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

Comment #130950 by Riley on February 21, 2008 at 2:31 pm

al-rawandi, no I haven't ... but I'll put it on my list of book to check out. Thanks.

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

Comment #130946 by Riley on February 21, 2008 at 2:23 pm

.


ALSO RELATED:



"Freedom squelches terrorist violence",
The Harvard Gazette, November 04, 2004

Excerpt:
Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie of Harvard: "In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty, but in fact when you look at the data, it's not there. This is true not only for events of international terrorism, as previous studies have shown, but perhaps more surprisingly also for the overall level of terrorism, both of domestic and of foreign origin," Abadie said.

Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html

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

Comment #130943 by Riley on February 21, 2008 at 2:21 pm

I agree with jimbob,

"Religion" is not to blame -it's dogmatic ideologies in general. Religions have a tendency to institutionalize dogma and transfer it down from one generation to the next, and that is a particular problem, yes. But blaming religion for 9/11 is not different than crediting religion for much of the great art and music in the world. Both blame and credit for such things rely on bad arguments.


RELATED:

BLOWING UP AN ASSUMPTION (May 20, 2005)

Over the past two years, [Robert A. Pape (University of Chicago)] compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003. A total of 315 episodes occurred, excluding attacks authorized by a national government. The lead instigator of suicide attacks, committing 76 of the 315 incidents was not an Islamic group, but rather the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group.

Pape explains that what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory the terrorists consider their homeland. Religion, often used as a tool by terrorist organizations, aids in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause.

From Pape's analysis, three general patterns support his conclusions:

* Nearly all suicide terrorist attacks -- 310 of the 315 -- took place as part of organized political or military campaigns.
* Democracies are uniquely vulnerable to suicide terrorists; America, France, India, Israel, Russia, Sri Lanka and Turkey have been the targets of almost every suicide attack of the past two decades.
* Suicide terrorist campaigns are directed toward a strategic objective; the sponsors of every campaign -- 18 organizations in all -- seek to establish or maintain political self-determination.

True to form, says Pape, there had never been a documented suicide attack in Iraq until after the American invasion in 2003. Understanding suicide terrorism as mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism holds important implications for how the United States and its allies should conduct the war on terrorism.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=1719

54. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #126904 by Riley on February 14, 2008 at 1:03 pm

bettyswollox wrote:[Ravi Zacharias] tries to tell us all that it is thanks to the Judeo-Christian worldview that Sam Harris is even allowed to open his mouth and express an opinion.

That's the crux of it.

Ravi Zacharias, and many others, think that it's the Christian world-view that we have to thank for liberal society. It's the Christian world-view that we have to thank for the end of slavery. It's the Christian world-view that we have to thank for democracy and science.

Apparently, it's the arrogance of the liberal scientific world-view that keeps getting in the way of their ever-so-humble and enlightened Christian world-view.

55. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124568 by Riley on February 9, 2008 at 9:05 pm

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP:
------------------------------------------------
- Harry Reid scores a 100% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Steny Hoyer scores a 83% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Nancy Pelosi scores a 100% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State


THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES:
------------------------------------------------
- Barack Obama scores a 100% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Hillary Clinton scores a 100% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State

56. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124563 by Riley on February 9, 2008 at 8:46 pm

scooternyc wrote:"if intent is the criteria as suggested by Eddie's and your assertion, then I would presume that both of you will be voting for McCain.."

Stated intent and past performance is the basis I use to conclude that the 2008 Republican Presidential candidates and Republican leadership in Congress would act to undermine Church State separation, and that the 2008 Democratic Party candidates and Democratic leadership in Congress would not.

You're right, there's never going to be any certain proof available for this on either side of the argument. For me, it's just a well reasoned conclusion based on evidence from statements and actions made by those in question. There's nothing dishonest about citing the stated intent of the .

And I think you have your facts about McCain wrong. He has definitively stated his intent to appoint another Supreme Court justice in the ideological mold of Alito (that is: "the more religion the better").

JOHN MCCAIN, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- John McCain scores a 33% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (notably among the best of the Republican Party leadership, good for him, still not particularly promising for us)

- After his comment that he would draw the line on another Alito because he "wore his conservatism on his sleeve", McCain immediately acted to shoot-down any misconstrual of his meaning:

John McCain said: "I've said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I’ve said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. [...] I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked."

