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
"Have a look at the original evolutionary reasons for the development of religion." BTW, my other graduate level course was "Classical Theories of Religion." ;)— November 21, 2009 10:15 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Re #81 "I still think it's very clear from the totality of his comments and writings that when he used the term "God" it was refering to nature and its mysteries rather than an active deity that interferes in the world." Absolutely. He stated as much outright. "I'd consider that a more deist than pantheist view, but won't quibble." A focus on nature and its mysteries would be characteristic of pantheism. However, he also made statements with a definite deistic tone, concerning natural laws being set up so that a deity was not required, blah, blah. (No more quotes. I'm tired of it. I think some of those are cited above already.) "We can agree he did NOT believe in what most people in America mean when they say "God"." I'd say that's correct. But be careful not to assume any particular individual falls into the category of "most people." "We can further agree that the famous scientist cannot be cited as a "religious person" who was inspired by "God" to come up with his insights." Well now, we do have that quote about being a "deeply religious man" regarding the experience of mystery. Clearly, he was inspired by this mystery, saying that the experience of it "stands at the cradle of all true art and all true science." What anyone wishes to call it is up to them, AFAIC. But no, he wasn't talking about the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. "That's what Refried claimed as part of his attempt to show that scientists believe in "God". Actually, the members of the Academy of Sciences are overwhelmingly (+/-97%?) non-believers." But non-believers in "what," exactly? That would be the question. I despise surveys and polls with prefabricated, boxed-in answers for this very reason. I always have LOTS more to say than checking a little box will allow. :) As for your contention that refried stated that failure to disprove a fiction makes it a fact, I didn't see him say that at all. I saw him say that it means we can't know for certain, with which I agree. I'm not even going to go into how all of "scientific" method hinges on blind faith in things like the illusion of objectivity and the infallibility of empirical verification. I'm tired, and my eyeballs are dry. :)— November 21, 2009 10:07 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
Re #79: I'll take that gig. :) Refried, your mouth must be bigger than this guy's, http://weirdseamonsters.com/wp-content/uploads/20… based on all the words people seem to be able to shove into it. :) Ironic, considering you're a pretty wordy guy to begin with, what with being a writer and all. (That's probably what galls 'em the most.)— November 21, 2009 9:18 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
"For thousands of years non-believers have been under a death sentence. Executions for apostasy, heresy, or non-belief have been common though the ages." Pagans could say exactly the same thing. Quit whining. Atheists aren't all that special.— November 21, 2009 9:11 p.m.
San Diego Coalition of Reason
"I think quoting some undergraduate paper, where the thesis is almost always chosen before the research is begun, and the scramble is typically to find evidence for a position rather than to evaluate the evidence fairly, is not very convincing." Fred, a.) It was a graduate course. b.) You really don't have any idea what the eventual "thesis" for that paper was, and would not be able to guess it. c.) I never write a thesis first. It's not the way I work. The following quotes are from the same page http://einsteinandreligion.com/godcomments.html where you pulled the two quotes referenced in #36. ************ I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details. — From E. Salaman, "A Talk With Einstein," The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123. ************ What I am really interested in, is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom. — C. Seelig, Helle Zeit—Dunkle Zeit (Europa Verlag, Zuürich, 1956), p.72, quoted in Jammer, p. 124. ************ Einstein wasn't particularly consistent in his statements concerning religion in general, and God in particular. However, most of what I've read from him on these subjects sounds distinctly pantheistic.— November 21, 2009 8:55 p.m.
The Swift Justice Of Cosmetology
Re #33 I thought he looked just as hot in Circle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60T_6ubNFp4 And Glorious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFdmG-TRxzE&featur… :)— November 21, 2009 7:58 p.m.
Help! Help! Help!
Re #29 I think the deck is stacked. Current SD dwellers? Daniels? Cuddle? Grant? I wouldn't want to end up donating $100 to the NRA, the Aryan Nation, or NAMBLA.— November 21, 2009 7:47 p.m.
The Swift Justice Of Cosmetology
"(unless you're talking about Eddie Izzard in drag, and then I'm all in)" You are? You're one interesting cat, Gringo. Full of surprises. :) Eddie is SO sexy. ESPECIALLY in drag. "I get this look on my face like Bush Jr." Which one? This one? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kK18CpDhHKM/SV4ZtEqX9EI… This one? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_35igJnloijA/RrvMq-aphXI… Perhaps it was this one. http://powertoevolve.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/… Oh, I know. THIS one. http://www.stuffucanuse.com/thumbnail-pictures/bu… :)— November 21, 2009 7:32 p.m.
It's Better To Burn Out Than It Is To Fade
Daniels wrote: "I was watching arinoman to make sure he wasn't goat3fish (who began stalking me outside the Reader) for the obvious reason that both were concerned mainly with racist intent or expression." I think Goatttfish is Goatttfish, and that's it. He seems genuine. Did you check out his MySpace page? Regarding the stalking issue, this could be very easily put to rest, you know. But I'll email you about that. No need helping anyone here to smarten up. :)— November 21, 2009 6:28 a.m.
The Swift Justice Of Cosmetology
Re #19: Have to agree with Board (again). See what you all made me do? I HATE it when that happens.— November 21, 2009 6:17 a.m.