by Greg Mayer Qapla’!! Philae has landed! The European Space Agency’s Philae lander has successfully landed on Comet P67, …
That’s ok..we feel sorry for you for being a self righteous ignorant pompous ass. Maybe take a religions or philosophy class so you can somewhat seem like you know what you are talking about. Way to paint humanity with one broad stroke. Or maybe you should spend some non judgemental empathetic time with the “others” that you feel such contempt and pity for. The world is made up of a variety of experience..everyone holds unreasonable ideas..even you! I feel sorry for you with such animosity towards other people that are not “like you”. Embrace diversity..you are doing no service to the atheists with views like this. At least many religions believe in compassion and
LOVE. EVEN FOR OTHERS NOT LIKE THEM!!
Except for Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and so on and so on. . . . .
Reader Ted Christopher of Rochester New York (easily found by Googling) signed a rant-y comment on the post “The New York Times profiles James Randi“. Sadly, he got off on the wrong foot with the second word, and went downhill from there:
Jerry Coyle [COYLE???] and others including the Amazing Randi,
I don’t buy Randi’s skepticism, the larger realm of skepticism, and of course the encompassing scientism. In the library yesterday I noted a book by Rupert Sheldrake on inexplicable behaviors by pets entitled “Dogs That Know When the Owners are Coming Home” and then in the back it had his interaction with Randi. Randi had in some official capacity rebutted some of Sheldrake’s findings (and presumably in mocking fashion) and Sheldrake wanted to know the details. After some pushing Randi acknowledged he had little if any basis for his counter claims. Sheldrake simply characterized this as “lying”.
Getting off on the presumptions of science is easy and of course the intellectually pretentious thing to do.
It is not hard to rock the materialist boat. I plunge in here with a couple of basic points and then return with an ESP example and the superficiality of Randi’s test. A short list of what materialism is facing:
1. In the behavioral realm, prodigal and transgender phenomena contradict the evolved materialist model. If you haven’t you can wade into something like A. Solomon’s (overly-long) “Far From the Tree” and read some parental descriptions of their kids. Having young children declare that they are the opposite sex (and live accordingly) is a big challenge to materialism. Having young children inexplicably hit the pavement running (perhaps sprinting) along some adult intellectual path is another. D. Treffert’s “Islands of Genius” covers a lot of this ‘knowing things [and demonstrating motivations] they never learned’ territory.
2. An apparent answer to mysteries like the above is with genome. I would argue that never made sense – certainly with some of the very unusual innate behaviors – but now that we are several years deep into the Missing Heritability problem you would think that some would be questioning genetic presumptions. Here is the latest on the search for the origins of the variations in our intelligence,
Note J. Horgan is to be commended for his unusual critique but he still ends up superficial here. It isn’t sloppy genetics work by behavioral geneticist, it is once again that the limited set of individual-differentiating DNA is coming up short. Where are the skeptics (and scientists) on the DNA deficit? And by the way, the transgender phenomena shows up discordant amongst some monozygotic twins.
On paranormal “debunking”, unless the many para-reports involved some remarkable combination of dishonesty and stupidity (as presumed by skeptics) there is something mysterious going on. This arrogant dismissal of basic mysteries contributes to the public’s lack of support for science (although applied science is another matter). Such events appear to be rare enough that one could certainly argue about their significance, but their existence is another matter. The following was found at the beginning of the Chapter 2 in the late P. Mattheissen’s book “Nine-Headed Dragon River”:
>> [i]n mid-November of 1971, [my wife] Deborah and I attended a weekend sesshin [meditational period] at the New York Zendo. For two months Deborah had been suffering from pains that seemed to resist all diagnosis, and she decided to limit herself to the Sunday sittings. On Saturday evening, meeting me at the door of our apartment, she stood there, smiling, in a new brown dress, but it was not the strange, transparent beauty in her face that took my breath away. I had been in zazen [meditation] since daybreak, and my mind was clear, and I saw Death gazing out at me from those wide, dark eyes. There was no mistaking it, and the certainty was so immediate and shocking that I could not greet her. In what she took as observance of sesshin silence, I pushed past quietly into the bathroom, to collect myself in order that I might speak <>
The rest of the chapter follows thru and entails more unusual activity. The context here happens to be Buddhist mediation where traditionally such happenings are viewed as possible but not important. None of such insights apparently happen on command (like a lot of significant things) and thus the irrelevance of Randi’s test.
I’ve found that any comment that heaps approbation on Sheldrake is likely to be fraught with lunacy. This is no exception. It makes the ludicrous statement that transgendered humans disprove “materialism,” that problems in pinning down “intelligence genes” supports something called the “missing heritability problem” (one of Christopher’s pet theories if you choose to dig into his internet presence), and, finally, that Mattheissen’s numinous experience with the “death eyes” of his wife says something about the reality of non-material phenomena. You can’t get more garbled than this. Oh, what sad diversity our species contains!
Finally, Gary Austin had a comment on “Jesuit college teaches atheism,” which he mistakenly tried to post on the picture page.
Oh, an atheist, a proud spaghetti monster bumper sticker man. Do you have the guts to answer this? Were your school teachers atheist? I’m confused; explain to me how the reproductive system evolved so I can be a proud atheist. Oh, and don’t say A-Sexual reproduction because first of all: that would have to evolve as well. And then it only works with one cell, once you get to two cells it no longer works. Also, like Darwin himself asked, how do you evolve an eyeball? No fossil record for that. Think about it. Blind organism wouldn’t even know what sight is, so why would they try to evolve it? ????? I have many more questions, once you successfully answer those. You PROUD ANT-SPAGHETTI MONSTER ATHEIST you. Questions such as heart valves, how do you evolve something that you never could have lived without in the FIRST PLACE????
Also the FLOWER. It never could have existed without the BEE, so did the FLOWER evolve the BEE??? Oh, maybe the BEE evolved the FLOWER? WELL??? I’m waiting for the EDUCATED M.I.T. Atheist to explain. I think you Atheist boys are just spoiled children that took it to heart when your communist elementary school teacher said: “The conscience is just something that the Christian man dreamed up to keep the Atheist man down.” Hence the SOLE Atheist commandment: “Thou shall not get CAUGHT.” Good way to raise children folks. Yes, raise them like animals. You folks remind me of trashy spoiled children, having trashy spoiled children. Even if there was no God and you could explain one of the questions I posed, why is teaching a child: “Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, turn the other cheek” so bad?
There is no answering someone as mixed up as this. You don’t need guts to answer the comment, you need lots of time and the ability to somehow think that such a person is open to reason. It reminds me of the Insane Clown Posse: “Fucking heart valves—how do they evolve?“
In fact, this rant is one of the funniest comments ever attempted on this website. The person who wrote it is so willfully ignorant that there is nothing to do but giggle. What else can you do when you’re accused, as an atheist, of having problems with the idea of teaching your kids not to kill or steal?