1. Science is not philosophy

Comment #198548 by BeyondBelief on June 24, 2008 at 8:41 am

BRILLIANT!

Why won't the bastards let my flower pot be a number??

This whole article is pithy, quick, sharp and dead-on. Brevity is the soul of wit, and John Moore has got a big soul by that standard.

[conspiracy mode] He's probably related to Michael!!![/conspiracy mode]

2. Award-winning comedian George Carlin dies

Comment #198416 by BeyondBelief on June 23, 2008 at 8:19 pm

I rarely have a profound sense of loss over the death of celebrities, but I can only equate how I feel today as being very similar to December 8, 1980, when John Lennon was shot. And then I was only a stupid 14 year old.

If you think of the world and its players as a grand tug of war, our side... the side favoring free speech, liberalism, demystification of taboo subjects... lost a heavyweight. Pull harder, people!!

Raise a glass in memory of George today, and toast him thusly: [edit] I see others beat me to the punch on the 7 dirty words, so I'll leave them off here.

3. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198415 by BeyondBelief on June 23, 2008 at 8:12 pm

I rarely have a profound sense of loss over the death of celebrities, but I can only equate how I feel today as being very similar to December 8, 1980, when John Lennon was shot. And then I was only a stupid 14 year old.

If you think of the world and its players as a grand tug of war, our side... the side favoring free speech, liberalism, demystification of taboo subjects, rationality... lost a heavyweight.

Raise a glass in memory of George today, and toast him with the only 7 words I assume he would want to hear in commemoration of his passing: "Shit. Piss. Fuck. Cunt. Cocksucker. Motherfucker. and Tits!"

And Josh, if you edit this, the terrorists win. :-)

4. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192659 by BeyondBelief on June 13, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Steve Zara wrote:

Most people aren't trained to evaluate evidence.

Oh, I wish the problem of belief/non-belief were simply a matter of training. I'm coming to the conclusion that there is something definitely genetic/involved in the human capacity to change one's mind.

I think I'm agreeing with MPhil's statements about brain plasticity... some people are more capable of/willing to change.

And since we attribute all other biological traits to evolution, why would we not also expect to see a wide range of the ability to change one's mind in the face of indoctrination and without "all the evidence" ?

And then the question becomes, is that difference an evolutionary advantage?

A couple questions need answering to answer that one: can we quantify this trait? Then, can we see a trend in its survival. Even if we can, it doesn't mean we can predict the outcome.

As with many evolutionary adaptations, it seems that we will only see which one was truly most adaptive and valuable when looking in the rear view mirror. Evolutionary history is also written by the victors. "See, we're still alive, so our traits must be best." (I believe Hegel wrote it first. :-)

It seems reasonable that human populations have grown, and longevity increased in direct correlation with the development of scientific thinking, and the technological/medical results thereof.

Again, hard to predict which one will survive (reason or faith) but it is NOT hard to imagine that there is in fact a genetic/evolutionary component that determines an organism's ability to re-assess its values and change its mind.

5. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192657 by BeyondBelief on June 13, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Rod the Farmer said...

You need to be trained to question critically, and to use rational thought, before you can truly have any internal debate on the truth of religious beliefs.

This actually begs the question the researcher is trying to prove. Flynn asserts that it is a genetic function, which he calls "intelligence."

You suggest it is 'nurture.' A great hypothesis, worthy of testing. I mean, this is not the first study done that shows a correlation (note: CORRELATION, not causation) between IQ and disbelief. It would be a great extension of the research to also ask questions about the extent of education so that it could be factored into the P value. (I think it's P... I haven't done stats in years.) Basically, it's worth considering what percentage of disbelief can be "accounted for" by native, genetic ability to reason/think vs. having been taught to think critically.

I know a lot of still-believing people who went through the same course on syllogistic logic and rhetorical logical fallacies that I went through. Training ain't enough, in and of itself. I feel it is not too big of a stretch to assert that there is an inate or genetic component to one's likelihood of overcoming childhood indoctrination.

As far as I know, it remains a great question, unstudied.

6. Divine Impulses: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #192655 by BeyondBelief on June 13, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Chris Jackson,

Could you please relay one of Ayaan's "Neo-con perspectives." I don't mean for you to tell me she's affiliated with AEI.

Rather, please tell me a position that Ayaan has taken that is "neo-con" and provide quotation sources. I so fully agree with everything of hers that I have heard her say, or write, that I need to know if I'm either missing something she said, or if I'm a neo-con and just don't know it.

Thanks,
R.

7. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192376 by BeyondBelief on June 12, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Is it just me, or is there a complete lack of discussion in this article as to whether or not the content of Steyn's article is hate speech.

There's a lot of talk about different national standards on hate speech, but I don't think I saw the specific claims being made against Steyn's article. Show me the hateful speech.

Same can be said about the first 50 comments...

[edit] Wouldn't you know it... post #51 makes roughly this same point.

8. Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind

Comment #191366 by BeyondBelief on June 10, 2008 at 5:27 pm

I'm open to correction, but I believe the term is "kludge" which I first encountered in "The Soul of The New Machine". Great book.

I don't know if that fixes the German etymology issues.

[edit] Whoops... didn't see they actually "mis spelled" it on the book cover. I thought it was just a conversation topic. :-)

9. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189761 by BeyondBelief on June 7, 2008 at 7:42 am

Comment #189691 by Steve Zara

Steve, I think you said it all, and said it best:

Why should atheists organize? To jointly demand participation without discrimination.

We need to get to a day when it will be as abhorrent to dismiss/discriminate against an atheist by referring to their atheism, as it has become abhorrent to dismiss/discriminate against a gay person simply because they are gay.

We need to organize to demand, that the society and government ostensibly serving ALL citizens stop behaving in ways that marginalize, oppress, or discriminate against the substantial portion of its membership that does not believe in God. We need to regularly demand that our "society of laws" be built upon reason, and the negotiation/participation of all society members... not on faith.

