51. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212413 by SilentMike on July 17, 2008 at 7:24 am

A lot of people don't like the "isms". I can relate. I'm not to crazy about the "isms" either most of the time. But the truth is you can't really avoid them. When you want to define yourself or others and what you believe and what they believe, you always need words for the basic world views. Those words are always too general, the always neglect to address (warning. this is a wrong use of that word) important details and they are always necessary. You can't avoid generalizations. You just have to try and be as clear as possible about what you mean. Darwin had played an important role in the way science sees the evolution of species, it seems reasonable to name our view of evolution after him, even though we've made many discoveries since his time.

But even if we get rid of the term "Darwinism" in the light of this creationist attack (and perhaps we should. I don't know) then rest assured that other "isms" will follow and they will be more or less confusing to the same degree.

52. Anti-Darwinists turned away by Israeli academia

Comment #212401 by SilentMike on July 17, 2008 at 7:01 am

I first heard about this in a meeting a few days ago. Someone in the meeting wandered if our university would do the same. Another person quickly remarked that sadly our university would gladly give an auditorium to anyone, for the right price. Unfortunately this is true. In the institution I attend we often have religious crackpots (some of them known creationists) speaking. I've seen many flyers promoting talks on souls and spirits and free will and all the rest of that nonsense that religious people seem to think they know something about.

Good for HebrewU.

53. An Irishman's Diary

Comment #209051 by SilentMike on July 11, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Sometimes I think Richard Dawkins makes sure to say something silly or make a big deal out of something trivial once in a while just so we could have a chance to disagree with him and say "See? We're not Richard Dawkins groupies".

54. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206584 by SilentMike on July 8, 2008 at 1:41 pm

What I don't get is this. Why is Lennox the one talking all the time? I expect Richard Dawkins is letting him bury himself but still... I think he really should have taken more time off the conversation and layed into him. It's like a speech by John Lennox with occasional skeptical questions by Richard Dawkins.

55. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #201833 by SilentMike on June 30, 2008 at 10:00 am

Well, that was a bloody waste of my time. But at least no one can say that I don't spend time on hearing the other side out. It's a sad little exercise in deception with all the out of context bull you'd expect to see in such a thing.

56. Richard Dawkins Public Lecture - Liverpool 08

Comment #198442 by SilentMike on June 24, 2008 at 1:08 am

47. Comment #198409 by spoo

Thank you. I'm downloading.

57. Richard Dawkins Public Lecture - Liverpool 08

Comment #198302 by SilentMike on June 23, 2008 at 2:22 pm

What are the chances of a download link?

58. New discovery proves 'selfish gene' exists

Comment #197232 by SilentMike on June 21, 2008 at 12:11 pm

I wouldn't mind getting a more detailed explanation. What exactly did they find and how does it intergrate with the selfish gene theory.

59. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195236 by SilentMike on June 18, 2008 at 1:01 am

Never trust a convert I always say (No offence Oystein. I'm mostly kidding). If you change your mind once you could do it again.

It's really nice though that we can produce high profile converts that are not well over the hill and suffering from brain afflictions.

60. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #194955 by SilentMike on June 17, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Thanks Frankus!

61. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #194948 by SilentMike on June 17, 2008 at 12:53 pm

I actually like Colbert. Problem is the movie keeps freezing. I hate this streaming nonesense.

62. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193808 by SilentMike on June 16, 2008 at 4:25 am

The two men have grown increasingly close in the past two years

A theme song of an old cartoon comes to mind: "Pinky and the Brain, They're Pinky and the Brain..."

BTW, I've heard catholisism has become the largest single Christian denomination in the United States. Is the US slowly turning Catholic?

63. From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy

Comment #193069 by SilentMike on June 14, 2008 at 2:21 pm

22. Comment #192826 by huzonfurst

I absolutely agree with rod_the_farmer's reply (23. Comment #192870). This is a matter of being smart and finding the best way to get your message across.

