1. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73523 by Prufrock on September 25, 2007 at 7:30 am

You really are pathetic. I have not heard so much paranoid nonsense in my whole life. Here is the mail I have sent to contact here at this website. A similar note has been sent to West Mercia. Journalists care about the environment we live in. This is nothing big and fancy, mega and global. This is simply common decency and understanding that you cannot just get away with talking like that about a stranger for ideas far removed from our everyday lives..

"I wish to make a formal complaint against one of your members. The member in question uses the login Richard Morgan. If you follow the thread, 'Why are we muslims so destructive", you will find at the bottom of this thread a series of comments starting at 73446, which was made by myself, as Prufrock. For some reason, I can contribute to the forum as Prufrock, but I have created a login as Queequeg. I have not yet made any contribution as Queequeg.

The exchange consisted of a very strange and possibly, sick, tirade by Richard Morgan against someone who from where I was sitting didn't mean anything nasty at all by what he said.

Reminding him to keep a perspective, I asked him not to make his comments so personal. Many people write on forums and bulletin boards every day. I tend not to contribute to any other than this one as I feel very strongly about the effects of superstitious thought on behaviour.

I am a well known Atheist in the West Midlands, but shouldn't really need to have to justify this to anyone. In fact, I can honestly say, I have put many things on the line as a result of my refusal to believe anything without evidence. This truth can be verified anywhere in Birmingham anytime you like at any time, though I do not believe this is necessary, either.

I have been damned to hell and violently assaulted more than most, which is why I find Richard Morgan's outburst distasteful and very damaging.

I am seriously thinking of taking a transcript of this discussion to others outside the forum for perusal. Drawing a conclusion between the word disembodied - which simply means without a body, and as I'm not there when you read it I think you will appreciate the word is used accurately - and what you believe is a leap of logic way too far.

I believe my tone to you was conciliatory and polite.

I cannot adequately describe the anger and frustration of having to deal with an outburst as unwarranted and arbitrary as that one, from Richard Morgan. It was, and remains one of the most disgusting things I have ever read!

I look forward to a speedy reply

kind regards
Bernard Baptiste"

This is not about something as intellectually interesting as atheism or superstition. This is about being something more important; being human, watching your tone and understanding what you are saying to people who don't know or care about you. That is just simple straightforward honesty.

To believe that someone who sees this site the way it is, which is just a simple forum for like minded people to write, as the enemy within is not beyond a joke, it is more serious than that. People who have read it agree the most ridiculous and nonsensical thing anyone who knows me would or could ever have said.

All the people I know, including muslims feel terrorism and extremism is the blight of our times and have no wish to have anything to do with this.

This is not the appropriate time to discuss moderates and religion, so don't even go there.

You don't just owe me an apology, you owe everyone who I know as reasonable - atheist or not - a very public one. That's an awful lot of people who simply say what they mean and get on with their lives.

2. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73484 by Prufrock on September 25, 2007 at 4:48 am

Richard

If you want to make an insinuation like this you can make it publicly to all media - I'm an ex-journalist so that isn't a problem. I'm passing this on to the police, and we will be discussing this in public.

Prepare yourself for some shocks.

3. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73457 by Prufrock on September 25, 2007 at 2:52 am

My credibility is not something I would leave in your hands. I am sorry you believe that what is a statement of personal fact has somehow morphed into a psychological declaration, which you are really not qualified to make.

What I say is what I mean. I don't care enough about you to lie to you. There is no other meaning at all to what I say. This is still a free society.

You would do, Richard, not to make your comments so personal as there really is nothing personal between us. Try to remember we are simply evaluating ideas, not people.

Coming out is not something that is decided by disembodied people on the internet. It is an every day reality faced by those who are genuine and have proved themselves to be genuine over many years.

Thank you for reading and have a nice day.

4. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73446 by Prufrock on September 25, 2007 at 2:29 am

Richard Morgan,

I have always valued your opinion.

All of the posters on here have contributed to my understanding of many things.

The people you have mentioned have made wonderful contributions, but like all others have said things I have not agreed with, so I cannot accept your use of the word best.

Where reasoning is concerned I am more inclined to go with Steve99, Dr Benway or Epeeist, but this would simply be me acting in a biased way.

I use a psuedonym when I'm on the internet because I want to and that is that!

I don't see that as a mark of cowardice and given my background I would rather see people safe and comfortable poking fun behind a psuedonym than dealing with the reality you describe. I have my reasons.

There is a world of difference between making valuable contributions to an important topic and trying to talk sense to a young guy you know has a gun in his pocket and is ready to give way to amygdala overload anytime.

I would rather have this guy contributing to a discussion like this under a psuedonym every day of the week.

Let's keep a perspective. Professor Dawkins will probably have received all kinds of threats for stating a view, of course. But I can't really see him shot JFK style, can you. I hope I'm not tempting fate here.

Anyway, it's good for us that Professor Dawkins let's us know when he is contributing. That is impressive, because he makes the most sense of all of us.

I am not che guevara and have no wish to be, but I do like to express my sceptism as most do.

This I have done - all by little self - for many years, simply because I live in Europe and it is possible to develop an opinion and use the internet and ....

Reality is what we all have to deal with.

5. Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse

Comment #73108 by Prufrock on September 24, 2007 at 6:20 am

42nd

Just to add a little more to my earlier post. I was a bit rushed. I cannot stress the fun part of teaching kids. As an adult I get turned off anything if I am not enjoying and/or getting benefit from it. Kids are less patient than I am ...

I am competitive (High level of junior soccer - not good enough for pro - and squash for my university. Kids are competitive, and as long as you watch for and emphatically prohibit personal attacks and other nastiness, this is good and to be encouraged.

"If we can create environments in which they can safely have small epiphanies in the light of evidence, they will be motivated to share those lessons. They will then be scientifically literate in the sense that scientific discourse will continue to endure and flourish."

This, as far as I am concerned, is the most important part of the article and the lesson taught from an early age.

It is not always easy to get anyone interested in something as apparently dry as reasoning or science. Using a trojan horse like chess, backed up with supportive parents and bingo bango bongo. At least it's a start.

6. Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse

Comment #73102 by Prufrock on September 24, 2007 at 6:03 am

42nd

Chess is a taught game. Children learn how to play chess and become very sophisticated in the way they handle tactical manouevres very quickly. Obviously, the earlier they start the better.