(McCain was apparently concerned that Alito was a bad strategic pick because he looked too partisan, but he definitely didn't object to his judicial ideology.)

- In September 2007, McCain said that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation"

- McCain was an active advocate for the confirmation of Judge Robert Bork
(admittedly, the politics that are behind these nominations are sometimes unclear and you usually don't know for sure what you're going to get (e.g. you get Scalia one time and O'Connor the next), but Bork!?!?! ... no one could claim they didn't know what he was about. Bork was a Bible literalist and Creationist; in a word: he was insane!)




THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you vote the Republican Party back into the majority of Congress, Roy Blunt, John Boehner, Jon Kyl, and Mitch McConnell will control the legislative agenda. There's no comparison between these guys and anybody else you'll find representing the majority of the Democratic Party. It's not even close.

- Roy Blunt scores a 0% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- John Boehner scores a 0% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Jon Kyl scores a 0% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State
- Mitch McConnell scores a 0% rating by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State

57. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124556 by Riley on February 9, 2008 at 8:19 pm

scooternyc wrote:It's worth noting further that Justice Scalia was nominated by Reagan but 98 Senators voted "yea". Check out the names of the many DEMOCRATS listed.

You keep bringing this up. It's a fatally flawed argument! A senator faced with an up or down decision on a judge nominated by a president from the other party is lucky if he manages to get the least offensive nominee among the options likely on offer. In no way is this confirmation vote an indication of the Senator's ideal choice for judge.

The majority party in Congress controls the legislative agenda. The president controls which judges get nominated. The majority party and president use their power to force the opposition party to make compromises; they force the opposition party to choose between the lesser of two undesirable outcomes if only to try to make them look bad. That's the way party politics works.

You'd have something to support your case if you had an example of:
1) A Democratic President nominating a judge like Clarence Thomas.
2) A Democratic Party controlled congress sending a bill to the President that undermined Church/State separation.

Otherwise, all you have shown is that this issue is not the top priority of the Democratic Party. Yes, they're willing at times to compromise on this issue in favor of others.

58. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124555 by Riley on February 9, 2008 at 8:17 pm

scooternyc wrote: "Democrats may have SAID they want to uphold church/state separation but the votes I've presented alone prove this to be untrue."

It definitely doesn't prove (or even suggest) what you think it does.

Again, recognition that this issue is divided along partisan lines does not require it to be the highest priority of the Democratic Party and supported by 100% of its membership while at the same time opposed by 100% of the Republican party membership.

59. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124376 by Riley on February 9, 2008 at 9:08 am

Scooternyc: "Judge Jones flies in the face of the 'theory' that only Republicans support religious ideology as his decision in Dover proved."

No one is claiming that being a member of the Republican Part (or being a nominated judge from the Republican Party) necessitates that you will never make a decision that favors church/state separation. It's just overwhelmingly more likely to be the case. Opposite to this tendancy, presidents from the Democratic Party nominate judges that are more likely to support the constitutionality of church/state separation.

What you say is true, but it doesn't support you arguments. You continue to avoid the crux of the issue:

Do you deny these assersions:

A Republican controlled Congress and White house in 2008 would result in new legislation and new judges that infringe on church/state separation?

Conversely, a Democratic Party controlled Congress and White house in 2008 would NOT result in new legislation and new judges that infringe on church/state separation?

60. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124360 by Riley on February 9, 2008 at 7:41 am

scooternyc,

I don't think you've shown that Tabbash's argument is wrong. Do you deny that if the House, Senate, and White House were Republican controlled that judges undermining church/state separation would get appointed? Alternatively, if there were a Democratic controlled House, Senate, and White House, do you deny that such judges wouldn't get appointed? That's the argument that you need to show is wrong or unfounded.

Here are the realities that I think you're missing:

1) An issue doesn't need to have 100% support in a party and 100% opposition in the other for it to be considered a partisan issue. It's I think at least 80%-20% respectively in each party ... that's enough to call it a partisan issue.

2) Republicans are the only (or nearly the only) legislators authoring and sponsoring bills that infringe on church/state separation. The person voting for or against a particular bill is often weighing many issues and is almost always making compromises between competing issues. You can say that church/state separation is not the most important issue to those who vote for one of these bills, but you can't necessarily say that the office holder isn't generally in support of church/state separation.

