1. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177458 by waxwings on May 9, 2008 at 6:06 am

this post needs side-by-side comparison videos.

2. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164886 by waxwings on April 20, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Looks to me like Shermer and Dawkins are getting trolled.

3. Stem cell breakthrough

Comment #90488 by waxwings on November 25, 2007 at 9:57 am

I'm surprised Richard hasn't commented on this excellent breakthrough and the attendant, odious political ramifications.

4. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #73967 by waxwings on September 27, 2007 at 12:03 am

It's not a very good picture, is it?

5. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #72018 by waxwings on September 20, 2007 at 6:42 am

The only thing about this 'smackdown' that's confused me is this: given Dawkins commanding destruction of Collins, why does 'Wired' write "Decision: God only knows" at the bottom?

That vote wasn't even close.

6. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68682 by waxwings on September 8, 2007 at 6:01 am

I read Dawkins book after reading many essays and articles he'd written. I liked his style and I found his arguments compelling, and it's always enjoyable to read a compelling argument.

These apologists have yet to hook me with a good argument, so they're certainly not going to rope me into reading a whole book of trash. Just as a compelling argument is fun to read, a bad argument that's been refuted for at least two centuries is not.

7. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68340 by waxwings on September 6, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Separating a person from his beliefs is not always easy, especially a belief system like religion that has such a pervasive influence over how one thinks and interacts with others.

Nevertheless, if the criticism is valid, perhaps these apologists should stop crying foul and actually pay attention.

That guy very seriously misrepresented Prof. Dawkins' views. Shameful.

8. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68197 by waxwings on September 6, 2007 at 10:28 am

When defending the imaginary, one often must choose an imaginary opponent. Straw men are critical to apologetics for this reason.

9. Bible Belter

Comment #68191 by waxwings on September 6, 2007 at 10:19 am

What a beautifully written review. I submit this as exhibit 'A' to all those would like to diminish Prof. Dawkins writing ability in comparison to Hitchens' own. They may not have the same voice, but I submit that neither is superior to the other in composition.

Always a pleasure to read your stuff, Richard.

10. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65622 by waxwings on August 25, 2007 at 6:55 am

Not to take Bizarro Dawkins' troll bait or anything, but some of this talk of 'abstinence only' education reminded me of a piece I heard on NPR recently; apparently something like half the HIV transmission in Africa is from one spouse to the other, i.e. between married people. You gotta wonder how these moronic 'abstinence only' retards plan to deal with that.

11. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65039 by waxwings on August 22, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Seriously guys, I think Bizarro Dawkins is just acting retarded to get reactions. I mean look at the name.

12. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64971 by waxwings on August 22, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Is Bizarro Dawkins joking? Sorry, but Poe's Law makes it nearly impossible to distinguish a parody of apologetics from the real thing.

13. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63447 by waxwings on August 14, 2007 at 11:26 am

Kind of funny how darwin2 uses the same tiresome argument that Dawkins addresses at length in both The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker.

He seems to think he's holding some kind of trump card, even though pretty much anyone who knows anything about evolution can easily destroy that childish argument from design.

14. Interview with Richard Dawkins on 'The Selfish Gene'

Comment #60961 by waxwings on August 3, 2007 at 7:20 am

LDMiller, pity you weren't on hand to call in to the Dawkins interview and mention that.

I'd be interested to learn more about these breeding programs though my immediate reaction was 1) there couldn't have been a great deal of time for the selection to take effect and 2) I would imagine that, although such 'breeding farms' existed, they were not widespread enough for their effects to alter the entire slave population (or surely we'd have heard more about them) and 3) post slavery abandonment of such programs would have quickly minimized any of the effects bred into the affected people.

Anyone have any more information on this stuff? I could find shockingly little on this topic. One would think that such programs, horrible as they were, would provide unique opportunities for scientists.

15. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60779 by waxwings on August 2, 2007 at 8:29 pm

"no one would buy it served cold like that, I bet anything."

Haha, well said, sir.

16. Come Out!

Comment #59501 by waxwings on July 29, 2007 at 9:12 am

Anarchy is an 'A' encircled. I suppose some morons might mistake the meaning, just as they did when a man was recently hassled by his neighborhood association for flying the U.S. flag upside down, but sooner or later you have to just stop worrying about what incredibly stupid people think. My own feeling is that much of the troubles currently facing the U.S. are directly attributable to pandering to retards.

