1. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179657 by Liveliest Crib on May 13, 2008 at 1:29 pm

If you survey the literature . . .

Indeed, that appears to be what Brooks does. He merely surveys the literature. He does not actually read it. Want proof?

Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.

I guess he got as far as the title, and figured he understood the thesis.

In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate.

Yeah, you really checkmated us on that one. A dollop of Pascal's idiot wager, a pinch of Intelligent Design, some insults about immorality, Hitler and Stalin, and we were down for the count. Now if only that Bible thing made sense....

2. Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

Comment #164654 by Liveliest Crib on April 20, 2008 at 1:44 pm

7. Comment #164637 by clover on April 20, 2008 at 1:34 pm
you forget though: its still a lizard!
(or some other nonsense essentialist fallacy)

That's what I was thinking. Creationists and IDiots will just chalk this up as an example of "microevolution." The lizards didn't become an entirely different species.

And when you say that they would over time, they'll accuse you of simply having faith that they would over time, whereas they simply have faith that god wouldn't let that happen.

3. Hebrew University researcher: Moses was tripping at Mount Sinai

Comment #138383 by Liveliest Crib on March 4, 2008 at 8:55 am

Heh....I don't know about the characters in the Bible themselves, but I have no problem believing that the people who wrote the stories were under the influence of one drug or another.

4. The argument from oranges

Comment #128360 by Liveliest Crib on February 16, 2008 at 8:31 pm

I was going to get married, but then I thought about it for a second. We've only been around for about 6,000 years as a universe, so there really haven't been that many generations of human beings. I mean, we all started from Adam and Eve. And Eve was really just Adam's clone. And her kids had to sleep with, well, I guess with either one another and/or her in order to populate the planet, and they lived for 900 years or something. And then god killed pretty much the whole gene pool 'cept for Noah and his family, and started the whole incest thing over again.

So, I didn't wanna get married. I'm probably the cousin or sister of my betrothed. It's too big a risk.

And then I remembered. As I was comforting myself with the knowledge that we never came from monkeys, I read in the Bible where we truly did come from: Dirt.

We're all just the progeny of dirt.

So, what the heck does it matter anyway? Ok, screw it, I'll get married.

5. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125514 by Liveliest Crib on February 11, 2008 at 1:59 pm

In his second address, Hitchens admonished that we should be crying, not laughing, at some of his points. After listening to Boteach's second retort, I was indeed crying.

Stephen J. Gould did not believe in evolution?

Mutations tend not to be beneficial, so evolution can't happen without god unless you posit the laughable entity of time?

Hitchens makes factual errors in his book, and thus his depressing arguments about god's existence must be wrong?

Tears being shed right now, Mr. Hitchens.

6. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125507 by Liveliest Crib on February 11, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Wow. I just listened to Boteach's first retort to Hitchens. Seems like it can be summarized as follows:

1. The notion of a world without god is depressing. Therefore god exists.

2. Hitchens is a hateful, depressing man, who does not believe in god. Therefore god exists.

3. Belief in evolution leads some people to reduce the human experience to survival, and thus to recommend patently immoral actions as moral if it would be good for the species. Therefore evolution is bad, wrong, and god exists.

Oh, yeah, you got us dead to rights. Check and mate, rabbi.

Good grief!

7. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #124668 by Liveliest Crib on February 10, 2008 at 2:56 am

48. Comment #124086 by tooltroll on February 8, 2008 at 10:11 am
Here's his patent application:
http://patents.ic.gc.ca/cipo/cpd/en/patent/2437745/summary.html
I find it slightly suspicious that the diagrams are, apparently, somehow, unscannable. Say what? Is my country's patent office using Fisher-Price scanners? Or was the scanner donated by, say, Petro-Canada, and just can't resolve images that may cut into their profits? Hmmmmmm. . .

You can get a patent on just about anything. Go to James Randi's site (randi.org) and type the word "patent" into the search engine. It will retrieve all of Randi's weekly commentaries where he reports on some silly thing the patent office did.

Ever the great debunker, Randi also often notes how scientists have so often endorsed the claims of charlatans, less-than-scrupulous conjurers and the deluded. That Heinz has captured the attention of an MIT professor is interesting, but not all that interesting.

8. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121170 by Liveliest Crib on February 3, 2008 at 3:56 am

158. Comment #121147 by Ian on February 3, 2008 at 2:40 am
Whilst I'd like to add my compliments to those already given to Dr Myers, I'd like to make a suggested debating tactic for the future.

For instance, Given such well documented examples as whales, basilosaurus is clearly a whale, yet significally different from any living specimen. The largest living carnivorous cetacean being only two-thirds the size; so not only do we have intermediates, but offshoots as well.

Similarly, not only do we have homo habilis as part of our ancestral line, we have h.neaderthalis as an offshoot that left no descendants today.

Hmm, I dunno. I think it might be a better debate strategy not to let them frame the debate at all in terms of "transitional fossils."

As used by the likes of Simmons, the term "transitional fossils" is but a linguistic construct designed to confuse people about how evolution works. What evolution's detractors are actually doing when they speak of the lack of "transitional fossils" is exploiting the layperson's basic understanding of analog vs. digital, and linking it to his ignorance of the mechanisms by which species evolve over generations.

People like Simmons know that laypeople expect the fossil record to be the geologic equivalent of a film strip, which, if run through a projector, would enable them literally to watch the "analog" morphing of one animal or organism into another. They know that laypeople often do not understand that evolution proceeds in a more "digital" fashion across the population of a species over thousands and thousands of generations. And they exploit the misconception to the fullest.

Here, lemme illustrate. :)

Scientist: I just counted from 1 to 5.

Simmons: No way! How could you possibly transition from 1 to 5?

Scientist: Very simply, actually. Listen. 1-2-3-4-5.

Simmons: That's awfully specious. I mean, you just have faith that those are the steps that have been taken. I don't think you've actually found the transitional numbers. How do you get from 1 to 2?

Scientist: Oh, jeez. You don't understand what I'm doing or how I'm counting. But surely you can see how to go from, say, 1 to 1.5 to 2, right?

Simmons: No. And how do you transition between 1 and 1.5? Your theory makes no sense.

See how the game is played? Through that kind of rhetoric, Simmons can maintain a straight face while muttering absurdities like, "The fossil record is even more incomplete now than it was in Darwin's time." Simmons demands to see a "transitional fossil," and Myers produces one. The problem is that it's impossible to fill the gaps Simmons wants people to see. Offering him a gap-filler only offers him twice as many gaps as he had before.

Frankly, people like Simmons know full well that the layperson and the evolutionary biologist will hear two different things when they say, "transitional fossils." The fact is, either every single organism currently meandering the Earth represents a potential "transition" between its parents' generation and its offsprings', or there are no such things as "transitional fossils" at all.

But I don't think evolution's proponents in this kind of debate ought to say something like that. Instead, I think they ought to just call bullshit immediately upon hearing their opposition utter the term "transitional fossils."

These days, whenever scientists hear some ignoramus say that evolution postulates that man comes from monkeys, they reflexively just call bullshit, and use it as an opportunity to explain what evolution is really all about. I would propose that they develop a similar reflex when they hear the equally idiotic claims that scientists have never found any transitional fossils. Cut them off, and say that evolution doesn't even postulate the existence of the kind of fossil record they're looking for, and use it as an opportunity to explain how evolution really works.

9. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #119974 by Liveliest Crib on February 1, 2008 at 4:12 am

22. Comment #117864 by Mbee on January 29, 2008 at 9:18 pm Well I think the debate was great - I just wish that this would be available on the US TV! Nobody here (ie ABC, NBC, CBS , PBS) would have the guts to put on a debate like this that would allow such open discussion of the subjects covered.

