1. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41668 by Manfred on May 16, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Thanks Baron
I sent the link.

2. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41658 by Manfred on May 16, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Hitchens is at it again:
http://www.slate.com/id/2166337/

3. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41518 by Manfred on May 16, 2007 at 8:21 am

From the Washington Post "On Faith" panel by Susan Jacoby:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/05/predictably_obituary_writers_a.html

The Ill Truth About Falwell

Predictably, obituary writers are already portraying the Reverend Jerry Falwell as a more respectable figure than he was. Ah, what a beautiful tradition it is to speak no ill of the dead!

In the online edition of The New York Times, writer Peter Applebome observes that Falwell was "demonized on the left in much the same way Senator Edward M. Kennedy or Jane Fonda were on the right." The word "demonized" suggests that the well-meaning Falwell was treated unfairly by the left and that there ought to be a more balanced view of his so-called achievements.

How do you demonize a man who declared that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were evidence of God's judgment on a nation corrupted by civil libertarians and advocates of abortion and gay rights? Falwell demonized himself and followed up his sincere vitriol with the usual insincere public relations apology.

Jerry Falwell, by mobilizing the religious Right as a force for reactionary politics, played a vital long-term role in every retrograde social trend of the past thirty years. He and his Christian soldiers put George W. Bush in the White House.

This man's legacy is one of bigotry, xenophobia, anti-modernism, and utter stupidity. No doubt his funeral will be well-attended.

4. The kiss that brought immorality debate to a head

Comment #37890 by Manfred on May 6, 2007 at 6:11 am

I think there are two issues here. Muslims who live in Western countries ought to follow the laws of that country. As for their culture, they can keep it as long as it is not offensive to the host country's culture. Covering your face is not culturally acceptable in West. Thieves cover their faces. People rightly become suspicious of you. At the very least it is impolite to the host culture to cover your face and show up in public.

Wearing the head scarves though is not that big of a deal I guess, as long as it does not interfere with the woman's work and rights.

The other issue is in the Muslim countries (like Iran) where the law is that you have to cover your hair (not face in Iran's case). Here the law is oppressive. Not all women want to wear the head scarf, but they are forced to and will be punished if they don't.

The bigger problem in my opinion is that Muslim men and devout Muslim women think and believe that any woman who does not follow the strict Islamic dress code is morally corrupt and corrupts others.

I have lived in Iran, and I never had any problem with women who want to cover themselves from head to toe. It is thier life, none of my business. The problem is that they wouldn't leave me or women who think like me alone until they force their beliefs on us.

As a historical note, in Iran around 70 years ago, when Iran was still a kingdom, the king under the influence of Ataturk in Turkey, decided to westernize the country and banned the hijab. Police on horsebacks used to patrol the streets and pull off the sarves from women's heads (it happened to my grandmother). Well, this did not go well in a deeply religious culture. Many families decided that their daughters should not go out at all. It was not a very good experience.
After the ban was lifted several years later, then those who wanted to cover themselves did so, and those who didn't, went out normally. Until the revolution in 79 of course.

Humans are very reactionary. Ban something and they find a way to get around it.

My problem is not as much with the scarves of Muslim women but with the thinking that comes with it usually, that they think they are morally superior to other women and those who don't cover themselves according to rules of Islam are corrupt.

5. The kiss that brought immorality debate to a head

Comment #37708 by Manfred on May 5, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Comment #37599 by Robert Maynard : "I would think the most prudent thing to do, if I were an atheist in an essentially theocratic country, would be to get the fuck out of there as quickly as possible, rather than strive for social upheaval. One can call that cowardice, but it's also sensible!"

Yup!
That is exactly what I did. And I don't consider it cowardice. I call it survival!
There is not much one can do, really. Unless of course you want your life to be destroyed.

And Lawrence, the reformist predecessor of this madman, could not do much because the fundamentalist establishment has the hold on real power in Iran. And Ahmadinejad has been a memeber of the Revolutionary Guard, and is a fundamentalist. So in that sense the coup has already happened.

Really, I think people instead of being sick, are just used to these absurdities. You laugh and go on with your life. From time to time some groups, ususally university students, try to raise their voices, but that dies out too.

