Comments by Stephan

Comment #260302 by Stephan on October 5, 2008 at 7:30 am

It's not easy to me to say this, but I'm not sure if I can fully support everything that is being said in this video. I'm an atheist, I do NOT believe in belief, but I do believe in cultural diversity and tolerance. Now, I'm not suggesting that everything can or should be justified by the concept of tolerance. But I'm a little afraid that we are moving into an unpleasant position of intolerance. So I do sort of feel a bit uneasy when I hear someone say "we all know that all of Saudi Arabia is mentally ill" or when I hear someone speak in such a derogatory manner as "the guy is a complete idiot... and so I wasn't surprised to hear he was from Saudi Arabia" or something to that effect. I work for Germany's most read newspaper and I have to read loooots of reader comments. This is a rather conservative paper and so the readers tend to be incredibly, appalingly intolerant, backwards-oriented, even hateful towards other cultures (particularly those in our domestic society - and most particularly the muslim culture/people). And they usually speak in that manner and it makes me sick when I read it. I feel there must be a way to be reasonable, to defend this reasonableness, to oppose irrationality without applying this kind of rhetoric. No, I do not believe everyone and everything deserves respect! But I don't like this kind of rhetoric, and I am honestly afraid that atheists (as a whole - if this can be said) might slipp into this position. We should find a way of reconciling cultural open-mindedness and tolerance with a strong, convinced atheistic position. I don't want atheists to end up sounding like angry, narrow-minded, conservative ideologues, because I hear them every day at work, and in many ways I feel that they are the very opposite of what I am (and what I hope many atheists are). There must be a better way. And I do hope that a liberal attitude, as well as tolerance and cultural diversity are not only good ON PAPER!
I apologize for the length of this comment (in case anyone actually bothers to read it) and for my bad spelling...

2. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241712 by Stephan on September 3, 2008 at 1:55 am

Folks, I don't know what to say. Since I was a little kid I have felt drawn towards America. And although I am passionately against patriotism I am frequently tempted so say I "love" that country. But this is the one thing about it that honestly brings tears to my eyes when I see it. I just don't know why there are so many people there that are so stuck in the intellectual dark ages. Well, I know why (I study religious sociology) but I just can't believe it. This is the one thing that makes me doubt my lifelong resolve to move to the US (I'm from Germany).
If I believed in a God I would pray that Max Weber was right and the the sociological theory of secularization will ultimately turn out to be valid, not matter how bad things may look right now...
Oh and by the way: I'm honestly shocked to see that there are so many ignorant comments here. I am certainly glad atheism is NOT a religion and that not all readers of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris agree on everything (which would make it look like some sort of dogma) or worship them like Gods but I still believed that there was some general correlation between atheism and sanity (and also a more liberal view of the world).

3. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208413 by Stephan on July 10, 2008 at 11:44 pm

Alright, email sent (from Germany).
This is just unbelievable. A cracker turns into the physical body of a person that has been dead for 2000 years... shouldn't that flesh and blood taste kind of funny? At least I expect a cracker to taste differently from 2000-year-old, rotten meat... anyway, this is just too much (as many other things).

4. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163068 by Stephan on April 18, 2008 at 12:15 am

Haha, I think the text underneath the video is possibly even funnier than the video itself. And Richard Dawkins' appearance as a "sex maniac" with wine and sunn glasses is priceless :) REALLY great work. But I'm afraid this will not reach anyone but folks like us who already know about this nonsensical "controversy". I guess science in America just doesn't have a good reputation because, to the uneducated people, it seems "elitist" and "snobbish", and Americans may tend to go for the underdog (and the ID clan has taken up that role quite well). This is the one thing that makes me happy about NOT living in the US (not yet) but in Germany...

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

Comment #160374 by Stephan on April 14, 2008 at 2:13 am

I am pretty positive Richard Dawkins NEVER suggested to destroy art that had any religious connection. In the contrary, he always promoted teaching religion as an aspect of (past) culture, simply BECAUSE so many cultural arteacts cannot be understood without their religious allusions and roots.
STILL, claiming that religion was necessary for artistic inspiration is simply not very impressive. In the contrary, it isn't true. If faith in a supernatural entity had to be preserved because it inspired people, we might as well all take LSD because it certainly has "inspired" people (just think of the Beatles) and caused some interesting art (probably in music, in paintings, and probably also some literature and so forth). I would argue that at least as much great art has been created without ANY hokus pokus (like some imaginary god) involved. If some people actually feel they NEED an illusion/delusion to be creative (and if we truly want to support this), then those people are not only very poor examples of human creativity, no, then we must also legalize the many drugs some artists are addicted to. So please, the "argument" the Guardian is making is sooooo invaild!

6. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #156949 by Stephan on April 8, 2008 at 12:30 pm

This is simply incredible and horrifying!
"Of course the devil exists, how can you explain Hitler and the Holocaust"... that's the kind of "reasoning" I would expect from and accept in a 3-year-old child! And here we have almost an entire studio full of adults who have been given (by natural selection, of course ;->) the mighty human brain for NOTHING! The fact alone that we are having a serious tv discussion on issues such as the devil in the 21st century, scares the hell out of me!!!
That outrageously stupid mayor candidate revealed it himself: "It's the only SATISFACTORY answer," he said. When I failed to pass the driver's test the first time, my bad driving certainly was not a SATISFACTORY answer, but well... do I have to say more? If wish thinking really is the guideline for truth today then we have not surpassed the dark ages, and the Enlightenment has never taken place...

7. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96827 by Stephan on December 11, 2007 at 1:41 am

ok, to get one thing straight at the very beginning: I am on the same side as most people here (that is on the atheist side). However, in a way I would like to ask people to stop whining about how a cross or any religious symbol offends them. They don't offend me! What offends me, is the fact that I am not granted the same rights of expressing my views. And of course, for a religious person to say that an atheist symbol offends them is pure nonsense. In the same vein, it is nonsense for an atheist to say a religious symbol is offensive to him/her! One thing that would be a REAL reason to be offended is: Here in Germany, for example, it costs MONEY to officially leave the church into which you have been entered by your parents when you were a little child. Now, if I don't want to pay church tax, I must get out of the church. And this legitimate decision is made difficult by forcing me to pay quite an amount of money. THAT is offensive!
And one more thing: I haven't read all the comments here but maybe people should acknowledge that this TV channel (at least in this short video) has basically defended atheist rights. It would have been easy for them to join the majority in condemning the putting up of this logo. But they sort of emphasized the atheist's right to do that! This was not only suprising to me but it also made me happy! Let's not forget about this!

8. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93377 by Stephan on December 3, 2007 at 1:25 am

I think basically everything has been said. I still can't refrain from throwing in my take on this, nonetheless. I'm not a fan of ad hominems (althoughm seemingly, D'Souza is) and personal attacks in matters of facts and reason, so I'm gonna keep my anger to myself and just say that this Denesh D'Souza is simply are very very bad debater. He may know how to talk but his way of talking is inappropiate. I'm referring to his constant yelling, his sermon-like delivery, his unfriendly attacks on Dennet. This is no presidential candidates' debate for goodness' sake! And besides, despite all his vain efforts to sound competent and meaningful: He just doesn't have any points or facts. It's all pretty much empty talk. So, even the more, he has to try and sound as if he was self-evidently right and Denet was a mental midget. It's like in the Hitchens debate (and I am not necessarily a fan of Hitchens, except for his take on religion - to me he's just too much the Michael Moore of the New Atheists). D'Souza just doesn't have the capacity to prevail in such a debate and to NOT make a fool of himself. And after all, he just doesn't have reality on his side, which is very hard to compensate for!

9. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92179 by Stephan on November 30, 2007 at 2:40 am

oh, I just noticed that Prof. Dawkins had already replied here, and somehow my comment was somewhat unnecessary... sorry about that.

10. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92176 by Stephan on November 30, 2007 at 2:36 am

Well, I am a huge fan of Prof. Dawkin's work. I agree 100% with what he writes on the Clinton matter! However, I am somewhat undecided as for the sex issue in relationships. I have thought about this quite frequently myself. And yes, I can see Prof. Dawkin's point. I can even agree in a way. We do NOT own our partner's body, and open relationships are a perfectly fine thing to have.
Also trust may not be the core issue here, because in an open relationship no trust is betrayed (I assume Prof. Dawkins agrees that, if an exclusive relationship has been consciously decided on by both partners, "cheating" would not be ok, since it would equal the breaking of a contract, if you will). The problem is, and I think Prof. Dawkins is quite clear about this: Why do automatically assume it is the only possible and right way to have monogamous relationships? It's not like people sit down after marrying and negotiate the exact terms of their relationship, also in affairs of sexual conduct.
Now, the "natural state", I believe, plays no role in this because, as anyone has grasped, monogamous relationships are probably not natural in an evolutionary sense of gene distribution. But Prof. Dawkins also said on numerous occasions that it is the ability to rise above nature that makes us what we are and that we SHOULD do it (most people already do it in the course of any usual day). So it doesn't get us far to argue scientifically here and to ask "what's natural?". We should indeed act "unnaturally" on certain occasions (Dawkins also said that he was in no way promoting a moral life based on Darwinian Natural Selection!).
Arguing emotionally and not scientifically, I can see why two people would want to be exclusive (even though many people probably have the occasional desire to "cheat" on their partner). We want to express the uniqueness of our relationship. We want to think that we do things we don't do with ANYONE else. This feeling of exclusiveness is a bonding experience. Sexuality may be a part of this. We want to lift love and loving relationships out of the realm of the ordinary and a part of me understands and endorses that.
Rationally I understand and agree with Prof. Dawkins and I don't have ANY "moral" objections. Also I can imagine a life without jealousy (as difficult as it may be for some people). It certinaly would be a good life. But I don't know exactly how I felt if the sexual act was "devalued" in a way because it would then be nothing but an ordinary act (which it probably is)... anyway, I guess my writing shows how torn I am on this :)
Good article anyway!
Stephan

11. Bill O'Reilly and Kirk Cameron on Atheism

Comment #55476 by Stephan on July 11, 2007 at 8:26 am

boy, watching this hurts so badly and it makes me terribly sad... well and somehow it makes me doubt my plans of becoming an americaan citizen some day, considering the Oh Really? Factor is America's most watched "News" show (I don't know how exactly this segment is called technically)...

12. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #55471 by Stephan on July 11, 2007 at 8:01 am

Although I strongly disagree with some of Hitchens' political views, I agree even the more with his statements on religion.
In this case he really, once again, triumphed over religious stupidty.
STILL, I find it very unfortunate that in this particular case I have to somehow agree with the religious idiot on politics, while I agree with the political idiot in terms of religion...
it's a strange world sometimes!

13. Bill Moyers interviews E.O. Wilson

Comment #55432 by Stephan on July 11, 2007 at 4:49 am

A great interview and truely a great man!
The only thing I disagree on is the respect for the religious community. Well, I am not militant. I have tolerance for every form of personal life style. I just cannot "greatly respect" it the way E. O. Wilson put it... but still his motive in doing that is noble and deserves my respect.

14. Charles Darwin - Legacy

Comment #55419 by Stephan on July 11, 2007 at 3:57 am

this is a great great documentary with great intelligent people talking about things way too many people are completely ignorant about.
it also delights me because I (being a sociologist) have always felt that there is more than merely "nature vs. nurture" but rather a combination of both.
I thoroughly enjoyed watching this!

15. Grief Without God

Comment #53852 by Stephan on July 3, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Dear Carol,
who am I to extend my condolences about this terrible loss to you? I am only a 24-year-old student form Berlin, Germany who has not experienced such a horrible thing in his life, so I cannot claim to understand how it feels. Still, I do feel the (and I can only hope for you to believe me that this is a deeply honest feeling) urgent need to contribute to your healing and comfort.
And even though I know that I can't possibly do this in any way, I hope that demonstrating my wish to do it, while expressing my helplessness and inability, as opposed to offering simple, unpersonal and mindless platitudes such as "he is in a better place now", will somehow show you, that in an abstract and maybe not comforting way you are "not alone".
Besides, please let me add that it comforts ME and (being someone who has not gone through what you are going through) impresses me to see your strength NOT to give in to the ultimate human weakness. And that is willingly closing your eyes to reality, simply because it is easy and may somehow generate a false kind of comfort in the face of great tragedy and pain.
The highest of respect to you and I wish you the best for your future life and all the great projects you seem to be working on.
Sincerely,
Stephan Serowy