Sure they would. They just wouldn't be polite discussions. There'd be a couple idiotic hosts, both of whom would be railing against the likes of Dr. Dawkins, smirking whenever he made a logical point in order to mask their insecurities, and the audience participants would be encouraged to point fingers and name-call. American networks will talk about anything as long as they can sensationalize the subject, and have their preferred side of the argument significantly amplified. :)

Oh, and hello there from a fellow Californian. ;)

25. Comment #117874 by AtheistAspy on January 29, 2008 at 10:24 pm Blaspemy law! WTF? America may be full of fundies, but even we don't have laws like that.

Oh, yes we do! They're just not enforced.

Many states have all sorts of establishmentarian laws on the books. Only, at the moment, the Supreme Court interprets them to violate the Constitution. But that could change with the next Supreme Court appointee. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

Notice that the text is only proscribes action taken by the United States Congress. It says nothing about each respective state establishing its own religion.

Under current Constitutional doctrine, the rights contained in the First Amendment are considered to be "Incorporated" onto the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, not all of the Justices on the Supreme Court agree with the Incorporation Doctrine. Clarence Thomas has gone so far as to call it bunk, and argue that each state does indeed have the power to establish a religion if it wishes. (For that matter, under Thomas' interpretation, each state has the power to punish the practice of certain religions, ban certain kinds of speech, outlaw newspapers, etc.)

Thomas usually sides with Justices Scalia and Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. That's four out of five. We are one Justice away from the nightmare of an antidisestablishmentarian [ever think you'd see that word again?] Supreme Court!

10. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #119939 by Liveliest Crib on February 1, 2008 at 3:24 am

2. Comment #117790 by MPhil on January 29, 2008 at 4:37 pm Well, the one thing I didn't like was when Prof. Dawkins agreed with Lord Carey that the freedoms and liberties of "western" societies is a basically a product of Christianity... definitely not!

Funny, I heard Dr. Dawkins agree with a different sentiment entirely. I had to go back and listen to the quote with which he agreed. Here it is:

I am against a blasphemy law, and I've said so on many occasions. And the reason I am against it, I mean, I would take it back to the scriptures themselves. There is Jesus approaching his crucifixion, Simon Peter [?] comes along, lops off the ear of one of the soldiers; Jesus says, 'Put up your sword. That's not my way. And it's not his way to defend. Christianity is big enough to defend itself. I believe in a free society, and this country owes so much to the Christian, Western tradition, and I think, Richard, you ought to be jolly grateful that [ ] your writings come in our tradition with that strength of the Christian faith which can take it on the chin.

Perhaps I'm the one misinterpreting the former Archbishop, but I understood him to be saying not that Christianity produced Western society's currently valued liberties, but that Dawkins should be grateful that the members of his country's predominant, established religion, by and large, do not respond violently to polemics. In other words, while some, or even most, of Christianity's tenets are incompatible with Western conceptions of freedom, some of the freedoms that have evolved in the Western world were able to do so because of Christianity's willingness to listen to a "devil's advocate" without calling for his head. In other parts of the world, the former Archbishop implied, Dr. Dawkins would not be so lucky. Whether Christianity is by nature as tolerant as Lord Carey apparently believes is, of course, debatable. Depending on the period of history on which we focus, the notion would be laughable. In any case, though, when I heard Dawkins agree, I simply heard him acknowledge that he was lucky enough to be born in a time and place wherein the predominant/ruling religion combats him with discourse instead of violence.

11. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115275 by Liveliest Crib on January 23, 2008 at 9:40 pm

3. Comment #115147 by MPhil on January 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Even if all that is said of Darwin's opinions in this article were true - I don't know, but I guess Prof. Dawkins will be eager to respond - that does not change the fact that he discovered a scientific principle that is, like all empirical science, completely unconnected with prescriptive ethics.

Exactly. But so many people can't distinguish between normative claims and empirical ones.

I had a landlady once that said that she would never use what she called "traditional medicine," but what I like to call "medicine." Her reasoning? The pharmaceutical companies were evil, whereas "healers" who studied and practiced ancient or alternative medicine had the best of intentions. When I would ask her whether it mattered which of the respective products actually worked, she didn't seem to understand what I was saying. In her mind, it was the moral intention behind the medicine that made it work.

Tony Campolo's arguments are roughly akin to calling the polio vaccine dangerous because Jonas Salk intended only to dispense it to rich, white people, hoping to subjugate all poor minorities who continued to suffer from the disease. Oh, I know that there isn't a shred of truth to the notion that Salk was such a monster. But even if there were, so what?

12. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114722 by Liveliest Crib on January 22, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Alcohol, the leading cause of drunk driving, and as such the leading cause of alcohol-related deaths

Is the intra-linguistic truth part of the joke? I would think alcohol is the only cause of drunk driving.

13. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100612 by Liveliest Crib on December 19, 2007 at 1:49 am

20. Comment #100458 by heathen2 on December 18, 2007 at 4:28 pm
There seems to be a lot of anger (from some theists) around atheists enjoying or participating in Xmas festivities. As if they own it. They don't. But the anger is really interesting. More like outrage, is my sense. It's like they are saying "you atheists are speaking out against the god part and all of the other religious evils, so how dare you presume to enjoy the fun parts of it".

25. Comment #100472 by DNAtheist on December 18, 2007 at 5:01 pm
I wish theists would make up their minds. If we don't want to celebrate the holiday then we are insulting Christians. If we do celebrate the holiday then we are insulting Christians. The only way we could stop insulting them would be to become Christians.

44. Comment #100570 by AdrianB on December 18, 2007 at 11:24 pm
"It seems to me that with each passing Christmas, Christians are behaving more and more like a fictional character. "Sméagol Christians" still remember how Christmas is about friendship and love, peace and undertanding, while "Gollum Christians" are slavishly protective of Christmas and will lash out at anyone who tries to take it."

I thought people might like this old Onion article. It seems apropos. :)

Religious Cousin Ruins Family's Christmas

MONTOURSVILLE, PA–The arrival of devout Christian cousin Barb Krueger has "for all practical purposes ruined" the Langan family's chances of having an enjoyable holiday season, sources reported Monday.

"Christmas Day is something our whole family greatly looks forward to, drinking egg nog, opening presents, sitting around the family room in our pajamas and robes, and sipping hot cocoa throughout the day," said Marv Langan, 51. "Well, you can forget about that this year, with Barb hovering over us with her Bible."

Follow the link for more.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38622

14. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100559 by Liveliest Crib on December 18, 2007 at 10:28 pm

23. Comment #100466 by Richard Morgan on December 18, 2007 at 4:50 pm
avatar"...Christianity is not that offensive."
"It is fiction, it's harmless..;"
You heard Richard Dawkins say it.
The same Richard Dawkins has said:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins has correctly pointed out the fact that the OT or Abrahamic God is the God of Christianity.
Not that offensive?

Please pass me my cognitive dissonance migraine pills...

Dr. Dawkins' statement struck my ears as well, though my suspicion is that it smacks more of equivocation than dissonance.

I certainly can't speak for Dawkins, but I imagine that while he certainly recognizes the practice and worship of the Old Testament god as offensive -- especially when the faithful try to force their beliefs on everyone else -- but that participating in what have become innocuous rituals like caroling, gift-giving or decorating trees isn't offensive despite the practices' origins. My suspicion is that Dawkins would use the word "Christianity" in the latter sense in the audio clip, and in the former in his book.

Nevertheless, the equivocation did muddy the waters somewhat, and the conversation between Dawkins and the host didn't clear much up. The host's admittedly far-fetched analogy of someone singing along with Nazi tunes was absurd not so much because the Nazis were obviously and particularly offensive, as Dawkins answered. Indeed, that did lead Dawkins to have to concede that Christianity wasn't offensive, which might have surprised the host, who might have thought Dawkins did find it offensive. Perhaps the assumption built into the analogy explains why the host didn't seem to understand Dawkins' explanation that Christianity was fiction. Perhaps he wasn't quite able to articulate the retort, "But it's offensive fiction, right?"

