51. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160779 by 82abhilash on April 14, 2008 at 11:39 am

The only thing I find wrong with this picture is that the most of the girls have not yet attained majority. If they had I would have said their body, their choice and left it at that.

52. Scientists take drugs to boost brain power: study

Comment #159036 by 82abhilash on April 11, 2008 at 11:13 am

Their body, their life. All I care is if you want to call yourself a scientist, do good science. That is all.

53. Anti-evolution bill clears another hurdle

Comment #157307 by 82abhilash on April 8, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Why not just utterly and completely privatize schooling. Then the nut jobs will be forced to teach their nonsense in their own schools with their own money. I would like to see how many people will willingly send their kids there.

54. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #155959 by 82abhilash on April 6, 2008 at 12:29 pm

This article seems to be written purposefully to sound vague and beautiful, like a verse from the bible. Usually if someone understood something well, they will try to express what they understood properly. Perhaps Wired magazine felt what was really important was not whether the article makes sense (it makes some sense), but that it appeals to their readers.

55. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153020 by 82abhilash on March 31, 2008 at 10:14 pm

I was initially alarmed, but now, not that much, when had the UN the power to do anything? Their peace keeping missions are a joke, they have little or no mechanism to enforce their resolutions and they where not able to stop the war in Iraq. And anyway which muslim country felt compelled to treat their citizens better because of the UN Declaration on Human Rights? If a UN declaration could not stop them, it need not stop us either.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
- Thomas Jefferson

56. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149258 by 82abhilash on March 25, 2008 at 10:46 am

Steve Zara you seem to have no problem telling people what they should believe as long as you call it 'education'.

I am not sure how far we see eye to eye on this issue, but let me tell you where I stand and you can decide.

We cannot protect people from themselves. If an adult makes the conscious decision to keep himself ignorant, we cannot stop him from doing so. Of course if he tries to keep his children in ignorance then we can. But I want to stick just to adults for now.

As far as adults are concerned, the best we can do is provide people with ample opportunities to keep themselves well informed. We cannot force anyone to keep themselves well informed.

Consider the case of warnings on a cigarette packet. It gives the potential smoker an obvious opportunity to take the harmful consequences of smoking into consideration before smoking. It does not force them not to smoke, unless of course their own sense of prudence presents them with no other option.

57. The science of religion: Where angels no longer fear to tread

Comment #148893 by 82abhilash on March 24, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Dr. David Sloan Wilson seems to cling on to 'Group Selection' the same way Dr. Michael Behe seems to cling on to 'Irreducible Complexity' and they seem to conveniently ignore any explanations that do not fit with their discredited pet theories.

58. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146595 by 82abhilash on March 19, 2008 at 8:03 am

Christopher Hitchens always quotes Karl Marx on religion, it is very poetic, profound and compelling:

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which religion is.....Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man will wear the chain without fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower."

I am not a Marxian, but I find that statement to be profound. It forces one to ask all sorts of questions.

Do most people cling on to religion and its illusionary happiness because politicians (and all those in power) are not dealing with real issues that we are facing?

When we criticize religion are we really criticizing the shortcomings of our society to provide for the happiness of its members?

Are people clinging on to religion because they have given up on finding real happiness and settled for the illusionary happiness in religion?

If that is so and I feel that is so, it makes sense why people loath us. We are revealing to them the chains they are wearing. We are denying the the pleasure of deluding them selves in the for the sake of happiness.

As for me Happiness without truth is fools paradise. I won't lie to make people feel better.

59. Jesus saves

Comment #146545 by 82abhilash on March 19, 2008 at 7:24 am

4. Comment #146526 by Animavore on March 19, 2008 at 7:00 am

Maybe they should do a study on why atheists DONT believe. I know it seems obvious to you or me but I'm just calling for a balance.

That would be a very interesting academic exercise. And just like studying identical twins can help us learn about ordinary people, so too learning about unbelief could shed light on the nature of belief.

60. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146304 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Is is a poorly written article. Relies mostly on argument from authority, misguides our sense of intuition. Uses ill defined or vaguely defined terms, gives one no indication of the methodology used to arrive at the conclusion. Scant on detail. Mostly opinion going back and forth.

'linked to happy life' in quotes, wonder why they did that. Makes no sense of the fact that irreligion is fast growing in the developed world. (Perhaps people do not want to be happy any more?). Gives no indication of how the data was accumulated.

Transparency in process is essential to build ones reputation when dealing with a complex issue. This article has none of it.

Makes for a dubious article, perhaps planted by those with vested interests. If there was real truth in this, the theocrats would be trumpeting it around, instead we find vague statements just enough to consolidate your flock and disarm your opponents. I am mega suspicious.

But how did it make it to the BBC?

61. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146287 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 10:00 pm

neilcreek,

Perhaps the problem is religious people feel more obliged to declare publicly that they are happy while non-religious people being more reflective will not give simple answers to loaded questions like 'Are You Happy?'

Happiness is an abstract concept with no well understood definition. You do not need to be a psychologist to know that. I think religion commits you to its creed so tightly that the default knee jerk answer to that question is 'yes'. Especially if the previous question is 'Are you religious?'

Non-religious people will probably think for themselves, ask more questions and will give non-exaggerated answers that will make them appear less happier on such crudely done surveys.

Religious people cannot after all honestly express their lack of life satisfaction at any given moment without feeling a sense of betrayal to their faith. Can they say, it seemed like a good idea them, but I wonder now. It takes a brave person to come out that way.

62. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146278 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 9:38 pm

I am going out on a limb here, but I personally do not mind it if a private company discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion or gender. I would not mind as long as there is a free market in which there are other private companies that also compete that do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion or gender.

What makes me think there will be? Private firms rely on talented individuals and are mostly indifferent to things that has no bearing on the talent of the individual. Which these kinds of discrimination truly are. Those that do will find themselves fighting for a smaller piece of a large talent pie and will struggle to keep up.

I will have a big problem if the government does that. But not private companies, unless of course the government is actively or passively endorsing such an activity.

I would rather that such private companies be out competed in a free market and boycotted by responsible citizens and driven to bankruptcy. That would be my ideal.

63. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146236 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 7:54 pm

I am amazed and impressed with my atheist peers. I bet if this was a Christian forum, everyone would be crying foul in unison.

64. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #143240 by 82abhilash on March 13, 2008 at 5:48 pm

By continually telling people what to do in a world where freedom is being valued, almost universally, are they not digging themselves in a deeper hole than they in already in?

65. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143237 by 82abhilash on March 13, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Bishop O'Donoghue shame on you, using a flase dichotomy to restrict free speech. Fucktard is a word that I will use on you today.

66. Survey shows Non-Religious Outnumber Those of Every Single Faith (But One)

Comment #137633 by 82abhilash on March 3, 2008 at 9:22 am

Well Johnny O it takes guts to live a religion free life and even more guts to be open about it. Even in this forum, I am sure many people are more open because of the cloak of invisibility that is provided by cyber space. To what extent they are open in their regular life is anyone's guess.

67. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134359 by 82abhilash on February 27, 2008 at 4:17 pm

35. Comment #134354 by Steve Zara on February 27, 2008 at 4:09 pm

I believe the degree to which religion motivates behaviour is overestimated. What religion does is enable and support behaviour. People have natural inclinations and they pick the bits of their religion that support those.

The reality is a bit more complicated. In a free country what you say is true. But in a Theo centric state, it is not that simple.

And besides, the people who want to put creationism in class rooms, their beliefs are motivated by religion, although I am reasonably sure that their leaders are charlatans. I would think nurture has a domiant role here, you know to shape those natural inclinations.

68. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134347 by 82abhilash on February 27, 2008 at 4:06 pm

To a simple observer, it may appear that Richard Dawkins was contradicting himself when he first said that religion is harmful and then later said that religious people are capable of doing good things, sometimes only because of their religion. If that is the case religion cannot be inherently harmful.

