likely a Shiite, a Saudi a Sunni, in the US one of a broad spectrum of Christians and so on. Consider all the world-wide strife faith-without-proof has caused and is causing. It really is not …

Posted to The Godless Fundamentalist
- 18 Dec 06
- 9:59 pm
Someone posted: "More than anyone else, Dawkins should recognize that such a universal behavior such as spirituality and religion is probably an evolved trait. He would probably get much more traction if he examined why humanity can be so deluded rather than just saying religion is bad. " That is exactly what he did say.

Posted to The Godless Fundamentalist
- 03 Jul 06
- 9:30 pm
There isn't enough said about home energy use. Heat pumps ( sometimes called geothermal systems) can be used anywhere there is shallow groundwater. And, unlike solar systems which need space and can be unsightly (but also work) heat pump systems are underground. The Energy Bill was supposed to provide tax incentives to retrofit your home. Guess What? Bush hasn't requested the funds so they don't exist--although the "words" are in the bill. (Sound familiar?). A massive conversion to home energy produced at the home needs to be part of the equation. The technology is already here and proven.

Posted to Running on Empty