51. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #107805 by hopeful on January 5, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I liked this article - it raised some interested perspectives I hadn't thought about much.

If a man could travel back in the past differing amounts of time and mate with a woman in each time period, we would presumably find that the further back the man travelled the reproduction would be increasingly less successful and off-spring would become increasingly less viable.

Presumably the genetic differences would start to have a small but noticeable effect at some point in the past and reproductive success would continue to fall slowly until eventually reaching zero.

It would be very interesting to know how soon the genetic differences start to noticeably affect offspring viability, how quickly the rate falls and when it would eventually reach zero.

I am tempted to think that this would happen sooner than we might imagine. For example, would there be noticeable effects with respect to a woman from the year 1000AD, 0AD, 5000BC, 10000, 20000BC? etc. Or does the effect only start to become noticeable much further back in time?

52. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #104771 by hopeful on December 29, 2007 at 12:01 pm

My sister gave me the Cosmos book as a gift in 1985 and I was leafing through it the other day and then found myself re-reading large sections. It seems no less relevant today - possible more so.

"...those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries".

53. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #103613 by hopeful on December 26, 2007 at 10:00 am

"One definite way to prove that we are half a chromosome away from being chimpanzees is to look at our religious practices."

Nice quote from Christopher - although a little insulting to chimpanzees since they actually haven't come up with anything as stupid as religion.

54. Man and God

Comment #103389 by hopeful on December 25, 2007 at 11:52 am

Believers, Dawkins asserts, are "malevolent... vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent... dodgy, perniciously delusional... sanctimoniously hypocritical... cockeyed".

Assuming the writer is referring to TGD, I wonder if this is supposed to be quote of a single section of text, or is this a list of words picked out from different parts of the book (undoubtely out of context)?

I did a quick leaf through my copy and I couldn't find it.

55. Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad

Comment #102708 by hopeful on December 23, 2007 at 12:45 pm

"The great truth of Christmas is that no matter how good we are, we're not good enough to know God without the Christ," said Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister. "And no matter how bad ... we are not so bad that he cannot find us."

What utter codswallop. Sometimes the inanity of it just takes your breath away.

56. Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers

Comment #99279 by hopeful on December 16, 2007 at 8:43 am

Actually there are lot of different topics covered in their "advanced" courses:
- How to build a strawman in 6 days
- Misunderstanding Evolution
- Denial I
- Denial II
- How to Protect yourself from Logic
- Ten Logical Fallacies You can Use in Everyday Life
The list goes on.

57. Creation vs. Reality

Comment #98659 by hopeful on December 14, 2007 at 2:09 am

I may be being paranoid but I get the impression that the message behind this is that if you change the language evolution sounds just as far fetched as the creation myth.

The problem is that the representation of evolution was utterly distorted and as a result I found the analogy to be so weak as to be meaningless.

Interesting variety of views in the blog. Some thought it was satiring evolution and some thought it was satiring creation and plenty just seemed to think it was innovative and artistic.

I can see how it could just be art for art's sake. It also might be as much about gauging people's reactions as the art itself.

58. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #96826 by hopeful on December 11, 2007 at 1:39 am

How tragically ironic that religion behaves essentially like a virus of the mind.

59. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #96018 by hopeful on December 9, 2007 at 6:13 pm

If you are lying down are your feet supposed to point towards Mecca or is your head? Does islam have rules for hospital beds in foreign countries?

I think the angle of the bed should be adjusted to compensate for the curvature of the earth.

For countries on the other side of the planet the bed ought to be upside down with the patient lying face down on the floor, or perhaps the bed should be standing on end with the patient strapped in?

60. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #95057 by hopeful on December 7, 2007 at 9:10 am

This article is so funny it is hard to believe that it is serious.

However I am horrified at the thought that the wellbeing of patients is being unnecessarily compromised by a stupid religious ritual (not to mention the unreasonable burden on staff and scandalous misuse of taxpayer money).

61. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93295 by hopeful on December 2, 2007 at 3:47 pm

The only way in which D'Souza could be considered to have "won" that debate is on the basis that he spoke more loudly, more quickly, and made more extravagent and numerous claims than Dennett. You would get exactly the same result with Benny Hinn or any other televangelist.