The ability to refute what is wrong is inherent in chess. Many examples exist of the benefits of chess in education and as a fun way of teaching children to critically think are available via google.

America has firmly adopted chess as a means by which to improve the educational performance of many disadvantaged kids, thus leading to better life and economic opportunities. There have been books and television programmes to illustrate this.

Chess has been called the drosophilia of cognitive science. I do not know whether this is true but certainly it has helped demystify many of the abilities underlying reason and sense.

7. Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse

Comment #73064 by Prufrock on September 24, 2007 at 3:08 am

"Science eventually yields impressive answers because it compels smart people to incessantly try to disprove the ideas generated by other smart people.".

And not just "smart" people.

Four or five years ago I was in Birmingham, England. Whilst there, the usual social problems started surfacing; gun crime, deprivation, etc.

Myself and a couple of friends decided to start a chess club in Aston, the area of one or two quite nasty shootings.

The success of the club - in attendance, not financially, unfortunately - was tremendous.

What surprised me was the ability of children as young as 11 to be able to demolish quite sophisticated ideas with ease and relish, once they were given the appropriate tools to do so.

A little bit of cajoling and blackmail was needed to encourage some, but they managed to stick with it.

Science and logic testing improved amongst those who got involved tremendously. Self confidence and personal responsibilty rose to unprecedented heights. It was cool to be clever.

The god and guns culture which so blights these cultures seemed to be in recession. Naturally, the real issue can only be solved by socio-economic success, which, usually results as a result of improved educational and therefore life opportunities. But it was a start.

Sometimes, I get the impression, science, rationality and its accompanying wealth is still seen as elitist.

Naturally, we all know science is by definition inclusive, but unfortunately its perception suggests otherwise.

As long as children, and adults, are having fun and see benefits science will grow in popularity. I see the thinking behind good chess play as being quite indicative of the scientific method, even if it isn't a science.

The better players are simply better at refuting their own ideas and seeing through the ideas inherent in the board, which is why I use it as an example.

People just want to have fun.

8. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72407 by Prufrock on September 21, 2007 at 2:20 am

"And to think we could avoid all this if they taught 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' in the first grade."

Not so bad, notsobad. You got there before me. Once again, where's the evidence? Got no evidence, well I don't believe you!!

9. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71957 by Prufrock on September 20, 2007 at 2:15 am

"And the scale of the falsehoods going about now suggests that they are getting really rattled."

The bully does not like to be found out. The myth is just a myth, but its creators, implementers and followers are not.

Expect to see pictures of Professor Dawkins complete with horns and tails (lol - just a joke)and all manner of ridiculous things being said about the modern day Faust. None of the thing said are true, but many will be believed.

What concerns me is what happens to people who want to come out, but are trapped in an environment of insane believers?

If someone with the credentials of Professor Dawkins is metaphorically smacked in the head by every indignant believer, what happens to everyday joe who doesn't have the resources, support or power to protect himself from those around him who would make life uncomfortable as a result of his scepticism?

10. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71616 by Prufrock on September 19, 2007 at 11:01 am

Unbelievable!!! They were just joking, right. I can't get over how embarrassingly stupid these people are. Whoopi Goldberg shame on you. These people are looked up to as the epitome of success; people listen and note what these people say and do and then follow.

I am depressed. These people are even proud of their ignorance and superstitious nonsense.

11. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70826 by Prufrock on September 17, 2007 at 3:16 am

To continue Veronique's theme.

I watched lord of the rings(return of the king) last night on channel four(England) and immediately regressed to the 11 year old who read the whole trilogy, much of it under bed covers when I should have been sleeping.

I do not believe in God. I do not believe in any of the 'facts' of the bible. I do not concede that the bible is or should be the main source of our morality. I believe religion has done more harm than good and whereever religion is you will see division, poverty, ignorance and suffering. Religion is not the cure it is disease. I am an atheist, because there is no other word to describe it. Most 'isms' lead to dogmatic though and absurd action.

I simply believe humans should pat themselves on the back sometimes for the amazing things we have done and will continue to in defiance of a mythical superpower. We should take responsibility for all the evil things we do and not just in the name of religion.

I simply believe I am human complete with 'the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to', but without the need to project my subject feelings, beliefs, perceptions, etc onto a reality that exist outside me.

I am an atheist because I believe it is our capacity for intelligent, rational and scientific thought which gives us real hope for pleasant life and conditions for all. I simply our understanding of the world has evolved to such an extent that we can cry foul at the unevidenced nonsense which drives creationism onto a stage which is completely inappropriate for my future and the futures of the unborn generations to come.

I say this because sometimes I get confused as to what makes me believe there is no god and why I believe we are better off without this stuff.

12. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70583 by Prufrock on September 16, 2007 at 6:50 am

"As atheists, do we need unsophisticated, belligerent representatives?".

Atheism should be the broadest church of all.

13. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70571 by Prufrock on September 16, 2007 at 6:01 am

"I see a real problem in some of these posts, perhaps best described as 'the arrogance of the armchair scientist'.".

Steve99 goes on to say that most people do not appreciate the long arduous path anyone involved in Science has to take in order to become an expert.

I think he has hit the nail on the head. Many of the above posts, while valid as personal opinions, hold very little water under even the most basic logical and evidence based scrutiny.

When trying to raise consciousness about any issue, sometimes the consciousness raiser becomes aware of serious issues preventing the absorption of what seems to be straightforward views.

That's the thing with raising consciousness, you're dealing with things that take time to change, because the human mind takes a little bit of coercing to change. People are lazy. But not incorrigibly so.

I'm sure those fighting on behalf of women's rights and American Civil rights for black people could not believe the half soaked nonsense very powerfully and popularly trotted out against what now seems like a simple and right movement.

Within a short space of time it is very probable that the most powerful human being on the planet will either be black or female.

Many don't have the desire or the energy to vigorously question their opinions, or even to understand the tenets underpinning TGD, which is a far more subtle and thoughtful book then many would appreciate.

Every logical fallacy is made in those posts decrying Professor Dawkins and many simply would find their objections had already been dealt with in TGD.

These people are either simply making ad hominem attacks or haven't read anything by Professor Dawkins, and if they have, don't understand a word. Where have we seen this before? Yes, from every myth sodden, fact challenged criticism of TGD.