I enjoy a good creationist thrashing on YouTube as much as the next guy, the meaner the better. But that's just not the way to get into the science classes. It's the way to get YouTube fame. If you want your stuff in schools you should focus on the science and not on ridiculing Kirk Cameron (as tempting as it is to do just that).

64. From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy

Comment #192672 by SilentMike on June 13, 2008 at 10:15 pm

9. Comment #192596 by ashridah
15. Comment #192629 by rod-the-farmer

I agree as well. Maybe there's need for two versions. This one for the Internet community, and another one that is more "public school friendly" without all the jabs at Christians. The jokes about Kirk Cameron are funny, but this is the kind of thing that turns educators away, because it makes the movie look too partisan.

EDIT: Yeah, definitely could use some patch ups. The explanations are brilliant, but the references to God and the religious are counter-productive and need to be more mild.

65. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192485 by SilentMike on June 13, 2008 at 6:59 am

116. Comment #192467 by Epinephrine

That's the thing about freedom of speech. There's always a dissenting view. I am not an expert on Canada. I wasn't trying to say that the "Canadian way" doesn't have a lot of good things about it. Clearly it does. I was just remarking on this case.

It seems to me, as an onlooker, that the whole situation is rather absurd. I don't understand why a magazine needs to answer to this "Tribunal", and why the complaint isn't just rejected outright. If the magazine article represented the truth as far as it's editors could see it, and if it didn't directly call for ilegal action, what is this about? There's an expression about being "laughed out of court". I believe this is what is called for here.

66. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192462 by SilentMike on June 13, 2008 at 5:21 am

113. Comment #192458 by AllanW

I think we will not advance further in this discussion. I want to close with the point uppon which we agree: The canadian approach is wrong and driven by an irrational fear of words. At no point did I support the canadian law or the muslim claims against "Maclean's" in this case.

My suggestion was about a very specific kind of expression and had nothing to do with the ridiculous notion that people had a right to not be offended.

67. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192453 by SilentMike on June 13, 2008 at 5:07 am

111. Comment #192447 by AllanW

I'm not necessarily pushing for new laws to be made. If existing libel laws can be applied it's all the same to me, though I suspect that they might not cut it in some places.

I think you are mistaken. One doesn't have to prove payment. There's "conspiracy to commit murder". If X tells Y to kill someone and Y does, X can be in a lot of trouble whether or not he paid for it. Of course you have to prove that X wasn't just joking etc.

As for responsibility you are correct. However, the rational human being works on knowledge that is available to him (or her). If I just read a best selling book that says all black people are lazy and incompetent, and I believe it in good faith (which granted, would make me a racist), how likely am I to hire a black person? Now if it can be demonstrated that whoever wrote the book knew he was lying and hurting people's income, why wouldn't he be required to pay every cent he made off that book to the people that he damaged?

68. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192446 by SilentMike on June 13, 2008 at 4:36 am

106. Comment #192437 by AllanW

Hello Allen. I don't know how much of my discussion with FightingFalcon you've read. I'll assume you know the jist of it and carry on.

First thing I'd like to point out is that we're talking about civil law suites here. No one is being jailed. Were talking about the ability to sue sombody for liable if they promote hurtful agendas.

Second. this is not about hurt feeling but about actual damage. Like in a liable case you would have to prove damage was done to you.

Third. You have to prove that the offender knowingly lied with intent to cause harm. This is a VERY high hurdle to get over.

I agree that this kind of case can be very difficult to make. That's good in my eyes, because I do value the freedom of speech. I am willing to accept the fact that the freedom of speech means that a lot of vile hateful stuff will be "out there". But you can put the line somewhere, and make it possible to hold some of the most hateful people responsible for their words, by making them pay hard cash to the people that they damage.

Last thing I'd like to mention is that speech is limited. Even in the US incitement laws do exist. You can't really allow 100% free speech in a society. When you contract an assasination all you do is talk, but that's still murder. This is of course a very extreem example, but it just goes to show that free speech needs limits where speech interacts with action.

69. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192435 by SilentMike on June 13, 2008 at 3:55 am

75. Comment #192246 by FightingFalcon

Fortunately, emotionally hurting someone in American society is not a crime.

You are 100% correct. It is a fortunate fact in my opinion as well, and I think other countries should adopt this policy. However, I was not talking about hurt feelings. spreading the lie that all black people are stupid and lazy, or the lie that all Jews are greedy and dishonest, just to name two examples, can hurt every member of these groups that is seeking employment, for example.

If you say that Islamic teachings encourage violence you could also hurt Muslims in similar ways. However, you will never prove that whoever says this new they were lying, because they were not lying.

This is why I offered the following double test:

a. The act must be intentionally hurtful members of that group, disrupting they're lives.

b. It must be proven that the damage was cause intentionally by means of spreading lies with full knowledge that they are lies.

So you can get away with trashing a religion as long as you don't spout too many obvious malicious lies. Lets call it the crime of excessive stupidity.

70. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192176 by SilentMike on June 12, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Slander/Liberal against an entire group is something totally different.

I'm not big on group rights. I wouldn't bestow upon a group the right to be "offended". But are groups not made of individual people too? I believe that is what class action suites are about.

All I'm saying is if you can prove someone knew that he was lying, and did it intentionally to hurt a group of people, this should be grounds for legal action by members of that group hurt. This is by no means an easy thing to prove, but if you do manage it, that should be enough. If someone slams all jews or blacks or baseball fans, by knowingly spreading vicious lies (though lies are probably not required for slammin the last group effectively), he should not enjoy the protection of the freedom of speech and opinion just because he chose to take aim at a wide field of targets.

71. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192140 by SilentMike on June 12, 2008 at 1:39 pm

20. Comment #192126 by FightingFalcon

As it happens I agree with you. But if he knows he's lying when saying that the holocaust didn't happen and it's all a jewish plot to get sympathy, can I at least sue his pants off?

You can't go around slining mud at people without having to pay for it somehow. If I go around defaming X by spreading lies, and putting his life in disarray, he'll sue my ass off and be right to do so.


BTW. I absolutely agree about "Mein Kempf". People should know what Hitler really wrote if they want to. I don't like the idea of banning books.

72. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192125 by SilentMike on June 12, 2008 at 1:26 pm

5. Comment #192072 by al-rawandi

Muslims have become increasingly litigious.

Actually, for muslims, that can be seen as an improvement over the traditional tactic of going into a violent frenzy.

73. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #187749 by SilentMike on June 2, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Well, I hope this turns out to work (like everyone else pretty much).

I'm not a physicist,but doesn't using heavy hydrogen (Deuterium) which is relatively rare make this process more expensive? I mean you can't just pick the heave hydrogen out of a glass of water like the regular stuff, you need to distill it out of 6500 glasses of water (no I'm not that smart. I wikied it). Couldn't that be tricky?

If it will prove not to be tricky (or a trick) than cold fusion will change the world immensely. Just to pick one aspect, it will make all forms of transport cheaper. This includes space travel. We've been stuck "on the edge" of space for decades now. The costs of sending a craft there that can support, protect and bring back home a human crew are enormous. Being able to carry large amounts of energy in a bucket may just prove to be the technology required to advance human expansion beyond this planet (and the way things are going on this planet, this be a pretty good idea).

It sounds too good to be true though, and I'm afraid it prbably is.

74. Fossil reveals oldest live birth

Comment #186343 by SilentMike on May 30, 2008 at 7:35 am

11. Comment #186142 by rod-the-farmer

Perhaps we could meet with fundie management, and agree on a minimum width for gaps. Anything smaller we will both agree to ignore. That should allow us to tackle the widest ones first, and gradually whittle down each of them, filling them with more & more fossils, scientific proof etc. until....they are all below the agreed minimum. We win !!

