Comments by Andrew

Comment #188757 by Andrew on June 4, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Bravo Jerry Coyne - I enjoyed this talk immensely (notwithstanding the occasional references to 'Darwinism'). I remember listening to him on Point of Inquiry some time ago, where he also made a fine impression both as an educator and a human being.

One thing that made me laugh out loud was when he described the creationist explanation for the innumerable design faults found in humans and other animals. I always considered this to be an unanswerable refutation of any creationist doctrine. But look how ignorant I was! Yes, all of my design faults are part of God's payback for Eve's original sin after following the instruction of the talking snake!!!

Absolutely priceless! Like the two 'banana' guys at the beginning, no parody could ever be as ridiculous as the real thing.

2. Bill O'Reilly and Kirk Cameron on Atheism

Comment #52526 by Andrew on June 27, 2007 at 7:42 am

Further to my above comment, the following is an extract of an email which I sent to O'Reilly after watching his interview with Cameron.

"You are obviously an intelligent and well educated guy. Therefore, if I may say so, I find it perplexing that you would associate yourself with such a profoundly ignorant individual as Kirk Cameron. His 'arguments' against evolution e.g. the development of the eye have been utterly refuted, as I suspect you are probably aware. (Not to mention the ridiculous 'croco-duck', which was so absurd that it would have been hard for an evolutionist to invent a better parody to mock creationists.)

There may be intelligent reasons for believing in a god. But surely you are not doing your own side any good by - as you would say - "throwin' in" with a buffoon like Kirk Cameron. Wouldn't it be better for your viewers, not to mention your own credibilty, to invite more knowledgeable believers (e.g. a religious scientist) on to the show to represent your side of the debate?

Best wishes..."

3. Bill O'Reilly and Kirk Cameron on Atheism

Comment #52522 by Andrew on June 27, 2007 at 7:35 am

I hate to say it, but I think that several of the messages posted here display a serious lack of objectivity. Bill O'Reilly does have a reputation for interrupting/shouting over his guests, but he certainly does NOT do this with Professor Dawkins. Anyone questioning this needs to watch the interview again.

I am a huge admirer of RD, but to be quite honest I don't think he came off too well in his exchange with O'Reilly. Usually he is fantastic at interviews, but I think he had an off day with Bill.

Although I don't agree with O'Reilly's reasons for believing in a higher power, I would consider his line of reasoning (the universe is too grand to have been an accident) to be one of the relatively intelligent arguments for the existence of some sort of higher power.

But coming back to this particular interview, of course I agree with everyone else that Kirk Cameron is at best exceptionally ignorant, and at worst stupid and/or delusional.

4. God Hates the World

Comment #51885 by Andrew on June 25, 2007 at 1:23 pm

I learned about the WBC through the Louis Theroux documentary that aired a couple of months ago. Their website includes a long question and answer section, and so I decided to send them an email.

I didn't bother arguing about the existence of god, as these people are clearly immune to reason.

Instead, I pointed out the obvious fact that the sole reason why their entire family believes what they believe is that every last one of them has been brainwashed from birth, and that if it had not been for the most random accident of being born into that particular family, every member of the family would be - according to their own twisted belief system - a 'fag enabler' facing eternal damnation.

Or to put it another way, if Fred Phelps happened to have been born in, say, Iran instead of America, then the entire family would be preaching their own extreme version of Islam.

I would have loved to hear a response to that, but for some reason my email never made it onto their website. I wonder why that could have been???

5. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #50350 by Andrew on June 17, 2007 at 4:36 am

'why do "they" continue to believe and what is it about you and me that mean we don't?'

Interesting question, and I agree with most of the reasons given by the above poster. For what it's worth, here are the two main factors that led me to become an atheist (which I did at the age of about 16, after having a mildly religious upbringing):

1) Knowledge of evolution. Once I understood that there was nothing 'special' about human beings, atheism became the logical viewpoint. In other words, I concluded that evolution was inconsistent with theism (interesting to note that creationists will draw the exact same conclusion, except that because they 'know' that their god is real, they will conclude that it is the real-life evidence for evolution rather than their own imaginary friend which must be discarded!)

2) Certain teachings of religion are just so blatantly man-made. The most obvious example being the idea that if you believe then you will go to heaven after you die, while if you don't believe then you will burn in hell. Once I stepped outside the bubble of Christianity and examined that idea from the outside, it became blindingly obvious that it was a nothing more than a scare tactic designed to bully and control the faithful.

