1. May your god go with you

Comment #271858 by eric.malitz on October 26, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Zappi- what exactly are enviro-freaks? If you were familiar with the changes PETA has made in animal care standards, I dont think you'd call them militant.

2. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #168954 by eric.malitz on April 25, 2008 at 1:31 pm

While it is his right to wear the shirt, I understand arguments that in school free speech should be limited. Anyway, does it really matter? Let the kids in the school handle it themselves. No one's opinions will be changed, smart kids will realize hes a bitch. Me and my friends in school would have given this kid hell.

3. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165011 by eric.malitz on April 20, 2008 at 11:31 pm

The bottom line is people dont really understand evolution by natural selection (nor certainly evolution via other 'routes') and nor do they care to have a better understanding of it. Despite how simple the basic premises are and despite the way people in the media will attempt to show they do understand it, the fact that they immediately resort to the "yea but, how did life start" argument for ID shows that they not only dont understand it, but dont care to.

4. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165006 by eric.malitz on April 20, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Pretty bad stuff, but im afraid this is going to be the opinion of a lot of people here in the US. Especially if they haven't even read dawkins book (the description of the old testament deity is 'jawdropping'; lets ridicule his page for being a 'clear thinking oasis' when he can say mean things about god) nor give any respect to atheists' real arguments, nor know anything about evolutionary biology; and then laugh at some hypotheses of life's beginnings
("One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens. Anything but God.")
I can see all of his arguments and have dealt with them many times before. They are all equally pathetic and the general attitude of people in this country will probably be the same as his.

5. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148681 by eric.malitz on March 23, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Stein is the only Jewish ID proponent I can think of. I thought this movie would be good for a laugh, but apparantly not.

6. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115283 by eric.malitz on January 23, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Richard Morgan-
I disagree that Darwin's original writings are 'required reading'. There are many many modern books that update and do a better and easier job with the material and explanations. For the overwhelming amount of original evidence given, however, you're right that its a good place to look.

My response to the article-
this man's opinions are no better than those who say evolution and scripture are not at odds. It is especially getting very old to hear people say "if person A thought this way from this time period, person A's scientific works are thus biased." It is no more productive than the endless arguments about whether or not einstein or the founders were agnostics/deists/christians. It doesnt matter. This man's opinion, in turn, doesn't matter eithor. He is flat wrong to use the word mystical as applying to humans as being somehow apart from the animal kingdom. He says Darwin is dangerous because his writings were racist (he wasnt. Doesnt matter if he was). He seems himself not to have read the book eithor that he claims others havent. He also hasn't read anything else on evolution, because he thinks it all boils down to whatever darwin thought. Its darwin's original writings, and everything else (in his view). This shows his lack of understanding in science as a field of knowledge and as a process. And it is something that I see very much and am getting quite sick of.
Whoever said earlier he'd rather call an ape a cousin that this man..I certainly agree in every way

7. The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply

Comment #106445 by eric.malitz on January 3, 2008 at 1:02 am

Reno:
You're right- there is not much to choose from. There are no real choices to be made in politics in this country. Only Moron A or Moron B. No politicians, as far as I can tell, are really truely educated in important fields outside general politics.

8. Monkey, Business

Comment #105798 by eric.malitz on January 1, 2008 at 8:45 pm

"I like Michael Shermer- he runs http://www.skeptic.com/ and he's into debunking stupid supernatural things like psychics and witchcraft"

Too bad he resists debunking moderate christian beliefs that beat around the bush. In fact he protects them, and in a sense, does the rest of his debunking a disservice.

9. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105787 by eric.malitz on January 1, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Just wanted to point out that saying the obvious-that nature isn't our 'friend'- isn't the same as saying nature is our enemy. For anyone who actually cares about the nature around us, you can only acknowledge that humans are the most destructive species ever. In that regard, I think its important we save what nature we have left, and try to reverse some of the damage.

Diacanu- I agree when you said that you're glad you won't be around to see whats going to happen with this world (if thats what you meant), because I certainly feel the same. I consider myself an 'environmentalist' (even if I don't do as much as I'd like to do with my limited income and knowledge about it) but I am very skeptical about the future of the environment for most 'large' species of animals, for most species overall.
Anyway I agree with the assertions in the article, but I just wanted to point out that anyone who cares remotely about the natural world shouldn't go the 'other way' on this issue.

10. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104917 by eric.malitz on December 30, 2007 at 1:34 am

while I have had no trouble following his other stuff that I have read, I found this article pretty dense, and Im not sure if I understand his conclusions.
Could someone spell this article out for me in a paragraph or less?

11. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #104078 by eric.malitz on December 27, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Too bad Niles is a major supporter of the notion that you can have evolution and religion side by side. This is absurd.

12. Creation vs. Reality

Comment #98653 by eric.malitz on December 14, 2007 at 1:57 am

what the hell is this

13. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #97912 by eric.malitz on December 12, 2007 at 8:33 pm

enlightenment fundamentalist is probably the stupidest term I have ever heard.

14. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97294 by eric.malitz on December 11, 2007 at 9:16 pm

very sad. a good opportunity for people to come out and say directly- "this is the result of religious belief". However, people will probably ignore the real cause of this and treat it as an isolated case.

15. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97236 by eric.malitz on December 11, 2007 at 7:38 pm

This could be used as a lie detector it sounds like, unfortunately.

16. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95329 by eric.malitz on December 8, 2007 at 2:39 am

I secound the vegetarian atheist column who has no idea what ADH is talking about.

Is this the older dawkins interview or is this brand new?

17. Fox: 'Atheist Outrage' over holiday 'Tree of Knowledge'

Comment #94558 by eric.malitz on December 6, 2007 at 1:38 am

free thought IS under siege. Why didnt she point out one time that everything associated with christmas is pagan?
Why shouldnt she 'thumb her nose' at christmas?

Why is this even news?

A gay priest and fox news alliance wishing everyone a merry christ-mas and 'happy' hannakah (wheres kwanza in there, where's all the harvest holidays??)
It is ironic, sickening, and pathetic on every level.

18. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93695 by eric.malitz on December 3, 2007 at 11:40 pm

arogop-
I know very little of politics actually, and have never gotten a straight response when I ask- what do republicans IN GENERAL think about the environment (or what do you think?) It always seems that the environment is simply pushed aside in the name of human progress. This is a position I am against.
All the modern republicans in govenment seem to be fairly backwards thinking. The countries in western europe, so im told, are much more progressive countries. How do you reconcile this?
thanks

19. Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party

Comment #93343 by eric.malitz on December 2, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Just devil's advocating for a minute but it seems to me science will be both the best friend and worst enemy of the environment. Millions more humans saved from natural causes of death means millions more industrial waste and millions less acres of land for other species.

At least this is medical science, I guess environmental science's main concern is undoing everything that previous science or careless humans did wrong.

Sorry, just felt like saying it, and this probably isnt the place, but from someone who cares about the environment the prospect of saving millions and millions of (human) lives from natural death seems a pretty scary thing for the long term existence of every species, including humans themselves.
Again, just devil's advocating though, I am supportive of all science, within 'reason's' reason.
I am not, for example, supportive in any way of current (emotionally or physically cruel) animal testing though i understand its importance to this point. I feel that cures for most disease will be the ultimate undoing of this planet's current species (atleast most mammals, birds, reptiles, fish etc).
Theres nothing I can say in the short term that will convince people of this. I as well understand the importance of science in all its forms for any progressive change (environmental changes included) and wouldnt deny the obvious: that if the 'cure' whatever it was, was to help me or someone I love in that situation, there would be no denying it. Ironic? Pathetic? Sad? I think all.

20. Getting Overheated

Comment #89483 by eric.malitz on November 20, 2007 at 11:21 pm

Ivan The Not So Bad:

nice shout out to Morrissey.

21. Getting Overheated

Comment #89389 by eric.malitz on November 20, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Only read the part here and I will certainly be reading the rest- I often feel myself bogged down anytime I 'want' to respond to some ridiculous comment made around the dinner, or any table. Fry reminds me of Dawkins- putting on paper (or blog) what I've been thinking in my head every day but couldn't express with nearly the same ability.

22. Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion

Comment #89386 by eric.malitz on November 20, 2007 at 1:45 pm

This is an area of discourse where religion should be exposed for what it is. Someone stepping into this debate and claiming they have some evidence that humans are somehow 'special' in the natural world or that human embryos have souls (while chimp embryos do not) should be laughed right out of the room.
An understanding of evolution again shows that once someone's religious beliefs are pinned down, they are certainly NOT compatible with evolution.

23. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #89125 by eric.malitz on November 19, 2007 at 6:46 pm

How can someone as smart at hitchens smoke cigarettes, and flaunt it too.
Reminds me of a Joni Mitchell interview where one of the all time great lyricists turned out not to be as bright as I thought.

24. Georgia gets rain, but it may not help

Comment #88447 by eric.malitz on November 16, 2007 at 5:46 pm

that'll teach em.

25. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88118 by eric.malitz on November 14, 2007 at 6:26 pm

evolution is a scientific fact. Natural selection, etc. is the theory part of it.

26. The evolution of creationism

Comment #87965 by eric.malitz on November 13, 2007 at 10:01 pm

I first read that last paragraph (of the 'what is evolution? museum article) at Field Museum in Chicago, accompanied by a video of several biologists reconciling religion and evolution (including niles eldridge and someone else well known, i cant remember who though). I think that is a bunch of crap. It is so misleading to someone in the general public actually hoping to REALLY understand evolution, its history and implications.
When you actually pin down the basis of peoples religious beliefs you see that those beliefs do conflict with evolution (and every other science). At its most moderate, you at least get the implication from the religious person that humans are 'special' and have souls that animals dont.

27. A third of adults believe God watches over them

Comment #87554 by eric.malitz on November 12, 2007 at 12:51 pm

"said the report 'demonstrates the prevalence and potential of prayer' and he hoped that more people would pray about issues such as world poverty and climate change."

And hence, the biggest, but most ignored, problem that religion has today- a lack of real responsibility.

28. The Psychology Behind Cults/Religion

Comment #87184 by eric.malitz on November 11, 2007 at 11:57 am

well put, but most religious people I know (in the fairly liberal midwest US) simply started out casually religious, but were reinforced to continue into a declarative religious role later on (through other moderate religious relatives and friends). So maybe something akin to this happens among moderates too, I guess it comes down to whether or not people attend a church. My girlfriend attended an evangelical megachurch and that is certainly what went on. But moderate religious belief is just 'trendy', or at least, being an atheist is still kind of taboo ('you cant DISPROVE god'..thats the main thing I hear)

29. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86670 by eric.malitz on November 9, 2007 at 11:49 pm

ADH-
everything you've asserted, with such confidence and so many fine details, are your OWN 'metaphors' of ancient, ignorant and inconsistant scripture. Yet There are millions of other peoples' interpretations that are just as vivid as yours, concerning flying gurus, ghosts, zeus, sasquatch, vishnu, etc. You haven't provided a shred of evidence for ANY of your specific claims, you simply refer to fictional lit. Imagine a star wars delusionist who kept citing scenes in the movies and then the amount of novels that followed as proof in itself of its truth in a galaxy far, far away.. AND you have subverted science in your last post by appealing to this argument I hear now about the "authority" of science replacing the authority of scripture. Spend some time reviewing the scientific process and some of its great works and arguments, built up in incremental small steps through painstaking objective and controlled experiments and peer review, and then come back and say that again. Read a Richard Dawkins book. Read Mark Ridley's Evolution oxford readers comp. Consult a scientific journal, and follow the articles (from older to current, say), watching arguments change and progress with new findings, suggestions, tests, further suggestions, new evidence, etc.
And I say again- A full understanding of biological evolution as we know it in modern terms, (of which you have displayed a lack of knowledge) is absolutely incompatible with religious scripture.

related note- I recently listened to Francis Collins POI interview. Just disgraceful really. This is a very focused geneticist who actually does have a limited knowledge of current evolutionary theory.

30. Church row evolves over fossil boy

Comment #86634 by eric.malitz on November 9, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Of course they had to add that the curator had "no problem reconciling evolution with his faith". Actually they are certainly NOT reconcilable.

31. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86161 by eric.malitz on November 8, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Adh's misguided views about evolution have 'supported' his biblical view that humans have god-given rule over the rest of the natural world. As I've said before, this view is what makes me most angry about religious people. Had he been willing to actually confront this point, which he was sure to bail on before it became too pinned down, he would have to fully justify his ridiculous position...but we've just seen religious understanding in all its glory- bail out the second the religious understanding starts to really conflict with the rational understanding.

32. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86019 by eric.malitz on November 7, 2007 at 9:11 pm

I care greatly about the natural world. Yet religion is a human affair, focusing on humans as the start and end of all things important. You can say all the "god's creatures" phrases you want, but the implications are obvious- this world is the material gateway to the heavenly world. I have never heard or read or seen once someone or something state that you make it into heaven via your respect for the environment or its millions and millions of OTHER life forms- including amazing insect societies, complex social animals like dolphins and whales, all of our ape cousins, packs of dogs, prides of lions, families of bats and moles and penguins and seals. ADH- you say you accept evolution (or atleast bow to your intellectual elite by supporting the teaching of it rather than the foundation of your views) yet the full implications of your views leave no real respect to be given to the natural world as it is "mere material" (your words) and humans are the ultimate focus, with souls, as a part of god, needing to do 'his' (or hers?) will (because he apparantly cant do it himself) on one little planet, in one little solar system, in one little corner of the universe. You of course can make all your claims and assertions, eithor via that ultimate 2000 year old pathetic in the light of modern times book, or via your own 'intuitions' (that never fail a religious person given the constraints of living in a modern society where keeping slaves, sacrificing children and commiting genocide aren't acceptable). But you will never provide a shred of evidence for yourself or for others, about these claims.

33. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86018 by eric.malitz on November 7, 2007 at 8:59 pm

If I had to pin down the one worst problem I have with religion it would be the emphasis on humans as apart from the rest of life. Anyone who takes a serious religious view, whether or not they accept evolution, is saying humans are somehow of different 'material' then chimps, birds, bacteria, etc. At least this implication is true of western religion.
So I ask ADH, again, do chimps have souls?
When along the continuum from the common ancestor did humans gain souls?
And where are these souls? (I fully expect this last question to be evaded by ADH or any other theist, of course).

The real life implications of this view, combined with the view that the afterlife awaits us after this miserable material life, is that this world doesnt really matter- not the animals in it, the environment, or anything- all that matters is "god's will" as...well, stated in the bible (again, the foundation of all religious belief, yet moderates continue to cherry pick and make assertions that have no grounding in the bible, or in the earthly authority that is the church). Finally, if anything does matter (entrance to heaven is the ultimate goal) what matters of course is human wellbeing..AND ONLY HUMANS.
The full implications of the original main problem I have with religion becomes this state of affairs that makes me very, very angry to share the world with religious people.

34. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #85721 by eric.malitz on November 7, 2007 at 12:05 am

These results are pretty obvious. Its these results COMBINED with the 'changing moral zeitgeist' that fully removes morality from religion's hand.
Fanusi- do you have a reference for that stuff? Curious to read

35. Washoe, the sign-language chimp dies

Comment #85714 by eric.malitz on November 6, 2007 at 11:29 pm

Prettygoodformonkeys- hilarious picture.
Corylus-well put about animals

Zakie Chan- It doesnt suprise me about chomsky, I havent read the book but I plan to. He seems to often redefine things to his liking, not just in this instance.

36. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85713 by eric.malitz on November 6, 2007 at 11:25 pm

ADH-
You will rise to no challenge, I am sure of that.
You havent dealt with one question that has been posed- all of which are yes/no answers based simply on your 'faith'. Answer one way and you are a hypocrite, the other way and you're a lunatic. Just deal with it and come to better conclusions. After all, the science you say you support starts with questions.
Heres a good one; do chimps have souls too?

37. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85611 by eric.malitz on November 6, 2007 at 12:06 pm

coretemprising, nighttripper-
The full implications of anything a moderate religious person says is still bizarre and dangerous fundementalism.

38. Gorilla slaughter sparks campaign

Comment #85478 by eric.malitz on November 6, 2007 at 1:48 am

Duff- same here.
In an ideal world, the US, of all places, would be helping to make a difference. Imagine what a little extra tax money could mean for the alleviation of the human problems and THUS far better conservation efforts, in africa.
As naive as it may sound, I often feel ashamed to be an american, and even a human being after seeing pictures like that.

39. Washoe, the sign-language chimp dies

Comment #85471 by eric.malitz on November 6, 2007 at 1:33 am

I think people make too large a deal over the line between imitation and full grammer usage. The chimp made appropiate gestures at appropiate times and combined those to describe things and situations.

40. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85468 by eric.malitz on November 6, 2007 at 1:21 am

ADH- Replacing one form of INDOCTRINATION with another?? Get a grip man. Stop trying to find ways to defend your watered down faith. To use an example of a secular area of study that not only doesnt need religious interference but would surely be (and has been) damaged by it, take conservation. Conservation requires science background, a passion for the env. and/or life and objective methodology.
Indoctrination???? Where does this come into play?? Maybe the indoctrination of "if we dont start conserving, this wont be here tomorrow."
I still have never seen or heard someone demonstrate fruitfully how a further reliance on secular and rational foundations can lead to "indoctrination".

41. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85465 by eric.malitz on November 6, 2007 at 1:12 am

ADH-
so if your kids are raised secular, are they going to hell? It would certainly seem so.
If you say no, then do you or do you not believe in hell? If you don't, doesn't sound like your a christian.
You talk about christian faith being misrepresented..but the true representation is in the foundational text-it says so. For you to say you can interpret it however you want would mean you've got it wrong. At the least, you can't possibly argue that fundamentalists are further from the christian truth than you are- they have evidence for their beliefs- scripture. Your modern outlook is a result of secularization due to science. You follow a watered down version of your 'faith'.
If you children are raised secular like you say, I still will find it hard to believe you don't interfere in some way, as you state about 'correcting' what it 'realy' means to be a christian.
The bible doesnt have answers to anything that arent better sought in other places- in fact the amount of morally 'bad' answers it carries surely is at least equal to the ambiguous good stuff. You can't simply cherry pick the bible and then say it offers all the deepest answers to everything. Why doesnt the koran, written after the bible with extra advancements in technology and thinking by that time (I assume), or scientology, or any other religious lit. contain 'all the answers to the deepest questions'.
The arguments against 'religious fundamentalism' are endless- be it for the sake of the truth of it, the morality of it, the danger of it, etc. But your position just adds a whole new dimension; of the hypocricy of it.
'It' being moderate, watered down, cherry picked, "I raise my kids secular but make sure to corrent anyone else's christian interpretations" religion.

42. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #83961 by eric.malitz on October 31, 2007 at 10:53 pm

isnt that whole church one extended family?
If those people came to a funeral I was at, I wouldnt hesitate to physically assault those women.

43. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83698 by eric.malitz on October 31, 2007 at 1:30 am

well put augustus.
This is the stuff that REALLY makes me angry about religion.
Does anyone know of other specific instances of the pope making statments about other issues in biology (outside of sex/sex preference) ???
Please link if so.

44. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82588 by eric.malitz on October 26, 2007 at 8:29 pm

When she equates cultural traditions with religion I think she makes a key point- both can be equally bad, or at best, worthless. "Cultural tradition" needs to be examined more closely the same way religion is being examined. Why not start your kid out not with empty traditions but with mounds of built up knowledge? Theres no reason to give your kid a torah when you can give your kid a subscription to national geographic.

45. The God Delusion and Alister E McGrath

Comment #81599 by eric.malitz on October 25, 2007 at 12:37 am

Alister E. McGrath: Well Dawkins and I are both men of faith

I scrolled down, read that, and said, I wont be reading this.

46. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81008 by eric.malitz on October 23, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Actually I find its often the case in these debates that the "atheist" dictators are hardly ever well exposed for what they are. Fascist ideologies and religions are 2 sides of the same coin. This isnt the first time (I havent watch the debate so I dont know for sure) that Hitchens hasnt properly addressed this issue in formal debate (except for his account of the "necro-cocy" of north korea).

47. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80421 by eric.malitz on October 21, 2007 at 6:49 pm

i dont know much about d'souza except whats written here, but shermer is an idiot. Hes a supporter of all things science UNTIL science has something negative (implicit or explicit) to say about religion. I havent watched this debate yet, but thats what Ive gathered from him several times before.

48. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80246 by eric.malitz on October 21, 2007 at 1:49 am

there is nothing counterintuitive about evolution, but the whole idea has carried a bad aura DUE to the religious people who misunderstand it and knowingly misrepresent it or simply havent read a thing about it ("blind chance"- this is certainly what a majority of this country thinks about evolution).
People who understand evolution have to understand the IMPLICATIONS. No evolution does not say "god does not exist" because a deist god could exist who "started it all and then stepped back"-of course, this is pathetic. Any type of god described by any of the religious masses is simply incompatible with evolutionary biology though.

49. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78112 by eric.malitz on October 11, 2007 at 10:42 pm

even if this "worked out", theres something pretty eerie about these 2 joining together in a mass religious truce.

50. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77269 by eric.malitz on October 8, 2007 at 11:23 pm

I see points in both their arguments, but..
I think everyone should just ignore this debate. The strides that have been made and will continue to be made by the "new atheists" is real and very good.
I guess in that regard I agree with Myers.