1. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102381 by Northern Bright on December 22, 2007 at 2:45 pm

What gets me is that in one breath he says that "atheistic fundamentalism" (sic) "allows no room for disagreement, for doubt, for debate, for discussion" and in the next he says that "attacks on [Christianity] were dangerous because they ... affected the public perception of religion."

Where's the room there for considering the possibility that, actually, the public perception of religion deserves to be affected? That maybe, just maybe, the atheists have got a point and there really isn't a god? Where is his room for doubt, debate and discussion now?

He suggests that challenges to Christianity are only ok so long as they're not forceful enough to actually get people thinking about it, but has the gall to claim that we're the fundamentalists and the ones closing down debate?

2. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100841 by Northern Bright on December 19, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Well, as Richard Morgan has already pointed out, it's not altogether usual for us to agree with each other, but I do agree with him on this issue.

Has anyone else noticed, by the way, that there's nothing more certain to get the temperature soaring in here than the suggestion that, to be consistent with our atheist worldview, we should possibly be thinking about giving up something we enjoy? Whether it's singing Christmas carols or eating meat, the real humdingers of late have been around this issue.

It reminds me of when I was still a Christian. I'm not a natural proseletyser (thank goodness!) so I tended not to talk about my religion with non-believers unless they asked me about it. But when they did ask me about it, I remember being struck by how often their REAL gripe wasn't anything to do with the rationality or otherwise of Christianity or the lack of evidence - it was with Christianity's rules on who should have sex with whom. I thought then (and actually I still think now) that there'd be a whole load of people who could be quite easily persuaded into Christianity if only its demands were not so damned inconvenient.

It didn't raise my interlocutors in my opinion then - and actually it still doesn't. The reason I detest New Age nonsense even more than I detest Christianity is that I see its appeal as lying in the fact that it offers all the nice, comforting, strong-benign-something looking out for you (same as religion) without any of the demands that religion makes in return. I call it Religion Lite.

And I think we, too, have to decide whether we're going for Atheism - or Atheism Lite. One reason for that is the need to be internally consistent - but another is the need to be EXTERNALLY consistent.

We pride ourselves on our rationality, but what's rational about proclaiming our disbelief in Chrisianity all year round, until it comes to Christmas, whereupon we promptly queue up with the rest to sing religious songs as part of a religious service? I can see why we might enjoy doing it. I can see why it might seem harmless to us. But, stepping aside from what we might or might not LIKE for a moment, what message does it give out about our commitment to what we claim to believe?

It's all very well making comparisons to singing about Rudolph the Rednosed Reindeer and the like. We're not in a battle against Rednosed-Reindeerists. And there's absolutely NO ONE out there who will seize on our singing as evidence that we're not as a-rednosed-reindeerist as we like to make out.

The same simply doesn't hold true of Christmas carols. Our singing them will be misinterpreted by those who gain from misinterpreting it.

Is this paranoia? No - it's simple reality. Nor is it an attempt to be unholier-than-thou. It's just that we either believe what we say or we don't. Why should people think we believe what we SAY, if we are happy not to believe what we SING?

I have absolutely no problem in principle with partaking in all the non-religious activities associated with Christmas: the tree, the dinner, the presents, the family gatherings, the parties. None of these things is intrinsically Christian in nature and therefore not intrinsically contradictory to atheism. None of them requires us to state a belief we do not hold. But for myself I draw the line at going to church to sing songs of a religious nature because I see that as being intrinsically inconsistent with my beliefs.

Finally - just cast your minds back for a moment to our reaction to the news that Ted Haggard had been caught out with a male prostite. Did we take the view that it was his life and what he did with it was none of our damn business? Did we take the view that it was ok for him to do it because it was ok for anyone else to do it? No, we didn't. It was seen as a huge coup for the anti-Christian camp and his name has become even more of a joke than it was before. Why? Because it was inconsistent with what he otherwise claimed to believe. Would we have given a damn if it had been someone unknown to us and against whom we had no axe to grind? No. Is there something intrinsically objectionable in a man seeking the services of a male prostitute? Not to my mind, no. But when a man who draws a great deal of attention to himself proclaiming his Christian beliefs does such a thing, in blatant contravention of the beliefs he is so well known for, then the accusation of hypocrisy is bound to follow. At the very, very, very least, this episode will have made it a hell of a lot harder for him to be taken seriously next time he proclaims the righteousness of the Lord blah blah.

So we KNOW how we leap on inconsistencies in the behaviour of people in the Christian camp. What makes us think that Christians will be any less keen to leap on inconsistencies in ours? And conversely - why is it ok for us to do something that is inconsistent with our belief on the basis that we like it, when it wasn't ok for Ted Haggard to do the same?

PS. Sorry this is so long.
PPS. Richard Morgan, you owe me ;-)

3. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100755 by Northern Bright on December 19, 2007 at 9:34 am

I was just going to say, when it gets to the point a dude can't like a song, then the fundie stench has arisen.

To be fair, I don't think Richard Morgan was advocating some kind of Puritan revulsion at Christmas carols! No one's suggesting that an atheist's got no business liking them.

But I do think he makes a fair point: we know that the Christians fight dirty and will seize on the slightest excuse to discredit us. Is it really helpful to our cause to make it so easy for them? It just seems a bit of a shame to work so hard at promoting atheism all year round, and then risk undoing some of the good effect by publicly indulging in a carol fest.

Of COURSE it's possible to do so without compromising your beliefs at all. But that won't be the way the Christians portray it. And PR's an important part of any campaign.

4. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100645 by Northern Bright on December 19, 2007 at 3:39 am

Maybe we should email Borders to let them know not all their customers are offended. Vocal minorities try to exert disproportionate influence by organising their adherents to protest. We can counter that by expressing our approval.

Borders in the UK can be contacted via http://www.bordersstores.co.uk/contactus/

5. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #100625 by Northern Bright on December 19, 2007 at 2:33 am

161. Comment #100420 by Cartomancer on December 18, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Superb post, Cartomancer - thank you for that. (I have just used the "Rank this post" facility for the first time!)

And you say that there are, by necessity, no uncaused causes in physics, yet in the next breath you go on to say "so there must be an uncaused cause outside physics".

This sums up the illogical nature of the creationist argument perfectly.

6. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100404 by Northern Bright on December 18, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Very nice, No. 50.

I definitely agree, tatestreet - but let's hear it for No. 48 too!

7. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100368 by Northern Bright on December 18, 2007 at 2:29 pm

I'd have liked the card to say "Oh come all ye faithful". After all, they're the ones who should really be reading TGD. Wonder how the Christians would have reacted to that ;-)

8. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #100350 by Northern Bright on December 18, 2007 at 2:13 pm

BJohn
OK. But please be specific about which bits you don't believe and please let us know which church you're talking about too. Thanks!

9. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100327 by Northern Bright on December 18, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Oh boo hoo. Poor Christians act as if Borders is feeding them to the lions.

To be fair, I think we have to remember that Christians are positively incentivised by their religion to feel persecuted - their sufferings are, after all, rewarded in heaven. No wonder they go around rummaging in drawers, hunting down the backs of sofas and tipping out their handbags in the hopes of finding some.

10. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #100285 by Northern Bright on December 18, 2007 at 1:04 pm

However, what you presented is only just another poor caricature of Christianity, and so I can only say "that's not it" and move on.

This "That's not my religion you're talking about" is such an interesting phenomenon. Walk's summary is absolutely right - believers DO believe all of that. You could go through, point by point, pinning them down, and they simply couldn't claim honestly that there's any part of it that they don't believe.

The key thing is, though, that when you spell it out baldly as Walk has done, it's just so obviously ridiculous that the believer has genuine difficulty equating it with his or her beliefs, which seem to him or her (ugh - I'm just going to say "him" from now on. I'm a "her" so there's no sexism implied ;-)!) so eminently reasonable.

It's as if what WE see is: immensely powerful, universe-creating entity who did it all for the purpose of making us + totally invisible + totally undetectable by even the most sensitive instruments + reaches into our material world and manipulates it + answers prayer + permits some illusive, undetectable part of us eternal life somewhere beyond space and time EITHER in heaven OR in hell.

And what BELIEVERS see is all of the above - PLUS whatever it takes to make it NOT sound like utter codswallop.

This is where the lack of rational thought comes in. It is simply not possible to look with a rational eye at the structure on which their beliefs are built and not see that it's utterly ridiculous. This is why all the rest of it is so absolutely necessary if belief is to survive - the convoluted theology, the endless disputations about - for example - the nature of the Trinity, the McGrath-esque obfuscation, the elevation of "faith" (which is, let's face it, nothing more than the refusal to look at the ingredients of Christianity and see them for what they are). The church HAS to keep believers focused on these side issues, because the moment the central tenets are set out clearly and baldly, as Walk has done, their sheer untenability becomes too obvious for words.

And this is why they shriek so loudly when Dawkins et al come along and lay their beliefs bare for what they are: because what Dawkins et al do is mercilessly strip away the purely subjective, wishful, yearning bit of them that longs for it to be true and "feels" that it is true (just as every follower of every religion in the world "feels" that THEIR religion is true and every serious football fan "feels" that THEIR club is the greatest, even if they happen to be bumping along the bottom of the league table just now ...)

The only bit of their religion that makes it valid in THEIR eyes is absolutely INvalid in objective terms.

And BJohn, if you disagree with me, please start by telling me which specific bit of Walk's "poor caricature" you do not believe.

11. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100228 by Northern Bright on December 18, 2007 at 11:58 am

Spotted in a newspaper on another planet:

"Paula Kirby, who goes under the name of 'Northern Bright' on the Richard Dawkins website, commented:

'Selling Christmas cards in places where non-Christians go is just crass, ill-judged and insensitive. Atheists have always been used to being punch bags but I would have hoped that, in a society in which we are seeking to show respect to all people and beliefs, we might have grown out of this kind of nonsense.'

She added, 'I think the Christians will love it because it's bashing atheists around the head.'

Meanwhile, pagan groups demonstrated outside Lambeth Palace, demanding that Christians give them their festival back.

A Christian spokesman responded by saying: 'Tough. Finders keepers. Now go away before I set the Inquisition onto you.'"

12. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100055 by Northern Bright on December 18, 2007 at 6:57 am

85. Comment #100037 by Incredulous on December 18, 2007 at 5:47 am
Hi Incredulous. I hope it was clear from my post (it may not have been) that I was only trying to express the reasons for my own stance on this. There's no reason why anyone else should feel obliged to view things the way I do and any atheist who feels they want to sing-along-a-Carol has my blessing - not that they need it, of course!! Oh bugger, time to stop digging now ...

13. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100016 by Northern Bright on December 18, 2007 at 4:40 am

I'm afraid I'm rather on the "fundamentalist" end of this discussion myself. After all, it was catching myself repeating something in the Creed that I realise I really didn't believe that "raised my consciousness" to all the OTHER things I was having to read/sing/repeat/say Amen to in church without actually believing too.