Frankly, in this regard religion is acting like a bully. As long as those picked on cower silently and allow the bullying to continue, it will continue. Asking each individual to stand up, one at a time and face the bully is ineffective.

Can we organize over what we DO have in common? Can we simply agree that we all desire to NOT be marginalized over a common genetic trait that is not a choice. :-) I'm an atheist. I was born this way.

Wasting time disagreeing over all the other dross allows us to continue to self-destruct and be pushed farther and farther from participating in forming our societies the way we would imagine them.

Steve Z... you're on the right track.

10. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189446 by BeyondBelief on June 6, 2008 at 9:42 am

Well, from a city in Wisconsin a mere 7 miles from Wales, and 3 miles from New Berlin, I must say that this is the most irrelevant thread I have ever read! And fun :-)

While we have a Ripon (home of "Rippin Good Cookies") and Bethesda and Utica (both stolen from New York, thus transitively stolen from England), I'm willing to bet there are no Waukesha, Oconomowoc, Weyauwega, Koshkonong, or Manitowoc in "The Realm."

Oh... and by the way, this Tom Paulson's a blighter, wanker, fecker and full of bollocks!

11. Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

Comment #189093 by BeyondBelief on June 5, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Why is evolution singled out in the standards. Is there a clause about teaching the strengths and weaknesses of other theories? If not, that alone should be grounds for removing the "strengths and weaknesses" wording.

How about advocating for science standards that say something like, "All science taught in the district will conform to the following standards... and then have an agreed upon definition of what qualifies as science without getting into a single specific field of study.

In other words, move the debate away from evolution specifically and back onto making sure that scientific method, replicability, peer review, etc. are the foundation of all science being taught. After all, science is NOT the body of facts. Science is the analytical method for making sense of observations, and integrating all observations into unified theories of how things work, or how things came to be as they are.

Getting hung up on an acceptable list of facts to teach does a dual disservice to science: first in wrongly teaching the facts of evolution, and second in demeaning the definition of science.

12. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem

Comment #188565 by BeyondBelief on June 4, 2008 at 7:54 am

GSP in 188295 wrote:

I argued that because Sam Harris, because he had, at best, a bachelors in philosophy when he first made that argument, was in no position to make such a statement.

This is not so much an ad hominem attack on Sam as it is another logical fallacy, the appeal to authority. It is a flavor of the "red herring" which is designed to distract the reader from the argument at hand by introducing irrelevant concerns. The quality of the argument made is NEVER determined by the credentials of the arguer. Arguments of that type are "ad Vericundiam"

You should know that here of all places, among free-thinkers who self-define as "unbound by tradition or authority", the above argument would be rightfully pooh-poohed or ignored as irrelevant noise.

Other folks: Help me out, I've never encountered GSP... am I being "trolled?"

13. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem

Comment #187604 by BeyondBelief on June 2, 2008 at 10:55 am

I wish the author would have given practical, concrete examples of an acceptable ad hominem attack in response to an argument.

Exposing Eliot Spitzer's proclivities does not seem so much an ad hominem attack as it is "reporting on facts"

Now, if Eliot said in a debate, "No person who frequents prostitutes should be allowed to hold elective office," and his opponent said, "Well, Mr. Whoremonger, thank you for publicly submitting your resignation," I MIGHT be able to see the distinction.

However, the ad hominem or "to the man" fallacy is, by definition, a rhetorical, logical fallacy in which the point of argument is not addressed by the response. In my example above, the point of argument is directly addressed. Maybe using "whoremonger" is name-calling, but that's about as close to ad hominem as I can get here, and it again is not so much a distraction as a term of art to describe facts not in dispute.

Not a very good article, IMHO.

14. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187591 by BeyondBelief on June 2, 2008 at 10:39 am

Damn you, Vaal!!! You stole my easy-pickin's line from the idiocy. This means I will have to stretch my search resources to their limits to try to identify another silly line of... oh wait, there's one right away:

If we want a truly generous and open future for all, we will do well to support the right to choose, and to celebrate the place of beliefs and values in the progress of our nation.

What a mealy-mouthed, meaningless statement...
"generous and open future"?? I thought we were talking about a soundly educated populace.

"celebrate the place of beliefs and values in the progress of our nation." Care to have an open, common discussion about which values you think are essential in the development/progress of the nation?

Apparently the "School Voucher" folks have made it to Australia. Talking the mantra of "choice" Bleechhhh!!! Let's just "teach the controversy" while we're at it.

Morally bankrupt... oh, why not... fucktards!!

15. The Challenge of the New Creationism

Comment #187573 by BeyondBelief on June 2, 2008 at 10:20 am

Very interesting. I LOVE the emphasis on terminology as important to the debate...

1. "Do not say you "believe" in Evolution, as then it is equivalent to religion." Say you accept evolution as the best explanation based on evidence.

2. Did anyone else feel that his consistent pronunciation of "theological" as thee-oh-low-gical instead of "thee-oh-law-gical" might also be a purposeful attempt to avoid making any connection between "theology" and "logic"??

Similar to the way the Republican party has made it a talking-point LAW that you only refer to the Democrat Party, never the "Democratic Party"??

3. If Coyne IS as serious as he seems to be about terminology, I agree with the poster who questions the use of the term "Darwinism" as that is a blatant framing to give "ism's" equal footing with a scientific theory. I would guess that if the first use of the term Darwinism could be found, it would be emanating from the lips of a religious person intent on clambering up to an equal footing.

16. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186461 by BeyondBelief on May 30, 2008 at 10:05 am

Yes, Steve, in fairness... the cause of the effect was actually "leaking" ungrounded voltage that, when the cows provided a path to ground, caused shocks.

Imagine how you might feel as a Guernsey, if each time the milking machine was attached it was accompanied by a disquieting shock. Might make you less interested in giving milk, eh?

