1. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242501 by Last Man In Europe on September 4, 2008 at 12:32 am

Yes, that is a fair point. Choosing Obama over McCain/Palin, in terms of pursuit of the truth and rationalism, would be the lesser of two evils.

One camp is less extrememe than the other. And that doesn't necessarily make the Obama closer to rationalism. But it might make the behaviour exhibited less extreme and more amenable to moderation.

Comment #242120 by Last Man In Europe:


Now is your time to balance the books by electing Obama....please separate religion and politics and vote for a/the(!) rational candidate(s).

But Obama has repeatedly professed his faith in Christ. Please tell me how you are squaring that circle.

Either:

A) You suspect Obama of lying and are ok with that.

or

B) His irrational beliefs don't bother you as much as McCain's because Obama's politics agree more with yours.

Am I missing a third option?

At least be honest about your prejudices here.

2. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242120 by Last Man In Europe on September 3, 2008 at 11:58 am

For years I have advocated the rise in politics of normal people with brains; not elites.

Unfortunately, Palin is normal for the US (invoking God unthinkingly) and lacks brains (invoking God unthinkingly).

The public gets what the public wants. That George W Bush was re-elected is judgement enough on the American people.

Now is your time to balance the books by electing Obama.

As a fairly intelligent European, I cannot see how anyone could vote for the Republicans over the Democrats in the 2008 election. But that's just me. America is has been hugely ostracized in much of the world during the ascendancy of the Bush regime.

It's time to stop pretending of being certain of things we cannot be certan about (Sam Harris).

Therefore, please separate religion and politics and vote for a/the(!) rational candidate(s).

3. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #231221 by Last Man In Europe on August 16, 2008 at 1:14 am

Thanks Richard! You are an inspiration. I look forward to the Q and A session. I wonder how often a NEW question arises i.e one that really makes you think. Most questions seem to be entirely predictable e.g. What about Hitler etc.

These tend to be from the same people who say 'I haven't read your book BUT...'

;-)

4. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #215460 by Last Man In Europe on July 22, 2008 at 12:47 am

When religious people say 'God has a plan, a purpose for us', it might be worth asking 'What was his purpose for the tsunami victims a week after their drowning'?

Either he knew they would drown or he planned for them to drown. He knew a week after the tsunami they would be dead and doing nothing on Earth. Was this his plan? In which case he connived or acquiesced in their drowning.

5. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206542 by Last Man In Europe on July 8, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Richard should have pinned Knox down in the way he did with McGrath on that question of whether God intervenes to save the one child in the tsunami.

Knox gives Richard ample rope to hang himself with. His answers are all over the place and inconsistent e.g. the weeping statues are rejected by Knox but not the miracles of 2000 years ago.

Richard should have locked onto one of these inconsistencies and gone for the jugular.

You need someone less polite (Hitchens would be ideal) to grab these waffling deceivers by the neck and combat them with Occam's razor. That would show them up for how ridiculous they actually are when you go through carefully what they are actually saying.

To a neutral jury, Knox might sound good. You can't give him the scope to run riot verbally with such fluency. He won't convince (bamboozle?) the clear thinkers out there, but he would surely convince people who have not thought much about the issues. Dinesh DaSouza is even worse than this though! He shouts to convince. Knox at least sounds pleasant.

6. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #175159 by Last Man In Europe on May 4, 2008 at 4:52 pm

For those people comparing Richard to the devil, the recent response given by Christopher Hitchens when an audience member tried to link athiests with 20th century mass murderers seems apt:

(Paraphrasing) How dare you put someone like me, who has worked for justice in the world, into the same basket as these creeps! You should take it back! You owe me an apology.

I'm sure Richard is much too polite to be so forcefully angry in his response, but something along the same lines would be justified.

7. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150686 by Last Man In Europe on March 27, 2008 at 9:03 am

Happy Birthday, Richard.

I have learned more about the scientific mindset/rational approach to life from you than I ever learned from my science teachers at school.

You have changed my life!

I wonder how my physics teacher squared his (boring) science lessons and knowledge with his fervant Catholicism.

8. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #119021 by Last Man In Europe on January 31, 2008 at 9:14 am

The Muslim cleric tried to say that Sharia law doesn't affect Western countries so it was an irrelevant point to mention apostasy.

Tell that to Theo Van Gogh and Salman Rushie who were killed and attempted to be killed because of Sharia law decrees in the Netherlands and the UK!

9. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104264 by Last Man In Europe on December 28, 2007 at 8:37 am

Just when you thought Tom Harpur had got the plot by showing doubt and critical judgement he ends up by, shockingly, undoing it all!