I've been known to hum Oh Little Town of Bethlehem to myself if I've heard it somewhere and got in my head - but I wouldn't actively choose to go to a carol service to sing it, any more than I'd actively choose to go to church on a Sunday because I like the tune of "Guide me, oh thou great Jehovah".

Our being there, it seems to me, does make it easier for the theists to argue that it isn't possible to live without religion altogether. I can't be the only atheist to have heard Christians cite packed Midnight Masses as evidence that Christianity still lies at the heart of our nation.

Of COURSE I know it's possible to sing carols without believing them to be fundamentally true. But then, it's possible to say all sorts of things that you don't believe to be fundamentally true - and I prefer not to do that either.

Those who point out that it would be ridiculous to apply the same argument to works that were written as fiction are right; but carols and hymns WEREN'T written as fiction. If I were to read a chapter of A Christmas Carol out loud in public, it wouldn't cross anyone's mind to think I might actually believe it - but when it comes to singing Christmas carols publicly, I'm not so sure.

I agree with TSkidC - if carols have NEVER been more to you than just a pleasant part of your family's Christmas tradition, it's easy to see how you could continue to enjoy singing them in that spirit. But if they once seemed like truth to you, it's harder to repeat them now without feeling as if you're lying.

14. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99978 by Northern Bright on December 18, 2007 at 2:37 am

21. Comment #98903 by Cartomancer on December 14, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Cartomancer, your Revelation is, well, a revelation! Wonderful stuff! Really impressive. A perfect take-off.

15. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99778 by Northern Bright on December 17, 2007 at 2:22 pm

I'm a late arrival at this party but have to agree with everyone who's said that this is by far the best atheism-related video there's been so far. Wonderful stuff!

Wouldn't you just LOVE to have these guys round for dinner? I'm with those who say they could have done without Hitch (though I think he was the right choice for this particular video - he IS one of the 4 horsemen, after all) - but there's a place at my dinner table for Richard, Dan, Sam and, say, PZ any time :-)

And Diacanu, my hand too is waving wildly at you - I'm another ex-Christian who has found life far more interesting, stimulating and worth living since freeing my mind from the nonsense of faith.

And on that subject (and a slight digression from the thread, for which I apologise) I'd be very interested to hear from other ex-Christians who might like to contribute to some research I'm currently doing for a possible book on the subject of what it's like to make the transition from belief to non-belief. If you'd like to PM me, I'll explain more. Thanks!

16. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99565 by Northern Bright on December 17, 2007 at 4:20 am

Flashback! This is EXACTLY the sort of thing I heard people say in the early 80s here in the US! "Oh, they'll just go away" or "Why are you so worried? Let them have their fun, no one pays attention" (all the while accusing me of over-reacting).

That's interesting, Beth. I've been under the impression that large swathes of the US have ALWAYS been under the spell of fundamentalist Christianity. Are you really saying that it's just been in the last 25 years or so? Was fundamentalism really not a major factor prior to the early 80s? I'm not challenging you - I'm genuinely curious and don't know the answer myself. Can anyone else shed any light on this?

Why do we tolerate this form of bigotry? Oh yes, because even atheists seem to fall under the spell of 'Well, its religion so we'll tolerate it'

Well, speaking for myself, I certainly don't subscribe to the view that religion should get an easy ride on such matters. Absolutely not.

The only reason I'd be happy to see this theme park go ahead would be if it were to fail - which I would fully expect it to do if it were really just the kind of visitor attraction (sic) that it sounded to be from the Observer article. Even then, I would oppose any public money going into it whatsoever.

Having since realised that they're more ambitious than this, I am much more worried about it. But I think we have to do much more than just protest (though we have to do that too, of course) - somehow we secularists have to find something positive to put in its place.

When I was growing up every village had a youth club and every town had several. Most of them, I daresay, were church-provided, though I was never aware of any preachiness about the one I went to. Today's youngsters no doubt wouldn't be as tempted as we were by the delights of a ping pong table and beakers of orange squash - something rather more adventurous would no doubt be required. But the point is, the church did at least provide something for us. What is there these days? The church has always had a strong community-binding role and, much as I delight in the decline in religiosity, I don't delight in the decline in community spirit that has also happened.

There is a huge need, it seems to me, for things - activities, places - that bind communities together. And the fundies have recognised this and are prepared to do something about it - whilst pushing their beliefs at the same time, of course.

So long as there are no secular alternatives for this sort of thing, there will always be those who view schemes such as the Christian Theme Park as a good thing, simply because they give youngsters something useful and constructive and engaging to do.

I can well imagine that youngsters who got engrossed in learning how to make films might find binge-drinking and other anti-social activities less appealing as a result. But because the film-making (etc) is being provided in the context of religious brain-washing, the fundies will declare any decline in anti-social behaviour that results to be the work of God. Whereas in fact, it will be just the result of the youngsters having something constructive and fun to do with their time.

I'm just afraid we're missing a trick here. Could it be that one of the best ways to keep the younger generation safe from religious influence is to never mention religion at all but to focus on providing the positive things that - at present - it's only really the religious who have spotted the opportunity for.

17. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99553 by Northern Bright on December 17, 2007 at 3:37 am

Our aim is to give youngsters an opportunity to learn to play music, perform on
stage, train as cameramen, lighting engineers, sound engineers, video editors,
videographers and ENG operators, and we believe that this unique project will
influence an end to binge drinking. We have the fund raising in place, and we
have the design and technology.