This was not exactly an EMF issue, but the point was that the farmer's hypothesized connection between nearby electricity and reduced milk was too easily ignored initially. Granted, the ultimate cause was not an EMF field, as early proponents had argued (I suppose, supporting the claim that this NEW RF-impact claim is tenuous?).

17. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186340 by BeyondBelief on May 30, 2008 at 7:32 am

HitbLade:

Dangerous EMF? Check out this site!!

http://www.stray-voltage.com/

An interesting parallel case which should offer some cautionary tales to us here. When farmers first started reporting a "theory" that electrical wires near their farms were affecting milk production, they were laughed off. Years of research did ultimately find a connection, resulting in a modification of dairy barns and electrical poles. Science proved a change in behavior was required.

The cautionary tale? Let's not pooh-pooh the claim out of hand, but let's (as suggested by many, including Richard Dawkins) subject the claims to serious scientific research.

On another front, I know a man who claimed his life was being destroyed by all of the RF/EMF fields around his home. He was on the verge of moving out of his house, after gettting nowhere with local officials. Then, one day, he went to a doctor and was diagnosed with diabetes. After proper treatment for that illness, he got relief of the symptoms ostensibly caused by RF.

Cautionary tale here? Absent good answers, humans generally tend to lay blame on the new, the different, the un-natural... in short, they superstitiously start to assign agency/effect where it does not belong. We all WANT desperately to be healed or healthy, but we have an innate (evolved?) tendency to not apply rigorous scientific methods in seeking relief.

Hopefully, in a couple thousand years, humans will have "on-boarded" scientific method as a better survival technique and it will be a genetic/evolutionary legacy. I like to imagine whether a propensity toward science is a survival trait, and wonder how it will be reflected in the future. Fun stuff.

18. Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals

Comment #183985 by BeyondBelief on May 23, 2008 at 11:05 am

When I see my dog "sneak" a ball she is not supposed to be playing with, skulk silently off to hide behind the couch where her transgressions cannot be observed, I understand/suspect that there are many more human characteristics and "mind" traits in animals than some have been willing to observe.

She KNOWS what she is doing is wrong (or at least will have consequences) and she actively chooses to hide to avoid the consequences. Amazing.

19. 'Reverse Evolution' Discovered in Seattle Fish

Comment #183981 by BeyondBelief on May 23, 2008 at 10:54 am

I may stir the pot, and further expose my own lack of linguistic precision. I'm not (formally) a scientist, and I'm not an evolutionary biologist. Please forgive/correct any misuse or misunderstanding.

From comment #183758, by Goldy

No more reverse than you putting on more clothing in the winter is a reversal to the last winter.
Summer, less clothing, winter, more clothing. Murky water, less armour, clear water, more armour.

Gaack!! There are three problems now apparent in this thread, and this quote relates to #3.

1. Evolution has directionality. (Thoroughly beaten in earlier posts.)
2. Evolution has intention/choice. (Ditto... leaving dead horse alone.)
3. Evolution is the same as adaption choices taken by individuals within a given lifetime.

This to some degree fits with the "evolution by committee meeting" joke made by Mordacious1 and me earlier.

This phrasing is misleading, suggesting that evolutionary adaptation is equivalent to changing clothes from season to season. Again, hearing the mock conversation among sticklebacks, ...

"Honey, the weatherman called for clear waters today. Be sure to armor-up before going out."

Sadly... I don't know how to say it particularly succinctly or well, but I am able to see when the idea is being "mis-conveyed." The TRAIT of having the intelligence to observe and adapt to conditions (like putting on coats to survive) is definitely an evolutionary trait. "Putting on the coat" is not the evolutionary trait in humans, and it is definitely not what the sticklebacks did.

Bottom line: The sticklebacks we observe living now, and the percentage distribution of armor plating, is a sign of what traits are currently surviving. Why are those traits surviving? Ah... that's where the great speculation comes in, that (controlling for all other possible variables) the reason is that water turbidity is directly correlated to "likelihood of being attacked" and "likelihood of surviving an attack" is directly correlated with "having armor."

It's subtle linguistic distinction, but finding a way to make that distinction VISIBLE and easily understood is critical to getting the general public to absorb and understand evolutionary theory.

I don't mean to attack any individual writer here, but I fear we are "carving the stick for them to beat us with." I know it's not completely avoidable, and someone will always misinterpret to suit their needs, no matter how clearly an idea is expressed. However, I hope that some "consciousness raising" amongst ourselves will help improve the way we communicate with... uh... shall we say, "those less inclined to understand evolution." Kinda in the same vein as the efforts to disentangle the term "atheism" or "atheist" from the idea that it means an absolute belief/certainty that there is no God.

Clearly, over time, people will be wrongly told what "evolution" means, just as they have been indoctrinated into the "correct" meaning of atheism. It's important to be prepared to discuss what we mean, in a way that doesn't exacerbate the problem.

Peace.

20. 'Reverse Evolution' Discovered in Seattle Fish

Comment #183645 by BeyondBelief on May 22, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Touche, Quine. Precision in language is tough. I am often surprised that we humans can convey ANYTHING that we all agree on.

That said, I would (not too forcefully) argue that the meaning of "Reverse Evolution" is more likely to be misconstrued than the misuse of "Creature" to refer to elements of the animal kingdom... though as I type this it does strike me that there, embedded in the word, is an approval of the concept of Creation.

You are right! 100% Bad term. I retract my as yet unposted and none-too-forceful argument above. :-)

21. 'Reverse Evolution' Discovered in Seattle Fish

Comment #183637 by BeyondBelief on May 22, 2008 at 11:56 am

I've got two beefs in the terminology used in this article, and it would be WONDERFUL if someone with a bigger bully-pulpit than I could address them:

1. Reverse Evolution: Really bad term, as others have noted above. Creatures (on average) adapt to their environment. No individual stickle back woke up spineless one morning, noticed the extra sunlight, and then WILLED a protective coat of armor to appear. So this is simply a good example of evolution: As the water clouded, sticklebacks with less armor thrived and the population tended to be more full of armorless fish. As the water cleared, more of the armored fish survived and thus the averages went in their favor.

