1. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51634 by BocoDragon on June 23, 2007 at 10:34 pm

I'm from Alberta originally (Edmonton), and I now live in Victoria, BC (to contrast with my home province). The idea of Alberta being an American-style Christian stronghold is more or less false. You might find yourself in a typical Christian rural town or a Christian whitebread suburb, but by no means is there much fundamentalism or religious fervor at all. It's very liberal, hands-off religion in the culture-at-large.

Considering how "conservative" Alberta is (and I'm sure it is: financially) they sure do have large numbers of vocal left-wingers in the street papers and whatnot. Compare that to Victoria, which is supposedly in "lefty BC", but is really a bunch of rich people who barely even talk about being liberal.... I think Alberta is minutely different from the rest of the country (I'm sure there is a slightly more religious %), and it's exaggerated by stereotypes and the obviously socially conservative government, which makes them a lot of money, keeping them in power.

Growing up an atheist in Alberta... I sure wasn't ever bothered by a single religious nut, aside from the type you'd expect in any nation on this earth... There was no "monolithic religious culture"... which is a myth that seems to loom large in Alberta's neighbours' minds... In fact my atheism was fostered by a number of active subcultures.

Basically, Alberta has its nuts like the rest of the world, but we can't paint in broad strokes :)

I suppose Manning isn't a nut, so much as he is just lame. I like the polite tone of his article, but he's asking us not to discuss religion. He asks us to dumb ourselves down in the name of social order, but society would be better served by free dialogue

2. We of little faith

Comment #50322 by BocoDragon on June 16, 2007 at 6:45 pm

This was a very interesting talkback :) Good points, everyone.

I'm always willing to hear a debate on Buddhism, but the modern "philosophy" of Buddhism should be acknowledged for what it claims to be, or its current popularity will never be understood.

3. Furor over author Ayaan Hirsi Ali's visit stirs debate on religious freedom

Comment #40718 by BocoDragon on May 14, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Russell- I agree. My atheistic sentiments were that all religions are equally nutty at base, but my liberalism taught me that they all equally inspire people to be good in our times.

I was wrong.

Frankly, the crusades/Inquisition are a certain perversion of Jesus, long after his time. He was, at worst, some sort of radical jewish rabbi, and he really did desire a universal liberal god... But modern terrorism isn't a "fundamentalist corruption" of Islam at all... it's a pretty logical extension of a strict world kingdom of God, urged through the sword, and now held back by western powers. (the Sunni/Shia division is based on who is to be the rightful king of Islam.. of all things!)

I know that's Sam Harris all over again, but it's all hearsay until you look into the history of Islam and the Quran yourself. It's very much true.

Interestingly, after my historical research, I debated a few Muslims online. I was quite polite, but outlining the very clear possibility that the roots of Islam could have been a very disturbing localized religious skirmish/"battle for power" that exploded.

They spoke about me having a wrong view, "from prejudice".. Obviously, I had just not read enough information on Islam! (as they interpreted it.. as western Muslims, no doubt)

I was an innocent Muslim-friendly liberal before I read history, which brought to light many concerns with Islam, and NOW I'm misinformed and prejudiced? Very interesting, that.

4. Furor over author Ayaan Hirsi Ali's visit stirs debate on religious freedom

Comment #40694 by BocoDragon on May 14, 2007 at 5:38 pm

""The Prophet Mohammed was a peacemaker and a role model for humanity," she said. "My understanding is that he was a peaceful person who believed that religion was a choice. He tried to teach people and bring them into it, not punish them."

Is that the same Mohammad who invented islam and then set about conquering all the land he could get his grubby little mitts on then?""



I was doing a lot of historical research recently, and I was absolutely shocked by the true story of Mohammad. If you don't read it just right, with heavy believer bias, it kinda looks like the story of a fanatic who started angrily preaching his beliefs, and gaining a few local believers. When he was "persecuted" by the tired polytheists of the day, he used it as an excuse to fight them. (they eventually gave in: Mecca is the holy city because of a bizarre compromise with the Meccans, who just gave into his demands after awhile). In the momentum the conquering hordes just spread outward....

It was a military theocracy that conquered much of the world, and in the lands they took, people continue to believe this stuff until today.....

It would really be no different from the god-king cult of the pharohs... patrarchial brainwashing to its core, being preserved until now.

Of course, modern peaceful Muslims will tell you all about how Mohommad is peaceful. That's the most Orwellian concept possible: He was a warlord. But you know religion... if you're nice, then your holy man was nice too...

