Comments by ~manic-depressive

1. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #238460 by ~manic-depressive on August 28, 2008 at 7:38 am

Well, let's give him a break; he is after all only a professor of political "science". I wonder if he knows what science means.

I've seen a couple of people saying they were going to send letters to the editor, which sounds like a great idea. Thanks to rod-the-farmer for the email. I think I'm also going to send a copy to Mr. Cooper's email address.

Always a good idea. (Although, I think I'll delay my email until I am in a better "mood", lest I send an email that, Jehovah-forbid, gives anyone cause to think I am just another fanatical atheist.)

2. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232162 by ~manic-depressive on August 17, 2008 at 6:26 pm

"Rene Leiva, a Catholic family doctor in Ottawa, and a former board member of the Canadian Physicians for Life, said if the new rules were adopted it would make it nearly impossible for him to operate in the province."

No shit, sherlock. Sooner the better.

How true!

And to hear a Papist talking of "moral integrity" is like hearing an Islamist talking of honour or nobility. ("Honour" killings... the "Noble" Qu'ran etc.)

3. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #227305 by ~manic-depressive on August 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Just wanted to echo robotaholic's sentiment which I did not think was the least bit stupid:

As stupid as this sounds, I want to tell you all how mature you sound for even considering the possible hypocrisy of lying to get this movie made in comparison to Expelled - you're all morally superior to christians - and I have yet to hear an objection from a christian for the deceptive tactics of the producers of Expelled-

I'm not sure if it makes us morally superior -- it does show that we are less willing to claim absolute moral certainty.

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue.

My gut reaction tells me one thing but I've learned to question my moral instinct because I know how much it has been tainted by childhood Christian indoctrination.

4. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227289 by ~manic-depressive on August 9, 2008 at 3:52 pm

@Layla Nasreddin

Perhaps [this journalist] could have spent more time filling in HOW it was a good documentary instead of "debunking" the anti-religious bit that wasn't even that prominent, except in [his] head.

First of all, thanks for supplying the link to this article in the first place! And I agree with you; while one can imagine a believer being unable to get beyond the anti-religious part, I am so sick of all this "I'm an atheist buttery".

Or:

I can't believe it's not theist buttery.

5. Camp Offers Training Ground For Little Skeptics

Comment #226750 by ~manic-depressive on August 8, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Teaching children that thinking for themselves, that Skepticism is a virtue --

the "saints" of the Church must be turning in their graves. Poor "Saint" Augustine; poor "Saint" Aquinas and most of all poor "Saint" Paul (no, he was always Saul of Tarsus, the eternal Pharisee).

6. Dawkin 'bout a revolution

Comment #226274 by ~manic-depressive on August 7, 2008 at 8:50 pm

The weirdo in Oxford Street has been walking up and down there for decades!

The "why be a sinner when you can be a winner" guy? He must live on Oxford St. The number of times I've heard him at Oxford Circus...

Is there something wrong with me for feeling sorry for this guy? It would give me the greatest joy to fire a "magic bullet" (a metaphor from the world of Medicine, a "magic bullet" is an "ideal drug" i.e. one that would bring about immediate cure with zero side-effects) that would free this fellow from wasting his life because of being oh-so-obviously-brainwashed.

7. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #223909 by ~manic-depressive on August 3, 2008 at 5:05 pm

[Prof. Dawkins:] Father Coyne, amazingly, admitted to me that there was literally no good reason at all to believe in God. Of course I promptly asked him why, then, he did believe. His answer was very simple: "I was brought up Catholic."

It is oddly refreshing to find someone honestly admitting that their belief has no rational basis; most people try to rationalize beliefs they already hold for irrational reasons.

I feel a certain sympathy for Alister McGrath -- you can see him trying so-very-very-hard to square the circle. The expenditure of so much intellectual energy into justifying the unjustifiable is rather tragic.

8. The Boundaries of Belief

Comment #205481 by ~manic-depressive on July 7, 2008 at 11:01 am

Comment #205309 by Steve Zara

... no need to apologise. We post here, and we debate, and we all learn things. I certainly have.