2.

Researchers now think the threat of predators spurred the fish into rapid evolution toward an older version of itself, evolutionarily speaking.

followed by

In the case of the sticklebacks, returning to an older model made good sense.

I envision a stickleback "Town Hall Meeting." The Grand Stickler speaks, "Gents, I know the model X74 Spiny armor was retired in 1958 for a reason, but the time has come to bring them out of mothballs. It just makes sense, and we need to act NOW! The water is clearing!!"

The phrasing above acts as if those subjects of evolution are picking and choosing... on an individual level... to adapt their shells. It makes evolution sound directed; intentional. As writers we MUST get this kind of "evolution has a mind" talk out of the literature. It simply bolsters (and is probably created by) fundamentalist visions of what evolution is: Just like their God... or just like people: intentional, decision making, directed, choosing from alternatives.

Evolution is nothing but an observed process of what has already happened: Change. It is not predictive, either.

[edit] Ah Carp!! I just read comment 33. I swear I didn't come up with this after reading that post... but I guess this proves my point??

22. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #182355 by BeyondBelief on May 19, 2008 at 8:28 pm

As if the world needs another testimonial to Catholic school abuse... but here I go anyway.

The Irish Sisters of Mercy (irony of ironies) serving my small Western United States school, worked the gamut. I personally received the metal ruler edges across the knuckles, leather razor straps on the palms, wooden paddles, and ... in a bit of good ol' Americanly ingenious escalation, the wooden paddle drilled with dozens of 1/2" holes to reduce wind resistance.

And for a frame of reference, this was 1972 to 1980.

I was not, however, on the receiving end of the most spontaneous and improvisational punishment I have ever seen: Sister Benedict, infuriated that a student had violated the "one-day borrowing of reference materials" from the library, proceeded to whale on the head of a young girl repeatedly with the "O" volume of the encyclopedia Brittanica. "You bold disgrace!! Have you no respect for the rules?" I'm shocked she did not receive a concussion.

Irish Catholicism: The most virulent strain. The strain that helped push me to atheism.

Cheers!!

23. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168149 by BeyondBelief on April 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Regarding Comment #47, on the dislike of the term "new atheists".

Every time I hear it, The Who song springs into my brain: Meet the new atheists, same as the old atheists.

It's a dismissive phrase that works quite effectively. Those branded by it should actively rebuff the branders!

I like the comeback: "I'm not a "new atheist" The only new atheists are the thousands of babies born every minute.... now let's get on with discussing my IDEAS, not labeling me."

24. Science Debate 2008

Comment #161125 by BeyondBelief on April 14, 2008 at 9:07 pm

I just watched "The Compassion Forum."

Senator Clinton, what's your favorite Bible Story?

Jesus H. Christ!! We need a science debate, and we also need individual candidates to stand up for the concept that law is based on fact and negotiation among humans, not on 2000 year old books and lightning bolts tossed by deities.

25. America: slouching towards the Enlightenment

Comment #135746 by BeyondBelief on February 29, 2008 at 8:46 am

SPS wrote

I hope someday we can move beyond our categories, and get on with being people. Atheism seems the surest path to unity without sacrificing diversity and openness. Religion only puts us at odds with our perceptions and finer instincts. It doesn't broaden them, but narrows them to the point of suffocation. Our experiences needn't border us from each other by dictate. If we're to accept religion for our moral guide then the degree of our separation is only limited by our imaginations. If lasting understanding is to exist we have to be willing to look beyond the filter of religion.

The longer and harder I ponder, I am realizing that one of our strongest, innate tendencies is to "need" to bond or affiliate with groups. Evolutionary artifact? Human Nature? Or, as Richard Dawkins refers to such traits, is the desire to be in a group one of our "lusts?"

I don't know, but atheists are less afflicted with the need for groups, and tend to not affiliate as much. You say "atheism seems to be the surest path to unity." I'm not so sure. It seems to be the surest method by which to assess our relationship with the world and its inhabitants... i.e. it is much more empirical and evidence laden than any religion, but it certainly doesn't unify us that well. So if it is an ideal, an improved version of the human species, do I need to argue that it is a moral good to try to repress one's lust for group membership?

God (oops) I'd hate to take a stance that reeks of the same kind of moralizing position held by virtually every religion, telling us that the way to heaven is through repressing our lusts.

In sum... I'm really banging my head against the reality of how badly people NEED to be a part of a group, and then how badly they seem to need to hate the other group, and defend their own. At times it seems intractable. At other times I try to view human evolution over the long term and salve my "soul" with the realization that, as a species, over extended periods marked by repeated advances and regressions, we are actually "progressing" in reason; overcoming some of our earliest irrational traits.

It's tough to be too happy about a trend measured in millenia, however, when I've got /- 75 years to be in the mix.

26. America: slouching towards the Enlightenment

Comment #135726 by BeyondBelief on February 29, 2008 at 8:33 am

Speaking as an atheist member of Unitarian community, I can tell you the ONE reason I affiliate with this group.

Principle 4 of their 7 principles: Each person is entitled to a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning."

Yeah, we sing a few ancient Unitarian and/or Universalist hymns, but the link to any past Christian roots is tenuous, if existing at all.

What I find humorous and challenging within the UU world is the constant tension to want to BE a religion, but not too much like one. Heck, that's why all the ex-Catholics have joined our congregation... to get away from a traditional religion. :-)

27. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123872 by BeyondBelief on February 7, 2008 at 7:52 pm

LorienRyan wrote, in comment 65 above

Keep it to yourself! Joking

Well done! Sweden? no... German/Irish background, hence my tendency to see things dialectically black or white, often through a veil of liquor. Talk about determinism!

28. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123450 by BeyondBelief on February 7, 2008 at 7:45 am

Holy Schmokes! Reading this thread it is no wonder believers simply throw in the towel and say, "God did it! Blurble, blurble, blurble... Im so HAPPY!"

I mean, really, if a discussion has to devolve into quantum mechanics and stochastic determinism, when it starts at "Is it a valid stance to say 'Believe what you want, just keep it to yourself' " then we've got ZERO chance.

You may (or may not) be entirely correct about determinism and quantum microtubuli... but it does very little to convince a believer that the de-facto starting point should be "observe" not "believe".

Dragging this thread, kicking and screaming, back to point... private beliefs ultimately lead to action (Sam Harris) and action, when taken among other humans, is what we call society.

It is the absolute requirement that you actively proselytize your beliefs about how society should be constituted... or your views will die, and your society will become what the more vocal proselytizers want. That's true regardless of whether you advocate faith or reason.

Our (we science-minded, Enlightenment-fueled, non-believers) greatest downfall may be the degree to which we do NOT aggressively, constantly tell our story, and defend it against those who wish to revise it (see House Bill 888, seeking a public, governmental statement on the Christian roots of this nation).

I am grateful for the explosion in interest resulting from Hitchens/Harris/Dawkins/Dennett, et al, but until I see the discussion more regularly carried out in local papers, schools, and TV stations, instead of seeing well intentioned, passionate people isolate themselves here (in a frenzy of mutual masturbation), I'm not sure the explosion is not just a firecracker that I'm sitting too close to.

Hitchens comments late in video #2 that "we don't have to gather to re-affirm our beliefs... that is our great strength." That may be true as it relates to those who already are 'in the fold.' But it is patently false if we intend to increase the percentage of the people in the world who act to form societies based on reason, not faith.

Hey... I enjoy a good intellectual joust with peers, too, but can we all just turn 75% of the effort expended here to more public, visible, courageous support of reason in our local communities?

29. Secrets of bird flight revealed

Comment #116174 by BeyondBelief on January 25, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Ty_Webb...I thought it was just me...

Professor Dial said that dinosaurs may have evolved wings to help propel them over rocks and other obstacles that littered their terrain.

I see an asinine sentence like this in almost EVERY story on evolution, and it is the "intentionality" that makes it so F-ing wrong. The idea that dinosaurs intentionally evolved a solution to their problem (which, by the way would correctly be phrased "invented") is no more correct than the phrase that "Evolution saw clear to make the human dominant over its competitors."

Evolution happens. We see traces of it. Evolution has no intention, and while creatures undergoing evolution DO have intention (like us human-folk) we can no sooner WILL ourselves to evolve wings than God could WILL the Universe into existence.

The sad part is, Professor Dial probably said something completely different and scientifically accurate, but the idiot reporter converted it into his own pathetic understanding of evolutionary language.

It is NOT foolish to actively correct folks who would speak like this. It does make a difference to get it expressed correctly.

30. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #111479 by BeyondBelief on January 14, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Minor Quibble, but I was surprised to read that Bertrand Russell had uttered the quote about "... Atheists just go one god further..." long, long ago. It was in the last chapter or so of Jennifer Michael Hecht's book, "Doubt: A History." I'll have to review, for an exact page #...

Is Dawkins plagiarizing this very appropriate and valuable rhetorical phrase? Should he not??

31. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #101094 by BeyondBelief on December 19, 2007 at 8:06 pm

The "lust" metaphor is one of the best catalysts in this debate I have heard in a long, long time. Everybody gets lust. Everyone can rather easily work their way through the logic that "those who perceived pleasure from sex, and hence sought it out more often, procreated more frequently, and thus the tendency to ENJOY that which propagates the species was selected for."

It's not a big leap to think of ALL of the pleasing sensations we have as "lusts" of one kind or another that have been selected for: the "lust" for food, the lust for sunshine, the "lust" for altruism.

And just as with sexual lust, you have some people who overdo altruistic lust: Think Mother Theresa as equivalent to a nymphomaniac. Hitchens would like that. :-)

Boffo job overall, countering each argument brought forth, with very clear, non-angry responses. I didn't like the interviewer either, but it was clearly a win for "us".

32. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #100541 by BeyondBelief on December 18, 2007 at 9:25 pm

I don't think it is over-stating the issue to suggest that censoring the comments in this video is capitulation to the very thing the debaters are arguing needs to be ended. If, as one poster asserts, both TGA and AHA agreed to this, then shame on them.

Secondly, the "nut" of the debate is this: TGA wants to engage and involve what Keith rightly calls diluters. But he wants to involve and engage Muslims in terms of Islam, or while accepting it.

Ayan CLEARLY states (and I think correctly) that we are in a discussion about how to have a civil society. Based on everything we "liberal, secular" societies have learned (over the past 1300 years since Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse), we will get nowhere if we try to start the discussion of how to form and govern a civil society from within the holy texts of ANY religion.

These texts' asserted rightful place at the table must be openly discussed and challenged precisely on the terms of what the books actually say. Go ahead, believe whatever you want on your private time, but when you move into the public sphere of shared society, we must and will demand better justification for policy than "my Bible tells me so."

33. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93639 by BeyondBelief on December 3, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Let the downloads begin...!!!

Wait.... We can't Download? Someone tell me what I'm missing, if this can be dowloaded and saved. I have a lot of long flights that I intend to put to good use with this material.

34. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93638 by BeyondBelief on December 3, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Blasphemer: I think this is one of the most fair treatments Hitchens has received.
Scarborough is generally a yutz, but if you notice his tone changed over the interview, and he DEFINITELY set Christopher up with softballs AND gave him time to hit them out of the park.

The lady repeatedly responded (off camera) with "Hmmm... interesting point."

