1. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195896 by Tumara Baap on June 19, 2008 at 2:12 am

The "Strengths and weakness" strategy is shameless promotion of ID/creationism. Science by its very nature is a vetting system of ideas and reason. Such legislation is therefore seemingly redundant. So what the legislation does enable is a SCIENCE classroom scenario where strengths are taught for a couple of hours, using a standard biology book, and weaknesses are highlighted for the next couple of hours, perhaps by showing students the film Expelled (where ID is not explicitly taught, but its doctrine merely advertised, and evolution trashed).

ID guys are trying to distance themselves from Dover's ramifications. Of course, no one is fooled. We should continue to ram Dover down their throats relentlessly.

It would be fitting to enact legislation where the Judge Jones verdict is part of the science curriculum. Since the verdict, unlike ID, is decidedly not religious, there is no constitutional bar to teaching it. The students duly get their science and a heaping dose of critical thinking, whereas Jindal and George Bush get their Teach the Controversy wish fulfilled. Just a thought...

2. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195887 by Tumara Baap on June 19, 2008 at 1:35 am

We should entertain the remote possibility that Jindal was cozying up to his Republican base but does not truly hold ID in high regard. One should not dismiss writing him a hopeless endeavor.
It isn't heartening that Jindal was born Hindu and converted to Catholicism in high school. Such late conversions are indicative of strong indoctrination. Or maybe he had an early budding of political ambition...

I was listening to a Point of Inquiry podcast in which D.J. Grothe interviews Taner Edis. In discussing ID, Edis very concisely renders judgement that the little intellectual gravitas ID might have had has now all but evaporated. ID is wholly a media hatchet job and nothing more. This needs to be emphasized in letters being sent out. The Dover trial is a colossal embarrassment for the Discovery Institute. Absolutely nothing gets under their skin like the trial. Therefore, please duly pepper your content liberally with references to the Dover trial, Judge Jones, etc. Jindal and his friends must be sobered to the reality they'll be on the wrong side of history. Dover is our punching bag, and we must punch it till our knuckles bleed.

3. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189677 by Tumara Baap on June 7, 2008 at 1:04 am

This is a real problem ... I don't understand why atheists are so splintered. Granted there are differences in meaning between atheists, secular humanists, skeptics etc, but they really do comprise of individuals with remarkably similar world views. I think the term "freethinkers" is broad and all encompassing enough for all to unite under. FFRF is an excellent umbrella organization to start with. I respect the independent streak of many a heathen but our views count for nothing without political organization.
I'm personally a lifetime member at FFRF. I cherish the sense of community with other rationalists and find its newsletters and broadcasts very intellectually enriching. Any accusation of such membership as another form religion is a silly and hollow charge ... I'm a member of several others, from Union of Concerned Scientists to Sierra Club, all with a sense of purpose that benefits immensely from organization and political savvy. There is absolutely no reason why non-believers should not coordinate themselves likewise.

4. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185782 by Tumara Baap on May 28, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Conflating secularism with atheism is something increasingly common among the general public. That car salesmen don't get it is hardly surprising. Atheists naturally are avid secularists. But they probably comprise merely a slice of the secularist pie. Many believers are cynical of organized religion. They understand well that their religion is highly labile, and will surely be exploited by politicians and clergy toward selfish power hungry ends. The converse is also true that the political establishment may try to influence and control religious doctrine. Hence Jefferson's eloquent metaphor of a "wall", one that shields church from state in regard to influence, politics, mischief and exploitation, and vice versa. It is really one of the most wonderful concepts introduced to society, and one which the faithful ought to lovingly embrace. To equate secularism with atheism is troubling and tends to undermine the appeal of secularism. I feel believers and non-believers are not vigilant enough in combating this clever lumping foisted by those hostile to secularism.

5. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180243 by Tumara Baap on May 14, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Styrer, I ain't about to defend Brooks. Sentences such as science and mysticism coming together really rankle me. Altruism has been beautifully explained in terms of gene propagation, and he states the very opposite. He places Buddhism and atheism on diametric ends, whereas many features of Buddhism are a repudiation of dogmatism. His op-ed is flawed.
But there's been a lot of venom for him personally. A bit of empathy would be in order. It is rather difficult for a paper columnist, and almost impossible for a conservative one, to decry spiritualism, mysticism, or some manner of high-bandwidth communion with a sky-god as a legitimate and real experience. His focus is on an ensuing debate between Bible believers and meditation practitioners of the East. He's parsed his article well enough to acknowledge that the cause of God experiences can be winnowed down to specific brain processes. That he couldn't convey the dispassion through which science views these alleged mental states is something I wouldn't hold against him, especially in context of his general audience. I bet he isn't too displeased his borderline woo woo piece is at the top of most emailed articles at the Times...

6. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179896 by Tumara Baap on May 14, 2008 at 12:50 am

Styrer, we ought to give Brooks the benefit of doubt that he isn't taking sides. Much of what he talks of is corroborated by Scientific American articles on the mind; about the "God Helmet", functional MRI studies on religiosity, meditation, musicality, vegetative states, and the respective involvement of cortical layers, temporal lobes or the caudate nucleus. All of our behavioral patterns, conscious or otherwise, are the product of neural firings. Brooks' language is decidedly unscientific. But for this he should not be slammed.

7. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179890 by Tumara Baap on May 14, 2008 at 12:19 am

Brooks seems to be taking a bit of a rap from atheists for this op-ed. I thought it was a good piece, especially for the Times readership. A couple of things: By calling Buddhism a religion, and hence lumping it together with other (Abrahamic) religions, and thereby positing all of these religions as pitted against atheism, is a dreadfully misleading demarcation of the warring camps. The most sophisticated iterations of Buddhism and Hinduism have a resemblance to secular humanism. Most of the New Atheists are firmly on record that they have no scruple against such versions of Eastern "religions." There is nary any rubbish about a sky-god here; just an emphasis on introspection, learning, self-discipline, and the mastery over one's mind.