The reasons the analogy fail, which I think Dawkins was trying to argue, are that (a) unlike the Christian god, the Nazis were very real, and actually did commit genocide within the lifetimes of people currently walking the planet; and (b)Christmas celebrations have long ceased to be devout religious ceremonies, and references to a fictional, albeit offensive, god are but mere residue of previous times; today they're merely cultural nods to heritage amid a time of traditional celebration.

Having spelled it out like that (and again, I certainly can't speak for Dawkins), I'm not sure I agree. I was raised Jewish, and was implored to be at least "culturally Jewish" if I weren't a genuine believer. But after a while, I simply couldn't bring myself to go to Seders, and happily recount the way god murders innocent Egyptian children, and somehow only draw the inspirational lessons about freedom and slavery. The stories simply appalled me, and I couldn't participate, even as a "cultural Jew," one who clearly believed none of it.

15. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100377 by Liveliest Crib on December 18, 2007 at 2:35 pm

in the spirit of Ambrose Bierce
THACKER'S GLOSSARY

"Come all ye faithful" cards --- a non-sectarian, non-denominational polite holiday greeting

"Come all ye faithless" cards --- bashing Christians over the head; using them as punching bags

"Merry Christmas" --- a simple expression of good will to all used throughout the months of November and December

"Happy Holidays" --- a phrase used as a tactic of war designed to stifle Christians' freedom throughout the months of November and December

Atheists --- petty, immature, murderous thugs who have willfully chosen to hate and mock Jesus Christ because of His righteousness

Christians --- decent people who, despite having majority status in Western societies and firm control over most Western governments, remain brutally oppressed in the Western world

Freedom of Religion --- teaching Christianity and creationism in public schools; keeping gay people out of public life and away from Christians in general

Establishment of Religion --- preventing Christians from indoctrinating children in public schools

16. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100191 by Liveliest Crib on December 18, 2007 at 11:22 am

26. Comment #100126 by maton100 on December 18, 2007 at 9:16 am
This interviewer looks like Sean Hannity in training.

My sentiments exactly! I was going to comment that the CBC appears to have found its Hannity.

What a disgusting interview. Note how they keep cutting back to the Shear Insanity wannabe for his indignant and mocking facial expressions during Dawkins' explanations and answers to openly hostile questions.

17. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #97921 by Liveliest Crib on December 12, 2007 at 8:42 pm

To: AtheistJon 150. Comment #97787 on December 12, 2007 at 4:20 pm

I think you've offered a perfectly workable definition for purposes of this conversation.

So, the question becomes whether discrimination on the basis of race is morally justified in various contexts. I would agree that many people probably engage in such discrimination, sometimes without even recognizing that they are doing so, in many of those contexts. And in certain of the contexts, the discrimination might not be immoral.

But I would like to know your argument that justifies such discrimination as morally justified.

18. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #97622 by Liveliest Crib on December 12, 2007 at 12:41 pm

148. Comment #97282 by AtheistJon on December 11, 2007 at 8:58 pmBy the way, for Livliest Crib: I am not an isolationist race-hater, nor am I advocating race hatred.

No worries. I didn't actually think that you were.

I do admit to racism from time to time.

Sure. I have seen studies, particularly in law school during employment discrimination classes, that suggest that we all act upon racial prejudice at times, often without realizing that we are doing so. The studies present interesting legal conundrums.

I just wanted to point out that racism (including racism towards whites) may be morally justified IMO and to deny it (admittedly not always) is to be disingenuous. Doesn't the person protesting "I am not a racist", sound like he is protesting just a little too much? And in the Atheist community, I see a blanket denial and distancing from the concept in all cases, and I believe this is dishonest.

Well, again, I think it is a leap to say that because racism might be deeply ingrained or widely practiced that it is therefore morally justified. Excused, perhaps, but not justified. I think it would be best if you stipulated a definition of racism, and then argued that, under that definition, it is morally justified.

19. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #97227 by Liveliest Crib on December 11, 2007 at 7:23 pm

TO: AtheistJon 143. Comment #96980 on December 11, 2007 at 7:42 am

I'm having some difficulty articulating a response, largely because your posts (to me at least) appear to mix a variety of different topics and concepts that I think are best addressed separately. Moreover, it is sometimes difficult to tell precisely what you mean when you use words like "racism" or "liberal." For instance, you first argued that we should not be so quick to condemn "racism" because it was "natural," but then said you did not mean to imply that its naturalness alone vindicated racism. Now, you've qualified partly what you mean by racism (not Hitlerian genocide, but perhaps habits or choices of association), and seem to focus most of your condemnation on "political correctness." I'll attempt to respond as best I can, but will have to stipulate some definitions of my own, and explain my conceptual framework so that we're can clearly communicate. Here goes.... ;)

I'd elaborate it like this. Since I would also agree with you that forced love is immoral (i.e. no to all of the above questions I asked)... I would classify modern politically correct/anti-racist attitudes/zero tolerance hate crime legislation as a kind of forced love (maybe ameliableness is a better word). Would you disagree with that?

I first have difficulty answering this query because I'm not sure what you mean by "forced." Political correctness often entails societal shunning of the politically "incorrect," not legal punishment. But you also bring up hate crimes legislation. I'll try to answer you this way:

Personally, I am against "hate crimes legislation" because they ultimately punish thought. An action that is illegal in and of itself receives stiffer punishment if it committed with hate. In other words, killing an African American is illegal. It's killing. But if a court determines that the defendant's motive were his hatred of African Americans, he can receive a harsher punishment than if his motive were because the particular victim in question simply insulted him somehow. In such a case, I would agree with you that attitudes and thoughts are being "forced" upon people, and I consider this fundamentally wrong, and anti-liberty.

Note, however, that my position is largely a legal one. In no way does it prevent me from condemning killing out of hatred for African Americans as morally worse than another kind of killing. That's simply my moral opinion. In my politics (largely civil libertarian, in this case), there are all sorts of behaviors or ideas I would consider immoral, but would not outlaw them.

I'm not talking about the kind of racism that entails genocide, ethnic violence, and other clearly immoral aspects of racism in the same way that murder, theft, and adultery are also immoral. I'm talking more about the rules of multicultural politically correct thinking which tends to come out of the political left regarding attitudes. Haven't you heard the hippy adulation to "Love your Brother Man..."?

Ok, so now we have to get back into prevailing normative attitudes not necessarily enforced by law. Society might implore you to love your fellow man, but that does not necessarily mean that it is forcing you to.

At this point, we can simply get back into the purely normative question of whether the position society takes vis-a-vis "loving your brother" is itself an immoral position. I think you do this, but I'm again not completely sure I understand you. Again, though, I'll respond as best I can.

Anyway, I believe that liberal political discussions tend to paint racism in such a black-and-white manner [no pun intended, I assume :)] (i.e. that one is duty bound to hire, date, befriend all without discriminating on race or other factors and be happy about it). However, isn't it more honest to ones own political preferences to love or favor people for whom one has biologically inclined biases?

I'm not sure I understand bringing in the concept of honesty here. You appear to be suggesting that people who adhere to political correctness (by hiring, dating, befriending members of all races) are not being honest about the racism they would much rather practice were they free from certain impositions. I'm not sure that's what you're implying, but it seems to be. And I see no evidence for that. I have personally befriended people of a wide variety of races and cultures. Some of them, I have dated, and have even dated members of both sexes. I feel my life has been enriched for doing so, and never was I betraying my true desires.

