1. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #141085 by mark1958 on March 10, 2008 at 2:30 am

Here are some images taken from the Stanford Event
http://www.pbase.com/markay/dawkins_krauss

2. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60564 by mark1958 on August 2, 2007 at 9:01 am

I want to respond to a few of the comments above. First off, I did some reading of what the true definition of a hate crime is and while it is quite variable and open to a bit of interpretation. From my limited scanning of the different definitions my conclusion to date is that a crime has to be committed and that if the crime was committed as part of a plan against a specific group of people and in some definitions political party was even listed, then it is a hate crime. So if he purchased the books and placed them in a toliet as long as there were no laws being broken unless one could prove intent to hurt a specific group of people, I would argue hard to consider it a hate crime based on my understanding of the law.

I resent the conclusion reached by Peacebuponme that this is an example of giving special licenses to the religious and apply different rules of acceptable engagement.... WRONG.. My opinion in no way makes me think this way. In fact, I feel quite the opposite on this particular matter.

In regards to all the examples I tried to state, that this Koran incident is not unlike defacing property (eg writing on a Temple) that does not belong to in order to cause intimidation to a specific group. So someone above states it is not the same as saying death to all Jews.. Ok sure that is correct but what if the writing states "I hate all Jews". Still hate crime by definition and no one is getting hurt or not implicitly stating anyone is to kill anyone in the targeted group. Sure the punishment has to fit the severity of the crime and there are different degrees of such crimes..

FInally someone above stated it may be hard to prove that someone kils someone for a reason of hatred against a group. I agree. If a homosexual is killed by someone, it is not always clear if it was for hate against gays, random, or some other reason. So in such cases unless there is good evidence for the motive, it would be hard to prosecute as a hate crime.

I would like to get a lawyer who deals with this specific area of law to chime in.

I had to respond quickly because off to work so i hope this made sense.

3. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60439 by mark1958 on August 2, 2007 at 12:42 am

46. Comment #60423 by JimmyT on August 1, 2007 at 10:19 pm
mark1958, let's not get carried away here.

The guy put a library book down the toilet. Nobody got hurt. It was just a not-very-subtle attempt to hurt the feelings of some people he had fallen out with. If expressing hatred is a crime, most of the people on this site, including me, would be banged up for hating (strong word I know) the central views of most religions and the effect they have on the world.

Jimmy T
I do not believe i was getting carried away but your arguement holds no water. You state nobody got hurt--- If someone writes deragatory statements about Jews on a local Temple that by definition is a hate crime-- yet no one was physically hurt. It is a crime that is punishable under the law.... whether you like it or not it is the law.
In regards to your claim that your own hatred or ability to express your hatred is in the same line as what happened with the Korans is ridiculous. We can all express our feelings in legal ways no matter how extreme our beliefs might be. But if you break the law (e.g. stealing) to do it -- then it is another story. As I stated, if he would have purchased the Korans then perhaps the scenario would be different.

I am an athetist and support many of the views on this forum and website. As a scientist at a major university, I get extremely frustrated with the non-logical aspects of most religions. Ihave an incredibly difficult time understanding how smart people can have such illogical reason when it comes to religion. HOwever, as a group, we must take the high road. We as a group should not support hate crimes because we will have even greater problems gaining the respect from others, and we may be labeled as radical extremists. While there may be true hate directed against any particular group including athetists, breaking the law to make the point is wrong --- and two wrongs never equal a right.

4. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60395 by mark1958 on August 1, 2007 at 6:50 pm

24. Comment #60274 by ccrenshaw on August 1, 2007 at 12:47 pm
mark1958, i suppose if someone stole my copy of "Origin of Species" and put it in a toilet that would be a hate crime as well. No. It would be theft and destruction of property.
29. Comment #60288 by happyatheist on August 1, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Exactly what scooternyc said. LOL! I'm black and female. A "hate crime" against me would be a group of neo-Nazi skinheads kicking my arse simply cuz I'm a black female. A white female kicking my arse is NOT a "hate crime" just cuz I'm losing. LOL! I suppose if racial slurs were spoken from either one of us, then either one of us could be charged with a "hate crime." ...Flushing a religious text down the toilet (or burning it...or crapping on it...etc.) is NOT a "hate crime"....even if some people find those acts of expression tacky or tasteless.


