51. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #76402 by Tumara Baap on October 5, 2007 at 5:52 pm

That FSM appeals to Christians and Muslims isn't surprising at all. Amongst believers, there are those who feel the Lord interferes and intervenes sparingly in our daily affairs, are cognizant of religion's oppressive sociopolitical role in history, can compartmentalize God into a box and project impressive standards of science, reason and empiricism (as do almost 40% of U.S. scientists), view religion metaphorically as a narrative that hones "spiritual" needs and often plays a positive role in fostering community bonds etc. Many such individuals are as repulsed by religious fundamentalists, and as pleased by irreverent entertainment such as Monty Python films, BillMaher shows, and Colbert Report news briefs, as are skeptics, rationalists and atheists. For these quasi-rational believers, The Holy Pasta may be the stepping stone that leads to true transcendance.

52. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #76151 by Tumara Baap on October 4, 2007 at 11:03 pm

I agree with asupcb. The U.S. may have a zest for the free market, but it's not the easiest place to open and conduct business, has relatively high corporate tax rates, etc.
Health care in particular is a joke. One in the U.S. hears the refrain that Michael Moore's Sicko raises awareness, but that addressing the problem would lead to a bigger disaster. Obviously the perverted idea persists that we are reaping some benefits of a free market health system. There is little truth to this, if any. In actuality the system is as thirsty for our tax dollars as it is in collosal wastefulness. Paradoxically, it is an absence of efficient central streamlining that results in such a lousy system. A must read is this Economist article: An Unhealthy Burden
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9407716

53. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75164 by Tumara Baap on October 2, 2007 at 12:41 am

I hardly think the word "monopolize" colloquially used is different from "to have a disproportionate and overwhelming influence." It is what the Mearsheimer/Walt arguments, for example, are based on. It's the conclusion about AIPAC's complicity in the war that may invite opprobrium. The premise, however, about the existence of such influence is not in dispute. Lefty Carter acknowledges it. Righty Senior Bush knows it fully well too. Lefty The New Yorker acquiesces to Mearsheimer's influence premise and also the overall inference. Righty Economist on the other hand demolishes the conclusion about AIPAC's reach, but notes of its influence "That a powerful pro-Israel lobby influences American policymaking in the Middle East, often for the worse, is indisputable... in Washington, the power of the lobby, so far from being a secret, is legendary." It is funny that one would beseech that a single word, "monopolize", unduly stretches the case, and then shamelessly lump the professor together with the manifestly anti-Israel Chomsky. It would be charitable to put one in the writer's shoes, and see all that was meant was that a little political organization affords dividends. And just leave it at that.

I can understand the professor's hesitancy to comment on the political role of U.S. atheists. Speaking about the conservative response to Moveon.org's ad, Salman Rushdie on the Maher show quipped that they won't talk about the issues, but will gladly talk about how we talk about the issues! It takes little stretch of the imagination to realize how "British atheist lectures Americans on how to run country" can end up as topic of the month on Bill O'Reilly. Given how easily some get worked-up by his choice of a single word, he'd be wise to choose his sentences carefully.

54. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74680 by Tumara Baap on September 30, 2007 at 12:36 am

To an extent, I concur. Religion has done good. As it bloody well should have. Countless millions have viewed all that is fine and sublime through the lens of religion. It has been synonymous in the human mind with righteousness. So indelibly engraved in the consciousness is it that most can only think about ethical matters with religion as the sole language of understanding and expression. Would you expect otherwise, when human culture has historically placed religion at the apex of moral authority? The point is that for a cultural trait appointed with so noble a mission, religion has a disappointing track record. Actually, never has sin been so devastatingly excercised as when under the umbrella of God. Given the lofty performance benchmarks accorded to religion, it is laughable that one is compelled to roll out a list of good it has done in its defense.

Viewing goodness through religion is comparable to viewing the world through pair of cataract afflicted eyes. They occlude much of what you see, and yet one may defend such a diseased pair for the shadowy vision that manages to get past. It is tragic if such bad eyes are all one has ever known, that one cannot contemplate what it is like for the cataract never to have been there.

55. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #73973 by Tumara Baap on September 27, 2007 at 1:01 am

I'm relieved The Times clearly did not pander to confusion-mischief as the U.S. press often has over Global Warming reporting. They plainly state what the actual scientific positions are and don't dilute those out of "fairness" to the other side.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?hp

Hopefully the vocal outing of this sickening chicanery should put a dent in the film's credibility. It also appears the filmaker's are no longer tip-toeing around God. That I.D. only thrives in the service of religion is inescapable.

56. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73708 by Tumara Baap on September 25, 2007 at 11:40 pm

You'd think someone with more than a pair of brain cells would at least sugarcoat propaganda for modern consumption. Most of the time, I have enormous difficulty telling whether some of their websites are a parody. For example, the Baptists for Republican Faith at http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/ has as one of its top posts "Teaching your child that satanism and atheism are the same thing: "Mommy, why is that man skinning our cat?"".

I kid you not!

Hats off to those posters here who have acquaintances like these, and still manage a friendly relationship. Frankly, I could not do it.

