1. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #279351 by DanDare on November 6, 2008 at 12:26 am

Anyone else have a problem loading this page in Firefox? I can get it fine in I.E. but I prefer using Firefox.

2. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #272073 by DanDare on October 27, 2008 at 12:56 am

I quickly progressed from Santa to Peter Pan and then on to "Have Space Suit, Will Travel". I have an active fantasy life as well as an inspired imagination. I never had a moment of disillusionment when I left Santa behind.

I think examination of the roll fantasy and imagination plays in both our development and adult lives is a great idea. It may show ways to enhance our appreciation of exciting and wonderful reality.

3. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #271545 by DanDare on October 25, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Re; Eric Blair comment #271530

The Professor's quote that you give is an attack on an idea, not the people that hold it. I have not encountered any comments by Professor Dawkins that says people with those beliefs are "fools, not be taken seriously".

No discourse can be had if ideas are to be protected against criticism or if you claim criticism of an idea is automatically criticism of any person holding the idea. In that direction lies chaos, dogma and ignorance.

4. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #270230 by DanDare on October 23, 2008 at 9:26 pm

What about repeating the ad as a Google ad or something similar that links to an atheist page which itself links here and to Sam Harris etc?

5. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268545 by DanDare on October 22, 2008 at 12:46 am

Yeehaaaaaaaah! What fun.

I think the slogan is just great! Its humorous like a quote from The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it is easy to read at a glance, it will irritate the true believers but lighten up the uncertain.

So much money being donated! I just tried to donate 20 pounds but I think the server is down! I'll give it a go later.

6. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260271 by DanDare on October 5, 2008 at 4:13 am

latsot:

I don't think that's what Condell is doing. I think his aim is to show people who are not concerned about the creeping influence of religion that there is a genuine problem. He does this (partly) in the form of rants, sometimes against religious people, but I doubt he's expecting to convert anyone. His targets seem to be the people (most of us) who let religion get away with so much.

By presenting an extreme- and angry-sounding view, Condell makes people sit up and notice, where previously the point may have passed them by entirely.

I see his work as another tool in the education of the population in the benefits of secularism. I'm with joshuaslocum in feeling that we need loudmouths and diplomats.

Saved me from having to write that myself.

7. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #249942 by DanDare on September 18, 2008 at 6:19 pm

An excellent case study for why freedom of speech is important and how apparent "defensive" rights can be manipulated to prevent speech. The problem is there is always some speech/presentation of information that someone finds offensive or beyond the pale. Once you close up shop for one reason others can also manipulate that to effectively silence other speech as collateral damage.

Governments are particularly guilty of using things like national security to silence stuff critical of the government. At least that is often difficult to pull off, but when you get someone capable of banning entire populations worth of speech because some member of a web site didn't like your book then we are in a world of trouble.

8. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248142 by DanDare on September 15, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Has Professor Reiss been misquoted? Yes. Plenty of the comments above are jumping about saying he advocated creationism in science class, the exact opposite of what he said.

What is wrong with dismissing religious views from science students? It turns them off from learning. They must be engaged in order to learn and other students observing a respectful interaction will also be engaged. Professor Dawkins demonstrated this in his new Darwin DVD.

Professor Reiss also being ordained certainly raises questions but he has not demonstrated any misunderstanding of science or of evolution through natural selection or of how to teach science. He may be a bit naive about how he will be treated by the media.

9. Origins - The BIG Questions: 2008 Skeptics Society Conference

Comment #242454 by DanDare on September 3, 2008 at 6:40 pm

I devour Dr. Stuart Kauffman's work. It has taught me a great deal about how to understand complex systems and how to identify attractors and pick apart fitness maps.

10. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230527 by DanDare on August 14, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Only "mostly" Laurie? Gosh, I'll have to put "Could do better" on your report card ;-)

11. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230498 by DanDare on August 14, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Richard Dawkins

"Yet, today, society appears to be retreating from reason."

mordacious1

Are there not more atheists now than ever before? Are we truly retreating, or does it just seem that way?
I know my parents were a lot more superstitious than I am (if I am), and my grandparents were more superstitious than my parents. I want to be optimistic about this.

Dadeolus

Is society truly retreating from reason? There are many more practical atheists than any other time in the past (people who may say they believe but only go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals). Many of my friends have recently had kids, and all of them are only getting their kids christened to avoid an argument with grandparents. If we truly are rational, I want to see evidence that society is retreating from reason!