Thank you. I'm glad you pointed out what I'd written and helped to clarify it...

I understand what you are saying ... it is that the kind of free will that religions invoke... that some transcendent non-physical mind can somehow "choose" what to do, and change our brain states, is sheer nonsense.

That's very much it! Glad you understand.

9. The Boundaries of Belief

Comment #205306 by ~manic-depressive on July 7, 2008 at 3:36 am

I don't think that this is a helpful statement. It suggests that you personally feel that a deep philosophical question has finally been closed.

Steve Zara, I apologize for the way I phrased that statement.

I think my problem is with the word "Freewill".

"Freewill" is a non-explanation like "God".

Language plays tricks on us though: Spinoza's "God " is NOT a non-explanation. Like Dennett's varieties of free will worth having is NOT a non-explanation.

Hard to express that clearly.

More pragmatically, it would be good if people sought to understand the reasons why people behave the way they do. (I'm not saying that reasons are excuses.)

10. The Boundaries of Belief

Comment #205129 by ~manic-depressive on July 6, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Some fictions are genuinely useful, like money. I have argued elsewhere that the fiction of freewill is useful.

Thank for your post!

You may very well be right on this; I don't have much of a problem if one recognizes that it is a fiction. (Professor Dennett has written quite wonderfully on the subject in his book "Freedom Evolves").

Some fictions are indeed useful; at least in the age that we live in.

I think I should mention that Dr. Sue Blackmore claims, in her intriguing book "The Meme Machine", that she lives without freewill.

11. The Boundaries of Belief

Comment #205118 by ~manic-depressive on July 6, 2008 at 3:41 pm

The bottom line to see that these are all mental models, systems - tools to be used at one's convenience. There's no point in not believing in god, if it gets you through a dreaded situation. Likewise, there's no reason to keep on believing on one, one the situation has passed. Switching gears is a skill that can be learned. Maybe the people who are experts on this do not come from the professions which consists of safely typing away. I would rather that you'd look for the answers to these questions where they are still relevant - in professions where serious injury or loss of life is a real possibility today.

@Daemonian

A very interesting post indeed! You would seem to be from the John N. Gray school of thought. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :-)

It would be interesting if in a post-theistic and thus post-atheistic world, having realized that it was us who made the gods and not they us, we consciously create gods for our own use. (Such gods would be gods of convenience of course, to be disposed of as required.)

Since most of the world is still encumbered by beliefs that fictional beings actually exist, most of us are not ready for such thoughts.

(It rather amazes me that there are atheists that still believe in the fiction of freewill; I suppose we all have our delusions.)

12. Science is thrilling - except in our schools

Comment #203613 by ~manic-depressive on July 3, 2008 at 8:35 am

What a fantastic article! So much to comment on but I'll stick with this:-

"In the West, we all believe there is one coherent person dominating our brains, directing us as we wander through life. There is You, whole and complete. But we are wrong. The different parts of our brains are locked in a constant electrical war. None of them is in charge. As the neurosphysician Paul Broks puts it: "We are all divided and discontinuous. The mental processes underlying our sense of self �" feelings, thoughts, memories �" are scattered through different zones of the brain. There is no special point of convergence. No cockpit of the soul. No soul-pilot."

This is something we know with enough certainty to be able to say (like we say of evolution): this is true. It is also of such vast significance and if it were not for the monoto-theisms we would have realized a long, long time ago. I found it rather impressive that it wasn't a neuroscientist but a mathematician, the fantastic John Allen Paulos, who pointed to this in the Edge Question for 2006:

"The self is a conceptual chimera

Doubt that a supernatural being exists is banal, but the more radical doubt that we exist, at least as anything more than nominal, marginally integrated entities having convenient labels like "Myrtle" and "Oscar," is my candidate for Dangerous Idea. This is, of course, Hume's idea �" and Buddha's as well �" that the self is an ever-changing collection of beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes, that it is not an essential and persistent entity, but rather a conceptual chimera. If this belief ever became widely and viscerally felt throughout a society �" whether because of advances in neurobiology, cognitive science, philosophical insights, or whatever �" its effects on that society would be incalculable. (Or so this assemblage of beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes sometimes thinks.)"

