51. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55648 by MrEmpirical on July 11, 2007 at 9:31 pm

I'm glad Prof Dawkins has rejoined to Prof Wilson.

I have but one word: ownage.

52. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #55371 by MrEmpirical on July 10, 2007 at 8:48 pm

On another note, I think that the article's explanation of Muslim suicide bombing is flawed, in that it dismisses the role of Islam and the Koran. Sure, frustrated male sexuality can lead to a lot of violent or potentially violent men. But, as Sam Harris has pointed out, it matters what people believe in the midst of negative situations. Would a sexually frustrated Jain become a suicide bomber? Or a sexually frustrated Tibetan Buddhist? Belief does matter, it's undeniable.

Indeed, the authors of the article pretty much concede this point when they write: "What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny" and "The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam". In other words, the religion of Islam encourages sexual marginalisation, martyrdom, and yearning for paradise. If Islam did not encourage these things, sexually frustrated young Muslim men would not have such a destructive outlet for their anger. Suicide bombing is an option for frustrated Muslims because Islam encourages suicide bombing.

Also, we mustn't forget the survey findings that reveal supporters and perpetrators of suicide bombing to be disproportionately well educated and prosperous. Are we to believe that those men who are more educated and wealthy have more difficulty finding a mate?

53. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #55369 by MrEmpirical on July 10, 2007 at 8:15 pm

Bruno_burned,

To say that evolutionary psychology/neuropsychology are the only two psychology fields with decent explanatory power is utterly preposterous. Why don't you read about some of the research topics addressed by the psychological fields of cognition, perception, psychopathology, developmental psychology, social psychology, biopsychology, clinical psychology, counselling psychology, organisational psychology, etc., and you will find that the explanations and theories provided by these fields are useful, elegant, and extremely informative.

It may be true that some of the findings from these fields can be reduced to the level of neural or evolutionary explanations, but it would be a mistake to ignore proximal explanations simply because distal ones exist. A full explanation of human behaviour, cognition, and affect requires a full understanding of the whole chain of proximal and distal causes at play. It also requires that we take the full spectrum of biological, social, cultural, genetic, familial, and personal factors into consideration. Which is what modern psychology is all about.

54. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53772 by MrEmpirical on July 3, 2007 at 5:07 am

PaulEmecz,

You really ought to read Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" if you are worried about non-theistic ethics. Harris demonstrates that we need not believe anything on insufficient evidence in order to be ethical, or to understand ethics.

Furthermore, you must remember that our basic sense of right and wrong is near-universal, and provides the starting point for exploring the subtleties of many ethical issues. No deity required. Remember, it is a FACT that our fundamental ethical intuitions are basically universal ('The God Delusion' provides a good overview of some of the important findings that establish this fact). Indeed, when it appears that certain people have lost touch with our universal moral sense, it is usually the case that these people have been influenced by religion, or some other form of dogmatism (again, in 'The God Delusion', Dawkins gives the example of Israeli children who consider genocide to be immoral except when the genocide is portrayed as a Biblical story). Looking over our history, it seems that we are at our most ethical when we rely upon basic human solidarity, empathy, and compassion, and forget about unsubstantiated claims.

55. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #53011 by MrEmpirical on June 29, 2007 at 2:21 am

Since when does Bertrand Russell have a monopoly on the meaning of the word "atheism"?

Atheism is derived from the Greek 'atheos', meaning 'godless'. My belief system is less a belief in God. Thus, I am an atheist. I think the origins of the word 'atheist' allow for it to be defined as the absence of a belief in God.

56. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52384 by MrEmpirical on June 27, 2007 at 12:11 am

PaulEmecz,

Sam Harris replaced one group of concepts with an EQUIVALENT group of concepts (i.e. Witchcraft and theism are equally unproven). But you simply took a group of concepts and substituted them for a group of NON-EQUIVALENT concepts (i.e. substituting scientific terms for religious terms). Thus, your example failed.

57. Messiah

Comment #52365 by MrEmpirical on June 26, 2007 at 9:19 pm

This show kicks arse, beautiful demonstration of how even apparent 'miracles' have a rational explanation.

58. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52364 by MrEmpirical on June 26, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Daniel Dennett would then grapple helplessly with the origins of sorcery in his aptly named, Breaking the Spell

LOL, Sam Harris you are awesome. I love it how Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens are so capable of good humour. It's a really endearing feature of their work and it helps dispel the myth that rationalists are just cold, calculating, emotion-less robots.

59. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50980 by MrEmpirical on June 20, 2007 at 8:21 pm

Damn I love coming to this site! The comments on these discussion boards are far more enlightening and thought-provoking than most news and current affairs programs. Cheers everyone for feeding my mind!

60. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50806 by MrEmpirical on June 20, 2007 at 3:09 am

Riley,

What you're forgetting is that SUPPORT for suicide bombing is higher amongst the more educated, literate, and prosperous. If the suicide bombers are acting in aid of the poor, surely the poor themselves would support suicide bombing to the same extent as do the prosperous. Going back to your Civil War example, surely the support for the North was as high amongst slaves as it was amongst the Northern soldiers themselves! I can't imagine that the slaves cared less about emancipation than did the Northern soliders!

Your criticism of Sam's arguments ignores the fact that Sam brings together many pieces of evidence to draw his conclusions. For example, Sam highlights (1) that suicide bombers are more likely to be prosperous or educated; (2) support for suicide bombers is more common amongst the prosperous and educated; (3) the actions of oppressed peoples (or those fighting on their behalf) depend upon their religious beliefs (e.g. an oppressed Jain wouldn't harm others, where are the Tibetan Buddhist terrorists?, etc.). Taken in isolation, one of Sam's pieces of evidence may seem to be flawed. But Sam's argument is a sophisticated assembly of numerous pieces of evidence. I am reminded of Michael Shermer's discussion of Holocaust denial in "Why People Believe Weird Things", in which he exposes the deniers' tendency to single out pieces of evidence for the Holocaust. It is the whole body of evidence that needs to be considered, not individual fragments.

61. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50649 by MrEmpirical on June 19, 2007 at 8:02 am

Riley,

Sam didn't deny that poverty and despair are important variables. But Sam also pointed out that it matters what people believe in the midst of despair and poverty. For example, a despairing, impoverished Jain would not lash out violently, whereas a despairing, impoverished Muslim would.

And sure, the Northern soldiers in the Civil War were not slaves, but it's kinda hard to fight a war when you're enslaved... Whereas it is easy to participate in suicide bombing even if you're impoverished. Presumably the prospect of eternal bliss is even more attractive to those who are most disadvantaged, and yet the more educated, literate, and prosperous Muslims are more likely to engage in jihad.

62. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50648 by MrEmpirical on June 19, 2007 at 7:56 am

Wow, Sam owned Hedges in Part 4 of the debate. I cheered when Sam said that a well-conducted poll would be more informative than if Hedges wandered the Middle East for 1,000 years! Reminds me of the good old saying "The plural of anecdote is NOT data".

Indeed, I've never seen Harris step up to the plate like he did in this debate. Normally Harris is a bit too tranquil for his own good. But in this debate he stayed cool but still managed to slam Hedges with some great comments. I loved his analogies to Nazism and witch burning. "There are good Nazis, there are good witches" LOL.

63. Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier Than Thou With Christopher Hitchens

Comment #45319 by MrEmpirical on May 27, 2007 at 6:57 am

I love how they started to refer to Mother Theresa as "Mother Fucking Theresa". I know it's crude language, but they do it in such a funny way.

64. The Conversion of the Casual Evolutionist - You can't spell love without evolve

Comment #44464 by MrEmpirical on May 24, 2007 at 9:48 pm

Why do so many people assume that genes are responsible for ALL behaviours and EVERY aspect of life? Genes are responsible for our innate dispositions and traits, but plenty of other traits and aspects of life are determined by socialisation, memes, the environment, etc.

65. Busted Halo

Comment #44462 by MrEmpirical on May 24, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Deepak Chopra is an idiot.

