1. Manitoba dig uncovers 80-million-year-old sea creature

Comment #238635 by DalaiDrivel on August 28, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Prehistoric Earth would be a cool place to explore...

Provided you can avoid being eaten...

Also, I might add, a good place to take a creationist...

In the off chance they could be eaten...

Argh, I know... poor joke.


Or take them there really just to show them, that against their biblical calculations, the world is already there, rife with a complex biosphere, their humanoid ancestors still a long way off in the temporal distance.

When I try and envision this 11-metre long creature slipping through the currents of an ancient sea, I get that uncanny sense of amazement and wonder that contemplating mere egotistical human existence, and history, doesn't seem to provide.

Prehistoric Earth had it all going on... life, you know.


I wonder how the scientists they decided upon "Angus..."

Maybe it was (would have been) the delicacy of its day.

P.S. "Death assemblage" sounds gothic to me... but as long as Janzic didn't speak those words with a low, gravely, morose voice, I think we're alright.

2. Science Has No Place in Politics

Comment #237990 by DalaiDrivel on August 27, 2008 at 1:32 pm

I imagine the primary reason is thaty science is viewed as antagonistic to religion.

Which it is, but the religious still benefit from it everyday.

One thinks to credit the Amish, for while still being so, are the least hypocritical...

3. Michael Coren: Stéphane Dion finds God

Comment #237530 by DalaiDrivel on August 26, 2008 at 4:57 pm

GarrickW,

Granted. People like to ensure their votes are not wasted.

I still disagree with strategic voting as an (un)ethical proposition, as an enormous boon to competitive parties and detriment to minor parties within constituencies, and as a precedent to politicians who, seeing that voters are content to cast ballots dishonestly, need not really express interest in a system that rewards honesty,

At least with honest voting, funding is honestly distributed, and media, lobbyists, and the public, as well as public organisations have reason to raise a fuss, stir and consolidate public opinion, and apply pressure on a government during its term to introduce legislation.

Strategic voting may not be pointless in the elections themselves, but I'm not sure how useful it proves after the fact and during a government's term.

4. Michael Coren: Stéphane Dion finds God

Comment #237094 by DalaiDrivel on August 25, 2008 at 10:40 pm

Mitchell Gilks,

"He's got my vote, though I doubt he'll beat Harper, in fact, I'm quite sure he won't."


I'm impressed by your sense of principle. Democracy is pointless, even regressive, without principle and honesty- voting for who you want.

I hope they'll include the Elizabeth May in the Leader's debates.

I think I will vote Green, for my values. I will have to do my research however. Overall, my vote may be pointless in the context of the election, but valuable at least to democracy.

Plus, there's always funding distributed on the basis of votes. I'd like the maximum to be won away from the Terrible Tories!

And hell, maybe one day we'll wake up and move beyond a fucking first-past-the-post joke. Who knows? The processes of election our oyster!

5. Rushdie condemns cancellation of Muhammad novel

Comment #231167 by DalaiDrivel on August 15, 2008 at 10:41 pm

This is really disappointing.

Muslims practising child rape (and any web-accessing, truth-facing moderate can confirm their existence) surely would not object to publicity?

Or do they implicitly understand their grotesquerie?

Hmmm, on second thought, I think they love the publicity, but loathe the disagreement.

"Damnit, people, we know it's grotesque, but it is blasphemy to us for you to think of it as anything but normal!

Praise Allah!"

Islam (like Mormonism and other fundamentalist denominations) is just another sad case of violation (of children, of civil peace and justice) being inviolable.

The rest of us remain spellbound. We doublethink. We live in totalitarian fear we refuse to acknowledge, due to a self-imposed, self-preserving illusion of "normalcy."

We know, by examining the psychology of children and the detrimental effects of subjecting them to this, that marrying children is, or ought to be considered grossly abnormal.

Reason would suggest that the faculties of people who condone child marriage are abnormal, or compromised.

We should commence treating them as such- Treating them, as others here have suggested already, as criminals- warranting psychiatric evaluation, I might add.

We cannot do this, under the spell.

It goes without saying- rejoicing over the abuse of children is perversion, and as Sam Harris surely would agree, substantiates his charge that religion is, or at least can be, or reflect, or imitate perhaps, a neurological disorder.

6. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230508 by DalaiDrivel on August 14, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Border Collie,

Well, see it from this point of view:

Imagine that you knew that tonight, you were going to have sex against your will.

Now imagine that all of the most prominent individuals in your life were aware of this inevitability, but were indifferent to preventing it. In fact, they could not understand your aversion to this event and, incredibly, even saw the violation as warranted, indeed, proper... joyous...

Does this make your skin crawl? I hope so.

I for one cannot conceive of a better, more unsettling behavioral example of "creepy."

I'm sure those with in the therapeutic community are going, "What the flying fuck is going on here?!" witnessing the egregious, lasting results of such culturally-induced cognitive perversion and female degradation.

I see child marriage as little more (indeed no more) than institutionalised child prostitution, to the whims of sick, pimp-esque old men declaring assent from God.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuccccccccccck.... ugh... UGH!

Doug Wilson in his online debate with Christopher Hitchens kept attacking CH that atheism was no basis to establish morality.

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

Of course it's not. Atheism is merely disbelief. It is not a humanism.

Wilson implied that atheism derives moral relativism, and religion offers necessary, non-wavering absolute standards of morality.

Well, it does- minus the "necessary" bit. Religion as opposed to atheism, IS a humanism and a self-proclaimed value system, and in its Judeo-Islamic-Christian form, condones child rape.