In terms of the proposition I can't see how anyone would consider D'Souza made a coherent argument against.

He didn't even make an attempt to refute Dennett's main statement, except to argue statistics, which wasn't the main point at all.

I would like to see a form of debate where a moderator actively stops a speaker point by point and calls them on each off-topic statement, unsubstantiated claim, straw man, false analogy, false inference and any other verbal trick. That would severely throttle people like D'Souza.

62. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92947 by hopeful on December 1, 2007 at 7:59 pm

There is nothing strong about the fine-tuning issue. It is a piece of science that theists have picked up on to try to support their special beliefs.

Argument from ignorance. God of the gaps. Argument from incredulity. Take your pick.

I think it was Dr. Massimo Pigliuci who has talked about how religious claims always occur at the boundary of knowledge. The fine-tuning topic just happens to currently be in that zone. When our understanding encompasses these topics theists will shift their arguments to new ground.

In that sense I think it is a no-win situation trying to have these arguments with theists and I think Dan was somewhat less comfortable when D'Souza galloped off in that direction.

I think a more useful approach, which is what Dan is all about, is presenting the overwhelming evidence that gods and religion and all the ideas about divine connection inherent in them, are entirely man-made. That is the strongest tactic to fight religion, the dangers of which are not supernatural, but are exclusively real things that are done by real people.

63. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92805 by hopeful on December 1, 2007 at 1:53 pm

This is the first debate I have seen with D'Souza and I had the impression from comments that he was a formidable opponent.

D'Souza is a preacher. He uses canned analogies and stories stitched together by false inferences and assumptions.

He talks so quickly and switches from one topic to another so fast that it is a challenge to capture all his errors and deceptions in real time.

I think this probably makes him tricky to debate with.

I suspect Dennett and others will have reached the conclusion this person is not worth debating with.

When D'Souza said "Is there any more time?... I think I can do some more damage" - yes you can Dinesh - to your own credibility.

64. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92735 by hopeful on December 1, 2007 at 11:01 am

It would be interesting to see how the ID and creation cults respond to the introduction of the term "law of evolution".

In some ways it is too late and calling evolution a "law" now without some significant justification that appeared plausible to the general population would be seen merely as a tactic in the battle of evolution versus creation. But then again in the long term (multiple generations) it might give the concept more credibility in the eyes of the general population.

On the other hand, the reason people don't dispute the law of gravity is not because it is a law but because it doesn't threaten their religion.

To make matters worse the new age nutjobs have already hijacked the term law, e.g. the "law of attraction" used in "The Secret", and helped to further confuse language and blur the issue.

Regardless of scientific terminology, I think that we can't escape the central issue - the answer is more about improving education levels, reasoning and language skills in the general population rather than changing the language of science.

65. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92345 by hopeful on November 30, 2007 at 10:22 am

What they really need to do is to find out how many people correctly understand evolution.

I would be willing to bet that 100% of those that don't "believe" in evolution don't have a correct understanding of it.

66. Schools should put faith in science

Comment #92013 by hopeful on November 29, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Very good article.

Ken Miller also covers the theory/fact distinction very well in his ID lecture. He describes how Atomic theory is made up of many facts, and that "Atomic Theory", regardless of how sure we become of it, will never become "Atomic Fact".

I know similar things have been said before, but this statement in the article is particularly powerful: "The science curriculum need to be strengthened, not gutted. It needs to inspire young children with the wonders of distant galaxies and nebulas, with the vastness of geological time, and with the incredible diversity of life on Earth and how evolution shaped it."

67. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #89180 by hopeful on November 20, 2007 at 12:08 am

Mikes said: "Theory, in science, is a higher level of understanding then the acknowledgment of fact".

If you haven't already seen it, Ken Miller covers this brilliantly in the presentation referred to by scooternyc. It's a must-see.

68. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #89060 by hopeful on November 19, 2007 at 4:03 pm

I enjoyed this movie. I chuckled when they used the sound of a church bell during the ID "life" diagram in one of the early segments. And the stacking of the imune system books in front of Behe, which Ken Miller also talks about in his presentation, is priceless.

