1. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #194993 by cafeeine on June 17, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Don't ignore the audience people reach through shows like Stewart's and Colbert's. Miller has commented how amazed he was that nothing had convinced his students that his work on the Dover trial was important than when it was mentioned on the Daily Show. Apparently its what a segment of the audience is watching and you have to go there if you want to reach it. Dawkins did it, Behe did it, and so now Miller (whom if I'm not mistaken this was the second time on the show...)

2. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194343 by cafeeine on June 16, 2008 at 4:00 pm

The issue will probably come up again with the movie opening in Canada, so I'll do the dirty deed.

*ahem*

So Dan Brown was ...Expelled from the Vatican?

3. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189718 by cafeeine on June 7, 2008 at 3:36 am

The main unaddressed argument permeating this discussion is I think that organizing, speaking out, promoting a view (or its religious synonym 'evangelizing') are all things that solely characterize religion. If a bunch of atheists decide to hold a bingo night, they are not performing a religious activity just because churches have been doing it for years.

Gathering together is a social calling, not a religious one. Talking about the positions one holds is not a characteristic of the religious. Recognizing that because if a single position we hold, the lack of belief in gods, we are treated as a single front by the religious and therefore we should discuss this as a group is also not forming a religion.

This is the same kind of brouhaha that I recall this Christmas, when pr. Dawkins went to church to enjoy the music. Religion is characterized by its own tenets and beliefs, its exclusive services. not the social activities it has co-opted, and forming atheist groups is no more a religious activity then singing is.

4. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178790 by cafeeine on May 12, 2008 at 4:01 am

Sleep of Reason

I attempted to elaborate on the speaker's views on the issue that was questioned, neither espouse nor contradict them.

5. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178743 by cafeeine on May 12, 2008 at 1:48 am

I do not disagree with all definitions presented, however the speaker was talking about 'so-called muslim immigrants' by which I understood that he meant that all immigrants are being tarred with the muslim brush even in the cases they happen to be atheists. I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't offer an opinion on that but its clear to me what her claim was. Ayan Hirsi Ali is obviously not a muslim but the speaker claimed that immigrants just like her may be being included into the 'muslim immigrant block' for the purposes of the film maker.

6. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178699 by cafeeine on May 12, 2008 at 12:05 am

What the speakers were claiming was that immigrants from Muslim countries, who come from muslim backgrounds are not necessarily part of the 'political Islam movement'. Ayan Hirsi Ali would be an example of what the speaker meant of an atheist muslim.

While I agree that lumping all islamic country immigrants into a single unit is wrong and possibly ghetto-forming, we shouldn't ignore that along with the atheists and the moderates, extremists also will arrive, and this is cause for concern.

7. A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis

Comment #177003 by cafeeine on May 8, 2008 at 12:58 pm

After listening to this again since it came out, I am really in awe of how the Sciam speaker managed to maintain as much cool as he did when he was asking the question about why they pinned the holocaust on Darwin. I could almost hear the guy gripping the edge of the table.

8. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #174205 by cafeeine on May 1, 2008 at 9:42 pm

A quite enjoyable interview/question session. I liked the fact that Good mentioned most of Dawkins' books rather then just TGD which has been the norm in my experience (of course it might be that most of the post-TGD stuff I interviews I have seen were part of the TGD book promotion)

I enjoy how some of these callers appear so eager and certain of their views to educate prof. Dawkins, and end up using the same trite old arguments. It shows that not only have they not looked to see if the argument had been refuted, but that if such a simplistic argument would be a problem for Dawkins, none of his detractors would have used it so far.

9. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167089 by cafeeine on April 23, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Reply to 30. Comment #167015 by Verylee on April 23, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Well if you go to the contemporary atheists page
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/whoswhocontemporary.html
You can see that the 'preacher' is in fact a picture of Richard Dawkins, so if anything it would be the other way around!

10. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161173 by cafeeine on April 15, 2008 at 2:07 am

In response to No 8, mrgoodjob

In regards to the Stalin, Hitler et al, I have long been wondering if the whole repetition of the question is along the lines of "if you repeat a lie long enough..." slowly making the connection between atheism and totalitarianism they want to push regardless of the return argument. To the listener who has been told that atheists are a shade eviler than beelzebub, the argument that Stalin did not commit his actions due to atheism does not hold water. It may be that what is being wrought is guilt through repetitious association.