At the same time, of course, I recognize that human beings have a tendency to gravitate toward similars. I see nothing necessarily immoral about that. The members of many races with whom I regularly associate nevertheless have, as it were, something in common with me -- ie: political leanings, musical tastes, passion for a certain sport, etc.

So, I suppose, in one sense, the question you're asking becomes whether it is necessarily immoral to gravitate toward similars when "similar" is defined by race. Here, again, I think we need to stipulate a definition of "racism," since that is what you appear to be trying to defend.

Personally, when I hear the word "racism," I think of an attitude that posits one race as morally superior to others, and a subsequent disdain or even hatred for those others. Although I would not make such an attitude illegal, and force someone to think differently, I nevertheless consider that attitude immoral. It is but mere prejudice, and certainly has no empirical evidence to bolster any claims of any kind of superiority for the preferred race.

However, if someone merely says to me, "I do not believe that I am superior to members of another race, nor do I harbor any animosity toward them, but feel compelled simply to associate only with members of my own race, because I like it that way," well, I suppose I'd be more nonplussed than morally outraged. I might suggest that that someone try to broaden her horizons, but I wouldn't necessarily deem her to be immoral.

As to what can be legally required from such a person, well, I certainly support someone's legal right to associate freely, even to avoid members of one race out of pure racial hatred. She should be free to hang out with and date only those people she wants to. As for whether she should be allowed to refuse to employ a member of that race, I think we've strayed from private actions to public actions, and would get into an entirely separate conversation.

Because it is dishonest to ones preferences, I view political correctness as immoral in a similar way that profession of religion is immoral by being dishonest to one's true beliefs about reality.

With this statement, I must admit that you have confused me again. It is not dishonest to behave in a politically correct manner if one truly believes it to be proper, and especially if that is truly how one desires to behave. Moreover, it's not even dishonest to believe in god if, ahem, one truly believes in god. I do not see any inherent connection between dishonesty and political correctness.

What you appear to be saying is that we are all naturally programmed to favor our own race, and that it would be "dishonest" to go against that our natural inclinations. If that is your argument, I would have to refer back to my original response -- that we can and should rise above our natures when we deem it moral to do so.

20. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96693 by Liveliest Crib on December 10, 2007 at 8:43 pm

140. Comment #96672 by AtheistJon on December 10, 2007 at 8:15 pm
I would agree with your argument that all things that natural aren't necessarily moral. That wasn't really what I was trying to say.

Ok. I apologize if I misconstrued your argument.

Is it moral for Christians to require (from society) love of Jesus? For Muslims to require love of the Koran? For Jews to require love of the Talmud? For North Korean society to be required to love the North Korean leader Kim Jung Il? For Americans to be required to love George W. Bush?, Etc... For that matter, is it moral, in general, for society to require love of anything or anyone?

I believe that the answer to each of those questions is, "No, it is immoral for society to require that, especially under the threat of legal punishment."

If you cannot answer yes to that question, then you can probably guess where I'm going with this train of thought in the context of racism.

To be perfectly honest, I'm highly confused about where you're going with this. :)

21. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96632 by Liveliest Crib on December 10, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Indeed, as others have mentioned, this is exactly the problem with the term "atheism" Sam Harris mentioned. Indeed, this pitiful argument about Stalin just won't go away.

I would suggest Dr. Dawkins respond in the following manner: Begin every paragraph with "Why won't you hear me when I argue.....?"

First, explain how frustrating it is to refute the "argument from Stalin" repeatedly, in detail and at length, only to have someone who should know better either misconstrue the refutation so spectacularly that one wonders whether it was deliberate, or worse, merely reiterate the "argument from Stalin" as though no refutation were ever offered. Then draw out the refutation in simple terms, beginning each with "Why won't you hear me when I argue [fill in the blank]?"

Such as, "Why won't you hear me when I explain that atheism is not itself a belief system, but a lack of beliefs from which no action necessarily follows?"

And, "Why won't you hear me when I acknowledge the horrors of Stalin, but explain that DOGMA AND FAITH pose problems whether they are theistic or atheistic?"

Etc.

Not that the Morrises or D'Souzas of the world will hear it, but it might be the kind of rhetoric that gets the attention of people "on the fence" who might be swayed by D'Souzan drivel.

22. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96586 by Liveliest Crib on December 10, 2007 at 6:27 pm

136. Comment #96493 by AtheistJon on December 10, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Also, I was planning on asking you about race and racism. Many of you "new-Atheist"s are talking about the one absolute evil of racism as if that were a moral issue that cannot be disputed. I would guess (and you surely have better knowledge about this than I and would be glad to learn from you the truth) is that racism is quite prevalent throughout the natural world (i.e. it's not just limited to white Anglo-Saxon American men). So, if it is so natural, then why should we consider racism immoral?

There seems to be a widely accepted normative premise that somehow natural equals good. It has never computed to me.

First, no one really believes it in its purest sense. When the wholly natural tornado is twirling in the vicinity of your human-made house, you'll likely not be rooting for nature. Moreover, if we didn't continually go against nature, we'd be having this discussion not over the internet, but around a fire in a cave.

More importantly, though, I would imagine that throughout history, slavery and rape have been as widespread throughout the human world (and, in the case of the latter, even the animal kingdom at large), but their ubiquity alone would hardly justify their continued practice. We can, as it were, "rise above" our natures when we deem it moral to do so. Indeed, one might say that striving to be better than nature might otherwise program us to be (for lack of a better phrase at the moment) is part and parcel of being moral.

Would a bengal tiger be exhibiting superior moral character if it tolerated, say, siberian tigers (as mates or neighbors) just as much as it did it's own kind?

I find it difficult to judge the morality of tigers without first knowing that they have a moral sense at all.

I guess it comes down to the game-theory problems of poli-sci and what actions in this game would we define as moral.

I am not familiar enough with game theory to comment one way or another, but I do agree that we have to have moral premises and definitions before determining whether any specific action is moral or immoral. In most conversations, those premises remain unarticulated and assumed. Normative discourse typically involves ferreting out inconsistencies or illogical conclusions derived from those premises.

Sometimes, as well, new empirical evidence might lead us to change our minds about a normative conclusion we had once derived. Discovering how much we actually have in common with members of other races, for instance, might lead one to conclude that other races are just as morally worthy as we are.

Quite a problem, and I find myself leaning towards the politically incorrect side of the issue, only because its the more honest side (just as atheism is more honest than wishful and blind religious thinking).

Religion is widespread among human cultures. Why wouldn't it be more honest to conclude that believing is more honest than not on those grounds? I fail to see how it is honest to consider racism moral (or at least not immoral) merely because it is natural.

23. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96334 by Liveliest Crib on December 10, 2007 at 11:46 am

Though it's a tad dismissive, I rather like Bob Park's assessment of the fine tuning argument. Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland, paraphrases the argument from fine tuning as follows:

If things were different, things would not be the way things are.

:)

24. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95932 by Liveliest Crib on December 9, 2007 at 1:46 pm

32. Comment #95922 by Mark Till on December 9, 2007 at 1:28 pm
The Hitler-Stalin argument is really getting tired now. Whether religious or not they certainly weren't acting rationally. Atheism is, for most I suspect, just one inevitable facet of a rational, sceptical mindset. Hitler, Stalin and any other mass murderer you care to mention, were acting upon BELIEFS. And those beliefs were not open to sceptical enquiry. The wider problem is irrational dogma - religion just happens to be responsible for a lot of it.

Exactly.

This is part of the problem with the word "atheism" of which Sam Harris complains. It's already associated with certain evils that it really shouldn't be. (I don't quite agree with Harris that the word ought to be abandoned, but he has a good point here.)