3) It's without question the case that Republican presidents have been the presidents that nominate anti-"Establishment Clause" judges. Most importantly, it appears to be more of the same from the Republican Party in the upcoming election. At a time when the courts could become heavily imbalanced in this regard, every Republican candidate this year (even the libertarian Ron Paul) promises to nominate judges that are ideologically opposed to church/state separation. That's an understatement. Most of the Republican presidential candidates have clamored over themselves trying to convince the Repubican base that they will be the president who will most reliably deliver them more of their cherished faith-in-government promoting judges. Even John McCain, the apparent Republican nominee and least like than most of the others in this regard has said he'll nominate more judges in the mold of Alito and Roberts.

The fact that a minority number in the Democratic Party found no legal basis to reject the confirmation of a Republican judge nominee (but at least enough of them rallied to get rid of Bork! - what an unmitigated DISASTER he would have been!!!), or that this minority had other issues that they found to be more important to be concerned about than church/state separation, or that they were more concerned of the alternative nominees the president would likely submit, is categorically a much different than being the Party which actually does the nominating and does the advocating for such judges.

61. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124158 by Riley on February 8, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Here's another real example of a religious-right victory threatening church/state separation:

By a 5-4 vote, a conservative majority concluded taxpayers did not have "standing" to challenge in court the discretionary spending authority of the executive branch for its Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI).

This I think will exemplify the type of court that John Roberts will lead and the strategy his court will use to undermine church/state separation. It's called "court stripping". Chief Justice Roberts (with the support of like-minded justices) will act to strip federal courts of the authority to even hear cases concerning church and state separation - thus allowing violations to go unchecked.

Is signaling alarm about this just a "liberal dogma" conspiracy as Hitchens claims or is it really something to be concerned about?

I think it's something worth being reasonably concerned about.

62. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124136 by Riley on February 8, 2008 at 12:47 pm

scooternyc, I'm opposed to dogma in whatever form it takes, whether it be religious or in Hitchens case: political. But just because Hitchens is unforgivably dogmatic on some issues doesn't mean I can't support him on others. It's not a matter of the person, it's a matter of the issue.

Likewise, on the issue of god-belief I oppose every single U.S. presidential candidate: Democratic and Republican. But on the issue of church-state separation, I necessarily support the Democratic Party platform as articulated by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I think if you care about preserving church-state separation, these are the best candidates. But I'm open to argument. Which candidate still in the race do you think is better on that issue?

Also, I think your letter in response to Eddie Tabash is unfair. Before you claim someone's motive to be "inherently dishonest", I think you first need to show that their argument is wrong, at a minimum. Ideally, the issue of church/state separation shouldn't be a partisan issue, but that's the reality. Accepting that reality and dealing with it sensibly doesn't by itself deserve the accusation that his real motivation is not in defense of church/state separation, but rather just partisan. The argument still needs to be addressed.

If you have reason to believe despite their past actions that the base of the Republican party is not actively seeking to weaken the wall of separation between church and state and does not pose a threat in that regard, then I'd like to hear it. Conversely, despite their religiosity, if you have reason to believe that the base of the Democratic Party does not wish to defend the separation of church and state, let's hear that. The worst I think we can say at this point about the Democratic Party (in general) is that they don't do enough in that defense, which you're right to point out as a problem.

Unfortunately, as a matter of practice, we have only a two party system. If you want to protect the separation of church and state, there is (at this time at least) only one choice to go with: The Democratic Party.

I think.

Show me another way and I'll listen.

63. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123992 by Riley on February 8, 2008 at 5:56 am

scooternyc wrote: Riley, your post is historically accurate, but it cannot be dismissed that Democrats have imbibed in this religiosity to an overwhelming extent, as well.

They may not be the "extremists" that Republicans can be, but their participation is silent endorsement of the beliefs themselves which are inherently dishonest, as we all agree when it comes to "claims of supernatural".

Of course you're right, at least with regard to general religiosity in both U.S. political parties. But I made no mention of Republicans or Democrats in my post. I was simply pointing out the gains made by the "religious-right" which Hitchens claims don't exist. I think you'd have to agree, these are real threats to, if not actual violations of church and state separation. It's Hitchens who has chosen to emphasize this as a partisan issue by dismissing these noteworthy threats and trespasses as: "liberal dogma". But it's not Hitchens' partisanship that particularly bothers me, it's his persistant willingness to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of sensationalism.