That makes a lot of sense. If only it worked like that... Fact is most creationists are in the "there are no transitional fossils" camp. These people are convinced that "Lucy" is a hoax and "Tiktalik" is a hoax and so on. No hope really.

Besides, they would just insist on full sekeletons of every member of the familty tree (X begat Y, Y begat Z etc.). There's no chance of ever getting that.

I have a better idea. We should continue making fun of these people till they feel bad about saying this crazy stuff in public.

75. Fossil reveals oldest live birth

Comment #186122 by SilentMike on May 29, 2008 at 3:57 pm

4. Comment #186106 by Mitchell Gilks

Yes, but what you are not realising is that it isn't giving birth to a squirrel now is it? So evolution must therefore be wrong.

Yes. Altough you must remember that if it was giving birth to a squirrel that would also mean that evolution is wrong.


5. Comment #186113 by rod-the-farmer

Another gap gone.

You see a gap disappearing, the "fundie" sees two new gaps appearing.

76. Altruism in social insects is a family affair

Comment #186116 by SilentMike on May 29, 2008 at 3:52 pm

In a good scientific debate, truth is served, whoever turns out to be right. I don't know if it means this is over. I seriously doubt it is. And that's fine. This is the kind of debate that should play out.

The article was interesting and informative. I enjoyed reading it.

77. Huge hidden biomass lives deep beneath the oceans

Comment #184319 by SilentMike on May 24, 2008 at 2:37 pm

3. Comment #184315 by tybowen

Actually it is the small minority of life that does have a nucleus. We are dominated by bacteria and archea.

The stupidity goes deeper than that. The way they say "prokaryotes" makes it sound like we're talking about some kind of mysterious alien life forms. It may have been wise to mention that bacteria are prokaryotes, instead of giving the false impression that "prokaryotes" are a bizzar exotic form of life that hardly anyone knows anything about. There are prokaryotes everywhere. My body is full of prokaryotes at any given moment, as is everyone else's!

78. Huge hidden biomass lives deep beneath the oceans

Comment #184311 by SilentMike on May 24, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Ohh! that's interesting.

79. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #183730 by SilentMike on May 22, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Maybe Richard Dawkins could make his different slides and slide-shows available in file form. We can do a lot of mischief with those slides.

80. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #183712 by SilentMike on May 22, 2008 at 3:01 pm

I love my mp3s.

I here what you guys are saying about wanting a video and I like videos too. But I like my mp3s. They're a lot of fun to listen to when doing something else.

EDIT: OK. There are slides. Now I need the video!

81. Proving ID is Creationism

Comment #183256 by SilentMike on May 21, 2008 at 3:58 pm

27. Comment #183255 by Lucas

I've never used "IDiots" as far as I can recall. Never really took to it. I don't think it's quite like "new atheists". "IDiots" is meant as an insult and not as a neutral descriptor.

If people want to insult them, let them have their fun.

Personally I like cdesign proponentsists better.

82. Proving ID is Creationism

Comment #183252 by SilentMike on May 21, 2008 at 3:49 pm

cdesign proponentsists

83. In God's Name

Comment #183246 by SilentMike on May 21, 2008 at 3:35 pm

I believe the Technical term for this set of beliefs is stark raving bonkers.

I see the thread has drifted towards Islam. Also a threat of course, as are all fundamentalist faiths are (notice how the word "mental" is hiding in there?), perhaps more what with all the killing and burning and blowing stuff up, but I wouldn't be too quick to discount Christians as a threat. If we're not careful they may retard our culture (well yours, but mine will follow courtesy of Jewish fundamentalists).

84. What is science for?

Comment #182421 by SilentMike on May 20, 2008 at 4:32 am

The talk is very interesting. It's so nice to be able to listen to people making sense of things without someone feeling the need to give equal time to the idiot voice.

85. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181441 by SilentMike on May 17, 2008 at 8:33 am

Are they seriously suggesting that the only pupils for whom religious education should be compulsory, against their will, are the immature, thick and ignorant?

