1. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230389 by Kinzuakid on August 14, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Troll Sock Puppet.

I'd love to say we're winning the battle for the minds, but the statistics tell a woeful tale here in the US.

2. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208360 by Kinzuakid on July 10, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Simple, but I think every little bit helps...


"Dear President Bruininks,

Regarding the recent kerfuffle related to an entry posted by Dr. Myers on his blog "Pharyngula"-

I must raise my voice in support of Dr. Myers. While I am certain his blog has raised challenging questions of late for the university, it bothers me to think a group would seek to silence Dr. Myers for what amounts to simple ridicule. His contributions to the spread of critical thought and science in particular are significant. This is just one more example of irrationality being held up for scrutiny. Dr. Myers' efforts reflect positively on The University of Minnesota and I urge you to rebuff those who would seek to intimidate either the university or Dr. Myers."

3. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #99919 by Kinzuakid on December 17, 2007 at 8:58 pm

thelivingbrain (and all others): I am happy to torrent the file and seed it. I am downloading the 1080p version now and can post the .torrent file or send it on request.

4. Was religion beneficial to the development of society? Is it now?

Comment #82017 by Kinzuakid on October 25, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Quite the contrary: there is no more powerful retardant to societal progress than religion.

The answer to the latter proposition (is it now?) is self evident- the "developing" world is littered with the shells of once great peoples now enslaved by their religions, committed to servitude and the regular war. No simpler rebuttal could be found than "let's take out the atlas and look for some examples".

As for the past, a variation on Hitchens' challenge theme is in order: name me a societal benefit from religion, if you can find any benefit at all, that could NOT have arisen from the secular. Remind your opponent to avoid mistaking "in spite of" religion with "because of" religion.

A core drawback to society is that religion makes its members content with ignorance. How much more could we as a species have accomplished without the vast funneling of resources (physical and intellectual) to religious causes over the centuries? Even a microscopically small fraction of that capital could have made the machine age arrive centuries earlier. We have repeatedly survived and improved our lot in the face of religious opposition, improvements in our condition we take for granted daily. Benefit from religion? The onus is on the religious, not the agnostic or athiest.

5. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #82004 by Kinzuakid on October 25, 2007 at 2:16 pm

The simple response:
The extremists define the moderates, since after all the term "moderate" is relative only to the absolute limit. The only difference between those who hold the extremes and those in the middle is their willingness to act, not in their approval of the cause. This is evident through the sheer number of polls in so called moderate nation states where the believers approve of barbarism but would reportedly never engage in such behavior themselves. I make no such distinction between the end and the middle, both are guilty while none will act to counter.

But turn it back on them:
If we take the extreme view of a philosophy to be "violent" the moderate view is not "non-violent" but simply less violent. Notice how the moderate person does not outright repudiate the extremist, only looking on with some disdain. The views of the extremist are still valid to the moderate and simply distasteful in some sense (hence the hedging by claiming moderation). What prevents the moderate from acting to counter or escalate the violence (and thus become non-moderate)? Doubt? Fear? The "not a true believer" cop out? Any answer is an indictment of the middle. If it were a ground to be held with some cause it would be the extreme, and thus begin anew with the question: if the extreme is not in the "right", how is less of it any more correct?

Sorry, brevity is not my strong suit.