He wrote in Skeptic magazine that skepticism is a bad thing because it's a negative, cynical and dissmissive way of seeing the world.

And he calls himself a scientist?

66. Shark virgin birth mystery is solved

Comment #44460 by MrEmpirical on May 24, 2007 at 9:37 pm

LMAO

So many awesome calls in this thread...

67. Richard Dawkins to appear in Second Life

Comment #44459 by MrEmpirical on May 24, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Lo!

Richard Dawkins comes brandishing the Sword of a Thousand Truths, to conquer the irrational forces of Theism once and for all!

Sweet, you guys, seriously.

68. Prayer can improve physical health

Comment #43859 by MrEmpirical on May 23, 2007 at 1:40 am

What the F*CK?

The heart patients who were prayed for did better?

What bullshit! The REVERSE effect was observed!

It was suggested that when people know they are being prayed for they may feel extra pressure to recover faster, which leads to stress and thus slower recoveries. It was also suggested that perhaps those who know they are being prayed for are less motivated to actively participate in their own recovery.

This was covered in Skeptic magazine ages ago.

I'm even more ashamed to be Australian after reading that distortion of truth in an Aussie medical journal.

69. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43511 by MrEmpirical on May 21, 2007 at 9:40 pm

The great thing about Hitchens is that he knows - from experience - how to play the journalistic game. He knows when to interrupt, he knows how to interrupt, and he knows how to ensure that he himself doesn't get interrupted. These skills are so important when dealing with Fox News interviews, whereby the conservative religious lapdogs get to recite their political rhetoric without restraint, while atheists and secularists get drowned out.

70. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43283 by MrEmpirical on May 21, 2007 at 4:04 am

But this does not mean we should give up those beliefs. Rather, we must work to make belief sincere. Only then is there a chance the violence will stop.

So, there is ONLY a chance that religious violence will stop if people belief more sincerely? This implies that religious violence would not end even if religion were eradicated.

And I'm sure that jihadists believe with the utmost sincerity. Moderates seem to me to be the ones with less sincere or genuinely held beliefs.

71. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42927 by MrEmpirical on May 20, 2007 at 5:48 am

The Jews killed Jesus

Hey dumbass! JESUS HIMSELF WAS A JEW!

What was that meal that Jesus allegedly ate before he died? Oh yeah, that's right! PASSOVER!

Ha ha ha...

72. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42730 by MrEmpirical on May 19, 2007 at 8:42 am

Oh no!

I log into this site hoping to relax within the 'clear-thinking oasis', only to discover that some of my otherwise intelligent fellows have been buying into the '9/11 was a CIA orchestration' conspiracy bullshit!

Here's a great article that should help to dismiss any conspiracy thoughts:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

And here's a great spoof of the 911 video:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

I urge everyone to check out these links, they're fantastic.

73. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42696 by MrEmpirical on May 19, 2007 at 4:23 am

Turok should've become a paleontologist, then he could've hunted for dinosaurs.

74. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42176 by MrEmpirical on May 17, 2007 at 7:50 pm

In Australia, one of the leading Muslim clerics in the nation (Sheik al-Hilaly) recently referred to women who do not wear a veil as "uncovered meat", and that we should not be surprised when they are brutally raped. He basically said "if you leave uncovered meat outside, you expect cats to eat it, in the same way an uncovered woman will be raped". These comments came in the wake of numerous brutal gang rapes perpetrated by Muslim men in Australia. The silence from the Muslim majority was deafening. Sure, a couple of liberal Muslims spoke out against the Sheik, but in general there was no outrage. Indeed, a great number of Muslims gathered at various Mosques to publicly support the Sheik amongst calls from non-Muslims that he resign. It was disgusting. And al-Hilaly is seen by many as the leading Islamic cleric in Australia.

So yes, most Muslims are generally decent people who will leave you alone, but then again they generally refuse to denounce the lunatics whom they look to for spiritual guidance.

I guess it really is "god's fucking law" in many cases.

75. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #40741 by MrEmpirical on May 14, 2007 at 9:18 pm

@ chbg21808

I've been saying Anthropogenic Global Warming is wrong for ten years. Man-made Global Warming has become the new religion.

This comment exposes your irrationality. Religion is not based on evidence. In contrast, the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is supported by a vast array of peer-reviewed scientific studies. To compare AGW with religion is absurd.

I'm not going to call you "every name under the Sun" because the evidence for AGW speaks for itself. Having said that, I'm not surprised that you have been called names (though I don't condone it). It can be tempting to insult people who ignore the large quantity of mutually corroborative evidence derived from numerous independent researchers working in numerous different fields (e.g. climatology, geology, biology, paleontology) that points to the reality of AGW.

76. Furor over author Ayaan Hirsi Ali's visit stirs debate on religious freedom

Comment #40623 by MrEmpirical on May 14, 2007 at 3:41 pm

"If it is found that a person is mentally unstable, or a child or disabled, there should be no punishment," he said. "It's a very merciful religion if you try to understand it."

Sparing children, the mentally ill, and the disabled from the death penalty is not merciful, it's just! True mercy would be to spare competent adults from such a cruel punishment.

77. The Debate: Can We Live by Reason Alone?

Comment #40092 by MrEmpirical on May 13, 2007 at 4:39 am

The clinical psychologist said:

"Dawkins is a very predictable rationalist".

Huh?

Well, I guess it's predictable that Dawkins will always be rational!

That panel at the end was rubbish. They shouldn't have separated Dawkins from the panel. Instead, they should have interviewed Dawkins and the panel at the same time, so that Dawkins could respond to all of their fallacious claims.

The imam didn't know what he was talking about! "The 3% were being controlled by their genes just as the 97% were being controlled by their genes". Not only did that statement demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics and social scientific methodology, but it was dead wrong and Dawkins would never agree with it. Dawkins argued that almost all of us - due to our shared genetic heritage - share a universal moral sense, which explains why we hold such similar moral priniciples regardless of religion. But that doesn't mean our moral sense can't be overridden by an abusive upbringing, a traumatic experience, etc. I suspect that the 3% who indicated that they would rather preserve their pants than save a drowning child would have been either (a) joking/lying (this is not uncommon in social science); (b) sociopathic (i.e. lacking the shared moral sense possessed by the rest of us); or (c) screwed up by a negative life event (e.g. child abuse, trauma).

The God Delusion present the genetic explanation for why we are moral AND the shifting zeitgeist explanation. The imam was wrong when he said "what Dawkins said wasn't in his book".

And the Christian woman was just as mistaken. She used the tired old "Dawkins isn't talking about my God" argument. Did she miss the part of Dawkins' book in which he explicitly says that his arguments apply to ALL supernatural creative intelligences? And did she miss the part in which Dawkins pointed out that all other definitions of God essentially define God out of existence (i.e. the Einsteinian God, God is Love, etc.)?

I would have loved to have seen Dawkins own all three of them.

78. Unintelligent Design

Comment #40084 by MrEmpirical on May 13, 2007 at 3:37 am

My opinion of Scott Atran has been fairly low ever since he got owned by Sam Harris at Beyond Belief 2006.

Atran was arguing against Harris' assertion that religious beliefs can profoundly influence people's behaviour. Harris correctly pointed out the obscurantism of Atran's arguments. Then Harris followed up with his awesome "Imagine if the Koran were exactly the same, except with one additional verse advocating the beheading of red-heads at sundown" hypothetical. Harris also pointed to the Iran-Iraq war and the joyful mothers whose sons had gone out to die senselessly in the minefields. Harris also pointed out how almost all of the Palestinians suicide bombers have been Muslim, and how there are no Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers. Atran got owned big time.

Atran's apologetics strike me as verging on sycophantic.

79. French Muslim women opt for hymen surgical cons

Comment #39847 by MrEmpirical on May 12, 2007 at 5:17 am

Richard Morgan makes a good point about how the male insistence on virginal wives can be attributed to evolutionary forces. I think, in the case of re-hymenated Muslim women, it is a case of an evolutionary force being manifested as a religious/cultural practice.