I for one am not very hopeful.

6. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35566 by Manfred on April 27, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Oh, and I have studied physics in Boston.

7. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35557 by Manfred on April 27, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Rooz
No way that you are the only Iranian atheist in SD. I have few Iranian friends in the US who are either atheists or agnostics.
Not everyone qustions the God hypothesis. People just accept it out of tradition or respect for family members, if nothing else.
My father is an atheist and my mother is so very mildly religious and had no problem in her children's lack of beleif. As for me, I cannot remember believing at anytime, except for couple of times that I struggled with some questions and the answers always ended up in non-belief.

8. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35526 by Manfred on April 27, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Rooz
I came to the US when I was 24 for graduate school (I am 32 now). I was in Iran when the reform movement started and yes, my family still live in Iran. Plus there are lots of news sources online where you can read about home.

I think people have become completely indifferent after the failure of reformists. Granted, the economic situation is terrible and they are trying to make the ends meet. Add to that all the incompetence and mismanagements. But the regime was never one to encourage public happiness. They want to cloak eveything with a religious veil, and I am not only talking about women's dress here.

The harrasment of the youth has always been there. Its intensity just oscillates up and down. And people just shut up and put up. I don't blame them. I did the same until I left. There is almost nothing one can do without conequences. The fact that I am brought up in a non-religious family did not matter much. In public, you have to pretend to believe even if you don't. We somehow knew we shouldn't talk. I don't remember my parents even telling me how to behave outside our home. I just knew there are things that I should never utter, otherwise my family and I will be in trouble. It becomes quite normal actually. You don't even see the absurdity. It hit me hard though when I left and looked at it from outside.

Although that is only me. I know many Iranians living abroad who still don't think the root of the problem is religion and theocracy and still want a solution where Islam and democracy coexist. I do not think that concoction is possible to brew.

Some say they harras people to distract them from the economy or their disaster of foreign policy or the nuclear issue... who knows. Maybe. Or maybe they just think that's their divine duty.
A top cleric just said today that loose dress code for women is worse than robbery and murder!
And source of all moral decay. Well, I don't think this "man of God" does not believe what he says. I think the biggest part of the problem is in the religious mindset which is against free thought.

9. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35497 by Manfred on April 27, 2007 at 11:31 am

Comment #35482 by Bonzai

"I am not an expert in Iran, but I have a feeling that a lot of reforms in the developing countries are unsuccessful because the reformers usually come from highter socio economical strata and they often neglect bread and butter issues such as economical well being and security for the masses."

The problem in Iran was that the reformist did not even talk about economic problems. An overwhelming majority voted for them and gave them the control of the government and the parliament and city councils for 8 years just on their platform of political freedoms and civil society. I am not denying that they should have paid more attention to people's econimic grievances even if that was not a part of their campaign. This was probably one of the reasons that this madman is now president. His campaign was only on economic issues (not that he delivered).

In my opinion, the reformeists' problem was that more freedom (press, speech, political activity,...) sooner or later started questioning the religious red lines which by the way are the law of land. So if you want to stick to the law, you'll hit the legal barriers. Iranian reformists, like the majority, are religious. Only, they are moderates. But even they do not dare to raise the issue of separation of religion and State. They wanted to make compromises with the hardline religious establishment but it never worked beacause of the inherent inflexibility of the religious mind, on both sides.

Plus the political system in Iran is so complicated with so many religious organizations who have enormous political and media power, that the hardliners just knew how to exploit people's beliefs and economic plight.

10. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35477 by Manfred on April 27, 2007 at 9:49 am

Gee, CDG I would have never thought like that. Paranoid, I am not.

You ask: "Are there enough sparks in Iran to create a flame???"

It depends on what you mean by flame. If you are hoping to see a revolt, I don't think so and
I do not wish it on anyone. We have had our fair share of revolution and see what happenned to us.

If you mean a gradual, steady reform for equal rights of women in particular and human rights in general; there were high hopes around 9 years ago, when we elected a president who although was a cleric but talked about civil society and reform and political freedoms. We were ecstatic and women who were one of his biggest supporters had high hopes. The whole thing collapsed after a few years, the reform movement almost died, and the only lesson I learned was that the system is so inflexible, it is impossible to reform it.
And I attirbute that in large part to the system being a religious one. There are definitely other social/political/cultural forces in play too; but when instead of civil law you have the 'Sharia', and the whole foundation of the political system is based on religion, there is little you can do to reform it.