There is nothing hugely sophisticated in the above - just a bit of healthy scepticism and critical thinking. In fact I am almost a bit embarrassed that it took me until the age of 16 to figure it out! Still, the majority of people on the planet will probably never 'see the light' so I suppose 'we' should all count ourselves lucky.

6. Baby's 'miracle' recovery in British hospital to give Malta its first saint

Comment #44531 by Andrew on May 25, 2007 at 3:54 am

I echo Duff's sentiment; I mean, glove or no glove, there was a 10% chance he would have survived anyway. Not a high probability, but hardly the kind of odds that demand a supernatural explanation.
I don't like to sound intolerant, but sometimes I just find myself wondering how people can be so stupid.
As for the other 90% of children with acute liver failure who die, well, it's ok, God loves them! Either that, or they were 'sinners' who deserve it.

7. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11359 by Andrew on December 4, 2006 at 9:38 am

Dave, atheism is not a religion. You claim atheism is "founded on an animal". Atheism is not founded on anything. There are no "atheist views" on anything. An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in the existence of gods and anything supernatural. That's it.

As far a worldviews, those are entirely relative. For myself, I take a more rational, reason-based stance as for my values and politics. Human rights and liberty are something I hold in high regard. Religious dogma, in many cases, conflicts with these values. That is why I am anti-thieist. Other things like communism, militarism, etc... also conflict with these values, and I am against them as well.

Your attempts to cut the legs out from under atheists in general by attacking their "worldview" is ignorant and hopeless.

8. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10939 by Andrew on December 1, 2006 at 1:55 pm

Solve from the beginning. "There was nothing and then", how does it go? How about you have all the proof then you crash me beliefs....Your just a religion until you can prove otherwise.

9. Teach sex and evolution or close, Quebec evangelical schools told

Comment #6204 by Andrew on November 13, 2006 at 6:00 am

Quebec after the quiet revolution has embrace rational over religion. No wonder after total oppression of the people by the church it is refreshing to know that about 60% of the population is open to other ideas then that of believing in a fictional being.

Also the leader of the opposition party in Quebec is openly gay and it does not seem to have any issues as the population at least in Quebec does not care much about the orientation of its political leader.

I truly believe that Quebec-although viewed by the rest of Canada to be somewhat backward and disliked by the political powers to the south is more evolved then its given credit for

Andrew
Montreal, Quebec

10. Reading of The God Delusion in Lynchburg, VA

Comment #6081 by Andrew on November 12, 2006 at 1:06 pm

In every century there are a handful of people who are ahead of their time. Dawkins is one of those people. Hopefully soon the rest of the world will have their consciousness raised by his arguments.

11. BBC Profile - Richard Dawkins

Comment #4539 by Andrew on November 4, 2006 at 11:49 am

The reporter seems to suggest that religon should be accepted, even if untrue, because it promotes altruism. I will concede that relgions (usually only in fractionalized subgroups) do promote GROUP altruism. But in today's world, religious groups (namely Christianity and Islam) can very possible threaten the existence of life on earth.
Richard is right. Religions' role is no longer necessary. Let's cut out the middle man (aka God) and get on with life... togther.

12. Lawrence, Kansas : Speech

Comment #2888 by Andrew on October 24, 2006 at 12:33 pm

Re: Hugh

Frankly, teaching this to your children is almost making it into a religion itself. You think it's any less indoctrination than Sunday school? They're too young to understand religion, but they're also too young to understand why religion is bad. (well, you didn't say how old your kids were, but I'm assuming young.) It's like sex. Yes you should talk to your kids about it, and earlier is better than later, but there's definitely such a thing as too early.

13. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2623 by Andrew on October 22, 2006 at 8:05 am

Clive - isn't the argument in TGD more that the religious nature of the opposing sides prevents reasonable resolution of problems? Northern Ireland and other conflicts may be more over land, politics etc. than religion, but the opposing sides define each other by their opposing religious beliefs. If you could magically remove religious affiliation from Northern Ireland, how would people know who was their enemy? I think TGD also cites religion as a factor in preventing reconcilliation because of its demands for separate schooling, same-faith-only marriage and the bringing up of children as part of one particular faith and therefore anti anything else. It's not necessarily that religion causes all the conflict in the first place - although there are certainly many in which it does - it's that religion is often the largest factor in its continuation.

14. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2620 by Andrew on October 22, 2006 at 7:36 am

The only interesting point I can see in this review is the mention of Robert Pape's "Dying to Win", and its conclusion that suicide bombings aren't religiously motivated. The credentials of the author seem to superficially suggest it's worth a look. Off the top of my head it seems likely that even if the motivation isn't religious, the only way to make people kill themselves is with the promise of an afterlife. But that's just me. Can anybody point me towards an analysis of this book, and whether the conclusion stands up to scrutiny? Can't find much on google...

