Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Posted Jun 12th 2008 4:35AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Christianity, Atheism
When Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion, philosopher Michael Ruse was quoted as saying that the book "makes me embarrassed to be an atheist." What especially galls
I've been reading
But doesn't evolution contradict a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis? Yes, but
By contrast,
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Reader Comments ( Page 25 of 115)
361. Big Tuna, I did not think about that maybe Peter does not understand English. I must quit assuming things...
Man_in_Wilderness at 7:55PM on Jun 13th 2008
362.
Peter, when I read and re-read goddess1's post, I still don't get anything other than her asking for you to point out his post.
There have been atleast 2 other atheist posters that have also hastily reading a post and then reacted and ranted right a way as well. This wouldn't happen if people just took a breath and weren't so filled with emotion.
Anyway, Peter, I am signing off now to enjoy a movie that's starting without me.
Please have a great weekend. And Happy Father's Day to you if it applies.
I apologize to you for your getting hurt by remarks that you feel slandered you.
Michael at 8:05PM on Jun 13th 2008
363.
Peter,
You do your self no favors when you attack goddess1prevail....she is smarter, more lucid, and a better communicator than you can ever hope to be....and she is on the same side of the theologicaal fence that you are...you have made yourself look like a fool.
Congratulations...You have done what the idiot preterist could never accomplish - how does it feel?
How long have you been commenting here? Have you never read a single post from goddess1? I would suggest you go back and look over some of the past blogs...perhaps you may see your error- if you have eyes !
mac at 8:06PM on Jun 13th 2008
364.
Peter never mind...You are scum.
A worthless asshole. You have gone off half-cocked more than once, that I've seen.
You seem like you have deep problems accepting your beliefs... I have no problems with my lack of belief in a supreme diety, yet I do not feel the need to dinegrate another for their beliefs....especialy when, if I only look beyond one sentence, their beliefs mirror my own.
I doubt you really think as you post here. If so, why all the anger for a percieved insult. Would it be so hard to be a man about this issue? Maybe for you, being a big boy is the same as being a man?....sad!
mac at 8:21PM on Jun 13th 2008
365.
Anyone could've made the mistake Peter made.
We're all human. We all have our moments.
No one looks good attacking any one else.
--------------------------------------
M_I_W and bigTuna, Peter, mac, anyone, ;)
Any other suggestions for DD in wishing him a Happy Father's Day like fanman suggested?
I got it started with spicy popcorn, beer&movie.
Michael at 8:23PM on Jun 13th 2008
366.
Perhaps, Peter is like an assholes...
every man has one?
they stink?
they are full of shit?
No man has an asshole that big, what was I thinking?
mac at 8:21PM on Jun 13th 2008
367. 357. "Loyd maybe you missed it? If you have the opportunity to accept Jesus as your personal Saviour, and you do not do that, then you have chosen a devil's hell for all of eternity."
MIW, I'm not sure what it was that I may have missed. I have accepted Jesus as savior, though in a way that you probably don't accept. I'm Mormon and I'm familiar with the issues that many conservative Christians have with Mormon theology. On top of that, I'm more on the liberal side theologically as well as politically, so I'm an odd duck whichever way you see it.
I have been wanting to ask a question to the conservative Christians on this blog for some time now, so now's a good time to do it. It's my understanding that when we lose ourselves (presumably in service to others) that we in fact find ourselves, and that when we focus on ourselves, we ultimately lose ourselves. What that means to me is that when we focus on our own righteousness and salvation, that we paradoxically lose our salvation, but the opposite happens when we are truly in service to our fellow humans (which to me is the same as being in service to God).
When I read the statements from some of the folks on the blog stating that those who don't believe will be punished in hell, what I take from that is the reciprocol statement that only by focusing on your own salvation (that is, accepting Christ) will you be saved. It comes across as implying that the most important thing is personal salvation. It seems to me that that is the wrong message, when compared to the lose your life and find your life concept I mentioned earlier.
Also, there is the implication that the people who have done that (that is, accepted Christ) have put everything else second to their achieving salvation. This is where I have a problem with that. While I believe that accepting Christ is important, it seems to me that it is part of the larger process of serving others and putting their needs first.
So, the question is when do we focus on the self and seek after salvation? What I take from what Jesus said, is that the self has to be subsumed by service.
I don't know if I'm making much sense here, but I would be interested in your or others' comments.
Lloyd the Lurker at 8:33PM on Jun 13th 2008
368. "The term "darwinian" is an insult. It means someone who hasn't kept up with the literature for a century and a half."
