1. The Politics of God

Comment #210390 by TheHardProblem on July 14, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Wasn't this posted months ago???

2. Indian village proud after double 'honor killing'

Comment #181601 by TheHardProblem on May 17, 2008 at 3:56 pm

This story reminds me of a quote by Sir Charles James Napier:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

3. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164152 by TheHardProblem on April 19, 2008 at 4:24 pm

I fail to see the importance of this news. We all know that christians are as moral or immoral as all the rest of us.
No matter how much we want to, he is not the face of Christian hypocrisy.
This is just one guy commiting a crime.

Or was it because of his Christian faith that he acted in this way?

4. Flipping particle could explain missing antimatter

Comment #146798 by TheHardProblem on March 19, 2008 at 12:18 pm

..that transforms into its own antiparticle and back again 3 trillion times per second before..

5. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115891 by TheHardProblem on January 25, 2008 at 2:01 am

This video had two parts

Up till 3:20, to me, the 'angels' 'jesus' and whoever else was working in this celestial place were acting out as bad guys like in a movie.
I was not feeling guilt or thought that I was watching a video promoting belief in jesus.
It sounded as a warning that there are deeply evil beings out there in the after life, selecting people based on their belief-profile, like nazis.

If opposing this is called anti-theism, then call me an anti-theist from now on.

6. Blind Faiths

Comment #108808 by TheHardProblem on January 7, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Hogswaddle! Colonization and technology built the West!

7. The battle of the butterflies and the ants

Comment #108123 by TheHardProblem on January 6, 2008 at 4:28 am

So I guess, the ultimate outcome of this battle depends on the combination of both of the species ability to produce the largest amount of offspring and succesfull mutation rate.

It's like an episode of star trek with an encounter with the borg, where they both need a rapidly fluctuating shield frequency and phaserbeam frequency so as to stay on top of the adaptation rate of the borg. amazing!

8. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105944 by TheHardProblem on January 2, 2008 at 7:38 am

comment 100 by windweaver:
This is off topic so apologies but I've just read an interesting interview with Jack Nicholson in which he mentions his lack of any religious belief:

http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/ESQ0104-JAN_JACK

9. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95363 by TheHardProblem on December 8, 2007 at 6:42 am

at around 15 minutes: (on the subject of atheist style of rhetoric in politics)
RD:"and I guess i'm not a very good seducer, because uhm, I find it very hard to.. to do that. If somebody is talking palpable nonsense, uhm, then I find it's just not quite my style to say "well, Very interesting point you make there, but have you considered... "(laughs from public)

Hmm, now who could prof. Dawkins have lampooned there? ;)

10. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92406 by TheHardProblem on November 30, 2007 at 12:51 pm

upsidedawn.

I think prof. Dawkins has a bit of a weakness for people who are publicly punhished beyond what's reasonable. Bill Clinton, Catholic Priests, Mr. Tarrant. Pinpointing what's exactly wrong and unreasonable about the methods used can give rise to a betterment in behaviour and prevent suffering. A noble act.
I'm all for consciousness raising. A looming sexual desire for multiple mates is part of our unescapable nature, realising this could help couples overcome their relational problems, forgive more easily.

11. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92210 by TheHardProblem on November 30, 2007 at 4:10 am

Very interesting comment there, Dr Benway.

12. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92162 by TheHardProblem on November 30, 2007 at 1:58 am

Excellent comments Prof. Dawkins.
I understand your wish to rise above jealousy, because it is such a bitter emotion. But rather then rising above this nature of jealousy, it is maybe better yet to rise above our adultrous nature.
Regarding your quotation of The African Queen. The correct way of looking at the paradox of 'rising above nature' is by concluding that you could go either way. The deciding factor in this would be that which we give more value to, and in my opinion, being faithfull is the more desireable, virtuous.
Ofcourse, if everyone agrees and allows for having multiple relationships, then this should not be a problem and i'm all for it.
I fully agree with your views on the Clinton case and the respect we should give to the ritual of swearing an oath.

13. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92034 by TheHardProblem on November 29, 2007 at 6:10 pm

I have some critique/comments to make at Dawkin's piece as well.
Note, I'm not touching the point on wether or not it is justified to say if Bush/Blair lied.