After all that examination of the dubious origins of Christianity - how it seems to have been manipulated and copied from elsewhere - Tom concludes his findings MAKE HIS CHRISTIANITY STRONGER.

The mind virus clearly still has a hold on him.

It's exactly the same as when people say that less evidence makes God more likely. Or when bad things happen - these are signs God is there helping us.

Tom simply interprets the dubiousness of it all as meaning a symbolic nature exists that still gives salvation to our souls.

He doesn't see the need to extend his critical thinking to examining the evidence of the existence of souls or salvation from what? From hell? Where is the evidence for those?

10. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96183 by Last Man In Europe on December 10, 2007 at 6:01 am

MENDEL'S MESSAGE:-

Bravo, Richard - especially on keeping calm in the face of the ignorance you so often have to face.

It strikes me that there is not an easy way for new ideas to get out to the wider world.

Suppose Darwin had not been able to get his ideas out to the wider world of his time. We might still be in ignorance as to the origin of species.

In the world of today's internet driven info exchange the problem is too much info, not too little. The challenge is to differentiate the wheat from the chaff.

In Darwin's own life time the info on genetics had been published by Mendel but Darwin didn't read it or didn't see its significance.

I wonder if today something similar could happen. The danger still exists that because there is SO much info 'Mendel's message' might not be getting through to its modern day recipients.

I wonder that when information is published e.g. on Richard Dawkins.net that there is so much good stuff in terms of response that it might be hard to separate the old arguments from the real gems of new insight which get lost in the public forums simply because they are not written by academics in journals.

What if someone here writes an original idea and it is lost/overlooked because of its posting location? (of course that is less likely here than if it were written on a general blog).

Are any established scholars reading the ideas here in detail?

Originally yours,

11. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94584 by Last Man In Europe on December 6, 2007 at 2:42 am

Back to basics for Dinesh -

If you say everything needs a cause and God caused the universe, WHO CREATED GOD?

If you say, as Dinesh does, that God doesn't need a cause then you admit something can exist without having a first cause. If God can exist without a first cause then why not something else - the universe or the Big Bang.

Dinesh just STATES that God is exempt from natural laws, without any evidence. It's just an unsubstantiated assertion that God is exempt. Based on a belief.

Pascal's Wager - to decide to follow (a) god based on wanting to do well for yourself is not moral, it is conniving and selfish. And you don't need to make that decision to live a moral life.

12. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92011 by Last Man In Europe on November 29, 2007 at 5:22 pm

Bravo, Richard.

As in the area of unquestioning acceptance of faith, you are right to break the often unspoken acceptance that 'cheating' is wrong.

Bertrand Russell took the same line back in the early 20th century. He and his wife Dora did have relationships with other people but they discussed it rationally and accepted it.

Their arrangement went on for many years until Dora became pregnant with another man's baby. Russell decided the practicalities of raising another man's baby as his own was not acceptable. Added to this was that the baby would have been raised as a Russell and become a future heir to the Russell title.

This was too much for Bertrand and he divorced his wife and there followed many decades of acrimonious relations between them and their children.

My point here is that is might be noble to try to rise above our jealousy but it is sometimes hard to do so particularly when evolutionary factors such as investing in another person's child and giving them access to resources (e.g. the Russell title in this case) would be to the possible detriment of one's own biological offspring.

Russell wrote about his ideas in the book 'Marriage and Morals', and he did emphasise the point that when children enter the equation, couples do have to be more cognisant to the dangers that open relationships can bring.

I myself have experienced the difference between acceptance of an open relationship in theory and in practice. One of my girlfriends loved the idea that I was a 'bad boy' or a playboy and had lots of girls interested. But when, one day, found sexual evidence of a dalliance earlier that day, the relationship changed and she wasn't as accepting as she thought she could be.

The point is, I think, to discuss these issues openly with a partner and come to an agreement with a like-minded person who is intelligent enough to question the status quo way of thinking. This is an area where raised awareness should be encouraged - not to blindly accept that sex with a 3rd party is wrong or 'cheating'.

As Erich Fromm points out in 'The Art of Love', there are many kinds of love. Love is a word with a multitude of feelings attached. It often means very different things to different people; hence the importance of open communication.

It's time people grew up, thought for themselves more and if both partners can agree it is possible to love/want sex with someone else without that meaning you love your partner once ounce less, then we will be living in a less judgemental and more grown up world.

13. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81712 by Last Man In Europe on October 25, 2007 at 4:29 am

It's incredible that Dinesh can say he is going to refute Hitchens using scientific/reasoned arguments and not use theological arguments, appear to do so and come off looking reasonably good.

This should NOT be allowed to happen. Hitchens was rather off form, and I'd hoped he'd tear Dinesh a new arse hole. That's what he deserves, especially when he is seemingly using rational arguments to support claims which have no basis in rationality.

The reason that Dinesh appears to do so well (apart from his eloquence and fluency) may be he is not falling back onto theological arguments, which have been rather successfully combated in books and talks by Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens previously.

Dinesh is using pseudo-science to take the battle to the scientists. A scientist has to prove what he is saying is true. These proofs can be complicated and involved sometimes. They don't always lend themselves to easy understanding. They demand reference to other studies and the data gathered. Dinesh capitalises on this to win a sound-bite argument or rather, a series of arguments, which are often not based on evidence or fact. Because he spouts so many of these inaccuracies, it is hard to call him up on them all. To do so would take time and more scientific argument and data. This eats into the time of his reasoned-thinking opponent.

When a reasoned-thinking opponent tries to argue based on data, Dinesh interrupts and spouts more factoids or lies/inaccuracies. Thus, he is able to take advantage of the good natured approach the scientifically minded have to take to establish a truth and not rush to judgement not based on evidence. It is not a level playing field when the audience is unaware that this is happening.

It is a little bit akin to when Dawkins is surprised by the intelligent design film crew who put him on the spot. They are not playing by the rules of fairness. An uneducated audience (or one not aware of the nuances of the issues) sees Dinesh sounding fluent and confident, able to question his opponent and make more and more demands from his opponent. That makes Dinesh seem to be doing well when in truth, his position is baseless from a reasoning viewpoint.

For Dinesh to be able to do this consistently and well points to being well practised. He knows what he is doing because he can do it so well in so many different circumstances. He is not willing to be open minded in the slightest. That takes a trained closedness of mind. He deliberately avoids answering some points and ripostes with his own. That's not moral, it's an obscuring of the truth to one-sidedly favour one's own selfish goals of appearing successful/gaining power or influence/getting money from books or media appearances.

And I do agree that debating the likes of Dinesh is a waste of time. He is not interested in reaching the truth at all. He is closed to it. Being religious in the way he is demands being closed to any reasoned discussion, regardless of what he says in his sophistical claim to be reason-based here.

14. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81660 by Last Man In Europe on October 25, 2007 at 2:27 am

When Dinesh tells his joke about feeling like a mosquito in a nudist colony, the reply is:

"The thing about mosquitoes is they're pests, and it stings, doesn't it?...How a bare, naked body ... of KNOWLEDGE and TRUTH can be infected by just one annoying little prick."

15. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81000 by Last Man In Europe on October 23, 2007 at 9:55 pm

As Dawkins has pointed out many times, just because our genes influence us to some/a large degree does not mean we are at their mercy and have to obey them.

Whenever we use contraception we are breaking the programming of our genes. We are thinking mammals and can consciously choose to act in a certain way or not. Just because we feel an urge to do something does not mean we have to follow that urge.

I'm looking forward to seeing the video of this debate. Again, if Dinesh came across well (and he was preaching to the converted it seems by this debate taking place in a Christian college) then the wider public who watch the debate online might be in a better position to judge who came across better.

The dangerous thing about Dinesh is he has almost no sound or logical arguments but because he is fluent and eloquent in expression, he sounds believable. He is a hypnotist to some extent. You follow along with him and because so many of his suggestions hit you in sequence you tend to lose track of them all and can't counter them. It's a hypnotic technique where the conscious mind is distracted and overwhelmed.

McGrath is hypnotic too, but his technique is more about how he uses vague process, rather than specific content language. Listening to McGrath (who has the appearance of gestures of a priest giving a sermon!) sends your conscious mind to sleep. He is hard to follow and get hold of because he is so vague.

Someone needs to transcribe what these two actually say and analyse their absurd statements word for word (even a short sequence would do it) and show how what they say is patently wrong or is meaningless.

16. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #80985 by Last Man In Europe on October 23, 2007 at 8:24 pm

It's an interesting history of how the separation of church and state came about.

I wonder though, shouldn't we today, with OR without what happened over 200 years ago, agree it is wrong to discriminate against someone based on their religion/lack of one?

One shouldn't have to go back into the past to know this is not acceptable.

17. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80983 by Last Man In Europe on October 23, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Phaseshift, good points there.