And the other fellow, again, just lobbed a softball. This was a pretty darn good showing. Or, as Larry David might say, "Pretty, Pretty, Prettty, Prettty, Pretty Good!!"

35. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93633 by BeyondBelief on December 3, 2007 at 7:14 pm

To Comment #92788... Regarding the need for comparative religions courses.

I agree, except they should be retitled, "Comparative Belief Systems," or "Comparative Worldviews" courses, and one of the beliefs presented should be the secular/rational/scientific.

If you start from only comparing "religions", you have poisoned the well just about as badly as if you only discuss theists and atheists. Using their term only sets them up to win the debate. We can't continue to stand on the sidelines and accept the presentation as "Here's all of the varied religious experences of the world... and oh yeah, there are these carpers over here who believe NONE of them!"

Stand as equals.

36. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92715 by BeyondBelief on December 1, 2007 at 9:51 am

I have yet to listen to the AHA v EH debate, but this thread is a hoot. Janus, you win, in my view. Your position comes across as most consistent and least ad-hominem.

Bonzai, let it go!

R.

37. Ayaan on Anderson Cooper Tonight

Comment #92059 by BeyondBelief on November 29, 2007 at 7:50 pm

I just watched the interview, and the story preceding it regarding the Saudi woman sentenced to 200 lashes for being the victim of a gang rape. Ayaan gave a VERY good, obviously edited by a sympathetic host, interview. Well done!!

Suddenly I feel like contributing to her security trust!!

38. Megachurches Add Local Economy to Their Mission

Comment #91563 by BeyondBelief on November 28, 2007 at 2:49 pm

This is a dangerous, and intentional, tack being taken by the churches to eliminate separation of Church and State.

It all starts with "I'm just augmenting my mission, so you can't touch it."

The next extension is effectively, "Well, what's NOT really a part of our mission. It's all a big happy cohesive bundle of God's work. Continue passing the tax exemptions."

Finally it ends at "Allah is everything. There is nothing else."

Ok, so that's a bit of a leap on the slippery slope, but I have seen a progression in which Churches continue to insist that more and more activities (normally considered "businesses") are protected from "Government Intrusion" by the First Amendment.

So let's slap them with a dose of their own medicine: Christians often tell atheists, "It doesn't say "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution, so it doesn't exist." or " Advocating {insert religious activity here} in public facilities on public time is just me expressing my beliefs. That's not "establishment."

Well, it doesn't say "Religious Organizations should be tax exempt" in the constitution either. And don't try to equivocate on the term "establishment." Either they have to be literalist all the time, or interpretive all the time. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

"Establishment" can mean setting up a national religion, or it can mean, "a religious establishment"... i.e. a church. The latter is absurd, because then, to skirt the laws, someone would just have to claim that their activities are a part of a religious establishment, and then get special... hey wait a minute!

DOH!!!

The ONLY hope I see is if the number of businesses willing to fight because they are being hurt by tax-exemption-subsidized church-businesses, will FAR outnumber the Christian Business-folk who see this as a boondoggle to avoid taxes.

PS: This clause of the first amendment may be the most unfortunately worded utterances of Thomas Jefferson (and his co-authors) in all of their writing. Too equivocal and soft. The Danbury Baptist letter interpretation is much better. Build up this wall!!

39. 'Secular Believers'

Comment #89309 by BeyondBelief on November 20, 2007 at 9:22 am

Perhaps I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but it seems like an absolutely BRILLIANT (and actionable) idea to advocate for this type of programming being included in any "comparative religions" course... which of course, should be renamed, "Comparative Worldviews" or "Comparative Belief Systems."

I don't expect to see this played over public airwaves... hell, I was glad to see we could get the "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" broadcast on PBS...but I think this could be a great item for individual, local activists to pick up and push: Does your publicly funded high school have a "comparative Religions" course? Does it include any reference to the 100% legitimate position that perhaps there is no need for ANY God?
What is the "slant" of the comparison? Does it only show similarities, and hence imply "See, God must be true, since so many different faiths have enacted "worship" to him."

Loved the show, not only for content, but for its potential! Spread it around folks. If you're looking for a way to be a more active, vocal proponent of secular values, this is a good one.

40. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #83957 by BeyondBelief on October 31, 2007 at 9:23 pm

I'm a late arrival to watching this, but I just have to add: Anyone who can make Christopher Hitchens say (as he does very near the end) "Gag me with a spoon" has surely gone beyond the rhetorical pale.

What a load of assertion parading as discovery or revelation. Dinesh (and his ilk) look at the wonders of nature and say, "Ah ha... proof of God." It explains nothing, adds no insight... and equating that stance with Keppler's discovery of the laws of planetary motion, which had to built on deduction and mathematics and observation... oi vay!

41. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #81483 by BeyondBelief on October 24, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Those who retreat to this are usually down to their last feeble defense.

While this is not exactly an argument to be used, my perception is that this canard is deployed to attempt to implicate the atheist in what the theist (by this point) is coming to realize is pretty superstitious behavior. "OK, Mr. Atheist, you're right... my religion has inconsistencies, my holy book is flawed, but you're just as bad as me, making a 'leap of faith'. You can't prove anything any more than I can!! So we're equally on shaky ground. Back off."

It's as if the religious person is saying to us, "Let he who has never sinned throw the first stone." In fact, this is a bad assertion to let them get away with. We HAVEN'T committed the same sin.

If my perception is correct, the believer feels backed into a corner. So the question is, how can you your arguments let them out of the corner gracefully, allowing them to either save face OR see a comfortable alternative to their current position, but without accepting the premise?

42. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79288 by BeyondBelief on October 16, 2007 at 6:00 pm

I'm in the middle of McGrath's opening... where he cautions us against the danger of "worldviews" animating us to "do things."