80. French Muslim women opt for hymen surgical cons

Comment #39777 by MrEmpirical on May 11, 2007 at 10:59 pm

While we're tossing around piss-weak anecdotal evidence, my friend's girlfriend is Japanese and apparently they go off like a jackhammer in the sack. Oh, and he's black, so yeah...

81. Brazil Greets Pope but Questions His Perspective

Comment #39025 by MrEmpirical on May 9, 2007 at 7:05 pm

I'm always amused by how the Catholic Church's approach is 100% correct and the absolute unalterable way to salvation, but when attendance starts to drop, maybe things could be done better after all...

Sam Harris made the great point that whenever the Catholic Church changes its dogma it uses a theological justification, when really the Church is simply responding to the "hammer blows of modernity".

82. An ecumenical contempt for religion

Comment #38825 by MrEmpirical on May 9, 2007 at 8:54 am

This again is the kind of statement that troubles me. Everything put in black-and-white terms and with such certainty.

Re-read what I said. I acknowledged that the world isn't black and white, but many decisions are. Decisions often have to be black and white. The USA was faced with a decision: to invade or not to invade.

Go to Iraq and ask a Kurd, and you would almost certainly hear that it was an very good idea indeed.

Re-read what I said. I acknowledged that there were pros and cons. But the full spectrum of pros and cons must be considered when making a decision. The USA ignored the warnings that pointed to the preponderance of cons.

If different actions had been taken and democracy well-established, perhaps then you might now be saying that the war was not a mistake.

Re-read what I said. I said that the problems in Iraq were anticipated by experts in Middle Eastern politics. The experts understood that the US invasion would be like poking a stick at a hornets' nest. The failed attempt to establish democracy and freedom has just added insult to injury.

So what was the actual mistake? Invading? Or any of a hundred decisions taken afterwards?

Both. The hundreds of bad decisions would never have been made if the war had never begun in the first place (i.e. if the US had heeded the many warnings).

In my view it is far, far too simplistic to put forward statemens like 'to invade was wrong' or 'the war was wrong', as there were so many factors and possibilities and consequences.

We live in a world in which decisions need to be made. The US needed to choose between two options: to invade or not to invade. One of those options had to be preferrable. The evidence showed and has shown that the best option was not to invade. But the US ignored the warnings and the evidence. Why do you think the US felt the need to falsify intelligence? And you mustn't forget my earlier point that the billions of dollars that were spent on the war could have been better spent dealing with genuine threats such as global warming, environmental degradation, peak oil, poverty, health care, etc.

I am, on balance, against the Iraq war, but at least I admit things are complex and far from obvious.

On balance (remember, we must weigh the full spectrum of pros and cons), I too am against and have always been against the Iraq War. That's precisely why I am asserting that the decision to invade was wrong.

83. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38819 by MrEmpirical on May 9, 2007 at 8:37 am

Romin_Devourin,

I agree with IQHQ that you neglected to mention the context in which Harris made his statement.

If you learn that a group of religious extremists believes that the fate of their eternal souls hinges on whether they murder large groups of innocent adults and children, it is painfully obvious that it would be legitimate to deal with these extremists effectively, and if that meant killing the extremists, so be it. I think most theists would agree.

84. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38814 by MrEmpirical on May 9, 2007 at 8:28 am

Aw, what the heck, I'll get stuck into the Iraq War debate.

I think the US should withdraw from Iraq, because it has been four years and things aren't getting any better. That doesn't mean the US wouldn't have a responsibility to continue to support the Iraqi people (e.g. financially). The US presence in Iraq has been shown to be a cause of increased recruitment within terrorist groups and increased extremism. In the face of this trend, it is unwise for the occupation to continue.

85. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38801 by MrEmpirical on May 9, 2007 at 8:06 am

Getting back to the root topic of this post, I think it was a shame that Al Sharpton wasn't up against Dawkins.