Here are some scholarly articles and books from the *first page* (i.e. the first 10 of 13,500 results) of a Google Scholar search for "Darwinian":
"enetic instability
and *darwinian* selection in tumours"
"Positive *Darwinian* selection
after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genes"
"Positive *Darwinian* Selection
Drives the Evolution of Several Female Reproductive Proteins in Mammals"
"Ecological fitness, genomic islands and bacterial pathogenicity. A *Darwinian* view of the evolution of microbes"
"The Genetical Evolution of Patterns of Sexuality:
*Darwinian* Fitness"
"A *Darwinian* Approach to Plant Ecology"
"Positive *Darwinian* Evolution in Human Influenza A Viruses"
"Positive *Darwinian* selection promotes charge profile diversity in the antigen-binding
cleft of class I major-histocompatibility-complex molecules"
"*Darwinian* evolution in the genealogy of haemoglobin"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=Darwinian&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=some&as_subj=bio&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1
Why do all these scholars insist on insulting 'real scientists' -- i.e. those who claim to understand science on this blog, and who insist that no respectable scientists uses the term "Darwinian" today -- by using banned terminology in the titles of their articles? Haven't these highly respected scholars spoken to Clif Kulpen and William Hays? When will these published scientists begin to listen to Clif Kulpen and William Hays?
Renzo at 9:31PM on Jun 13th 2008
369. Peter,
My E-mails have been twice returned to me from your web site. I think you made a mistake attacking Goddess. She is one of the few intelligent posters that comes to these pages regularly and you may have misread her post. Goddess is not a bitch, has tact and humor. You used poor judgement in attacking her. I hope you will apologize to her.
Thank you,
Jeff Flying V
JefFlyingV at 9:24PM on Jun 13th 2008
370. Man in Wilderness.
There is no hell.
There is no heaven.
There is no devil.
There is no god.
When you understand this point of view you will understand just how pitiful your little 'choice of hellfire' sounds. It's no different than a muslim telling you you are going to burn and suffer eternally for not accepting the word of Allah as truth.
Somber at 9:23PM on Jun 13th 2008
371. If the delusional goddess1prevail wishes to explain and clarify her comments that is fine, the rest of you busy bodies should shut up about it and mind your business, it wasn't directed at you.
My Mother's Father saved many jews and others the Nazi's considered undesirables (e.g. gays) from the Nazi gas chambers during WWII; until they came after him and he had to narrowly escape out the back door of the apartment building while the SS came in the front door. It is deeply insulting to even suggest that I would deny the history when I heard it from people who LIVED IT!!!
If she made a mistake she should correct it and apologize for the deep insult. It is likely she intended to slander me, why else jump to conclusions about what PerVerted was accusing falsely accusing me of.
To be clear I deny no history. I simply do not know if jesus existed or not. There are insufficient facts to demonstrate his existence. That doesn't mean he didn't exist but it also doesn't mean that he did. There is lots of dialog about this question available. I was simply pointing out the flaw that almost everyone takes which is to assume it is true. For all we know it is just a story. Regardless jesus is a fraud as no one can break the Laws of Nature.
Peter at 9:24PM on Jun 13th 2008
372. ATHEIST
The question is,
How do you tell a CON GAME from a legitimate organization?
If you read the New Testament, one thing is clear.
The authors of the New Testament made up any kind of nonsense they felt would help bring new victims into the cult.
After you die... you'll come back to life in a perfect body.
If you don't accept Jesus as your Savior... well, let's hear it from one of the victims...
______________________
reply to: 353. So it is evil to tell the truth? Yes, I believe you will die and go to a devil's hell for denying Jesus as your Saviour. You deny Him and He will deny you before God the Father..... So yes you will burn eternally in a devil's hell.(end)
_________
I think this is so obvious, yes, I get mad when people ignore the obvious.
The world did NOT end.
the dead were NOT resurrected.
there was no Day of Judgment.
Somebody MADE IT ALL UP... because it would attract dumb people to contribute their life savings to the coffers of the End of the world cult called The Way (or whatever Peter called his group.)
Paul's group was different from Peter's. Paul's end of the world philosophy was based on two centuries of belief by the Pharisees.
Peter's church was just a Con Game. He wanted the money.
and he told ANY LIE to convince his victims they were living in THE LAST DAYS.
"Oh, yes, I was locked in a cell. But late at night, an angel came and rescued me."
Nonsense. Just LIES.
Can't you see that?
William Hays at 9:24PM on Jun 13th 2008
373. Being called a Darwinian is no worse than being called a Christist. Thank you Christist posters.
JefFlyingV at 9:35PM on Jun 13th 2008
374. Peter, goddess' remarks do not require clarification nor explanation.
This is a public blog. Anyone is free to comment on anything anyone posts.
She didn't make a mistake. You did. You misinterpreted what she said while everyone else understood exactly what she said.
But you are apparantly incapable of admitting you are wrong even about something so simple and obvious like this.
Not that you care, but you have lost the respect you had earned from me from the posts of yours I have read.
Anon at 9:37PM on Jun 13th 2008
375. I should have clarified, in post 369, that it was William Hays who wrote, "The term "darwinian" is an insult. It means someone who hasn't kept up with the literature for a century and a half." He was, of course, following Clif here.
Renzo at 9:41PM on Jun 13th 2008