In additon, there is no real organization, real political party, real tolerant opposition and so on. Ordinary people just want to have a descent life without oprression of course, but in most part I don't think they want to see religion out of the public.

There are some courageous people who try to work inside the system and bring about change and kudos to them, but personally I think these efforts only work if the mindsets change.

So, no I don't see any spark. At least not big enough to bring about any wide spread change as I said before.

11. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35458 by Manfred on April 27, 2007 at 8:16 am

Incidentally, have you seen this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6584661.stm

It is interesting to me, becasue *all* buses and metro cars in Tehran are segregated this way. The back of the bus belongs to women and is usually much smaller.

Similarities never end...

12. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35451 by Manfred on April 27, 2007 at 7:51 am

Philip
No need for apologies my friend. I do appreciate your sentiments and hopeful attitude.

An I am sorry for my dark tone, I just don't see any place for a person like myself in my own country and that disappoints me.

Who knows, maybe you are right. Maybe change comes at some point. Hopefully it comes from inside, in an enlightened form. Not in an explosive one that destroys good and bad together.

13. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35430 by Manfred on April 27, 2007 at 6:14 am

Philip1978
I wish I could be as optimistic as you. But I have seen change in the backwards direction and it has made me quite cynical. The absurdities are so great and numerous in a theocracy that boggles the mind sometimes. And the really sad thing is that people get used to it. Someone once said that it is as if you are taken hostage and feel attached to your kidnappers just to survive. Like the Stockholm Syndrom.

Luthien
Isn't it interesting that all systems based on religion, no matter what the details of the particular religion are, are so much like each other?
Many of the Christian Right fundamentalists in the US also remind me constantly of their Iranian Muslim counterpart.

And I love your ID Pic too :)

14. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35410 by Manfred on April 27, 2007 at 4:43 am

Ok, let's first say that I am an Iranian woman, living in the US (Forgive the screen name, I just love that drama).

I must say regarding the Zeitgeist in Iran, it has changed a lot since the days I used to go to school when everyone was a revilutionary zealot. We were not allowed to wear bright colors or even white socks in school, and everyone in school was female!

Women in Iran interestingly show their desire for change and equal rights, despite being forced to wear head scarves. There are many secular women activists who are under constant harrasment from the regime. Even thinking about this kind of activity was not imaginable 15 years ago.

These harrasments about the dress codes in the street have always been there, especially in summer when it gets hot, mostly in northern/central Tehran where well-to-do people live. The intensity of harrasments vary from government to government. Mostly it is to distract people from more important issues facing the society.
And it is difficult to protest really. You are all alone. Not many organizations exist and people don't get free information except through governement channels.

And majority of people are extremely religious. I don't buy the argument that Iranians are less religious because of the 28 years of theocracy. People who bring up this argument usually only look at the northern half of Tehran, not the majority of society.

Having said all these, I am not very hopeful about a wide spread change in Iran any time soon.
My friends and I were brought up by parents who were not the results of a theocratic society. They could balance our experiences of outside world pretty well at home, by providing us with all kinds of points of views and lots of books. Although we were under the attack of relentless religious propaganda, I am an atheist, I have friends who are all liberals, agnostics, atheists, very moderatley religious and so on. And most of us have left Iran already.

For a wide spread change, people's state of mind has to change through education. But education is in hands of the religious government. Freethought has no value in such a society and gets crushed immideatley. So , no I don't think wide spread change in people's mind is near or welcome in such a society.

And it saddens me greatly.

15. Does Evolution Select For Faster Evolvers? Horizontal Gene Transfer Adds To Complexity, Speed Of Evolution

Comment #19864 by Manfred on January 30, 2007 at 10:50 am

Ok, for anyone who is interested, I found this article in "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" which gives a critical view of the HGT (as long as its effects on evolution goes):

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/17/9658

(I am not sure you can get to the full article without subscription though).

