Promises made are promises broken. Yes, we said we would no longer delay on shows, and yet, despite our best efforts, we did just that! No worries though, looks like everything is back to normal, so we present to you Episode 15. This week, we talk about children orphaned due to religious fanatics, and Indian tennis player that’s served up controversy, and my least favorite presidential hopeful.
« The Good Atheist Podcast Episode 14
» Good Atheist Podcast Episode 16
« The Good Atheist Podcast Episode 14
» Good Atheist Podcast Episode 16
» Good Atheist Podcast Episode 16
Podcast
Good Atheist Podcast Episode 15
01.18.08 | 19 Comments
19 Comments
have your say
Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. Subscribe to these comments.
« The Good Atheist Podcast Episode 14
» Good Atheist Podcast Episode 16
about
Ryan Harkness and Jacob Fortin are both writers and comedians, as well full time godless heathens.
search
recent
- Some guy sues Scientology and Tom Cruise
- The Good Atheist Podcast: Episode 23 (Broken Promises)
- Allah-Burger
- Church cancels teen gun giveaway
- More on penis thieves
Archives
- July 2008 (10)
- June 2008 (5)
- May 2008 (2)
- April 2008 (5)
- March 2008 (10)
- February 2008 (1)
- January 2008 (3)
- December 2007 (3)
- November 2007 (2)
- October 2007 (4)
- September 2007 (3)
- August 2007 (21)
- July 2007 (7)
- June 2007 (13)
- May 2007 (24)
- April 2007 (1)
Categories
- Editorial (17)
- Miscellaneous (8)
- Podcast (25)
- Politics (17)
- Religion (51)
feeds
Rock solid show you guys, looking forward to Ryan’s special show next week!
Hey guys, great show. I agree with you about Huckabee; the separation of church and state is clearly defined, I don’t know how he thinks he can amend the constitution to be in line w/ the Bible.
What candidates do you guys like, btw?
Personally, I really like Kucinich. He’s a leftist, like all of us Canadians. I agree with him that free trade is a flawed idea. There’s nothing wrong with protectionism, because the true cost of goods aren’t reflected by the marketplace (for instance, we get a lot of apples here in Canada that come from far away, because our apple farmers can’t compete with their prices. Still, because the cost of oil is more than simply a matter of dollars, ei environmental costs and loss of wage here), and therefore it’s often advisable to use tarrifs to offset this problem.
He also has a smoking hot wife. What can be said for a man that can keep and satisfy a younger, attractive, smart, passionate and socially committed woman with a tongue ring?
Yeah I like Kucinich too. I watched him on C-SPAN proposing the impeachment of Cheney. Good stuff. He’s probably my second choice next to Ron Paul. Gotta like a guy who wants to stick to the constitution, get out of Iraq, cut spending, etc..
Ron Paul is in favor of “Fair Tax”, which is possibly the worst idea ever presented by hard core republicans (basically it’s eliminating income tax, and having a blanket “sales tax”. This would put the burden of taxation on the lower and middle class, and just further the income divide). Also, he is in favor of selling off government programs to private corporations and charities. He also does not believe in evolution, which just annoys me (how many republicans do? It’s an embarrassment).
Another reason not to vote for Mike Huckabee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfSN4fnXwKM
haha
Who do you guys like from the people who could win it? Kucinich and Paul for example look to be struggling.
I’m not saying all of Ron Paul’s ideas are homeruns, but I like the majority of them. The ‘Fair Tax’ does need some revising, granted. But I like his cut spending, fix the problems at home kind of attitude. I don’t see that with a lot of the other candidates besides Kucinich.
I hadn’t heard the story about Ron Paul denying evolution. Does he deny macro, micro, or both? Couldn’t find it in the bit of digging I did.
I found a video of him saying it off of Crooks and Liars. Other than Kucinich, I’m a fan of Obama, since I think he can bring back confidence and vigor to the white house.
Here’s the link to Ron Paul on evolution. http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/12/ron_paul_on_evo.html
I don’t really have a problem w/ that video. I think it’s fair to say, like he did, that there isn’t definite scientific evidence to absolutely prove either creationism or macroevolution and that it’s a theological discussion. Is he not a good candidate b/c he doesn’t get into all the nuances of the matter? Shouldn’t he worry more about econmic theory and political stuff? What’s the big deal?
