551. Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

Comment #26667 by keith on March 21, 2007 at 3:31 am

Cory,
Why does the word 'gift' in this context make me squirm with embarrassment? (You can almost hear the falsely-gentle voice in which it is uttered). A baby isn't a gift, it's a baby. A gift is something you receive from your family at Christmas or on your birthday. And why would you want to thank someone for a baby, even your wife? If she was doing you a favour in having it, then maybe there's something not quite right about your relationship. Shake the doctor briskly by the hand, thank the midwife and leave it at that.

552. Free Speech

Comment #25651 by keith on March 14, 2007 at 2:25 pm

To NMcC,
At least you only called my ideas 'tripe' and didn't resort to jibes about effeminacy, which was a relief.
The invasion of Iraq was for an accumulation of reasons which all tipped the scales in favour of intervention (in the eyes of Bush and Blair and Hitchens). Those reasons were human rights abuses, genocide, giving a refuge to terrorists, the fear that Sadam was trying to acquire nuclear weapons (which we now know to be the case), destabilisation of the region, the lack of cooperation with the weapons inspectors, the suspicion that he had WMD (which of course turned out to be false), and the belief that somewhere down the line there would have to be some kind of confrontation, either with Sadam or later with his sons. Leaving it until later might leave the choice of when it finally happened to Sadam.
Incidentally, Sadam said after the first Gulf War that his only mistake had been to invade Kuwait before he got the bomb, so you can see his mindset.
All these factors taken together made a reasonable case for intervention, factors that don't come together in any other country.
The reason America hasn't invaded Russia or China is partly because only a few of those above factors come together in those two countries and also for the reason that it would be suicide to do so (which you of course know). I sometimes tell children to pick up litter they have dropped in the street but I wouldn't dream of telling a gang of ten chain-wielding thugs to pick up their litter. To some this may appear to be a case of double standards or cowardice but it is really just good sense; I am not prepared to get beaten to a pulp for the sake of a dropped crisp packet. If the Americans wanted to start World War Three, invading Russia/China would be the best way to go about it. However, this does not mean that they can't intervene in the places where they are able to do so. You step in where you can. So I tell children to pick up their rubbish. (Please don't accuse me of calling Iraqis childish).
The reason Rwanda is different from Iraq is that it does not harbour any desires to acquire nuclear weapons or cause instability to other countries. I personally think the UN should have gone in there, but they didn't. Is that also the fault of the Americans? You might claim that had the Americans insisted, then the UN would have gone in. However, Iraq shows that the UN doesn't simply do what the Americans ask.
As regards your comment that the people of many countries other than Iraq suffer worse or equally bad treatment at the hands of their governments, that is something I doubt. The scale of the abuses in Iraq put it pretty much at the top of the list of human rights abuses. Of course the degree of abuse is all-important here. Just because one man was beaten up by the Swedish police would not constitute a reason for invading Sweden and thus the extent of abuse is crucial to a decision on when to intervene. My point is that even if abuse is bad in say, Tibet, is it really so bad that it requires an invasion.
Regarding the British police clearing away protesters from the streets (I didn't see it. Did the police really kick the protesters?) what is a government supposed to do? Let anyone who disagrees with its policies stop all traffic in the capital? Would your policy be to stop all talks with China?
Yep, I agree with you. Bush and Blair did lie about WMD. (Actually, exaggerate the danger might be a better description but I won't split hairs). However, for Hitchens, this never was a reason for going into Iraq. And yes, I do believe that Hitchens had the good of the Iraqi people at heart. Call me naive if you like, but if you should read more by him you might conclude that he really is a very moral and brave person too.
Yes, we both agree that the situation in Iraq is much worse now than before the war, everybody agrees with that. The thing we disagree about is whether this was inevitable from the start. I think that had the Americans and Brits put more effort into the basic needs of the Iraqi people straight after the war (water, electricity, repair of roads, jobs etc.), the intervention could have been a success.
The reason 'daddy' didn't finish off the job the first time round was that he was tied to a coalition who had signed up only to get Sadam out of Kuwait, not to change the Iraqi regime. Any further action would have been alone and even then the spectre of a power vacuum after deposing Sadam loomed. Perhaps he foresaw what junior and his advisors didn't. However, finally getting rid of Sadam this time round was not a private obsession of G. W. Bush's as you seem to suggest. The democrats under Clinton proposed the idea of regime change in Iraq in 1999, long before Bush came to power.
I realise that you're in good company here: Richard Dawkins, of course, was also against the war and I've never heard anyone speak more sense than him. And in the end I probably dislike Bush as much as anyone else, and I'm no fan of Tony Blair either. I just felt I ought to defend Hitchens from what I think was a crude caricature.