One thing I find interesting is the mistake Behe made. In hindsight it appears astoundingly simple.

Here he is claiming that the Flagellum is irreduceably complex and then Ken Miller is demonstrating that you can remove several parts of an "irreduceably complex" mousetrap and you get a tie clip.

One can imagine Behe thinking to himself "oh crap! - I didn't think of that".

As astounding as it seems, I can understand how Behe could make that mistake. He would be focussing so hard on the Flagellum in it's role as a motor that he completely overlooks the possibility that a subset of the device might have another purpose. It is an easy mistake to make.

What I cannot forgive him for is not letting go of the whole charade when the obvious logical flaws were revealed. That is also human nature since he has now backed himself into a corner from which there is no coming back.

69. Exorcism death shocks archdeacon

Comment #87982 by hopeful on November 14, 2007 at 1:39 am

I am a New Zealander and I didn't know about this practice. Maori religious beliefs have always seemed relatively harmless.

This country has it's share of religion, superstition and new age lunacy, I'm sorry to say.

We also have an establishment determined to be politically correct and support cultural and religious diversity at all costs.

Politicians very rarely have the courage to speak honestly about anything that might offend religious or cultural sensitivities.

I think that in the case of the Maori, politically correct NZrs of European descent have convinced many Europeans and most importantly the Maori themselves that the European NZrs of today are responsible for most Maori misfortune (past and present). In my opinion, while the do-gooders fall over themselves to appease Maori cultural sensitivities and right the wrongs of the past, they actually create a racial divide, and hold Maori back from integrating into a 21st century global community.

There is also a lot of hypocrisy here. Many like to criticise the USA, but at the same time they are are happy to take many things from it, both good (such as science and technology) and also bad (such as youth gang culture and TV evangelism).

70. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #87835 by hopeful on November 13, 2007 at 10:13 am

I have huge respect for David Attenborough.

I remember watching a particular sequence in Planet Earth showing some bizarre organisms deep in a remote Ocean, so thoroughly removed from the huddled human masses on the surface that they may as well be on another planet.

The enormity and variety of life in this planet is breathtaking and wonderful and makes a complete mockery of petty and simplistic human-centric religious myths and gods.

71. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84305 by hopeful on November 1, 2007 at 5:12 pm

"To tell us that we should not feel this longing is a bit like telling someone in the first flush of love that the object of his affections is not worthy of them."

I don't think atheists tell people they should not long for transcendant purpose.

Atheists tell people they should not be duped into thinking the answers lie in ancient man-made god myths.

72. AAI 07

Comment #82739 by hopeful on October 27, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Great speech! Some highlights for me were...

When complimenting Sam Harris on the lucidity of Sam's speech... "if that's what you get for spending three month's alone in a cave ,I'm up for it. as long as I've got hot and cold running water, bottle of wine, a kettle to make tea with, and maybe a woman". Funny but also says something about the honesty of the atheist mind.

"...Women, who are the prime victims of religion, and perhaps in some Stockholm syndrome effect often form the most fervent advocates of the very thing that degrades them. I believe that in the end it will be women that turn this around. This should be the final stage of feminism. For a feminist who still believes in god is like a freed slave still living on the plantation". This got the enormous applause that it deserved.

and a great finish...

"when did you ever hear of an atheist suicide bomber? Doesn't happen. So I say let's advocate for special fast-track atheist lanes [at airports]...I have a dream... I see a series of religious books on plynths... and anyone willing to swiftly defile the whole lot goes straight through..."

73. Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #82484 by hopeful on October 26, 2007 at 12:38 pm

I think the distinction between "why" and "how", in the sense used here, is contrived to allow religion to claim some intellectual territory.

Increasing scientific knowledge in more and more subjects is steadily eroding the supposed intellectual domain of religion. For example that old chestnut morality is being increasingly shown by evidence (what many atheists would have intuited anyway) to be merely evolved animal behaviour. It is their final claim to authority and they will not let it go easily.

There is no "why" or "how":- there are only "questions", and science aims to find answers and gain understanding by rational methodology.

