51. The courage of their convictions

Comment #51052 by Scott McMeekin on June 21, 2007 at 9:49 am

...Wow.

These people are undoubtedly putting themselves and their families in clear and present danger by this wonderfully potent (and I have to say, utterly unexpected) act. I honestly didn't think I'd see something like this in my lifetime.

My only regret is that this will undoubtedly set off another round of rioting, flag-burning, disgusting hateful and ignorant speeches by Middle-eastern politicians, and probably a good number of senseless mob killings as well.

*sigh*

That aside, this is the first time in a good while I actually have reason to feel proud to be a part of the human race. I hope they receive all the support and endorsement they undoubtedly deserve.

Scott.

52. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50485 by Scott McMeekin on June 18, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Interesting. I just got my 10 year old's primary school report card. Religious education, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism. Uhm, where's the default position of Atheism? Nothing. Not a single lesson to explain "oh, and there's quite a lot of people who don't believe in an invisible sky daddy."

Something should be done about this, if for no other reason than to point out that religion is a choice, not a default. I'm going to go see the Head-mistress about this, and I'll happily post the response. Anyone else want to commit to doing the same?

Scott.

53. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48144 by Scott McMeekin on June 6, 2007 at 6:45 pm

I have to agree with those posts calling for the full vid. I don't like this playground bully style of showing one side and using it as a platform from which to point and laugh and declare one side the winner. It's a very American media style, and I for one don't like to see it here of all places.

"An oasis of clear thinking". Indeed. Let's keep it that way.

Scott.

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

Comment #44968 by Scott McMeekin on May 25, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Another of many great episodes of PnT. I really enjoyed it, and if the information in it is correct it opened my eyes about these figures. I'd like to read more about the evidence the program was based on. Time to consult the Holy Googleness!

Have a great weekend all! =D

Scott.

55. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #44697 by Scott McMeekin on May 25, 2007 at 7:33 am

Puh.

I can't believe I wasted 5 minutes of my life reading that.

56. Woman - Blame devil for infant in microwave

Comment #44679 by Scott McMeekin on May 25, 2007 at 7:10 am

You really couldn't make this stuff up could you?

I hope this poor woman receives the involuntary mental health assistance that she so clearly requires.

57. Liberty U student plotted to set off explosives, police say

Comment #43964 by Scott McMeekin on May 23, 2007 at 5:12 am

The irony is incredible. A faith-head plots to kill or maim people exercising their constitutional right to free speech on the basis that he doesn't agree with their point of view. So what you've got here is a Xian who is entirely happy to pre-meditatively plan to maim and or kill those who don't believe in his particular imaginary-friend. Neither respecting his own constitution, laws or fellow man.

#43894 "What remains to be seen is if this boy really did intend to blow someone up."

I'm sorry, but it seems pretty conclusive to me. A boot full of molatovs. Yet another example of a faith-head who supposedly follows Jesus' example, except of course when we're talking about non-believers, in which case they don't qualify as human beings and aren't (in his mind anyway) subject to the protection of the law. We've even got some mealy-mouthed defense - "slow burning" - oh well that's ok - he only intended to maim the atheists, not actually blow them up.

I'm stunned that anyone actually has the gall to try to defend this kind of conduct. The only good thing to come from this in my mind is the fact that his family recognised that what he planned to do was utterly wrong, and saved him from himself and his delusion. I'm glad noone was hurt - but I also wonder how many people would have been glad to see pictures of atheist men, women and possibly children in flames on Fox News.

Scott.

58. The root of all evil?

Comment #43712 by Scott McMeekin on May 22, 2007 at 10:45 am

Some arguments have been well-rehearsed over the past decade or so: that Dawkins confuses the material for the real; that he refuses to recognise the selflessness and other positive qualities that flow from religion; that he fails to explain the "first cause"; that he ignores the durability and universality of religion; that he muddles politics and religion.

I couldn't object more to these assertions - but I'll have a go.

The material for the real? Are we talking about subjective experiences again? Back to the old "seperate magisteria" idea again. Noone doubts the very real effect that religion produces in the world, but as always these guys consistently fail to mention the complete absence of any evidence to back up their claims - whereas Richard at least posits a reasonable explaination for subjective experiences in TGD. Forgive me for not citing the chapter, but the discussion about the minds ability to model the universe around us, and its well-documented and well-lamented ability to trick us in to sensing things that simply do not exist, seems appropriate.

Selflessness? I suppose we can concede that many many people who are religious are also good and generous people, but I think there's a pretty strong case for saying that the goodness and generosity doesn't necessarily flow from the religion. Indeed, the case could be made that a good number of religions encourage goodness and selflessness to their own followers, while the rest of us are deemed dirt on their shoes... And in any case, the example of parental and even wholly altruistic selflessness in any number of species, not least our own easily defeats the assertion that religion has the definitive claim to selflessness.