Unless of course that harm does not always come from the behaviors that religion motivate, but rather from their tendencies (of all religions) to distort truth and discourage intellectually honest conversation. Perhaps someone will catch Dawkins on that and he will clarify.

69. Church is paying a high price for its celibacy rule

Comment #132872 by 82abhilash on February 25, 2008 at 10:52 am

If the influence of the Catholic church is waning, maybe there is a chance for enduring peace in Ireland. Who knows maybe a secular Northern Ireland and a Secular Republic of Ireland will have too much in common that they might as well integrate.

70. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132239 by 82abhilash on February 24, 2008 at 1:58 pm

1. Comment #132217 by Ian Bamlett on February 24, 2008 at 1:29 pm

I see science and religion as being two completely different things. I don't see science as relevant to the question of whether or not there's a God.

Shame on Turok for buying into the terrible idea of non-overlapping magisteria. As RD points out time and time again, a universe in which there is a god as opposed to one in which there is not is very much a scientific question. All evidence points to the latter, Turok knows that, and should have the guts to say so.

Good article otherwise though!

Ian, for the longest time science never made claims on religion, it was in fact religion trespassed on science. That was the root of the problem and still is today. The theocrats trying to destroy science by introducing creation and so on.

Science as a field makes no comment on the supernatural.So Turok is right when he says, "I don't see science as relevant to the question of whether or not there's a God." Although the other statement, "I see science and religion as being two completely different things." I kind of disagree. Because the truth value of the claims made by the religious can be evaluated scientifically.

Even RD has never claimed there is no God, just that it is very less likely there is one. Richard Feynman once said something that very well sums it up for me, although he was talking about UFOs, "I think it is more likely from my knowledge of the universe that this phenomenon is the result of known irrational behavior of terrestrial intelligence rather than unknown rational behavior of extra-terrestrial (read here super-natural) intelligence.

71. Moral thinking

Comment #131360 by 82abhilash on February 22, 2008 at 10:32 am

I think David Sloan Wilson is bringing back in the group selection ideology through the back door. Besides terms like Liberal and Conservative can have different meanings depending on what part of the world you live in, so their meanings are not anchored in reality, but interpretation of subjective human experience. And that can compromise the integrity of the experiment.

Let me try to make sense of it in terms of Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS) proposed by John Maynard Smith. We find other animal species in groups because it is an ESS and helps them survive, more precisely but help their genes to survive. It is gene survival that it is all about.

Humans may have lived in groups precisely for the same reason. It is ESS. But humans have the capacity to understand why living in groups contribute to their fitness, how to enhance the benefits that comes from living in groups and so on. We are capable of representing a level of sophistication that other grouping animals cannot.

And in this environment of sophisticated brains, memes (whatever they are) start to spread and influence behavior. Of course one meme (or meme pool) that spreads is the virtue of living in groups (including the idea of group selection). This meme has the capacity to spread because we are sort of hard wired for living in groups anyway. and we are hardwired because to our ancestors it has a survival mechanism that was ESS. So those with such genes passed them on.

So there I have explained, genes, memes and the relationship between them and even why David Sloan Wilson finds the idea of Group selection appealing, in terms of genes and memes. Also note that the capacity of a meme to spread or even be appealing has no bearing on the how much the information in the meme is anchored in reality. That can explain religion too.

Makes the notion very useful and compelling. I wish there was some way to accumulate evidence for it though.

72. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131350 by 82abhilash on February 22, 2008 at 9:53 am

Asma Jahangir has been a highly respected woman's rights activist in Pakistan for a long time now and has been instrumental in making abuse against women, part of a public debate in Pakistani society. But even she would never admit that the root of abuse against women in Islam is the doctrines of Islam itself. And that is why we hear ambiguous statements like this one from her.

She argues that religion should not have a lower ranking when competing rights are being balanced.

However, she does acknowledge concern about "informal matrimonial courts operating within the Muslim community based on sharia law." Ms Jahangir, a mother of three children, says the argument by some religious leaders that their traditions should override the rights of women is "unacceptable".