15. D.J. Grothe Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #2099 by andrew on October 18, 2006 at 7:31 pm

Again Professor Dawkins proves his depth of understanding and ability to articulate thoughts about this very important subject are second to none.
DJ Grothe posed good questions to get the best from his interviewee.
And finishing as it does, on what possiblities lay in front of humanity as perhaps future generations may come to understand how this universe came into being. What is truly the foundation?.... is marvellously positive and uplifting.

16. ACTION ITEM: Religion and Education

Comment #1890 by Andrew on October 17, 2006 at 1:25 pm

I was shocked to learn that a self-described Christian establishment called Cliff College, based near Sheffield UK, not only offers a dipoma course on "Children's Evangelism and Nurture" (i.e religious brainwashing of the young) but the course is actualy validated by the venerable University of Manchester . . .which also awards the dipomas!! One of the stated aims of the course is to deliver "more effective children's evangelists".

What on earth is going on? Is this really the sort of thing that any University worth the name should endorse?

17. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1377 by Andrew on October 11, 2006 at 6:37 pm

Apologises for posting it three times, I get a window saying error.
Not sure what is going on.
Any I'll just add Mohler sounds like a victorian headmaster, his pincer spectacles balanced on his nose as he glares out at this improper book, and wonders how dare he.

18. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1376 by Andrew on October 11, 2006 at 6:21 pm

Thanks to the editorial staff at Richard Dawkins.Net for putting this review on the site. I doubt if Mr Mohler and his organisation would put any opposing or contrary arguments and reviews on their site's.
I am guessing about that I have no desire to go and find out.

Mohlers tone throughout the review is that of someone who is examining a child who has just been outside puddle jumping and is covered in mud and very happy. While he, the esteemed examiner, regards the child at a full arms length with a surgically gloved hands and gown and a mask lest, god forbid, he become contaminated.
Poor man I guess someone prominent in the theist camp had to review this book, looks like he drew the short straw.

19. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1375 by Andrew on October 11, 2006 at 6:20 pm

20. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1374 by Andrew on October 11, 2006 at 6:19 pm

21. The Need to Believe

Comment #1273 by Andrew on October 11, 2006 at 5:25 am

I think that those comment numbers are for something else. Since it starts at 1002 I'm pretty sure it isn't just for this.

22. The Need to Believe

Comment #1173 by Andrew on October 10, 2006 at 9:49 am

I would challenge the notion that Children are irrational. I remember being a child, I recall being quite rational.

Telling a child to evaluate for evidence is not asking to much. I did so every day.

I think that to some degree children are genetically inclined to accept information from some people (parents) without first testing it. But if encouraged to think about it they will, and will evaluate it for truth.

23. Collateral Damage: Part 2

Comment #537 by Andrew on October 3, 2006 at 6:25 am

#523 - when you say 'explicitly secular humanist school', do you mean in terms of attitude or direct instruction? Although the idea is initially tempting, I wouldn't really be in favour of sending children to an atheist school any more than a Christian school. I'd rather they had a secular education that taught them critical thinking skills, as well as educating them about the major religions. I strongly suspect that teaching critical thinking would greatly reduce the chances of them becoming religious, which I'd obviously approve of, but the autonomy of children comes first. I was convinced of this by the BHA's proposal to the UK Government (http://tinyurl.com/c44qh), which suggests schools of this style, as well as Stephen Law's The War for Children's Minds (http://tinyurl.com/mddvw), which strongly argues in favour of an education liberal in thought.

24. Richard Dawkins explains his latest book

Comment #92 by Andrew on September 21, 2006 at 11:11 pm

All the best with your goals, I applaud them and will support then monetarily when finances permit. Visiting the site I think of my father who repulsed by the actions of the priesthood as a young boy in Europe many years ago, decided god and his minions were a plague on hard working people. He stuck with that insight of his youth and is now at the age of 82 is a practising rationalist.
Still coming to grips with the workings of a computer is beyond him. So I look forward to passing on reading recommendations from this site. Please dont forget such people as my father. He reads with great difficulty, he learn English late in life so any good readable works you can recommend will be greatly appreciated. He greatly enjoyed Bill Bryson's "A Short History of nearly Everything" And "Devils Chaplain". Anyway I look forward to reading RD's latest. Regards