16. Does Evolution Select For Faster Evolvers? Horizontal Gene Transfer Adds To Complexity, Speed Of Evolution

Comment #19854 by Manfred on January 30, 2007 at 9:51 am

This is a quote from the nature esay that SF linked to (see above):

"Nowhere are the implications of collective phenomena, mediated by HGT, so pervasive and important as in evolution. A computer scientist might term the cell's translational apparatus (used to convert genetic information to proteins) an 'operating system', by which all innovation is communicated and realized. The fundamental role of translation, represented in particular by the genetic code, is shown by the clearly documented optimization of the code. Its special role in any form of life leads to the striking prediction that early life evolved in a lamarckian way, with vertical descent marginalized by the more powerful early forms of HGT.

Refinement through the horizontal sharing of genetic innovations would have triggered an explosion of genetic novelty, until the level of complexity required a transition to the current era of vertical evolution. Thus, we regard as regrettable the conventional concatenation of Darwin's name with evolution, because other modalities must also be considered."

If the process was Lamarckian, it suggests that there was not a single common ancestor from which all life has descended. This would have profound effects on our understanding of evolution. What would happen to the tree of life picture? Is this Lamarckian process still going on? I always thought that is not so, and the Darwinian picture is the one giving the correct explanations. Is there any point where vertical(Darwinian) evolution has emerged as opposed to or along with the horizontal gene swap? And how do they compare?

It would be interesting (and helpful) to know what Richard Dawkins thinks about this.

17. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12947 by Manfred on December 14, 2006 at 2:43 pm

I have already watched that video Yorker.
Isn't this more of a reason that their new tactics should not be ignored?
Yes, it might get old to you and me, but believe me, there are lots of people who should become aware of this, exactly because the IDers (!) keeps coming back to try to get to science calssrooms.
Sorry, but I cannot stand it when science is being subverted like this. And it doesn't matter to me where in the world this happens or might happen.

18. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12944 by Manfred on December 14, 2006 at 2:22 pm

Yorker
I have no doubt people on this site know about ID and its aims. But the ID advocates are not aiming people on this site, are they?

Their target is the school children who are not familiar with evolution in detail and are asked by ID advocates to make a choice between evolution and ID.

They can find a like-minded judge in the US somewhere, it is not that difficult. Why do you think a judge cannot agree with bad science?

And I am not sure why you keep saying that even if ID is accepted in the US, so be it. These are children and their education and their potentials we are talking about, why should it matter if they are in the US or somewhere else? No the world might not follow the stupidity (although this is happenning somewhere else too, in Turkey for example, Islamic ID?).

I would very much like to ignore ID and Creationism. But they are pushing to enter to the education system, and science classes under various names. If scientists ignore that, it would be a disaster. And the fact that many scientists are working against ID in science classes, is testimony that they are taking the danger seriously.

19. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12934 by Manfred on December 14, 2006 at 1:10 pm

macronencer

That point exactly came up in the Dover trial when Michael Behe argued for his "irreducable comlexity" in the case of the bacterial flagellum and other things. Although his claims were refuted, the judge noticed that even if they come up with something that cannot be explained by Darwiniaan Evolution, it would be a test for evolution not for the ID, which is not testable or falsifiable.

I am not sure the next judge would be that smart though.

Yorker,
This is dangerous. These people modify the very definition of science to fit their subversion of true science in the classrooms.

20. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12921 by Manfred on December 14, 2006 at 11:53 am

It is indeed dangerous. There is no guarantee that next time the ID advocates take their case to classrooms or courtrooms, sensible parents can find another judge Jones.
This is their new tactic to win their case by presenting peer reviewed papers.
Although I am not sure if they can really say that these are tests for ID, rather than tests for evolution. This was also one of their problems at the Dover trial which the judge pointed out in his ruling. Even if they claim evolution in a particular case is not the answer, it does not mean ID is the answer. How can they test the intelligent designer?

21. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7409 by Manfred on November 18, 2006 at 1:45 pm

"I see, so if I keep repeating 'theory' over and over again in my head, I'll finally get the word 'FACT'? Hmmmm, interesting, I never knew that."

Of course not!