I've just looked at the AH Trust website and found this quote, and have realised that it's far more than a theme park they're planning here. The ideas they've come up with are actually really good - I'm sure loads of youngsters would be keen to get involved with activities like these. So I'm a lot more worried now, since it's perfectly obvious that they'd come with more than a side-serving of full-on evangie fundamentalist Christianity.

This reinforces the point I made earlier about the inventiveness and sheer commitment of these people. Where are the secular alternatives? How ELSE could youngsters get involved with appealing, interesting, exciting activities like the ones planned for the Creationist centre?

We HAVE to get wise to the tactics that the fundies are using, and we HAVE to find even better ways of getting to these youngsters.

18. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99540 by Northern Bright on December 17, 2007 at 2:53 am

The Wigan theme park plan involved public money which gives everyone in the UK the right to object to it. AH Trust is looking for public sector grants for its plans.

Agreed. Does anyone know what public sector grants might be applicable in this case? There may be scope for lodging protests direct with the grant-giving bodies too.

The public sector will sometimes award grants for such projects if there is an economic development case for doing so - if it will generate significant employment in an unemployment blackspot, for instance.

Clearly the construction WOULD generate considerable employment, but equally clearly it's hard to envisage subsequent employment - of staff at the park - not being offered on a discriminatory basis. I can't see too many atheists being offered jobs there.

So that might be potential grounds for objection. Equally, the case that public money should not be used for the promotion as fact of myths that have been shown by every single branch of science to be demonstrably untrue.

19. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99533 by Northern Bright on December 17, 2007 at 2:15 am

Even though I don't think this proposed project will come to anything, or that it can possibly thrive even if it does, there are some serious points in this story, and lessons to us atheists and pro-scientists too.

Firstly, by definition "evangelical" means "spreading the message". These people are motivated to spread their message to people who haven't heard it before. If this entails huge building projects and drumming up vast amounts of corporate and government funding to do it with, they will do it. They are prepared to work damn hard and take huge financial risks in order to get their message across - and they are also constantly looking for NEW ways of doing so.

Are we prepared to be just as committed and just as persistent and just as inventive when it comes to promoting NON-supernatural explanations for "life, the universe and everything"?

Just complaining when the creationists try to promote their worldview is nowhere near enough. Somehow - and I don't have the answers here - we need to find positive ways of getting reality across to more people.

Communist referred to the problem of the proposed Creationist theme park attracting tourist money. Given that tourists are (rightly) free to spend their money on anything they want provided it's legal, it seems to me that the only way to deal with this is to embark on a long-term project of promoting science - and a sceptical, rational approach - to the masses, thereby making such "attractions" less attractive. And I do mean "promoting science", not "bashing religion".

There must be ways of doing this and I'd really love to hear people's thoughts, ideas, and suggestions. Just a pointer: when it comes to creating new strategies, you have to start from the premiss that everything is possible. Once we've got some ideas that inspire us, THEN is the time to start thinking about how they'd be funded and all the other practical challenges.

Anyone?

20. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99395 by Northern Bright on December 16, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Any thoughts on Christian ride names?

Mmm, nice challenge, Paul Dunlop. How about:

The Loaves and Fishes - so much more to it than you'd expect.

The Song of Solomon - you'll find this one situated round the back of the bike sheds.

The Resurrection - just when you think it's all over, it starts up all over again.

Armageddon - try to make sure you experience it as soon as possible.

The Rapture - no, you can't get your dad's entrance fee back just because he's disappeared.

Noah's Ark - you have to go on this one in twos.

The Shadrach, Meshak and Abednego - for those who like their fun HOT.

The Virgin Birth - for those with a keen sense of humour.

21. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99330 by Northern Bright on December 16, 2007 at 10:26 am

I dunno. Faith-based initiatives (read prosetylising opportunities) funded by the general tax purse. Faith-based schools (read segregational, sectarian, anti-pluralist educational establishments where dogma is presented as fact). Bishops with free passes into government on the strength of neither aptitude, experience, qualification, or indeed, electorial mandate, an ex-prime minister who's now come out as a devout wingnut on tv, trotting out the old "appeal to sympathy". Oh and on a visit to my son's prospective high-school for next year, I find that while the standard comparative religion curriculum is used, it's taught by a couple of "true-believers", and christianity is used to frame the context of their studies on morality.

I agree with you on all these points, Scott, and suspect that a lot of people south of the border would be surprised at just how much of a grip fundie Christianity has on large parts of Scotland. I regularly refer to the Highlands & Islands as the UK's Bible Belt.

I'm certainly not complacent about the role of "faith" in public life - far from it. I just don't see this particular idea getting off the ground. So long as it just looks as if a lot of private money will be wasted, that's fine by me. The moment there's a whiff of public money going into it, I shall be joining you all on the barricades, I promise you!

22. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99318 by Northern Bright on December 16, 2007 at 9:54 am

Like I said, everyone thought EuroDisney would die a thousand deaths, but that sumbitch is thriving like a tumor in a pancreas.

Agreed, Diacanu. But Mickey Mouse is a lot more cute than either Cain OR Abel. And I just can't see a cuddly Abraham making it to every child's Christmas wish list - not even if he IS dragging a reluctant Isaac off to slaughter.

As for the other religions that share the creation myth, I can't see them supporting the place because I can't for one moment see the fundie Christians being satisfied with simply advocating creationism. They'll be plugging Christianity at every conceivable opportunity - and I can't see that going down well with their Jewish or Muslim clientele.

I would always have predicted EuroDisney being a success - what child wouldn't love it? But a fundie Christian propaganda fest?

23. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99311 by Northern Bright on December 16, 2007 at 9:44 am

There are plenty of people in Britain who would take their children to a theme park who would not concern themselves with what the theme WAS.

Not all such attractions (sic)are commercial successes, PJG. Remember the Dome?

I can't see this working, I really can't. They'll be lucky to get approval for a site for starters - every Council is going to be wary of offending the non-Christians. And even if they get a site, who'll go? Seriously? It'll be the destination of choice for Sunday School outings, but those children are already having this stuff drummed into them.

Most parents who aren't already actively educating their children to be religious will avoid the place simply because it IS religious. In this country the non-religious equate religion with boredom (there's that to be said for enforced school assemblies, at least).

They'll get some custom, sure. But it costs a FORTUNE to run places like that. Even with the power of prayer on their side ;-) they'll struggle to cover their overheads.

No, the only way they'll get the crowds in if you ask me is if they perform re-enactments of Christians being thrown to the lions. Even I might go then :-)

24. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99300 by Northern Bright on December 16, 2007 at 9:21 am

Oh, wait, my skit doesn't quite work, brits don't use "son of a bitch", as commonly as us yanks do.
What would be the closest corrolary?

How about "Oh, I say old chap"? ;-)

25. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99294 by Northern Bright on December 16, 2007 at 9:14 am

'On television today there is so much sex and violence, it is no wonder our youth are binge drinking ...'

Is it just me, or is this a spectacular non sequitur?

26. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99293 by Northern Bright on December 16, 2007 at 9:10 am

[Oh, and completely off (this) topic, but I have finished reading "Northern Lights", and rather liked it. Sorry]

It's ok, Steve99 - I can cope with a difference of opinion over a work of children's literature! No fatwas required.

27. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99284 by Northern Bright on December 16, 2007 at 8:52 am

Great. I'm all for it. Who'd visit it? All those youngsters who apparently just want to spend their time binge-drinking? I don't think so. This is a great way for the creationists to lose a LOT of money. And once they've lost it, they can't use it to "buy" a City Academy and pump this nonsense into the heads of youngsters who don't have the option of staying away. Brilliant. Best news I've heard for ages :-)

You mention the C [Christian] word, and people don't want to know,' Jones said.

Yup. My point exactly.

28. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97182 by Northern Bright on December 11, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Prayer is not about wheedling things out of God. Prayer is about God changing us.

Interesting idea, Krisking. Is that the clear message of the Lord's Prayer taken in conjunction with other things that Jesus is supposed to have said, do you think? John 14:13, for instance: "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son"? Was Jesus careless in his choice of words when he spoke about "whatsoever ye shall ask"? Or could he have been misquoted? Or didn't he realise he was being ambiguous and leaving himself open to misinterpretation?

And if what you say is right, why do church services still include prayers of intercession? - since that must help to reinforce an incorrect view of the purpose of prayer, don't you think?

And those Christians who espouse the "prosperity gospel": I agree it's an obnoxious idea, but what do they base that approach on, would you say? Presumably they believe they're living in accordance with the bible? Maybe they've just got it wrong? But if so, how can that happen? After all, they're using the same bible and they're open to personal revelation from the same God - how is it possible that they could draw such different conclusions from the same material? Especially if that material is indeed divinely inspired - I mean, you can imagine a message that was created by humans being open to misinterpretation, but wouldn't you expect a message from an omniscient, omnipotent god to be absolutely unmistakeable?

Actually, you may be surprised to learn that I agree with you that prayer can change people. It seems to be quite an easy thing to programme the brain to respond in particular ways. The evidence doesn't point to an external entity that's responsible for it though: just pure psychology. I suspect Dr Benway could tell us more about how that works.

29. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97143 by Northern Bright on December 11, 2007 at 1:47 pm

You sound pretty angry to me. My guess is that you were brought up in some sort of "christian" and it hasn't matched up to your expectations.

Great reply, Krisking. Neatly avoids dealing with the points gr8hands raised about the Lord's Prayer. Though maybe you're going to deal with those in your next post?

30. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #96913 by Northern Bright on December 11, 2007 at 4:59 am

Anyone out there who hasn't read The Varieties of Scientific Experience--and I suspect that many of you have--should definitely check it out. The Q&A section at the end is probably as revealing a look at Sagan's attitude toward atheism versus skepticism as you will find.

First, apologies to skipjack - I see I missed a response from you so it has gone unanswered by me. Think it will take longer to respond to than I've got just now, so I'll have to answer later.

But in the 2 minutes I've got I just wanted to agree wholeheartedly with The Layman. I've just finished reading The Varieties of Scientific Experience this week and, like you, was enormously struck by the Q&A at the end.

Sagan comes across as such a hugely effective advocate for atheism (even though, as you say, he never uses the word), and I think that's because he conveys powerful arguments entirely unapologetically, yet at the same time with a gentleness that is rare in this whole subject area.

You get the feeling that he really cares about the questioner and wants them to be genuinely satisfied with his answer at the end of it. You never but never get the sense that you're witnessing some kind of slapdown, yet he never budges an inch on the fact that there's just no evidence for God.

I'd heard so many people rave about Carl Sagan, but it was this sequence of Q&A that made me realise why. It's a rare skill - to achieve a perfect balance of uncompromising skepticism AND total commitment to gentleness and compassion - and Sagan seems to achieve it with consummate ease. He's given me a lot to think about.

If anyone hasn't read it, it's WELL worth doing so.

31. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96422 by Northern Bright on December 10, 2007 at 2:06 pm

To say that it's like our having to look at Christian displays is ridiculous to me. They're not saying that our worldview is responsible for a horrible terrorist attack when they put up a cross, for Christ's sake!