Hence her inability to appreciate the fact that freedom of religion must never infringe on the fundamental right of a citizen to be free. Freedom of religion does not include the freedom to force your religion on others, through violence at that.

Sam Harris is right the people who suffer most under Islam are Muslims themselves.

73. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131072 by 82abhilash on February 21, 2008 at 9:48 pm

He is missing the point. If it was not for Islam, things would not have been so messed up as it is now, the root of the problem lies in Islamic doctrine and the manner in American policy makers underestimated its toxicity .

Unless the problem of Islam is properly addressed, there will be no means left to legitimately address real issues and find lasting solutions to problems in the Middle East. There is nothing like religion to cloud the facts and distort the issue. And there are no one better than apologists to make excuses for them.

So I agree with all the facts he presented and yet claim that the general conclusion he made from it is false. If anyone asks me I can give more details, but I am too tired and too busy for now.

74. Whale Evolution

Comment #131060 by 82abhilash on February 21, 2008 at 8:50 pm

4. Comment #130933 by ADePSP on February 21, 2008 at 2:05 pm
ooo, i'm confused... I thought the latest information on Whale evolution suggested they'd evolved from Hippo like mammals not wolf like mammals (the old idea)... Dawkins "Ancestor's Tale" says as much...

This clip clearly suggests a cyanine ancestor... Could someone clear this up as this is confusing and ammunition to the parties of God...

ADePSP this is the same misunderstanding that creationists fall into when they say man evolved from monkeys. Man did not evolve from monkeys, man and monkeys had a common ape like ancestor.

Likewise whales did not evolve from Hippos. What RD claimed as that whales and hippos are closely related. Which means whales and hippos had a common ancestor in the distant past, maybe that ancestor was canine like as suggested here.

75. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129738 by 82abhilash on February 19, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Bonzai you have many questions and many challenges based on Mphil's limited explanation of Heterophenomenology.

What Mphil (originally Dennett) claimed is not that first person accounts are patently false, just that they are less reliable than third person account. At this point I would very strongly reccomend you read Dennet's papers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/JCSarticle.pdf
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/hreconsidered.pdf

A rational theory of what is beneath our irrational or "arational" impulses may be interesting, but it doesn't address the question of whether science (or the arts and indeed civilization itself) is possible without these impulses, It addresses entirely different questions at other levels.

Is science possible without rational impulses? Well the laws of physics and chemistry would exist whether there are creatures with the capacity to understand them or not. But that question has a simple answer. The discipline of science and its methods of enquiry cannot exist unless there are rational creatures involved in that discipline. So the answer is simply no.

76. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129604 by 82abhilash on February 19, 2008 at 11:12 am

66. Comment #129585 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 10:50 am

82abhilash.

You offer rational explanations to why people do things which to their minds cannot be captured in logic, this is not the same as arguing people are motivated by rationality. What you give is a third person account of an observer, not what people actually experience when they go about living their lives, doing science etc. I am interested in what actually motivates people to do what they do.

Indeed what I have given is a third person account of an observer. Daniel Dennett has even coined a fancy word for it heterophenomenology. He has argued (rather effectively in my opinion) that a third person account is the best way to understand what motivates people - advantage is that it is the least error prone, disadvantage is that it is more time consuming. Check out the links below for more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/JCSarticle.pdf
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/hreconsidered.pdf

But be warned. The first time I read it I felt that my brain was being deep fried cooled and then deep fried all over again, the pain was excruciating, but the knowledge was worth it.

I think a civilization of DATAs is impossible because all of arts and sciences would be pointless, I don't disagree that we can manage our primitive urge and should. The point is that there is no "cure" and that a "cure" is not desirable if that means eliminating all our propensities that would lead to religion,-- broadly the "irrational" urges.That is what the word "cure" is commonly understood, you don't "cure" diabetes by putting someone on a daily regime of insulin treatment. That is management.

DATA does not manage his primitive irrational urges, he has none. He is "cured".

Incidentally, "curing" irrationality by turning people into drones also smell of the brave new world and social engineering gone mad, But I won't get into that.