SCIENTIFIC theory does not mean something that people (scientists in this case) have made up out of no where. Scinetists come up with theories that can explain facts. Those facts have come about either through observation or experiment.
There have been many theories that were discarded by scientists because they were not compatible with factual evidence.
By modifying and taking the experimental results and observations into account you can come up with a theory that explains your facts best.

Scientific theories are testable and falsifiable, meaning that if you find an evidence that your theory cannot explain, it ceases to be a true scientific theory.

Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory and there are scores of scientific evidence that backs it up.
It is not a guess out of the blue. It explains facts. Those facts are observed.

Relativity is also a theory. A SCIENTIFIC theory, because it explains the observations and experiments very well. The same with quantum theory.

22. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7405 by Manfred on November 18, 2006 at 1:30 pm

Think!

I wonder why you use internet or any other technology at all! That great "lie" that you call science has made it possible after all. Next time you go to get a flu shot, beware, scientist have made that possible too! And you don't want any part in it, do you?

You obviously don't know anything about science, scientific method and scientific theory. Again, before starting your attacks again, get a science book and read it for once!

AND GROW UP!

23. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7383 by Manfred on November 18, 2006 at 12:36 pm

Think! #88

If your all knowledge comes only from looking at yourself in the mirror, I suggest you
buy a book on evolutionary biology and read it before uttering such nonsense about chance and random selection. You might also reach the conclusion that you are not as "perfect" as you think.

And use your brain while thinking! Not only your eyes.

24. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7319 by Manfred on November 18, 2006 at 8:07 am

Walt
That is exactly why Richard Dawkins first defined the God he is against in the very first pages of The God Delusion.

You can give the name "God" to whatever you want, balance of nature is one of them. Einstein gave this name to the laws of nature.

The God Dawkins is talking about is a personal supernatural God who can hear us and influence our individual lives directly. And that is the God that a majority of people in the world believe in.

And exactly because of this, Richard Dawkins and many atheists find it misleading to label the laws of nature as God. At the very least such labeling can cause confusion and misunderstanding. Exactly the same way that it caused misunderstanding of Einstein.

I also notice that you have gone one step further and believe that "balance of nature" is God "the creator". Well, I don't know what you mean by that. Origins of life and universe are still mysteries to science and there are some theories out there about them. Just because we still don't know the answer, does not mean we can just call the beginning God and forget about it. That is not an explanation and does not really solve anything.

25. Nice Guys Finish First

Comment #6982 by Manfred on November 16, 2006 at 12:57 pm

Oooh, thanks!
That was fascinating. Imagine my excitement, I am in the middle of reading Chapter 12 of The Selfish Gene 30th anniversary edition, which is "Nice guys finish first".
:)

26. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6930 by Manfred on November 16, 2006 at 8:03 am

What utter rubbish! Either he has not read The God Delusion (like many other reviewers) or he has just not understood Richard Dawkins' arguments. Reminds me of this Bertrand Russell's quote:
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

27. Science vs religion

Comment #6732 by Manfred on November 15, 2006 at 1:04 pm

Quite right Billy.
Existence and non-existence of God are NOT equi-probable.

28. Science vs religion

Comment #6727 by Manfred on November 15, 2006 at 12:53 pm

Phlogiston
A friend of mine once told me that flu vaccines should be denied to those who don't believe in evolution. ;) He was kidding of course.

But you have pointed out a very important issue. Science education is not adequate. Not only in the US, but also in many many countries around the world (think Muslim countries). Children are not presented with all the facts, therefore they cannot be brought up to be free thinkers. Religious parents, teachers, clergies of all sorts, governments, etc. who themselves are the fruits of the same education system have the only say in children's learning. I think it all goes back to education.

"If your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and will therefore resort to [some] persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called 'education.' This last is peculiarly dastardly since it takes advantage of the defencelessness of immature minds. Unfortunately it is practiced in a greater or less degree in the schools of every civilized country." [Bertrand Russell]

29. Why there is no God

Comment #6548 by Manfred on November 14, 2006 at 6:30 pm

Darryl
I think by IDers you don't mean people like Michael Behe, who ought to be in a position to appreciate the enormity of the evolutionary process.
I think you are right in saying that people who don't understand this, tend to fall for ID or answers that religion offers. However, the fact that they are kept in this state of ignorance (non-understanding), in my opinion, is a matter that has to be addressed. People are not presented with facts or are presented with facts inadequately. If education was adequate enough, we should not have had any ID controversy. People fall for these irrationalities, because they are being encouraged to do so. And people like Behe just give them the convenient answer. I see a dishonest agenda to obtain power, fame, money, etc. by those who should know better, behind all this (not all of them of course, but I dare to say the most influential ones).

