1. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179452 by Kinobe on May 13, 2008 at 9:04 am

Right now, this is the most-read article on the guardian website, which shows the level of attention it is getting. So, although this is nothing new to any of us, it may well be new to a lot readers who may not be so familiar with the debate over Einstein's religious views (or lack thereof). In particular, some of those people may be from the "Einstein was religious" camp. So I think it's all good.

2. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126911 by Kinobe on February 14, 2008 at 1:24 pm

"But what *is* belief?"

"What about emotional truth?"

Cringeworthy, but nice to see a moderate's obfuscation brought out so clearly.

3. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92495 by Kinobe on November 30, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Re comments 16 and 22

My understanding is that it is not the beliefs themselves that require a Darwinian explanation. Richard's point is that it is the tendency to believe what an authority figure tells you that can be explained via natural selection.

This is different from saying that natural selection favours a tendency to believe an authority figure when they tell you that there is a god (and this is how he plays the game etc).

What a parent (the principal authority figure) will instruct their child is what they themselves believe. The beliefs that tend to get passed on are beliefs that the parent has. Some of these are practically useful for the child's survival (and this would explain why natural selection favours species whose children believe authority figures / their parents) while others are not (such as that homosexuality is wrong, women are not as intelligent as men, or that there is a god up there looking out for you).

If you want an explanation as to why/how the belief in god, in particular, spreads so potently, I would be pointing to something like Dan Dennett's book.

4. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66311 by Kinobe on August 29, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Bill Donohue was trying to look on top of things, but was clearly wetting himself.

"The only people who don't have doubts today are dogmatic atheists. People like you, Chris"

"Christopher."

Gold.

5. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64163 by Kinobe on August 18, 2007 at 8:15 am

steve99, thanks for your response, but I think we've crossed wires on a couple of points.

On the first "straw man": the sort of logic I am disputing is that implied by comments like scooternyc's:
'What I can't understand from anyone's point of view is how anyone could condone a dictator performing genocide on his own people and not be disgusted by that behavior and insist that their government stop it. You'd think that Nazi Germany would have been enough but apparently as a global people we don't seem to get it yet.'
Implicit in this sort of statement is the assumption that invasion is the only way to deal with a dictator, and so opposing invasion is "condoning" genocide.

On your second point, if you read my comment properly, you can see that I was not saying that we should object to the removal of a brutal dictator *because* there are plenty of other countries with brutal dictators (or without democracy) that the US (and its allies) is not invading or *because* the US supported the Iraqi regime while it was convenient.
I'm saying that these facts make highly suspect any claim that the US invaded Iraq in order to remove a brutal dictator. At best, this could only have been a convenient excuse. If a country is going to take the drastic action of invading another country, at a minimum it should have a credible reason for doing so.

I agree wholeheartedly with sparkie's comment: 'In terms of the message it sends to other dictatorships, I agree. The message is clear. Unless you have a good defensive force or a deterant (the dreaded bomb) we might come into your country and kill people.'
Merely overcoming a brutal dictatorship cannot have been the US's purpose.

Unfortunately, in arguing against another "straw man" I think you have just brought in your own straw man. If you read my comment properly, you will see that I am not suggesting that the US actively intended the invasion to be shambolic or for hundreds of thousands to die.

On the "shambolic" point, I am saying that if the invasion was intended to serve as a warning to others, I just cannot see how it has achieved that.

And on the innocent civilian deaths point, would this be better: 'Quite simply, invading a country (and accidentally killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and accidentally provoking a civil war while you're going about it) is not the way to change the way it is governed - at least if we are purporting to be members of a civilised, 21st century society.'?

6. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64099 by Kinobe on August 17, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Needless to say, the vices and virtues of the war in Iraq are not really the subject matter that is supposed to be debated on this website, but since everyone else is going down that path...

I think we need to deal with a very simplistic argument that is being made here. Just because people oppose the invasion of Iraq (me included), does not mean to say that they condone the actions of a brutal dictator. Those who cite this as a reason for invading need to remember that this (or the spreading of "freedom" or democracy) was self-evidently not the Bush administration's reason for invading. Nor was the risk that the regime had weapons of mass destruction (this has been shown to be a fabrication) and nor was the threat of terrorism (most of the al-Qaeda fighters are not from Iraq).

There are plenty of other countries with brutal dictators (or without democracy) that the US (and its allies) is not invading. Indeed, the US supported the Iraqi regime while it was convenient. And scooternyc: It is hard to see how the shambolic outcome of the Iraq invasion could serve as any kind of a warning to other dictatorships - even if the distant end-result of the invasion is the extremely unlikely scenario of a stable democracy.

Quite simply, invading a country (and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and provoking a civil war while you're going about it) is not the way to change the way it is governed - at least if we are purporting to be members of a civilised, 21st century society.

To be honest, I would not have expected so many free-thinkers on this website to have been in favour of (or even ambivalent towards) the invasion - even if the great orator Hitchens is in favour. I can only hope the posters to this article are not representative.