I publicly endorse Mindcore.

The 'shock jock of science'. lol.

Now there's a label. 

A very good step in a very good direction; I wonder if I have the eloquence to do the same?

Count me in, either way.  

That warm fuzzy feeling is 100% mutual.

Let me be the first to say to the rrs, atta boy!

And yes I know kelly is a girl but atta boy sounds better.

I find ironic how supposedly moderate Christianity, represented by people by such people as Frank Walton, resorts to slandering and ad hominem attacks to "prove" the groups "immaturity," "irrationality," and so on.

 Having followed mindcare's example, he immediately put up a comment on my blog he never even knew existed (as far as I know) the moment I put my latest post up - advertising yet another blog of his.

Keep going with my best wishes and regards. 

As much as I despise moderate Christianity (and I do), I have to stick up for them in this instance.  I don't think I know a single moderate who would claim Frank Wanker as one of their own.  He's definitely in a different class.

Having said that, this is an awesome endorsement, and we're proud to be making a difference.  Maybe more atheist bloggers will follow suit.  (Adopting Dr. Strangelove voice) Soon, we will have an army!

Well,I for one am sick and tired of this. You people and all your thinking.......I just found God because of the OP..............

No wait, that was just pocket lint. DAMN! Where is that spare change when you need it?

Keep it up Kelly!

I guess you are right - I wonder, though: I put up a response to mindcore on my own blog, a sort of coalition for the support of the RRS, and even a belated exit from the proverbial closet of atheism - I hope more follow!

P.S.: Better not say such things about armies - they will be prone to take them seriously. (laughter)

Would you link us to it?

Without further ado.

I actually think he must have some kind of program that runs a search engine on the RRS. 

I suppose it's possible that he set up a bot or something; what is alarming is that he did not even notice me while I didn't delve into the exact nature of my agnostic attitude - what Dawkins defined as TAP - or when I put up the RSS feed, yet he found my blog soon after I put up my response.

Nice work, my only gripe is you are allowing the comment from Wank Falton.  Just delete the fucker.

Only post about Frank Walton you need to know.

Frank Walton atheism sucks expose

Oh, his trick is "google alerts" he learned it by stalking us, a trick we taught him.  Today he knows when we shit... a few minutes before we find out. His obsession is evidence that we are perceived as theisms biggest threat.  Anywho... just delete the link to his slanderous blog, he's a lying dickface.  d if you feel guilty about it, don't.  He wouldn't think long before deleting anything from you that defended RRS or exposed his dishonesty.

You are right - hence I just deleted both his comment and my reply.

Glad you otherwise liked my piece.

A nice recommendation from mindcore, considering some of the flak you guys copped a while back.

As you know, I've posted a few, mostly positive, comments about the RRS on my blog. I was also quite surprised to get a visit from Frank W. However I left his comment on my blog, for two reasons: 1. I prefer not to delete any comments good or bad; 2. I quite liked my response to him.

http://ozatheist.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/rrs-breaking-the-spell-and-smo...

Maybe I should have done the same, since I have a similar feeling about comments, but his was a bit like: "I have a blog against them; it's here." which added nothing to the topic, in my opinion. Frankly, having shown such luck of good faith (i.e. the principle that people do something altruistically or benevolently), he deserves little recourse.

Very, very good post, by the way. I commonly argue that one of the greatest examples of begging the question is that intelligent, rational thinking can only be the result of academic studies. Well, academies don't grow on trees - people who did not have academic degrees made them, founded on their logic and rationality, so that others could follow in a more organised way.

The only reason you'd delete the posts is to not allow libel against a friend to be used as a meme.  Were the process of getting a lawsuit against someone like him worth the time, and easier to complete I've got no less than 100 counts of libel I could launch against him.  He's committing dozens of civil and criminal crimes, all very hard to enforce.  You become law enforcement.  It's not about censorship, it's about not making your blog a haven for Christians to get away with illegal activity that will in turn convince someone of a lie. 

His actions have led us to believe that he would like to incite our murder, but doesn't have the balls to do it himself.  Any will of mine will have detailed information as to his possible involvement along, for the potential of lumping a wrongful death lawsuit on top.  It's not bad censorship if you're trying to save lives.

A very valid point - which is why I deleted the aforementioned post (since the blog it linked was nothing but a slanderous mish-mash of supposed argumentation).

[edited for assholery of the first degree]

As well as developing a thick skin, I think you guys ("guys" includes "gals" nowdays) need to need to keep in mind that the majority of people who write to you in discontent are the type of people who like to do that sort of thing. Feedback is never a true indication of what the population thinks as the malcontents are more likely to reply than anyone else. Ask an company the percentage of complaints vs compliments that they get and even brilliant companies will tell you that they get few compliments (my company tends to display these to lift morale).