553. Free Speech

Comment #25568 by keith on March 14, 2007 at 6:06 am

To NMcC,
Do you belong to the faction that believes that the war really was all about oil? In that case, why not simply invade Saudi Arabia or Venezuela? Do you also think that the opposite course to war was peace in this case? For the demonstrators who marched through the streets of London with banners reading 'We want peace', I was always tempted to join them with a banner reading 'No to war! We want the continuation of torture and genicide in Iraq, plus the continuation of sanctions (that apparently killed millions of children if you listen to the 'Peace activists'). We want to allow Sadam Hussein the time to obtain the nuclear weapons he has always said he wants'. (and has since been proven as trying to get hold of). We want a quarter of the Iraqi people to remain in exile!'
If after describing the two choices in this way, which to my mind is more accurate, you still come to the conclusion that war was wrong, that's fine. We can argue about the rights and wrongs of this war and the stupidity of policies after winning it, but to lay the lives of 100,000 people at the door of Hitchens for supporting the policy of intervention (though not the stupidity that followed) seems a little harsh to me. It's very easy for people who advocate inaction to take the moral high ground after the fact since they never make mistakes. However, they never actually bother looking at the consequences of their inaction. If things had turned out to be a success in Iraq, would you honestly have held you hand up and owned up to the suffering your 'decision' had helped to keep in place?
I think your accusation would only really stick if Hitchens were guilty of either cynicism or stupidity. However, he is neither cynical nor stupid, though he might sometimes, like everyone, be wrong.
All these things can be discussed and as Hitchens says in his speech, you're as entitled to your view as I am to mine. Please note this was not a luxury allowed to Iraqis before intervention.

554. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24451 by keith on March 6, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Mind_rebel
This sounds very much like a case of 'I was a punk before you were a punk'. Your name alone suggests an obsession with your wanting to be different. What difference could it possibly make (except to yourself), whether some people are as authentic an atheist as you?