To assume atheists would be threatened by the phenomenon of mystica priori is to severely misunderstand them. They are against dogma. If science and reason show us to be capable of exquisite elation, so be it. If meditation, or for that matter thinking, can influence brain structure, it would suggest the brain like a muscle is malleable to stimuli. There is nothing that ought to reek of mysticism in this. Thus far, peculiar temporal lobe excitation has been correlated with both religiosity and musical appreciation. This merely tells us that we are complex and sentient. That such labile states can be precipitated by imagining the Virgin Mary, Amon-Ra, or the Spaghetti Monster hardly means such beings actually exist. I suppose a tenuous case could be made that we are predisposed to religion. Again, if science demonstrates this to be so, that such belief aided social bonding perhaps, then so be it. The case against an actual God still remains as air-tight as ever. Any unfortunate delusional ailment can be overcome. The profound gift of reason is within reach of everyone.

8. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176766 by Tumara Baap on May 8, 2008 at 1:36 am

Just unbelievable ... I had some vague notion of fundus, but who'd have imagined this sort of darkness in the abyss. I wish there was a way to document and tape everything these guys say. It would be priceless.

9. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164281 by Tumara Baap on April 20, 2008 at 1:42 am

I just received an eSkeptics email in which Shermer eviscerates Expelled. As for the podcast interview, Shermer simply sounded level headed. It is quite a stretch to take this as Shermer not caring much about the rationalist view point. By not getting overly excited and worked up, he helps his own credibility, especially with anyone in the general media looking for balanced and dispassionate assessments. Dawkins may be right that Expelled is downright horrid. Shermer may be right that the movie nevertheless succeeds at its intended purpose. It doesn't take much to titillate a fundu audience ... frankly they're not scientifically savvy and not altogether bright. One simply has to beat them up into an emotional lather to stir them to action.

That said, I feel Shermer's deadpanning dry logic to a roomful of believers won't win debates. A speaker who can project humor and empathy, vividly carve contrasts in positions and delineate a relationship of those positions to first instincts, and finally deliver a few knock-out blows is one we need battling on our behalf. I'd love to see more of a fighting spirit in him.

10. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #160760 by Tumara Baap on April 14, 2008 at 11:22 am

All very well. But the Guardian article seemed to go a step beyond advocating appreciation of religious works for their literary value; that religion itself is a wellspring for the inspiration of art.

I'm curious what the author of Shalimar the Clown (atheist Rushdie) would have to say about this.

11. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160384 by Tumara Baap on April 14, 2008 at 2:34 am

As has been pointed out by Dawkins and his "soldiers", this army has no interest in suppressing religion inspired art. Emotion and feeling are behind music, art and poetry. Not religion per se. Religion has simply been placed on a high pedestal throughout our history, hence the correlation with amassed art. The world and universe now being revealed through reason is far more complex, wonderful and breathtaking than anything put forth in a religious text. The secular ticker has only just begun.

Still, let's entertain the writer's musings for a moment. Modern Art appreciation transcends and intersects pockets of style, region, culture or period. Some of the most astounding art enjoyed today abounded through the ages in India, Persia, China and so forth. So which god or religion should we give a shot in the arm on that count? Something from ancient Egypt perhaps? Not only is the art swell, but the theology often a tad more sophisticated than Christianity's. Me thinks Mayan art is most evocative. And the first heart to be ripped out at the temple altar ought to belong to one of those pesky apologists, who bandy their past or current disbelief thinking it will somehow blunt the ridicule they richly deserve.

12. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159721 by Tumara Baap on April 13, 2008 at 1:13 am

Hats off to Dr. Dawkins. There are lots of scientists and lots of atheists out there. But few can pull off what Dawkins does.. Shows such as Colbert Report and Real Time need one to be above all funny, witty, and lighthearted. Access to the New York Times requires one to engage an intelligent though not necessarily a scientifically savvy crowd. I remember a thread critical of Dr.Dawkin's that went on for days ... it concerned a clever and evocative example (in the Times) that pointed to a pathway from wolf to chihahua(?) as being flawed since it wasn't natural evolution in the wild. Carl Sagan faced the same shit... where people wouldn't pass an opportunity to flaunt their "scientific rigor" over a celebrity scientist. But it is precisely the ability to adapt one's dance to changing rhythm in the media world that makes Dawkins an invaluable spokesman.
I was thrilled to see Dawkins mention this site on the show. TGD got excellent attention showered upon it. All in all, a wonderful day for atheism and rationality.

13. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #157679 by Tumara Baap on April 9, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Davis' remarks are tragic on several levels. They come from a woman African American Democrat.

As windweaver's superb post points out, it took a brave freethinkers/agnostics such as Elizabeth Stanton and Margaret Sanger to advance women's causes of voting rights, equal treatment, right to contraception etc. Davis would not be in the position of political power today if not for these atheist women standing up to bibles being hurled at them, ridicule, harassment and even imprisonment.

Secondly, the bible says nothing against slavery. In religious societies, each party will try to cherry pick those parts of a religious text that support their agenda. That said, it was the southern slave owners who were on firmer theological footing. The bible thus never made the slightest dent in that awful institution for thousands of years. And if it weren't for the emasculation of religious authority so that reason could breathe, Davis today would still be picking cotton and getting her backside whooped, in turns.

Davis also brings up the subject of atheists "destroying". I am not sure exactly what she meant, but if she wants to learn about how atheists, humanists, and freethinkers contribute to American society, I'm certain we could give her more than an earful. Right through our founding fathers from Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine to elite science and academia today, freethinkers have overwhelmingly contributed to modern high civilization, under whose umbrella Davis now comfortably lives.