Or, maybe I am too cynical.

30. Why there is no God

Comment #6501 by Manfred on November 14, 2006 at 2:57 pm

May I suggest (yet again) that we ignore Asana and not answer his nonsense?

It could have been an instructive conversation, but it is obvious now that he is illogical, ignorant and irrational and is not going to listen to anything reasonable that anyone with a different view to his own says.

I don't see the point of arguing with him and getting angry in the process. Just ignore him and hope that he will leave us.

31. Why there is no God

Comment #5533 by Manfred on November 9, 2006 at 8:55 pm

xSkip Morgan
Is this the logic behind fideism? (from Wikipedia)
"Specifically, fideism teaches that rational or scientific arguments for the existence of God are fallacious and irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the truth of Christian theology. Its argument in essence goes:

-Christian theology teaches that people are saved by faith in the Christian God. (i.e. trust in the empirically unprovable).
-But, if the Christian God's existence can be proven, either empirically or logically, to that extent faith becomes unnecessary or irrelevant.
-Therefore, if Christian theology is true, no immediate proof of the Christian God's existence is possible."

This is weird. I am borrowing this loosly from Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy":

According to this logic, you refuse to prove that God exists, because the proof cancels your faith. But you keep Christian theology to be true, and according to that God has created everything, therefore he exists.

Isn't this a paradox?

Plus, I have a problem with what you say that these evils are done in the name of religion. I think most of relogious evils are rather done by religion and because of religion. You cannot deny that those who are willing to blow up themselves and crach planes into buildings are not sincere believers. They do all these evils exactly because of religion, not in the name of it, not by abusing it. This is what their religion and their god teaches them.

32. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5495 by Manfred on November 9, 2006 at 6:44 pm

As Steven Wienberg said:
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. "

33. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5478 by Manfred on November 9, 2006 at 4:21 pm

William: "You know, I wonder how many of these 'believers' actually believe?"

I strongly doubt that many of the theologians, priests, reverands, ayatollahs, muftis, rabbis, etc. etc. really believe in what they preach. For one thing, they never stick up to the stuff they expect their followers obey.
How many muslim clerics have you seen who is willing to blow himself up to go to heaven? One would think that should be highly desirable for them, no?
The same case with the whole lot of them. They are just enjoying the money, power and respect that society grants them because of their "holiness".And they can only get and keep all these if they keep preaching and spreading ignorance.

34. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #5475 by Manfred on November 9, 2006 at 4:06 pm

Was he really trying to defend religion? This was the weakest argument I have ever heard.

I think Richard Dawkins never said that religion is the only root of all the problems and evils in the world. But one with the most influence and reach for centuries and at the present time.
Also, by fighting religion with reason and free thought, people can see that other existing roots of the ills in the world which are seen as creeds (like extreme nationalism) can be dealt with similarly.

35. Why there is no God

Comment #5470 by Manfred on November 9, 2006 at 3:38 pm

David S: " I say enough! Both for Asana and religion."

I second that!

36. Why there is no God

Comment #5447 by Manfred on November 9, 2006 at 12:54 pm

Jason
My father always used to say that all the Abrhamic religions are the mythology of the semitic people and tribes.

Another thing, does anyone know at what time in history exactly Dec. 24 was set to be Jesus' birthday? I am asking, because 3 days before that is the winter solstice which is still celebrated by Iranians and Zoroastrians. It stems from Mithraism. It is supposed to be the birthday of the sun, since it is the longest night of the year and after that the days get longer bit by bit.

Anyway, the point is all the cultures mingle and borrow stuff from each other. Why in this day and age people should still attach divinity and sacredness to a bunch of stories, is beyond me. It is definitely a good source of $$$$ though for a lot of people. And a great way to keep people ignorant and oppress them.