Steve Zara

I don't see any real evidence it is. I think it is becoming more acceptable to question superstition and irrational beliefs, so we hear more about them. Also, the mainstream religions are getting concerned about people switching to other forms of supernaturalism.

Spinoza

The "retreat from reason" isn't easily evident to educated academic Western (mostly white) people.
But the numbers are weird. While church-going Christian numbers are decreasing, sanity-abhorring belief-junkies are traipsing over to Islam with open skulls... and all manner of junk is squashed in...
"Non-religious", too, is certainly no guarantor of "(wo)man of reason" in the Enlightenment sense of the word.
The retreat from THAT sense of the word "reason" is actually even more confusing among academics... at least, outside the research-oriented sciences.
Among atheists, too, there is an alarming amount of anti-intellectualism (read: "unenlightenment values")... has ALWAYS annoyed me...

Its not just religion, its all the pseudoscience stuff. I have so many friends who are homeopathists, believe in star signs, even fall for the stupid "text your name and your friends name to find out if you are a perfect match" crap. Everyone treats you like the skunk at the picnic if you so much as raise an eyebrow at their stupid beliefs.

[edit}Why can't the quote thing work in the comments just like in the forums, eh?[/edit]

12. Daniel Dennett: Autobiography (Part 1)

Comment #221718 by DanDare on July 30, 2008 at 3:13 am

Teratornis:

Richard writes about appreciating the wonders of nature. Well, religion is as much an aspect of nature as the stars, galaxies, waterfalls, and spider webs. Speaking of spider webs, how "wonderful" might one appear to a sentient struggling fly trapped upon it? Humans can appreciate the wonders of nature just so long as we are immune to their horrors. The AIDS virus, in its own way, is as beautifully equipped by natural selection to do its job as any of the creatures we regard as more charismatic.

Monty Python:

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures, short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.

13. What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #216429 by DanDare on July 23, 2008 at 7:30 am

Atheists have no god to give them purpose and so they are free to invent one for themselves. I choose being happy as the purpose to my life.

I could ask of those that believe some deity has imposed a purpose on their life "what would be the purpose of god existing? Would her existence have any purpose from her point of view?"

14. PZ Myers - Expelled from Expelled

Comment #201615 by DanDare on June 29, 2008 at 11:26 pm

Comment #201081 by Barry Pearson ...


...Note that "evolution vs ID" or "religion vs Science" are really covered by more general dimensions, and sometimes combinations of them, typically "Method of thinking" and "Source of information". (I may merge those).

No don't merge method of thinking and source of information, they make very good dimensions. Would you add lateral thinking to the thinking dimension please.

I think there is another dimension too, similar to co existance, to do with moral reasoning. It would have something like "evolving (progressive?), open, enabling, rewarding" vs "static, given, prohibitive, punishing"

15. The Science of Religion and the Religion of Science

Comment #201034 by DanDare on June 28, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Started a new topic about science of religion in the faith and religion forum.

16. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #186682 by DanDare on May 31, 2008 at 2:13 am

Obviously the question implies "there are qualified experts in religion, you must be one too in order to do battle with them". I like the "Courtiers Reply" where the boy who has seen the emperor is naked is grilled about his understanding of fashion and clothing design. Truthfully the boy needs no such qualification to argue that the emperor has no clothes. I need no qualification to question the validity of religion.

Who I am is not relevant to any questioning or investigation.

17. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186635 by DanDare on May 30, 2008 at 10:06 pm

by Bonzai: Whether their "affliction" is "real" in the "objective" sense really has little to do with how one should handle the complaints.

Of course it makes a difference! If its real then we have to agonise about how, and how much, to mitigate by physical means. If its in their heads then we need to work out how to get them psychiatric help without disturbing the rest of the population who are innocent of actually doing anything to them.

18. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #185860 by DanDare on May 28, 2008 at 9:34 pm

The reality is there are a lot of things that we don't understand.

..and never will if you don't examine them and put effort into working them out.

There's no theory in science that could explain how, contrary to the laws of entropy, you could create order out of chaos.

What BS, there are plenty of ways to increase order in one part of the universe as long as you are not decreasing the total level of disorder.

There's no scientific theory that explains how you can create organic life out of inorganic matter.

There are plenty of hypothesis for this. Soon, one of those will probably be raised up to the level of theory.