Since the book was stolen it is a crime by definition. SInce it was used to intimidate a specific religious group by definition it is a hate crime. The Origins of Species is a scientific thesis and does not represent a particular ethnic, racial, nationalist etc group -- eg. not all people who believe in Darwin are athetists (I know this is the point you are trying to make). Therefore the act under question cannot be compared.

If you deface a temple or church with racists remarks the crime is considered a hate crime rather than only defacing private property--- (e.g. stealing a book)?

5. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60270 by mark1958 on August 1, 2007 at 12:41 pm

I have to say as much as I support the movement on this website, I think some lines have been crossed here, and I would define this student's actions as a hate crime. The fact is that the student stole the Korans and then placed in a toliet. He destroyed property that belonged to a specific group of people that did not belong to him. It would be the same as someone taking paint and making ethnic or racial slurs on a church, temple or mosque. They are defacing property for which is owned by someone else. If he would have purchased his own Korans and did a similar act the situation would get more grey but this is not what happened.

6. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #48066 by mark1958 on June 6, 2007 at 1:22 pm

I very much enjoyed this article. I have spoken (on different topic) in the same plenary lecture session with Larry Krauss and have had an opportunity to talk with him. He is an outstanding speaker and very dedicated to his mission. I respect the point of views brought forth by both in this article. I am always torn about how much religion should be injected in the pursuit to educate people on scientific fact vs fiction. The problem is that the right wing gain in political power has really changed my views on this matter over the last several years. At first, I thought it was always best to leave religion out of the equation because it tends to alienate some, and make them resistant to the real important issue at hand. However, ignoring the non-factual --- facts that religion commonly propogates cannot be fully ignored either. As much as I have the greatest respect for Dawkins, I can see where his comments (even though I might agree with him) can be offensive to some--- but should one compromise the truth to pacify these individuals for the greater purpose of education? Sometimes going to the extremes makes the matter take a greater center stage and as a result more public attention, something that is really needed at this point in time.

7. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45130 by mark1958 on May 26, 2007 at 1:13 pm

All i can say is reprehensible and makes me sick.

8. Massive explosion is brightest-ever supernova

Comment #38632 by mark1958 on May 8, 2007 at 9:14 pm

Come on guys we know it was God on his 4th of July celebration equivalent

9. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37918 by mark1958 on May 6, 2007 at 8:59 am

As an academic Professor, Frank Tipler is a disgrace to our profession...

Probably trying to get a Templeton Award

10. Brian Lehrer interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34590 by mark1958 on April 24, 2007 at 3:27 pm

No matter what one believes, this should be required listening for all.

11. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34505 by mark1958 on April 24, 2007 at 9:18 am

O Reilly's arrogance was overwhelming. It helped me remember why I never watch him. I do think under the circumstances, the interview went reasonably well. However, the point I wish that could have come out in more detail is based on O'Reilly's claim that since science cannot provide proof or an explanation for the origin of the universe and our existence it had to be God. I wish the explanation of how science has progressed in our understanding of Nature and our origins could have been stated in a way that the masses could understand. Something that is not abstract. For example, years ago there was no scientific explanation for thunder lightening etc and hence the explanation put forward was this was caused by a supernatural God evoking event. Yet in the world today, weather patterns are well explained. Now we put it one step further back.. Ok the day to day weather is not dictated by God but since we do not understand what happened prior to the big bang it had to be God. The thing that amazes me is that even a prominent scientist like Francis Collins, who understands the scientific basis of evolution states "We do not know what came before the big bang or singularity -- therefore it had to be God" is just a flaw in reasoning I cannot understand. However, if the correlations between past misbeliefs looking forward are explained in concrete terms, I think more people will begin to have more doubts about the need to explain the Universe by God.