37. Why there is no God

Comment #5271 by Manfred on November 8, 2006 at 2:00 pm

Nate
I have reached exactly the same conclusion. Thanks

38. Why there is no God

Comment #5259 by Manfred on November 8, 2006 at 11:42 am

Billy:
"DOES ANYONE READ ASANAS STUFF ANYMORE? "

Naah.

39. Why there is no God

Comment #5258 by Manfred on November 8, 2006 at 11:41 am

Mark R
I think what you told your Agnostic friend was more or less correct. There is no need to bring in a supernatural god/deity (if that's what he believed). As you said, not knowing about the origin of life/universe at the present time does not mean that a God created it. Scientist of all ranks and kinds are working on the very same problems. And science is a progressive process. We'll find out either the answer or the limits of our methods or the fact that there is no limit.
There are gaps in our present knowledge, but putting a god in those gaps just stops the investigation and does not really solve the problem. If anything, it adds to the problem.

Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, has an interesting scaling of people's beliefs from 1 to 7 (I don't have my book with me, which chapter was it?). 1 being the true believer and 7 the absolute athesit. He rates himself 6 on this scale, which is where I would put myself too. We can't disprove the existence of God, as we cannot do so for a number of things(Flying Spaghetti Monster!). But according to our evidence, reason, logic, science and rationality, god is so improbable that we can safely say he/she/it doesn't exist. Not being able to disprove god does not mean in any way that he exists.

Asana,
YOU ARE BABBLING!

40. Why there is no God

Comment #5179 by Manfred on November 7, 2006 at 8:54 pm

No one has denied the heritage of Jewish people. Every group of people has their own mythology and folk and stories which are all part of their cultural and literary heritage. Jews are not an exception in that.
That however, does not make those stories as facts. Greek gods are also a part of Greek heritage and culture, are they part of the truth? Denying the factuality of Zeus, is not the same as denying the Greek from their heritage. Everyone, especially the Jews, are welcome to cherish their heritage. It is the aspect of attaching divinity and sacredness to this mythology that I am arguing against.

Again, I have to repeat, it is not very Christian of you to call people names. Forget about the apology. You managed to call me racist 4 times while pretending to apologize for it. It is apparently too much to expect decency from you.

I can go into any of those issues you raised, but we are talking about religion here.

Just for the record, I am not denying heritage of any group of people. For that matter I do not even believe in race. Read a little genetic antropology. This is a good book to start:
"Mapping Human History: Genes, Race and Our Common Origins" by Steve Olson.
Genetically human beings are all distant cousins, but that is not because of Abraham.

As for his sons, have it your way. But do try to convince a devout Muslim with your argument.
I am not a Christian or a Muslim and don't care one way or the other.

Still I think the story is a myth and a sick one at that.

41. Why there is no God

Comment #5162 by Manfred on November 7, 2006 at 4:37 pm

If you read Sura 37 of the Koran you see that at verse 101 it is talking about Abraham's first son, Ismael. And 37:102 is about the sacrifice.

It also depends on if you are looking at it through a dogamtic Christian view or Islamic view. It also depends on the translator or the interpreter.

At the end, it doesn't matter. It is sick in both cases. Whatever the name of the son is. These are just stupid stories.

I am still waiting for the apology though for calling people racist.

42. Why there is no God

Comment #5152 by Manfred on November 7, 2006 at 3:32 pm

Bodhitharta: "You are ignorant of the scriptures the Quaran does not say that Abraham was asked to sacrifice Ishmael. You have not read the Quaran or the Bible thoroughly."

Oh, so all the Muslims who sacrifice a sheep or a lamb during the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca every year are doing that based on what exactly?
I have read the Quran since I was 7 years old. So don't tell me what I have or have not read.

"The racism here is wild. The Bible is not a history of just semetic people but all people so when you are being racist, you are being racist against your self."

Stop calling people racist. You have no know nothing about me, so stop judging me. It is not very Christian of you.

You just didn't get the point. It is exactly your holy books that divide people and label them. It is your Bible and Koran that are racist.
Have you ever read the Koran? Have you seen all the verses against the Jews?