I think I've provided enough evidence to show that Hitchens is wrong on the facts (again).

64. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #123630 by Riley on February 7, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Socrates,

I particularly like Benjamin O'Donnell's term: "anti-dogmatist". I like that term a lot. It's by itself is a great debate point element.

65. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #123629 by Riley on February 7, 2008 at 12:15 pm

The Hitler claim is most easily dismissed I think:
"The national government ... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."

-- Adolf Hitler, 1938

66. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123616 by Riley on February 7, 2008 at 12:06 pm

For another debate between a liberal theist and atheist, check this debate out between David Wolpe (Rabbi) and Sam Harris.

http://www.ajula.edu/Content/ContentUnit.asp?CID=1766

67. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123501 by Riley on February 7, 2008 at 9:16 am

In response to Hitchens' claim that the religious-right "have never recovered" and that it's just "liberal dogma" to say that there is anything to be concerned about. Here is a list of gains made by the religious-right in America since the end of Prohibition and the Tennessee Scopes trial:
--------------------------------------------------------------



- "In God We Trust" added to all our currency and "Under God" added to the pledge (both added during the 1950s (Joseph McCarthy era)).

- The creation of the "Office of Faith Based Initiatives".

- "University" accreditation granted to the Rev. Jerry Falwell's "Liberty University".

- The Rev. Pat Robertson's Regent "University" Law School employing 150 graduates (approximately one out of every six Regent alumni) to the highest positions of law enforcement in the United States government. Most notable among these is Monica Goodling who recently resigned as assistant to U.S. attorney general - the top legal authority in the nation.

- George H.W. Bush's Supreme Court appointment of Clarence "no, the constitutional separation of church and state "Establishment Clause" doesn't apply to the individual states" Thomas.

- George W. Bush's Supreme Court appointment of Samuel "the more religion, the better" Alito.

- George W. Bush's Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appointment of John "the federal courts don't have the power to hear church and state separation cases" Roberts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Add to the above, this below list of influential anti-secular organizations, actively working to undermine church-state separation, all of which have come to prominence in just the past few decades:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) (rose from relative obscurity to prominence in the 80's and now directly (and indirectly) staffs many of the most influential positions of the Bush Administration )

- The Heritage Foundation (officially declares that there is no constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state)

- Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise (ACFE) (created by William Kristol and Bush "architect" Karl Rove)

- Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC)

- Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD)

- Institute on Religion and Public Life (IRPL)
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=174634#p174634

68. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123222 by Riley on February 6, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Righton,

Hitchens brought upon himself the diversion in this debate concerning whether or not "religion is overall a good thing for society". Timothy Jackson was simply responding to claims Hitchens makes in his book (and everywhere else it seems) about how religion poisons everything, and how it can only ever be bad, etc. etc (dogmatic blather).

Also, although I know it's anecdotal, my own first-hand experience of Christianity in the US jives well with Timothy Jackson's account. This includes the experience in my own family as well as at the Catholic schools I went to and "youth group" retreats I participated in, etc. My guess would be that his perspective represents a very large number of people.

69. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123177 by Riley on February 6, 2008 at 2:44 pm

krisking,

I have no particular problem with people making abusive comments, at least no more so than I have with people who are obnoxious enough to claim themselves a "true christian" (suggestively demeaning any other christian that disagrees with your opinion on the matter). I do have a particular problem however with people who make abusive and baseless claims under the front of being a rational responder. Such abusive responses just add more unreason and dogma to a situation already suffering from far too much unreason and dogma.

It may necessarily be the case that more bad comes from believing in "God" than good can come of it. But, unlike Hitchens and others, I'll wait for evidence on that issue before I declare it to be fact.

Even if the opposite were true however, even if more good could come from "god belief" than bad (as people like Timothy Jackson and yourself would probably claim), my guess is that still even more good would be created by adopting a rational, humanist, and skeptic outlook on life instead. But I can't be certain that would be the case. So, if someone thinks that their own quality of life and relationships are improved by adopting a "true christian" lifestyle, what can I say? What can anyone say? To each their own.