But can you think of ANY unmistakeably atheist sign that WOULDN'T have had those people jumping up and down in anger and agitation?

And actually, Christians DO claim that atheism is responsible for all sorts of evils. Some go so far as to say we are doing the work of the devil. They say we'll burn in hell. They say we're evil, that we corrupt people, that their children need to be protected from us.

That cross that you don't find offensive is their symbol for how the evil supposedly caused by people like us was supposedly overcome. It's just that their symbol is so widespread and common, so entrenched in our cultures, that it feels less shocking to us. People are not used to seeing atheism openly declared in this kind of way, so they find it more shocking. But that doesn't make it so.

It's the run-up to Christmas so the "don't drink and drive" adverts will be running. They don't say "Please, if you don't mind, would you be so kind as to, you know, not let your drinking get out of hand this year if you're planning to drive anywhere afterwards, because, you know, sometimes if you're very unlucky you might accidentally have an accident which could result in someone geting hurt and I'm sure you wouldn't want that, now, would you?" They say "Drink-driving kills" and they show the devastated family by the bedside of the victim. They show the most shocking consequences of drink-driving. Why? Because some messages are too important to risk not making an impact.

I run conferences. From a business point of view, there are 2 great reactions an audience can have to a keynote speaker: they can love her - or they can hate her. Either way, it'll get them going, create an atmosphere, provoke a response and get their interest. The reaction I dread most is indifference. And at least this sign isn't getting that.

32. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96403 by Northern Bright on December 10, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Riley:

... for the sake of civility, you should give it a rest.

So let's get this straight.

A group of people whose thought-processes have been corrupted by religion deliberately fly 2 planes into 2 skyscrapers, thereby causing the deaths of thousands of people ... and we shouldn't point out the role that religion played in this because to do so is to be uncivil?

All I can say is I wish lack of civility were the worst fault that Mohammed Atta & co could have been accused of.

33. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96394 by Northern Bright on December 10, 2007 at 1:23 pm

It seems that anything that is displayed anywhere by any group that is not in direct support of one of the three major religions is considered "offensive" and "an attack". Is it possible to have any kind of display in the winter season that would promote the idea of reason and critical thinking that would NOT be offensive to other religions?

If the answer to this is no, and we are afraid of "offending" people, then we have a serious problem.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Don_Quix. Theists would prefer atheists to keep quiet and take deep offence when we don't. That being the case, we either have to keep quiet or offend them - so I'm for offending them.

But let me immediately qualify that: I certainly don't SET OUT to offend them. But if they're going to take offence at every public statement of support for atheism, then I simply don't see the alternative, other than to hide ourselves away and keep our heretical thoughts to ourselves, as they would like us to.

The very existence of atheists is offensive to some theists. But there's really very little we can do about that.

This sign is shocking. But what makes it shocking is its absolute, tell-it-like-it-is truth. Without religion, the twin towers would still be standing. However shocking it is to have that pointed out, isn't it much more shocking - and offensive - that it happens to be TRUE?

34. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96343 by Northern Bright on December 10, 2007 at 12:17 pm

54. Comment #96342 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 12:14 pm
... as Krisking knows full well.

35. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96341 by Northern Bright on December 10, 2007 at 12:13 pm

What do the twins towers symbolize? Atheism?

Beautifully answered, Steve99, but personally I decided the question didn't deserve an answer as I couldn't see how it could possibly have been asked "in good faith".

But at least we can reconcile ourselves that the deaths of 1000s of people served ONE purpose at least: it enabled a theist to make a cheap shot at atheism.

And before you claim that the original sign also exploits the deaths of thousands, Krisking, you might like to reflect that the towers symbolise NOTHING. Without religion, they would be standing today and the vast majority of those dead would still be alive. That's just the way it is.

36. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96331 by Northern Bright on December 10, 2007 at 11:29 am

Any chance of this wonderful image being turned into a car window sticker and sold via the RDFRS website?

I'm sure I can't be the only one who'd be happy to purchase one. Anyone else?

37. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96320 by Northern Bright on December 10, 2007 at 10:53 am

Brilliant. I've always loved this sign, ever since I first saw it on this website, and what a fantastic use for it!

To those who are offended because it conflicts with their beliefs, well, tough. Personally I don't share the belief that "the future's bright, the future's Orange" but that doesn't mean I'm offended every time the advert comes on.

You're offended because someone doesn't share your beliefs? How old are you? Time to grow up. No one has the right not to be offended.

So long as religious people have the right to put up signs claiming that religion is good, atheists have the right to put up signs claiming that it isn't. What's the big deal?

Isn't God the Big Daddy of America? Wasn't it God who gave them their much-prized democracy? Isn't free speech central to democracy? Well then, QED - God WANTS atheists to put up those signs! :-)

38. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96168 by Northern Bright on December 10, 2007 at 5:18 am

Krisking:

..but that's why I don't understand why Dawkins even bothers to talk about God in terms of probabilities....

But we're talking about the probability of something - i.e the universe as we know it - occurring ONCE out of countless opportunities for it to occur.

If there's a god who creates everything, well then that god would have to occur every single time in each of these countless opportunities.

It makes sense to say "If the universe goes through enough life cycles, one of them will result in life as we know it" in a way that it doesn't to say, "If the universe goes through enough life cycles, one of them will have been instigated by God."

Theists would presumably argue that God must have been behind ALL of them (else you're accepting that it's possible for universes to emerge without God). So you're no longer arguing for something happening one time in, say, a billion, but a billion times in a billion.

39. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96164 by Northern Bright on December 10, 2007 at 5:12 am

Krisking:

So are you saying that there were lots of goes at getting worlds started and because of the huge number of attempts, one of them (at least) succeeded?

The way you've phrased that would seem to suggest some kind of purpose or intention. There's no reason to suppose that anything in the universe happens with a purpose at all. Worlds emerge from the physical properties of physical events - not from the universe thinking "Oh bother, I didn't get worlds last time, best try again." So a universe without worlds in it is not a universe that didn't "succeed".

It is certainly a possibility that the universe has been through multiple cycles of expansion and contraction, and that it happens slightly differently each time, resulting in different outcomes. The existence of Planet Earth, for instance, is the result of a particular sequence of collisions of matter "exploded" (for want of a better word) as a result of Big Bang. There's no reason to think that particular sequence would occur in that particular way if it were to happen again.

So yes, one possibility is that there have been very many "universes" and the current one just happens to have resulted in the stars and planets as they are now, and consequently, us. The more "universes" there have been, the higher the chances of any given state of affairs being the result in one of them

This is far from proven, of course. But I believe I am right in saying that it has been demonstrated as a possibility through scientific modelling.

40. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #96157 by Northern Bright on December 10, 2007 at 4:57 am

they make as much sense as underpants on a kipper.

Wonderful turn of phrase, irate_atheist!

41. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #96091 by Northern Bright on December 10, 2007 at 1:20 am

The path to Mecca is measured as the winged horse flies.

So now the NHS is going to have to fork out for a winged horse too? This is really getting beyond a joke now.

42. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95969 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Welcome to the forum, gensek! With life experience like that, you are going to be an extremely welcome addition.

43. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95910 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 12:58 pm

I don't know why this form of intimidation appeals to you or to anyone else.

More than that, I don't know why anyone should believe it. There isn't the remotest smidgen of evidence to support it ... Wouldn't you think you'd want some kind of evidence before basing your entire life on a proposition such as this?

44. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95902 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Mea culpa, ADH, I can see how you got to your conclusion from what I wrote, which was:

Likewise, the process of "unknowing, uncaring" production of DNA has resulted in a brain that is capable of being aware of other people and their needs, and is capable of recognizing that your wellbeing isn't JUST dependent on the things that happen to you but the things that happen in your group (family / community / nation/ world), and that as a consequence of both these things has the capacity to act morally.

Even as I wrote it I had this niggly feeling that the last 3 words could be misinterpreted, but it had been a long post and I had other things to do and I skimped on going back to make it crystal clear.

What I should have written - was "as a consequence of both these things [the brain] has the capacity to act in ways that we now call moral.

Though actually I think the next sentence kind of covers this: where it suggests that "blind processes of natural selection have resulted in a brain that is able to work in ways that we deem consistent with morality."

I most certainly do not see morality as being something pre-existing, something that exists independently of the human brain. So – evolution does not result in a brain that is in accord with some externally set standard of morality; it results in a brain that is capable of thinking in terms that we now think of as moral.

I must stress that there's a considerable literature on the topic of the (naturalistic) origin of morality, and I haven't read it as yet, so my thoughts here are only my own thoughts, unsubstantiated. I'm hoping that others who have read more widely on this subject than I have might add their own comments. But I don't want to dodge your question, so I'll tell you that I see morality as simply a more imposing-sounding term for "rules". And it all stems from our nature as social animals.

The group discovers that certain modes of behaviour appear to have more successful outcomes for the group than other modes of behaviour do? Humans are quick to learn, so rules are created to enshrine those ways of behaving, and disincentives are created to discourage rogue individuals who may not wish to comply. A god or gods are invoked as policemen - beings who can observe what you're getting up to even when the tribal chief cannot. The concept of "morality" is born. The various ceremonies deemed to be required by those gods also get elevated by society to the status of "morality", and get confused with the more utilitarian imperatives that started it all off.

Whatever the problems of deeming morality to be culture-specific, I don't see we have any option but to recognize that the concept of morality DOES differ across different cultures. Is it or is it not moral for a widow to commit suttee? Is it or is it not moral for a small girl to have her genitals sliced off? Is it or is it not moral to deem women to be subservient to men? Is it or is it not moral to be tolerant of homosexuality? Should we or should we not stone adulterers to death? Is it or is it not moral to name a teddy bear Mohammed? Does someone who works on the Sabbath deserve to die, or does he not?

The interesting thing here is that it seems to me that if you look at the "morality" that pretty much all cultures share, it consists of the really utilitarian stuff that genuinely is beneficial to a society that wants to run smoothly and successfully. I can't think of a single culture that doesn't actively discourage the murder of innocents, or the stealing of property from other members of that culture, or rape of its own members. And you can see that such behaviours within a social group really would have a very de-stabilising effect all round.

It is the religion-specific additions that get promoted to the status of "morality" that are the most divisive and least obviously beneficial. And if you want to know how those got a grip on the human psyche if they weren't helpful to us, then you need to read Daniel Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell. :-)

45. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95855 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 10:58 am

Seals:

I'm beginning to wonder if there is some social bonding thing going on with eating meat

Well, it certainly seems to be a rather emotive topic! :-)

Re your experience of veggie alternatives in restaurants, I remember going into a restaurant a few years back, looking at their menu (which only had meat and fish on it) and asking what their veggie option was.

"Oh, we never offer a vegetarian option", came the reply.
"Oh really? Why not?" I asked.
"Well, we never get any vegetarians in here, so there's no point" ...