It seems, given my limited time on this site, that most people who profess to believe, have faith, not because they want to, choose to, or are acting out of ignorance; they believe because they can't be bothered not to. The alternative is too uncomfortable, as the truth often is.

It is always easier to defend something on your own terms than to honestly and energetically explore the issue on straightforward, commonly understandable ground.

As someone once said: "human kind cannot bear very much reality". And this atheism thing is a whole lot of reality to bear. But only for now.

14. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #70364 by Prufrock on September 15, 2007 at 4:43 am

Excellent news, at last recognition of the worthiness of the need to spread reason, science, education - sanity.

Cregaune:

We have to play in the game we are in and not the game we would like to be in. Charities are about ensuring good causes can flourish and this seems like recognition that this is a good cause - it certainly needs to flourish.

15. 'Jane Doe' Testifies as Trial of Polygamist Leader Begins

Comment #70195 by Prufrock on September 14, 2007 at 9:57 am

Hold on. I've just reread this and the girl was only 14. Unbelievable!!!

16. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70194 by Prufrock on September 14, 2007 at 9:47 am

irate-atheist:

I think we all have to think about how we engage with these people. I'm like you in that I could scream at these people, especially after reading so many of the articles posted by admin here, and I've only been coming here for a couple of weeks!

I'm as saddened as everyone at the evil - and that is a word I use advisedly - perpetrated verbally and physically by these people.

But we have to remember that while reason is wasted on the unreasoning, it still remains our greatest weapon.

Professor Dawkins books and Christopher Hitchens rapier like wit not only contain strong words, but straightforward words which strung together actually make sense because the ideas they describe make sense and are evidenced.

More and more people are getting turned onto this pretty normal way of thinking because it makes sense.

This battle has been fought for hundreds of years and many great victories have already been won, which is why we are here tapping away on new technology, driving cars and have wonderful health and leisure services. The stuff works!

It has all been done through the use of reason. It may not be worth the while of Professor Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to respond to every stilted, highblown, content-free piece of worthless journalism printed. Indeed it may not be desirable for them to do so.

I guess you, like me and everyone else, must shoulder some of the burden, without jeopardising ourselves, naturally, and confront every piece of nonsense we hear, but, politely and assertively, in the same way I hope we would courageously deal with anyone being harshly dealt with unfairly in every situation. I accept this is not always practical.

We can't say more than has already been said on this forum, except to keep on saying it and to continually reaffirm our displeasure at the lies, deceit and harm these people have done, are doing and will keep on doing if left unchecked or allowed to occupy positions of control and power unfettered.

I take your point though.

17. 'Jane Doe' Testifies as Trial of Polygamist Leader Begins

Comment #70184 by Prufrock on September 14, 2007 at 9:21 am

"Mr. Jeffs told the girl after she asked not to be married that "her heart was in the wrong place and it was her duty to go forward" with the marriage."

I guess her heart was behind her ribcage - a little left of centre, and, like all of us, just wanted to make some very personal decisions herself, like who she found attractive, etc.

Maybe there's some subtle nuance I've not understood about her right to choose.

Maybe I'm just too literal and if I was a little more spiritual I would understand this disgusting example of religion induced bullying. I'm not and I can't.

My distant indignation could not even come close to what she must be feeling.

18. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70177 by Prufrock on September 14, 2007 at 8:49 am

Comment 70166 irate_atheist

"Another load of ignorant tripe written by another pillock who doesn't know what he's talking about.".

I think you need to learn to say what you mean a little more! lol. Faithheads don't do clarity or transparency. They will not be happy until we're all religion addicts mistaking our subjective internal landscapes for testable, observable and verifiable reality. I've just read Professor Dawkins' letter to his daughter. Very charming. Makes a change from reading about some religious brotherhood physically, sexually and psychologically damaging some poor kid that happened to stray into their dark, deluded path. Is there any greater gift you can give than independence of mind... apart from lots of money, that is:).

19. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #70103 by Prufrock on September 14, 2007 at 4:46 am

Comment #69971. Northern Lights

Thanks for reviewing this book. I am amazed you ploughed all the way through this book, however mercifully short it is. Simply reading the response Professor Dawkins felt compelled to give to such disgraceful nonsense was enough to convince me I needed to give it a wide berth. The only positive thing to come out of your reading this as far as I know - I haven't seen the cover yet - is this brilliantly written review, which while I can't say mirrors my opinion of a book I haven't read, certainly reflects some of the thoughts and opinions I have of the ill-considered, ill-mannered and ill-tempered rubbish some religious apologists write. I hope you don't mind if I pinch some of the ideas from your review.

20. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70091 by Prufrock on September 14, 2007 at 3:48 am

I think robotaholic is actually affirming the lack of knowledge we have of the brain ... as a physical organ.

"I don't think the brain should be treated any differently than your other organs. Pathology should be recognized and treated."

I think this simply points to where we should be going as a race in doing mental illness or mental injury and suggests psychiatry does need to become a fully paid up member of the science community.

Ok, maybe he exaggerates when he suggests psychiatry is not scientific, but we shouldn't reject his observation without understanding its premises.

Yes we do need psychology, if only to help us frame hypotheses of how the mind should behave, but I do agree to a certain extent with Robotaholic in that we should ensure there is an illness before we go prescribing damaging remedies on the word of a behavioural fascist.

Ultimately, our understanding of diseases like schizophrenia will only increase with advances in the neurological sciences - the brain sciences if you like.

I agree we are a long way from understanding even the basics of ourselves and a lot of our diagnoses do resemble witchcraft. I'm sure we are moving in the right direction, though.

21. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70089 by Prufrock on September 14, 2007 at 3:30 am

" ... the scientific image is essentially true, but it is not intuitive except to people who are trained to understand chains of scientific inferences and to see why the evidence supports findings that our brains tend to reject. That's what we're up against, folks.".

I couldn't put it better myself. The religion meme is not strong because it exists, it exists because it is strong.

Scientific/logic/philosophic training is long and arduous and its benefits not always tangible.

The effects of tradition/culture/religion appear real - they are not - because its perpetrators have been successful in ensuring that we are brutalised into accepting its enabling mythology as reality.

The illusion/delusion is real to many simply because it appears to have created success - nonsense though that assumption is.

A superb footballer points to the sky when he scores to give thanks to an invisible, non-existent deity which he believes or wishes people to believe is responsible for his talent.