Heaven forfend!! If he can give us one piece of advice, is it going to be that we should hold and cultivate worldviews that don't animate us? Ee's a bloomin' genius, ee is!!

43. Ayaan Hirsi Ali at AAI 07

Comment #79093 by BeyondBelief on October 16, 2007 at 5:09 am

Paraphrasing Ayaan: "Activism is inevitable."

I love how blunt and direct she was in saying, essentially, you can whine about the way the game is played, but unless you get off your butt and get in the game, you will be steamrolled by the groups willing to "proselytize."

Now, "proselytize" might not be the best word choice, but I believe her intended meaning is that we must broadcast our ideas and position. In the "marketplace" of ideas, atheism is fighting for shelf-space alongside the Twinkies and Doritos of religion, self-help, and other potentially tasty thoughts that ultimately leave you empty and out of shape.

But who is to blame if there is no atheism on the shelf for the average consumer to choose? It's great to have Richard, Sam, Daniel, Ayaan, Christopher and others be the global face of the product, but the shelves don't get stocked without local distribution networks.

If you don't want to "proselytize" then just get out and put your atheism on the shelves for others to see and perhaps choose.

I'm afraid that, much like recent Republican Senators have loudly and publicly decried the sins they are most guilty of, I talk a good game, but don't (yet) walk the walk. I do not get out and publicly stock the shelves in the marketplace of ideas... in neighborhoods that most need it. The marketplace here on this forum has PLENTY of atheism to choose from.

44. A Revelation

Comment #78260 by BeyondBelief on October 12, 2007 at 10:05 am

Vendetta wrote:

For the most part people here don't point their skepticism towards religion, they are skeptical of science (how do we know they're right when they keep changing their theories?) and the government.

I wonder where the fundamentalists get that notion about science? Hmmm... where could it be propagated? Have you seen the excerpt of Ted Haggard talking to RD in "Root of All Evil"? Paraphrasing Haggard: "I have here a book written thousands of years ago, by 40 different authors, and it doesn't contradict itself. On the other hand, we can't even get two scientists to agree for a week about some theories."

That kind of thinking doesn't grow of its own accord... it is force fed down the gullets of the gullible, listening to idiots like Haggard DEFINE "science" and "evolution," who then go out and think they understand either science or evolution.

They are actively teaching that disagreement over truth-claims (i.e. the heart of the scientific enterprise) is EQUAL to those truth-claims being wrong. The short hand: "Thinking about truth is wrong. Accepting it as handed to you is right."

Yikes!!

Also... they're skeptical of the "gubmint", not government. :-)

45. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78255 by BeyondBelief on October 12, 2007 at 9:48 am

2 Comments:

IanG: You ROCK!! Don't let all the praise go to your head, but keep on writing the clear, stylish and solid missives.

Regarding the list of requests to Muslims in comment #12 above..#78096

OK how about for starters, muslims adopt the following "common essentials" shared by almost all the rest of humanity (not just christos):
- complete freedom to leave your religion (incl islam)
- freedom to proselytise towards, away from, upwards or sideways WRT any belief system.
- complete equality of human rights incl infidels in majority moslem countries.
- unequivocal renunciation of terrorism, jihad, dhimmitude, and division of the world into dar al islam and dar al harb
- equality b/w male and female

I'd like to add
- freedom to draw cartoons on any subject
- elimination of the concept of blasphemy (corollary to apostasy above), and its attendant punishments.

46. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77540 by BeyondBelief on October 9, 2007 at 3:12 pm

I wonder who wrote this line, Sam or Salman?

"There is no one in a better position to remind us that tolerance of intolerance is cowardice."

Crystal clear. I fear this issue is not being raised to general public consciousness, or if it is, it is being marginalized as a "well, she brought it upon herself... you've got to be willing to pay for your "free" speech" issue.

Atheist, PLEASE!!! ;-) We must understand that this case is the archetypal demonstration of the need for separation of church and state, of the need to vehemently protest any body (governmental or otherwise) that holds murder to be appropriate punishment for "blasphemy." I don't know that this is the archetypal case for arguing that The State owes specific individuals protection.

I also fear that this is the archetypal proof of Sam Harris' point that moderates are the water bearers of the extremists. I can just hear them, "Well, she DID insult their religion, and I certainly don't like it when people insult MY religion, so I can't really stand up for her."

Dear Religiots, can't you separate for a moment the desire to protect your own house of cards from examination, from the desperate need to call out Muslim extremism and blasphemy punishments as behavior abhorrent to civil society!!!

Must Ayaan be a martyr for "Reason" before the general public pays attention? I fear this is an all too real possible outcome, because let's face it... how many people can we SPECIFICALLY protect against an evil? We don't pay for individualized police officers for every person, just because there are murderers out there in the world and we want to stop murder.

So Ayaan is a "target of special merit"... agreed. Who should pay for her security?

Would it be gauche of Ayaan to put up a website for donations to her own security, to allow her to keep speaking eloquently, and allow those who TRULY believe in the value of free speech to put their money where their mouth is?

This isn't ultimately about Ayaan: It is about how the world stands in solidarity with her!!!
It's about a fundamental Constitutional right... and it is imperative that our representatives (and anyone else we can write to) hears how SEVERELY important this issue is. Start writing!! Sign the petitions. Make some noise. Horton needs to hear the Who's that value free speech and just, civil society over theocricide!

I remember a story wherein a plan was hatched to go after all Jewish houses during Hannukah. The perpetrators would attack any home with a Menorah in the window. The people of the neighborhood, upon hearing of the plan, ALL put Menorah's in their window in solidarity. (A variation revolves around the requirement of wearing a star of David to single out the Jewish, and the neighbors all donned the starts in solidarity).

So... what can we do to stand in solidarity with Ayaan! We obviously can't all dress up as tall, articulate, beautiful Somali women... :-)

Make some noise!!

47. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77161 by BeyondBelief on October 8, 2007 at 3:54 pm

A followup to Comment #76770... and an idea about thankfulness:

Could THAT be the signature "atheist" move? What would happen if every atheist made a concerted effort to genuinely and sincerely thank those that positively impact them on a daily basis?

How POWERFUL that would be. It's not only a good exercise forcing the atheist to pay attention to how much benefit and good will he/she is receiving, but it raises the spirits of those receving the praise.

And then, when one commments, "I'm shocked. I so rarely receive a thank you," the door is opened for the planting of a very subtle meme..."Why, Doctor, I have to thank you, and your dedication to learning, and your powers of concentration, and your love of healing, for they are what brought me through this problem. Who else should I thank? It's you and all the people who have dedicated their lives to improving the science of health care who saved my life."

What subversive joy I would get in regularly reminding PEOPLE that they are the reason for thanks, and not God... and I wouldn't once have to label myself an "atheist" to do it!!

Spread the word... Give THANKS!... to the rightful recipients. :-)

48. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #76298 by BeyondBelief on October 5, 2007 at 11:45 am

AH, ah ,ah!!! Not so fast. This FOX presentation exposes a complete inability to understand irony and sarcasm. The reporter is presenting the group as a set of believers in specific dogma (note the Global Warming/Pirate reduction correlation) and not as a group making fun of groups that hold such absurd beliefs.

I think this report is actually designed to get the believing public all foamy in the mouth about a potential new interloper in their market. :-)

49. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75741 by BeyondBelief on October 3, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Two themes grab my attention...

"Red Coats for Atheism"...and those who can't/don't want to be "redcoats", they just want the political respect and rights they so richly deserve.

These are two related topics. On one hand, we talk about wanting to be a "movement" and on the other hand some say, "...but don't bother me to DO anything, just get me the benefits."
We talk about wanting to be an effective political coalition that gets results, but then the carpers start talking about not needing to organize like "the Redcoats of Atheism."

In both cases, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Effective movements organize. They speak with common voices about common principles, and the proponents expose themselves to public ridicule, confrontation, injury, and in most social movements even death.

We will not achieve goals without significant organization to achieve them: My counter example is that of Liberty University. Someone strategized a while back that the way to convert the United States into a Christian Theocracy is to establish a school devoted to churning out Lawyers who would argue from a Biblical perspective. The current justice department is rife with them.
(Yes, just as it seems "wrong" to have the label "atheism" to name what should be the norm, it seems equally abhorrent to have to advocate for a "University of Science and Reason," but how many universities today explicitly state that their charter is to advance knowledge without recourse to faith or supernatural arguments?)

Someone strategized a long time ago that the way to gain control of school curricula and local government decisions is to stack local elective bodies with Christian conservatives. They have been acting on this ORGANIZED strategy for a generation and it is succeeding.

So, if we are to become an effective constituency, we had better start articulating the strategy and tactics (i.e. organizing) and then becoming the redcoats of Atheism (i.e. participating) or we will all slowly watch the overwhelming tide of religious ideas snuff out the Enlightenment values of reason... simply because "the other guys" are more devoted and truly BELIEVE in their cause, and are willing to fight for it.

Are we ready? Do you, as Sam Harris might ask, truly BELIEVE in what you say about reason, science, freedom, love, etc. so much that you will actually ACT on your beliefs?

Organize. Participate. Make gains.

50. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56446 by BeyondBelief on July 15, 2007 at 8:10 pm

re #5900 by GR8HANDS...

Why perpetuate a tradition?

As I review the "successful" religions that have kept themselves alive through the ages, one thing that strikes me is the degree to which they demand that the believer "re-tell the story" and remind themselves of their beliefs.

It is a kind of religious exercise. Use it or lose it. I was raised Catholic, and mandatory weekly Mass attendance falls into this category, as does Saintly feast days on virtually every day. Ways to constantly force one to spend precious moments of consciousness reiterating their beliefs and sectarian affiliation.

Very important to the continuation of the group.

I lived for 2 years with an observant Kosher Jewish family while in grad school. I once asked them if they truly believed they would be punished for mixing milk and meat, or violating any of the dietary rules. The wife's reply was revelatory to me: "No, we don't really believe in the theology of the laws, but we do believe in finding a way to... EVERY DAY... to remind ourselves who we ARE."

John Mellencamp put it colloquially that religious practice is essential to avoid becoming a feather in the wind..."You've got to stand for something, or you're gonna fall for anything."

Feh... Aristotle he ain't... but I think you get my point regarding Hitchen's reason for participating in tradition. As he so rightly (and off-handedly) says, "It IS a tradition."

And all that said, while I agree that it does not make sense to perpetuate rituals upholding wierd belief systems, I think we are also at peril too rapidly discarding the entire ritual without understanding what went into their creation.

BTW, where are the Atheist stories? Where the atheist traditions? Is there an atheist curriculum? If you want to dump sectarian education and traditions, what course would you replace it with? I see this as a SERIOUS lack of our position.

The religionist may have a non-sensical set of beliefs, but man do they teach it, and repeat it, and integrate it into their schools, and proselytize for converts, and denigrate the alternatives, and...
... simply, where are the similar outreach programs from humanists, rationalists, atheists, etc., aiming to give the wayfaring believer structured education? What structured, repetitive stories are we telling our children to inculcate reason and prevent deviation from it even when it might SEEM to be a good idea? What regular rituals do we participate in to remind us (and the community that sees us in these practices) who we are, and what we believe? Where is the atheist/rationalist equivalent of Pat Robertson's "Liberty University."

Traditions are a VERY powerful component of the staying power of an idea or system of knowing the world. We in favor of reason can sit back on the belief that "Truth will out" but that leaves us in a rather tenuous position in the face of religious propagation that outstrips us in sheer fecundity, willingness to kill apostates and heretics, and childhood brainwashing. Is there just more devotion to pushing religion than there is to pushing reason?

R.