74. American kids, dumber than dirt: Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

Comment #82469 by hopeful on October 26, 2007 at 11:54 am

I am 47 and superficially it seems to me the same is happening here in New Zealand, and there certainly seems to be an entrenched welfare-state dependency and lack of parental capability and responsibility that is breeding generations of people that are not much use to themselves or anyone else.

I am certain that this is partially true, however I am conscious that there are motivated young people who do achieve, and that there is a generation gap that may influence my perception. Because I feel more and more strongly about the importance of education, and I want my children to succeed in life, now I probably notice every little sign that suggests faulty or failing education.

I am sure there have been scientific studies done on general education levels (at least I hope there has been).

One thing is clear, and that is that one of the things that an atheist fears most is the possibility of humanity declining into ignorance and barbarity, potentially losing everything that has been gained, and I share that.

75. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78306 by hopeful on October 12, 2007 at 11:52 am

They say any publicity is good publicity!

This is a big milestone for Free Thought Radio and congratulations to them.

They are doing a great job - particularly as Church/State watchdogs.

http://ffrf.org/
http://ffrf.org/radio/podcast/

I thoroughly recommend you check out their podcast archives - they have had some fascinating interviews, including Christopher Hitchens just recently and many others. Stand-outs for me were Darrell Lambert (expelled Scout) and Matthew LaClair (Kearney High School) and Robert Sapolsky.

76. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78163 by hopeful on October 12, 2007 at 3:02 am

I don't know which is more scary, the thought of Christianity and Islam at war, or the thought of them allied together into a world super-religion.

Perhaps I am being paranoid but I think this has disturbing undertones:-

Islam is coming from a total domination perspective, where religion and rule are one.

The west is theoretically secular, yet have a Christianity with growing aspirations toward theocracy.

As IanG points out, Islam approached Christian leaders, not government leaders. And Isam isn't doing this so they can have joint Church picnics with the Christians.

Why is this happening now? Is it just because of all the bad PR muslims have been getting in the west or does Islam sense a changing religious mood in the west and an opportunity to make some kind of strategic move?

Perhaps they now see something they can potentially ally with. They couldn't ally with a splintered, godless, west, but they could ally with another significant religion that was vaguely compatible and appears to have theocratic goals.

Personally I think I'd prefer it if they just continued not liking each other very much (but didn't act on it).

77. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75911 by hopeful on October 4, 2007 at 4:08 am

I enjoyed this article, although I can't help feeling that it could have been two articles.

I agree with Sam's comments regarding the term atheism, although I would suggest that we were going to get labelled no matter what. Not only that but the label, regardless of it's strict meaning, would inevitably be thought of by religious people as representative of a belief system.

I identified somewhat with his comments about a search for "true contentment or happiness", however I am a little skeptical that we are necessarily capable of finding it, simply through solitude and internal reflection, if at all. A computer that decides one day to contemplate the idle periods between it's program executions or the deep recesses of it's own memory may discover nothing of interest, or may be fundamentally incapable of perceiving what it does find.

As much as I wish for inner peace and true happiness my suspicion is that both the idea and the desire are figments of my consciousness. I think of intelligence as both a miracle and a tragedy.

78. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #74715 by hopeful on September 30, 2007 at 5:43 am

What is stunning, and quite scary, about this is the extreme effort that these people have gone to to make their god beliefs appear rational.

It is scary because we have a particular group of people, supposedly part of the scientific community, effectively working against good science. It is like a hospital operating room with a team of people carrying out a delicate operation, and an extra person in the room intentionally giving out false information, reaching wrong conclusions, distracting and obscuring.

To me, the whole programme was summed up when Lee Strobel said at the end "and if the evidence takes me to an uncomfortable place then that's the way I'm going to go...". It is blindingly obvious that Lee Strobel's "conclusion" is actually exactly where he wanted to go and extremely comfortable for him.

79. Enemies of Reason

Comment #74645 by hopeful on September 29, 2007 at 7:43 pm

My 80 year old mother has spent the past 3 weeks in a Hospital after heart problems and complications from which she nearly died. I have been observing the incredible technology and people in the Cardiac ICU that kept her alive.