Doug Wilson, I presume, is not a child rapist. I wonder, when cornered to admit that Christianity does not influence his respect of children's innocence, where he would claim that restraint derives from.

And in doing so, he would render irrelevant his own non-argument to Hitchens.

On the topic of morality, I subscribe to Sam Harris' basis, outlined in The End of Faith, that defines morality as a matter of producing happiness and minimising suffering.

Or was he discussing Ethics? Are Ethics the same as Morality? I mean strictly speaking. I don't know.

Such an amateur...

Time for Dictionary.com... or Wikipedia.

Maybe both, to be sure!

Anyways, the advantage of Harris' basis, besides being totally reasonable, is that it counters the threat of moral relativism.

7. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230256 by DalaiDrivel on August 14, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Here's a thought...

Mohammad did it?

Well, Mohammad was a child rapist and torturer.

Who in their right minds wants to be either of those?

'She explained: "They kept whispering in my ear to ask why I wasn't smiling. I told them I was terrified and desperate, that I was just a child and far too young to get married. I pleaded with them to help me escape, but no-one saw anything wrong in what was happening." '

That is astonishingly creepy. It's a perversion of the mind, I think, within the heads of those to whom she pleaded, in the same way that believing that Jesus sending unbelievers into the eternal lake of fire is a good thing is perversion.

Sam Harris referred to religion as a neurological disorder... Citing this as proof, I believe him- this is fanatical cultural rewiring of the mind. Again, creepy, horror film-esque stuff.

Who in their right minds wants to think like that?

8. Kung poo panda 'The Sex Lives of Animals' exhibit digs deep.

Comment #222136 by DalaiDrivel on July 30, 2008 at 6:37 pm

There's no larger Red Light District than Nature itself, it seems. Us humans are absolutely parochial, anal-retentive amateurs really. Or maybe born-again sentient egoists.

Ain't that the truth... Going intelligent really did a number on our sexual creativity.

And why would God design kinky animals then? Honestly.

Does he have no respect for the Bambis?

And you thought his douchiness ended with the Bible.

Oh no.

Wait... "Ah, but the animals have free will!"

And good for them! They use it without any knowledge of the celestial dictator. He sure is a dick.

Bernie,

Sex sells. Or at least it gets a reaction...

9. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220694 by DalaiDrivel on July 28, 2008 at 10:48 pm

If the Church does in the end cede to sense and distribute condoms, or even make the less effective gesture of simply condoning condom usage, it will be a triumph for rationality sure, but also a triumph for hypocrisy, and the enormously entertaining whim of religious fucktards who can unmake yesterday's sin into today's holy observance.

Not that I exactly WANT them to remain principled in their current guise.

Go ahead... please for the sake of disease containment be brain-partitioning pragmatists!

' "The answer to AIDS requires deeper and more complex interventions, in which the Church is active on many fronts." '

Less sinister, insidious words have certainly been spoken have they not??

Brrr.

10. Toward a Type 1 civilization

Comment #219404 by DalaiDrivel on July 26, 2008 at 11:18 pm

I'd wager D'Arcy, SPS, and zbob are on the right track, whether that has anything to do with my being a liberal, anti-capitalist idealist or not.

I will say that a friend of mine who recently took a trip to Guatemala and returned reciting the mantra "They have nothing, but they have everything. We have everything, but we have nothing," never seemed to draw the inevitable conclusion- which is that the fact that Third Worlders can be happy and we seemingly cannot indicates that Money truly has nothing to do with happiness.

I've spent some time recently attempting to imagine a society without currency at all. I haven't got very far. But a society without money would be without the segregating status symbol of our times, as ostentatious luxury was in the past, and with any luck, it will be the last such class-defining symbol that the human race suffers.

I do think the future of governance rests with a global body and the abolition of nation states. I would also wager that communities will be numerous and small, as well as independent and self-sufficient, instead of few and large. Information will travel efficiently between them to provide the illusion of one large global metropolis. (EDIT: an allusion to "The Global Village.")

Those who have said that free trade favours what sells over what is truly beneficial and does nothing to intentionally improve culture, art, science and generally anything that matters in life, to put it quite bluntly, are utterly correct. There inlies the danger to humanity.

I've found it interesting that the Soviet Union, despite being such a depraved moral state, achieved heights of scientific greatness matched only by its ideological and economic antithesis.

It has been said, too often, "Money makes the world go around."

Why do I feel that we need to remind ourselves, and take comfort in, the fact that this is physically impossible (as is the corollary, that "No money makes the world stay still")?

11. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212637 by DalaiDrivel on July 17, 2008 at 1:30 pm

GoodLittleAtheist

On reflection, I don't think I paraphrased Dawkins correctly, based on your response.

I also think your elucidation makes sense. It helped me see my error.

I did not in my earlier post make a distinction between biological evolution and the theory that explains how it works, as you put it.

A bit dense-headed and silly of me really!

Cheers!

Dawkins HAS said that he is a biologist that believes natural selection to be the primary driving force of biological evolution, as opposed to other factors such as genetic drift etc...

So, I concede then that we haven't proved natural selection, but merely, yet substantially so, enhanced its plausibility. Thinking to the future however, I wonder if we should ever be able to confirm a "Law of Natural Selection," and how.

No, we should not dismiss the possibility of its falsification.

At least evolution by natural selection is supported by enough evidence that it will not be a simple matter for anyone to legitimately dislodge it. And we're somewhere against the evidence-less fairy-believers as a result!

In the meantime, I'll bone up on my biology!

12. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212230 by DalaiDrivel on July 16, 2008 at 9:23 pm

GoodLittleAtheist.

Oh, I think so. Without proving evolution by natural selection means we're left pretty much nowhere.

I must state first that I am not an expert in biology. Quite. :) However, I'll warrant that you don't need a century of thorough experimentation to prove plain old evolution. Everybody can accept evolution. Everybody understands evolution as a non-contextual concept and can name any non-biological example.

Put in short- everything evolves.

A fact. As you said.

Given my aforementioned limited understanding of biology in general, I nonetheless feel confident in saying that "Darwinism" (in its clearest sense) implies biological evolution, devoid of sociological interpretation.

What interests me is whether creotards would accept evolution by natural selection in humans if it occurred within the time frame of recorded history, say, for the sake of argument, from Bishop Usher's deduced date of 4004 B.C. or whatever.

Unfortunately, the reality revealed by experimentation has not permitted an answer to that particular question.

Fortunately, however, that leaves us somewhere rather than nowhere.

13. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212071 by DalaiDrivel on July 16, 2008 at 3:06 pm

I thought this was going to be another creationist rebuke... :(

Terrific then!

I like the Wright Brothers analogy at the end- a very effective and accurate analogy in my opinion.

I don't know how it was adopted, but Darwinism does have a distinctly (almost instinctively) negative tone to it. It's like a built-in controversy element...

I wonder if that's why creationists like it, like any -ism, which typically is an idea to which you actually have a choice in accepting or rejecting as "right" or "wrong."- Socialism or Capitalism... Imperialism... Pacifism... The sheer ism-ic sound strikes tones of confrontation within them.

So they convince themselves that, being an ism, it can be refuted, argued against, outright rejected if they wish... without one ever realising that, far from being debatable, the essence of Darwinism, evolution by natural selection, is a fact, as RD once said, like a table being a table, and not anything else, is a fact.

This is just a theory.

Anyways, yes- let's get rid of Darwinism. And maybe we can get rid of Atheism at the same time...

EDIT: Eshto,

Interesting Coulter quote. I'm not surprised she attacked a straw man there, Evolution and Darwinism, being, in at least good faith, the same thing.

Evolution is simply harder to openlty reject than "Darwinism" I think. Maybe it's the sociological overtones that people have taken Darwinism historically to imply.

More for the controversy!

14. Bisexual Species: Unorthodox Sex in the Animal Kingdom

Comment #209628 by DalaiDrivel on July 12, 2008 at 10:01 pm

I'm not sure which survey it was, but the last one I did which RD promoted took me by surprise in asking me to place on a spectrum my sexual orientation.

I ended up choosing one slot shy of complete heterosexuality out of deference to the limits of certainty, much like I am a Dawkins-described "6" Atheist on the seven point scale.

At risk of this thread may turning into a confession parade (but what shame is there in that?), I've been attracted to men before, mainly with a conspicuous paucity of female attention or outright absence however it must be added.

Anyways, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say orientation is socially constructed, at least at human levels of sophistication.

I agree with the article's statement,

"Animals don't do sexual identity. They just do sex."

Human pressures of simply identifying yourself, and even adhering to an identity, are strong. And that's without even considering the social implications of accepting your identity. What then?

I can't imagine how it would NOT affect the world's view of you, and you of it, and the resultant dynamics and actions between the two parties.

Bonobos are especially intriguing with their parity between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. I accept individual biology to be a powerful factor (it is with me), indicating a preference, but the so-called "malleability" of species like the discussed penguins and the fact that humans, as animals, should theoretically be able to "do sex" rather than "sexual identity" leads me to ponder what human society would be like without "gay" and "straight," and simply, scientifically, "bisexual."

Imagine being asked on a survey, if not to place yourself on a spectrum, not which sexual orientation you have, but the orientation you're more inclined to?

In other words: "Hetero-bisexual" or "Homo-bisexual"?

It is at least mildly stimulating to consider, is it not? It seems certainly alien right now.

Note: I don't actually know if my terms are valid.

Given the heterogeneity in populations, it would be odd if we were equally hetero and homo on an individual basis, so I can fully reconcile with my belief that I am overwhelmingly swayed to the female persuasion... as a penguin, I'd have sprung for Scrappy too...

I've seen this article on Digg as well. It's evidently popular.

I wonder how civilisation at large is responding to the "bisexual" label being blanketed over it.

Being a sucker for polemic, I can't help but feel amused.

15. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207452 by DalaiDrivel on July 9, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Holograms?!

Like Startrek?!

No way! Yippee!

I'm kidding.

Interesting stuff about black holes. I read recently that the mathematical equations for black holes are the same for shower drains and waterfalls.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-05/littlest-big-bang?page=2

I found that pretty neat.

I certainly did not know however that black holes eventually evaporated and disappeared...

I can imagine a religite's spin...

"Have you ever heard of a shower drain that evaporated?"

16. Science is thrilling - except in our schools

Comment #204229 by DalaiDrivel on July 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Hari is a very eloquent writer indeed. He needs make no defense for science, like a religious apologist. Science has nothing to apologise for. No, Johann more apologises TO science for our misunderstanding and neglect, and makes the reader understand why, with the added message of "Now would you please get off your ass, teachers, students, politicians, and public and get involved so I don't have to continue to write these unfortunate apologies?!"

I certainly think science deserves one.

"It's as if art classes consisted solely of learning how to perform individual little brushstrokes, without ever stopping to look at a painting by Caravaggio."

What an apt illustration of the matter, it seems to me.