555. Let's Be Rational

Comment #20997 by keith on February 7, 2007 at 8:11 am

Dear Dr. Dalrymple,
I love your books and articles but I have a few negative comments on your review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I hope you won't mind.
For a while I have followed the escalating debate between Richard Dawkins/Sam Harris/Daniel Dennett on the one hand and every religious person who cares to put pen to paper on the other (almost by definition this latter group has no leading intellectuals. Perhaps Rowan Williams? The pope, maybe?) Now, I know that you're an atheist without being an anti-theist and I can well appreciate this stance. Why, indeed, not let religious people believe in their gods so long as it does no one any harm? I know many atheists feel that Richard Dawkins gives atheism a bad name. That's fine, every person to their own view. However, this is more a disagreement over what tactics to use in trying to make the world a more secular place than whether or not he is right. Even so, in your review of 'The God Delusion' there were several points you made that went over and above this basic criticism.
You say that Dawkins believes that technology is going to unconditionally lead to a better world. If true, though I don't believe it is, it's probably for this reason that it is so important to Dawkins that technology is used in the right way, and although rational thinking doesn't guarantee a safer world, it's almost certain that the world stands a better chance of being safe if we can keep our irrationalities to a minimum. The opposite view, of trying to base a safe society on irrationality is doomed to failure from the start.
Richard Dawkins isn't just picking on poor old religion. He has a bigger target than this. He also goes after alternative medicine (which I know you also condemn, at least when it is DoH subsidized), astrology, and any kind of supernatural explanations. So, the religious shouldn't feel too put upon.
You find an equivalence between Richard Dawkins' 'faith' that science and technology will continue to improve people's lives on the one hand, and the faith of religious people in virgin births, carpenter re-births, a personal god above who listens to our prayers and so on. Do you really believe that the same word, 'faith', can be used to describe both of these forms of belief? I can't help thinking that the word itself has a certain amount of elasticity and you are using it to breaking point to make your point. What interests me is why you would do that. Why would you try to conflate a belief based on evidence that is tracing a simple trajectory from the present into the future, and a belief in something that is based on no evidence at all and goes contrary to the way we believe the world works? Could it be that it is for the same reason you say at the start of your review that you want a stick to beat Dawkins over the head with? I found this admission at least honest, but I was left in the dark as to why you were so determined from the start to do so. Why a religious person should do so is clear to me, but you?
As far as I know there is no evidence that religion makes people behave better though you suggest that it does when quoting Gibbon. If anything, the evidence generally points the other way, though this is almost certainly due to the fact that religiosity often goes hand in hand with a lack of education, as does crime. Being an atheist yourself and somehow managing to stay on the straight and narrow despite this fact, what makes you think that religion is a motivating force for others to behave well? I've heard you rail about the double standards of those who claim they themselves have freedom of choice, while others are just billiard balls being hit hither and thither by outside forces (I'm stealing your own imagery). Why then, is atheism fine for you but not for others? Are you suggesting that both world views are equally likely to be true? Surely not.
In accusing Dawkins of being a 'nothing-but' merchant, the inference is that there is some kind of baby to throw out with the bathwater, but since Dawkins believes that religion has nothing positive to contribute to society, at least nothing that couldn't be achieved at least as well or even better in a secular way, why would he want to keep any of it? Sure, you can dilute it so that it is as bland as the Church of England, or remove the really daft bits from the bible so we are left with a set of beliefs that no longer contradict present-day knowledge, but what's the point?
Or did I misunderstand you? Perhaps the 'nothing-but' views you were accusing Dawkins of refers to views in which you feel he places all the evils of the modern world at religion's door. It's possible that you were led to believe this from the title of his documentary for Channel 4, 'The Root of all Evil?'. However, apart from the fact that he objected to the title in the first place (and note that there is a question mark at the end of the title), he makes it clear on numerous occasions that religion is clearly just one among many factors that can lead to (so-called) evil.
You suggest, though you don't specifically state, that the rise in crime over the past century has been due, at least in part, to the decline of religion. Perhaps you are right, but I would have liked to see some kind of corroborating evidence. Then I might have been tempted to go along with you in asking Richard Dawkins to keep his ideas to himself. Perhaps your review would have been the right place to put forward such evidence? And if space were a consideration, then perhaps the only peripherally relevant paragraphs regarding IVF treatment could have been reduced?
I feel the digression into IVF treatment would have been more appropriate as part of a debate rather than a book review, bearing in mind that IVF treatment represents such a small part of The God Delusion. I realise you were using it as an example of Dawkins' 'unbridled' belief in the power of technology to improve our lives. However, firstly I don't believe that there is any justification for calling his belief in technology 'unbridled' (though) the word does seem oddly appropriate since I could have sworn I heard the sound of a hobby horse being ridden wildly away into the distance). Secondly, it's a moot point as to whether a 25% success rate really is worse than a 0% success rate, even taking the cost and disappointment of failure to conceive into consideration. I myself am unmarried, though I always wanted to have a family. However, I wouldn't exchange my life of near misses and the hope that a half-reasonable life partner was just around the corner for a life of knowing from the start that it wasn't to be. Still, I wouldn't mind having the money back I spent while looking!
Okay, that's all. Thanks again for your great articles and books on other subjects.
Yours,
K

556. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19378 by keith on January 26, 2007 at 5:58 pm

What is happening here is that Sam is putting forward good, logical arguments, while Andrew is saying that there are ways of knowing other than science/logic. This allows him to make any claim he likes while not having to back any of it up with evidence. He can claim to be a jam sandwich and further say that this is beyond science and what can Sam say? "Really? How do you know?" If someone is not playing by the rules (What Dan Dennett calls 'playing tennis with the net down') then the whole thing is pointless.
This debate is going nowhere and I feel sorry for Sam for wasting his time and energy on someone who will answer every well-argued point with some variation of 'God is truth' and actually believe he's contributing something constructive to this discussion. There's no answer to Saturday Specials like this and all you can do is stand open-mouthed at the inanity of it. Still, it must make sense to Andrew and his followers in their mixed-up world.

557. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17090 by keith on January 10, 2007 at 5:17 pm

To AJ Rae,

How come you know so much about torture? Do you know something that (you assume) Sam Harris doesn't? Do you have some inside information that isn't from 24? Come on, spill the beans!

558. Book answers the atheists' prayers

Comment #12170 by keith on December 11, 2006 at 4:05 am

To jakedanger,
I can't help but say that you damned yourself without us having to do much. You say, "The only way I know how to put it is, the proof is individual but in my case was quite empirical. I suspect anyone willing to suspend their disbelief can do it".
First, since you point out that your proof was empirical in contrast to that of your fellow believers, then this must mean that their 'individual proof' is not empirical. Would this unempirical proof, by any chance, resemble the 'straw man' of faith you were accusing Richard Dawkins of setting up?
Second, pardon me for being skeptical on the issue of your own empirical evidence, but since 2,000 years of scholarship hasn't managed to throw up any empirical evidence for a supernatural god, you won't mind if we doubt the validity of your findings, especially as we have no idea what they are. Might it, before I waste my time and visit your website, bear a passing resemblance to the mountain of so-called empirical evidence that has been knocked down umpteen times without religious people being aware of it? You, of course, feel no need to inform yourself of counter-arguments and even less to assess their value.
Thirdly, why would anyone want to suspend their disbelief? Surely you don't believe something until you see some evidence for it and until that moment it makes sense not to suspend your disbelief. You seem to be suggesting that we believe first and only afterwards start the thinking process. Perhaps a little more caution as to the degree of ridiculousness of the ideas you lower your disbelief-shield to wouldn't have gone amiss in your case. However, too late for that now. Jake, you're a danger to yourself, mate. Please be careful.

559. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #12059 by keith on December 10, 2006 at 1:49 am

I'm a little confused about Scott Atran's position. After the Beyond Belief conference he claimed:
I do not criticize Sam Harris, or those he identifies with, for wanting to rid the world of dogmatically-held beliefs that are vapid, barbarous, anachronistic and wrong. I object to their manner of combating such beliefs, which is often scientifically baseless, psychologically uninformed, politically naïve, and counterproductive for goals we share. And I agree with Dan Dennett that silence in the face of dangerous lunacy, or even in the face of moderate unreasonableness, "can be just as culpable as lying."
Now what, precisely, is 'scientifically baseless'? Clearly not the idea that dogmatically-held beliefs are dangerous because he agrees with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins on this. Then he really must mean what he says, that their method of criticising dogma/religion is scientifically baseless. But have they ever claimed that their approach is scientifically proven to be effective? I don't think so. In fact, Richard Dawkins conceded as much at the conference on two occasions, saying that his eyes were more on the bigger war against unreason than the battle against religion. For this, he feels, the truth might be the best long-term weapon. He also admitted that his method would probably not convert any dyed-in-the-wool believers but might just tip some waverers onto the side of Atheism. I have the feeling that Scott Atran was conflating, either consciously (as a way of allying himself with the religiously-friendly at the conference) or unconsciously, the issues of whether to combat religion and how to combat it. Either this or he was simply spraying bullets wildly in all directions in the hope of hitting something.
Perhaps he should have let us in on his own chosen method of tackling what he admits is a problem. We know it isn't the 'unscientifically-based', head-on style of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, and he agrees with Dan Dennett that silence "can be just as culpable as lying". I further suspect it isn't the 'let's simply portray science in a more exciting way' approach, since various speakers at the conference advocated this approach prior to Scott Atran's outburst, in which he upbraided almost everyone present for their lack of insight and rigour. So what is his own scientifically-based method? And what is all the scientific evidence Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are maliciously ignoring, simply so that they can give vent to their religious hatred? Maybe Scott Atran should have given us a clue as to what his better approach was so that we could have evaluated it for ourselves rather than just taking his word for it. That would have been more scientific. Or did he actually produce the evidence and tell us his chosen method of tackling the problem and I somehow missed it? It's more than possible, what with all the talk of Scott's heroic efforts to deal with suicide bombers. (No, no, I'm sure he only mentioned this for its relevance). Or is he suggesting that we all become suicide bomber councillors? Is this his scientifically-based approach? If so, I won't be able to help much. I have a day job and I won't be able to attend sessions unless they are held in the evenings - and at my local school in the heart of rural England.
It seems to me that Scott Atran wants it both ways: to be with the highbrows on the side of reason while playing the champion of the down-trodden, put-upon religious lowbrows. Perhaps he sees himself as a kind of latter-day Robin Hood. Someone ought to tell him that by sitting on the fence he's likely to get an arrow from both sides. Second thoughts, don't tell him.

560. Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

Comment #10494 by Keith on November 28, 2006 at 8:31 am

Well, I wrote to my MP stating my concern over the delivery of the Creationist material - this is his (somewhat condescending) response:-
Thank you for your email. I have rather more faith in our schools. I have
not seen the pack but given the tight curriculum that schools have to meet I
do not know how these materials could be used. I would hope that given all
the ills in the world the letter writer and the Guardian would have rather
more to worry about but that is obviously not the case.

I shall not be therefore signing the EDM, but thank you for drawing it to my
attention.

Yours sincerely

David Drew (Labour)

Obviously this is not seen as an important matter by our government.

561. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comment #9007 by keith on November 23, 2006 at 6:58 am

Could somebody clarify for me which are the two ethnic races in Northern Ireland?

562. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #7698 by Keith on November 19, 2006 at 4:51 am

asdf wrote: "Why do theists always have to be on the attack? Why can't they just believe there is a God and leave it at that?

What happened to separation of Church and State?

I resent my money being used to kill thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of innocent people, incl totally innocent children.

That is why."

Uhh, yeah.... the (perceived) breakdown of church-state separation in the US is the reason for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq. Good one asdf. Unless you were trying to make some bizarre correlation between the "In God We Trust" insignia and our money. But even that would be kind of a silly point to make.

Amazing how much idiocy is being spewed around as anti-Christian wisdom on this site.

And on that note I'm gonna make these 2 posts my only ones. I know what will transpire from my writings, and it will not be productive, but rather lots of sarcastic diatribe coming from people so arrogant that their only purpose is to mock and ruin those with whom they disagree. But at least I made my points, and I thank Mr. Dawkins at least for allowing this theist to have his say on his site.

563. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #7695 by Keith on November 19, 2006 at 4:23 am

Wow. What unabashed hipocrisy on this site. I've read, from the enlightened athiests,

* hatred for an entire, specific group of people,

* threats of violence towards those with whom they disagree, calling us a "virus" (now THAT certainly doesn't sound Hitlerian),

* lies and distortions of historical facts that are used to back up passionately-held BELIEFS,

...geez, just a whole SLEW of things that they claim comes from the other side of the ideological fence.

Some of you complain about indoctrination, and yet have no problem with a child being taught a single point-of-view in PUBLIC schools.

Some of you talk about Christians being defensive, but that certainly can't be because this site has given them any cause.

Some of you say that Christians have complained about being attacked, and yet there seems to be no force fighting them. I guess you've never heard of the ACLU, which sues for the purpose of making atheism the national religion.

Trevor made the idiotic statement that Christians, like Muslims, can't take a joke. But he buries his head from the truth about this site: it does not playfully jibe Christians. It verbally rapes them. And if we were indeed as sensitive as the Muslim fanatics, we'd be blowing up buildings, setting fire to cars, angrily demonstrating in streets trying to intimidate anyone who disagreed with us, slamming planes into buildings, chanting death to the infidel, you get the idea. But how do we respond? By firing back at some of the amazing bigotry expressed in this thread. So, according to the enlightened Trevor and his ilk, Christians have no rights of self-expression, because the slightest thing is condemned. Sounds democratic and tolerant to me.