57. Poll: Are Dawkins and Hitchens good for humanism?

Comment #73344 by Tumara Baap on September 24, 2007 at 7:46 pm

NPR aired a piece about Humanist Greg Epstein of Harvard who complained the New Atheists have chastised religion but have not done enough for Humanism. I for one feel believers are especially leery of atheism because they feel without religion our moral compass will go beserk. This is of course rubbish, but the view is a prevalent one. It is why I strongly feel atheism cannot take a foothold without ethical humanism taking a more prominent role. I haven't read Hitchens yet, but am of the opinion Dawkins should have dwelt more on Humanism in TGD. I certainly don't hold the view Dawkins has hurt Humanism. Trying to appease or seduce the religious by softening deserving criticism for fear of a boomerang effect is a dishonest and myopic strategy. We should maintain a civil tone but otherwise give it to 'em with both barrels firing.
The NPR piece can be heard here:
http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/herenow/2007/09/hn_0920.rm?start=05:11

58. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73044 by Tumara Baap on September 24, 2007 at 12:29 am

Maher is getting increasingly aggressive on religion. Though he's stated in an old interview he isn't exactly atheist (he admitted being opposed to organized religion), his views may have changed after the coming of the Unholy Trinity.

I'm still surprised by the enthusiastic cheering when he takes a swipe at religion... this audience is by no means mainstream America. He was pushing the limits with the Jesus-Santa comment. A handful of people were clearly thrilled but the overall response appeared restrained.

This was one of Maher's better shows. Not being too Hollywood savvy, I don't know who the tatooed chick was but she was very bright. The show reflected some of the wave of changing sentiment following Mearsheimer and Walt's essays that unconditional support of Israel hurts us. Maher took umbrage to this, picking on the choice of phrase used (Israel is not worth an American life or dollar) and ignored entirely the substance of what was being conveyed.

59. A Table for One

Comment #71132 by Tumara Baap on September 17, 2007 at 10:12 pm

I have to concede the priest probably got it right. A lot of atheists, Hitchens included, proclaim Mother Theresa was a closet atheist. Rubbish. I doubt MT ever subjected herself to the finer points of atheist argument. She simply did not feel the exquisite elation that religion or meditation is sometimes known to impart. In TGD, Dawkins is dismissive of those who ask him "What of Mozart then?" when they argue in favor of God. Indeed it is a dismally poor argument from a purely logical standpoint. But the power of sublime feeling in most people gets grossly underestimated by skeptics. Most people when experiencing an intense emotion rationally succumb to the primordial feeling, and thereafter arrange supporting reasons to make their first instinctive position tenable. MRI brain scans reveal such is the thought process in most, and not just about God. I hazard to say even "scientists" like Francis Collins have been sucked into the divine quicksand in this manner. Note there is not a single logical reason for his stance... all he seems to do is to suspend his scientific rigor to make room for Jesus. It's mind boggling. Nuns and other religious figures have reported being overcome by "Unio Mystica", an intense spiritual feeling that usually cannot be summoned at will and may occur only once or twice a lifetime. Psychedlic agents, such as the fungus extract psilocybin may trigger the same. Ditto for certain epilepsy patients put on anti-seizure meds. Neurosurgeons have reported inducing such feelings simply with electrode stimulation of specific brain regions. What happened with MT was that she didn't feel her elation was commensurate with the mission being undertaken. And that was about it. The preist nailed it.

60. RELIGULOUS: A Conversation with Bill Maher and Larry Charles

Comment #69964 by Tumara Baap on September 13, 2007 at 11:49 am

As an aside, I for one would have a problem with unconditional support of PETA. I am for the humane treatment of pets and livestock and am largely opposed to recreational hunting, but in many cases Animal Rights agenda doesn't stop there. Nor do they desist from emotional, facile, and underhanded tactics. Every ingredient from your toothpaste, shampoo, to the dyes in your clothing have undergone animal testing. If animal rights groups always had their way, it would be an unimagnable damper on legitimate scientific research, and ultimately on our modern lifestyles.

61. RELIGULOUS: A Conversation with Bill Maher and Larry Charles

Comment #69963 by Tumara Baap on September 13, 2007 at 11:28 am

Bill Maher is on record for stating categorically that he is NOT an atheist. He clearly deplores organized religion. His views, I believe, are more deist like. He believes in an overarching force behind existence, but not in a personal interventionist God.

Maher may well in fact believe in homeopathy (this does surprise me). But the point is that he is a man amenable to reason. None of us are well informed on every conceivable topic. I suspect most of the posters here are scientifically savvy. But if queried on economic issues, say to outline the balancing act between regulation and unscrupulous profit incentives, or to correlate prosperity with employment versus net productivity, the average response would differ sharply from that of an expert economist.

Lastly, keep in mind Maher is an entertainer. He will frame things solely to get a rise out of people. His last show was called "Politically Incorrect" for heavens sake.

Everything considered, I'm a huge Maher fan.

62. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69614 by Tumara Baap on September 11, 2007 at 11:37 pm

Griffin's remarks likely have nothing to do with atheism. She may have given the topic nary a thought, and may have no fondness for atheists. All I can deduce from what she said is an intention at irreverence. Her reasons may have ranged from mere amusement, making a bit of a media splash, to ridiculing holier-than-thou speeches frequently dished out. To weigh the funny factor of "Suck it, Jesus" is besides the point. In a culture that undeservedly sanctifies everything religious, Griffin's remarks, whether to make a point (and I do think she did make one, however small) or to cause a commotion, is very welcome. And the attempts to silence her are singularly reprehensible.

63. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69297 by Tumara Baap on September 10, 2007 at 11:28 am

If you enjoyed this, you ought to check out a similar piece somewhere on this website where Harris replaces the word "religion" with the word "witchcraft" in critical responses to his books. It is with devastating efficiency that this wickedly homorous style exposes the weakeness of counter arguments and highlights the original accusation that religion gets undeserved immunity from scrutiny not accorded to any other idea.
The icing on the cake should be the agonizing by apologists that fascism and religion aren't exactly analagous. But then, they do have a track record of missing the point.

64. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68638 by Tumara Baap on September 8, 2007 at 1:15 am

How exquisitely flattering for Professor Dawkins. I wonder if there is is a morsel of reason in any of these flea books, other than succumb more deeply to the mindfuck that propagates the grandest superstition, or my God is not **quite** the god you parody... my nebulous theology is of a higher order, or that the Professor's "rant" somehow imperils the tolerance and pluralism of a modern society, or that God by definition is too sublime for everyday reason and transcends time and description. (Going by Cornwell's musings, I expect ripostes much more crass.) Thinking persons have some basic prerequisites: That a hypotheses be testable, that confounding factors and biases be accounted for, that there be a beauty of economy in explanation... you can't have an infinite number of preconditions for an explanation nor a remedy that inflates a conundrum. Most people posting on this forum reflexively think this way. The Professor is a fountainhead who epitomizes reason and rules the waves in separating the wheat from the chaff. But for the pious fleas... they instinctively and viscerally smell a threat, and mull endlessly about quashing it. There never was a space in their intellect to wedge the very question whether it's really all a cruel delusion. I'm sure their flea ripostes are a desperate clarion call to surrender to imagined non-anthropomorphic (not the Higgs Particle mind you, but something more Super Santa Claus) forces and conveniently bereft of an iota of reason.

65. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68589 by Tumara Baap on September 7, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Steve99 hits the nail on the head when he writes positioning ourselves on a gut reaction is a common human occurence. According to French cultural anthropologist G. Clotaire Rapaille and American psychologist Drew Westen, this sort of visceral thinking is far more ubiquitous and innate than many of us think. (Google these guys ... it makes me wonder whether atheism itself may be too cerebral to ever catch on). An overwhelming majority of us have a deep emotional association with any given idea, issue or object. When asked to explain a choice made, we reach out for cerebral tools that graft a reasonable sounding explanation for a position already reached at a gut level. Most people with a vested interest in shaping public opinion grossly underestimate the power of this under-the-radar phenomenon. (an exception might be Republicans, who are such cavemen to begin with, they're unusually adept at sniffing visceral instincts lying just barely below the conscious surface). Magnetic resonance brain scans seem to indicate we're all gut-level thinkers to an extent. What makes Cornwell stand out is that he's not particularly bright. (Sorry Cornwell)

66. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68330 by Tumara Baap on September 6, 2007 at 9:24 pm

Books by Dawkins and Harris were bound to cause acute cognitive dissonance in the faithful. I think everyone anticipated a response based on emotion rather than an interest in truth. Cornwell epitomizes the vitriol of someone jilted and scorned. He approaches TGD with an embittered slate to nit pick, distort, misrepresent and demonize with anger and threat steering his project. This could have been done cleverly and on the sly. The fact that Cornwell's riposte is so easily assailable and so plainly daft does bring me a bit of perverse pleasure. The success of books by Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens is laudable. Just as enjoyable has been the floundering counter-attack. It helps the cause.

67. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66792 by Tumara Baap on August 31, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Donahue was worthless. He said nothing of substance, merely attacking Hitchen's credibility with talk of F grades and the like. However, a majority of Americans will concur with the position that that Mother Theresa's doubt bolsters her faith!
This was brought up towards the end of Bill Maher's most recent airing with Michelle Martin (of National Public Radio), Tim Robbins, and some buffoon from the Weekly Standard who wrote a book on Cheney. Maher was gloating over having MT in his camp, to which the three guests responded that everyone has doubts about faith and the ability to cope and carry on is actually a religious virtue. The crowd cheered. Maher did not have a come-back, and he looked as if he'd been upstaged.

Polling actually shows that those who've doubted the existence of God stands at about 40% (a percentage that has been swelling over the years). How people handle that doubt is diametric in approach. The church would encourage exactly Hitchens accused them of: encourage delusion; shovel in more theological mind fuck, resort to mind numbing incantations, project "surrender" and "submission" as a superb virtue, etc. In fact most will choose solace by smothering the discomfort of curiosity. In tuth, a vanishingly small minority of doubters will actively seek out the oxygen of reason. I wish there was a way of steering the large number of doubters down the correct path of Dawkins, Harris, Asimov. And if they have a modicum of patriotism, to understand what in the mindset of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin seeded the sort of questions and issues they posed against the superstitious background of the times, and introspect how they themselves measure up. They wouldn't quite view incantations of submission so laudably then.

68. Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

Comment #66020 by Tumara Baap on August 27, 2007 at 10:35 pm

From India, to Japan, to Brazil, people get offended over things which I personally think are utterly frivolous. There are circumstances when I will gleefully offend, say for example, in labeling barbaric a cultural practice that harms an individual. But in this case, the U.S. takes the brunt for being unnecessarily insensitive and as is too often the case, abysmally stupid.
It is amazing how clueless we are of others cultures. It's not just footballs. The Australian military scholar David Kilcullen has remarked that you cannot conduct counter-insurgency maneuvers unless you know the other side inside out. Americans have learnt next to nothing from the British in Kenyan, Irish and Burmese uprisings or the Indonesian engagement in East Timor, or for that matter the Shin Bet versus the Palestinians. One needs to be able to completely read, understand and anticipate everything on the other side, then employ balanced tactics of winning over civilian sympathies, marginalizing the morale and message of the opponent, and top it off with surgical military operations, among other things. But we couldn't even make a connection between the shoe and an insult in this culture. It explains how a lonely lunatic in cave could possibly have outrun, outwitted and outpaced a "superpower." It shows how much we value the cerebral aspect of warfare when we purge our own team of rare Arabic and Farsee speakers because of their sexual inclinations. And if flushing down the potty "know thy enemy" axiom wasn't enough, instead of marginalizing the opponent as a fringe group we elevate their profile by falsely lumping them with a full fledged state. Still not enough? How about bandying about the word "crusade"? Way to go, USA.
P.S. Kilcullen now works for the U.S. The New Yorker did an article on counter-insurgency which paints a Bushie intelligence/military atmosphere of "if you're a man with a brain, you're a man in trouble" and where Kilcullen has yet to be taken seriously by the top brass.

69. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65258 by Tumara Baap on August 23, 2007 at 11:24 am

ID is not remotely about science and reason. It's about a propaganda war masquerading as a scientific controversy. Their victory in this case is clear. They have duped atheist scientists into the exchange. This is invaluable with the American public. The public will reflexively recoil against the godless. What frustrated them all along was to be put into the fighting pen alongside pious scientists like Ken Miller of Brown University. They must be smiling ear to ear with this one under their belt.

70. Democratic Candidates on a Personal God

Comment #64394 by Tumara Baap on August 20, 2007 at 12:57 am

Boy that was a loaded question, but in a way was revealing of the candidates. None of these contenders can afford to distance themselves from our countless countrymen who do believe in a vengeful, mind-reading, omniscient God. Clinton, disciplined as she is, played it safest. Edwards and Biden, though they seemingly replied with care, may have set themselves up for political skulduggery. I'm relieved none of them replied in the affirmative, that perhaps we should certainly pray hard for direct intervention, though we may not always know His mysterious ways. The same cannot be assumed for the Republican contenders. It certainly cannot be said for the tragedy of a numbskull we now have with God whispering in his ear.

71. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64123 by Tumara Baap on August 17, 2007 at 9:31 pm

Whereas Nietzsche's neurosyphilis had little to do with what he expounded (except perhaps he could've done it more extensively), the cases of intense religiosity I saw in patients during my psych rotations were certainly linked to psychoses. Schizophrenic paranoia (as depicted in A Beautiful Mind) -where there aren't disjointed thoughts as much as fabricated fragments of thought manifesting as weeks old memory- were uncommonly linked to sinister arrangements with the secret service and/or socialization with Jesus Christ. You'd think these guys would present as totally nuts, but they were actually polite, civil, and utterly convincing ... until they alleged a detail too incredible. At a point they would finally realize they were sick. This must've been unimaginably disconcerting, not knowing the real from the delusion, and this patient group was at very high risk of suicide. I can't think of a worse ailment to have than one's consciousness turned upside down. There have also been case reports of patients with epilepsy who go on a certain seizure meds and then become intensely religious. There have been other examples of brain injuries (strokes, tumours etc) which influence musical predilections and spirituality. I am not suggesting that all those who believe in Jesus (or any religion) therefore have a brain affliction. But the case studies are interesting nevertheless. I guess the take home point is the cognizance of delusion; the suffocation of perception, consciousness and thought, and to know it! Is it possible, with a little education and introspection, for the good listeners of Christian talk-radio or 700 Club to come to terms with their vitiated "god given" sentience to want to walk off a cliff?

72. After 60 Years, Will Pakistan Be Reborn?

Comment #64079 by Tumara Baap on August 17, 2007 at 2:27 pm

USA_Limey, every time I hear of "Blame the British for our woes" (virtually ubiquitous in the old colonial lands), I'm reminded of the scene in Life of Brian when a group of Jewish rebels ruminate on what the Romans have ever done for them other than "acqueducts, sanitation, roads, medicine...".
So what have the Brits ever done for India, other than western science and technology, postal services, railroads, goverment accountability, parliamentary system, judiciary, and national unity (which replaced a myriad princely states).
You've got to give it to Manmohan Singh who last year acknowledged that compared to the Belgians in Congo or the French in North Africa, the British were a benevolent colonial power (by so saying he was not conceding that their interests were selfless).
Still, 60 years later, political prisoners in Indian jails are treated much worse than those in British India, and what the Indians/Pakistanis perpetrated against each other in the name of religion eclipses all of the British crimes ever comitted, Jalian wala Bagh and all.