One really gets a sense of the incredible achievements in so many fields of science that have got medical knowledge and supporting technology to where they are today. A visit to a Cardiac ICU (as a visitor!) should be compulsory for anyone that doubts the value of science.

My mother is now awake and slowly recovering.

80. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57839 by hopeful on July 21, 2007 at 2:02 pm

I thought this was a very good talk by Christopher Hitchens. Although he can be very blunt, his knowledge and eloquence allow him to command a great deal of respect in those that agree with him and those that don't. He is a great spokesman for the anti-theist position.

However there is one thing though that slightly troubles me regarding Christopher Hitchens- When challenged on the issue of morality he usually talks about it being innate (which I agree with) yet he never seems to attempt to substantiate the claim.

Perhaps he avoids doing so intentionally, however I feel that he could talk about (or at least touch on) the substantial and growing body of scientific research that is showing increasing evidence for the biological/evolutionary basis for morality. I would be very interested in knowing his thoughts on this and how it fits into his approach.

81. Is there an Artificial God?

Comment #57492 by hopeful on July 19, 2007 at 2:28 pm

This is a fantastic talk, not only very funny but also presents some profound ideas in a slightly novel ways.

One point that struck me was the way he presents the idea of the "complexity arising out of simplicity" mental shift required to understand evolution and the parallel in computers. I think this is a profound point that may help to explain, at least in part, the mental wall that often seems to exist between atheist and theist.

It is something that probably most people here take for granted, but perhaps the majority of the population quite literally find the concept of complexity arising from simplicity to be inconceivable. With the majority of people not having much understanding of the inner workings of computers (and also not having other academic interests) they have no practical example to help make the shift.

82. The Great Mutator

Comment #49654 by hopeful on June 12, 2007 at 7:02 pm

"The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department."

How incredibly embarrassing to have one's views publicly disclaimed by one's own university.

I feel slightly sorry for Michael Behe, because he has backed himself into a corner that he can never come out of. At least believers who are not in the public eye can gradually change their views without too many people noticing.

On the other hand, perhaps it is a good thing to have the occasional person like Behe, because although I have great respect for science as a largely self-checking process, Behe provides an additional force to "keep things honest". His claims provide tests for the principles of good science to be exercised and measured against, and he provides good examples of bad scientific thinking.

83. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46972 by hopeful on June 2, 2007 at 1:31 pm

I don't believe for a moment this is an American problem. Here in New Zealand we have exactly the same thinking.

There is a trend towards "personal belief" that causes many people to tell other people that science is merely "one possible world-view" or one possible "version of the truth".
It is easy to plant this seed in people that, even though they see the results of science, don't understanding the principles behind it.

Also I think that in the rush to tolerate diversity in all things (which seems to be happening all over the western world at least), all beliefs are tolerated, regardless of plausibility. For example we tolerate people who believe in a spirit world - we say that they are entitled to their beliefs and we must respect them. If one does not believe in such possibilities one is accused of not being "open minded".


"For instance, four year-olds insist that everything has a purpose"

This is absolutely reinforced in adulthood. I was listening to a pop song the other day (by a British artist) that included the line "everything has a purpose". This thinking is pervasive. It is very romantic and comforting to think this way. It takes a certain amount of courage to accept the possibility that our existance might be without purpose.


"But preschoolers will also claim that the brain isn't involved in a host of other activities, such as pretending to be a kangaroo, loving one's brother, or brushing one's teeth."

I can accept that this is rooted in childhood, however I think that the continuous reinforcement of it in adolescence and adulthood is the critical factor. The santa claus myth does not survive into adulthood because it is not sustained by adults. If it was then we might have many people praying at the Church of Father Christmas.

As the writer later says: "if the existence of supernatural entities like gods, karma, and ancestor spirits is never questioned by adults in the community, the existence of such entities will be unquestioningly accepted by children."

84. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44406 by hopeful on May 24, 2007 at 2:39 pm

"This individualism—the belief that we can exist as distinct beings from the tribe, or the crowd, and that we are called on as individuals to make moral decisions that at times defy the clamor of the tribe or the nation—is a gift of the Abrahamic faiths."