Dawkins' retort that Stalin acted not "in the name of" atheism has been inevitably misconstrued by the Morrises and D'Souzas of the world, who already associate the term "atheism" with the evils Stalin inflicted on the world. "Of course," they say, "he acted 'in the name of atheism.' Just look at his words about how he wanted to rid the world of theism, and how he wanted to kill all the priests, and how anti-theism was part and parcel of Marxism."

Unfortunately, this jives with the intuitions of so many who misconstrue atheism as a set of beliefs, in and of itself. It's not. Atheism is a lack of belief, namely in a personal deity. There are no tenets, no compulsions, no commands, that accompany a lack of belief. You first need a dogma before you can be a Stalin.

The point isn't so much that Stalin acted not in the name of atheism as that lack of belief in god is not enough to drive someone to behave as Stalin did. On the other hand, certainty that everything he believed in accordance with his version of Marxism/Lenninism was absolutely correct, and that anything he did to further its cause was just, is. One need not believe this certainty is sanctioned by an omniscient deity in order to commit atrocities, but that belief sure seems to help a lot of people get there.

25. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95924 by Liveliest Crib on December 9, 2007 at 1:31 pm

27. Comment #95910 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 12:58 pm

I don't know why this form of intimidation appeals to you or to anyone else.

More than that, I don't know why anyone should believe it. There isn't the remotest smidgen of evidence to support it ... Wouldn't you think you'd want some kind of evidence before basing your entire life on a proposition such as this?

I would imagine that it is the lack of evidence that makes the intimidation appealing. Can't persuade 'em, so we'll scare 'em.

26. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95911 by Liveliest Crib on December 9, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Father Morris, a regular contributor for FOX Noise Channel, is laughable. As to Communist's question, [5. Comment #95878 / December 9, 2007 at 11:51 am], yes, he reminds me of D'Souza, insofar has he has an apparently inexhaustible enthusiasm for repeating hackneyed arguments as though no retort to them has ever been delivered.

For Morris, atheism is either mere cognitive dissonance or an evil agenda. He says,

I have a lot of atheist friends. . . . They really suffer their atheism, I would say. In other words, they suffer the fact that they don't believe, because they know because they know that the world makes a whole lot more sense if god does exist. But these, on the other hand, people like Richard Dawkins, are not these people who are suffering their atheism. They're pushing their ideas on the general public, and saying we who do believe are silly, we have no common sense, and they are the only elite who know what they're talking about.

It is very difficult to take him seriously on anything he says.

27. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95903 by Liveliest Crib on December 9, 2007 at 12:45 pm

13. Comment #95889 by Vinelectric on December 9, 2007 at 12:20 pm
What about the effect of Jesus Christ's concept of the eternal fire and other forms of emotional blackmailing have had on the millions of people who trust and believe in him?

16. Comment #95894 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 12:28 pm
A liberating effect I would say, if the warnings happen to be true.

And therein lies the rub.

To convince a rational atheist like myself that I am forever doomed to suffer the torments of the damned for not following, or believing in, Christianity, you must first provide evidence for you claims. You must prove that the supernatural tenets of Christianity are, in fact, true.

Without the evidentiary case, merely resorting to scare tactics (i.e.: You must take my propositions on faith. If you don't, you have a room reserved for all eternity in the most exquisite torture chambers conceivable.) is deplorable.

28. Keith Olbermann talks about the Romney 'Religion' Speech

Comment #95668 by Liveliest Crib on December 9, 2007 at 12:19 am

11. Comment #95554 by jimbob on December 8, 2007 at 3:13 pm:

Wasn't George H the guy who said you can't be a patriot unless you are religious?

Worse. Papa Bush said that you could not be a citizen without believing in god.

29. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93401 by Liveliest Crib on December 3, 2007 at 4:54 am

The task for the rest of us--committed to neither dogmatic faith nor dogmatic doubt--is to make certain that combatants on both sides of the theological divide fail to get their destructive way.

Dogmatic doubt? Gee, Goldilocks, which bowl of porridge is just right? Dogmatic neutrality? Dogmatic dissonance, perhaps? Or could it be a world without dogma at all? A government that enforces no dogma? Oh, if only you actually understood the writings you're critiquing.

. . . it is inexcusable that each book leaves readers guessing [what political] objective its author favors.

Yeah, how dare they explain their views of religion and society without telling you their political views? It was like that book I read about nutrition by some holier-than-thou doctor. He told me my beloved bacon cheeseburgers were bad for my heart, but he neglected to tell me whether he wanted them made illegal, or me jailed for eating them. How dare he leave that out?

30. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93372 by Liveliest Crib on December 3, 2007 at 12:02 am

D'Souza's ability to deliver arguments so tired and insipid with such zeal and energy is a phenomenon itself worthy of study. As is, I suppose, the gargantuan hypocrisy he displayed by admonishing an audience member to understand his Christianity before attempting to rebut it. Of course, they are probably but one phenomenon, not two -- for it is likely his eager misunderstanding of almost everything Dennet and other "new atheists" say that leads to his passionate renditions of the intellectually dead.

Lamentably, I agree with some of the earlier posters that Dennet hardly delivered D'Souza any rhetorical checkmates during this debate. (Surprisingly, neither did the otherwise intimidating Christopher Hitchens during his own with this apparently educated, well spoken twit.) But then, Dennet appeared stunned into a quasi verbal paralysis by the sheer enormity of his opponent's misunderstandings and misrepresentations. I suppose I can't blame him completely for not knowing where to begin upon taking the microphone for the second time.

D'Souza's misapprehension of "new atheism," and frankly, of science in general, is so fundamental that no real debate can be had with him until that misapprehension is struck at its heart. Consider, for instance, the following perverse explanation: [Part 6, ~1:14]

If I were to say to you, "Is there life after death," how could we figure this out? Dan might say, "Well, I don't see any evidence that it's so." Well, what kind of evidence are you waiting for? You want dead people to come back to life, and stand up in court, and give testimony? Is that what you're waiting for? Then you'll believe? No! [ ] So . . . Dan is exactly in the position of that [ ] cave man, circa 5000 B.C. or 10,000 B.C. whose whole world was limited to two miles from where he was born, and decided on the basis of rational evidence that there could be nothing else out there. Why? Because his little instruments couldn't see them. In other words, how hubristic and narrow-minded of us to assume that all of the available information we have now, that's it! That's all we know. And what we don't know can't possibly exist.

No words could do more injustice to the spirit of science than these, and until D'Souza is taken to task for this blatant and fundamental mischaracterization of science no tangential matter is worth discussing with him. In fact, I would hazard a guess that the rest of the drivel that drips from his mouth with alarming eloquence stems from this fundamental misapprehension.

If Dennet refused to believe in a proposition because there is no evidence in its favor, it hardly means that he believes that that proposition is necessarily, unequivocally and absolutely false. Indeed, if he were to operate in such a paradigm, he would be as dogmatic and arrogant as D'Souza paints him. It is all too easy to argue against such foolishness, but D'Souza debates a fool who isn't there.

No, Dinesh, we do not believe that "all we see is all there is." In fact, it is the renunciation of that notion that marks the essence of both science and our atheism. It is our willingness to admit that our sense can be deceived, that we could be wrong, that there might -- and probably is -- a lot more to the universe than we understand right now, that propels us forward and enables progress.

Perhaps the next person to debate D'Souza can focus on this fundamental misapprehension, and whittle away at the rest of his insipid claims from there.

31. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75487 by Liveliest Crib on October 2, 2007 at 7:34 pm

106. Comment #75485 by Dr Benway on October 2, 2007 at 7:21 pm
L Crib, even in my drunken state, I can tell you're a good man. Nighty-nite.