Dawkins would have OWNED Sharpton. He would have MOPPED THE FLOOR with him. I lost count of all the times when Sharpton left himself open to a scorching Dawkinsian comeback, but Hitchens failed to capitalise.

Sharpton used the same old crappy arguments from design, morality, wicked atheists, you can't disprove God, yadda yadda. Dawkins has an auto-comeback for all that garbage, but Hitchens needs to acquire the instinct.

Although I did like Hitchens' point about how the very idea of a supreme being is as distasteful as living in North Korea!

86. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38786 by MrEmpirical on May 9, 2007 at 7:35 am

Ben Stiller, er, I mean Sam Harris is so cool.

87. An ecumenical contempt for religion

Comment #38615 by MrEmpirical on May 8, 2007 at 6:56 pm

It seems to me to be a patronising attitude to declare that others should be happy under a dictator.

AtheistAttorney wasn't arguing that ANYONE should be happy under a dictator. He was arguing that an oppressive dictatorship and a stable society is preferrable to violent civil war and an unstable society. Both options cause misery. Both options are 'evil'. The question is, what is the lesser of the two evils? The evidence indicates that, in the case of Iraq, Saddam was the lesser of the two evils.

88. An ecumenical contempt for religion

Comment #38613 by MrEmpirical on May 8, 2007 at 6:49 pm

In this life things are rarely simply 'right' or 'wrong'. For very many Iraqis the war was and is right. For many Iraqis the war was and is wrong.

At the end of the day, it was either a good idea or a bad idea to invade Iraq. The Coalition had to choose either to invade or not to invade. The Coalition didn't have the option to 'partially invade' Iraq. I know that the world isn't black and white, but some decisions are. Of the two options available (namely, to invade or not to invade), one of the two had to be preferable. It was and is clear that the best option would have been not to invade. There were pros and cons to each option, and I have never denied that. But decisions need to be made with the full spectrum of pros and cons in mind. Yes, some Iraqis welcomed the invasion, but many more are appalled at the devastation, violence, and death that has afflicted their country. Balancing the pros and cons, it is possible to say with a high degree of certainty that the war was wrong.

I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but I feel it is arrogant to claim such certainty from any evidence.

Many things are uncertain. But some things are not. I am certain that the Earth is round. Sure, we could be living in a simulation, and thus the Earth may not even exist, but on balance I think it reasonable for me to be certain about the roundness of the Earth. Similarly, given the devastation, death, increased terrorism, tribal conflicts, increased extremism, and destabilisation that have resulted from the Iraq War, which came at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers' lives, I think it is reasonable to be fairly certain that the Iraq War was a mistake. Especially given the fact that democracy and freedom have not been successfully established in the country. I'm not going to couch my views in overly cautious language. I'm not going to say "It is quite likely that the Iraq War was somewhat of a mishap, but I'm open to contradiction". I'm going to call a spade a spade. As I mentioned above, I can recognise a stupid mistake when it's staring me in the face. It would certainly be a stupid mistake to ignore a red traffic light. It was certainly a stupid mistake for the Coalition to ignore the warnings from experts in Middle Eastern politics before the invasion.

But others using the same evidence have argued that his viewpoint is right.

I haven't read every single article on the Iraq War, but I have NEVER seen anyone argue in favour of the war on the basis of the death, devastation, increased terrorism, and the other pieces of evidence to which I have referred.

89. An ecumenical contempt for religion

Comment #38425 by MrEmpirical on May 8, 2007 at 4:36 am

Steve99:

Surely what you mean to say is that it irritates you that while Hitchens shares your view about some things, he has different views on other things.

Wrong. I don't care whether or not Hitchens shares my opinions, I care about the truth. The Iraq War was a mistake. All of the anticipated problems have eventuated. Terrorism has been promoted. Infrastructure has been devastated. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed. Billions of dollars have been spent. Thousands of soldiers have died. The region has been destabilised. All of these problems were foreseen, but the Coalition ignored the warnings. Thus, they were mistaken to invade Iraq.

These are complex issues, and to claim knowledge of the rightness and wrongness of them seems a bit arrogant.

