1. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98945 by hasty toweling on December 15, 2007 at 12:56 am

I absolutely love these guys and the internet is why we have the chance to hear them. Without it, we'd be forced to listen (and not respond) to whatever the traditional big media outlets want us to hear. The result of that obsolete platform has been a wastland of stupidity as exhibited by The View, Fox News, etc...

2. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92608 by hasty toweling on November 30, 2007 at 11:17 pm

I agree with what the good Dr. is saying here in principle and I aplaude his courage in going out on a limb, but I feel that he may have brushed over the economic impact of things a little too quickly here.

The "one man, one woman, and some kids" method of family organisation is very efficient and stable compared to other possibilities that I can imagine. Women who are forced to pay all of their own bills and raise the kids have an immense struggle. If nothing else, the traditional arrangement has the advantage of setting up a division of labor that makes things easier on everybody.

The monogamy meme will continue to flourish until this basic problem is solved. (a perfect form of contraception might do the trick)!

3. A Rational Universe Implies a Creator, Science points towards Theism

Comment #82572 by hasty toweling on October 26, 2007 at 6:53 pm

I don't think it makes sense to argue against this one directly. It's really a tactic intended to derail the conversation off the question: "Why is any *particular* religion true?"

The implied logic behind this arguement looks like this: "The universe is orderly. Therefore your baby needs to have special water poured on her in order to avoid being tortured by the creator of the universe after she dies."

This logic is what needs to be attacked, not the idea that there may be some sort of designer or whatever you want to call it.

4. The Mix Tape of the Gods

Comment #68042 by hasty toweling on September 5, 2007 at 7:49 pm

By the way, Timothy Ferris wrote an absolutely amazing, but little-known book called "Galaxies". It's in the "Very-Over-Size" section of your University Library. I give it the highest possible Hasty Toweling rating. Check it out.

5. A Matter of Faith

Comment #65667 by hasty toweling on August 25, 2007 at 12:35 pm

For me, the most frustrating aspect of this debate is the sloppiness of the language used. That's right--sloppiness; even more than irrationality and undue respect for certain traditions, sloppiness and imprecision seem to me to be the root of the problem. The journalist in this piece simply asserts that 82% of people say they believe in God, giving the false impression that the word means only one thing to all people, and that the various religions represent a unified front against the non-believers.

6. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64175 by hasty toweling on August 18, 2007 at 10:16 am

It seems to me that the best way to argue against the nonsense quoted in the previous post is to note that it says nothing about Christianity that it doesn't say about Islam or Hinduism.

7. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60753 by hasty toweling on August 2, 2007 at 7:41 pm

I don't know about PZ being a better writer than Dawkins. They're both very good, but with two very different styles. PZ's concise prose may be a touch more effective at debating, but Dawkins' flair makes for fascinating science reading. I'm thinking in particular of The Ancestor's Tale or especially chapter two of The Selfish Gene.

8. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60081 by hasty toweling on July 31, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Reading this, I had the same feeling that I remember having when I first read 'The Great Gatsby'. The man writes on a level that I'm simply incapable of.

9. Philip Kitcher - Living with Darwin

Comment #59696 by hasty toweling on July 30, 2007 at 9:21 am

Dr. Dawkins was right. That post had no business there. The urge to express thoughts where others will see them is difficult to resist! I should try harder for the sake of the general interest of this forum.

10. Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

Comment #59570 by hasty toweling on July 29, 2007 at 5:11 pm

This video demonstrates the only way that we have of defeating this lunacy -- asking direct questions to the leaders of these cults in public. Religious authorities (and political dictators) thrive in environments that restrict communication to a one-way street. It's no coincidence that people go to church on Sunday to listen only -- no raising hands for questions allowed.

The four horsemen have done a wonderful job of getting the ball rolling. Now what we need are more smaller scale videos like this where pundits don't call the shots, and Rupert Murdoch doesn't get to make the final cut.