I'll keep pointing out to these "true christians" that the intellectual basis for belief in the "God of the Bible" is shotty and primitive, that most of the rest of their "true christian" beliefs are dogmas, and I might even point out to this "true christian" that his claim to being a "true christian" is no better than most any other christian's claim to being a "true christian"; but I do this only because I can adequately attack this "true christian" on evidence.

70. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122995 by Riley on February 6, 2008 at 10:37 am

There is an important distinction being drawn in these debates that too many atheists I think tragically miss: the distinction between "God belief" and "religion".

Atheism is simply the rejection of the "God" claim. But when those such as Hitchens, under the banner of atheism, declare: "religion poisons everything", he and they are now themselves making a claim, and they burden the atheist movement with that claim. This situation, caused for the most part by Hitchens, has already become so bad that the "religion poisons everything" claim has become dogma for many atheists. It certainly at least has become dogma for Hitchens. Timothy Jackson is unfortunately right in at least one regard in this debate; Hitchens is the more dogmatic of the two of them on stage.

If linking brutal deeds (such as 9-11) to religion in general is reasonable, then linking brutal movements promoting a world without religion (like "The Soviet League of the Militant Godless") to all other movements promoting a world without religion (like the "new atheists" movement) should be reasonable too.

Of course, neither comparison is particularly reasonable.

If you can't rid yourself of "religion poisons everything" dogma, please at least stop the hypocrisy of blaming religion (in general) for a particular human massacre and then getting indignant when someone returns the favor by blaming anti-religious movements (in general) for another particular human massacre.

71. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #122976 by Riley on February 6, 2008 at 9:56 am

Fire1974,

I recommend you also read Carl Sagan's last book: "Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark"

72. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122500 by Riley on February 5, 2008 at 11:01 am

HughCaldwell, That Kenneth Roth Human Rights Watch article is a good read. Thanks for posting it.

-----------

Those attempting to defend the Iraq invasion on a humanitarian basis do not strengthen their arguments by pointing out that: "Saddam Hussein was a Grade A **** " or that "Saddam Hussein was given his chance, but...". These are terrible arguments. Why should innocent millions suffer in order for revenge to be served against Saddam Hussein?

A humanitarian rationale was occasionally offered for the Iraq war, but it was plainly not the goal of the invasion, most here seem to agree. Predictably, wars guided by non-humanitarian goals inevitably lead to aggravated levels of human suffering and human rights abuses. But even if humanitarian aid were the primary goal of the invasion and the occupation and transition were properly executed with that goal primarily in mind, could a net-benefit (overall less suffering and improved expression of human rights) have even then been achieved? I don't think so.

Despite his past criminal actions, Hussein was not at the time of invasion an extraordinary source of human right abuses and there was no particular reason to suspect he would be in the future (the burden of proof is on those that argue he would be). Fact is, at the time of the invasion, Iraq was less guilty of human rights abuses and less connected to international terrorism than many other countries held in good standing, for instance: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Would those who argue it was reasonable to expect a positive humanitarian outcome from the invasion of Iraq (if only it had been executed properly) make a similar argument for the merits of invading Saudi Arabia?

A net good could not be served by the invasion of a recognized and sovereign nation not already actively engaged in large scale and severe human abuses. Here are three reasons:

1) War itself unavoidably causes large scale and severe human suffering and human rights abuses. War will at a minimum increase human suffering and rights abuses in places not already subjected to similarly sever conditions.
2) The aftermath of war is uncertain. You can't be assured that you'll substantially improve the human rights situation after conflict. Certainly that's the case in Iraq.
3) Defense of international human rights relies on the existence and equally applied enforcement of international law. The invasion of a sovereign nation in violation of international treaties is a crime. Such crimes undermine the establishment of international law essential to providing a justice-based authority where reasonable humanitarian interventions are possible (e.g. a net good might have been achievable in Darfur and East Timor, they were certainly more reasonable candidates than Iraq).

--

To the extent that the enforcement of international human rights laws are an important part of protecting human rights, the greatest long-term humanitarian good might well be achieved by putting George W. Bush on trial for war crimes (e.g. the unlawful invasion of Iraq (a nation that could not be shown to pose an imminent threat) and the mistreatment of prisoners of war).

.

73. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121894 by Riley on February 4, 2008 at 10:01 am

"There was no 'US led NATO invasion of Iraq'" - HughCaldwell

You're right, not officially. I should not describe it as a NATO invasion, but all 26 NATO members have at one point or another provided training and equipment in support.

74. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121881 by Riley on February 4, 2008 at 9:45 am

Here's a great expert opinion piece and overview of the U.S. led NATO invasion of Iraq:

"Iraq - What Happened, Why and What Do We Do Now?"
by Karen Kwiatkowski, October 16, 2007

Karen Kwiatkowski is a World Politics scholar (PhD) and a retired USAF lieutenant colonel assigned to the U.S. Pentagon's Near East South Asia office, the home of what would later become the Bush Administration's Office of Special Plans (OSP). The OSP was the primary source of U.S. "intelligence failures" leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

75. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121771 by Riley on February 4, 2008 at 5:53 am

If you're interested linkages between the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and Bush Administration "intelligence failures", you might be interested in reading this thread:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=158973#p158973

76. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121560 by Riley on February 3, 2008 at 5:07 pm

With regard to the U.S. led Nato invasion of Iraq:

Keith, I'm not suspicious that leaders of the Western powers are looking to steal the oil. I'm suspicious that people like Bush and Cheney have destroyed the lives of millions in order to control the sale of oil for the sake of national security while at the same time seeking to procure highly lucrative long-term contracts for the companies that got them elected.

There is an important context to consider when analyzing this issue:

1) Among the very first things that the Bush Administration did after occupying Iraq was privatize the Iraqi oil industry. Why?

2) The George Bush Administration coddles one of the world's most oppressive dictatorships: Saudi Arabia; a country where women until recently weren't even allowed to get a drivers license. A country which continues to fund radical Islamic schools including schools responsible for ideologically training most of the jihadists that attacked the United States on 9/11.

While that George Bush Administration warms-up to this oppressive and radically fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship, it has at the same time demonized the democratically elected government of Venezuela. Members of the Bush administration have led much of the American public to believe that popularly elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is a dictator. Former Republican Presidential candidate Pat Robertson even called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Why? What is the difference between Hugo Chavez and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia?

Identifying and noting the difference in Western policy toward Hugo Chavez and King Fahd I think is an essential component to understanding the reasons why Nato invaded Iraq. Clearly, it had little to do with the wellfare of common people and the promotion of democracy in the world, but rather mostly it had to do with control (not theft, but control) over oil resources.

77. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121558 by Riley on February 3, 2008 at 4:54 pm

For a much better debate, I would look to this debate between David Wolpe (Rabbi) and Sam Harris:

http://www.ajula.edu/Content/ContentUnit.asp?CID=1766

78. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #121378 by Riley on February 3, 2008 at 10:24 am

Quotes from the authors and founding signatories of the U.S. Constitution are relevant because they provide insight into what their intentions were when they wrote and signed the document that defines what the United States Government is. Here are some insightful quotes:




JAMES MADISON:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

BEN FRANKLIN:
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

THOMAS JEFFERSON:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

JOHN ADAMS:
“It will never be pretended that any persons employed in [the formation of the American governments] had interviews with gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven ... ; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

Even though Madison and Adams were Christian themselves, they still believed passionately in founding a country (a government) that was explicitly not Christian.

79. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #121365 by Riley on February 3, 2008 at 9:52 am

The United States government can not be characterized as "Christian". The Constitution of the United States explicitly forbads that. This issue was of such great importance to the founding signatories of the United States constitution that the very first amendment is dedicated to their decision not to affiliate the U.S. with any particular religion.

The people and culture of America might be characterized as "Christian", but even this is too simplistic. The United States is a nation of mixed religious backgrounds. Yes, a strong majority of the U.S. population is accurately characterized as "Christian" but there are significant and influential minorities.

In response to "blasphemer_number1" points:
1) "In god we trust" and "under god" are not specifically Christian references. They're generic theism. The 10 Commandments are Judeo-Christian.

2) U.S. court houses displaying the 10 Commandments have been instructed by the U.S. government to remove them.

3) The method used to be sworn into office is a personal choice made by the person being sworn -- it's not dictated by U.S. law (such a law would be unconstitutional). Non-Christian office holders in the U.S. have been sworn in on the koran, Talmud, and on no holy book at all.