Why thank you, good Doctor Benway.....but I hope you're not so drunk that I look like a man to you. ;)

My name's Karen, by the way. And my good friend and I were bantering about these kinds of issues in a podcast: http://liveliestcrib.blogspot.com (if anyone's interested) :)

32. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75482 by Liveliest Crib on October 2, 2007 at 7:14 pm

96. Comment #75471 by Eric Blair on October 2, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Dr. Benway wrote:

Moderates, being non-believers on some level, are unlikely to take their religion completely seriously, especially their more unpleasant scriptures. However they defend faith, and this defense provides a sense of communal reinforcement for more literal-minded believers. When non-believers challenge faith as a basis for anything, the moderates throw stones at them and thus empower the fundies further.

So Dawkins is saying fundies need moderates to feel good about their faith? Not sure how that works or what evidence there would be to support that opinion.

No, the point Dr. Benway makes is that while religious moderates do not defend the immoral actions of fundamentalists, they nevertheless defend faith as a concept. When a person not of faith argues that perhaps faith itself is a problem, the religious moderates align with the fundamentalists, arguing that faith is a good thing, something to be respected -- even the faith of the fundamentalists, and even though it leads them to commit acts of which the moderates disapprove.

(In response to me) 96. Comment #75471 by Eric Blair on October 2, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Certainly, many Muslim terrorist groups have used religion to justify their acts, so there's probably some internal logic to it.

But the point that Dawkins makes is that religion is not a post-hoc rationalization for immoral acts that such religious terrorists would undertake anyway. Once a person truly believes the tenets of a faith that commands him to commit acts of terrorism, he will then carry them out. It is only logical to do so if one actually believes it is his god-imposed duty to do so.

continued I'm not aware of any serious scholar of the Middle East or other religious hot-spots who discounts the role of religion.

I did not mean to suggest that serious scholars discounted the role of religion. I apologize if that's how I sounded. I only mean that many religious moderates involved in the ongoing discussion are loathed to admit religion plays a role in such atrocities. Many convince themselves that only other factors must be at play, and that any invocation of religion by, say, a terrorist, is merely a manifestation of something else -- ie a rationalization latched onto for acts that would have been taken anyway because of economic plight.

continued Its relative importance is another matter, however. Economic determinists, who when I went to school three decades ago were on the rise, would say the poverty and changing economic interests have rekindled religious extremism.

I do no doubt that economic conditions have rekindled religious extremism. Why someone latches onto one faith or another is indeed a topic to be studied. Nevertheless, the point of this thread is that once the religious beliefs are indeed prevalent, there is a logical progression toward moral corruption.

continuedTalk about "removing" the religious factor is of course purely hypothetical.

Of course, it's purely hypothetical. In the sense that we can't actually go to into a community and somehow shine a "Men In Black"-style light in people's eyes to erase religion from their minds. But that wasn't the point.

Again, the point of this thread, no matter how many tangents people veer off onto, is simply that religion, LOGICALLY AND BY ITS NATURE, leads to undesirable behavior. And that's it.

Will every single religious person become hopelessly immoral? Of course not. And not the point.

Do other environmental factors contribute to evil in the world? Of course. And also not the point.

Do some environmental factors themselves cause people to latch onto fundamentalist religions? Sometimes, yes. Still not the point.

Is religion but one of many variables in an almost incomprehensibly complicated mix of human behavior? Yes. But, alas, still not the point.

The point is simply that religion and faith are problematic, and that they logically lead to evils. The concept of "removing" religion from an equation is helpful in order to imagine how people would behave without it. If we conclude that religion and faith are undesirable, we don't have to embrace them or raise our children with them.

But because of the automatic respect and deference we tend to show faith as a concept, it's difficult to get people to imagine such a world.

33. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75472 by Liveliest Crib on October 2, 2007 at 6:31 pm

55. Comment #75398 by salanor on October 2, 2007 at 2:06 pm

43. Comment #75378 by Liveliest Crib on October 2, 2007 at 12:49 pm
"On the other hand, remove the religious belief from the equation, and the politics, nationalism or poverty become far less potent variables."

The problem is, you can't remove religion from the other variables. Ideology is as complicated as human society;

Nobody denies the complexities of human nature or ideologies. The only point Dawkins (and I and others on this site) are making in this thread, is that faith, by its nature, logically leads to the corruption of otherwise moral minds in a manner that other influences do not. Saying so in no way diminishes the effects of other factors.

When I said that by removing religion from the equation, other influences become less potent, my point was not that the world's troubles could be understood solely as the product of religion. The point was that a person or people who believes that their actions -- however atrocious, however violent -- are sanctioned by an all-knowing deity will behave differently than a person or people who does not.

Consider an angry community plagued by poverty, and whose population believes that god wants them to destroy the infidels whom he blames, not just for their economic woe, but for everything else bad in the world. Now, from that picture, you could hypothetically bring them out of poverty, but doing so will not prevent the death and destruction they feel it is their duty to wreak -- if, that is, they truly believe it to be their god-imposed duty. If so, it is only logical for them to carry it out. Not to do so would be wrong in their eyes, even if their economic fortunes improve. On the other hand, remove the religious conviction from the equation, and then, the poverty can theoretically be dealt with in a rational manner.

continued economics may drive people, nationalism and religion may "justify" action taken for on purely economic grounds.

True enough, but that statement does not undermine Dawkins' argument that religion, by its nature, causes people to act in immoral ways that they otherwise would not.

continued Movements in interest rates make a bigger impact on people's lives than terrorism - religiously driven or otherwise.

That would depend on where one lives, and her economic circumstances. And in any case, it's irrelevant to this discussion.

continued People die daily from preventable diseases (evil) as a result of unfair trade barriers that stop their country from earning an income so they can build hospitals. The root of all evil is not religion;

No one said that religion was the root of all evil. Not Dawkins, not me, not anyone here who supports Dawkins. Again, the point of this article and thread is simply that religion compels otherwise moral people to act in immoral ways, and does so by its nature.

continued religion has an opiate value; it is a way of ignoring the real world and justifying the unjustifiable;

Ahh, but it is not a mere rationalization if one truly believes that an all-knowing deity sanctions an injustice. Indeed, logically, if an all-knowing, all-good deity sanctions an act, that act is by definition, just and good. This is the point many religious moderates fail to understand. An alarming portion of the world's population actually believes such things. They are not rationalizing their behavior with religion post hoc.

continued the root of all evil is tribalism.

I hesitate to label anything the "root of all evil."

34. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75378 by Liveliest Crib on October 2, 2007 at 12:49 pm

40. Comment #75371 by Eric Blair on October 2, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Dawkins is implying that average every-day moderate believers might, by virtue of the fact they believe in something irrational, might some day do something akin to what the 9/11 terrorists did (I'm assuming on a much smaller scale and it may not actually involve killing people but it would be evil nontheless).

I think you have inferred something Dr. Dawkins did not imply. Curiously, your misunderstanding appears similar to those who misunderstand evolution, those who argue that under the theory of evolution, a dog might one day give birth to a cat.

Dawkins is not arguing that the average religious moderate individual might one day suddenly commit murder or another atrocity. He is arguing that religion and faith, by their nature, will lead some people, some members of a population wherein a religion is prevalent, to justify atrocities based on that prevalent religion. Moreover, he argues, if one accepts the premises of those members' religion, their justifications will be logically valid.

continued We might also distinguish between those who carry out such things, including other suicide bombers, and those who encourage and train the bombers, and plan the events. There's likely a strong overlay of politics motivating the planners, as well as faith.

Unless I am misunderstanding the arguments of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al, none of them discount politics or nationalism or even poverty as influential variables altogether. Instead, they argue that religious belief is also one of the variables influencing people to commit atrocities, a variable discounted by those who respect such belief, and a variable far more powerful than politics, nationalism or poverty.