Also, the questions need to be as simple as possible: "Are Hindus all going to hell? Why or why not?" That's about as complicated as it needs to be. We could put thousands of these videos on youtube and destroy this nonsense once and for all.

11. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58984 by hasty toweling on July 26, 2007 at 9:14 pm

More memes in action. Everything this man disagrees with is the work of an invisible, malevolent being named Satan. This meme works in conjunction with the "belief without evidence is a virtue" idea. The two mutually support one another.

12. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58933 by hasty toweling on July 26, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Doerr simply cannot bring himself to denounce irrationality in principle, for fear of offending people who agree with him on certain issues. He seems incapable of engaging in the simple exercise of asking: "do you believe 'x'? If so, why?"

The interviewer likes to point out that people have different methods of interpreting certain books, and therefore it isn't fair to criticize the books themselves, only interpretations that happen to be disagreeable.

There is a special brand of lunacy at the heart of this attitude. To illustrate, one could make the same kind of argument about a book like 'Mein Kaumpf'. "There are many possible interpretations of this book, so it isn't fair to lump all Nazi's together..."

It might seem like I'm unfairly bringing Hitler into yet another rant, but consider the passage in Exodus in which God commands that people who work on Sunday be stoned to death. Exactly what are the alternative interpretations of this verse?

13. Reporter's Religion Beat Leads to Faith Crisis

Comment #58916 by hasty toweling on July 26, 2007 at 4:53 pm

This dude seems to me to be a non-believer for somewhat bad reasons. Finding corruption in the religious institutions is pretty weak and easily blamed on people straying from the "true path" or whatever. That, combined with the fact that he seems to miss his belief, suggests that he'll be back with some other church before too long. When it happens he'll say "I used to be an atheist but..."

I don't understand how someone can so completely miss the simple, straightforward reasons for not believing. For example, a plethora of contradictory religions exist, and they're all equally impossible to justify.

I suppose if he wrote about religion for that long, and never thought along those lines, there's not a whole lot you can do.

14. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56594 by hasty toweling on July 16, 2007 at 1:44 pm

"...the intellectual titans of religion?"

????!!!!!

15. The New New Atheism

Comment #56583 by hasty toweling on July 16, 2007 at 1:25 pm

The author gives not one reason why a particular religion is true. This is an absolutely universal feature of articles like this. Writers like Berkowitz never notice.

16. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #55031 by hasty toweling on July 9, 2007 at 6:45 pm

youmemeyou said,

"[quote=hasty toweling]
Nice talk. Dennet's point of view is interesting to us non-believers, but memetics is far too abstract and sophisticated for believers to understand.[/quote]

A well-conveyed idea makes thinking easier. The fact is that our skills as communicators have to evolve adaptively. Telling people they are too stupid to improve their thinking is not a boost for you. It is simply unkind."

I agree that using harsh language is probably a bad idea for winning people over. Furthermore, intelligence ain't everything (Newton, who was probably 10 times smarter than me, believed in Alchemy).

Nevertheless, go back and watch O'reily (a quick-witted and intelligent man) interviewing Dawkins. His thinking is so out of whack that there really isn't a nice and accurate way of describing it. Watch McGrath arrogantly spew nonsense at Dawkins in that interview. Is 'stupid' not a fairly precise description? Or witness Kirk Cameron explain why a banana proves that Jesus died for our sins, and that all Muslims are going to Hell. Will such a mind really be able to comprehend something as subtle and abstract as the meme concept? I honestly doubt it. Not without some serious de-brainwashing first.

17. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #54584 by hasty toweling on July 8, 2007 at 12:58 am

LeeC,

Memes are much simpler than you probably think. If you have an idea and pass it on -- that's a meme. There's no hocus-pocus going on there. The point of the meme concept is to highlight the similarity that ideas can have to living organisms -- both replicate and mutate and undergo a form of selection. Religious memes are particularly interesting because they have obvious built-in mechanisms that are "designed" (I would prefer to say "evolved") to help sustain and spread them.