I have no trouble understanding complex issues. I have examined the evidence, and I have presented a brief summary of the evidence. The evidence indicates that the war was and is wrong. I am compelled by the strength of the evidence to conclude that the war was wrong. That is not arrogance. It is evidence-based reasoning.

I find this a very troubling point of view. It is a patronising "democracy is good enough for us but not for them" view.

Everyone deserves democracy and freedom. But when a populace is divided into warring tribal factions, it is naive to think that democracy can be successfully introduced. The reason why the USA and UK enjoy democracy is not because democracy is 'good enough' for them, but because their societies are not in chaos.

Because he is opposed to murderous genocidal tyrants. This is nothing to do with religion.

When the alternative to a murderous secular dictator is utter chaos, widespread religious violence, increased terrorism, increased religious extremism, the devastation of previously functional infrastructure, 600 thousand civilian deaths, and the lack of authentic democratic governance, at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers' lives, it is painfully obvious that the dictator is the lesser of two evils.

Just because you don't understand Hitchens' viewpoint does not mean that he was necessarily wrong.

Actually, I do understand Hitchens' viewpoint. I have argued - using evidence and reasoning - that his viewpoint is wrong. In the face of the aforementioned evidence (e.g. civilian deaths, ruined infrastructure, etc. all of which was predicted before the war began), it is reasonable to conclude that it was a mistake to go to war. This is not a retrospective conclusion. The problems were foreseen, but the warnings were ignored. The war was always a bad idea.

90. An ecumenical contempt for religion

Comment #38357 by MrEmpirical on May 7, 2007 at 9:42 pm

It irritates me that Hitchens can be so right about some things and yet so wrong about others.

The Iraq War was never a good idea. Just about all of the things that have gone wrong were anticipated by experts on Middle Eastern politics before the war began.

Saddam was an evil man, but perhaps an iron fist is needed to control a country that contains so many opposing 'tribes' (i.e. Sunnis, Shiite, Kurds, etc.). Indeed, the recent increase in American troops in Iraq indicates that perhaps the US government finally realises that sheer force is often needed to combat violently opposed tribal groups. But it's too late. Iraq's infrastructure has been devastated, 600,000 civilians have been killed, and the hornets' nest has been poked too many times; the hornets ain't going back into the nest!

If Hitchens is opposed to religion, and the problems associated with religion, why is he in favour of the Iraq War? The evidence has shown that the Iraq War has actually promoted greater levels of religious extremism and terrorism, and recruitment levels within terrorist groups have increased. Not to mention the fact that the war has cost billions of dollars, and that money could have been used to address the pressing issues of global warming, impending peak oil production, health care, or poverty. These issues are far more important than imaginary WMD.

I simply can't understand how Hitchens can be so blind to the fact that the Iraq War is and always was a big mistake. I'm not a bleeding heart pacificist, I can just see a stupid mistake when it's staring me in the face.

91. Unholy row at clergy soccer game

Comment #38058 by MrEmpirical on May 6, 2007 at 10:07 pm

Another example of the Balkanising effect of religion.

Another example of how religion creates divides where they would not otherwise have been.

Another example of how religion creates distinctions on the basis of which nonsense you believe.

92. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37851 by MrEmpirical on May 6, 2007 at 2:39 am

"Derka derka muhammad jihad, derka derk, we have modern Western mobile phones, but we forgot to adopt modern Western values, derka derka, muhammad jihad"

93. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37847 by MrEmpirical on May 6, 2007 at 2:05 am

LOL at the water crystal guy, Dr. Emoto's his name. His 'photoessay' cited a paper that appeared in Nature and which was debunked in Nature a few years later, BEFORE Emoto wrote his essay.

94. Jordan opens children's museum

Comment #36942 by MrEmpirical on May 2, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Behold: Queen Rania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Rania

Damn! What a babe! Whoops, I'd better not say that! She might decide to start covering herself so that horny bastards like me won't know how hot she is!