Comment #1 by quasarsphere deserves another mention in my opinion:

"I'm no Bible scholar, but I'm fairly certain that's bollocks."

For those that know the word "bollocks" it captures the essence of this as no other word can.

And re the last paragraph I am also a committed father, and gave money to Tsunami and cancer research, do some community service, detest war and violence and I've never believed in gods and myths. I'm really tired of religion and consideration for others being mixed up. That's bollocks too.

85. Lightning damages Jesus statue

Comment #44402 by hopeful on May 24, 2007 at 2:23 pm

and "The sisters were thankful the falling marble did not break through a plexiglass shield that covers..."

Plexiglass? - More beautiful irony here.

Priceless (the comedy not the statue).

86. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #41588 by hopeful on May 16, 2007 at 11:16 am

Hannity demonstrates a characteristic that I think appears consistantly with religious believers. His sweeping statements regarding the origin of energy and complexity in the universe indicate a basic failure to comprehend that is, itself, difficult to define. Is it lack of intelligence? or lack or education? under-developed or flawed reasoning skills? or simply the result of indoctrination?

When someone works this out we might know what critical statement(s), arguments, or teaching methods would cure or innoculate a person against irrational belief systems.

Perhaps it is as simple as a quality education (from teachers and parents) uncorrupted by irrational belief systems, but there seems like such a distinct difference in thinking between religious believers and thoughtful atheists that I wonder whether there isn't some particular essential ingredient.

87. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #38053 by hopeful on May 6, 2007 at 9:26 pm

What I find enormously frustrating and disturbing is the catholic representative, portrayed as someone of wisdom and credibility, who announces, with absolute certainty, that "...faith and science are two ways of knowing...".

88. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35627 by hopeful on April 28, 2007 at 2:36 am

ChippySwans said "Maher is a complete loser....grrr I can't stand him. He bring no credibility to us."

There is something disturbing about the last sentence. Who is "us" and why is Bill Maher not one of you?

I don't care whether people think Bill Maher is a funny comedian or not, and I don't care what he appeared to believe in the past, it is what he is doing now that counts.

I watched both clips and I thought he handled the topic very well and I thought he was spot on with everything he said.

89. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26822 by hopeful on March 21, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Surely this is just a question of whether there is a uniform and dress code?

If there is a uniform then one would not be expected to be allowed to make significant additions or changes, and I would classify a veil as a significant addition.

If there is a uniform and dress code then surely all students should adhere to it and there should be no exceptions based on religious belief.

This is the key sentence (from the Schools Minister): "While they should make every effort to accommodate social, religious or medical requirements ".

Why should religious requirements be accommodated?

90. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #26065 by hopeful on March 16, 2007 at 12:02 pm

I suspect the last sentence is a key: "He has also authored the book "Spiritual assessment: A handbook for helping professionals.""

If you look at the courses he teaches spirituality is mentioned also.

I suspect Hodge is not a skeptical scientist wanting to separate fact from wishful thinking. This is someone who really wanted the result he got.

I'd be interested to hear how other scientists view his work.

91. Long live satire

Comment #24505 by hopeful on March 7, 2007 at 12:55 am

I am a New Zealander and one of the things I like about American entertainment (e.g. The Simpsons, countless TV series and comedy movies etc) is that Americans always seem to be quite willing to laugh at themselves. They must be otherwise all the comedies that are made in America would only be popular outside America.

I hope we don't lose this ability because the world would be a very dull place. As someone said in an earlier comment, Islamic countries must be very dull - and of course living in fear wouldn't make you feel like laughing.

92. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24503 by hopeful on March 7, 2007 at 12:39 am

I am an atheist, and I freely admit to being subject to what I see as cultural and social "habits" of thinking and speech in casual situations.

For example I might also say "we need to preserve biological diversity" in a casual situation but if the situation warranted I would give the issue proper consideration and perhaps my true position would be different.

I also celebrate Christmas (as a cultural and family tradition) and say "Oh my god" from time to time, none of which compromises my (almost certain) atheist views.

93. The Silence That Kills

Comment #24386 by hopeful on March 6, 2007 at 10:21 am

Good article.

torgosPizza:
Do you think that the attitude of Islam would be any different if every last American was a declared atheist? I would suspect that Islam would find an atheist America even more repellent than a christian one.