17. Group Asks for Divine Intervention to Ease Oil Prices

Comment #204225 by DalaiDrivel on July 4, 2008 at 12:38 pm

At least they're trying to move beyond prayer...

God's not so omnipotent as to accommodate whole faith.

But he IS omnipotent!

18. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204203 by DalaiDrivel on July 4, 2008 at 11:43 am

"Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said."

Ah well, wait until the misogynist arbitrator or court attendee declares it is "my religion" that necessitates such punishment.

At least then we could see the true friction between religious justification and liberal norms and ideals.

And we could throw the whole rotten and superstition enterprise out the door.

And what of that quote, anyway? Parochial as my point of view may be, I have always regarded flogging, honour executions, stoning and amputations were some of the charming hallmarks of Sharia that distinguished it from civilised judicial systems.

Outlawing these practices seems like attempting to make friends with the school bully- give him a second chance to be a gentleman. It's more appeasement I think to Sharia and Muslims keen for Muslim influence in various liberal democracies around the world than a proper neutering of it.

Carte blanche. Benefit of the doubt.

The bully will weasel his way back unto his old self. Sharia proponents may well make religious justification for atrocities...

Or as marv78rpm said, wait until we "give the theocrats time to work their magic."

Magic indeed. But I don't think any spell-casting will be necessary. The spell in question of course, we have cast over ourselves, and theocrats need only wait until we are too tolerant, too small, and too timid to mount any objection.

Like the bully's true nature, it continues to be depressing, yet concerning, how willingly people ignore or forgive the true nature of the Abrahamic God and his accompanying legal systems.

Does it really ever occur to people that there actually is such thing as a disqualifying aspect to either? Perhaps a few (quite a few) really, but...

It is another example amongst many of the general public's, religious and not, comfort with superstition.

In public dialogue of true superstition (horoscopes and paranormal events), even when scientific first-instance disqualification is warranted, people overlook the various snags and embrace the more palatable considerations ("but there was this ONE line in the horoscope that matched my day"; "I can't think of a way he could conjure what he did, therefore he really must have done it!") out of this comfort.

By the way, I'm reading a chapter on public credulity in matters of this sort in "Unweaving the Rainbow." It's brilliant, and though I love the hard science of previous chapters, I admit I am finding metaphysical debunking more absorbing... You just know RD wants to hit the issue hard!

In any event, try treating a religious proposition like a scientific hypothesis. The first findings to falsify it, discard it in its entirety.

RD has been saying for ages how harmful credulity is. He only becomes ever righter with time.

My final word is, that in an inncocent-until-proven-guilty system already in place, Sharia is most certainly guilty-until-proven-innocent. But then we shouldn't allow it to prove its innocence because the risks are too great, the motivations and underlying metaphysics too morbid.

Sharia has already flogged, stoned, decapitated, honour-killed, and amputated. Begone with it now. Yes, now.

We won't lose anything by keeping limbs and losing a bit of our love affair with superstition.

Like always.

...............

mrjonno,

Careful there. I hold the monopoly on drivel! :D

19. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202358 by DalaiDrivel on July 1, 2008 at 11:29 am

EvidenceOnly,

"- if you don't want to learn how to fly a plane, you have decided not to become a pilot."

No- the 9/11 hijackers certainly wanted to learn how to fly a plane. Sadly, what nobody figured out in time was why they didn't bother to learn how to take off and land it...

Your other points are superb, and eminently rational.

20. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202357 by DalaiDrivel on July 1, 2008 at 11:25 am

It just occurred to me to add one justification, if any further could possibly be needed for this Equality Bill:

All of humanity is equal, but all humanisms are NOT created equal.

It is Canada Day today, and with the above statement I raise an especially extended two-fingered salute to dogmatism and superstition, and my beloved country's resistance (thus far...) to it!

21. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202345 by DalaiDrivel on July 1, 2008 at 11:06 am

Hmmm... Religions seem to me like bad unions in the workplace.

They seem to attempt to present workers with rights they shouldn't have.

i.e. "I want this job, decreeing that my physical appearance is not open to criticism nor can it disqualify me from employment."

Now to paraphrase one Douglas Adams here:

"Why not?"

"Because its not!"

The legitimacy of religious rights seems to me to rest on the legitimacy of religions themselves. Arguments for religion's utility are made constantly by the religious, although with their constant groping for evidence to support their insupportable "faith," it can be generally agreed that verifiable truth trumps considerations of utility and the benefits of illusion. Having read Sam Harris' account of Pragmatism in the End of Faith is particularly enlightening here I find.

I must say, the Supreme Courts of countries beleaguered by attempts to politicise sexual, racial and other forms of discrimination (scientific?) at the hands of the religious impress me in their resistance to the viral corruption inherent in religious influence.

There is no evidence for religious metaphysical truths, and (thankfully) therefore none for the morals derived in tandem. That a Supreme Court (or perhaps simply the government, as Johann Hari mentions) here has clearly denied criminalisation of religious discrimination warmly reminds me that a) the dubious philosophical and scientific implications of religion are not lost on its members, and b) with so many stupid people eager to jump into a nation's driver's seat, there are smart individuals already there to kick them out.

To finish esoterically....

Yes indeed, I delight in seeing another light appearing to fend off the ever-encroaching darkness. :)

22. Galaxy map hints at fractal universe

Comment #200963 by DalaiDrivel on June 28, 2008 at 4:08 pm

William Carlton,

I'll believe that. I wasn't sure to be honest who the true originator of the remark was, but we all remember Dawkins using it in his slideshow.

The point seems to become more and more poignant to me every day.