Davis is also a democrat. In the 2004 elections, whereas the fundamentalist Christian vote went to Republicans, an ever larger lions share of the secular vote (consisting of both believers and non-believers) went to Democrats. This may be a religious country, but it is more so a secular one.

Davis, Davis, Davis, talk of grappling the wrong end of the stick! I encourage her office be bombarded with the specific themes of each toe she's stepped on.

14. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146758 by Tumara Baap on March 19, 2008 at 11:17 am

Many posters have tried to defend atheism. Something is being missed here. The article was about religious versus non-religious. The non-religious and atheists are not the same. Atheists are an extremely small portion of the non-religious, who've reached their conclusions following vigorous reasoning and reflection. Most non-religious people may have indeed expressed skepticism at some point, but for the most part haven't thought about the subject, being more preoccupied with video games and television than boring old texts.

Social implications of religious affiliation are primarily what account for happiness scores. It's a powerful factor. Religious affiliation is tied to a sense of identity, trumping even nationalism in many cases. No other explanation is even remotely persuasive, and certainly not one about religion "giving meaning". That one makes me practically cringe. To an extent religion does allay the anxieties and questions of life and existence. To the ancients, the act of dreaming was not understood... nor were natural calamities, diseases and other misfortunes. And a stroke of good luck was never perceived as chance. The sheer complexity of the world around could not be grappled with. In that sense any horse shit of an explanation "gave meaning". But to modern man, even the deepest religious explanation doesn't come close to capturing the true richness and awe of life and universe as revealed by science and reason. If religion still "gives meaning" to anyone in the modern world, it only serves to expose a chilling poverty of intellect.

15. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146360 by Tumara Baap on March 19, 2008 at 2:02 am

There is plenty of research that suggests religious people handle hardships better. This is expected. For most people, religion is a portal to socialization and support. To give credit where due, it confers in people a sense of community and belonging. Such mooring should not be underestimated in a social species such as ourselves. I suspect it also helps prop the intellectually and psychologically frail, albeit through false promise.

The non-religious who enjoy strong social networks should fare just as well. The opportunities are boundless; secular humanist chapters, sport leagues, astronomy clubs, environment organizations, swinger's clubs etc etc. Earthily, there is absolutely no reason for a thinking, sentient being to submit to the rants of a fearful and confused people from a bronze age when the social sphere has so much else to offer.

16. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #130346 by Tumara Baap on February 20, 2008 at 11:36 am

It's odd that despite being more outspoken, we're increasingly marginalized politically. Never mind atheism. Secularism is being given the short shrift. The Democratic party too has found God. A Democratic party survey mailed to me asked what issues I thought of as important and to rank them. The options listed were Iraq war, health care, environment, education etc. I had to manually check "Other" and specify secularism. I'm sure a lot of people disgusted with the religious right merely ranked the dozen issues listed before them without thinking of jotting in secularism in the blank space.

17. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103468 by Tumara Baap on December 25, 2007 at 6:26 pm

And from Barbara Walker's column about mention of Jesus in the works of a prominent chronicler who lived at the time:

"It does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, and is first quoted by Bishop Eusebius, the enthusiastic advocate of what he called "holy lying" for the greater glory of the church, known to have been responsible for many interpolations, revisions and blatant forgeries."

Full article at:
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2007/aug/walker.php

18. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102920 by Tumara Baap on December 24, 2007 at 12:03 am

Barbara Walker touched on this a few months back in one of her columns in Freethought Today. I remember reading that the foremost Jewish archivist of the time made no mention Jesus. This does not necessarily mean that he did not exist. He may have been one of many stragglers spouting supernatural rubbish at a street corner, and too insignificant for a historian of the day. Cults soon take a life of their own, with charismatic preachers, power politics, and clever little stories of miracles and martyrdom added thereafter to ferment a nascent movement.

19. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #102474 by Tumara Baap on December 23, 2007 at 1:13 am

I'm somewhat surprised at the anger of posters toward the interviewer. He obviously has to operate within certain parameters of style and time. Fellow heathens here would naturally long for a meatier exchange on the subject. But the interviewer cannot afford to veer off into something too arcane for the average viewer. Canards like Stalin was driven to evil by his atheism will keep coming up time and time again; that one's moral compass will go berserk without religion is a prominent fear amongst the masses. It's a silly argument that'll have to be knocked down flat every time it's brought up. We'll have to persevere against this and a multitude of other apocryphal attack lines. And as repetitive as it may sound to us, the interviewer has an obligation to address concerns on the minds of a majority of viewers. I actually think it fortunate Richard was given a chance to bat against the very hostile and mocking sentiments brimming inside countless viewers.

20. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #97154 by Tumara Baap on December 11, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Davidstvz, the HPV vaccination episode in the U.S. is hardly comparable to the measles vaccination situation. Sure there are always going to be individuals at the lower end of the brains Bell Curve, and Melanie Phillips is one of the first on the chart line. In the U.S., it is the *government* that has willfully ignored or undermined scientific data on HPV, sex education programs, the safety of Emergency Contraceptive pills (Plan B), etc. The West hasn't seen anything like it. For better comparison, the Taliban are a match.

21. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #97145 by Tumara Baap on December 11, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Americans famously deplore class distinctions. But even Colbert dropped his Southern demeanor for its negative connotations. A while back I read an Economist article that people in the U.S. automatically confer intelligence to a Brit. May be it's the clipped David Attenborough accent that accompanies good documentaries ;-) While the U.S. may have a lock on elite science and academia, the perception is that the average person on the street in other Western countries is more liberal, more worldly, and less religious than the American. At social functions, I notice those to the left of the culture war have an affinity for Western Europeans, assuming perhaps that they share a similar world view. An acquaintance of mine with a French wife has to continually contend with uninvited political bile from people he barely knows. When we see stories like one of the cravenly clueless Ms. Phillips in a major British newspaper, it is a little hard to believe. Maybe there is a kernel of truth to many stereotypes. But it's in order to be wary of even the positive ones.