Somehow a debate has emerged about whether atrocities like 9/11 were committed because of politics or because of politics/nationalism/poverty. This perceived, and false, dilemma rather spectacularly misses the point we so called new atheists make. Although all of those factors are in the mix, if we removed either politics or nationalism or poverty from the equation, religious belief is powerful enough to cloud the moral sense of otherwise sensible people, and perpetuate the atrocities endlessly. There is simply no reasoning with someone who truly believes that his actions are ordained by an all-knowing deity. On the other hand, remove the religious belief from the equation, and the politics, nationalism or poverty become far less potent variables.

continued Setting aside atrocities by Christians for now, what about those by Jews (besides those in biblical times, which may not be true anyway)? [ ] Atrocities by Israel don't count as they can just as easily be ascribed to callous enforcement of the will of a security-oriented state, or even to simple nationalism. They're not any less wrong, just have a motivation that's not primarily religious. [ ] If Dawkins wants his argument to hold, it should apply to Judaism, too.

Perhaps you have not read Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens closely enough. None has a problem applying their arguments to Israel or Judaism. To the extent that Israel acts as any sovereign nation, and is not influenced by religion, they acknowledge it. To the extent that there are fundamentalist Jewish people, Israeli or not, committing atrocities in the name of their faith, they acknowledge that as well.

35. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74218 by Liveliest Crib on September 27, 2007 at 6:28 pm

For anyone interested, this story has been picked up by the progressive, U.S. blog, Crooks and Liars.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/27/who-wants-to-be-in-ben-steins-movie/

36. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73730 by Liveliest Crib on September 26, 2007 at 2:00 am

Since folks are sharing stories about the frustrations of conversing with the indoctrinated, I'll toss the following into the mix:

I went to a public high school in the late 1980s in southern California. There were plenty of fundamentalists there, and they regularly told me I was destined for hell since (a) my family was Jewish; and (b) I didn't believe in any god at all.

One day, two of the aforementioned indoctrinated sat within earshot of me, and proceeded to discuss evolution.

"I can't believe the bio book has something on evolution in it! How annoying! I don't believe such a ridiculous theory!" exclaimed one of them.

"What is that theory anyway?" asked the other, adding, "I mean, I don't believe in it either, but what is it?" Yes, that's what she said. I've never forgotten.

When her companion opened her mouth to answer, out poured perhaps the most deliciously absurd explanations of evolution ever uttered. "Ok, it' so obvious it's not true. Anyone can see," she began. "Evolution says that we all used to be other animals, but we changed into people. So that when you're in your mom's belly, you're a frog. Then, when you're born, you're a monkey. And it's not until you're about three or four or so that you evolve into a human being. I mean, come on! Do little babies look like monkeys to you?!"

Now, while I appreciate that I should not merely dismiss the uneducated as hopelessly stupid or insane, I hope you'll all forgive my doing exactly that. See, I feared that if I had tried to engage these people in conversation, I would become so frustrated by both their words and the need to prevent myself from laughing hysterically that my head might actually explode.

37. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73725 by Liveliest Crib on September 26, 2007 at 1:32 am

Well, I'm glad to see that Jack Chick is still completely cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs screws loose loony toons.

10. Comment #73683 by Inferno
So..... Noah saved the dinosaurs only for them to be eaten afterwards? Man, he must have been pissed.

Funny, isn't it? I especially like how the Dinosaur species died out because they were not fit for their environment. Not only was that god guy too stupid to avoid using flood chemicals toxic to one of the species Noah brought onto his continent-sized boat, but in so doing, he showed (partly) how evolution works.

Of course, I suppose Noah probably found it all par for the course with the bipolar sky fairy. I mean, this is a deity who took a week to create all these different kinds of creatures, whom he supposedly loved, and then structured a food chain. He said, "Here you go, my creatures. I have given you life. You may now think, and breathe, and love, and enjoy and experience all the wonders of existence. Now.....EAT EACH OTHER!!!!"

38. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73063 by Liveliest Crib on September 24, 2007 at 3:01 am

51. Comment #72863 by chabry

Back to the hospital admission form for a minute:
Why do they ask for religion anyway? Is it in case they screw up and need to know what brand of clergyman to call in?

My best guess is that they risk liability if they administer drugs or other treatments to which a person, on religious grounds, would not consent. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, are forbidden from receiving blood transfusions.


66. Comment #73032 by rar

As far as this video goes, he has a poor legal premise. There is no religious test for any governmental position and the Constitution is more than upheld.

Errr, uh.....not only did he acknowledge that there is no de jure legal bar to holding office, but he explicitly agreed that there should be no legal bar to holding office. His equivocal use of the word "test" was a rhetorical device. He was not making a Constitutional argument; he was saying that despite the fact that no de jure religious test exists, voters nevertheless consider candidates' religions.

Atheists aren't elected because people don't like them. In fact, Bill Maher is a perfect example of why.

If you are laboring under the impression that Americans would gladly vote for candidates who openly professed not to believe in god if they would only shed the irritating personality quirks they inevitably share with Bill Maher, well, I'm afraid you suffer from a strain of terminal silliness.


68. Comment #73044 by Tumara Baap

Not being too Hollywood savvy, I don't know who the tatooed chick was but she was very bright.

Her name is Janeane Garofalo. She began as a stand-up comic, and went on to become a famous radio / television / movie personality. She played the lead in a mid-90s film called The Truth About Cats and Dogs (co-starring Uma Thurman), and most recently lent her voice to the animated Ratatouille. She co-hosted a talk radio show on Air America called The Majority Report where she told her audience that she was a refugee from a Catholic upbringing, and now an out-of-the-closet atheist. And yes, she is very bright. ;)

39. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70217 by Liveliest Crib on September 14, 2007 at 11:40 am

***Tearing my hair out***

The caricature of all church-goers as simple-minded fundamentalists provided by Richard Dawkins . . .

Dawkins never f@!king said anything of the sort, but the maddening frequency with which church-goers mutter this supposed retort makes me wonder just what percentage of them are simple-minded fundamentalists.

First, you need a catchy title. God Is Sort of Alright Some of the Time If You Don't Take Him/Her Too Literally doesn't quite do it.

Let me get this straight -- that doesn't make for a catchy title, but it's your honest conviction? Listen up, complex-minded, non-fundamentalist church-goers: Your persistence in your "faith" constitutes not a healthy command of nuance or the ability to integrate your humility and doubt into your religion. It is marked by manifest cognitive dissonance that causes you to feel emotionally slighted by Dawkins and to blurt out gibberish in response.

Dawkins would call it blind faith.

No, Dawkins just calls it faith. You're just upset that its defining attribute is blindness.

[Religion] is an intuition, a sense of something more than meets the eye, a glimpse of transcendence, of a higher purpose, but nothing more tangible.

Rubbish! The human brain has that intuition, that sense of the transcendent. Religion harnesses that sense in a manner that purports to be tangible truth until it is challenged for doing so, whereupon it requires its captives to lapse into faith-based, metaphysical claptrap characterized by fear and divisiveness. If you'd like to harness your awe, your sense of higher purpose and the transcendent in a healthy manner, or truly reveal that "more" than meets the eye, try on some science and moral philosophy for size. It will meet those needs beautifully -- unless, of course, you still need those more tangible fairy tales to comfort you on your complex-minded, non-fundamentalist path.

40. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66400 by Liveliest Crib on August 29, 2007 at 11:44 pm

19. Comment #66368 by EvolvedDNA on August 29, 2007 at 8:22 pm

Is it just me or do I notice a lot of these religious appologists have that insipid smile on their faces, as if they are laughing at anyone who thinks they are wrong? Donahues never left his face the entire discourse. This must be some tactic they use to try to intimidate an opponent, which failed big time in this case.

20. Comment #66370 by roach on August 29, 2007 at 8:27 pm
I've noticed that too. It happens in all types of debates. I like to think that the insipid smiles are the result of the speaker being incapable of not laughing at his/her own bullshit.