I think we owe it to our children to teach them the best possible modern scientific facts and theories.

No, we should teach them the best possible scientific method, and then teach them where we are at so far as a second priority.

Teach them what different theories are out there for the things that aren't answerable by science, that aren't answered by science.

If its not answered by science yet then it is a hypothesis at best, it cannot be a theory because that would make it an answer.

Let them decide for themselves. I don't think we should be scared to do that.

Only after giving them the information and concepts apon which to deliberate.

Personally, it certainly makes sense to me that when you look at creation, you would believe in a creator.

If you pre-suppose it is "creation" then you assume a creator. There is no evidence to support Creation as a hypothesis, and few ways to frame the idea of Creation so that it could, at least in principle, be proved false.

Let's not be afraid to teach our kids the very best science.

Finally one sentence in this blockheads quote that I can agree with, although I think he means something different to the obvious face value of the quote.

19. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #185526 by DanDare on May 28, 2008 at 2:48 am

Use the "Stork Theory" to positively identify why non-science cannot be taught in science classes ! Its a funny gag but it is also a deep demonstration. Science teaches that babies are created by sexual intercourse, but its just a theory and other competing theories should be included. Let the children decide if they believe in Stork Theory or not.

Daniel Dennett is wrong about teaching religion in school by the way. They have R.E. classes in state schools here in Oztralia and they just push for more. Religion can be taught at home and kids can be bundled of to church outside of school. There is no need whatsoever to have it IN school, except to keep their kids under the thumb!

20. Flea of the week

Comment #185525 by DanDare on May 28, 2008 at 2:37 am

by SRWB on April 18, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I think what we need is a(nother) book written by God to settle this once and for all! I'm surprised that one of these fleas simply hasn't been able to whisper into His ear to get him to do that and make this whole silly argument go away.

Oh, that's what I was going to do. I'll get on it right away. Do you think I need to sacrifice anyone in a stupid way this time or can I go back to the Buddha kind of thing?

21. What is science for?

Comment #185256 by DanDare on May 27, 2008 at 9:22 am

So back on topic: what is science for?

The esteemed professors didn't seem to want to explore the topic. Here's my answer:

To see the beauty of the universe clearly
To understand how I fit in the scheme of things
To protect myself from harm
To gain benefit
To rid myself of unsubstantiated fears
To enjoy the complexity of what is discovered behind simplicity
To enjoy the simplicity of what is discovered behind complexity
To allow the trolls to have something to rant about at richarddawkins.net

22. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #177993 by DanDare on May 10, 2008 at 7:20 am

If god exists and can be "experienced" by people then he must be detectable. His actions must leave measurable, identifiable forensic evidence. Otherwise he can not interact with the universe.

So, where is the evidence buried, Area 51?

23. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #173580 by DanDare on April 30, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Edward DeBono style provocation here, a statement designed to be used for moving forward, not for evaluating.

PO Free Will is that mechanism that allows our single world awareness to choose which of the many quantum alternatives to experience.

24. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #172708 by DanDare on April 30, 2008 at 12:54 am

To my mind "free will" describes the unfettered working of the mechanisms of my mind. This mechanism exists regardless of whether it is part of a deterministic physics or not. Chaos theory shows that it is unpredictable regardless of having an underlying deterministic physics. Quantum Physics suggests that it does not have a deterministic physics (at least in any "single world" theory of QP.) since quantum fluctuations may work, via the butterfly effect, to produce unpredictable results in the working of my neural network.

Making decisions and holding opinions are not under the direct control of material entities outside of my neural net although chemistry introduced into my body can alter the underlying perceptions and operating mechanism.

Right and wrong are assessments that appear in my neural system and other peoples neural systems may hold me accountable for those assessments.

25. America: slouching towards the Enlightenment

Comment #136283 by DanDare on February 29, 2008 at 5:25 pm

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.

I have come up against this and seen many others struggling with it at brights.net and many other forums. Just being a Bright or a simple Atheist does not produce a sense of belonging that makes many other fads and faiths so compelling. Even trekies have more unity.

So perhaps the question arises, how do you meld the non-theists into a community. It can't be done in the manner of ten commandments which we adhere to, it certainly has to be based around the discovery of common values that naturally arise from our nature as human beings in a natural universe.

If something along those lines is developed then the default position should be attractive enough to assuage the desire to belong.