23. Galaxy map hints at fractal universe

Comment #199327 by DalaiDrivel on June 25, 2008 at 2:23 pm

And still, as RD would point out, it has never occurred to the religionists to ponder,

"Yes! The universe may indeed be stranger, more fascinating, and more wonderful than our Prophets indicated!"

The universe of the Holy Books is indeed only Earth-sized. Without science, we never could have speculated the nature of the universe at scales encompassing hundreds of millions of light years.

The breadth of our scientific knowledge, and capacity to learn more, staggers me already, and I'm so grateful that a visionary few exist who are willful enough in their curiosity to continue to attack the gaps of our understanding.

We should be clapping and cheering them on, if we can't participate. I'm reading "Unweaving the Rainbow" presently (Of course it comes recommended here!), and Dawkins makes an analogy to music, between practioners and listeners, listeners who can still appreciate the work of musicians and even be connoisseurs of their art.

How I appreciate the work of scientists!

I guess all that Dawkins et al, and we, can do is continue to prod them with the thought about religious insufficiency of information.

24. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198975 by DalaiDrivel on June 24, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Here is the very definition of blind faith.

I never would have thought to ever find proof that we (well some of us...) actually worship paedophiles of all people- and follow their example unquestionably.

Remember, if it's in your hadith, it's the inerrent example of the Prophet...

This is a prime example of what Hitchens means when he says people are capable of even more extreme actions when they believe (really believe) in God, then when they don't.

I think very few Muslims are true believers though- I mean they would not personally emulate the actions of their Prophet. They do not truly believe in the legitimacy of paedophilia, and their divine right to practice it (but, I'm open to evidence- cringe though I might when I discover it). They will simply condone this instance of child rape by setting up a partition in their minds, between legitimacy of the perfect word of the Koran and Hadith, and their personal understanding that Muhammad committed child rape, and that child rape is immoral and barbaric.

They very well may believe in the inferiority of the female sex, however, regardless of age (no partition required...) And that is barbaric beyond words...

25. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198425 by DalaiDrivel on June 23, 2008 at 9:57 pm

"Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.
And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you. "

Thank you Terabrat for the quote.

This to me is the finest comedic dissection of religion and its insanity that I have ever heard or read. It's priceless.

I never actually had any exposure to George Carlin before this, but I knew then that he was a damn astute fellow!

26. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197074 by DalaiDrivel on June 21, 2008 at 3:20 am

"Phase One in progress Dr Evil,"

Number One reports to his superior at the Discovery Institute.

"Phase Two (Explicit Promotion of Religion in Classrooms) in.... Design... stages... haha.... hahaha,,, hahahaha... hahahahaha."

27. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196411 by DalaiDrivel on June 19, 2008 at 10:42 pm

RamziD,

I recommend "Parliament of Men" by Paul Kennedy for a dispassionate account of the UN's history, as well as a brief synopsis of a possible future.

My own view is that the UN tries, it really does, but there have always been flaws.

I think the Human Rights Council need not earn disrespect for the present UN in its entirety.

As for this debacle, since religion has universal import, and every religion claims to impact the fate of every human being regardless of the faith, any person willing to confront (and subsequently embrace or reject) this claim and others, are, due to their interest and research, truly religious scholars.

Because of the universality of religion, which perhaps constitutes its very tyranny, the definition of religious scholar should be very broad indeed.

I'm not sure what the implications to this ruling are. I do not know what constitutes a religious scholar in the eyes of the UN, and what ramifications exist in the face of dissent. The UN is plenty weak and corrupt. Hopefully the rules will be frequently broken, and change forced, to uphold the very honesty our cultures desperately attempt and desperately need to retain for the survival of civilisation.

28. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195605 by DalaiDrivel on June 18, 2008 at 3:40 pm

burn0gas,

Indeed, christian evolutionists should be up in arms over this bill.

Is this an example of the terrible extent to which religion is accorded immunity in the public domain, from without, AND, more terrifyingly, from within?

Or is this the moderates' policy of tolerance in action here- do not offend fundamentalists, even in the face of destructive dogmatism and
ignorance?

If Christians are awaiting the apocalypse, it's right here.

29. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195573 by DalaiDrivel on June 18, 2008 at 1:59 pm

It's obvious to IDiots, I should think, and everyone else, that the legal scheming they've resorted to is inevitable since appealing to substance is outside the scope of Intelligent Design.

Referring to the quote provided by RonnieG,

Indeed. Teach the controversy, but do not fail to remind these open-minded children on Sundays (in Schools too?) that if they choose to remain open-minded on the subject of a scientific origin to evolution, or even, according to some, dare to choose to embrace evolution itself, they will suffer the eternal persecution of a loving God.

This will, of course, introduce the possibility of bias to their eventual conclusion.

Blackmail... A fucking joke indeed.

30. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #195557 by DalaiDrivel on June 18, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Lucas,

For a top-notch bullshit-o-meter, I'm surprised Colbert's isn't tuned to something as painfully simple as a circular argument.

Maybe he wants us to laugh at him and not with him.

Must be the case...

I hope he had a good long think about that one when he got home. For once, Bill O'Reilly has company.

Furthermore, complexity of religiosity amounts simply to redefinition. Faith is an exceedingly simple, pray-by-numbers affair when reading one's Holy Book. It really leaves no room for complexity. It is obvious that they are meant to be read literally, just as they are meant to be understood as the products of a barbaric, bygone society, with corresponding ideas and language.

Can Colbert's bullshit-o-meter pick that up perhaps?

Colbert redefined God in the Harris interview. Happily, Harris DID catch his interviewer on that one.

31. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #195219 by DalaiDrivel on June 17, 2008 at 11:57 pm

If Colbert is religious, I'm surprised he highlighted the circuity of his arguments explicitly in the Harris interview.

"What part of my loop don't you want to jump on?" he asked Harris.

Either he knows what he was talking about, and was trying to plug Harris' book, or provide his arguments for him...

Or else his foot is horrifically bloody at this point.

Don't get me wrong. I found it funny until I read MaestroTj's comment above, and thought,

"Oh dear, oh dear."

My sense is that Colbert attempts to make his muses look stupid and not himself. I really hope he is not a Catholic.

Anyways, Harris should have gone for the jugular there. Laid on a plate. No need to even be funny...



I could easily envision Colbert as a closet atheist, or just someone who doesn't care about religion really.

Atheists, in order to call themselves atheists, must consciously confront questions of philosophy, existence, and metaphysics, and likely take an interest in them.

These investigations are obviously not a prerequisite to living a happy life.

You can be a Jew or a Catholic and not think what it means. A non-practising, or cultural theist, in other words.

You can't blame some people if they recoil from such specific contemplation as "what it means" or "is it true," even in the context of their own holy books that they imbibe on a regular basis.

I like philosophy very much personally. If I didn't, I doubt I would even entertain the topic of God. I might even still uncritically go to Church out of habit.

32. Divine Impulses: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #193169 by DalaiDrivel on June 14, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Just my thoughts on the videos...

Ayaan seemed more eloquent in this dialogue than she has on other occasions to me. I was well and truly absorbed.

The Satan within? Superb! Next time, when I approach my Christian friends, I'll pronounce myself as Satan, like Matthew Perry revealing himself as Batman.

"I'm Satan!"

I like it! They probably be openly amused, maybe privately offended. They won't be much in a mood to to debate me probably, but it's true I don't mind sinking to such depths for a joke... :)

Maybe we're not selling the naughtiness of atheism enough... Seriously. Everybody feels good breaking the rules... the laws of the Creator of the Universe must be the most imposing, pertinent ones out there... hmmm... you know, it IS a real thrill breaking the biggest ones out there...

I'm sure other people have thought of it- but it's the first of it for me. Oh well... one more thing to add to my elation of being liberated from the tyranny of the celestial dictator.

I skipped over the circumcision video. I got all the information on said that I could stomach from God is Not Great.

Thank you Christopher Hitchens for your lucid writing...

33. Divine Impulses: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #193164 by DalaiDrivel on June 14, 2008 at 11:19 pm

I still haven't contributed to her security trust! Well that will change now!

thewhitepearl,

Yeah, miraculous. It's just that I caught a nasty vision of a Christian cozying up to me declaring, "See, we're more alike than you think..."

No, not those kinds of miracles Damn It!

Brrrrr!

34. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191292 by DalaiDrivel on June 10, 2008 at 2:06 pm

mrjonno,

"Human beings do however have legal and moral responsibilities when dealing with animals which should and do become stricter going up the intelligence scale."

And that's as far as it'll go I think. And it is consistent I believe with some ideas on this thread, like the concept of "personhood."

I agree with the "Distinct but Equal" line (Perhaps "Almost Equal"), am fine with a chimp being defined as a person (although it's not clear to me how "person" should be defined. Singer's definition seems somewhat dubious to me. I don't understand what temporal perception should have to do with it. Perhaps someone can enlighten me) and I see not problem with a chimpanzee having a guardian, so long as that guardian understands their unique responsibility and are deemed qualified.

I do not see a problem with dog owners being deemed guardians of their dogs for instance, or any other pet. Are they deemed so already, or are they merely owners? I do not see what is so distinctly human about the concept of "guardian" apart from subtextual implications of rearing and mental/physical development etc.

Finally, to depict a chimpanzee as human seems both disingenuous and flawed with rationalisation and little reasoning to me. Anthropologists would be supported by biologists in classifying chimpanzees as chimpanzees and not human. People are always prone to anthropomorphise lots of things (take God for instance...) but that's no excuse for wishful-thinking in this case. If the law says one thing, courts can allow exemptions (can't they? I'm no lawyer), or provide precedents, or even alter laws completely.

al-rawandi,

Hah. Funny post. Cheers.

35. Regime change in heaven

Comment #191276 by DalaiDrivel on June 10, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Hah. This was a good laugh. :)

What's true is that all nations and all peoples WILL need to be united to combat the idiocy and destructiveness of religious faith.

The war is not over. It is upon us still. And maybe at the end we could have a presidential address similiar to this, along the lines of,

"We're terribly sorry. There really IS a separation of church and state, and we know what it means. It's not actually a problem now, without the Church..."

Like Bill Maher's Religulous, ridiculing the ridiculous such as this does is a reasonable tactic to exposing people to their own ignorance and errors of judgement.

After all, it's all just SO RIDICULOUS!

36. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #191264 by DalaiDrivel on June 10, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Volguus,

I think Bill Maher just needs to write his "God is not Great", his "God Delusion," to avoid the stigma of PETA as Hitchens does his foreign policy. Maybe, anyway. As Phil Rimmer said, Hitchens has made a substantial contribution to the atheist literature, and not just with God Is Not Great.

For some a contribution of that sort can convince them to ignore their other qualms entirely, although perhaps that is a bit unethical. For others, it merely encourages them to balance their attacks with applause.