Fails to explain the first cause? Oh my. Excuse me, but exactly what religion is he referring to that explains the first cause? Not one of them. They all provide very interesting and indeed, entertaining stories about where the universe comes from, but none of them have produced any proof that is any more worthy of merit than that of the universe being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arklesiezure. We don't have to look far (a recent story on this site! how convenient!) for people who are genuinely furthering work to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the true nature of the universe, where it came from and what's going to happen in the future. What exactly does religion bring to the table in this respect other than baseless hearsay?

He ignores the durability and universality of religion? Uh, no he doesn't actually. It would appear to me that Richard simply doesn't subscribe to the view that these are positive traits of religion. Both can be explained by the numerous historical (and indeed, modern day examples are all too easily citable) instances where any word spoken against your local brand of religious doctrine was punishable by ostracization, persecution, torture and/or death. If the writer is really trying to argue that "religion MUST be a good thing, because so many of us have believed it for so long" then I'd counter with any number of baseless beliefs, later nullified through enquiry - see flat-earth theory as a prime example. Just because a belief is pervasive and persistent STILL DOESN'T MAKE IT GOOD OR TRUE.

Muddling politics and religion? I haven't read anything thus-far to suggest that Richard misunderstands or muddles these concepts - quite the opposite in fact (happy to be proven wrong - I'm not as well read as many on here). I'd say there are elements of both in each other, but I'd venture that fundamentally that both of them are systems for control of the populace, and in many countries they are one and the same in all but name. It's easily justifiable to mention both in the same breath - I find it less justifiable when I hear conservative pundits in the US say things like "liberal atheists". This simply tells me that american conservatives often have no idea what an atheist actually is, and so it is convenient to identify the enemy by shining the "democrat" or "liberal" or "commie" light on them. Might as well sew a badge on our jackets.

The fact that the religious can maintain the painted facade of truth and purpose simply by repeating over and over the same old tired and often simply inaccurate claims is testament to the fact that we are still an evolving species, and if we're brutally honest with each other here, we haven't really evolved as far as we think we have.

Sorry for the long post, but I feel better now. =D

Cheers,

Scott.

59. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #43428 by Scott McMeekin on May 21, 2007 at 11:18 am

#43041

You quote a man who obviously plays a little too much Command and Conquer. Rush the resources, set up supply lines, defend the flanks. Give me a break. And you can't *seriously* expect anyone outside of the US to believe that Iraq's vast oil resources played no part in the planning of the invasion, the deliberate exaggeration of the WMD's intelligence, and the eventual decision to ignore the vehement protests of the rest of the world. In the time it took to order the advance, to now, the US administration has gone from "They've got WMD's!!!", and "God told me to do it", to "We did what we thought was right, and now we have to make the best of it". Someone please remind me why the entire current US administration isn't in handcuffs at the Hague right now?

Anyway - back to topic.

#43043

How can you possibly justify describing the Iraqi people as a bunch of savages? Like you and I the vast majority of them simply wish to live without being bombed, grow food, have kids, go to school, go to work, live a long life and die in obscurity. Think about it. Three hundred and fifty THOUSAND civilian deaths. I spelled it out for you for emphasis. It's disgusting, and every time I see Bush or Blair laughing and joking on TV, I think about that number and I want to throw-up.

The kind of comments you've made here are at best, unhelpful, reactionary, un-informed and xenophobic. If you want to actually understand where the present Jihad mindset comes from, you could do worse than to do a bit of reading about US foreign policy over the last 50 years.

Scott.

60. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42308 by Scott McMeekin on May 18, 2007 at 3:57 am

What is remarkable is how much at least some religions have contributed to the civilisation and edification of men, which would hardly seem probable if they were not much more than elaborate exercises in self-deception and nonsense.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denial

8. Psychology. an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable.

Keep reaching for that rainbow!

Scott.

61. Hitchens on Falwell

Comment #41831 by Scott McMeekin on May 17, 2007 at 6:44 am

I quite like Hitchins' tactical oratory style in these interviews. He seems to switch tempo in his speech quite often, so as to leave the interviewer in the uncomfortable position of never quite being sure when he's finished speaking. If interrupted, Hitchins simply continues unabated as if the interviewer never spoke. It's a feat of concentration more than anything else.

It reminds me somewhat of the oratory tactics used in the House of Commons (and doubtless in similar institutions worldwide) when on being interrupted, the orator simply repeats the last few words over and over and over, calmly and patiently until the buffoons sit down and allow him to continue.

Scott.

62. 5000 Darwin letters go online

Comment #41553 by Scott McMeekin on May 16, 2007 at 9:43 am

There's something playfully endearing about the image above - is that really "Chas Darwin"? lol.

Looking forward to reading them as my new lunchtime pursuit.

Scott.