95. In Ducks, War of the Sexes Plays Out in the Evolution of Genitalia

Comment #36917 by MrEmpirical on May 2, 2007 at 7:27 pm

If they can quote the eye then we can retaliate with the duck's cock, metaphorically speaking.

Literally LOL.

Beautiful.

96. Jordan opens children's museum

Comment #36912 by MrEmpirical on May 2, 2007 at 7:03 pm

And it was nice to see one of the women in the first photo not wearing a hijab. If only the others would throw off that oppressive symbol of political Islam.

97. The God Delusion

Comment #36699 by MrEmpirical on May 2, 2007 at 3:22 am

The problem with Objectivism goes beyond its cultish aspects.

The main criticism of Objectivism (and Shermer mentions this briefly in WPBWT) is that it postulates the existence of objective, universal moral laws. This is patently false, because such laws cannot be observed in nature. That is not to say that we don't share a universal moral sense (as Dawkins has rightly argued). Indeed, it is obvious that most humans have a fairly similar idea of right and wrong, but that is very different from positing that objective moral laws ACTUALLY exist.

98. Are You There, God? It's Me, Hitchens

Comment #36446 by MrEmpirical on May 1, 2007 at 6:54 am

Hey Hitchens, why won't America use its power to remove psychopathic regimes in other countries (e.g Zimbabwe)? Oh yeah, that's right, there's no oil in those other countries. Whoops. And yeah, Iraq's society really was in a terrible state before the American invasion, what with the civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites...oh wait, the civil war started AFTER the invasion, silly me. At least Iraq now has adequate electricity, water, and sanitation supplies...oh wait, their infrastructure has been devasted. Well, at least the invasion of Iraq has helped to reduce the threat of Islamic extremism...oh wait, all of the analyses suggest that the invasion has actually provoked greater levels of recruitment within extremist groups. Well, Saddam was a terrible man, and he killed many of his own people. And we wouldn't want innocent Iraqis to die, would we? Oh hang on, over 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the last four years of the invasion. Whoops! Well, at least America is going to leave Iraq in a better state than that in which it was found, once all the reconstruction is completed, and a legitimate government is created, and...oh hang on, America's probably going to pull out pretty soon, isn't it? Oh dear... Well, at least no one can say that these problems were predicted before the invasion of Iraq...oh wait, these problems WERE foreseen by opponents of the planned invasion. But we all know it's silly to listen to the warnings of people who are opposed to war, because their warnings are always wrong...oh wait, in the case of the Iraq invasion, the warnings were valid. Hmmm, well at least we got rid of all those nasty WMDs...oh, silly me, they never existed.

Nice one, Hitchens.

99. The God Delusion

Comment #36444 by MrEmpirical on May 1, 2007 at 6:39 am

Objectivism is rubbish.

Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" provides an excellent chapter on objectivism and its problems.

But the review of The God Delusion was pretty good. The whole "Why are people barbaric despite our supposedly universal, evolved moral sense" criticism was very weak. Dawkins' point was that practically all humans possess a shared moral sense, but that doesn't mean our innate morals can't be overridden or displaced by negative learning experiences. In other words, we're all born with essentially identical moral intuitions, but we can learn to be barbaric given certain circumstances (e.g. abusive upbringing, religious indoctrination, etc.).

100. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #36015 by MrEmpirical on April 29, 2007 at 11:06 pm

My only quarrel is with those who tell me I can't criticize him because he's a "fellow atheist."

I fully agree with such a criticism. But if that is your only quarrel, why didn't you simply stick to your guns and point out how objectively irrational it is to consider fellow atheists immune to criticism? Why did you feel the need to introduce (however sardonically) superficial and subjective criticisms of your opponents' styles? If you truly wanted to argue against those who would shield Maher from criticism, what was the point of labelling their posts as "vulgar, ill-spelled, ungrammatical, boorish, fawning" etc? Why not simply point out the illogicality of their arguments?

Do you really think that it is the "easy route" to refrain from taking cheap-shots at your opponents' delivery? I think it is all too tempting to take cheap-shots. It is much more difficult to stay calm and to have the maturity to tackle the rational basis of opposing claims.