Atheists don't have a common book or ideology. Harris's point is worth considering - Why do we even need to use the word 'atheist' when we don't have words such as A-Fairyist, A-Invisible Pink Unicornist or A-Flying Teapotist. By using the term 'atheist', we are accepting the frame that the theists are the standard.

Perhaps 'atheists' should refer to themselves more often as 'reason-minded', 'logical thinking', 'free-thinking', 'sensible-minded' or 'critical-minded'.

This lack of a common book or uniting ideology (apart from being reasoned thinkers) then links into the question theists will consequently raise - where does morality come from?

It definitely seems worth highlighting more powerfully the fact that countries such as Sweden are largely atheist and have very low crime rates. I haven't heard theists addressing or explaining that point at all. Why aren't Swedes running around raping and killing? Because they reach a reasoned societal consensus about what is to be accepted as the right and wrong way to behave.

The fact that societies from around the world which have different gods, and no gods at all, can all come to the same agreements that murder, theft, rape etc are wrong tells you these common agreements come from humans and not gods.

18. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80841 by Last Man In Europe on October 23, 2007 at 7:20 am

Time and again the god-squad bring up the question of Hitler, Stalin etc. It's an argument that both Dawkins and Hitchens address in their books.

But STILL it raises its ugly head in almost any debate (as does the question of 'where do we get our morality from if not god').

The intelligentsia/bright squad ('quad-squad' for Hitchens, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett? :-)) should, I think, come up with a quick and devastating rebuttal to these questions in much the same way they bring out Russell's Teapot or the existence of Thor.

If the people who question religion can respond to these two questions in a way which embarrasses or otherwise clearly shows the fallacy of the accusations levelled against them regarding 'atheist' crimes/morality's origins then the god-squad will perhaps stop bringing up the questions for fear of being ridiculed and shown to be obviously wrong in a sane universe.

Shermer's 'debate' with Dinesh shows how important debating skills are in order to reach the public effectively. Some people will not read Dawkins's lucid prose and can only be reached by video or audio discussions e.g. in recorded debates/TV/radio.

To that end can we work towards 2 devastating rebuttals to the 'Stalin was an atheist' and 'Where does morality come from?' arguments which are so commonly used by the brainwashed?

Answers to these are found in Dawkins's and Hitchens's books but I feel the rebuttals need to be distilled or made more pithy to quickly and effectively reach an audience who need to see the light of reason.

Can we distill these answers into a concise and effective sentence or three - something to show up the faithhead nuts for what they are?

19. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80532 by Last Man In Europe on October 22, 2007 at 4:49 am

Agreed, Shermer is not the best debater in the world. He lets Dinesh lead the discussion far too much and doesn't pull Dinesh up on his inaccuracies/lies.

Dinesh could (and does) have far weaker arguments, but because he is a better debater than Shermer, Dinesh appears to be winning. I also kept thinking 'this guy is dangerous'. He is a terrific persuader to those who don't know much about the issue or the techniques Dinesh is using to alter the arguments and obscure.

This should not be allowed to happen. It happens a lot in the world though - in the court room, in politics and by McGrath. Do they do it by design? I think so. These are very intelligent people using their intellects not to explore the truth but to hide it. That's takes a knowing closed mindedness.

Who on Earth would certify these people as MAs/PhDs/experts in areas they simply cannot know anything more about than the next person - e.g. whether God exists or what he wants. It might be worth lobbying their universities to teach courses on the theology of Thor, Pan or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all praise to his Noodly Appendage). When they refuse, ask them to explain why not since Thor, Pan and TFSM have as much evidence going for them as do any other gods. Likewise, demand these PhDs are not awarded or recognised in future as being about imaginary subjects.

Having seen debates involving McGrath and now Dinesh I wonder if there is any point at all in debating these people. They are not interested in having a reasoned discussion of the evidence. Some even admit as much - the evidence is less important than their 'truth' as revealed to them.

The aspect of these debates (and the books recently written by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc)that do make them worthwhile in the long-term is that they are reaching an audience of people who might not have thought through the arguments or even considered doubting what they were indoctrinated into years ago. Those people are still reachable.

Like many others, I had to pause Dinesh or turn him off for a while because I couldn't stand him getting away with all these untruths. Shermer sits there and takes it far too nicely. Is he the athiest's Alister McGrath? Someone terribly nice but not having the teeth to take it to the opposition?

At least Shermer has a cogent argument at hand, even if it is not well delivered.

Here's hoping Hitchens handles Dinesh better and calls him to account far more effectively.