Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Let's respect and celebrate all religions, hmmm? -- pulled from today's headlines: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8375591.stm "If anyone has a problem, then I will cut the throat of an animal in the temple and that person's problem will be solved." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8375605.stm "The real impact of the (swine flu prevention) efforts may not be known until after the Hajj."— November 24, 2009 1:04 a.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
One more from xkcd: http://xkcd.com/54/ "Science. It works, bitches." :-)— November 24, 2009 12:45 a.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Rickey, all I can say to your comment is "Ramen". You have truly been touched by his noodly appendage. But wasn't the main point of the FSM that if we're to "respect" all religions, then we must therefore respect even transparently made up religions too? Isn't the discussion really about how atheists in San Diego, by putting up a single billboard, are generating controversy? At the same time, you and I both know there are countless religious advertisements around us. So I do think we have to speak up boldly, shut down the jerks who seem to think that their mythical wish-thinking is superior to our firm grasp of reality, and not pander to the unfortunate dupes of the religion racket. No, I don't go around burning churches. I'm a writer. I happen to have the time (between contracts) to participate in this discussion and propose the "hardcare atheist" viewpoint, which was dismissed by the author of the article and many commentors here. I understand your point. For better social cohesion and peace in the short term, all us atheists should just let it be, keep our mouths shut, and not make waves. But I happen to believe this is an issue so important to the future of humanity...literally, religion could lead to our extermination as a species...that I want to do my little bit. By refusing to give into peer pressure and fit in by hiding my views, I'm considered all kinds of things...emotional, extreme, anti-social. But I'm being true to what I sincerely believe to be true. Religious myths drive too much human behavior in negative directions. The good it does in the world is outweighed by the extreme risk of human extermination at the hands of religious zealots. A more rational and scientific course might, maybe, possibly, save us from doom. Religion cannot, althought paradoxically that's just what it falsely promises. So while I get where you're coming from, and all my friends agree with you, I have to be firm. Myth believers do NOT deserve the benefit of the doubt. They need to be told they're wrong...very wrong and dangerously wrong. Best, Fred— November 24, 2009 12:30 a.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
"the non-God is the new God" AAAAARGH! Again. * Lack of a car is NOT the same as having a car. * Lack of intelligence is NOT the same thing as having intelligence. * Lack of a God is NOT the same thing as having a God. You get the religious progression right, but mess up the conclusion. We start with a lot of gods. It gets whittled down to a parthenon of gods. Then just one god (or actually three according to the trinity theory). The next step isn't replacing a single god with another god. The next step is getting rid of these gods altogether. No more using mythology to prop up government authority. The divine right of kings was discarded a long time ago, lets stamp it out for good. If scientific reasoning, filled with doubts, questions and debate manages to replace "God" as the standard for making decisions, I'd be thrilled. Look what relying on personal talks with Jesus got us into over the last eight years. No, my friend. You're getting closer, but you're not there yet. (BTW: What's this Vatican cache you've mentioned twice now. Any evidence for this?)— November 24, 2009 12:19 a.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Rickey, that's funny. I do like xkcd.— November 24, 2009 12:09 a.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Refried, you know the "eternal truths" and moral teachings were mostly adapted from Epictetus and the other Stoics. A lot of the mythology is adopted from the Zoroastrians. What are considered universal "religious truths" are usually just human truths. Elsewhere we've discussed the "golden rule". These various rules have far better evolutionary explanations than religious explanations. So, again, you freely and openly admit that you think the bible is more fiction than fact. Why not go all the way and just say it? You don't believe in this crap. You don't really respect those who do.— November 23, 2009 11:22 p.m.
Defining the Infinite. It's a Problem.
You seem to be suggesting that only self-referential experience is valid in exploring religious phenomenon. Restated, you're basically claiming "gotta be an 'x' to understand what 'x' is". You quote lots of theoretical fancies. Pretty standard stuff. Mostly quibbles about terminology and rather tortuous explanations for wholely subjective and irreproducable experiences. You don't quote any researchers who instead of ruminating actually perform experiments. That's okay. It's almost ten years old. Lots has been discovered since. How do you explain those recent advances? * The ability (independently relicated scores of times) to stimulate a particular area in the brain and consistently evoke a "spiritual" response in the subject. * Recent advances in explaining the evolutionary advantages to religious ritual as a social bonding mechanism that promote genetic survival. Seems to me that if I can show you that "spirituality" can be magnetically invoked by anyone with the right equipment, and that this brain structure has a good evolutionary explanation, then it seems that your requirement for self-referentialism in religious experience is moot. Now it's very clear that religious experience can be accurately described, and a lot of it anatomically mapped out, by an outside observer. No magic or fuzzy-wuzzy self-reference is required. So while this was an interesting paper, more recent evidence pretty much makes it little more than a curiousity for the museum of discarded ideas. Best, Fred— November 23, 2009 11:15 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
No, Refried... We have a VERY clear understanding of how Christianity was invented and the bible was cobbled together. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rel… Frontline has the whole story free online. It's several hours long, but worth it if you want to know what you're talking about when it comes to the bible.— November 23, 2009 10:59 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Anti, it's not absolute "proof" of the negative, but evidence so conclusive, so overwhelming, that any reasonable person who honestly looks at all the facts cannot avoid the conclusion that there is probably no "God". On the other hand, what proof is offered for the existence? None. Ever. Just faith. Why you'd call me a "zealot" for pointing out the obvious is surreal. What do YOU believe, Anit? Anything? Nothing? Everything? Do you believe in an angry sky daddy who punishes you for masturbation and helps his favorite team win football games? Or do you just have such an emotional attachment to the religious culture you were brought up in that you cannot open your eyes to the truth. There's probably no "God". I'm certain of it. Don't ask me to believe it unless you offer proof. On the other hand, there's so much evidence for one alternative explanation. It's called the theory of evolution. I'm sure you've heard of it. If you believe it, you cannot also believe in myths, ghosts, fairy tales, and creator stories. They' are mutually exclusive, no matter what tangles religious apologists attempt. It's ignorant to say they're both equally true. It's cowardly not to choose a side. I choose the side with evidence, proof we can all see for ourselves, no magic. If you're advocating the other side, go ahead. But pretending to have virtue by choosing not to make an adult choice is actually far more zealous than anything I've ever written. (And have a sense of humor. Jeez, Anti. Get over yourself. This is just an online discussion. I also hate having to repeat myself, but neither you, nor Josh or Refried are willing to accept the basic rules of logic in our discourse...which is indicative of why you all blindly flail away at me for rejecting your favorite mythologies.)— November 23, 2009 10:56 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Anti: One more thing... You seem to imply that not caring what other people think is a good thing. Actually, it's not. We evolved a social creatures, and guessing what others are thinking is one of our preoccupations in life. Those who genuinely do NOT care what other people think are known as sociopaths, and the rest of us lock them up in prison. It's clear that you care very much what I think, since you've read and responded to what I've written. Thank you. I'm flattered. Maybe, next election, we'll finally meet at Golden Hall to spend a romantic evening together watching the precinct counts roll in...— November 23, 2009 10:07 p.m.