This makes it almost impossible to for those who know to assert that it ACTUALLY came from a mixture of great genetics, lifelong practice and training, competition and luck.

Thinking about it now, to stop the abuse of children through the passing on of deletrious memes, we have to educate adults to be a little less childish in their reaction to events and a little more honest and responsible in what they pass on to the kids, so that they don't grow up deifying ignorance and superstition.

How this is going to be done is difficult to envisage, though I believe the people I have read on this site would agree it has to be done. It does not logically follow that success in promoting atheism will eradicate faithful fancy.

Professor Dawkins has started by exposing some of the tricks of the psychic trade in a British television programme, but how many took on board the message in the enemies of reason?

Two days after this programme was screened, the hotel across the road ran a psychic evening and I had the misfortune of listening to two grown men talk about the desperate significance of turning over the ace of spades twice when having a fortune read.

Needless to say I realised the futility of challenging this superstitious nonsense. I cracked a silly joke instead and they didn't like it. Here was I thinking it was only an evening of entertainment and no-one really believed this stuff! That'll learn me.

22. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69860 by Prufrock on September 13, 2007 at 2:45 am

The scientific and reasoning evidence simply damns any notion of god, and that is all.

The question is now what is reliion's role in developing our moral outlook. Sam's article answers that it's redundant here too, given its past performance.

The paragraph beginning:

"Even if we accept Haidt's "new synthesis" without caveat, we can ask whether any given culture is raising its children to have "bad" moral intuitions and to be incapable of the sort of moral reasoning that might lead to a more enlightened outlook."

illustrates my concerns - he says it all far better than I can ever synopsise it - and when he says:

"Would Haidt's conception of morality allow us to then demand that these benighted people to stop abusing their children? Or would that be unscientific?"

He is saying it all. We cannot pass this stuff on to our children because it cripples them.

If anyone could have any doubts about why new atheism is right in its approach to religion and god issues then

"Surely we can grow in altruism, and refine our ethical intuitions, and even explore the furthest reaches of human happiness, without lying to ourselves about the nature of the universe."

surely ends those.

Fantastic article, he and Professor Dawkins say for me what I would like to say God botherer whenever they bother me or when an apologist wants me to spare a thought for those dominated by the delusion of faith.

23. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69684 by Prufrock on September 12, 2007 at 7:30 am

epeeist 69675:

There is, as far as I know, a bit of a dispute about whether George Boole actually did reject the traditional belief that universal proposition necessarily implied the particular proposition, and, hence probably did not question whether the resulting existential proposition(s) do/does actually exist, thereby accepting the assumption of non-emptiness.

For me this is not an issue,though. I studied computer science at university, so I guess I take a more pragmatic approach to questions of who did or said what and where.

The important thing is that what you say makes sense. Given this question of existential import, I wonder how anyone, anywhere can possibly hold such a tenuous belief as god - any unevidenced belief for that matter - unless, of course, it has been mercilessly hammered into their minds.

I accept that Professor Dawkins will be aware of this issue when he equates the possibility of god with the possibility of fairies.

I'm more concerned with the child abuse aspects of foisting a religion on someone yet to acquire the tools to make a choice and at the same time creating an artificial 'them and us' division which can only deepen over time.

I hate conflict and unpleasantness, but it's becoming even clearer to me that we really do have to fight, no violence though, to ensure the dominance of superstitious thought is challenged and relegated.

24. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69666 by Prufrock on September 12, 2007 at 5:25 am

epeeist: #69646

This may not be all there is to atheism, but it describes perfectly the logic behind proof for whether there is a god or not. Believers can get away with what is called vacuous logic. As you probably already know vacuous logic appears quite a lot in mathematics. Vacuous logic essentially states that if, for example, I assert all elephants wear green dresses, but elephants don't exist, then this evidentially ludicrous statement must be true, simply because I have no evidence to prove its falsity. As soon as I see an elephant, solid logic becomes appropriate. Evidence for believers must be like garlic is for dracula, something to be avoided at all costs. I like your logic.

25. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69629 by Prufrock on September 12, 2007 at 1:38 am

What a wonderful and much needed project. I have been an atheist for almost 30 years, since introducing myself to Professor Dawkins' and Edward de Bono's books.

I too came from a kind of religious background in that I was confirmed into the Church of England at age 13. I was always surrounded by religious people, looking for a way to influence me into stuff I couldn't accept in any meaningful or honest way.

Luckily for me, I don't remember my parents taking the religion thing too seriously - Sending us to church and scouts was a way of getting us out from under their feet for a few hours.

Education was the major drive. So I too don't remember what led me to a rejection of anything but having fun, dealing with evidence and experiencing life and others through books and simply gassing(talking to other people).

I guess sometimes, realistic ideas just sit well inside me and not so realistic ones don't, no matter how hard I try to make the large square pegs fit into the smaller round hole.

I really am looking forward to finding out what motivated others to embrace a godless existence.

I hate to think of myself as an evangelist for atheism, but, anything that would help encourage independence and boost self-esteem is always helpful.

Humans can and have been intelligent, creative, moral and compassionate, because of what we really are and without the CCTV cameraman in the sky.

26. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69363 by Prufrock on September 11, 2007 at 2:13 am

There are more than a few muslims out there who feel the same way as Ehsam Jani and his friends. I spent time living in Bradford with some Muslims.

They complained of the tyranny and claustrophobia surrounding muslim and was unashamed in their respect for my intellect - that's an even bigger delusion than God!, but I like compliments even when they are not deserved - though I suspect they meant my freedom to think, not believe or believe as I chose.

They showed a great interest in my books, especially the ones written by Professor Dawkins and one written by Christoff Koch together with Francis Crick.

They even smiled at some of my impolite criticisms of religion in general and sometimes about muslims and their need to convert anything that moves.

But generally, they were good fun and I like fun.

What was interesting for me was that many said that they would probably choose islam or a faith if they felt a choice was given to them.

They felt the faith kept them centred and gave them a feeling of security they would not otherwise feel, especially after 9/11.

I don't want to speculate on the reasons for this because I really do believe in individual freedom to choose and furnish their internal landscape as they so please. I enjoy being me far too much and want others to enjoy being them. As Dr Benway would say "you, me, ours".

The important thing is freedom to choose and to be.