It is most definitely a debating technique, though I'm more inclined to think that the speaker donning the smile is masking concern that he might be losing. It's for the benefit of anyone judging the debate. It's a kind of bluff designed to show the audience that the speaker is confident, his opponent laughable.

It's ridiculous, of course. As a trial lawyer, I know never to let the jury or my opponent see me sweat. But if I come off as arrogant and smug in the process, I'll lose.


4. Comment #66315 by Lucas_the_heretic on August 29, 2007 at 5:08 pm

"An Englishman has to be quiet when an Irishman talks." Donahue really pulls out all the theist stops here.

Is that a religious statement? What is that quote? Donohue repeated it. Apologies if I come off as an ugly American, but I've never heard that phrase before. Is it a proverb of sorts?

41. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57568 by Liveliest Crib on July 19, 2007 at 11:36 pm

Sadly, so many will read Myers' words, and ask themselves only, "Why are atheists so angry?" -- whereupon the (non-angry) atheist might explain again the evils of religion, only to be told in response that it's really all metaphor. {sigh}

I think there are religious people who are much smarter than I am even now. I do not make the logical fallacy of believing that because people are wrong in one thing, religion, they are therefore wrong in all things;

Heh, a while back on one of the threads, I tried to explain to one of this site's detractors that I didn't think I was necessarily smarter than any religious person, just that on matters of religion, I'm more rational. His/her response was something to the effect of, "You're just playing word games." Oh, the irony.

7. Comment #57508 by scooternyc on July 19, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Recently a chap at work said he KNOWS that god exists. I told him it was impossible. His little pea brain and mine, could not, if it were, even attempt to assimilate such a thing, as it would have to be so much greater than the universe we live and the ones we do not.

To my dismay, I once found myself in a conversation with "knower" as well. I told her that I fully admit that I can't know for sure that there is no god, and asked whether she conceded that she couldn't really "know." Her reply: "Oh, no! Yes I can know! Because I believe it enough to know!"

Of course. How silly of me to overlook the obvious. If you just believe hard enough, it's true. If childhood memory serves, it's roughly akin to how young audiences save Tinkerbell's life in stage renditions of Peter Pan.

Upon telling her that her words were senseless, she mentioned Pascal's wager. Even explained it all out -- all the "logic," as she were offering profound wisdom I'd never heard. A smile came across her face that revealed her thoughts: "Check and mate, Liveliest Crib! Check and mate!"

I retorted, "Wait . . . does that really work? Your god will let me into heaven if I just hedge my bets and pretend to believe? How f***ing cool!" She turned and walked away. My prayers were answered, I guess. ;)

42. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50773 by Liveliest Crib on June 20, 2007 at 12:10 am

What amazes me about people like the lady who tried to perpetuate the lie about Darwin's renunciation is not so much that they make these silly arguments to cling to their faith, but that they appear to believe that Dawkins has never heard their silly arguments before.

43. The Great God Debate

Comment #50083 by Liveliest Crib on June 14, 2007 at 11:51 pm

Spake Mark Roberts:

[W]hen you really look at the evidence, it's obvious that [the life of Jesus] wasn't fabricated, or they would have done so much of a better job.

Oh! My! err.....Gosh!

Voltaire had a much better way of saying this, couching his words, as he so often did, in sublimely delicious irony. (Unfortunately, I have to paraphrase from memory at the moment):

Christianity must be divinely inspired. How else could a philosophy so self-contradictory and ridiculous survive for 1700 years?

Heh, the next time I have to go into court up against a mountain of evidence on the prosecution's side, perhaps I should say, "Your honor, this case should be dismissed. There's just too much evidence in its favor. No human being could be so stupid as to leave a trail of evidence this damning."

44. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49994 by Liveliest Crib on June 14, 2007 at 1:06 pm

49. Comment #49975 by JesusH on June 14, 2007 at 10:32 am

Lets face it, most atheists, myself included are quite intolerant and hateful against religion in a way that we are not towards types of irrationality. [ ] The only thing that annoys me at all like this is belief in Astrology. [ ] Belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, Elvis sightings etc don't elicit any response at all.

Due respect for your anger, JesusH, but speak for yourself.

Those of us who are also regular readers of James Randi's are quite passionate about combating irrationality in general. Mr. Randi has an entire website (http://randi.org/) and foundation devoted to it. I happen to live in the San Francisco Bay Area. The region's tolerance and acceptance of people of all lifestyles and cultures is something I treasure. Unfortunately, the tolerance extends to all things alternative. Those who manage to escape the shackles of traditional religion often jump right out of that frying pan and into the fire of new age nonsense. The things in which people believe span the gamut of irrationality from the innocuous, like a persistent belief in Bigfoot (which could be channeled into the science of cryptozoology if the believers were so inclined) to the lethal (foregoing scientific medicine for homeopathy, aromatherapy or other unproven or dangerous snake oils).

Having said that, however, one of the things that actually bothers me about Hitchens is indeed his hatred. I hope you'll forgive my triteness when I say that, personally, I have no room in my heart for hatred of people. Don't misunderstand me. I harbor no love for those who would destroy the world in the name of their faith, and have no problem appropriately posturing myself toward them as enemies. Moreover, I'm frankly nauseated by those who claim they truly love all of their fellow human beings. Love is a strong word. But so is hate. Hitchens is forthright and unapologetic about his hatred for many people of faith and his lust for war with them. I do not share that. I cannot. As with those who continue to subscribe to the nonsense that apparently elicits no reaction from you, many people of faith are victims -- victims of their own need to understand coupled with a lack of education, or more directly, victims of overt indoctrination.

Personally, I want to eradicate faith and irrationality, not people of faith or irrational people. Most people of faith are decent folks, just living out their lives. Indeed, religion poisons everything -- including minds that could otherwise function better without it.

45. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49883 by Liveliest Crib on June 14, 2007 at 2:34 am

3. Comment #49856 by jwoodcould on June 14, 2007 at 12:07 am

The fundie was completely out of his league. He even went so far as to justify the jewish led genocide of various tribes in the middle east on basis that the already present tribes were "the terrorists" of their times. I half expected Hitchens to say, "At this point you are talking completely out of your ass."

Heh, I actually thought that that argument, despite its absurdity, could mark Olasky's one moment of rhetorical skill -- simply because it could have trapped Hitchens into defending his unapologetic stances vis-a-vis those religious people with whom he wants war. Olasky could have gotten Hitchens to contradict himself if he played it right. It still would have been rather difficult to trap Hitchens that way, but he could have used that angle.

But this Olasky guy was just loopy. So little of what he said made any sense. Rarely do I listen to one of these programs and actally blurt out loud, "What?!?!?!" multiple times when I'm alone.

I love how he argues that the Bible isn't about what it so plainly says it is, but insists that merely the title of Hitchens' book must be taken as strictly and literally as possible. I half expected Olasky to say, "Religion poisons everything? Really, Hitch? Everything? Does it poison the soap in my bathroom? Does is poison the corn flakes I eat in the morning? These things seem unaffected by religion."

46. I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

Comment #46323 by Liveliest Crib on May 30, 2007 at 11:20 pm

4. Comment #46301 by Bri. on May 30, 2007 at 9:27 pm

I don't get this. Is he being satirical or is he serious?

The Onion is a Wisconsin, USA-based satirical newspaper. None of its stories or editorials are genuine. Check out their website! They've now moved on to lampooning television news as well.

47. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46315 by Liveliest Crib on May 30, 2007 at 10:53 pm

63. Comment #46202 by Logicel on May 30, 2007 at 2:37 pm,

:) Why, yes, Logicel, I am psychic, and the sky fairy calls leaves me voice mail on alternate Wednesdays. There are no coincidences!