4) "In god we trust" and "under God" were added to U.S. currency and the pledge during the 1950's: a direct result of the McCarthyism hysteria of that period. McCarthyism was one of the most embarrassing periods of American political history. It featured widespread and unconstitutional government harassment of minority political, social, and religious views. The injection of "In god we trust" and "under God" into American traditions were shameful remnants of that McCarthyist era. Like the Confederate flag, we unfortunately still endure such embarrassing reminders, but that doesn't mean such symbols define what the United States Government is.

80. Study Uncovers Memory Aid: A Scent During Sleep

Comment #118009 by Riley on January 30, 2008 at 8:07 am

Dr. Stickgold, in an interview with David Corcoran of the New York Times, Science Times podcast had this to say:

"The amount of sleep [students] get doesn't seem to make any difference in how well they perform. But the variability in that sleep, kids who sleep consistently, the same amount each night do very well. Those that get a lot of variability do horribly. [Students] that had just 1 hour average variation from night to night in their amount of sleep [in a several night period leading up to an exam] dropped 20% points on their test scores [compared to those who did not vary their amount of sleep]."

Listen to the interview here: The Science Times Podcast, 2007/10/23


.

81. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #114548 by Riley on January 22, 2008 at 11:51 am

The phrase: "there is no 'there' there" is not universally understood I guess. That it doesn't make sense is kind of the point anyway.

explanation:
The "supernatural" is basically defined as: that which is separate from everything that is, and yet has impact on that which is.

The "supernatural" is a self contradictory concept (if it impacts existence, then it is part of existence); as such, it's sensibly meaningless. I think it adds nothing to our language except confusion.

note: I don't define "supernatural" as something outside of "nature" because that assumes there must be something that isn't "nature" (i.e. the cosmos) ... and that begs the question. "begging the question" is the core problem caused by the terms we use in our non-sense believing culture.

82. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #114520 by Riley on January 22, 2008 at 11:04 am

robotaholic wrote: we're all just people who don't believe in god/gods - so stop trying to think of a positive label just because of aesthetics"

... or even better, stop altogether using a label to describe that which doesn't need a special identity.

"Supernatural" is another example of a term that we should stop using. It's a meaningless a term. The word "supernatural" makes it sound as if there is something there not to believe in. There isn't even a there there, and we have come up with a name for it!

Rational people shoot themselves in the foot when they uncritically adopt the language of non-sense believers.

83. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #114009 by Riley on January 21, 2008 at 7:59 am

Jack,

One major problem with the term "atheism" is that non-belief is the null hypothesis already. The null hypothesis position doesn't get replaced with another name in other cases of non-belief. Why should the null hypothesis with respect to god-belief be a special case?

I think in just about every case that you've listed, you've misrepresented the reasons behind why Sam doesn't like the use of the term "atheist", and the character of the alternatives that he advocates.

Many a political group would agree with the assertion that: "it is inherently bad to identify yourself by what you stand against". The anti-abortion movement for example, became the "pro-life" movement and as such succeeded in ways it probably never would have by simply being "anti-abortion". That doesn't mean it's not possible to define yourself by what you're against, but in most cases, it's less effective politically to do so. But like I said, you're not really getting to the reasons why Sam and others argue against use of the term "atheism" by bringing this point up.

Sam's reasons and arguments, as I understand them, go much deeper. He's saying among other things that for us to organize under the moniker of "atheism" we both risk the danger of associating "atheism" with a world-view (which it is not, or at least shouldn't be), and worse, we make it seem that the "god hypothesis" claim is on equal footing with the non-acceptance of that claim; we're creating the appearance that the two sides share an equal burden. We know that the burden of proof is entirely on the people claiming "God", not at all on those asking for proof to support that claim. Let's define our position accordingly -- the term "atheist" undermines that position.

As per Sam's example: there is no need for the term "a-astrologer". Requiring proof before accepting the astrology claim needs no special name. If we were to assign non-belief in astrology a special-case terminology, the effect would be to lend apparent credibility to the astrology claim, as is the case already benefiting the "God" claim.

84. Pascal's Wager

Comment #112956 by Riley on January 18, 2008 at 10:32 am

If "God" exists, surely "God" will favor people who reject superstition and gullibility (i.e. "faith"). Superstition and gullibility are the tools which empower the "Prince of Lies" (as they do all con-men).