Indeed, "if this belief ever became widely and viscerally felt... its effects on that society would be incalculable." And just like any belief that faithfully represents reality, the effects would be positive.

13. Former state science director sues over intelligent design e-mail

Comment #203546 by ~manic-depressive on July 3, 2008 at 6:05 am

The tragedy of a nation that fails to educate its citizens is that in its place you have celebrities.

Many of whom are poorly educated themselves, or English Lit majors (humor), and are removed from any semblance of reality. Their self tailored, insulated, fashion driven existence allows them to, in effect, disavow the natural world without consequences...

Have to agree with both yourself and dr joneZ.

It's difficult to believe the power Scientology is gaining. This is a religion created by a science fiction writer who, twenty years earlier, said that the best way to make money was to start a religion. Incredible.

As for English Lit majors, when they become journalists they once too often misreport scientific news not, I think, out of malicious intent but simply ignorance of the basic principles of science.

As for trial by jury, Professor Dawkins wrote a great essay (in "The Devil's Chaplain") arguing against its efficacy.

14. Jesus and Mo on Militant Atheists

Comment #202020 by ~manic-depressive on June 30, 2008 at 3:46 pm

@qomak

Phew, that cruciversary business is too true to be funny... lol.

AND

"Evolution is cleverer than you are."
Orgel's second rule

(I know that's not what your avatar is about, but I just had to take the opportunity to sneak in Orgel!)

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/31/local/me-orgel31

15. Jesus and Mo on Militant Atheists

Comment #202013 by ~manic-depressive on June 30, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Fan-frickin'-tastic. Ah, humour; one of the few respites from drowning in the sea of human ignorance and irrationality... bad mixed metaphor, but what the heck.

16. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #190962 by ~manic-depressive on June 10, 2008 at 2:12 am

I am a little incredulous that atheists expect other atheists to be perfectly rational.

I disagree very much with Maher on the matter of animal testing but what has that got to do with his very sensible approach to religious idiocy?

I, for one, can't wait to see this. I seriously need a dose of comedy. I'm not sure I'd survive without humour.

17. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190953 by ~manic-depressive on June 10, 2008 at 1:53 am

I was half way through that article before I realised it wasn't a brilliant spoof!

Is it even possible to create a satire of this degree of mind-boggling nonsense?

I had a long comment in mind but really bujin's comment suffices:

Wow! I've read some utter crap from theists over the past couple of years, but that article really takes the piss!

I might add: Perhaps we should learn from this not to underestimate the complexity of nonsense that can generated by the human mind!

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

Comment #187807 by ~manic-depressive on June 2, 2008 at 5:59 pm

If one's opponent uses trite and facile arguments, it is often much more effective to ridicule him than to answer him, because one implicitly credits arguments with validity by taking them seriously.

Very good point, Cartomancer !

19. We happy hooligans

Comment #185974 by ~manic-depressive on May 29, 2008 at 9:29 am

Thank you MaxD for your reply.

Theologians of this sort though tend to be largely ignored by the traditionally pious.

I agree very much with you. As discussed in "The Four Horsemen" video, are they ignored because of their views or because they don't actually present their views publicly?

20. We happy hooligans

Comment #185903 by ~manic-depressive on May 29, 2008 at 3:13 am

You don't know how little I desire to play "God's advocate"; I hope there is at least someone here who won't condemn me before at least listening to my point (I really don't get any pleasure from being outcasted, being of a poetic temperment)...

I am rather glad that theologians like Tillich existed. Let's tell the likes of Alister McGrath to contend with with the likes of Tillich, for whom "God" was something beyond existence and non-existence.