We may be very similar to the civilization of DATAS but not exactly. All those emotions that make life worth living happiness, joy, suffering, love and kindness still exist and can continue to exist and as long as there are those that see value in them, I am sure we will not engineer them out. What I foresee, what I hope rather is that our sense of rational will act as a sort of check and balance and prevent those emotions from running amok. Consequently we will be able to maintain a sense of calmness that helps us deal effectively with real problems. In other words we will be like DATA, but only superficially.

So rather than trying to 'cure' ourselves, instead we can focus on healthy living which will prevent us from getting sick in the first place.

77. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129579 by 82abhilash on February 19, 2008 at 10:36 am

47. Comment #129544 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 9:33 am

Science is a rational enterprise in terms of its methodology, but rationality alone doesn't explain why people do science.

Daniel Dennett has taken a stab at this issue. Here is my understanding of what he says. We are creatures of the natural world and are subject to selection pressure. For selection pressure to be effective it must act upon something that we can do (without any reason). Rational enterprise was something that some humans where capable of engaging in and in some societies they had a distinctive advantage. Eventually their effectiveness contributed to creating societies where their influences where dominant. There is no need to stipulate a rational beginning for beings that are rational. Just like there is no need to stipulate an intelligent being for beings that are intelligent. But once they arrive on the scene they can assign various levels of rationality to the actions of their fellow creatures.

Richard talks of awe and beauty and describes science in a language which is almost poetic. These are all subjective and appeal to the emotion. Passion and aesthetics cannot be reduced to rationality and logic, neither are the creativity and the compulsive obsessiveness that are necessary for great science.

This is a very popular argument. While I agree that a sense for the aesthetics do appeal to emotion, they are not necessarily subjective. There are several aspects of aesthetics that have universal appeal that transcend cultural and sometimes even religious boundaries. Dr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran as proposed certain interesting explanations as to why this maybe the case. He has even come up with a list of aesthetic universals. Who is he? He is currently the Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition, Professor in the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego.

You may want to check out his lecture on Neurology and the Passion for Art

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7067409350096475500

I think civilization would be impossible if we are "cured" of our "irrationality" and all become like DATA in Star-Trek. He is just a glorified information processor.

There is a possibility that we might become like DATA, but why would that make civilization impossible? If we understand our primitive urges we can manage them better. I would say it would make civilization more possible not less. And one could argue that it can make life more meaningful not less.

Here are Dr. Ramachandran's own words:

..if you reduce everything to neurons, like falling in love, or ambition, or pride, or joy, or the self - my God does that mean there's no love? And that's a fallacy because you know explaining something doesn't mean you explain it away. So for example; supposing two people are making love and a crazy scientist comes along and says "look, this is just neurons in the septum and neurons in the hypothalamic nuclei, these are all the neurons that are firing away, that's all there is to it". And then the lover turns to his girlfriend and says "you mean that's it, it's just chemicals, it's neurons firing away, you're not really in love?" She could then argue "no, on the contrary this proves it's all real, that I'm not faking it". "Look, look at the pattern of activity, it shows it's real."

78. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129560 by 82abhilash on February 19, 2008 at 10:01 am

If done correctly this could be an important first step in understanding the natural phenomenon of religion. Whether God exists or not can be treated as separate issue pending further evidence (not sure they will). But given that the Templeton Foundation is sponsoring that study, my expectations are not very high.

79. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129555 by 82abhilash on February 19, 2008 at 9:53 am

92. Comment #129274 by Mitchell Gilks on February 19, 2008 at 12:18 am

If you honestly want to work on not being condescending and patronizing then work on not prescribing what people should do, and instead make a case, and don't assume they can't think for themselves, or need to be reminded not to be close minded and unyielding.

The best thing to do is to not address the person at all, but instead only worry about the case you are making, and responding to the things they say. Merely a suggestion.

That is an excellent suggestion and most likely to work in this crowd I am sure. I will remember that. But I would like to state for the record that, my experience has taught me not all people have the good sense to objectively judge the merit of a case.

80. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129242 by 82abhilash on February 18, 2008 at 10:31 pm

As a man of faith, Bishop Hanson still has a key question for those who don't believe in God.