Sounds like about the right fit.

And they seem to take no account of the danger of extremists at the margins of religion - better, apparently, to ignore than to understand how they pervert the precepts of the faiths they claim to represent.

But reading the books always seems to indicate that the fundamentalists are correct (or at least closer to the original). Doesn't it?

86. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181370 by SilentMike on May 17, 2008 at 3:58 am

Are we still on this for crying out loud?

Maybe Professor Dawkins should consider removing Nazi references from his arsenal. They really are more trouble than they are worth.

EDIT: Why are the top 13 replies all in italics still? Josh are you there? I think the problem starts in the article itelf.

87. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180901 by SilentMike on May 16, 2008 at 3:47 am

"has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute,"

I'm pretty sure those aren't her legs. Legs don't bend that way, plus they tend to end with feet.

88. UC Berkeley is going to court over Evolution website

Comment #180697 by SilentMike on May 15, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Well. Goes without saying that it's all very silly. But I had to say something so I said it anyway.

Just mentioning facts (some sets of religious beliefs are compatible with science and some aren't) can not be against the first amendment. Next saying that Orthodox Jews can't eat pork will be illegal because it'll deter people who like it from joining.

89. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180600 by SilentMike on May 15, 2008 at 9:44 am

Artful_Dodger

I think I understand what your getting at. I won't get in to all your other discussions and try and refer to your original point. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe what you meant was that since nature doesn't care and individual humans do care, there must be something non-natural in humans from which the caring comes. Hence dualism.

Lets talk about two people: Jo and Ann, OK? I want to tell you something about these two people:

"Jo loves Ann"

This is believable enough. Some people do love other people. We also know one other thing. Jo's a person. In other words:

"Jo is part of Humanity"

So does "Humanity loves Ann" follow? Well in reality no. Love doesn't quite work like that does it? Jo may love Ann, and several other people may feel the same way about her. Humanity, however, doesn't share that emotion.

I think you know what I'm getting at but I'm not done. Still one hole to fill before I reach the point.

Is it OK to say something like "Humanity loves" or "Humanity cares" at all? Well that depends on your definition of relations such as "loves" or "cares". You can say that "loves" only applies to individual people. On the other hand you can say that "loves" can be applied to Humanity by defining it (for example) in the following way: "Humanity loves X" if most members of the Humanity set love X, In which case you can say that "Humanity loves" since most living human beings love someone. However what we've done here is, we've redefined the "loves" relation to apply to Humanity. Clearly "Humanity loves" in a way different than that in which "Jo loves". We've used the same token, "loves" for two different relations.

The logic is kind of informal but I hope you can follow my intention.

OK lets wrap this up. Lets assume Materialism and see if there's a contradiction:

"Jo is made of Matter"

So. Is "Matter loves Ann" true? Is "Matter loves"? Is "Matter cares"? No on all counts. This does not imply a spirit of caring outside of matter and does not create a contradiction. Humanity does not care in the way Jo cares, and neither does Matter (Or Nature or however you choose to call it).

To put in a single sentence: Nature contains caring beings though it itself does not care, nor has the capacity to care, as a whole.

90. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180487 by SilentMike on May 15, 2008 at 5:07 am

PT: What do you make of the existence of a book like this right now?

RD: Nothing very profound. What I make of it is that Michael Behe decided to write it.

Well. Now we know why Dawkins always says he can't identify trends. Who knew what would follow that damned book?

91. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #180359 by SilentMike on May 14, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Well I already read it once. Besides, I can't read while doing other stuff on the computer. I'm in need of new MP3s (one can only listen to "the selfish gene turns 30" so many times...)

92. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #180339 by SilentMike on May 14, 2008 at 4:03 pm

I actually read that thing a while ago, but if it exists in audio that would be just perfect.

93. God seekers go public

Comment #179395 by SilentMike on May 13, 2008 at 7:55 am

This will never be over. You have to figure with all that money and public support they'll eventually win and achieve their goal of dragging the US back into the dark ages.