Something is a public matter, when it affects the public. If someone's act(s) of sex affect the public, it is fair enough if the public would respond to that(in a reasonable way).

About the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I'm not of the opinion the religious mind was at work here, but more sinister, the exploitation of the religious mind.
I dont think he got impeached because of the sexual misconduct, but because of the political power it would give the republican party if he would have been convicted, or even just put on trial.
But whatever the facts may be, infidelity does say something about a person's values. Relevant or not, if he portrayed a different political-image of himself before his religious voters, he has betrayed them. In this way, it is the Congress's damn business.
And wether it is the business of a journalist or not to find out if a politician once took drugs at an university, it is up to the journalist in question to decide, when done within the boundaries of the law ofcourse.
A country elects the people it deserves.

A politician's beliefs are only deserving public exposure if it reasonably affects his or her decision-making in political matters. To pry into someone's believes with these facts proven negative is unreasonable to do so, and guilty of having other motivations not mentioned.

Going further along with the case of Tarrant's wife.
The hiring of a private detective could be fully justified if her believes were reasonable enough to think that Tarrant was cheating but the evidence was hard to gather. Now the act of acquiring this certainty should be seperated from the means she used. Yes the hiring of a private detective can be disgusting, it's not a very respectfull way of gathering the truth. Now onto her motives, Dawkins mentioned it was 'Sexual jealousy', could very well be, but what happend to the betrayal of a (holy) vow to be faithfull?
I'm not familiar with this case, it could very well just be sexual jealousy, I trust prof. Dawkins on this one. But This still makes me fail to see the wrongness with 'the deep rightness and appropriateness of sexual jealousy'.
Yes, we could form a different opinion on this matter, but having us 'Rise above our nature' can also be seen of a betrayal to our nature, and just plain fooling yourself.

Regarding the question raised on love and multiple partners.
Simply answered, I would deny my 'loved one' the pleasure of sexual encounters with others' simply because it is immoral, disrespectfull to do so and cause of loss of face if the public would get hold of it. There is a public view on the concept of relationship, and when a couple engage in one, it is usually with respect to this view. No more has to be said about it.

Blaming the green-eyed monster is too simple.

14. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91209 by TheHardProblem on November 27, 2007 at 3:38 pm

---
4. Comment #91143 by Rtambree on November 27, 2007 at 12:09 pm:
They all need to answer questions about their beliefs. Mormonism is just as stupid as all the rest.
---

Exactly! I think what Hitchens is doing here, is laying down a foundation. Hopefully some other (candidate) makes the mistake of defending romney's faith, or faith of a candidate in general. Get the ball rolling!

15. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82160 by TheHardProblem on October 25, 2007 at 7:05 pm

Well I'm beginning to bend more and more to the term 'Humanist' with a capital H.
from wikipedia: "Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism, pseudoscience and superstition."

I try to do the following: what would describe me the best without having to deal with the threat of someday having to say "no no, thats not really humanism, they do not represent me".
Switch Humanism with any other term if you wish.

16. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82152 by TheHardProblem on October 25, 2007 at 6:48 pm

I'd like to explore the "I am a Catholic. What are you?" question further.
The questioner here assumes you believe in god, but is not entirely sure in what form it is represented. The questioner is thus actually not nessecarily interested if you believe or dont believe in god (he/she thinks you believe).
So stating you are an atheist is ofcourse a very informative answer but it is not what the person was looking for.
In what form do you express your unbelieve in god?
If you answer Atheist and leave it at, then you are giving rise to speculation and people will fill in the blanks for you. And we don't want that.

17. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82128 by TheHardProblem on October 25, 2007 at 5:57 pm

To 7. Comment #82098 by Summer Seale on October 25, 2007 at 5:03 pm

I like your idea of calling yourself a skeptic during a debate with regards at the question at hand.
But outside of it becomes a bit problematic, because the question will always be 'A skeptic of what?' and then you would find yourself holding on to a dogma that you should be a skeptic, no matter what.

And if you dont want your opponent to win on the spot, I would seriously discourage using a term like 'The truth' of something that we would replace religion with. You would hand them the debate on a gold platter if your opponent is any bit knowledgeable of philosophy.

18. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82121 by TheHardProblem on October 25, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Ah yes, but then again, I do not propose to abolish the word as well.
I would say something like this:
Theist: "I'm Catholic, what are you?"
Atheist: "I do not adhere to any branch of christianity, on the subject of god I'm an atheist."

Do we want to be precise or politicaly smart?

Ofcourse, what exactly is the atheist movement trying to achieve? Are we promoting science, educating, trying to establish a voter-base, or?

19. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82101 by TheHardProblem on October 25, 2007 at 5:07 pm

I agree with Sam Harris. I may be just repeating points here brought forth by Sam but i'd like to point them out anyway.
Problems with atheism (the word):
There is so much more to oppose then mere theism that calling ourselves just atheists would not be covering enough ground.
There is something strange about a position in which you try to point out the irrationality of theism and it's nonsensicality and at the same time calling yourself something which is only to be understood by knowing what the other side is about.
Another problem is that, through a political viewpoint, calling yourself anti or a-anything is suggesting a rebelious nature, and rebels, in the past, have more often then not been caught practicing anti-democratic behaviour.
Atheism is telling people what we're against, or at least what we do not believe in, but what about the rest? For some this position would seem a very negative and depressive stance.
All this makes the term becoming much too complex if one would want to use it within politics.

Kelly's question is ofcourse a legitimate one, but then again I would find no problem in the name of her movement (rational response squad).

I think we would be better of if we would call ourselves Rationalists or Humanists.

20. FFRF 07 Conference Footage

Comment #81319 by TheHardProblem on October 24, 2007 at 3:26 pm

I guess if I were a bit more naïve, I would say the following:
Yet still we are talking about _people_ who merely belief a certain proposition.
Can we pull the trigger on someone who's acting on a deluded set of beliefs that are not his own? Something that, intuitivly, can be cured by mere exposure of a fresh breath of rationality and maybe some strong words of the like: "you imbecile, snap out of it!".

21. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79264 by TheHardProblem on October 16, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Hitchens, explaining his attraction to continue the debate from the podium instead of sitting down:
"If I can't be erect, at least I can be upright."

22. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71733 by TheHardProblem on September 19, 2007 at 2:49 pm

You guys are too hard on them, this conversation was more about god AND science, not god OR science. They were all thinking, but with the premise that god exists.

The black woman sounded very down to earth, family first, caring mother, etc. Her response to the flat earth question was genuine I think.
She put it very philosophical, not that many people know or fully understand th evidence for a round earth. But next to that, she puts here education to shame (if she got any).
The blonde next to her did nothing to disprove her stereotype however.

Whoopie's ideas are very inviting and it's certainly one of the lesser harmfull viewpoints a theist can take.

Overal, I heard a lot of pro-science statements, and that's a good thing.

Now I am certainly not an apologist for religion, but I do try to put things in their right perspective. We know the US is full with religious people. This was a 'dinnertable' conversation with middle-aged woman trying keep it fun and accesible. What do you expect, hardcore discussion on the philosophy of science?

23. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64778 by TheHardProblem on August 21, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Note to joshuaslocum, #29:

I'm calling him immoral jokingly, because he portrays a very cool stance with a sigaret, just like the cowboy on a ciggaret-package.
I'm a huge supporter of Hitchens and he can do whatever he likes. I do worry for his health though, dont want to lose him because of some heart attack.

24. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64736 by TheHardProblem on August 21, 2007 at 2:15 pm

http://www.buildupthatwall.com

25. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50540 by TheHardProblem on June 18, 2007 at 5:08 pm

I just had to write this down:

Sam Harris (about the dismissal of religious belief influencing human behaviour):
"This kind of analysis is like seeing people lined up to receive the eucharists and asking them why they're doing this. And they tell you about the transsubstantiation and their love for jesus. To discount all of that, that we cant trust what they're saying, actually, 'this is just cracker eating behaviour', and 'it is witnessed by the fact (audience laughing) that it happens in other contexts'. I mean 'people eat crackers in other contexts', and 'there's a general love of crackers'. You can't say that people aren't motivated by their religion. (sheer interrupts)"

also,

Sam Harris (after chris hedges' strawman attacks and 'expert' opinion on the measure of he muslim world):
"Happily we do not asses public opinion by having New York Times journalists go out and live in the muslim world and make friends and get a vibe."