I for one hope "Religulous" can do that for Maher- level his reputation. Then he'll be lapped up and lavished here I bet. Well, perhaps not quite.:)

We're like pussycats on this site. Impossible to herd, as has been said, yet vulnerable to wooing and stroking. :)

Sam Harris said that we've got to accept allies even in unlikely quarters, and I agree with him. I've got a big problem with the ignorance of theists in general, but that doesn't deny what things we agree on.

It's illogical, of course, to dismiss Religulous as unworthy of praise or attention because Maher is apparently unworthy in his other beliefs, just as the atheists on the site can identify the illogicity of dismissing "God is not Great" due to Hitchen's stance on the Iraq War.

I personally think that Maher should be commended for the attempt, whether Religulous is as successful or effective as the God Delusion or not, and whether it really is or isn't his equivalent of the book. In other words, I am really eager to see this movie, and I am planted on the "Give Maher a Rest" side of the argument.

37. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #190836 by DalaiDrivel on June 9, 2008 at 5:15 pm

I'm in complete agreement with Soilworker. Just one recovered theist will render this film successful.

As to its being serious or hilarious- I am much more hopeful and attracted to the idea of it being the latter. This is because I am impertinent, politically incorrect, and deprecating as a person (it is true), and a theist asking me for a serious discussion is asking for trouble. I can show them how ludicrous their position is (which they will be sure to ignore) indicating their beliefs as arguments from incredulity, and design etc., and present that as my reason for treating them with such irreverence. Beliefs based on stupid arguments are stupid themselves. That maybe theists are "nice" people and deserve a sober audience perhaps for that reason is an undeserved privilege, in my view.

I entertain my theist friends, but it does not trouble me that I entertain them solely because they are my friends.

It is true. I am an impertinent, politically incorrect, disparaging elitist.

Remember, if my frequent unwillingness to seriously entertain theists disturbs anyone, that they often discuss the inadequacies and fallacies of other faiths quite eagerly, as RD noted I think, in the God Delusion.

Humour is the best medicine here I think, unsettling as it may be. As the Buckley's slogan goes, "It tastes awful, and it works."

These people have got to see the errors inherent in their faith, and in religious faith itself for themselves. My indifference towards them is probably matched by their indifference to any form of self-critique.

38. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182612 by DalaiDrivel on May 20, 2008 at 4:18 pm

The London Police can stick it up their corrupt, rights-breaching rear.

The only thing "abusive" is the treatment of individual liberty here by the London Police. Peaceful protest and the presentation of dissident opinion is not abuse. Full stop.

The only thing "insulting" is the treatment of that word when it is misapplied to a serious statement of opinion that the Church of Scientology is a cult, and any investigation of its practices by way of interviewing its former members should lend credence to that opinion, as if ANY opinion needed credence to be expressed in protest.

This is of course to be considered after the matter of the Police accepting bribes from the Church and appearing in Church propaganda is sorted out.

39. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178756 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 2:14 am

Barry Pearson,

Quite right. Wilful ignorance goes a long way in the minds of the political Christian.

It is indeed logical to discredit the opposition as a means of neutralising it. Neutralisation can take many forms in itself, legitimate and illegitimate.

As to the lack of Christian-guided morality- well as you'll no doubt agree, there are countless other religions, past and present, and humanisms from which to derive morals.

Knowing this, which I'm sure they do, they will continue to press their agenda by saying God created the universe and all life in it, including the manner in which it should be lived, and the God in question is the Christian God. How do they know this? They have faith. Faith in what? The holy book. The holy book written by who? God. Which God? The Christian God. Who is? The God that created the universe and all life in it...

And around we could go again... I know that demonstration was unnecessary for most people on here... sorry. Couldn`t resist!

Thinking like a Christian is an unnerving but useful exercise.

40. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178746 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 1:56 am

Artful:

"Not any more than your presupposing the non-existence of God makes your argument circular. "

In addition to Epeeist's lemmata, I will simply say:

Presupposing nothing leaves nothing go back to. The dismissal for obvious reasons (namely it's raising more questions than it answers), of a skyhook in investigative methodology necessitates cranes to explain phenomena.

We don't know how the universe began. We just know the statistical unlikelihood of a supernatural entity being responsible that fulfils Epeeist's lemmata. We know not what to count on.

Perhaps, if you will forgive us, we will be skeptically agnostic about the origin of the universe, and extremely dubious of God as its cause.

41. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178725 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 1:01 am

Yes, riandouglas. That too.

God (oh oh... metaphorical!!!) I'm frustrated but I'm having fun here!

42. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178722 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 12:58 am

"Epeeist, there is nothing metaphorical about the fall, except (possibly) the images, the word pictures, that were used to describe it."

Hence, metaphorical. The narratives themselves which you cite are not literal but abstract. Genesis is a metaphor for past and present society.

Jesus Christ.

43. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178719 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 12:53 am

Artful,

Reason is not reducible? We have evolved far enough so that we can counteract our evolutionary impulses. How do you think we do this?

I contend that reason does NOT point to an extra, non-material origin of the universe. I am as entitled to opinion, and as informed as you, and I have come to the opposite conclusion. Btw- who says that the universe was always rational in the Aristoltlean sense? Why do you say origin? Because you've a priori decided God as having created the universe and then having created it rationally right from the beginning, for your convenience.

The impression of design is overwhelming. Key word- impression. And I would add, overwhelming for some.

It just so happened that God existed a priori in the minds of Kepler and Newton etc., as well.

If Newton looked around him without the a priori conclusion, he would , I would submit, have noticed that for instance, everything falls, and would have sought to equate gravity without believing that God put it there.

44. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178708 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 12:30 am

Epeeist,

Nicely played.