22. A Call For a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology

Comment #97056 by Tumara Baap on December 11, 2007 at 10:52 am

I am not interested in a candidate's mastery of scientific findings. (Granted, a lack of rudimentary knowledge would be telling.) Such factoids can be spoon fed to anyone of average intelligence. What matters is the quest for the unknown, the critical thinking, an open mind, a respect for scientific integrity etc that props a scientific culture. In light of reports by science journalists Seth Shulman and Chris Mooney (who document by Republicans unrelenting attacks on institutions that depend on science to do their jobs -NOAA, NASA, EPA, FDA, CDC, FWS, NIH, HHS- and on reason itself, what is it about a candidate that makes them fit for stewardship over the world's most scientifically advanced nation?

For those familiar only with stories that make it on CNN -Dover trial, global warming- I highly recommend the easy to read "Undermining Science" by Seth Shulman. The cancer has metastasized. Few have done more for the march of stupidity than the famously incurious George Bush. In a democracy, the shame is ours to carry.

23. Keith Olbermann talks about the Romney 'Religion' Speech

Comment #96769 by Tumara Baap on December 10, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Romney's speech was so singularly obnoxious, he almost deserves a helping hand from us. What would an "Atheists For Romney" movement do for his campaign?
A timed and honed message moored in exploiting existing distrust could be exquisite. The mormon religion has lately taken a lot of flak. But it isn't sillier than the other major religions; just a little closer to us on the time scale. This presents a chance to open up a few minds that would never avail themselves of Dawkins' or Hitchens writing. The ways of rape, pillage and revenge are upheld in books revered by Mormons. The point is some of the craziest stuff is not found in the Book of Mormons, but in the Old Testament. Romney should not be singled out for how he reconciles the inexcusable stupidity and historical inconsistencies of his faith with reason. Atheists for Romney should demand all religious candidates be held to the same standard. Too bad if Romney isn't flattered by our love... :-(

24. Evolution and Texas

Comment #94517 by Tumara Baap on December 5, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Given the speed with which Ms. Comer was summoned, some bigwigs had likely been contemplating her ouster for a time. While the optimism of thirdchimpanzee is reassuring, it's a fight that can only be won if we put up a fight. We're up against motivated, well funded, and organized opponents. Pulling one's hair out in disbelief won't help. For all it's worth, I hope my donation to ACLU will go a longer way.

25. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #89160 by Tumara Baap on November 19, 2007 at 10:40 pm

I suspect the only purpose of resorting to "atheists present no new arguments" line was not to advance anything remotely pertinent, but to diminish non-belief in the absence of a superior counter argument. Belief in God is so ingrained, one must keep in mind that rarely are arguments countering atheism subject to pure dispassionate reason. More often they are squeals of an emotional nerve struck. Sometimes the ripostes are angry splashes and malicious barbs, and sometimes they are a tad cleverer, shaped to marginalize atheism without sounding gruff and unintelligent: "I used to be an atheist, but I've risen above it... I'm so darn smart, I contemplated every atheist argument way back when I used to disco dance to Staying Alive, and now that I'm ever more learned and mature, I deem atheism as lowly and unplumbed..." So on and so forth. But that final bullet of reason against atheism is never ever forthcoming.

Funny though, Mr. Smarty Pants, already short on fresh criticism sort of messed up with even that assertion intended merely to diminish. The new atheists go well beyond presenting old (but not conquered) arguments. They beautifully consolidate atheist reasoning and lay the parameters of what ought to be weighed. In so doing they've separated the wheat from the chaff, shedding light on the graduated burden of proof for agnosticism for example. And as for evidence, there isn't enough room in those pages to note the numerous scientific advances on consciousness, cognition, innate morality, genetics, evolution and physics that serve to mercilessly quash the case for a benign, interventionist, omniscient sky god.

26. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88752 by Tumara Baap on November 18, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Excellent! Still, the documentary didn't capture all of the drama, suspense and exchange of wits. For a riveting courtroom account, read The New Yorker article "Darwin in the Docks" at http://www.wesjones.com/darwin.htm

Hollywood should really make a movie out of this.

27. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81659 by Tumara Baap on October 25, 2007 at 2:24 am

Conservative thinking is comfortable being ensconced in tradition, and is almost always grounded in a deference for authority. Religious conservatives start being anchored to an emotional position, and then cherrypick factoids and arguments to bolster the initial stand. They are not stupid. They will actually devote a lot of thinking energy to their pathological mindset. They are suspicious of fresh ideas. Their closed-box thinking can be reliably delineated on the Wilson&Patterson scale.
Spin. Ad hominem pitches. And always unfailingly facile. These are not D'Souza traits, but the very lifeblood that conservative casuistry thrives on. Understand this, and we'll have a better shot presenting our case to the public. As Drew Westen of Emory would argue, arcane reasoning of the sort the scientifically inclined value isn't optimal. D'Souza talks rubbish, albeit with well strung sentences. He spins and frames issues to his convenience. His understanding of science is the pits. And by his standards, aspiring to social equality, a more central marxist ideal than peripheral features like atheism, should also be blamed for countless deaths. And if we did have the "leap of faith" he purports, we'd still believe space and time were immutable. His arguments are piss poor. He fares well only in spinning the issue, framing the discussion agenda, and in making an emotional connection with his audience.