No offense Ben, but you’re infromation and knowledge of Evolution is equal to Ron Paul’s. Both of you have no clue what you’re talking about.
America is quickly being displaced in terms of scientific achievement, precisely because the President has no real understanding, or respect for science.
You weren’t able to refute me about macroevolution last time we talked about it, so unless you have something new to tell me I’ll stand by my statement.
You’ve already made up your mind that macroevolution doesn’t exist, this despite the fact that geological, genetic, cosmological, evidence that suggests otherwise. The reason is simple: it conflicts with your world view. The fact that macroevolution has been observed, and is a direct result of the lineage of all species on earth is, for you, only a theory with a small “t”. The reasoning behind this is do to your dogmatic insistence that God created all the creatures as they presently are, simply because “he could do it if he wanted to”. Not only is such reasoning highly suspect, it speaks to the integrity of your scientific investigation skills.
So important is the understanding of evolution that it may well make the difference between our death and survival as a species. The growing resilience of viruses and bacteria demand that we pay close attention to the facts surrounding evolution. The avian flu, for instance, is an example of a series of mutations that allow the virus to jump from one species to the next. Failure to understand the mechanism of evolution in favor of religious protectionism only goes to show the hubris and misguided efforts made by seemingly well intentioned but powerfully ignorant individuals.
I am not a scientist. I am merely a highly curious and studious individual that has taken an interest in why we are the way we are, and how life developed on this planet. I made this inquiry without the blinders of religion; examining the evidence without prejudice. I support the evidence, regardless of my own personal believe, in redemption, hope, the afterlife, and so on. Facts are not subject to our own opinions, or our hopes.
I suggest you read Stephen J. Gould’s “Panda’s Thumb”.
Thanks for telling me what I believe, I was unsure.
I actually don’t believe God created all creatures exactly how they exist right now. That doesn’t make sense based on what we see in nature. Microevolution obviously happens. One of my reasons for believing in creationism is that I don’t believe that certain organisms could have arrived through evolutionary process. Take a cell, for example. A cell needs all of the parts that it currently has in order to exist. To take one of those parts away or have one of them function differently would cause the cell to die. No more cell. There’s other examples (bombadier beetles, giraffes) but the reasoning is the same with each of them: they need all the parts they have in order to exist. I’m totally open to hearing contrary evidence, of which I’ve searched for, but so far nothing has refuted what I’ve found.
So, without my religious blinders on (ha!), I have to take that evidence and reason for myself how life developed on this planet, and I don’t think that evolution, on the scale you describe, can fully explain it. Macroevolution would also have to put abiogenesis into play, and that has never been observed either. So I think my worldview is reasonable at worst.
Btw, I actually agree with your 2nd paragraph.
Hi guys! Great podcast, I look forward to every episode. I find the level few discourse much higher and more polite (must be the Canadian thing) than on other atheist sites.
Just have to jump in here real quick on the evolution topic….
“Macroevolution would also have to put abiogenesis into play.” Why? The distinction between macro and micro evolution is really semantic, see Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by Dennet for a vivid description of the continuum of species. Why does this pull in abiogenesis? Not that it is not a topic worth of study and further research. Which is a lot more of a research program than I see coming out of the ID crowd.
“Take a cell, for example. A cell needs all of the parts that it currently has in order to exist. To take one of those parts away or have one of them function differently would cause the cell to die. No more cell.” Behe’s attempts to prove irreducible complexity are weak and can be summed up with “I can’t think of how this could happen, god or Xenu must have done it.” See the following link for good counter arguments on the irreducible complexity issue: http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/ic_demystified
Behe completely overlooks the co-opting of traits for purposes other than what they originally served, which explains a lot of sub-optimal and jury rigged design we see in nature.
Hey Patrick,
My mentioning of abiogenesis wasn’t directly related to macro as a it is now, but as it relates to how life on the planet came into existence. Sorry I think I got ahead of myself in my ramblings
Good article about IC, and while I agree with the basic premise, ie that certain parts could have been used for other functions and then went away (or whatever), he doesn’t offer much as to proof of where this actually happened. For example, if a cell didn’t always use its parts in that way, what evidence is there to support that. It just seems like a lot of “could have”s. So, to me its interesting, but not that compelling.
just a comment on republicans: not all of them beleive in god, some are just rich people who enjoy tax cuts.