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

Comment #33545 by mark1958 on April 20, 2007 at 2:32 pm

I do not like O'Reily but I do not think Sam came off too well during his 2005 interview. I think his 2004 interview was better but not stellar. The problem is that when O'Reily makes his point, Harris responds with right and then tries to make his important points. I think O'Reily as much as I despise him, is very good at keeping to a topic and discussion level where he sounds logical.

13. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31021 by mark1958 on April 10, 2007 at 4:36 pm

I think it might be staged. The issue is that he supposedly had the camera hidden but he was well away from the camera and it was still moving as if someone else was filming it...

14. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27927 by mark1958 on March 27, 2007 at 9:18 am

Although i had never seen this peanut butter clip, I have seen similar arguments made to try to make the same point. The sad thing is that there are many people who believe such "reasons of logic" .

15. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27019 by mark1958 on March 22, 2007 at 9:51 pm

This is a fantastic article. It is just so true. I think it should be given to all the Republicans who deny that Global warming is a real entity

16. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26288 by mark1958 on March 18, 2007 at 11:48 am

I would like to make a few additional comments to my previous posts. I do not believe being Gay is a disability. I would define disability as a physical or mental attribute that gives one a disadavantage in day-to-day life (within a statistical norm-perhaps one to two std deviation). In the absence of discrimination, I do not see how being gay would fall within this particular definition.

There has been some discussion here on the genetic basis of homosexuality. There was one poster who suggested it had to do with genes on the X chromosome. There were some studies a number of years ago by an NIH geneticist using genetic linkage studies to try to make this point. Most of that data has been refuted and shown to be in error. Second, homosexuality occurs in non human animals as well. Third, the point that since homosexuals do not reproduce means the gene pool responsible for homosexuality will disappear over time is totally incorrect. Since this is likely more than a single gene effect (and even if it were a single gene), the loss of the what might seem to be a deterimental gene through natural selection is a much more complex issue.

17. Atheism hasn't hurt Fremont Rep. Stark

Comment #26224 by mark1958 on March 17, 2007 at 7:55 pm

The sad thing is that if he ran for president, I am sure it would become a big issue. Moreover, if he were a congressman in any but a few states (e.g. CA), it would be an issue.

18. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26198 by mark1958 on March 17, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Freestateofmind

I know what you mean as in my original post, I started to say things get more complex when you start talking about Race and skin color. I decided to delete that part of my statement but in retrospect I should have left it in. I will say that I used to see patients in genetics clinic. One point of interest is related to the fact that when the gene defect responsible for the most common form of dwarfism was determined, most of the parents did not want to consider prenatal testing to allow for selecting non affected individuals. In this case the parents know the issues and feel totally comfortable with it. However, does that mean the child is better off? I am not stating an opinion here just a question.
I totally appreciate the issue of pre-selecting children for specific traits. The facts are the technology is going to get better and better for detecting all sorts of traits, and we will be able to intervene with genetic based therapeutics and where we draw the line is going to be complex decision of our society as a whole. I hope these decisions are based on facts and sense, and not on religous grounds.
If we could treat schizophrenia or manic depressive diseases before they occur no one would have an issue with it. However, if we start to alter behavioural aspects in folks who are pedophiles for example, would people object... Probably not.. However what about mild anti social behavior? Promiscuity?

Back to the main issue. I agree that fixing the discrimination is a great solution, and although I predict it will get better over time, it is not going to go away during the next generation or two. So hence the dilema if I were to have a kid and knowingly could do something about it.

19. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26188 by mark1958 on March 17, 2007 at 2:42 pm

I am a geneticist at a major university and have no doubt that being Gay (at least in most cases) is biologically determined. I do not believe it should be considered a disability or that it should be considered in the same class as a disability. However, because Gay folks are still discriminated against, it would hurt me to see a loved-one who was discriminated against for whatever reason. If I could change an unborn child in a manner that had no risk, I would really have to consider it. I think I would agonize over my decision but the fact that it would hurt me to watch my son or daughter live in a world where they were discriminated against when I had an opportunity to make a difference would be too powerful.