Wouldn't that be a lot of fun?

94. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178734 by SilentMike on May 12, 2008 at 1:24 am

windweaver

You're certainly not the only one I was referring to. Let me clarify. I am no supporter of Netanyahu, and I think that Avigdor Liberman is a very dangerous man. As I said I am aware of the fact that racism is a problem in israel (as it was and is in many other countries). My problem with your collection of quotes grousely misrepresents Israel (and I'm sorry but some of them are quite out of context). Pehaps you are more aware of the comexity of the cituation but many of the readers are not.

My concern here about what Boteach is doing is quite simple: He's intentionally trying to tie the "Richard Dawkins incident" to anti-Israeli sentiment in Britain and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The two are clearly not connected.

95. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178080 by SilentMike on May 10, 2008 at 12:52 pm

158. Comment #177777 by MaxD

Windweaver,
Do you think it is appropriate to use a mass of quotes that seem to have been uttered more than twenty years ago? Only about 22% of the quotes you have are likely to have been made in the last twenty years. I see Ehud Barack makes several appearences, as does Sharon, and Olmert. Were these made in the same setting? The same day?

You are more correct than you know. I tried my hardest not to get into this debate again since I know the atmosphere here is pretty hostile, but here I go again. I'm sad to report that there are a few people here who are first and foremost anti-Israeli and will leap on every opportunity to go on an "Israel is evil" tirade (and in this case they are playing into Boteach's hands by making his point that Dawkins' remarks had something to do with anti-Israeli sentiment in British academia, which they didn't).

I happen to live in Israel and I can say with confidence that though there is racism here (which I find to be reprehensible) it is no where near the level that is alluded to by the quotes. I'm too young to remember some of them, and I didn't read all the biographies, but I can attest that the recent ones are definitely out of context. I would not in my wildest nightmares ever vote for Netanyahu, but I can assure you that if elected, he has no intention of executing a mass expulsion plan of Palestinian civilians. He didn't do anything like that, last time he was prime minister, and he won't do it if he is elected again, regardless of how you interpret something he said in 1989 at a lecture (and he probably meant an expulsion of no more than several hundred terror activist then too). Please also note that none of the (supposedly vile racist) former prime-ministers of this country ever tried to expel or exterminate the Palestinian population. This is bollocks.

The quotes are a disgrace. They are cherry picked to try and present a reality that is very different than the public persona (in Israel itself) of the people that supposedly said those things. Please note that even if the quote is correct the "explanation" of the quote may be false, as in the case of the Haim Ramon quote supposedly "justifying" Israel's policy of targeting children. There is no such policy, and there never was.

The real problem here is that Boteach, who is a an ignorant demagogue, manages to score points again by appealing to the anti-Israel sentiment, and getting the pro-Israel (or even less anti-Israel) people to gather against "Rude atheist Richard Dawkins and his antisemitic cronies" (regardless of whether they are in fact anti-Semites or just misinformed).

96. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178072 by SilentMike on May 10, 2008 at 12:22 pm

153. Comment #177763 by DalaiDrivel

I hope you'll excuse me but I will most certainly not "give it a rest". I have the same right to voice my opinion that you do and I intend to utilize it.

Richard Dawkins also has a right to speak his mind, and nobody is disputing that. I just happen to think he misspoke. He had every right to say what he said, but shouldn't have said it. It was a smear by association, it was in bad taste, it was a strategic blunder, and Dawkins should have known better than to say it.

There is no reason to say that Boteach shrieks "like Hitler". It's enough to say that he shrieks. Associating him to Hitler has the odor of the "Stalin was also an atheist" nonsense. The problem with Hitler was not that he shrieked, but rather what he was shrieking, and what he subsequently did. I am no mind reader. I don't know what Dawkins meant the effect of that phrase to be on readers. But I know the result was an unpleasant association that was far from justified in my opinion (and as you can see I'm hardly alone in this even here on RD.net).

