A debate, that I’ve only skimmed, but it looks interesting.

…that atheists and Christians can, and must agree on. From, of all places, Cracked.

[Via emailer Eric Akawie]

Ron Bailey doesn’t think so. Neither do I. And I sure hope we don’t.

I’ve noticed this kind of “argument” a lot with people who want to hold back true progress (as opposed to the “progress” proposed by many “progressives”):

So what about the social consequences of radically longer and healthier lives? In that regard, Diana Schaub in her reaction essay raises many questions for reflection about those consequences, but curiously she fails to actually reflect on them. Schaub isn

In both science, and journalism.

The notion that journalists are, or should be, or can be “objective” is perhaps the profession’s most fatal conceit. As Virginia Postrel says, what’s important is to be fair, something that they often don’t even attempt, as demonstrated by CNN and its performance in the debates.

This is something that always appealed to me:

With an estimated 14 percent of Americans professing to have no religion, according to the Institute for Humanist Studies, some are choosing to send their children to classes that teach ethics without religious belief.

One of the reasons we came up with our July 20th ceremony was part of a broader effort to formalize our belief system. Several of the people that I was hanging out with at the time wanted to have a place to take their kids to learn their own belief system, rather than a Christian one.

My problem is that, while I’m not a theist, I’m not an atheist (in the sense of someone who believes there is no God) either. I’m a skeptic. In fact, the Unitarian Church can serve the function described above (I actually did attend a Unitarian Sunday school as a teenager). The problem with Unitarians is that they tend to be “progressive.”

Back in the eighties, Keith Henson and I used to occasionally discuss trying to take over, or start up, a Unitarian congregation that would be libertarian, rather than “liberal.” But it seemed like a lot of potential effort, with an uncertain outcome, and nothing ever came of it. In the nineties, he decided to crusade against Scientologists instead. It probably would have been smarter to take on the Unitarians…

They don’t abjure sex, but the effect is the same:

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.

It’s hard for me to feel regret that this moron wants to end her line.

But here are some people that I’d hope would be even more proactive than the Shakers, and really get on with the job:

We endorse a more “healthy” hatred of humanity

When we went out to the White Sands monument, I was reading one of the signs about how life adapts to the shifting dunes. Yuccas apparently root themselves in the interdune area, planting roots deep to get at the underground aquifer. As the sand advances and starts to bury them, they grow ever higher, to keep their stalks in view of the sun. This continues for years until they may be only a couple feet above the top of the dune, with thirty feet of plant beneath. They persevere.

Until, that is, the dune continues to advance, removing the supporting sand from around the thirty-foot plant until it collapses of its own weight (somehow, the aspect ratio of the Ares I, of which I saw a model at Holloman today, comes to mind).

There’s a lesson there somewhere. I guess it’s “life sucks, and then you die.”

On that cheery note, I’m off to bed, so I can go watch Armadillo win the Lunar Landing Challenge in the morning. Or be surprised if they don’t.

Here are a bunch of folks discussing whether or not the universe has a purpose. I’m too busy to read it all right now, but I thought my readers might find it of interest. Without reading it, I was a little surprised that the “maybes” and “yeses” outnumbered the “no ways” or “unlikelies.” I think it does, but I recognize that it’s a (non-theistic, in my case) religious belief.

[Via the Derb]

I’m fearless, in this regard, having spent my entire life to date in that state:

Mother Theresa’s confessions (if such a word could be used lightly given the context) similarly affirm Theology, that the greatest fear, or perhaps the greatest threat posed to believers, isn’t death, or evil, or something else, but the absence of God.

And never having had any ambitions toward beatification, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. There has obviously been a lot of intellectual energy, and even occasional rigor involved in analyzing these issues over the centuries, but to me, it always reads like a dispatch from an alien planet. I worry more about cancer, cardiac problems, and terrorists getting nukes myself. But then, theology was never my strong suit.

I’m fearless, in this regard, having spent my entire life to date in that state:

Mother Theresa’s confessions (if such a word could be used lightly given the context) similarly affirm Theology, that the greatest fear, or perhaps the greatest threat posed to believers, isn’t death, or evil, or something else, but the absence of God.

And never having had any ambitions toward beatification, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. There has obviously been a lot of intellectual energy, and even occasional rigor involved in analyzing these issues over the centuries, but to me, it always reads like a dispatch from an alien planet. I worry more about cancer, cardiac problems, and terrorists getting nukes myself. But then, theology was never my strong suit.