"Where do you place your trust in times of need? Where do you place your hope in the time of a crisis of confidence?" Hanson said.

Very good question. I place my hope in the common sense of man, believe it or not. Like Abba Eban said, "When everything fails man turns to reason.'

And my source of morality. My competence, my morality is directly proportional to my sense of competence. And my commitment to remain competent.

81. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129236 by 82abhilash on February 18, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Mitchell Gilks, if my tone appears patronizing, I can work on it. If my comment seems like an instruction set on what to do, go ahead and ignore the instructions, just focus on the underlying reasons for the instructions. If you feel they are of merit follow them, otherwise don't. Like you said your self, You can figure it out yourself. But do not let it prevent you from being objective about the message I am trying to convey.

People nowadays spend more time on the internet than the TV. That is something Susan Jacoby did not consider, but the spirit of her argument still remains intact, we need to take more initiative about things that matter for us. In fact it is the nature of the internet helps us exchange more ideas openly than had ever been possible, including of course seeing the interview with Susan Jacoby.

Otherwise what we see and think about will be decided by a media tycoon sitting in a corporate office watching the bottom line. But they are planning to choke the internet as well just in case you did not already know. Check the link below for more info:

http://savetheinternet.com/=faq

82. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129175 by 82abhilash on February 18, 2008 at 8:19 pm

83. Comment #129172 by Mitchell Gilks on February 18, 2008 at 7:44 pm
82abhilash, I am well aware of emotive language.

If you are aware of the emotive power of language surely you must appreciate the need to use it skillfully when important issues are at stake. Otherwise people's emotions will get misplaced and they won't be able to effectively contribute to the functioning of their society. That is what I gathered was the point that Susan Jacoby was trying to make.

Now you use some on me. It is my "job" to know? How so? My job is to animate 3D characters. Which doesn't involve knowing any of that. You may think that it is important, or prudent that I know, but it is hardly my job.

That is precisely what I think it is about - Prudence. That is your greatest asset. And unlike other assets, it cannot be stolen, taxed or in any way separated from you, except by maybe the dulling of sense that comes with old age.

You can bitch all you want against people who are not doing their job. You can give them a real hard time, which I am sure they deserve, if indeed they are being sloppy.

But still hold on to prudence and your sense of reason. Hold on to them for dear life. For at the end of the day what counts is that your concerns got effectively addressed, not who addressed them. And for that you must take the initiative. Even while using the services of 'experts' - self-proclaimed or otherwise, remember that they are in it because they think it is in their interest to do so, just like you are in it because you think it is in your interest to do so. There is the quid pro quo. The more you understand why they say what they say and why they do what they do, the better you will be to leverage their interests for your benefit. Again the initiative rests on you.

83. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129169 by 82abhilash on February 18, 2008 at 7:13 pm

3. Comment #128980 by Mitchell Gilks on February 18, 2008 at 12:03 pm

I found many of her objections, particularly about language use to be pedantic, and unimportant.

It is harder to appreciate the importance that the subtleties of language play on the mind of the general public, unless you are a linguist. Think of the confusion that can be caused in the mind of a casual viewer of the daily news if the words 'Jewish neighborhood' is used instead of 'Jewish settlement' by the news anchor in a news story about a conflict in , say the West Bank. One implies that the civilians are living in occupied territory, the other makes no such claim and yet is not really dishonest. Yet without that information different emotions are invoked and that can distort your world view.

Now consider an instructor in a medical school explaining the functioning of the excretory system using the word sh**t instead of excrement. Once again the meaning is not very different but invokes different emotions and consequently impacts your opinion of the instructor.

Which brings us to Susan Jacoby's example. Using 'folks' instead of 'citizens'. One words invokes a sense of informality that lacks urgency almost unimportance. The other invokes a sense of pride and responsibility. It impacts the world view and consequently have a bearing on the outcomes you hope to attain from the general public.

I found her criticisms of the ignorance of the general public, and people of america to be superficial, and largely ignorant in themselves.