I guess this is why I like Daniel Dennett's idea to force everyone to learn everyone else's religion as an academic disciplins; so at least people are aware of their own absurdities before projecting or displacing their rigid certainties on anyone else.

Of all the places in Europe I have worked - as a Big 4 consultant - and lived, Holland is my favourite, simply because of their intelligent, secularised, creative and tolerant approach to me.

I would imagine, in spite of its administrative efforts it may have the same hidden issues as many other places, but at least they appear to try. It would be very interesting to read this Dutch article

27. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #69212 by Prufrock on September 10, 2007 at 2:47 am

"Today, however, many Americans are infatuated with outright, full-bore atheism."

He sounds like a super mature adult warning his adolescent daughter to be careful of the bad boy down the street who just may awaken her to the delights of adulthood.

Professor Dawkins as James Dean? Daniel Dennett as a rebel without a cause? Christopher Hitchens could be the fastest wit in the west! Sam Harris as every mother's nightmare?

These people may as well give up the sad notion that anyone believes a word they have to say anymore.

They really should start to see the huge errors in their ideas and, while it is obvious that only vested interested would put up any defence against facts and evidence, accept that it's naughty to lie to people, because they will eventually develop a taste for the truth - evidenced truth.

Time will prove the need to forward evidence based reasoning, and further undermine the tenuous position of faith, as the vehicle for the constructive and honest developments we will all need in the coming decades.

Sorry father, this really is the real thing, the inevitable real thing.

28. San Diego Diocese Settles Lawsuit for $200 Million

Comment #69202 by Prufrock on September 10, 2007 at 2:08 am

"Victims of abuse who waited at a courthouse for word of the settlement reacted with tears, anger and a sense of resignation."

It's the feeling of resignation that depressese me. These people must feel they do not have the power to say no to what has hurt them so badly, in the face of such arrogant wrongdoing.

Their tormentors only have to say God and even the most heinous of crimes are swept under the carpet(the perpetrators and their protectors are criminals in all but law).

Yet,it is the victims who have been sentenced to a life scarred by this kind of condoned rape. Surely, it is the victims who should decide how closure should be attained.

Adding insult to injury by suggesting a walk with your abuser's guide is unbelievable. The arrogance is undeniabe and completely incredible.

I would feel there was a hobson's choice in theocracy if I was involved and feel there was absolutely no escape from its tyranny.

Surely, this church can be charged with some kind of criminal offence, the same way you or I would be for such consistently commiting and condoning such evil crimes.

As far as I'm concerned there is no afterlife, but if there was, I can't imagine hell being worse than sharing heaven with these people. In fact, this would be my idea of hell. The lies are becoming intolerable now.

29. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69198 by Prufrock on September 10, 2007 at 1:27 am

"Humor is the only ammunition we really need against willful ignorance."

Maybe not the only one but perhaps the most effective. It's been getting a bit turgid and intense on here recently, and humour does show up absurdities wonderfully. In England we always used to take the piss out of the pompous, arrogant and nonsensical abuses of the powerful; great to see that weapon is still being used.

Who cares whether it's an example of irony, satire, parody or accurate analogy, it cracked me up and reinforced the ridiculous, pretentious and uncalled for nature of the attacks on the God Delusion, in my mind anyway. As far as I'm concerned those attacks could not possibly be taken seriously, and at least this is deliberately hilarious, and probably true.

30. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68494 by Prufrock on September 7, 2007 at 10:01 am

"Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists; there is no room for such awkward facts in the atheist system."

So what are there thoughts on how the universe works? If it wasn't Jehovah, do they believe it is evolution? So who was Jesus Christ, if he wasn't Jehovah's eldest? Do Christians actually believe the bible has any significance, value, advice, etc and if so what form does it take? Do we need the bible to further develop our moral leanings? The questions go on and on and on and on. Please explain this and the rest Mr Theo Hobson. Like the name.

31. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68476 by Prufrock on September 7, 2007 at 8:32 am

the assayer, #68469

"but she does bring up an important aspect about the new atheistic movement- the aspect of "policy". Politically atheism should merge with secularism, something that rarely gets mentioned by Richard et al. In other words, it is easy for a believer to interpret the movement as politically oppressive towards relgion. There should be an attempt to explain the difference between "criticising" religion and "oppressing" it."

Begs a number of questions. Is atheism a movement? Are we interested in politics? Are we really responsible for a believer feeling 'oppressed' when in reality we are simply criticising his/her unsubstantiated claims, or are we just simply ensuring that the voice of reason is heard, because not only do we have plenty to say - most of it reasonable - but many wonderful things have been done in its name. Are we supposed to be nice about belief without foundation? I'm not so sure this is what atheism is all about. Professor is a marvellous focal point for the atheists, quite simply because he is urbane, charming, as well as supremely qualified and accurate in what he says. Atheism is not about playing a political game it is about simply telling the truth about the universe and our place in it. Well that's what it means to me. Politicise it and I'm off.

32. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68465 by Prufrock on September 7, 2007 at 8:10 am

#68423 Jack Rawlinson

I've just had a quick look at the guardian message board and I have found only one message which supports Bunting's wholly mistaken article. If I wrote an article and found it offended virtually everyone that read it, I think I would keep my silly mouth shut in future or make sure I'm fully acquainted with my ignorances and prejudices before I attempt to insult someone speaking on behalf of, not leading, I don't need a leader, of a group of clear thinking, friendly and articulate people.

33. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68448 by Prufrock on September 7, 2007 at 7:50 am

This Ms Bunting has a very articulate bottom! Either that or she talks through it a lot. I can't be bothered to say anything remotely thoughtful about this, because it is completely incomprehensible. I'd say it was all plain wrong but I don't understand any of it so I can't even say that.

"What the media wants is polemic not reasonable exploration of complex issues - does Dawkins resist that tendency or play up to it? He clearly has a huge vested interest in doing the latter because it has made him a fortune out of booksales."

I feel insulted by this and I really don't like the idea of someone reducing my need to know and understand to a cheap marketing gag.

I'm disappointed once again by the psuedo intelligent garbage dished out by these wholly inadequate commentators. I fear this will not be the last time I read inept twaddle on this subject.

34. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68429 by Prufrock on September 7, 2007 at 6:59 am

blaine, you are right, we are saying similar things. The only thing that matters, though, is we end up by agreeing on what is correct. I think we agree on all of the logic fallacies mentioned now, but more importantly understand and definitely agree on the importance of being fair and precise in the way we use our terms to others. I'm sometimes just as guilty as you in being vague and imprecise. I guess we are all not Professor Dawkins!

35. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68364 by Prufrock on September 7, 2007 at 2:28 am

blaine, maybe I misinterpreted your message, but it came over as disparaging, which is probably not the case or what your meant.

#68111
"that if the Ipod author had implied that his arguments should be accepted BECAUSE his is an authority in the field, that would open him up to ad Hominem, because that would be a plank (proposition) of his argument."

This is an example of an appeal to authority logical fallacy and not an ad hominem fallacy, because he wants his argument to be accepted because he is perceived as an authority in the field and not because his argument is supported by evidence. If you had said his argument was invalid because he is an ignorant in this field and not because of the evidence then that would be an example of ad hominem.

All fields, including logic, are complex if you take them seriously. I'm surprised this typical and often used attempt to inappropriately influence an argument is not included in your course notes. We all appeal to authority sometimes without thinking. I guess the most appropriate appeal to authority for us is the one where we are told that God exists because the parson/vicar/priest/rabbi etc tells us so.

36. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68210 by Prufrock on September 6, 2007 at 11:10 am

Cornwell is a professional and has a duty to be fair and accurate in his appraisal of anything brought to his professional attention. Falling in love with X doesn't give you the right to tell lies about Y, does it. By all means remain starry-eyed or addicted - we all do it - but in the end don't misrepresent.
People lie for all kinds of reasons: to protect themselves, to protect others, to gain an advantage, because we want to simply hurt someone. The myth making, narratives we employ to help us do not stop these self same stories being lies. At the risk of sounding Albert Camus like(The Outsider), a lie is simply saying something that isn't true. In this case, someone, and there are many like him, has deliberately lied, not about himself, but about others, to protect himself and his tribe from their own lies, probably because they don't want to face their childish fear, their refusal to face their own ignorance, and their inability to deal with their own prejudices - he judges before facts are known, in fact he has a very poor relationship with the facts. We all lie, but let's not justify this person's wilful, immature and unprofessional behaviour. He, like many like him, know better, and it is irresponsible to delude others the way you are yourself deluded.

37. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68167 by Prufrock on September 6, 2007 at 9:22 am

I am a little surprised that Professor Dawkins is shocked by the ability of the faithful to simply distort and lie. Any healthy and sane skeptic who has found himself in the midst of believers will know how intimidating it can be to attempt to intelligently question the premises of belief in their company. I tried to get a couple of christian acquaintences to read TGD, in return I would re read their doctrines. I may as well have told them I wanted to be the virgin mary's first. It aint gonna happen and that is a non-negotiable. You see it my way or bye way. Why do you need to understand anything when you already know the answer is god? They only want to win the argument, not tell the truth. These people will never ever play the position. They only play what they believe should be played and it's the same in all positions. Unfortunately, life is not a game of chess; hypocrisy and lies often win this game. These people have been misrepresenting reality all of their lives. Professor Dawkins should know this and should really expect more of the same and some. These people are not nice!!!

38. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68138 by Prufrock on September 6, 2007 at 8:26 am

Thanks for your help epeeist. I accept your definition of Appeal to Improper Authority, but if I remember my university logic properly, I think there is an appeal to authority fallacy as well which, quite rightly, penalises someone who suggests that authorities can never be wrong, simply by dint of the fact that they are authorities on a particular subject. Very helpful, thanks.

39. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68114 by Prufrock on September 6, 2007 at 7:10 am

blaine,

Please excuse my ignorance - I'm ignorant of many things - but could you please clear up the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and an appeal to authority fallacy. I thought they were contrasting fallacies: ad hominem entails attacking an argument and idea because of who holds it, while the appeal to an authority fallacy is committed by someone who supports an argument because it is held by an authority and not because of the facts or evidence supporting the idea. An example of ad hominem in that case would be a faithhead saying Professor Dawkins attacks religion because he is a scientist and therefore is not capable of dealing with religious knowledge competently. An example of appealing to an authority might be that evolution is true because Professor Dawkins said so and not because of the ridiculous amounts of observable, verifiable and testable evidence supporting it. Therefore wouldn't the author mentioned be guilty of appeal to authority and not ad hominem? Please, rid me of my lazy understanding, because any field is complex if you get the basics wrong, and we would all hate to do that, wouldn't we.

40. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #68087 by Prufrock on September 6, 2007 at 5:16 am

"The problem being, of course, I am then doomed to finding out what they have to say."

I always have a feeling of doom when I'm waiting for evidence of something that doesn't exist, too. It's like a kind of suspension of reason for no good reason. I've simply stopped reading anything believers say until I become aware of something which contains irrefutable evidence God exists. I suspect that is not going to happen and we've just allowed ourselves to waste our ability to reason on people's proven talent to waste time. Believers are like that, before long you're playing on their imaginary playing field, waiting for their delusional evidence to miraculously appear - it matters not whether you are being fair or objective, you're still waiting for god on their terms. The truth is that the onus is on them to provide evidence and to prove their case. They won't because they can't. I really, really sympathise with what you are saying pewkatchoo. It really is frustrating being reasonable with the unreasonable, and we will all slip from our high standards of objectivity when dealing with people with such unevidenced ideas.

41. This human's life, decoded

Comment #67847 by Prufrock on September 5, 2007 at 1:52 am

"Because oceans, deserts, and mountain ranges have prevented people from choosing mates at random in the past, the large inbred families we call races are still discernible, each with a somewhat different distribution of gene frequencies."

I don't this is a problem anymore and maybe won't be so discernible in years to come. I prefer Professor Dawkins' dismissive remark about race, I think from the ancestor's tale but don't quote me, that race is meaningless and goes on to say that a species is defined by its ability to mate and reproduce with each other. That'll do for me and all the people I know. I hope we're not going to get into this race and intelligence nonsense again. I had to sit through two very dreary Mensa meetings 23 years ago after disproving some very distasteful myths. I much prefer spreading my genes :))

42. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67642 by Prufrock on September 4, 2007 at 5:19 am

So how does a vicar cure someone of depression or treat the more severe symptoms of schizophrenia? I take it there must be a counselling component to curing mental illness in which case I can understand the sentiment of the final paragraph, though:

"Patients probably seek out, to some extent, physicians who share their views on life's big questions"

sounds a bit strange as I don't even seek out my friends this way.