5. BBC man says 'I was wrong to lose it. But these scientologists are truly scary'

Comment #40685 by BocoDragon on May 14, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Kinda creepy... I looked for a YouTube of this and I noticed people spamming in the comments about a website: bbcpanorama-exposed. org

It's a Church of Scientology puppet website, all ready to smear this BBC doc, and these YouTubers are clearly Church viral marketers or true believers. It seems you can sign up for a free DVD! But I wouldn't get on their mailing list ;)

Their aggressive modern legal and PR tactics are frightening. It's one thing when these forces are selling us Mickey Mouse and Gatorade... but with the lethal combination of religion it's even more effective.

That said... Sweeney did kinda dig his own grave on this one.

6. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #40550 by BocoDragon on May 14, 2007 at 1:05 pm

RE: Buddhism

"It just seems odd to me that any entity with monks, nuns, monasteries, shrines and many other trappings of religion would be present as only a philosophy."

Do you think that religions just pop out fully formed, with the institutions and leaders already complete?

Keep in mind that "monks"... "nuns", these are Christian words applied to foreign titles. I wonder if we used the word "president" instead of abbot, if that would paint a picture more pleasing to 21st century western atheists? Of course it would.

Buddhism started out as a philosophy... it wasn't intended to be written down. After the founders death, many attempted to twist his words, so it was necessarily written down to keep it uncorrupted: Boom, you have "scripture".

"Scripture", by the way, which is one of the most dogma-dissolving theories you will ever hear. Science is a downright monolithic dogmatism (albeit an evolving one, and one which is hopefully accurate to physical facts), compared to the admonishments against 'hearsay' proposed by the founder of Buddhism. (and he was referring to himself: "DONT listen to me just because I look wise, or a million other reasons. Use only YOUR logic")

And the community that the founder started continued. It had followers. It had administrators of the places where they could practice meditation... Boom, you have a "religious institution".

To be sure, Buddhism is 2500 years old and is certainly a religion in many places (Tibet and the Dalai Lama ARE religious in tradition)... but the very scriptures the founder left warned against this... It's just inevitable when it passed through 1000s of years of human development before science... Plato and Aristotle have been dogmatized into near-religious understandings in the past, too.

I've seen people critique Buddhism on the grounds that things like "dukkha" are like magical myths (a la Holy Trinity)... but that's actually an old word meaning "suffering". Just because something is a funny word doesn't mean that it isn't referring to something mundane, right in front of you. This isn't magic.

But if you really think there is any conflict with being an atheist/scientist and a Buddhist... then you don't know Buddhism in general (only a specific dogmatized variant, perhaps). Whatever superstition you might accuse Buddhists of, is unrivaled by your misunderstanding of this philosophy, too popular for its own good.

Even Dawkins knows better. (he excludes Buddhism and Confucianism from the critique in The God Delusion) This debate just isn't about human philosophies and theories of conduct.... It's about denying that religions have any claim to "facts" of physical reality. These are the types of claims on which the founder of Buddhism would remain silent.... He wasn't playing mock-scientist like every other religious founder.

7. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36490 by BocoDragon on May 1, 2007 at 10:18 am

The interview did not go well.

Spin it however you want, but that was hardly enlightening to atheist and theist alike.

I'm sure the book is a better argument than the painful interview I saw on the Daily Show.

8. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16249 by BocoDragon on January 5, 2007 at 5:31 pm

I'm disturbed by how many mainstream publications take the perspective of "we are theists, here's an atheist we shouldn't listen to".

This is not intellectualism. This is in-group dynamics. "Ostracize this fool. Ignore his views." Instead of considering the philisophical issues, we discuss the character of the author.

The repetition of "The Athiests... The Athiests...." is a ploy to make a sect out of a rational disbelief in folktales. It's a witch hunt in print.

The only legitimate argument I could find was that Dawkins made folly by ignoring theology. The thought of him devoting chapters to Judeo-Christian, Muslim and Hindu theology is amusing. It sure would take a long time going through all those holy books, along with the beliefs of Greece, Maya and many other cultures.... But, of course, if Dawkins just spent time discussing the holy book of the United States, I'm sure the author would be okay with it. Funny that.

9. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #15087 by BocoDragon on December 28, 2006 at 9:10 pm

The constant references to Stalin and Hitler are frustrating, but expected. When one believes morals to be the result of God's guidance, the lack of belief in God must signal a lack of morality. The theist scans recent history for repulsive figures to confirm their worst fears. It's pretty easy to build a short list of nominally 'atheist' tyrants, because those universally despised villains of our culture have often been labeled 'atheist' by our religious-leaning culture.

Why does Dawkins (indeed: any person comfortable with atheism) gloss over these accusations? The solution is obvious: he is already an athiest, and moral. He really has no reason to take these concerns seriously; he is living proof that with science and rationalism central to one's worldview, morality is still an aspect of humanity.

The argument ("what about atheist Stalin?") seems like a logical concern to a worried theist, whose God-mandated view of morality doesn't assume pure altruism in humanity, but to an athiest who is already good of his own accord, it seems an absurdity.