We should try not to make people comfortable at the expense of the truth, but I would like to point out that the truth in this case just did not demand a Hitler reference. It was superfluous. Richard Dawkins could have made his valid points quite well without that reference. In fact he would have done a better job making them had he refrained from the reference.

I agree with you. People are trying to make dent's in Dawkins' armor. That's why I think Dawkins should refrain from supplying them with class A ammo, and have no doubt that this is what that unfortunate saying was; great ammo for Boteach to dent his Opponent's armor. As I said neither you nor I know what Dawkins meant, and it doesn't change the fact that what he said was in bad taste and had a bad public effect. If he meant to smear by association it means that he said, perhaps in anger, something that was unfair and indecent. If he didn't mean to smear by association then he simply made a mistake. This however doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have said it. And as I said in the beginning of my post, I will most certainly not give it a rest. It was a stupid thing to say (though it's probably not something that Hitler would have said).

97. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177701 by SilentMike on May 9, 2008 at 2:08 pm

140. Comment #177686 by DalaiDrivel

Damn the fact that it makes people squeamish. It makes people squeamish to say God doesn't exist, and that they aren't going to paradise, unless the long odds are in their favour.

That's not the same thing. We offend people because we have to (we can't voice our opinion that God does not exist without people getting offended) and not because we want to. We're not being offensive because we're mean (at least I'm not) but because there's no choice if we want to make our point. There are plenty of ways to say that Mr. Boteach is needlessly loud without resorting to Hitler. And those ways would be more effective too. Richard Dawkins gave Boteach a present by comparing his speaking style to Hitler's. Now Boteach gets to look all assaulted and offended for no reason and Dawkins looks like the fool.

And personally I think that it's wrong to do this also because it's smearing someone by association. You shouldn't pull out Hitler because of something trivial like that.

98. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177668 by SilentMike on May 9, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I think that Richard Dawkins should not have used Hitler's name.

I think that Mr. Boteach is a man with a decent sense of humor who is ignorant about science, and that he tends to raise his voice when he's making non-points.

I think that the controversies about Israel's policies and the attempts to initiate an academic boycott because of them are irrelevant to this discussion, and I'm sorry to see that some people here have fallen into Mr. Boteach's trap by making irrelevant political statements regarding Israeli policy. There are differences of opinion among rationalists on this subject (Oh boy are there some differences of opinion!) but Dawkins never even mentioned it in his reply to Boteach. This is nothing more than a red herring.

I agree with the contents of Ian's letter. I think it is, in general, reasoned and to the point.

99. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177443 by SilentMike on May 9, 2008 at 5:28 am

You shouldn't compare a Jew to Hitler like that. You shouldn't do this because -if for no other reason- you lose points and the discussion becomes all about "that".

I of course know that Prof. Dawkins didn't mean anything like what Mr. Boteach accuses him of, but mentioning Hitler's name at the end of an otherwise reasoned argument is akin to shooting oneself in the foot. Yes, he only meant that Boteach and Hitler are both very loud, but you just can't use Hitler like that, as if he were some neutral historical reference to a loud demagogue. Hitler and the Nazis are the personification of human evil to every civilized human being (and even more so for Jewish people). It's an unconventional verbal weapon and is not to be employed without careful consideration.

For whatever reason (anger, distraction etc.) Richard Dawkins chose to use a Hitler reference carelessly. He made a mistake, and Rabbi Boteach cashed in on it. He was right in clarifying it, and I would suggest that he refrain from Hitler comparisons on such mundain matters.

100. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #177110 by SilentMike on May 8, 2008 at 3:23 pm

"The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency,"

Even if it were a good decision (and Saddam was a despot with quite a lot of blood on his hands), could the objective not have been achieved in a less inept and costly fashion? How this man can say these things and expect to get away with it is beyond me.

That war was either a very bad idea to begin with, or it was a good idea that was botched beyond belief. Either way on mister Bush falls the blame.