73. India's Internal Partition

Comment #64071 by Tumara Baap on August 17, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Many Indians, just like the 19th century Hindu leader Vivekanand, consider piety India's biggest asset. Nothing could be further from the truth. In India the extent of belief is abysmal ... everything from levitation to holy men pulling sacred ashes out of thin air. The stupidity frequently culminates in riots and mass murders in religion's name.
It would help to heed to the words of one of India's founders, Jawaharlal Nehru: "religion has not only broken our backs but stifled and almost killed all originality of thought or mind"

Those fascinated with India and the British Empire ought to look up "Exit Wounds" in The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/08/13/070813crbo_books_mishra

74. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris: The Unholy Trinity ... Thank God.

Comment #63570 by Tumara Baap on August 14, 2007 at 10:27 pm

Other estimates I've seen put the number of atheists/agnostics/skeptics in the U.S. as high as 20%. From another angle, a recent poll that posed "I have never doubted the existence of God" had 40% of responders disagreeing. Obviously a lot more sit on the fence than what's generally anticipated, and this may have much to do with the amazing success of the unholy trinity.

In any case, it is possible that none of the presidential candidates are atheists at heart. Atheists are not evenly distributed amongst the general population. They are highly concentrated amongst the well educated, and more so with degrees in scientific fields. A lot of U.S. politicians may be well read in areas of law, economics, the constitution and history, but aren't scientifically savvy. (critical thinking skills, scientific literacy, and atheism are all correlated, in my opinion)

75. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #63327 by Tumara Baap on August 14, 2007 at 12:09 am

I have limited exposure to the bible, so I'll just take the article and comments at their word. In that vein, it would really stir things up if vendors had the moxie to offer Dawkin's TGD (or Harris' EOF) together with the Old Testament at an attractive bundle price. The brazen statement of confidence in doing so should be exquisitely peturbing to the likes of Pat Robertson. :-) Any ensuing outcry wouldn't hurt sales numbers either.

76. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #62711 by Tumara Baap on August 11, 2007 at 12:22 am

I don't understand why Avi expressed surprise over Ayaan's rags to riches claim. Any economist can tell you America does have the highest degree of social mobility. It's been measured. Canada ranks second on the list.

Ayaan's unctuous stance towards the U.S. is annoying. (she once claimed on Bill Maher that hardly any American is ignorant of the term Habeas Corpus) We may not be as depraved as most Muslim countries in being steeped in a religious cesspool, but sometimes I wonder how our enthusiasm for secularism compares with that of Turkey, a devoutly muslim nation. And when it comes to questions of evolution, gay rights, allowing cruelty if it is a means to a supposedly just end, the role of religion in state affairs, respect for scientific integrity, etc, Republicans would have more in common with the Taliban than any political constituency in a modern Western nation, turban wear notwithstanding. Polling of conservative values in various countries attests to America being the odd one out in the West. Moreover, America ranks poorly in any national Happiness or "Best places to live" index by the Economist Intelligence Unit or any other credible forecasting source. Ayaan does concede we have faults. But the deluded "America is #1" mantra belongs to semi-literate O'Reilly fans. That the AEI has done a number on her is obvious!

77. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62484 by Tumara Baap on August 10, 2007 at 12:45 am

Just what the flea intended: a cheap, disgusting insult... the sort of stuff that would score points with a daft, intoxicated saloon loud mouth. And if this is what they can come up with to counter non-believers, it's only reason for atheists to rejoice. Frankly, I cringe at the thought of being in the Believer camp.

Even the cover could not withstand 5 seconds of superficial scrutiny.

The number of atheists who have commited grave crimes in the name of atheism: zero.

The number of atheists who have comitted grave crimes for whatever reason, but not in atheism's furtherance per se: two

Contrast those numbers with:

The number of believers who have commited grave crimes in the name of their religion: too numerous to count

The number of believers who have commited grave crimes, though not in the name of their religion per se: just about every screwed up asshole that has ever lived.

Whether matching up theists and non theists with humanity's pond scum on the one hand, or the most distinguished of thinkers on the other hand, it's a game any believer would be well advised to keep a good distance from.

78. Interview with Michael Behe

Comment #61550 by Tumara Baap on August 5, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Behe may have zero credibility amongst posters here but I'm sure he manages to convince many others out there. Frankly, I thought Behe spoke with conviction and confidence. How he can still manage to do this unfazed despite having been humiliated by Judge Jones and having all of his books and works torn to shreds is a little jarring. But then come to think of it Behe's modus operandi was intellectual deceit at the outstart, and cherry picked to fight his war in the court of public opinion. He probably calculates correctly that a majority of people have never been exposed to the ruthless and disparaging critique of everything he stands for. It's therefore business as usual to try and weave an illusion of controversy about evolution even after being shot down utterly in the science arena. Such sickening duplicity.
Yorker, Colbert is a parody of a smug, stupid, right wing nut case (of which we have one too many in this country). Ali G may not be a good comparison, as Colbert's content is highly incisive, brilliantly infused with sarcasm, and sans the toilet humor. That you find him "pretentious" and "irritating" is actually a tribute to his class act. For Brits curious about this TV phenomenon, check out this Economist report:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8929430

79. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60815 by Tumara Baap on August 2, 2007 at 11:58 pm

This isn't the first pot-shot I've seen hurled at Dawkins' writing, and frankly it's a little irritating. The only Dawkins book many of you have read is probably The God Delusion. TGD, in contrast to Dawkins earlier books like the superb Ancestor's Tale, is dumbed down for mass consumption ... imbued as it is with repetition and emphasis for the sake of clarity and glossed in a more layman language than what Dawkins' mind naturally revels in. A second point is that the British style is more embroidered with nuance and reflection at the expense of tight and punchy delivery. Some of us Americans are not used to this. (At least we don't have to put up with the tortuous ruminations of Russian analysis, or the comically coerced sophistication of the French, or the pithy hyberbole of Indians and Arabs!). Those who've read Dawkins' works more extensively no doubt consider him a writer par excellent.

80. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60428 by Tumara Baap on August 1, 2007 at 11:00 pm

Koran down the toilet issue should not be judged in light of the failings of Islam or Muslims, however tempting that may be. Jews have been brutally persecuted in Europe, and it must've been easy enough for those involved in the Spanish Inquisition to cherry pick violent passages in the Torah or use miscreant Jews to somewhat justify their own crimes.
Islam has a rich heritage in advancing math, science and literature. Islamic sects such as sufism are relatively peaceful. Other sects such as the Ismailis under Aga Khan are very modern and progressive. Islam also has extremist sects such as Wahabis and has scripture that is plainly barbaric. My point is that other religions (all of them wrong) are not too different; they have their extremists on one hand and also followers who are otherwise decent folk with admirable traditions but live in a deluded Godly world . Admittedly the muslim mind set may be more deeply steeped in medieval times. But our own standards of hate crime against any religious group, muslim or otherwise, should not be influenced by that religion's extremists or by drawing attention to their shameful scripture. I have nothing but utter contempt for the Koran, and would happily use its pages for wiping my ass crack. What that kid did was clearly not a hate crime. However, muslim transgession plays no role one way or the other in upholding that view. I'd be the first to defend any real assault or intimidation against a muslim individual, even if all of that individual's brethren are intolerant of others.

81. Come Out!

Comment #59618 by Tumara Baap on July 30, 2007 at 12:23 am

Summer Seale, I too like you have never encountered overt hostility about my views. On one plane, it's taken as read that America is overly religious. However, America is far from homogenous on any subject. There is the America that can aptly be referred to as a type of "Christian Taliban." And there's a thinking America that comprises the creme da la creme of the world's intelligentsia in any solid field of endeavour. Indeed attitudes towards atheists on university campuses are very tolerant. Campuses also constitute a bedrock of fans of religion ridiculing TV personalities like Bill Maher and Stephen Colbert. These are two extremes. Try to get onto the topic of atheism with your regular semi-literate Joe without revealing your own views and you'll quickly realize how acutely disdainful middle America is of non-believers. Time magazine's recent article about Democrats embracing faith has some telling charts and tables of where atheists stand with the broader public.

82. Come Out!

Comment #59591 by Tumara Baap on July 29, 2007 at 8:54 pm

I just ordered one. It's a great idea. If reason, skepticism, science and non-theism are to have any real political and social impact, it is imperative we organize ourselves into a bold and vocal force. But it seems this will prove to be a humoungous task given the sort of hostility we see to a mere T-Shirt. It is true those opposed to atheism can take a better shot at their target once their enemy is better defined. However, we render ourselves forever toothless, ineffective and worthless by not stepping up as an organized group. I wonder how much of a conviction one has of their supposed stand by being so vehement over such a rudimentary budding of atheist clout. Look, it's just a T-shirt. All it does is encourage camaraderie amongst the like-minded and hopefully raise public conciousness. A T-Shirt message could relate to just about any set of issues one is passionate about: the agenda of Sierra Club, or of Amnesty International, or a devotion to tits. It's a friggin T-Shirt!

83. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59291 by Tumara Baap on July 28, 2007 at 6:07 pm

There is absolutely nothing Sackur asked that hasn't already been satisfactorily addressed in the God Delusion. I can sympathize if Sackur started off with these questions, hackneyed or otherwise, because it's what his viewers likely had on their minds. But follow-up was the pits. And there is no excuse for his hectoring style. "Hard talk" from a respectable news establishment should have to do with incisive questions. Some of the ones we got were ridiculous. Extrapolating one's confidence in science as a sort of faith, for example, when clearly science by definition is a systematic method of observation and reason and the very antithesis of faith. This and several more inanities we should have been spared.
P.S. Northern Bright, your experiences with faith may fill a niche in a panoply of atheist books...look into it :-)

84. The Republican War on Science Rages On

Comment #57317 by Tumara Baap on July 18, 2007 at 10:31 pm

As usual for CNN, a rather superficial report. As documented by Chris Mooney and Seth Shulman, just about every government agency has been affected. NOAA, FDA, CDC, EPA, FWS, NIH. You name it! Mainstream media has been largely silent about it. Republicans have found it easier to undermine laws rather than overhaul them by appointing religious zealots and ideologues to mid-level positions where they remain "under the radar".
The pattern is jarring. It's beyond Brownie. It's beyond Cooney. It's beyond the pale.
P.S. Beg to differ with USA_Limey on dragging politics here. Whereas conservatism in Britain may run along the lines of advocating market-based solutions to global warming, in the U.S. it runs along the lines of undermining science and destroying institutions that employ reason. The truth is that Republicans are ideologically wedded to anti-intellectualism and a general poverty of thought. It's a plain fact.