If the theologians want to whittle away the definition of "God" into such obscurity that "God" is nothing more or less than "Ultimate Reality", why not let them? Surely that's far better than the fundamentalist nonsense we hear all-too-much.

My only problem is that theologians of this variety never quite come down from their ivory towers and frankly tell the "average believer" what they really think:

"Ever so sorry, but you're quite wrong in thinking that an anthropomorphic version of God has any credibility whatsoever. Please stop embarrasing us with your simplistic literalism of ancient man-made texts."

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

Comment #185902 by ~manic-depressive on May 29, 2008 at 3:07 am

Please ignore; My apologies for posting in the comments section of the wrong article.

22. Kenya mob reportedly burns 11 'witches'

Comment #184987 by ~manic-depressive on May 26, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Hi Bullet, I too commend you for coming here. As you are 14, and so clearly have enough courage, I will simply ask you to keep seeking the truth. Don't be satisfied with answers that are merely comforting. You have too much courage for that.

(As for the matter of witches, I'm glad you looked up the verse and have thought for yourself. Unfortunately, more questions now arise.

Do witches exist? (The OT presents Yahweh as a god who believes they do.)

How do we determine who is a witch/sorceress or wizard?

What exactly is the NT punishment for such creatures?)

23. Repulsive but right

Comment #184814 by ~manic-depressive on May 26, 2008 at 8:33 am

Just wanted to say that I concur with those who realize that some people need a "rude awakening" (I know I did!) I'm quite impressed when Professor Dawkins gives replies to questions about the comforts of religion with something along the lines of "The first thing to say is that the universe does not owe you hope." I remember how shocking this was to me once -- that the truth may not be something pleasant (but later realized that we are more likely to make life more pleasant if we can accept the fact that the universe is indifferent towards our wishes, hopes and desires.)

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
-- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995

24. Repulsive but right

Comment #184544 by ~manic-depressive on May 25, 2008 at 4:32 pm

From the point of view of the religious believer I can see both Professor Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as coming across as arrogant.

I supposed I am biased in that I have grown a liking to Christopher Hitchens (but then again I was not all that impressed by Professor Dawkins in my days of indoctrination). He comes across both as deeply humane and deeply human. In both his book and in his speech he displays the virtue of someone who really wants to see the end of needless suffering due to idiotic religious beliefs. At the same time, he displays all-too-human failings (e.g. his indulging in alcohol).

"one side is wrong but romantic, while the other is right but (sometimes) repulsive
"

How easy it is for us to sit back and criticize. How easy it is to pronounce judgment. If Mr. Kettle thinks he can do a better job than Christopher Hitchens, by all means Mr. Kettle, please do it; we need all the public freethinkers we can get.

25. What Genes Remember

Comment #184543 by ~manic-depressive on May 25, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Sorry to produce something of no relevance to the above, but some here may be interested by this pre-amble to an article in "What is Enlightenment?"

"In the current issue of WIE, executive editor Carter Phipps offers this intriguing critique of a film about the "new atheists"�quot;Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens:

The Four Horsemen is a fascinating journey through the mind of the modern atheist.... All four of these distinguished scholars are articulate and passionate in their denunciations of religion and mythic belief systems. But even as they discuss these weighty and significant matters, they all also share a strange, breezy, isn't-it-obvious tone that betrays a certain lack of real familiarity with that which they are denouncing. It's sort of like watching British sports commentators talk about American football: They don't like it, they don't understand it, they don't understand why anyone would like it, and they don't have any real interest in learning more about it. It is simply a bizarre custom practiced by foreigners."

26. Kenya mob reportedly burns 11 'witches'

Comment #184461 by ~manic-depressive on May 25, 2008 at 10:43 am

All I need to know is what God has told me in His Word:

King James Bible
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

American King James Version
You shall not suffer a witch to live.

American Standard Version
Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.

Bible in Basic English
Any woman using unnatural powers or secret arts is to be put to death.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.

Darby Bible Translation
thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

English Revised Version
Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.

Webster's Bible Translation
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

World English Bible
"You shall not allow a sorceress to live.