I really like this design. The metaphor is well thought out and appropriate.

17. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56304 by waxwings on July 14, 2007 at 8:56 pm

Lacking good arguments, the religious apologists just repeat bad ones ad nauseam. It would be a mistake to think this doesn't convince people. If Sam's repetitious, so much the better.

18. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #54402 by waxwings on July 6, 2007 at 10:11 pm

I don't think it can be overstated that when Dawkins or Harris (or even Dennett) speak of 'religion', they often use two different definitions depending on context. I do not imagine than any of these guys, or for that matter anyone here, would find any disagreement about religion so long as it was understood which meaning was in use.

In one context, 'religion' is a very broad term. It seems to encompass a set of beliefs intended to give some kind of meaning or purpose to life, and to provide a moral framework. By this vague definition, there's not anything objectionable about religion per se.

In the other context, the one which is used far more often, 'religion' refers to the kind of dogmatic, supernatural, faith based systems which cannot by edict, be questioned or modified. These kinds of religions are dangerous and, to use Dennett's term, toxic.

19. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52338 by waxwings on June 26, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Odd to see such a blend of lucid rationalism and neocon insanity in this piece. The Sunni insurgency is 'the soft name for al qaida' now?

It appears from this that we may count Christopher Hitchens among the recently lamented forty percent of Americans still mistakenly under the impression that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11.

20. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52334 by waxwings on June 26, 2007 at 7:08 pm

What Harris really needs to do is dig up some 'learned treatise' on witchcraft and replace all the references to 'witches' and 'magic' with 'god' and 'religion' and see how similar they are to these apologists.

Better still, take excerpts from both articles on religion and witchcraft, mix up the words, and see if anyone can even tell which is which.

21. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51112 by waxwings on June 21, 2007 at 2:01 pm

I feel that Prof. Dawkins should respond to this article, personally.

22. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51110 by waxwings on June 21, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Count on the religious apologist to introduce the chilling specter of totalitarianism, torture, and oppression into any critical discussion about religion.

I know of no advocate of reasoned discourse who suggest the sort of things this fellow insinuates, yet I am well familiar with the rich historical precedent of them offered by religion. And I cannot help but notice that the very ideas of violence, totalitarianism and oppression originated not from Dawkins, but the good 'Cardinal'.

Did anyone else detect the threatening tone of this piece? The language, the word choice, the structure all seemed to carry an underlying message, almost a challenge: just try it, atheists, and see what kind of fight you're in for. Let's not pause on the path to violence for a civilized discussion.

What a pity religiosity is so appealing to the aggressive, authoritarian sorts who peer at the world through glasses tinted with intense hostility and distrust for their fellow men.

23. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #50849 by waxwings on June 20, 2007 at 7:42 am

The calls for religious moderation, once again, distort reality. Less than half of American Christians believe in hell?

Not according to this poll: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173838,00.html

"What about the dark side? Almost three-quarters of Americans (74 percent) say they believe in hell and two-thirds in the devil (67 percent)."

Or this poll: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359 , where 69% of respondents believe in Hell.

What the fuck about the reality of religious belief makes it so difficult for these self-described 'moderates' to accept?

24. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #50847 by waxwings on June 20, 2007 at 7:30 am

Gee, how many ways can the interviewer rephrase the same question?

25. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50842 by waxwings on June 20, 2007 at 7:18 am

"5. Comment #50759 by WorldCitizen on June 19, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Can someone please post this in a format that works? I have a Mac and although I normally have no problem viewing Windows Media files, this one doesn't load. Thanks."

Microsoft has discontinued Windows Media support for the Mac, but there is an excellent third party solution that works with your QuickTime software called "Flip4Mac WMV". You can download it at: http://www.flip4mac.com/download.htm

Heh, always enjoyable to hear Prof. Dawkins lay the smack down on ignorance.

26. The Great Mutator

Comment #49714 by waxwings on June 13, 2007 at 5:46 am

That guy wrote another book after the humiliation in Dover?

He's like a turd that won't flush. Amazing.

27. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49566 by waxwings on June 12, 2007 at 11:56 am

PWNED

28. Religion - our maelstrom of ignorance

Comment #49400 by waxwings on June 11, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Those results are an embarrassment. I am so ashamed to be an American citizen.

29. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46605 by waxwings on May 31, 2007 at 7:30 pm

Wow, what a huge crock of shit.

30. Jerry Falwell Deconverted on Deathbed!

Comment #44642 by waxwings on May 25, 2007 at 6:11 am

Converted on his deathbed.

LOL

Good one, Dawkins.

31. Importing a slave class

Comment #44641 by waxwings on May 25, 2007 at 6:07 am

No one here is forcing Mexicans to cross the border illegally and take jobs, which, however poor paying, are better than they can get in Mexico. They're crossing all by themselves.

This is not to say I support anyone's right to exploit human beings because they're not legal citizens, mind you. The point is that the situation, as usual, is a bit more complicated than Ann Coulter's brutish, idiotic comparison of poor people who want to improve their lot in life by moving, to murderers and rapists.

Odd how horseface seems to think that only Democrats employ illegal immigrants as a source of cheap labor, btw.

32. Woman - Blame devil for infant in microwave

Comment #44632 by waxwings on May 25, 2007 at 5:58 am

Yay Texas! My home state! We've got the best fundamentalist wackos this side of the Euphrates.

33. Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Comment #44631 by waxwings on May 25, 2007 at 5:56 am

That's hate speech?

34. The Conversion of the Casual Evolutionist - You can't spell love without evolve

Comment #44030 by waxwings on May 23, 2007 at 7:44 am

You know, having just re-read this piece, I now not only think the author's understanding of evolution is not nearly so good as he imagines, I also think this whole piece is a very trite, poorly written bit of fluff.

I'm surprised so many of the people here seem to think it was good.

35. The Conversion of the Casual Evolutionist - You can't spell love without evolve

Comment #44021 by waxwings on May 23, 2007 at 7:38 am

For having had his eyes opened, the author still seems to have a weak grasp of the myriad ways in which selection can act. This is probably because he read 'The God Delusion' instead of one of Dawkins' other (and better) books on evolution.

He ought to try 'The Blind Watchmaker' since he seems a bit confused by the concepts.

36. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43640 by waxwings on May 22, 2007 at 7:01 am

'Liberal bias' in the media is one of those Orwellian terms right wing nut jobs like to use in their efforts to demonstrate that up is down, left is right, good is bad, or any other perversion of common sense. By 'liberal bias', what they mean is 'reporting news that might reflect unfavorably on right wing politicians and programs.' Liberal bias is in effect whenever war casualties, contractor fraud, criminal behavior on the part of Republican politicians, etc, are reported.

Note that the factual inaccuracy of the reporting is not a factor in 'liberal bias'; quite the opposite, it's factual accuracy that produces the 'bias' that tends to make liars and hypocrites look bad. As a result, liberal bias is rampant in every respected news outlet and totally absent from the one news outlet that gets no respect: Fox.

37. Cult leader sparks Sikh riots with 'guru' stunt

Comment #43369 by waxwings on May 21, 2007 at 7:32 am

A traditional kirpan:

scary knife

Looks a bit longer than an inch and a bit sharper than a ball point pen to me.

38. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42588 by waxwings on May 18, 2007 at 1:45 pm

More brazen idiocy, or as it is more popularly known, 'apologetics'.

Favorite idiotic statement: "If no religion had ever caused men to live virtuously and flourish, religion would have disappeared ages ago." This is analogous to saying: "If the common cold never improved anyone's health, it would have disappeared long ago."

Never mind for a moment that religion does, quite obviously, benefit a great many people (albeit in rather sleazy, unscrupulous, power hungry ways). The idea that religion has to have some benefit to us to still be around is completely absurd and can only emerge as the product of the sort of idiotic narrow minded thinking that is characterized precisely by--wait for it--religion.

39. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #41991 by waxwings on May 17, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Best comment ever:

"Uh, no. That's what UN-believers do. Obviously, 'Believers' BELIEVE those words, just as the speaker (another believer) does. How this is not obvious to ANYONE, even a religious pawn like Tanenbaum, is incredible. Converstaion with people like this is ,unfortunately, a non-starter, when common sense can so readily be tossed out the window before we even begin..."

40. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #41988 by waxwings on May 17, 2007 at 12:09 pm

"But as an observant Jew myself, who also happens to be involved in the movement for women's meaningful participation and leadership in Orthodox Judaism"

I had to stop reading here for fear she was going to present an argument that characterizing religion as misogynistic is out of line.

41. Unintelligent Design

Comment #39868 by waxwings on May 12, 2007 at 6:39 am

I got as far as this: "No society has ever endured more than a few generations without an unquestioningly true, but rationally inscrutable moral foundation." before stopping.

Rationally inscrutable? Unquestioningly true? It seems to me that the best morals mankind has to offer are both very rational and the product of a great deal of questioning.

Why do people continue to cling to the notion that morality, whatever it is, must be the result of some 'inscrutable' myth? What's so inscrutable about the obvious benefits of cooperative existence? What's so unquestionable about evolutionary forces driving the emergence of complex societies?

Is anyone else sick to death of this bullshit about morals somehow being indirect conflict with reason, rather than the products of it?

42. Lou Dobbs Interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #37550 by waxwings on May 4, 2007 at 10:07 pm

Hitchens is much more articulate when he's sober.

43. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37096 by waxwings on May 3, 2007 at 11:22 am

Behe was so thoroughly pwned byt the ACLU lawyers and the judge in Dover, PA, that he has zero remaining credibility, IMHO. Look for his upcoming book to flop and flop hard.

44. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36495 by waxwings on May 1, 2007 at 10:32 am

Man, Hitchens was tanked.

I see some comments here lamenting this fact because it reflect poorly on the atheist community. My fellow atheists would do well to remind themselves that there's nothing about atheism that says you can't be a drunk, a neocon, or a complete asshole for that matter.

It might also do well to remember that 'The Daily Show' is a comedy show. Who cares if Hitchens got blitzed in the green room before his joke interview with Jon Stewart?

Lighten up people.

45. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36455 by waxwings on May 1, 2007 at 7:28 am

Hitchens looked wasted in that clip. Assuming that's the case, he's not one of those fortunate people who is made more interesting by being drunk.

46. Are You There, God? It's Me, Hitchens

Comment #36309 by waxwings on April 30, 2007 at 10:20 pm

Man, I like Hitchens, but he's been drinking that right wing kool aid and he sounds almost as detached from reality as a creationist when he discusses Iraq.

I'm also quite confident that he will be shown to be wrong about future historians, and that our descendants will look back upon our warlike ways as barbaric tribalism.

47. Fighting Words: A wartime lexicon

Comment #35169 by waxwings on April 26, 2007 at 1:03 pm

"But back to Hitchen's -- He was once a leftist but now he's matured into a reasoning individual. Jolly good, what?"

The implication here is presumably that 'leftist' ideas like, say, funding stem cell research are immature and/or unreasonable. You would do well to take a 'mature', 'reasoned' step by examining the effect of withholding funding for stem cell research more carefully.

Most scientific facilities, especially those at the university level, receive at least some public funding. If a lab, a staff member, a test tube, or any other resource is paid for in any part by government funding, then it cannot be used at all for certain kinds of stem cell research. The same labs that are available for any other avenues of study are therefore withheld from those doing research on stem cells. The same labs that other scientists get to share the costs of must be paid for in full by any scientists doing stem cell research. The prohibition on stem cell funding is extremely and disproportionately destructive to scientific research.

48. Fighting Words: A wartime lexicon

Comment #35167 by waxwings on April 26, 2007 at 12:55 pm

"It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted."

ROFLMAO. You gotta appreciate the man's wit. I cannot say I disagreed with a single word of it.

49. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #34821 by waxwings on April 25, 2007 at 11:19 am

Sullivan is an articulate, intelligent fellow who happens to have just had his ass handed to him in a debate. This should come as no surprise when one party agrees to represent a defenseless position and we should not let Sullivan's failure to win an unwinnable debate reflect poorly upon him.

What was particularly interesting was how thorough Harris's victory was. He didn't just present arguments with greater logical merit, which is something a child could manage when it comes to this particular topic. He also won on his style and rhetorical skill. Sam's arguments didn't just have the truth on their side, they had the ring of truth.

50. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34043 by waxwings on April 23, 2007 at 5:23 am

This shit is completely idiotic.