Frankly, we already have all the answers to whatever he and his ilk put forth. However, we must be willing to make an emotional pitch ourselves. And doing so is not being dishonest. We must frame and pace the discussion. Reiterate clearly our premise: reason, a congruence of known facts, the parsimony of explanation, etc. Pull no punches in diminishing their religion, especially against other defunct religions. Pit Zeus against Jesus (as the professor knows too well); the Ten commandments versus The Negative Confession; Genesis versus Upanishadic monism. And whenever the opening presents, impugn their credibility, like when they selectively present examples of Christian scientists only from a bygone era with science in its infancy and the charge of blasphemy very real. Take the gloves off, incorporate emotionally charged tactics, and the other arguments will take care of themselves.

28. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #79042 by Tumara Baap on October 16, 2007 at 1:13 am

The monkey army gets taken very seriously by many Hindu's. The most famous of these monkey's was a Ram acolyte, Hanuman. Hanuman himself needed no land bridges, since he could fly, often whilst with his tail on fire. As you can imagine, he made for a splendid weapon, and is credited with thus burning Lanka to the ground. To this day Hindus, if not peering the blue skies for flying monkeys with tails on fire, certainly do spend countless hours worshipping Hanuman. They also unfailingly heed respect when undertaking a significant or dangerous mission by invoking the battle cry in Hanuman's honor : "Jai bajrang bali".

So how do modern educated Hindus cope with this, you ask? It's the refrain some may have heard before: It's just a metaphor to impart valuable lessons. Other explanations and revisionisms have been a little more creative. Hanuman was known to have flown to the moon. Hindus have been agog that their kind mastered space flight long before the Americans figured out how. But space flight then as now was risky business. A fractured and deformed human face after a fall from the sky resulted in the monkey moniker for Hanuman and his underlings. And the tail? It was a whip that could be set alight. It was worn around the waist and was also called the tail!

As silly as all this sounds, I'd be remiss not to point out that Hinduism is not a single religion. It roughly refers to a body of often unrelated beliefs from different eras from all over the subcontinent (though exceptions are arbitrarily made for those with distinct group identities like Jainism and Sikhism). Some beliefs are laughable. Others like the Upanishads are surprisingly sophisticated. Matter, fire, and space are described as being in a flux but integral to God. There is no genesis. Other schools of thought are quite similar to secular humanism. Similarly, ancient Egypt had beliefs far superior to the rubbish of the Old Testament. Some explanations on the creation of the universe came close to a colloquial description of the Big Bang. The commandments in Egypt's Negative Confession were likewise leagues ahead in ethical sophistication to the Ten Commandments.

29. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78803 by Tumara Baap on October 15, 2007 at 1:15 am

The Bishop is correct that the sort of religion depicted in atheist books is not the religion most believers would recognize.

What sort of Christian are you who endorses stem cell research?

What sort of Christian are you who endorses that we've arisen from a primordial soup of mud?

What sort of Christian are you who endorses a market for birth control pills?

What sort of Christian are you who endorses animal husbandry where livestock siblings are paired against God's natural order?

What sort of Christian are you who dare question the authority of a master over his slaves?

What sort of Christian are you who pleads mercy on behalf of witches?

What sort of Christian are you believes that the earth is not at the center of the universe, and that we're merely a random speck strewn in the middle of nowhere?

And so on and so forth.

It seems that the religion the Bishop knows has been so many places, the further back in time you go, the less he'd recognize it. It's been bouts of endless revisionism since days of the Old Testament. It's partial transformation to decency in recent times has been because of the inroads by secular thinking. Thomas Hobbes made the great leap forward in the 17th Century with Leviathan, in which he introspectively tackled why and how we believe in the first place. Prior to that thinking was stuck at how theology dictates society and politics. From that point on our innate fairness, natural justice and empathy, previously festooned to God, could now be unleashed to couple with reason. It led to modern Western society as we know it. It's the setting in which the Bishop no longer recognizes anything other than the latest castrated and less virulent "It's-all-just-a-metaphor" iteration. Lest we slide back to the bronze age drivel of the Old Testament, it's best we keep up our vigilance and come to grips with uncomfortable historical truths some would rather not hear.

30. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78773 by Tumara Baap on October 14, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Laura Green's refutation of Dawkins observation that religion thrives upon the incurious couldn't have been more feeble (not to mention the insertion of one's opinion in any objective coverage warrants caution, but this is Fox News). You'd at least think someone asked to comment on a viewpoint would be conversant on the subject. It seemed as if all she knew about Dawkins was the clip we got to see. Pitiful.
It would be fair to say that Fox News and the Conservatism it trumpets squarely stand for a historic tryst with impoverished intellect. Diane Rehm of National Public Radio nailed it when she explained to douche-bag commentator Robert Novak what she understood by the word "Liberal" : it is to think things through, to weigh all of the pros and cons with an open mind, and to account for prejudices and confounding factors ... or something to that effect. Indeed, liberals in the U.S. profess a multiple of end-point positions. The thing that binds liberals is the cognition that undergirds those conclusions. Well thought out arguments predicatbly converge on many issues, such as social matters like stem cell research, and less so in economic areas like the degree to which capitalism is best regulated. Conservatism on the other hand is governed by a primary gut instinct: a distrust of out-group members, submit to a controlling authority, especially a religious one, fear of piercing questions, and to advance any manner of preconceived notion and science and evidence can go to hell. If you think about it, their instincts on the role of God in Government, gays, evolution, sex, etc differ only slightly from the Taliban. If you can get past 5 minutes of watching Fox News (without popping an aneurysm), it's clear that it is fundamentally in the service of primordial knucklehead feelings. Their obvious discomfort towards Dawkins was almost exquisite.

31. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77277 by Tumara Baap on October 9, 2007 at 12:00 am

There is a strategic aspect to the labels and titles we use. Depending on one's agenda, they can lull or impart a desirable spin. When the administration sought to undermine the Clean Air Act by stealthily introducing loopholes and relaxed benchmarks that would result in greater emissions, increased arsenic and mercury levels, and all against the grain of scientific evidence, they first needed a new name. It was called the Clear Skies Act. What a name! Maybe "rationalist" is a more positive term than "atheist". But to do away altogether with a label that draws heavy fire ? As tempting as it seems, it's tantamount to reversing the conciousness of those ideas in the public sphere. Excising vocabulary would obliterate focus on core ideas that would otherwise be refined, modulated and advanced for our well being. One could then argue that gender treatment should only be viewed from the vantage of equality. And that "feminism" ought to be dropped because it is too shrill and may serve to caricature proponents as addle headed zealots. Such an argument would never do net justice to the cause as any axing of the feminism label would irreparably evaporate our sense of awareness of the issue. A label embodies a certain emotion and cognizance. As with all vocabulary, it is around which further thinking pivots. To advocate a judicious choice of label is reasonable. But to eliminate its use is an outrageously stupid proposition. What in the world were you thinking, Sam?

32. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77183 by Tumara Baap on October 8, 2007 at 5:22 pm

Firstly, we already have a plethora of labels out there with overlapping meanings: secularists, skeptics, rationalists, humanists etc. If atheism doesn't fit the bill, for either tactical or political reasons, or simply for what its meaning entails, there are other choices. I think it quite a waste of our time to be trying to soften the impact of labels, in the vein of creationists reinventing themselves as Intelligent Design proponents, or even worse to do away with a label around which people can energize and organize. Labels may eventually become diluted and moot, but they serve a purpose in language in identifying a distinct set of ideas and people. Try to smother a label, and another will effortlessly prop up to take its place.

Secondly, some people don't like to be perceived as a cult. Well what exactly is a cult that we should be so wary of? In an acadmeic sense, it is simply a small nascent group. That it is distrusted by others is not necessarily because the small group is deserving of contempt. Indeed, "cult" in common parlance does imply a group with something sinister about it. If Atheists are perceived as a cult, it is myopic to run around in circles by circulating new labels, such as Brights, coming up with silly ceasefires such as NOMA, or pretending science and religion can co-exist. I'd rather choose to fight and tell them as it is: Atheism embodies reason, science and enlightenment and serves truth with the highest distinction.

33. Searching for God in the Brain

Comment #76956 by Tumara Baap on October 8, 2007 at 12:17 am

Epilepsy and brain tumors have been known to influence not just religiosity, but also musical appreciation. In some people, the disease transforms them from introverts to being perpetually bubbly and gregarious. It is fascinating that at the root of these changes is a basic rewiring of cognition, pleasure, and emotional centers. And even without disease, it seems a majority brains have a tendency to swim in delusion than ascribe to truth (insofar as "spiritual" interpretations go). Our readiness to attribute a sense of elation to God is hardly surprising, when from day 1 one has been told that there exists a watchful force which is by definition the Ultimate everything... creation, existence, happiness and justice. It can be difficult to escape such powerful suction.

34. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76829 by Tumara Baap on October 7, 2007 at 12:12 pm

I am one of those if an argument isn't scientifically grounded, it's lacking in strength and not likely to withstand varied challenges and the test of time. I appreciate Hitchen's literary flair, but Dawkins was always King to me. Until I read the above endorsement, I'd never have considered reading Dennet. That his philosophy pivots on scientific reason is refreshing and encouraging. He is at the top of my must-read list now.

35. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #76402 by Tumara Baap on October 5, 2007 at 5:52 pm

That FSM appeals to Christians and Muslims isn't surprising at all. Amongst believers, there are those who feel the Lord interferes and intervenes sparingly in our daily affairs, are cognizant of religion's oppressive sociopolitical role in history, can compartmentalize God into a box and project impressive standards of science, reason and empiricism (as do almost 40% of U.S. scientists), view religion metaphorically as a narrative that hones "spiritual" needs and often plays a positive role in fostering community bonds etc. Many such individuals are as repulsed by religious fundamentalists, and as pleased by irreverent entertainment such as Monty Python films, BillMaher shows, and Colbert Report news briefs, as are skeptics, rationalists and atheists. For these quasi-rational believers, The Holy Pasta may be the stepping stone that leads to true transcendance.

36. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #76151 by Tumara Baap on October 4, 2007 at 11:03 pm

I agree with asupcb. The U.S. may have a zest for the free market, but it's not the easiest place to open and conduct business, has relatively high corporate tax rates, etc.
Health care in particular is a joke. One in the U.S. hears the refrain that Michael Moore's Sicko raises awareness, but that addressing the problem would lead to a bigger disaster. Obviously the perverted idea persists that we are reaping some benefits of a free market health system. There is little truth to this, if any. In actuality the system is as thirsty for our tax dollars as it is in collosal wastefulness. Paradoxically, it is an absence of efficient central streamlining that results in such a lousy system. A must read is this Economist article: An Unhealthy Burden
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9407716

37. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75164 by Tumara Baap on October 2, 2007 at 12:41 am

I hardly think the word "monopolize" colloquially used is different from "to have a disproportionate and overwhelming influence." It is what the Mearsheimer/Walt arguments, for example, are based on. It's the conclusion about AIPAC's complicity in the war that may invite opprobrium. The premise, however, about the existence of such influence is not in dispute. Lefty Carter acknowledges it. Righty Senior Bush knows it fully well too. Lefty The New Yorker acquiesces to Mearsheimer's influence premise and also the overall inference. Righty Economist on the other hand demolishes the conclusion about AIPAC's reach, but notes of its influence "That a powerful pro-Israel lobby influences American policymaking in the Middle East, often for the worse, is indisputable... in Washington, the power of the lobby, so far from being a secret, is legendary." It is funny that one would beseech that a single word, "monopolize", unduly stretches the case, and then shamelessly lump the professor together with the manifestly anti-Israel Chomsky. It would be charitable to put one in the writer's shoes, and see all that was meant was that a little political organization affords dividends. And just leave it at that.