Young's Literal Translation
'A witch thou dost not keep alive.

And the NIV for good measure:
"Do not allow a sorceress to live."

Doesn't it make you feel really good how many translations of the Word of God there are, in English, alone?

/endsarcasm

27. In God's Name

Comment #184456 by ~manic-depressive on May 25, 2008 at 10:21 am

It's so good to see Alister McGrath taking time out from attacking Professor Dawkins and coming out against such extremists.

Wait... that was just a dream,

McGrath:
"That's me in the corner
Trying to keep my self from
Losing my religion
And I don't know if I can do it
Oh no, I've said too much
I haven't said enough"

Just a dream, just a dream...
Dream

28. In God's Name

Comment #183098 by ~manic-depressive on May 21, 2008 at 11:41 am

Thanks DavidSJA for the link.

29. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182170 by ~manic-depressive on May 19, 2008 at 10:22 am

clearmind

Thank you for clarifying for me.

30. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #182034 by ~manic-depressive on May 19, 2008 at 6:25 am

44th post!

I have posted elsewhere my *rationalization* for writing "first post".

Come on people, in this "veil of tears", why deny ourselves a little infantile pleasure?

"Quid opus est partes deflere? Tota flebilis vita est." Seneca

Come on people, don't deny me the infantile pleasure of showing off the only Latin quotation I know!

31. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181994 by ~manic-depressive on May 19, 2008 at 4:34 am

clearmind

In trying to make sense of what you say, I clicked on your username, but much to my dismay, the user list maintains: "The requested user does not exist."

I would truly like to know what exactly you argue. Could you please clarify, since your name suggests that you are more ague than us a-theist few?

32. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178361 by ~manic-depressive on May 11, 2008 at 9:48 am

I cannot begin to imagine how it must feel to think this kind of thing is remotely acceptable - let alone something to be proud of.

Unfortunately, I am cursed with empathy: I am able to imagine how it might feel to be proud of doing what one has been brainwashed into believing is the "honourable" thing. I wish I didn't have this imaginative capacity.

33. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178345 by ~manic-depressive on May 11, 2008 at 9:31 am

[That's it; I've decided to lay claim to first post whenever I can because the chances are that this is the only happiness I'll get from reading about all this religio-moral idiocy.]

..."he said, police congratulated him on what he had done. 'They are men and know what honour is,' he said."

And here's me, thinking honour had something to do with ethics.

'Even now, I cannot believe my ex-husband was able to kill our daughter. He wasn't a bad person. During our 24 years of marriage, he was never aggressive. But on that day, he was a different person.'

Crazy beliefs are crazy behaviours just waiting to happen. Just for pointing out this obvious point Sam Harris has been called simplistic in his analysis of Islamism.

34. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176539 by ~manic-depressive on May 7, 2008 at 2:49 pm

I had little idea such vile things went on in this world.

Really, Cartomancer?

35. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176502 by ~manic-depressive on May 7, 2008 at 1:59 pm

That's it; I've decided to lay claim to first post (or in this case second) whenever I can because the chances are that this is the only happiness I'll get from reading about more religious idiocy perpetuating human suffering.

"This little bit of semantic gymnastics helped transform all of us at the retreat from being merely fucked up to being accursed carriers of demons." Ah, yes, that great science of demonology again. More priestcraft yet again.

36. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #175863 by ~manic-depressive on May 6, 2008 at 7:02 am

a lot of people LIKE their religion to adamantly stand for "The Truth," which it insists that it and it alone has, and then, armed with this "knowledge," tell its members what God (or Allah) wants them to do.

Human beings crave certainty. A bad explanation is preferred over no explanation. It's all so sad...

the greatest irony is found in Jon Stewart's words, "Religion. It's given people hope in a world torn apart by religion."

37. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175849 by ~manic-depressive on May 6, 2008 at 6:43 am

Someone give this man a copy of Carl Sagan's wonderful "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark". (Wishful-thinking on my part that it would make any difference to one with theology in his blood.)