Not really. You just proved to me that you where ignorant of the power words. This is not a criticism. Most people are ignorant about something or the other. It only becomes irresponsible when people choose to willfully remain ignorant about matter of importance.

Also just cookie cutter criticisms are are constantly forwarded at the average person by acedemics. Without ever realising that it takes a lot of time to learn what you know, it is their job to know what they know. The average person that works, and has a family has very little free time, and simply doesn't have the time to educate themselves on every issue. I find nothing wrong with the general public trusting the opinions and decisions of people whose jobs it is to know. I don't know the details of many sciences, and many many fields that I trust the word of the expects, because they have either proven to be reliable, or the majority of relevent experts in the field agree with them. I find it unfair to criticism the general public for not knowing as much about important issues as those whose jobs it is to know.

It maybe their job to know what they know, but it is our job to find out about what they know, especially with those issues that can directly impact your life. The criticisms maybe cookie cutter but they are still valid. And I can tell you why it is so.

Let us take your very valid claim:

The average person that works, and has a family has very little free time, and simply doesn't have the time to educate themselves on every issue.

This simple statement covers two very important aspects of your life that you feel responsible for - your work and your family. Now the word of the experts, the people who are supposed to know are used by you to facilitate your well being in both these spheres. But whose job is to verify what the expert's are telling you - the not-for-profit watch dogs? the government? Maybe. But all that are merely checks and balances used to help keep the experts under each other's scrutiny. The final arbitrator of their claim is you, the positive or negative impact that comes from following the expert opinion falls on you. So for you own sake, you owe it to yourself to be responsible. You should be able to trust yourself. You are the best defense you have against misinformation.

Now about not having time because of work and family..if getting proper information will help you be effective in both these areas then the time to educate yourself is part of your work and family time, not separate from it. So maybe this means you are now spending more time than before for your work and family and have less leisure time. Is that worth it? You decide.

84. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128158 by 82abhilash on February 16, 2008 at 11:27 am

That was beautifully written. I do not fully agree with everything, but I agree with most of it, and it the important thing is, it was beautifully written, perfect prelude to the joyous occasion that is on its way.

Plus I am highly optimistic for them. RichardDawkins.net has a way of making its regulars more level headed and wholesome the longer they frequent it.

An atheist wedding!! This is going to be great. Maybe Richard Dawkins should marry them. Maybe they can post pictures on flickr. I could go on and on. I am too excited.

85. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128015 by 82abhilash on February 15, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Americans are more smarter than the mainstream media gives them credit for. This movie will do well in its niche markets - the fundies, the crazies and their kids who they force to go with them. But I doubt it will make any real impact in the main stream. Few people will care enough to watch and those that do will not care enough to do anything about it.

On the other hand if there are too many bad reviews it might actually make people think there is something worth watching, some may then buy into Ben's crazy conspiracy theories.

"Why so many bad reviews?" "It is as if they did not want us to watch it." Well we now know why." And so on.

86. Virus immunity 'created in lab'

Comment #128004 by 82abhilash on February 15, 2008 at 9:20 pm

Me wonder. If repressors where a bad thing, it would have been selected out by natural selection would it not? Maybe they are a good thing because most viruses are useful? Maybe we tend to notice only the few that make most of us sick.

87. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127495 by 82abhilash on February 15, 2008 at 10:46 am

Thomas Jefferson once said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

I am hoping things would be even better. Maybe the tree of liberty can be refreshed with the blood of traitors who are killing each other - fundamentalist Christians against fundamentalist Muslims.

88. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127071 by 82abhilash on February 14, 2008 at 10:23 pm

kintaro_crab

Totally agree. That is the face of moderate religion. In perfect continuum with extremism. They would do anything to keep us addressing the real issue. It is either globalization, war, famine, hunger, disease, poor infrastructure, improper healthcare something or the other. Would they even consider the possibility that where religion is prevalent, it could be actually aggravating real problems? Of course not. Moderate faith is part of the problem. They create the climate that makes fundamentalism possible. Far be it for them to admit they are the problem, why not blame the weather instead? or Richard Dawkins even.

89. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127065 by 82abhilash on February 14, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Loopey.... loopey?! .... LOOPEY?!! I think Richard Dawkins brought out the Loopiness in Madeline Bunting. Trying to dodge a perfectly reasonable question on virgin birth. Purposely clouding the issue by bringing in emotions and feelings, as if feeling good is the most important thing in the world. I mean I agree it is one of the most important things in the world, but not the most important thing in the world.

I got a slogan for RD, when appealing to moderates. Richard Dawkins - "Bringing out the loopiness from within you."

90. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127062 by 82abhilash on February 14, 2008 at 9:37 pm

Sam Harris said these words - "The kind of apologetics you evoke stands on a continuum with religious extremism..this argument that you can't take away people's hope, you can stand at the Neuremberg rally and admonish me, Sam you can't take away people's hope." He was arguing with Mel Konner.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WVQZeWoWVng

So relevant here.

91. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #124056 by 82abhilash on February 8, 2008 at 8:56 am

I am wondering what point RD is trying to make by putting this article on his site.

Not all of us can make an objective judgment for or against this invention. The article has a neutral tone to it. I can comfortably say most people here are skeptical.

Perhaps he wants to encourage critical thinking amongst his core audience.

92. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #124001 by 82abhilash on February 8, 2008 at 6:29 am

I do not know. Is this science or pseudo-science? There are some typical ingredients to make one skeptical, a lone inventor, a perpetual-motion machine.

Anyway I found some videos explaining his concepts. Make up your own minds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogLeKTlLy5E

93. Help Build The Reason Project Archive!

Comment #123857 by 82abhilash on February 7, 2008 at 6:46 pm

sarah95,

I agree with you. Some pointless quarreling is going on here and that disappoints me too. Emotional management is the key word here.

94. Scientists Say Mummies' Lice Show Pre-Columbian Origins

Comment #123580 by 82abhilash on February 7, 2008 at 11:17 am

There is some sense of historic injustice if this is true. The Europeans brought several diseases (including smallpox and measles) to the old world, but the natives returned only typhus?

EDIT: Bad joke?

95. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123574 by 82abhilash on February 7, 2008 at 11:09 am

Dr Rowan Williams is being idiotic. This move will only create two parallel societies which are highly polarized.

And the problem with Sharia law is that once it is introduced, no Muslim can refuse to follow it, even if it is only optional. They risk being labeled apostates and even killed.

Besides this will open the door to all sorts of claims from people of all sorts of religious backgrounds - Hindus, Sikhs, Catholics, etc.,

Given that this man is the Archbishop of Canterbury, we now have one more reason now to dismantle the antiquated theocratic institutions of Great Britain.

96. Help Build The Reason Project Archive!

Comment #123552 by 82abhilash on February 7, 2008 at 10:42 am

Looks like righton is some sort of Sam Harris fanatic.

97. Help Build The Reason Project Archive!

Comment #123543 by 82abhilash on February 7, 2008 at 10:26 am

Seems like there are too many sites doing similar works already. What unique contributions does this site bring to for the cause of reason?

EDIT: Perhaps that is OK. If the cyberspace is proliferated with reason, easily accessible, it will be more difficult for theocrats to enforce ignorance.

98. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123126 by 82abhilash on February 6, 2008 at 1:30 pm

I found the same video with comments enabled

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWn_dNtjVU4

99. Apologetic billboard replaces atheistic sign

Comment #122985 by 82abhilash on February 6, 2008 at 10:21 am

A reputation for deception damages our cause. It portrays us as who we hate. Why not instead target specific issues where the religious leaders are on the wrong side of public opinion? That would weaken their credibility and shake the confidence that people have in them, while at the same time corroding institutions that promotes dogma.

Using deceptive means to put up bill-boards seems like busy work, that in the long run is damaging.

100. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #121905 by 82abhilash on February 4, 2008 at 10:17 am

I found this from Darwin's Descent of man


As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.

I can no longer consider the possibility that Darwin was racist in good faith.