I can understand the professor's hesitancy to comment on the political role of U.S. atheists. Speaking about the conservative response to Moveon.org's ad, Salman Rushdie on the Maher show quipped that they won't talk about the issues, but will gladly talk about how we talk about the issues! It takes little stretch of the imagination to realize how "British atheist lectures Americans on how to run country" can end up as topic of the month on Bill O'Reilly. Given how easily some get worked-up by his choice of a single word, he'd be wise to choose his sentences carefully.

38. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74680 by Tumara Baap on September 30, 2007 at 12:36 am

To an extent, I concur. Religion has done good. As it bloody well should have. Countless millions have viewed all that is fine and sublime through the lens of religion. It has been synonymous in the human mind with righteousness. So indelibly engraved in the consciousness is it that most can only think about ethical matters with religion as the sole language of understanding and expression. Would you expect otherwise, when human culture has historically placed religion at the apex of moral authority? The point is that for a cultural trait appointed with so noble a mission, religion has a disappointing track record. Actually, never has sin been so devastatingly excercised as when under the umbrella of God. Given the lofty performance benchmarks accorded to religion, it is laughable that one is compelled to roll out a list of good it has done in its defense.

Viewing goodness through religion is comparable to viewing the world through pair of cataract afflicted eyes. They occlude much of what you see, and yet one may defend such a diseased pair for the shadowy vision that manages to get past. It is tragic if such bad eyes are all one has ever known, that one cannot contemplate what it is like for the cataract never to have been there.

39. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #73973 by Tumara Baap on September 27, 2007 at 1:01 am

I'm relieved The Times clearly did not pander to confusion-mischief as the U.S. press often has over Global Warming reporting. They plainly state what the actual scientific positions are and don't dilute those out of "fairness" to the other side.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?hp

Hopefully the vocal outing of this sickening chicanery should put a dent in the film's credibility. It also appears the filmaker's are no longer tip-toeing around God. That I.D. only thrives in the service of religion is inescapable.

40. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73708 by Tumara Baap on September 25, 2007 at 11:40 pm

You'd think someone with more than a pair of brain cells would at least sugarcoat propaganda for modern consumption. Most of the time, I have enormous difficulty telling whether some of their websites are a parody. For example, the Baptists for Republican Faith at http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/ has as one of its top posts "Teaching your child that satanism and atheism are the same thing: "Mommy, why is that man skinning our cat?"".

I kid you not!

Hats off to those posters here who have acquaintances like these, and still manage a friendly relationship. Frankly, I could not do it.

41. Poll: Are Dawkins and Hitchens good for humanism?

Comment #73344 by Tumara Baap on September 24, 2007 at 7:46 pm

NPR aired a piece about Humanist Greg Epstein of Harvard who complained the New Atheists have chastised religion but have not done enough for Humanism. I for one feel believers are especially leery of atheism because they feel without religion our moral compass will go beserk. This is of course rubbish, but the view is a prevalent one. It is why I strongly feel atheism cannot take a foothold without ethical humanism taking a more prominent role. I haven't read Hitchens yet, but am of the opinion Dawkins should have dwelt more on Humanism in TGD. I certainly don't hold the view Dawkins has hurt Humanism. Trying to appease or seduce the religious by softening deserving criticism for fear of a boomerang effect is a dishonest and myopic strategy. We should maintain a civil tone but otherwise give it to 'em with both barrels firing.
The NPR piece can be heard here:
http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/herenow/2007/09/hn_0920.rm?start=05:11

42. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73044 by Tumara Baap on September 24, 2007 at 12:29 am

Maher is getting increasingly aggressive on religion. Though he's stated in an old interview he isn't exactly atheist (he admitted being opposed to organized religion), his views may have changed after the coming of the Unholy Trinity.

I'm still surprised by the enthusiastic cheering when he takes a swipe at religion... this audience is by no means mainstream America. He was pushing the limits with the Jesus-Santa comment. A handful of people were clearly thrilled but the overall response appeared restrained.

This was one of Maher's better shows. Not being too Hollywood savvy, I don't know who the tatooed chick was but she was very bright. The show reflected some of the wave of changing sentiment following Mearsheimer and Walt's essays that unconditional support of Israel hurts us. Maher took umbrage to this, picking on the choice of phrase used (Israel is not worth an American life or dollar) and ignored entirely the substance of what was being conveyed.

43. A Table for One

Comment #71132 by Tumara Baap on September 17, 2007 at 10:12 pm

I have to concede the priest probably got it right. A lot of atheists, Hitchens included, proclaim Mother Theresa was a closet atheist. Rubbish. I doubt MT ever subjected herself to the finer points of atheist argument. She simply did not feel the exquisite elation that religion or meditation is sometimes known to impart. In TGD, Dawkins is dismissive of those who ask him "What of Mozart then?" when they argue in favor of God. Indeed it is a dismally poor argument from a purely logical standpoint. But the power of sublime feeling in most people gets grossly underestimated by skeptics. Most people when experiencing an intense emotion rationally succumb to the primordial feeling, and thereafter arrange supporting reasons to make their first instinctive position tenable. MRI brain scans reveal such is the thought process in most, and not just about God. I hazard to say even "scientists" like Francis Collins have been sucked into the divine quicksand in this manner. Note there is not a single logical reason for his stance... all he seems to do is to suspend his scientific rigor to make room for Jesus. It's mind boggling. Nuns and other religious figures have reported being overcome by "Unio Mystica", an intense spiritual feeling that usually cannot be summoned at will and may occur only once or twice a lifetime. Psychedlic agents, such as the fungus extract psilocybin may trigger the same. Ditto for certain epilepsy patients put on anti-seizure meds. Neurosurgeons have reported inducing such feelings simply with electrode stimulation of specific brain regions. What happened with MT was that she didn't feel her elation was commensurate with the mission being undertaken. And that was about it. The preist nailed it.