Maybe I should have told him about natural selection?

46. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95849 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 10:49 am

No problems with debate. It's the not daring to venture onto the thread unless I'm prominently displaying a white flag that I'm objecting to :-)

47. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95843 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 10:36 am

Any chance of a truce on the veggie vs meat-eaters front?

48. The art of the soluble

Comment #95821 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 9:33 am

59. Comment #95818 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 9:27 am
To be fair to Stenger, he himself points out that many physicists don't agree with him on his fine-tuning theory. And it's only that one theory that's seriously contested, I gather - the rest is widely accepted.

I would second ignored_ethos's recommendation of the book: it's excellent and well worth a read.

EDIT: I do agree with your argument too, though, steve99: if the fine-tuning's unlikely, how unlikely is the Christian god as the solution!

49. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95817 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 9:24 am

187. Comment #95794 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 8:13 am
You'd really need to check out the context of that DNA quote from River out of Eden. I haven't read that book by Dawkins, so can't help you with that. However, "DNA neither knows nor cares" is certainly true in the context of evolution by natural selection.

The way a gene (part of our DNA) mutates in the first place is entirely random - DNA "neither knows nor cares" how it mutates or what the result of that mutation is.

What happens as a result of that mutation is also something that DNA "neither knows nor cares" about - it is simply subject to the inexorable law of natural selection which states that those mutations that are best able to reproduce are the ones which get reproduced most often and therefore, over time, become prominent in the gene pool. No "knowing", no "caring", no "planning", no "designing" - just the natural consequence of something being either a) good at reproducing itself or b) bad at reproducing itself or c) neutral at reproducing itself.

Now, what emerges from all that natural selection is an organism (you, say) with a whole load of DNA that has simply been subject to the process of natural selection - over which it has had no control whatsoever.

That DNA will result in you having all kinds of characteristics: for example, you may have a genetic predisposition to certain kinds of cancers; you may have a sixth toe; you may have green eyes; you may be a carrier of haemophilia; you may have a brain that is wired up in such a way that you have a natural ability to learn languages.

Let's stick with that last example for a moment, because at no stage do you (currently - who knows what the future holds?) have any influence over what happens about your genetic susceptibility to cancer / a sixth toe / green eyes etc.

The case of your having a natural ability with languages is rather different. If you have it, it's because of your (unknowing, uncaring) DNA. But having the DNA that gives you a natural ability with languages is not the same as saying you speak 12 foreign languages fluently. For that to have happened, a whole lot of other things – many of which you WILL have had control over – will have to have happened too. It is perfectly possible that you could have a brain that has a natural ability to learn foreign languages, yet you are never in a position to find that out, to give it a go, to do anything with it. In other words, you could have the ABILITY to learn several foreign languages yet never learn a single one.

Likewise, the process of "unknowing, uncaring" production of DNA has resulted in a brain that is capable of being aware of other people and their needs, and is capable of recognizing that your wellbeing isn't JUST dependent on the things that happen to you but the things that happen in your group (family / community / nation/ world), and that as a consequence of both these things has the capacity to act morally. This doesn't mean that there's any morality inside the DNA – just that the blind processes of natural selection have resulted in a brain that is able to work in ways that we deem consistent with morality. We, as a social animal, have evolved with the awareness of being members of a group and the awareness that the social cohesion of the group (and therefore our ability to survive) depends on certain behaviours being encouraged and others discouraged. What lies behind OUR knowing and caring is DNA that is UNknowing and UNcaring.

Or is he saying that, by some curious twist of fate, we have been genetically endowed with the ability to transcend our genetic endowment?

Well, change the words "curious twist of fate" for "the process of evolution by natural selection" and yes, I think that is what he's saying.

The very best example of this is contraception. Contraception is the ultimate anti-evolutionary device. It is our genes' worst nightmare. Our genes (our "unknowing, uncaring" DNA) would have us reproduce and reproduce and reproduce until we dropped dead of exhaustion. Our DNA wouldn't care that we were about to drop dead of exhaustion (it would already have got itself replicated into the next generation so its mission is accomplished), but we would. So what's in our DNA's best interests doesn't necessarily have to be in the best interests of the organism as a whole.

We have evolved to the point where we are aware of how to control our reproduction. We have also evolved to the point where, thanks to advances in science and medicine and diet, in most parts of the world we don't need to have 10 children in order to be confident that at least 2 will survive through to reproductive maturity. And we have also evolved to the point where many of us can think of other ways we'd prefer to spend our lives, rather than in bearing and rearing children.

I suspect the reason you're thinking that this is logically incoherent may be that you're assuming that Dawkins is claiming that evolution is a perfect mechanism that always gets things right in the end and that every change that happens in an organism must always be for the better. But he is absolutely NOT saying this. Some changes at the genetic level are reproductively DISadvantageous. These are the ones that lose out in the subsequent natural selection, for, by definition, a characteristic that is bad at getting itself reproduced won't end up being reproduced very often.

For proof that evolution does NOT have to be a one-way street to perfection, you only have to consider the startling fact that well over 99.9% of all species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct.

Evolution is not a means to an end. It's simply the process by which simple things became more complex.

50. The art of the soluble

Comment #95776 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 7:32 am

ADH - The review makes claims that of themselves (regardless of the claims of the book it purports to be reviewing) are risible.

No one has suggested that it's not an acurate review of the book.

What we are pointing out is that the claims the review is making about the inter-relation of science and religion are silly and ill-founded. Whether or not they accurately reflect the contents of the book is another matter.