Some of you read that woman's statements to mean that we born-againers want to begin taking on the same tactics as the Islamo-fascists in the middle east. I have not seen this movie, but I know that her comments resonated with me in this way: she wants to see Christians regain their focus from trying to keep up with the Joneses, from being unpassionate about their beliefs, from being spiritually asleep. Like the Muslim (good or bad), she wants to see us have the same SERIOUSNESS about our Christian walks. Muslims pray 5x/day. Many Christians don't pray 5x in a week, e.g. And when she spoke about dying for Jesus, she probably meant what I would understand that to mean, which is we must be prepared to BE KILLED BY those who hate us, not by killing ourselves to take out others. Besides, Jesus doesn't promise 72 virgins in Heaven for any suicide bomber.

Some of you have said that the Bible was just thrown together, passed down through camp fire tales. Wow. Some of you just make this too easy. All that statement has done was shine on a spotlight on the ignorance the enlightened here have on history.

Many Christians in the US do indeed do stupid things. Some of us have committed acts of violence in the name of our God, no question, like hitting abortion clinics. Some of us SAY really stupid things, too, like God hates fags (which REALLY explains why He gave His life for them, but that's another story). No argument. But I've seen no monopoly of intelligence or pacifism or tolerance from the Dawkinsians here either.

My people have made brain-dead comments in an attempt to disprove evolution, parroting stuff they get from Christian pamphlets.

My people have become watered-down, compromising their Christian walks with the ways of the world, having become soft and complacent in their comfortable American lives. This leads to many calling us hypocrites. And if that weren't such a bigoted, blanket statement, they'd be right.

But when Christians in the West do any of these idiotic things, that's all you see or hear in the media. You NEVER see the decent, down-to-earth folks that I've known most of my Christian life. The television and print media, like this site, are loaded with people who want to marginalize us through ridicule and by NEVER portraying us in a balanced, honest light. This Jesus Camp movie's a wonderful example. I don't doubt that it portrays some oddball born-againers. But it's propaganda at its finest, being grossly one-sided. And most of you seem disinterested in developing a balanced picture, because you're so dead-set on your own rightness that you've locked your minds out to any other POV. Wow. You're beginning to look like those you hate. Oh wait. Sorry. Only Christians and other religious folks close their minds and hate others with whom disagree. And I think "hate" is the accurate word here.

Thus, it is safe to say that most of you people here are anti-Christian bigots, being intolerant and, I'd dare say, appear to be flirting with the idea of violence against US. (Thanks Meerkat for marvelously proving my point.)

You fear US?!? You think that the Christians here REALLY want to create totalitarian theocracy? A few of us probably do, but most of us just want to have our POV treated fairly. But we ain't getting that. Not in society, and not in here, both of which are supposed to be places of enlightenment and open-mindedness.

In fact, you guys here have the SAME agenda that you condemn. Just with a different god-- yourselves. You are not a force for orderly and civilized society, but rather, an enemy of it. Like the animals in Orwell's famous book, you've taken on the same characteristics that you condemn, not even RESPECTING my RIGHT to disagree with you. Mind-numbingly hypocritical.

564. Controversial Religious Summer Camp Closed

Comment #5602 by Keith on November 10, 2006 at 3:54 am

Russ,
Have you been drinking, mate?

565. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5599 by Keith on November 10, 2006 at 3:45 am

Charlene,
I used to think that I was a good, even great, chess player until one day I came up against someone who was way out of my league. And soon afterwards I noticed that there were thousands of people out of my league. Until then it had never occurred to me that my little world of family and friends didn't contain all the great chess players in the world. It was a real rude awakening, like being doused with icy water to suddenly discover just how second-rate a player I really was, and in reality had always been. The really embarrassing thing was how easily I had hoodwinked myself and how arrogant I had been. All it had needed was for me to stay inside my little world to keep the fantasy going. Now, just imagine that one day something similar happens to you, that, horror of horrors, you underestimate the opposition so badly and are such a bad player that you can't even begin to grasp how foolish you look?

566. Tired of all the religious garbage? It's time to become an Enlightenist

Comment #4037 by Keith on November 2, 2006 at 5:37 am

I completely agree with writerdd. We should 'start banding together to stand up boldly against the religious and superstitous nonsense that is swallowing the world'. Now, what shall we call ourselves?