I have very little time for the counselling profession, though I daresay they do a good job for those who think they need them. I prefer practical, constructive and mutually beneficial relationships personally. I live by the win win motto.

Problems are for solving not for worrying about and wading in.

43. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67378 by Prufrock on September 3, 2007 at 6:42 am

I'm very disappointed with Yasmin's response. These unsubstantiated and unsettling attacks on non believers strike me as being inappropriate and unacceptable. If I may just reply to a couple of her points and please be patient if I re-iterate things that have been said before.

"Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens .. as they fulminate like demented fire-and-brimstone preachers"

I must have been asleep when this happened. I could see Christopher Hitchens getting demented if he dropped one of his lit fags - that might explain the demented and fire bit - but aside from that, nah.

"Some aspects of our nature are not susceptible to scientific enquiry"

I think this would be called a dogma of ignorance. Luckily many people who suffer with mental illnesses will be glad scientists actually ignored the belief that sufferers were cursed by God and did some naughty scientific enquiry and found things like neurotransmitters, lesions and tumours. Bad Scientists, naughty scientists ... Thank goodness people with enquiring, rational minds will use their puny imaginations to find out more about our creative natures. I guess she hasn't looked up work in neuroscience and some of the strange, human like behaviours implemented in artificial neural networks.

"Faith is the light of the moon above and that light in the sea, reality and spirituality, both making you tremblingly conscious of forces vast and beyond words. Impertinent scientists cannot know what they speak of."

I have never heard Professor Dawkins completely deny the possibility of God, though like all of us here we are extremely doubtful. He certainly doesn't deny his spirituality, aligning his own religosity to that of Einsteinian wonder at the majesty and beauty of the universe's and our structure. Mischevious Nobel Prize winning scientist Richard Feynmann had something to say about this when talking to an artist friend of his who castigated him for not being able to simply appreciate the beauty of a flower without going on at length about its processes. Naturally, scientists have the aesthetic sense, they just want to know how the magic works. What's wrong with that?

"The gods had to keep to their place in free India, but they remain vital to individuals and communities."

She should say they remain vital to some individuals and communities, but even then it doesn't mean that these gods really exist and it doesn't mean that unbelievers have to swallow wholesale the imposed nonsense of believers, either. Non-interference is a nice habit to cultivate.

"it was only the atheists who seemed absolutely certain"

He probably means it was only the atheists who had cogent, coherent, evidence based arguments to support their nonbelief, and 'seemed' is the give away word here. Journalistic licence I guess.

"imagery used by Nazis too, for whom their country was a healthy body invaded by multiplying, Jewish bacilli"

This analagy is weak, dangerous and surprisingly fallacious from someone with Mr Cornwell's background. I haven't read the full text so won't go overboard, but such is the personal nature of the faithful's attack that it surprises me that he get's confused between the science based behaviour of memes and the insane belief that a group of people were responsible for a country's ills in the early 20th century. Professor Dawkins target has always been god and any ideas which are false, unevidenced and ever so slightly psychotic. Would you infect your children with something which had these characteristics? You have my permission not to speak to me if you would knowingly and willingly harm any child in any way, let alone after been told this.

"Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao were driven to genocide not by religion but cold, cruel power"

Absolutely correct. But they weren't driven to genocide by atheism! Power could be a human need, which could then be certified by powerful doctrines - political or religious. Atheism is no such doctrine, it merely says: tell me about things that are true as evidenced; everything else is just for a laugh. Atheism seems to reject power if anything, and judging by the random nature of the responses on this site suggests it encourages indivualism rather than collective control. but maybe I'm wrong.

As for fearing God. Well I have a habit of avoiding anyone who wants to instil me with fear. In fact, I can't imagine Dr King, Gandhi or the apartheid fighters being afraid to deal with religion opposed fear. In South Africa, I think the dominant religion was the Dutch Reform Church.

"Gandhi and Martin Luther King found strength to fight for what was right through God"

I grew up in an Afro Caribbean community, during the 60, 70s and 80s and yes religion was used as a unifying and organising medium in what was a bewildering, humiliating and intimidating period, yes even in Britain. This does not mean God exists or that the strength came from religion. It could have come from a bottle of pop if those people needed it to be. These days we have other bodies to take care of such nonsense, so that it is a lot easier for people to have fun and raise and educate their kids. Yasmin needs to be careful when playing with people's memories and lives by saying things like this. It's not funny. Not only that but sometimes people get hooked on the roles given to them by a better forgotten and desperate narrative, which can cripple otherwise healthy people when things have mightily changed for them.

"Fundamentalist atheists want to replace old religions with their own."

I haven't stopped laughing at this yet. She must know something I don't because no-one's shown me an atheist manifesto. They've told me about how frustrating it is to converse with people who want to blur, complicate or simply lie about the issues in order to preserve the unpreservable. But I for one don't care what your beliefs are, I just know you don't need to believe to be decent, intelligent, well educated, tolerant, but most of all honest. I'm still working on the honest bit - that's harder than I thought.

44. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66713 by Prufrock on August 31, 2007 at 5:12 am