For me, Sam has yet again taken the number 1 spot in public debates, closely followed by Hitchens.

26. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48796 by TheHardProblem on June 9, 2007 at 4:34 am

It reminds me of a comedy boxing match where one opponent moves forward to engage while the weasely, frightened opponent scampers round the ring, merely trying to stay out of range with no intention of actually landing a punch of his own. It's akin to watching Joe Louis in the ring with Stan Laurel. Thus the religious sophists wriggle and squirm with no apparent sense of shame.

27. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48099 by TheHardProblem on June 6, 2007 at 3:27 pm

On a more positive side, and in follow up of my own post #48088.
KPFA radio is going to broadcast the audio of the whole debate.
The broadcast will be coming Saturday, 10am on KPFA 94.1 FM. An internetstream is available as well.
Someone with a secure connection should record it! Hopefully KPFA's servers will be able to hold the amount of listeners :D.

KPFA's website: http://www.kpfa.org/highlights/?airdate=2007-06-09#14207

28. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48097 by TheHardProblem on June 6, 2007 at 3:20 pm

is it not rather unbalanced to post a video of Hitchens 'greatest hits' [...]

29. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48088 by TheHardProblem on June 6, 2007 at 2:28 pm

The videos posted is half of the debate, it only features the parts where hitchens spoke.
The whole debate is only be available on DVD if you donate 100 dollars to one of the sponsors. Check out their site https://ittsui.pair.com/kpfa/support/

30. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48082 by TheHardProblem on June 6, 2007 at 1:55 pm

lets not go to the Hitchens and Iraq topic again, its been done. Keep it to relgion.
Head to the forums if you must.

31. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48074 by TheHardProblem on June 6, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Comment #48064 by CanadAdam
here's another debate Hitchens did a couple of days ago. 1 hour 30 minutes.
[...] I'm not sure how to get the direct mp3 links.

32. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47602 by TheHardProblem on June 5, 2007 at 3:50 am

"howtoplayalone. Well said."

I concur. This kind of talk is self destructive in the long run.

33. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47594 by TheHardProblem on June 5, 2007 at 3:36 am

WTF is this comparison with GI Joe, absolutely disgusting. GI Joe is fictional, it's a cartoon about a special forces team with fictional enemies (cobra), and most childeren know that, because they're f'ing drawn characters.
The average viewer will leave these stories behind when they get older, and see them for what they were, amusing fictional stories from their childhood.
The intent of this ceremony is absolutely not fictional. This is not to be compared with the believe in santa-clause people, their parents will not say, oh about this whole fighting for allah thing, cut that shit out, it was all made-believe.
How is it anything remotely the same with dressing all up like guerillas, flag-waving, showing of military training, praising a non-existing sky-fairy and hoping to die for him.
I call that hard-core indoctrination. It goes against all natural impulses, for that it takes religion, nót GI f'ing Joe.

34. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46461 by TheHardProblem on May 31, 2007 at 10:52 am

woo! its ávailable again. for me that is

35. Adult breast-feeding sucks, authorities say

Comment #44978 by TheHardProblem on May 25, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Bitty!

36. A meeting of unlike minds

Comment #43478 by TheHardProblem on May 21, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Has a recording or transcript been made of this debate?

37. Facing Off on Evolution

Comment #40674 by TheHardProblem on May 14, 2007 at 4:50 pm

I guess Ray and Kirk didn't need to look far that night for proof of god.

Kelly's response? "It's evolution baby! 100% natural selection."

i'm bad >:D

38. The Ethics of Hell

Comment #40651 by TheHardProblem on May 14, 2007 at 4:18 pm

"Dealbreaker"
Been reading/listening to Sam Harris have we? ;)

39. Interview with Pierre Rehov

Comment #37753 by TheHardProblem on May 5, 2007 at 3:50 pm

I saw this interview the other day, very interesting. I bet Sam Harris would be very interested in this documentary and the research.

40. Bonobos and chimps 'speak' with gestures

Comment #37288 by TheHardProblem on May 4, 2007 at 2:14 am

Fascinating

41. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31009 by TheHardProblem on April 10, 2007 at 3:28 pm

In response to his mother about how he got himself confirmed.

"Well, a lot can happen, you can think"

Now thats golden :D