The RRS is doing a great job. They are reaching a wide audience (not just on the net) and providing a venue not just for atheists, but for those questioning their religion, those needing solace from their religion and those who are just curious (I'm sure that I have left some out). They are making lots of people think, raising awareness and making some people realize for the first time that atheists are not evil and that you don't have to be religious.

Oh, and comercial success has nothing to do with the social value of an organization. Otherwise we would be trying harder to find the meaning in post-it notes.

"By not caring too much about what people think, I'm able to think for myself and propagate ideas which are very often unpopular. And I succeed."

It's interesting that you say this than go on to say

"less alone in this quest to expose religion for the fraudulent and dangerous idealogy that it is"

Why does it bother you so much that people believe differently from you...

can't Science serve one purpose and be totally valid and Religion serve another and be equally as valid...

people probably get offended because your rhetoric is such that it seems you believe no rational person can be religious...maybe you don't know any rational religious people personally... but I do....

It's the same bigotry as religious people assuming that all atheist are immoral...maybe they don't know any moral atheist...but I do....

Why not just stick to the real issues

For example:

instead of rallying people against "Christianity" because of the American radical rights insistence that Creationism is Science (which of course it is not) which is only going to get every religious group  mobilized against you (even if they agree with you) because they'll all feel attacked by you...

mobilize people around the concept that religious belief and Science are two totally different things...many, many religious people will agree with you...even the Catholic Church, the great persecutor of scientific thought throughout the ages, admits an acceptance of evolution...that it does not nullify faith...

Science cannot be held to the standards of "belief"...because it is by definition- at it's best - based on empirical evidence Alone....provable phenomenon

Belief should not be held to the same standards as Science- Faith by one New Testament definition is- "the belief in things hoped for but not seen" it is totally the opposite of Science...and it serves a different social purpose...

I think you would find many supporters for your basic ideas and many willing to accept that you personally don't have a belief system that includes the supernatural among "religious" groups and people of faith (which are far and away the majority of humans) if they didn't feel your only goal in life is to personally attack them....

Unless that is your goal...to destroy the opposition...then you must accept their resistance as only natural ("Darwinian" if you will) and not be so surprised that they believe in their right to exist as strongly as you believe in your right to exist...

I hope that is not your goal because you raise real issues that need to be addressed but if the current climate continues to polarize the real issues will be lost amid a battle of belief systems...and no one will win...

We don't say that all religious people are illogical all of the time. Religion is illogical and religious people are illogical when it comes to religion, no matter how logical they are in the rest of their life. (note that this fits with the definition of dellusion disorder.)

The purpose, I believe, is to educate and raise awareness. There is no specific battle against creationists, that is not the purpose of this site.

There are quite a few non-religious theists on this site that do support the cause against religion. I respect their right to their beliefs even if I disagree. It is actual religion (brainwashing people, telling them what to believe and think and keeping them ignorant) that is the problem.

The nutters in the news are just the tip of the iceberg, the visible bit. The damage done by religion goes much further.

You're equivocating. The kinds of beliefs that inform behaviour make it the behaviour that's worrisome.

Apparently not. Science produces actual, usable knowlede, and religion produces theocracies, the dark ages, and violent fundamentalism.

Here you're imagining that "capacity for reason" trumps "cognitive dissonance". Do you know any people who worship Apollo who are ratonal?

Taken under consideration. Filed in the bin labelled "condescending".

Don't you want to know if what you believe is true?

Who's talking about existing? Produce a god (doesn't have to be a specific one, I'll take any god you happen to have handy) and this can be a rational conversation. Otherwise, you're talking about a person's right to believe in nonsense, which is their right, but it's still nonsense.

Don't be ridiculous. Battles about belief systems get won all the time. Women can vote, can't they? And soon they'll be making the same wage for the same work (almost there). Rosa Parks today could pick any seat on the bus she wanted. 

UrLord's response to Will:

First

I can see by your answers that you took time to read my post and I appreciate that and your responses.

I am responding to you solely in the spirit of open, honest communication.

I wanted to answer you point for point but so many things seemed to overlap... also, I found myself caught up in trying not to offend you...which it seems to me I have...which is not my intention.  I personally believe courtesy is essential for clear discourse. And I do apologize if you feel I have been discourteous to you or your ideas.

And one important point - you are making assumptions about what I personally believe which are inaccurate. Just because I see Faith as a valid part of human experience and am respectful and understanding of Religious view points does Not mean I myself share those beliefs.

...I' decided to just start here and add other observations later.

1)      UrLord Wrote:

 “...Why not just stick to the real issues”

      Will Responded:
“Taken under consideration. Filed in the bin labeled "condescending".

UrLord’s response to Will:
Honestly, I was perplexed by your response.

I admit, it is my personal bias, that so much emotionality undermines the whole premise of being rational and creates tension instead of dialog. However, I have to conclude, based solely on my interpretation of your response, that you assumed you were somehow being dissed. I was only expressing a personal observation based upon what one of your members posted. It was not meant as anything other than that.