Examples: promised punishments and rewards (heaven and hell), mandates for infecting children, belief without reason as a virtue, encouragement of tightly knit communities, etc... The main thing is that ideas will spread only if they have certain qualities that help them spread, regardless of whether or not they're true.

18. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #54381 by hasty toweling on July 6, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Nice talk. Dennet's point of view is interesting to us non-believers, but memetics is far too abstract and sophisticated for believers to understand. Try explaining replicating, mutating ideas to someone as dense as a conservative pundit. They simply don't have the capacity for it.

19. Unorthodox Atheist

Comment #54157 by hasty toweling on July 5, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Hello Reed,

You are another example of the near uniform intelligence exhibited by folks who identify themselves as 'Non-believer'. Your story also displays the predictable and dependable mindlessness of those on the other side. Keep up the good work.

20. In the know

Comment #50243 by hasty toweling on June 16, 2007 at 2:01 am

This guy represents a strange philosophical breed; his biggest concern seems to be with certainty as a concept. To wit -- we can't be certain of anything; anyone who believes that the earth is round is in the same category as someone convinced that Micheal Jackson is Elvis. His point of view is so sad and childish it makes me want to cry. Why are people so damn stupid?

21. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49142 by hasty toweling on June 10, 2007 at 3:34 pm

correction J:

"Twat" is actually spelled "Ptwaught".

Just some food for thought.

22. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #42836 by hasty toweling on May 20, 2007 at 12:43 am

This brand of conservative begins with fallacy and moves from there. What a silly fool.

23. Facing Off on Evolution

Comment #40568 by hasty toweling on May 14, 2007 at 1:46 pm

I had an idea that was inspired by Kirk, Ray and similarly-minded individuals. I think the best way to get a computer to pass the Turing test would be to program the software have an evangelical Christian personality. They're empty-headed responses have a sort of automatic, mindless quality reminiscent of a poorly programmed computer that just "doesn't get" a simple request.

If there are any programmers out here who want to make the attempt, here's a piece of psuedo-code to get you started:

Print "Bannana.";

Input response;

While(response != "praise Jesus!")

Print "Hitler was bad.";

Input response;

If response=="Hitler was a Catholic."
Print "Stalin was bad.";
Else
Print "Sun goes up, Sun goes down...";

Input response;

End While



Heck, that might be enough!

24. Unintelligent Design

Comment #39966 by hasty toweling on May 12, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Scot Atran belongs to what Dawkins calls the "know-it-all" school of religious apologetics. He doesn't believe it himself, but knows that it's beneficial for everyone else.

Atran debunks the "intelligent design" ideas, but fails to notice the biggest reason why the movement exists in the first place: the theory of evolution places an intolerable strain on Christianity.

The most basic Christian dogma, common to every denomination, is that Jesus died for our sins. Any thoughtful kid will realize the reductio ad absurdum of this situation. The assumption: "If Jesus died for someones sins, then he also died for their parents sins" leads to the conclusion that Jesus died for the sins of bacteria and the even more primitive organisms that preceded them -- billions of years before Jesus was supposed to have lived!

Our morals will probably never follow from pure logic, and I don't believe that mathematics is the best place to look when deciding how to behave, but basing our beliefs on patent nonsense seems wrong too.

25. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39442 by hasty toweling on May 10, 2007 at 4:33 pm

This really is about sanity vs. insanity. These people are psychotic. These memes are dangerous.

26. Intellectual Diversity or Intellectual Insult?

Comment #38986 by hasty toweling on May 9, 2007 at 5:14 pm

This is nothing but political grandstanding. As an engineering student in a Missouri university, I think it's safe to say that this will have zero impact on anything that goes on within the classrooms--although it is indicative of the sad political climate of my home-state. My school has actually been at the center of the stem-cell debate here, it being the most active research facility in the area. Sad.

Richard, visit Missouri. We need you!

27. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38955 by hasty toweling on May 9, 2007 at 4:18 pm

The New Jews loathe Hitler far too much to plausibly challenge him.

28. New Planet Could Be Earthlike, Scientists Say

Comment #35238 by hasty toweling on April 26, 2007 at 4:44 pm

They would divide into factions: one side would just deny life existed elsewhere regardless of anything, the other side would contort itself like a shanghai acrobat (perhaps Jesus had a spaceship and flew around the galaxy saving all replicating entities everywhere).

29. We aim to misbehave

Comment #35234 by hasty toweling on April 26, 2007 at 4:35 pm

These institutions have been brainwashing us for a long time now, and it is infuriating to see.

However, none of our basis rights are taken away from us, so I don't know if reacting with the same rage that the womens' rights movement did is really the way to approach it.

Nevertheless, the constant bombardment of propaganda, on billboards, on t.v., on the radio, and elsewhere needs a strong reaction.

30. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33212 by hasty toweling on April 19, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Dear Dr. Dawkins,

Be carefull here, O'Reilly is very good at his job, and knows how to frame the arguement to make his oppenents look bad.

Keep it simple.

Don't let him generalize by talking about Yaweh as some sort of vague "higher power", or something. Keep the conversation specific.

The subject of Evolution is probably your best bet here, since it involves matters of fact, rather than opinion.

O'Reily's entire point of view can be boiled down to what he sees as "secular progressives" undermining "traditionalists"; which needs to be shown as a misinterpretation of "reality" undermining "mythology", especially in the cases like evolution.

Good luck!

31. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #31936 by hasty toweling on April 15, 2007 at 1:45 am

Well put NJS (comment 7). This article displays one of the most bizzare assertions made by religious liberals: that evolution and religion are not in conflict. People like Francis Collins are particularly guilty.

The claim is made that evolution and christianity are perfectly reconcilable, and this is the end it. A possible historical timeline is conspicuously absent. Let's try to imagine what one would look like.

Life begins when a molecule duplicates itself. As the eons pass, replication, mutation and selection lead to life as it existed a few thousand years ago. Suddenly, one of these life forms sins, and needs to be saved from the pits of hell. All of this life forms' descendants need to be saved also. Yet, no one is there to save them yet, so they all go to hell.

Thousands of years pass.

The Creator of the universe incarnates himself in the form of one of these beings and has himself tortured and murdered in order to absorb the punishment that the sinful beings really deserve. Three days later, he rises from the grave.

Aleluia.

All beings who believe this story go to heaven, the rest go to hell.


That's about the best I got. Anybody got a better one?

Damn, this is sad.

32. The God Debate

Comment #29161 by hasty toweling on April 2, 2007 at 12:22 am

AHH! Ric Warren is an IDIOT!!!!!

33. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22672 by hasty toweling on February 20, 2007 at 4:12 pm

I'm always surprised by the fact that these guys don't have their own space program.

34. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21923 by hasty toweling on February 11, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Right. Once again these clowns (like Kirk Cameron and company) show that they don't understand what they're making fun of. Books don't reproduce. So the evolution analogy is just stupid. You would think that Dembski would have understood this by now but apparently not.

35. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20566 by hasty toweling on February 4, 2007 at 8:26 am

I love the female apologist in this clip. She can't tell the difference between giving up hope and dismissing the dogmas of her religion. This displays 2 things: 1, Yet another meme holding this charade together and 2, the extent to which this brand of brainwashing corrodes ones powers of discernment.

36. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19937 by hasty toweling on January 30, 2007 at 6:17 pm

My favorite part of this one is the way the host claims "that's not what religion is about...", as though he alone has the final say on the matter. However, this comment contains implications beyond the man's disposition to self-granted authority. It also suggests that he too finds something reprehensible about Brian's description of Christian doctrine. Unfortunately for him, this description is quite accurate in most cases and his inability to see this or admit to it displays his intellectual dishonesty vey plainly.