85. A force for good?

Comment #55285 by Tumara Baap on July 10, 2007 at 1:10 pm

This manner of "my God is not what you describe" has been well anticipated. Dawkins himself dwelt on the Einstenian God. And Dawkins doesn't raise scruples in this instance. Secondly, it is not possible to account for every nuance of an excuse or state of suspended reason for a God.What is pertinent is the sort of God that has stymied politics, science, reason etc.
However, it must be acknowledged that vast numbers of educated people do hold views where God is a metaphor for an ideal, and believe in something sacred for its own sake, perhaps just for its meditative allure. It wouldn't be an altogether bad thing if all these people holding quasi-deist like views distinguished themselves from the silly masses and organized themselves accordingly. A deist resurgence in the U.S. could probably accomplish much politically in furthering practical areas of science, reason and secularism than atheists could possibly manage.
P.S. in the U.S., the easiest way for right wing nut jobs to scupper any liberal agenda is to use the word atheist in the same sentence as the concept being attacked :-(

86. Sex, Love, and SSRIs

Comment #54005 by Tumara Baap on July 4, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Psychiatry has come a long way since Freud. It's a well respected scientific field now. Freud's contribution is merely historical. Almost nothing he postulated is still regarded as true or useful.

SSRI's advantge over placebos are marginal. Behavioural counseling has just about as much or greater benefit than these drugs. By and large, they are very safe drugs, especially compared to Tricyclics and MAOI's. I do fear antidepressants have been over prescribed in the U.S. Even though suicide ideation has been correlated with SSRI use in teenagers, it just may be that in the course of recovery, teenagers are energized enough to act on impulses. As a group they are more risk prone to begin with. SSRI's aren't necessarily causative of suicide.

When SSRI's are suspected of sexual side effects, it's worth considering buproprion (wellbutrin). They are also weight gain neutral. However, they can worsen irritability at initiation.

87. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52411 by Tumara Baap on June 27, 2007 at 1:45 am

The impression one comes away with is that [Defenders of the Devil] appear afflicted with a terrible cognitive dissonance. They earnestly rehash debunked views and unconvincingly bandy about unflattering adjectives on [skeptic] intellect. Curiously, whereas they charge [skeptics] with confusion or not being even handed, nary a mention is made of what are, even with alleged flaws notwithstanding, meticulously researched, beautifully lucid, and rigorously argued viewpoints.

A refrain from The Times to The New Yorker has been that [skeptics] fail to mention any good that ever flowed from [witchcraft]. It is an odd point to take given the burden of proof expected by any reasonable person. Given how entwined [witchcraft] has been with culture and the passage of history, according goodness to [witchcraft] is as forceful as linking goodness to language: not undeniable but risibly weak. For a purportedly frighteningly powerful force that pretends to aspire to at least some good, it should have consistently ranked at the apex of benevolence. Yet [witchcraft's] track record has been wantonly shameful. What should be of interest to us is whether [witchcraft] affords an exclusive province to serving a thinking society with both honesty and sublime guidance, beyond what it plausibly may have in asserting marginal social order over a medieval people.

Another complaint often put forth is that avid disillusionment, even through studied deduction, naturally disinterests one from devotion to a field viewed as vacuous propaganda. Thus the thinking goes, this is an automatic disqualification from rendering judgment in the mystical ways of [magic]. Interesting, really! By that token taking any superstition to task should be wrong because one eschewed committing to the insidious mind-f**k by which it takes hold.

If only tawdry entertainment would stop there. Parsing through the [Defenders of the Devil's] pained verbiage reveals quite a remarkable poverty of thought. Yes, there is much anguish, but not an iota of decent refutation. The easily assailable drivel emanates from visceral discomfort, not reason. Indeed, a central point made by several [Defenders of the Devil] boils down to that [Satan] is by nature beyond our full contemplation, and human reason thence is an inadequate yardstick for comprehending [Satan or Witchcraft]. Surely, if the threshold for [belief in magic] were that piddling, [Satan], if there were one, would slap the [Defenders of Devils] in the face. Twice.

88. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51202 by Tumara Baap on June 21, 2007 at 11:46 pm

I have spoken to seemingly sensible people who'd vote for Bush all over again because he is stands for a "moral compass". This notion of "absolute" morality is like a virus. Morality ought to be based on the merit of reason and natural justice. Morality tied to a mythical superbeing is as vulgar as it gets. It's bound to be abused by the privileged interpreter of God's intent, changes all the time with religious vogue (vegetarianism amongst modern hindus and concealing of arms and legs amongst muslims), is fickle and often wrongheaded in scope, and furthermore implies poor intelligence by opting for revelation in lieu of reason. In the U.S. for example, abstinence only AIDS measures have demonstrably contributed to more death and disease. I don't know why educated people continue to link God to morality. Morality is innate. Chimpanzees clearly display altruism, empathy and even culture. This is the wellspring of morality. In us it's entwined with history and narrative. Studies in stroke patients show we are hardwired for morality; it's an evolutionary consequence of our social species. Or is silly Peter now going to postulate a Chimpanzee God? Absolute morality my f****** foot!

89. Scopes Two

Comment #50585 by Tumara Baap on June 18, 2007 at 11:56 pm

This is disgusting. Someone needs to stand up for neanderthals. It is now known our ancient cousins were in fact very brainy. It is insulting to neanderthals to lump them together with contemporary dimwits such as DeLay and Huckabee.

90. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #49180 by Tumara Baap on June 10, 2007 at 11:17 pm

I wouldn't hold it against the Times for publishing the Op-Ed. There's a reason they call it an opinion and don't lump it with the rest of the news. Whereas op-eds are usually published for their worthy insight, it is no less important to glean the thinking behind persons of interest especially when that thinking is royally screwed up. In this case it was just that: "Can you believe this buffoon?" Follow up comments in the Time were mostly critical of Brownback.

91. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest, part 2

Comment #48534 by Tumara Baap on June 8, 2007 at 9:37 am

"And still about 50% of the voting electorate will vote for one of these clowns."

These clowns are a source of unbearable embarrassment to us, and no doubt fuels anti-american rant and mockery. The reality is we are in the midst of a bitter culture war. Other rich countries also have their morons but they no way share our plight. Seth Shulman's excellent critique of Republicans, "Undermining Science", highlights the extent to which stupidity has been institutionalized. It is one thing to have a president with faulty grammar. It is another to sabotage scientific findings and purge the judiciary, FDA, EPA, and just about every other agency and institution of people who can think clearly with foaming-at-the-mouth ideologues and religious fundamentalists. I'll go as far as to say these clowns are an anomaly in Western civilization. If someone were to poll the Republican base on general questions about non-abstinence measures for STD management, gay rights, evolution, belief in angels, God's role at the helm of law and nation, or whether cruelty should be allowed as a means to a just end, they would tally well with a sample of Taliban sympathizers. The Republicans may treat women better and may not wear turbans, but they are, deep down, the same animal. Whereas the taliban only blow up old Buddha statues, the Republicans are doing a stupendous job of blowing to bits the enlightenment. (er...what? missed it on Fox News? see Michael Specter's report in The New Yorker, March 13 2006 issue, or Chris Mooney's contribution to Harper's June 2007 issue).
A dichotomy of the warring parties is demonstrated by an interesting statistic. Amongst Harvard's faculty, for every dollar in donation that went to Bush, fifty went to Kerry. There is a serious cultural war underway; an exquisite one between America's intelligentsia that has shaped the most advanced civilization in history on the one hand, and the thrumming of the stupid on the other. It's the price of democracy that the latter have been in the ascendancy.

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

Comment #47884 by Tumara Baap on June 5, 2007 at 11:53 pm

In The Ancestor's Tale, Dawkins mentions a biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, a deeply religious man. Miller is very critical of Intelligent Design, and his outlook on faith closely echoes that of Sagan. The creationist method of undermining the study of natural phenomena and scientific standards through deceit and public gerrymandering violate the observations of God's very own laws (if there is one). To any truly religious person, this then should be sacrilege of the highest order. Miller's take on this is quite compelling and ought to be hammered relentlessly into evangelical skulls.

93. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #42001 by Tumara Baap on May 17, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Steve99 makes an excellent point on how culture/language/vocabulary shapes how we reason and perceive the world around us. In that vein religion's effect is especially poignant as it's steeped to the top of the cultural hierarchy well before one's thinking skills develop (if they ever do). Once you realize this it leads to an introspection on how handicapped we ourselves may be because of limitations of our cultural medium, and never know it because we don't know any different. A very fascinating read is an article in the April 16th issue of The New Yorker, The Interpreter: The puzzling language of an Amazon tribe. It discusses a challenge to Noam Chomsky's universal constant of recursive grammar (...an evolutionary adaptation that allowed us to juggle syntax and place one sentence within another to exponentially allow refinement in description, meaning and reason). So "unique" is this tribe's vocabulary and cultural outlook that fundamental reasoning skills and language structure taken for granted elsewhere falter sharply in this setting.
Tumara Baap

94. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest

Comment #38511 by Tumara Baap on May 8, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Most here are so apalled that three presidential contenders do not believe in evolution, it's beyond the pale. Keep in mind that most Americans, even those who think there is some truth to evolution, simply don't think it a very important matter. The very devout and the rationalists who fear the enlightenment is being upended are the exceptions. For most, either position is just one side of a coin of an ongoing controversy. But there's a controversy amongst experts about everything, right? The masses, even the educated, are largely unaware that what is afoot is mischief with very the integrity of science. How else do you explain Behe's "magnanimous" recognition of his "rival" Dawkins in Time's "The most influential people in the world."