Anyway, I doubt whether the precise details of what Americans say on TV (good or bad) make the slighest difference. The opposition to America is not based on reasoned debate but on religious brainwashing.

94. Meet the Relatives. They're Full of Surprises.

Comment #21911 by hopeful on February 11, 2007 at 4:38 pm

This sounds like something that would be wonderful to see.

However, I can imagine a group of religious believers on a tour through these exhibits.

Would they be swayed? Well some might, but I suspect most wouldn't. I can imagine them telling each other it is all an elaborate deception or delusion.

The interesting question is: why?

I suspect that the key reason might be a lack of understanding and appreciation for the science people and processes, rather than the exhibit itself.

Religious believers don't seem to have this understanding and appreciation, either because they never aquired it through education and experience, or because their religious indoctrination has undermined it.

95. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #21213 by hopeful on February 8, 2007 at 3:51 am

All credit to Dr. Pigliucci - he does an absolutely brilliant job of handling this debate. He is clearly a very intelligent and well educated person.

Its worth listening to the whole thing - it is an excellent case study in how theists think, and Hovind's closing monologue is priceless!

96. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21109 by hopeful on February 7, 2007 at 3:19 pm

What I find absolutely fascinating is how apparently intelligent people, who claim to be advocates of evidence-based reasoning can be "seduced" (as McGrath puts it) by god-belief, and remain so regardless of any amount of rational argument.

What is it that lets this unreason in? What locks it into place? What is it that protects it from all logical arguments? Will we ever get to the bottom of this or are we destined to wage an endless war of words?

Is there something specific happening here or is it simply that once a person has invested a certain amount in a belief system (however illogical) they are very reluctant to let it go?

97. A deadly certitude

Comment #17960 by hopeful on January 17, 2007 at 5:41 pm

"Islam turned against science in the twelfth century...After al-Ghazzali, there was no more science worth mentioning in Islamic countries"

Imagine what many islamic countries would be like today without that appalling rejection of science. Much suffering might have been avoided and many might enjoy a better lifestyle.

98. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15654 by hopeful on January 1, 2007 at 10:13 pm

The comparison between the term Bright and Gay has been made a number of times, however I think there is an important difference in the situations.

The term gay was adopted by a minority that knew they would always be the minority. They wanted recognition, acceptance and to eliminate discrimination. They did not see heterosexuality as a delusion that the world would be better off without.

On the other hand, let's be honest, most atheists would like to see the world rid of religious and supernatural belief, or at least see it relegated to a harmless fringe minority.

Which means we want atheism to be the predominant position. Will a controversial label, such as "Bright", get us there? And will it make sense when we do get there?

I'm not sure, and I certainly think there are problems with the term, mainly the amount of negative comments I am reading about it.

My concerns are twofold:-
Firstly, if it takes the amount of explanation and justification that the term Bright seems to require then there is a problem with the term itself.
Secondly, what the term means to US doesn't matter - it is what it will mean to theists that will have an impact on things.
ADDED: Actually on second thoughts it is also important what it means to us. If many atheists find the term objectionable it won't help our cause.

99. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15508 by hopeful on December 31, 2006 at 10:26 pm

One of the great things about being an atheist is that there is so much for us to laugh about.

I doubt whether we atheists give religious people much to laugh about. In fact, now I think about it, it must be incredibly dull being religious.

100. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15504 by hopeful on December 31, 2006 at 10:04 pm

LDMiller said: "Having said that, what has happened in America should be a warning to those of you in other countries. You all have godders in the wings salivating furiously, either home-grown or immigrants.

The evangelicals spent nearly 100 years gaining control of the US. They started at the local level..."

I absolutley agree. I've seen postings on this web site from Australians discussing this, and I think my country, New Zealand, is just as likely to go in this direction.

We've had years of political correctness, government bending over backwards to protect cultural and religious diversity, churches sprouting up on every street corner, increased immigration with greater numbers and variety of religious devotees. There is currently a "Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity" by our Race Relations Commissioner that could potentially lead to, among other things, greater incursion of religion into the state education system.