I can only guess, but I suspect, you have probably been attacked, often, by people who don't share your view of the world...
Proclaiming atheism in a world that is mostly made of people who have religious beliefs must draw a great deal of fire...
It appears, that you assume (I base this conclusion solely on your response) that people who (you "perceive" ) disagree with you must be belittling you..

I was not.

Will Wrote:
“ Do you know any people who worship Apollo who are rational?"

   UrLord responds:

Yes, ancient Greece.

Much of the foundations of scientific thought, of mathematics, of medicine, of the university system were laid down by the believers in the Homeric Gods-of which Apollo is one. 

Religious belief is ubiquitous in human civilization.

The Greeks even seemed to postulate the concept of string theory long before our science considered it...or could prove it mathematically....

Which leads me to a "personal" observation....

Much of the progress in science comes from people who can make that intuitive leap into the unknown and untried...

The same mental faculty, or brain function if you prefer, that allows religious faith, that ability to see connections that are not spelled out, this may be at the very heart of our ability to take scientific leaps of faith.

They may very likely be extensions of each other.

In my opinion.

This is a vapid assertion which constitutes a form of fallacy of moderation, also called "meet you in the middle fallacy", derived from Gould's NOMA. Obviously, it is absurd. Science constitutes a method by which truth claims are evaluated. Religion constitutes a set of truth claims without a method (the opposite). So, no, they cannot "both be valid". In fact, by definition, one is valid (can justify truth claims) the other not (cannot justify truth claims).

Your guess that I, personally, take a lot of grief for being antitheistic is accurate. I don't tend to bring it up at dinner parties. But I do like science.

I mean do you know any people who worship Apollo now and who are rational? Living people ... that you know. You don't even have to know them personally.

So are slavery and organized crime. I fail to see your point.

And that would matter because ... 

Okay, I won't just leave it at that. I like math, and I like classics. So much so that I study (and have studied) them in school. So when you say "string theory", I think "multidimensional sub-atomic explanation for gravity that has yet to actually produce anything testable" and when you say "the Greeks", I can't be sure what you mean. Maybe it was one specific Greek? There were lots of wacky hypotheses.

Or by mathematicians like Einstein. Or completely by accident. Or it was obvious the whole time, and nobody knew how to say it right. Intuition gives you the first step: what to test. You're ignoring the fact that most of those intuitive moments for scientists turn out to be dead wrong.

Equating science and religion is so incredibly weak. I see that deludedgod has told you why above, but I have to add just the one thing: religious ideas aren't about intuitive thoughts that nobody has had before. They're about agreeing with untestable assertions on the strength of personal conviction alone. Engaging in pure, subjective bias is not the same thing as learning from a method that tries its hardest to remove subjective bias.

I'm not trying to be abrasive, but your "let's just be reasonable" approach when your argument is coming from what seems to be a lack of education on these subjects makes it difficult for me to be polite. I can only be straightforward about these things, because of my great enthusiasm for them. When they're misrepresented, I do get defensive. I need to defend what I see as a great way to divide reality from fairy tales.

Two little points you didn't think of...

1. Atheism is not rational.

There is no testable evidence that the process of evolution was not designed. Yet atheists blindly believe. In fact, we CAN test that processes do indeed have designers, and laws have lawmakers and law enforcers. There is no testable evidence that laws or processes just appear out of nothing. Poof!

2. Atheism requires no thought or intelligence.

A newborn baby is an atheist. A piece of wood has no belief in God.

Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p. 488)

Thus, testable evidence, Origin of Species, and rational thought is all on God's side.

Will wrote: "...religious ideas aren't about intuitive thoughts that nobody has had before. They're about agreeing with untestable assertions on the strength of personal conviction alone."

No. Atheism is untested. You need to provide testable evidence that the process of evolution was not designed. Otherwise atheism is a blind assertion.

In contrast, Christianity does not allow blind faith:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 says "Test everything." (NIV)

Atheists are apparently trying to claim this ancient biblical verse as their own to hide their irrationality.

It is testable that processes have designers. Thus, it is logical that the process of evolution had a Designer.

Darwin said: "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" (Origin of Species, p. 188)

Sigh... Not this again...

You don't need to prove that something is NOT so. Prove that the Flying Spagetti Monster did NOT create the universe. That is not how it works. You need to prove that someone/thing DID design anything. Human processes have designers, it is true, but natural processes do not. Ice crystals are not designed, waves crashing on the beach are not designed, seed pods are not designed, etc, etc...

Christianity is based on blind faith. If you take away belief that your book is correct you have nothing. You quote one guy saying "test everything", but you don't apply it to your own religion. How many times is the message of the bible believe or die?

My Origin of Species is differently numbered to yours so I can't look up the quote, but if you read the whole thing you will know that Darwin was against their being a designer. Even if he did believe, Origin of Species is not our bible and Darwin was not a prophet, so quoting him does not have the same impact on us as quoting the bible.