43. Why there is no God

Comment #5140 by Manfred on November 7, 2006 at 2:03 pm

Wait a minute Asana.
Muslims believe (according to the Koran) that the son whom Abraham was asked to sacrifice was Ismael. In the OT it is Issac. So God asked Abraham to do the child sacrifice twice, once on each son? How come neither of the Books has mentioned the other one?

"Jews, Christians and Muslims and that is solid DNA evidence."
And this is not racism? What about scores of Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians,...? You don't count them because they don't believe in Abraham and his 2 sons?

44. Liberty University is looking for Biology Professors

Comment #5103 by Manfred on November 7, 2006 at 12:43 pm

I suggest we all apply for the job. Forget about the Ph.D requirement. You just need a bible really.

Just flood them with emails.

45. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #5018 by Manfred on November 7, 2006 at 8:13 am

Neal,
I understand your frustration, but calling them names won't help really.
And let's not reduce ourselves to their level by hitting them on the head or any equivalent method.
That would just prove their point, that atheism is a form of extremism. At least for me, it is not.

Let's just use words and rationality and logic. Something finally would work for a group of them, if not for all. Even if they try to look at things with an open mind it would be an improvement.

I understand and completely agree that atheist should be more outspoken, but let's stick to our reason even when faced with ignorance; sometimes that takes more courage.

46. Liberty University is looking for Biology Professors

Comment #4973 by Manfred on November 7, 2006 at 4:38 am

This is sad.
I can't stand people who thrive in keeping others ignorant.
Presumably some of the graduates of this university go on to become Biology teachers in schools?

47. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4969 by Manfred on November 7, 2006 at 4:27 am

Right,
Just one thing Truth Seeker.
I don't think anyone called you stupid. And I don't think anyone should.
But I can safely say that you don't know what "objective" in the objective evidence really means.
Bible is true because Bible says so is not a very strong argument. Ditto for your other claims regarding Resurrection and so on.

48. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4873 by Manfred on November 6, 2006 at 5:10 pm

Janus
You are right of course. I only mentioned the belief in afterlife.
As a confirmation of what you wrote, this NYTimes Science article about out of body experience is fascinating and a testimony to what our brains are capable of:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/health/psychology/03shad.html?ei=5088&en=eeb8e23490396c32&ex=1317528000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1162861610-QcFruf3HK2ToQWAqv7CGVQ

49. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4859 by Manfred on November 6, 2006 at 3:26 pm

"For what reason should I believe there is nothing beyond death?"

First ask: For what reason should you believe there is anything beyond death.

Is there an objective evidence for it?
Has anyone seen what is beyond death?
Has anyone survived his or her own death?
If someone claims so, are their accounts reliable?
Are they based on facts? Or fantasies? Or ancient texts?

Is there possibly other explanations for those claims: Delusions of a person perhaps? Fraud? Ignorance?

If after all the rigorous scrutiny, you find that any claim of the life after death is based on a hard objective evidence, then there is no reason for you not to believe in life after death.

However, if no such evidence can be found, you don't have a rational reson to believe in hereafter with the evidence at hand.

50. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4852 by Manfred on November 6, 2006 at 2:37 pm

"Is Collins really a Christian? A lot of what he said did not coincide with the Bible.It sounds like he's created his own little sect."

If Francis Collins tweaks his beliefs a bit, he can become a believer in any other religion. And he is good at having a leap of faith with the waterfall and everything.

I can easliy make a case for him to become a Muslim and a Shia Muslim at that without changing much of his worldview. He might find some "selected" aspects quite interesting.

I have no idea why he is trying to make a case for belief being squarely made on reason. You have a religious belief because of tradition, authority, or revelation (or some combination of these). This has nothing to do with rationality. For one thing there is not a shred of evidence in all these.

His case for morality can be found in religion, any religion, after considerable pick and choose, but also outside of religion. Doesn't that say in itself that morality is independeant of religion?
Those pickings and choosings depend on in what culture and at what period of time you are living. And how much this culture has progressed.

It seems he needs to be religious to feel better. That's fine. He is welcome to think whatever he wishes to think. But writing a book as a prominent scientist and trying to rationalize an irrational part of himself; now that's highly unscientific.