I hope that will keep Artful thinking for a little bit.

Perhaps Jesus crucifixion was metaphor as well? Metaphor for metaphor?

45. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178698 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 12:04 am

Artful:

"There is no "general decision procedure", only a willingness to take seriously the possibility that God could have used the medium of "the word" to make Himself known to us via the operation of reason in engaging with this "word", and also awareness of the rich panoply of literary devices available to the writers whom he inspired so to make himself known."

You've said absolutely nothing of use here.

I especially love the "Make himself known via the operation of reason in engaging with this 'word'"- as if the word were a living (but of course you'd say it's living...) biological entity with which God interacts, and that reason is something that you operate... like a car, I suppose.

I suppose what you're saying in your very dodgy way, is "God makes himself known by having a bunch of gullible theists rationalise him into existence (that's the "operation of reason" bit consisting of golden oldies like "Well the world is so beautiful, God has to exist!", or, "Well I would be sad if God didn't exist, therefore he does!"), pretending they're reasonable, and writing books and pretending that he wrote them." Aha!

The reason that it is so difficult for atheists to come around to acknowledging the possibility of God speaking through ANY text, is that he's not very likely to exist to begin with.

And there's not much point speculating which holy book he speaks through, and which parts of it he intends to be interpreted literally or metaphorically, if he doesn't even exist. I think we will agree.

I suggest you consult Epeeist and his lemmata on the topic of God's existence.

God speaking through texts is therefore a hard idea to take seriously. The merits of each text and their proper individual interpretation you have thus far failed to demonstrate. I suggest you enlighten us as to why seriousness in considering God actually speaking through texts is necessary to judge the merits of each text. You already do take them seriously. I'm sure that is enough.

This is merely a hypothetical consideration for us atheists. We will imagine God speaking through texts, but will not for a moment take it seriously. Come on!

46. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178669 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Barry Pearson,

I'm not attacking IDiots' strategy. I'm attacking their ideology.

To say that the biological roots of our existence prescribe the manner in which we construct society is a logical fallacy, given the ability of humans to counteract their evolutionary impulses.

For other animals, their actions and their consequences necessarily are directed by Darwinian evolution. They have no other choice. They do not have the technology, nor the intelligence, to do otherwise.

There is no "materialistic worldview" to evolution. Quite plainly, it describes how humans came to exist in our present form. How we proceed, now that we have grasped evolution and live lives far beyond the means of our wild cousins, is up to us. Evolution is a fact, just, as RD described with Lawrence Krauss, a table being a table is a fact, and IDiots' attempt to disprove it because they deem that if it were true, it would have a variety of insane social consequences, is in itself insane. We are conscious, and by that definition we are aware of our darwinian impulses. We are the dominant species on Earth, and we are not subject to evolution by natural selection any longer. We no longer adapt ourselves to environments, and compete for survival, and we have not entertained the "materialistic worldview" for some time. That we would do so upon acknowledging evolutin IS a logical fallacy, and it is this illogicity demonstrated by IDiots to which I was previously referring.

But do keep in mind I am not educated in this subject, and it is best to seek a definitive explanation of biological evolution and its assumed social ramifications elsewhere!

47. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178454 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 1:00 pm

JernJane,

Indeed. A rational person knows there is no need to misinterpret for the sake of truth, other than for the sake of manufactured truths, or for the sake of continuing our personal opposition to something.

God tells us he created the Earth in six days, and then gives all the evidence to the contrary. God is a prick.

We would have to misinterpret, wouldn't we?

I should have credited you with that cut-and-paste. I am sorry. But thank you.

82abhilash:

I understand where you are coming from now. Thanks for clearing that up.

48. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178424 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 11:47 am

"I'm a passionate Darwinian in the academic sense (...), yet I am a passionate Anti-Darwinian when it comes to human social and political affairs."

This is what I see lying, illogical IDiots as attacking the most, in order to portray Dawkins as a hypocrite.

82abhilash:

"The world filled with wonder would not need any real magic. Conjuring tricks are enough. If the trick is good enough we will appreciate it even after we find out how the trick is done."

Ths is a confusing statement. The world, filled with wonder, does indeed not need any real magic- nor conjuring tricks. Why would you then say that conjuring tricks are enough?

I hesitate to label a trick as "good." A trick is a deception. The creationist deception we already understand, as a prolonged trick played by humans on humans, valuing dogma and ignorance over truth and curiosity, long past its credibility sell-by date (which for some people, predated Darwin).

What are you getting at in the first two paragraphs of your post? This is not clear.

Intelligence does NOT result from non-intelligence, at least not immediately. To find non-intelligence I'm not sure if you would have to rewind back to our origins in bacteria or not. The non-inteligent, abstract idea of evolution is the means, the cause, but not a precursor. Human intelligence evolved, result from, less sophisticated ape intelligence. All animals possess a degree of intelligence, so to say we resulted from non-intelligence in strictly true, but only in a specific, limited and distant sense. :)

49. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178415 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 11:25 am

DingoDave:

"Wankerism," yes. I thought "wankerness" was wrong but left it because an alternative did not occur to me.

Cheers!

50. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178223 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 12:22 am

DingoDave,

Wanker indeed.

Thank you. Your collection of quotes was a very conflicting mix of entertainment, and infuriation at the same time, which stems from Boteach's wankerness...

My favourites are the perceived "purpose" of evolution as being species propagation (try, none at all...), therefore negating sex what with artificial insemination available, and the claim that Dawkin's "belief" in time is synononymous with belif in God, that it is in fact a belief system...

Beluef in time as a humanism. There's a new one...