It's time we brought back the word "priestcraft" to describe what this "profession" is all about: making money out of perpetuating ignorance and cruelty.

38. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175831 by ~manic-depressive on May 6, 2008 at 6:13 am

~Sorry, I know this is so infantile but... hey, first post, yay!~

Well, that was the only bit of happiness I got from this article.

Since he is a minister, I'll assume he knows little if anything about the brain.

"targets tend toward the innocent, highly virtuous and unusually gifted"

How is the field of psychiatry going to make any progress when we have the retarding effect of religion ignorance?

I wonder if this minister has even read anything of a scientific nature. Perhaps he might learn something useful about, oh-I-don't-know, the relationship between genius and creativity e.g. "Touched By Fire" (Kay Redfield Jamison) But he is a minister after all. Why bother with scientific understanding when you have direct access to knowledge by faith.

I have deep sympathy with Nietzsche's hyperbolic statement: "Whatever a theologian regards as true must be false: there you have almost a criterion of truth." (The Antichrist)

39. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175190 by ~manic-depressive on May 4, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Christopher Hitchens seems to have a measure of respect for Pascal's apologetic work.

The wager does sound hucksterish when used today but if Pascal's other false premise was that one could simply choose to believe in something regardless of evidence, then it remains logical. (Please note I'm not trying to defend the wager!)

Interestingly Nietzsche mourned the corruption of Pascal's intellect by Christianity. A corruption that Pascal falsely attributed to "sin", according to Nietzsche in "The Antichrist".

40. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175181 by ~manic-depressive on May 4, 2008 at 6:27 pm

I very much agree with you, Zaphod, on this point:

Humans aren't really born to be sceptical or particularly rational. The sceptical and scientific mind set have to be learned...

It wasn't that I didn't understand that an argument can be logical but based on a false premise. I was simply wondering if this was what brought Pascal to put forward his infamous wager (i.e. a false premise).

41. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175163 by ~manic-depressive on May 4, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Anyone have any suggestions as to how someone as clever as Pascal could have come up with something as stupid as Pascal's wager?

I imagine that, as Sam Harris has pointed out, if you already accept certain premises (e.g. in this case, God = God of Christianity), it might follow logically.

42. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174836 by ~manic-depressive on May 3, 2008 at 4:08 pm

If you wanted to create a satire of this, would it even be possible? It is in and of itself so utterly ridiculous. It pains me to know that there will be bright young people who will be mentally shackled by the fear promoted by this kind of ignorant, immoral nonsense.

Forget not the example of Kurt Wise from TGD who "had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including
evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.
"

43. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174832 by ~manic-depressive on May 3, 2008 at 3:55 pm

History_Junky -- as Bertrand Russell pointed out, the whole problem with the world is that fools are so certain while the wise are full of doubts.

On a different note, we could really do with the help of theists like Ken Miller.

And all the moderates who criticize "the new atheists" by saying that we only look at "extremist religion" (as though "faith" were not extremist enough) -- why are they not cleaning up their own house? Are they defending scientific inquiry alongside us? Or are they, as they so-often-do turning a blind eye to the actions of "extremists"?

44. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174710 by ~manic-depressive on May 3, 2008 at 10:13 am

Is there no limit to human irrationality?

I am reminded of Nehru's views on religion: "India is supposed to be a religious country above everything else, and Hindu and Moslem and Sikh and others take pride in their faiths and testify to their truth by breaking heads. The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organised religion, in India and elsewhere has filled me with horror, and I have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it. Almost always it seems to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation, and the preservation of vested interests. And yet I knew well that there was something else in it, something which supplied a deep inner craving of human beings. How else could it have been the tremendous power it has been and brought peace and comfort to innumerable tortured souls? Was that peace merely the shelter of blind belief and absence of questioning, the calm that comes from being safe in harbour, protected from the storms of the open sea, or was it something more? In some cases certainly it was something more.
But organized religion, whatever its past may have been, today is largely an empty form devoid of real content. Mr. G. K. Chesterton has compared it (not his own particular brand of religion, but other!) to a fossil which is the form of an animal or organism from which all its own organic substance has entirely disappeared, but has kept its shape, because it has been filled up by some totally different substance. And, even where something of value still remains, it is enveloped by other and harmful contents. That seems to have happened in our Eastern religions as well as in the Western." (From his autobiography)

Nehru was one who realized and expressed the conviction that "the future belonged to science".

45. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #174313 by ~manic-depressive on May 2, 2008 at 5:43 am

Just finished watching this. Had to watch it in parts; there was just too much idiocy to tolerate in one go!

Professor Dawkins, I don't know how you do it. As you rightly say it is extraordinary that in the 21st century people are taken seriously for such ignorance. For example, thinking that "the devil" is a useful explanation for anything. The people who suffer because of these idiotic ideas are, more often than not, those who do not have a voice: children & the mentally ill. The retarding influence that it has had in the field of psychiatry cannot be underestimated.

Thank you for doing what you do Professor. A. C. Grayling pointed out rather well how tiresome it must be for you to have to keep confronting the same stupidities coming out of the mouths of intelligent people.

46. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173674 by ~manic-depressive on May 1, 2008 at 5:34 am

I fully agree with Mr. Steve Zara when he says..

... Carto is right, most people don't know that these points are unoriginal. If we want to act as educators (and I do), we have to generally have patience.

Also, I can very much understand why you say:

I don't have patience with those who try and put forward these kind of questions with arrogance (as we have seen with seeker_of_truth on other threads).

However, when I am most sound in mind, I do try to consider what underlies the arrogance of some of these people. It may very well be insecurity. It is not in the least bit easy to watch your entire worldview start to crumble around you. So when possible, and I know all-too-well that we are all only human, I would encourage my fellow non-theists to take the ethical high ground. We are dealing with other human beings who are ignorant of their own ignorance. Some of us (here I include myself) were once in the same position due to the effects of childhood indoctrination.

BTW, my apologies for posts that are few and far between. Such is the nature of an illness that quite likely would be much better understood if it were not for the retarding influence of religious ideas about evil spirits and the like.

47. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173667 by ~manic-depressive on May 1, 2008 at 4:46 am

Thank you to sane1 for posting the mp3!

So glad that Professor Dawkins brought up the immorality of the Abraham and Isaac story. Unfortunately all the monotheisms are Abrahamic monotheisms. And the story has therefore had a truly poisonous effect on morality.

48. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162631 by ~manic-depressive on April 17, 2008 at 6:50 am

They didn't license this on purpose - it's a costly publicity stunt.

I agree that this is very likely.

May I suggest that it would do us well to remember that creationists are irrational not [necessarily] stupid. (As Sam Harris has pointed out, once you have some fundamental beliefs which are irrational and can't be questioned, any beliefs which follow may be scrupulously logical.)

It can be a great mistake to underestimate one's opponents.

49. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #162073 by ~manic-depressive on April 16, 2008 at 5:48 am

I've just reached the segment where Peter Hitchens defends the Abraham & Isaac story. I've lost most of my respect for P. Hitchens. This particular story is both ignorant and immoral.

Is this not obvious to anyone who understands the brain's ability to create absolutely convincing delusions and hallucinations. Surely --surely-- this is a story must be rejected completely!

Should we not be teaching people the very opposite of what this story suggests:

Suppose you become convinced that God is telling you that God wants you to kill your child. Surely the first thing you should do is get as far away from your child as possible? In this way you minimize the possiblity that your delusion will lead you anywhere close to actually committing such an atrocity.

50. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #162056 by ~manic-depressive on April 16, 2008 at 4:47 am

Francis Collins doesn't believe in talking snakes? What a pity!

I believe in talking snakes. I just call them by their other name: Priests.

(For the benefit of theists who don't understand metaphor -- by capitalizing the P, I am referring to the institution of the priestly class and not any particular priest.)

More Pages: 1 2 | Next