44. RELIGULOUS: A Conversation with Bill Maher and Larry Charles

Comment #69964 by Tumara Baap on September 13, 2007 at 11:49 am

As an aside, I for one would have a problem with unconditional support of PETA. I am for the humane treatment of pets and livestock and am largely opposed to recreational hunting, but in many cases Animal Rights agenda doesn't stop there. Nor do they desist from emotional, facile, and underhanded tactics. Every ingredient from your toothpaste, shampoo, to the dyes in your clothing have undergone animal testing. If animal rights groups always had their way, it would be an unimagnable damper on legitimate scientific research, and ultimately on our modern lifestyles.

45. RELIGULOUS: A Conversation with Bill Maher and Larry Charles

Comment #69963 by Tumara Baap on September 13, 2007 at 11:28 am

Bill Maher is on record for stating categorically that he is NOT an atheist. He clearly deplores organized religion. His views, I believe, are more deist like. He believes in an overarching force behind existence, but not in a personal interventionist God.

Maher may well in fact believe in homeopathy (this does surprise me). But the point is that he is a man amenable to reason. None of us are well informed on every conceivable topic. I suspect most of the posters here are scientifically savvy. But if queried on economic issues, say to outline the balancing act between regulation and unscrupulous profit incentives, or to correlate prosperity with employment versus net productivity, the average response would differ sharply from that of an expert economist.

Lastly, keep in mind Maher is an entertainer. He will frame things solely to get a rise out of people. His last show was called "Politically Incorrect" for heavens sake.

Everything considered, I'm a huge Maher fan.

46. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69614 by Tumara Baap on September 11, 2007 at 11:37 pm

Griffin's remarks likely have nothing to do with atheism. She may have given the topic nary a thought, and may have no fondness for atheists. All I can deduce from what she said is an intention at irreverence. Her reasons may have ranged from mere amusement, making a bit of a media splash, to ridiculing holier-than-thou speeches frequently dished out. To weigh the funny factor of "Suck it, Jesus" is besides the point. In a culture that undeservedly sanctifies everything religious, Griffin's remarks, whether to make a point (and I do think she did make one, however small) or to cause a commotion, is very welcome. And the attempts to silence her are singularly reprehensible.

47. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69297 by Tumara Baap on September 10, 2007 at 11:28 am

If you enjoyed this, you ought to check out a similar piece somewhere on this website where Harris replaces the word "religion" with the word "witchcraft" in critical responses to his books. It is with devastating efficiency that this wickedly homorous style exposes the weakeness of counter arguments and highlights the original accusation that religion gets undeserved immunity from scrutiny not accorded to any other idea.
The icing on the cake should be the agonizing by apologists that fascism and religion aren't exactly analagous. But then, they do have a track record of missing the point.

48. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68638 by Tumara Baap on September 8, 2007 at 1:15 am

How exquisitely flattering for Professor Dawkins. I wonder if there is is a morsel of reason in any of these flea books, other than succumb more deeply to the mindfuck that propagates the grandest superstition, or my God is not **quite** the god you parody... my nebulous theology is of a higher order, or that the Professor's "rant" somehow imperils the tolerance and pluralism of a modern society, or that God by definition is too sublime for everyday reason and transcends time and description. (Going by Cornwell's musings, I expect ripostes much more crass.) Thinking persons have some basic prerequisites: That a hypotheses be testable, that confounding factors and biases be accounted for, that there be a beauty of economy in explanation... you can't have an infinite number of preconditions for an explanation nor a remedy that inflates a conundrum. Most people posting on this forum reflexively think this way. The Professor is a fountainhead who epitomizes reason and rules the waves in separating the wheat from the chaff. But for the pious fleas... they instinctively and viscerally smell a threat, and mull endlessly about quashing it. There never was a space in their intellect to wedge the very question whether it's really all a cruel delusion. I'm sure their flea ripostes are a desperate clarion call to surrender to imagined non-anthropomorphic (not the Higgs Particle mind you, but something more Super Santa Claus) forces and conveniently bereft of an iota of reason.

49. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68589 by Tumara Baap on September 7, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Steve99 hits the nail on the head when he writes positioning ourselves on a gut reaction is a common human occurence. According to French cultural anthropologist G. Clotaire Rapaille and American psychologist Drew Westen, this sort of visceral thinking is far more ubiquitous and innate than many of us think. (Google these guys ... it makes me wonder whether atheism itself may be too cerebral to ever catch on). An overwhelming majority of us have a deep emotional association with any given idea, issue or object. When asked to explain a choice made, we reach out for cerebral tools that graft a reasonable sounding explanation for a position already reached at a gut level. Most people with a vested interest in shaping public opinion grossly underestimate the power of this under-the-radar phenomenon. (an exception might be Republicans, who are such cavemen to begin with, they're unusually adept at sniffing visceral instincts lying just barely below the conscious surface). Magnetic resonance brain scans seem to indicate we're all gut-level thinkers to an extent. What makes Cornwell stand out is that he's not particularly bright. (Sorry Cornwell)

50. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68330 by Tumara Baap on September 6, 2007 at 9:24 pm

Books by Dawkins and Harris were bound to cause acute cognitive dissonance in the faithful. I think everyone anticipated a response based on emotion rather than an interest in truth. Cornwell epitomizes the vitriol of someone jilted and scorned. He approaches TGD with an embittered slate to nit pick, distort, misrepresent and demonize with anger and threat steering his project. This could have been done cleverly and on the sly. The fact that Cornwell's riposte is so easily assailable and so plainly daft does bring me a bit of perverse pleasure. The success of books by Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is laudable. Just as enjoyable has been the floundering counter-attack. It helps the cause.