Hi Veronique. There are offerings for critical thinking skills, but these tend to be pitched at a very high level, e.g. A level, etc, for older, already competent students. Some syllabuses exist on the net; if I remember right www.cie.org.uk is one where you can look at what is taught in this subject. We can all use the net so I won't insult you by telling you to google. For me, though, this training is too much a little late in the day for most young people. The habit of critical, practical and creative reasoning needs to be introduced more informally - much more informally - at an earlier stage of development. There are people far more qualified than I am to let you know what is needed to encourage younger children to start the process of learning to think for themselves. Most of a child's education takes place outside the school. Their first role models are their parents, siblings and neighbours. These relationships are critical and I don't think it is a good idea to rush headlong into cleansing them of the possibly deletrious effects of these important relationships around them. You probably couldn't anyway. The important thing is to encourage them to develop independent thinking habits outside the classroom and independent of their social surroundings. It is an assumption of education that by taking a subject like English Literature, Maths or even Physics you are developing the ability to analyse information. This is clearly not enough, but are we looking in the right place for the solutions to the question of unblinking faith which may or may not be causing problems for us? I'm not so sure. In many countries around the world, including I think some parts of America, thinking skills are taught from a young age as a separate unit of education. From the age of 18 and after reading his mechanisms of mind, I have been a fan of Edward de Bono and it is his curriculum which is taught all over the world - apart it seems from Britain. Naturally, this course is customisable and many educators simply use this course as malleable template. The important thing is that everyone, not just elite scientists or wannabe elite scientist benefits being provided with thinking tools of which critical thinking is only one. At the risk of insulting the intelligence of the people on this site, for me it is important that this kind of thing is handled by properly qualified educators as there are child development issues to be handled before anything like this can be implemented. I might be wrong about this but not everyone is Einstein and not everyone has the helpful environment of a Mozart. Kids are kids, not programmable objects. A word of warning, the ability to pick out logical fallacies means only that we argue and clash more effectively but we may actually be resolving nothing. This may be heresy on a site like this, but I think many of the problems I have read about here and which seem to plague everyone everywhere cannot be solved by overdeveloping traditional thinking habits. As a species we still have the same old persecutions, hatreds, etc, because we are still using the same old equipment in the same old way. Whilst working for various corporates we were encouraged to develop thinking skills like Six Hats, Lateral Thinking and general ability to reason clearly and to develop new ways forward in our relationships with other people and the way we went about our daily duties. Very little of it was critical, but much of it was very effective. The problem for us, and I have noticed it on this site is that there is no real room to say anything different. You either believe or you don't. We don't, others do and what comes next? Are they really viruses that need to be mopped up. My best friend is a buddhist, the person who has helped me most was a muslim and I have christian friends. They know I don't believe and fully understand all of the arguments here and agree, but as they would say: what can you do if you believe... you simply just believe, end of. On a final note, I am a very keen chess player. I've been playing since I was 12. Now chess has taught me the importance of creative thought - creating plans, finding appropriate ideas, generating alternative responses - logical thought, i.e. checking the idea is valid, seeing someone else's point of view, memory - mostly pattern matching - controlling my emotions, concentration, but most importantly, taking responsibility for myself, what I believe and what happens as a result of what I do. It also has a shocking habit of showing me that I am only human and will always make errors, no matter how clearly I think I think. This error awarenes factors itself right at the beginning of any thought process and leads to sanity checking, the type you would find in every scientific experiment. As you can see there are a number of ways of helping children learn to think for themselves and to independently draw their own conclusions. sorry to ramble on.

45. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66695 by Prufrock on August 31, 2007 at 2:43 am

Dr Benway, Veronique, I like your thinking on this. It is a bugbear of mine that education seems to be all about learning what to think and not how. Too much time is spent stuffing kids full of stuff - good stuff though it is - as well as getting them to think independently. This includes creative thinking as well as critical thinking. Just developing thinking skills in general would not only lead to a more questioning generation of people, but also to a much more interesting and interested generation of people. Sad, though, that it does appear that such a simple idea can be seen as subversive, when maybe it should be mainstream. I thought the aim of education was not only to train and lead people to enlightenment but also to question and re-search matters which seem conclusive but may need further examination. I'm wrong again, as usual. One of the many aims of training should be, as Dr Benway suggests, to empower not cripple young minds. What, how and why are among our best friends.

46. The importance of doubt

Comment #66452 by Prufrock on August 30, 2007 at 2:59 am

There are so many misunderstandings, errors and downright lies in this article that I'm not even going to bother to get deep with it. The author's interpretation of the relationship between belief and doubt are confused. Graham Greene, great writer that he was, does not have authenticity instincts greater than those of anyone else. His take on what science says about racial hygiene and lamarkism is more about social darwinism than about real evidence based science... Oh I could go on and on and on and find so many things not to trust in this article. If faith is a journey whose path is lined with doubt, mysticism and symbolism, then it is also a journey without evidence, facts, hypotheses and imagination and we all know where that leads to.... nothing and nowhere. Much like where this article leads.

47. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66443 by Prufrock on August 30, 2007 at 2:33 am

I must have learning difficulties! I read what people like Father Ulf Jonsson have to say every time, and not just read it, I mean read it, until the very end, in the vain hope I might actually read something vaguely evidential or even interesting. But no ... just the same, tired old psuedo nonsense. I remember Dr Benway suggesting people google logical fallacies to learn how to pick out bad logic and to construct truthful logic. Maybe the people who need to do the googling most are the people who write articles like this. I've heard all of this so many times; maybe the perpetrators believe a lie becomes true the more you tell Mmmmmm... yawn.

48. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66430 by Prufrock on August 30, 2007 at 1:55 am

If there is any need for proof that the faithful are beligerent, ignorant, arrogant, abusive and patently wrong, we have it here... and I don't mean Christopher Hitchens who far from seeming smug, as he would have the right to by the way, but confident, controlled, articulate, compassionate and patently right.

49. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66426 by Prufrock on August 30, 2007 at 1:40 am

What a superb article! At once truthful and embodying my own thoughts and feelings about religion - a faith based, superstition nonsense, anyway. I can't speak for how other people relate to the content. I hope his last sentence was not rhetorical or ironic. My reply would be simple. Evidence, facts, reason and a respect for life, like that shown by virtually all of those people who contribute to this site. I'm not one for hyperbole or for hero-worshipping mere people like myself or yourself, but I have to say Sam Harris has said so much so well and so pleasantly! I have a high regard for the gang of four, simply because they speak up for the things I value. Pity, the people who need to listen aren't listening.

50. Enemies of Reason

Comment #66161 by Prufrock on August 29, 2007 at 5:39 am

Yes, j. martin, I believe it beliefs and faith and all the stuff we now know to be nonsense did have a purpose, in fact I would propose that it had many purposes. The thing is that in the same way I do not have the same beliefs and attitudes I had when I was 15, it cannot possibly be true that the things humanity believed in its infancy are true today after much inspection and evidence to the contrary. We grow by postulating and then rejecting what is not true. The attack on the 'spiritual' is that it is retarding the development of individuals and society by spreading deletrious 'memes' the effect of which have been described by the gang of four and attested to by millions around the world, some of whom are on this site. More people than you realise are fed up of being bullied around and lied to because of the false reasoning and plain nonsense perpetrated by those who lead us. I care where I am led and who I am led by. If something is not true then I for one don't want it rammed into my head as though it had meaning. Reducing these things to mere entertainment would be great as a start.