So:
On the small possibility that "God" does exist, my eternal life is assured by rejecting superstition (e.g. "The Devil"). On the other hand, if there is no god, I win again, because I haven't wasted my one and only life in pursuit of superstitious belief.

I win either way!

85. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #112931 by Riley on January 18, 2008 at 9:43 am

There are good arguments and bad arguments. A moderate adherent to a bad argument is of course better than a dogmatic adherent to a bad argument, but neither is good. And it doesn't matter where the source of the bad argument comes from. For instance:

"the cure for more 9/11s is atheism"-Diacanu

This is as bad an argument as a good many of the religious arguments I've heard.

Witness the sequential birth of a dogma
-----------------------------------------------------------
1) "Imagine no religion"... becomes:
2) "Imagine no religion" accompanied by a picture of World Trade Center towers still standing. ... becomes:
3) "if not for religion, 9/11 would not have happened"...becomes:
4) "the cure for more 9/11s is atheism".
... the most extreme atheism-as-a-world-view assertion I've heard yet.

If only the Middle East were full of atheists, if it were, then we should not expect that 100 years of foreign mischief-making in the region's governments and exploitation of the region's resources would result in a foreign attack emanating from the region's people. How convenient.

This thread is chock-full of such bad arguments and dogmatic statements. Clearly, "atheism" is not a cure for them. Usually, I think broad statements made about "religion" and "atheism" are doomed to contribute to bad arguments.

86. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #112883 by Riley on January 18, 2008 at 8:14 am

There are good arguments and bad arguments. A moderate adherent to a bad argument is of course better than a dogmatic adherent to a bad argument, but neither is good.

Every argument and claim, religious or otherwise, should be examined and judged openly, without reverence to the idea or the person making the claim. Modern liberal society in general, and moderate adherents to religious faith in particular, tend to shelter religious claims from criticism. What sense does this make? Do we do this out of fear of reactionary extremism?

If so, this is at best a stop-gap solution to the long-term problem caused by extremism. Allowing bad arguments to be made and adhered-to without challenge, lends legitimacy to those arguments; legitimacy they have not earned. Silence allows those non-evidentiary ideas (even the benign ones) to fester in such a way that they can (and frequently do) metastasize into dangerous world-views.

87. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #111170 by Riley on January 13, 2008 at 9:03 pm

Converse,

Converse02 wrote: I'm an atheist activist, so what? It is only natural for an atheist, who is passionate about atheism, to be an activist. However, with adoption of atheistic activism and the desire to create an atheist world, it does not necessarily follow we pick up Marxist/Stalinist ideology ...

Of course it doesn't. No more so than being religious necessarily follows that you pick up the ideology and methods of the Spanish Inquisition.

Modern-day atheist groups and Soviet atheist groups such as "The Soviet League of the Militant Godless" share a common world-view: "the desire for an atheist world", as you put it. Such atheist activist groups have different methods and differently flavored ideologies, of course, but they are bound by that one common world-view. It's not too much to say that it was the attempt to realize this world-view that substantially contributed to the oppression and murder of many religious people in Soviet Russia. Why not take the Soviet Bolsheveks at their word?

To make my position clear: I think linking the brutal attempts to eradicate religion in the 20th century to all attempts to promote a world without religion is no more defensible than linking the brutal attacks of 9/11 to "religion" in general.

Neither is rational. Using such irrational claims to opportunisticly attack the out-group is counterproductive and it's hypocritical for those claiming to promote the cause of reason to engage theists with these arguments.

Sam Harris correctly points out that "atheism" by itself does not lead to atrocities, something else needs to be added. The same is true for theism. Belief in a god by itself does not lead to atrocities, something else needs to be added. It is I think the liberal world-view (which includes for instance a protection of individual and human rights) that reduces human susceptibility to atrocity. This liberal world view is not alien to god-belief or religion in general, and not a necessary component of non-belief; so again we know some other factor is involved. Why not focus debate on that factor instead of aspects we know aren't crucial?

88. Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

Comment #111029 by Riley on January 13, 2008 at 11:00 am

Theists have created the term "agnostic" to describe someone who does not claim to be able to prove that "God" does not exist. But the label "agnostic" to be meaningfully used, must be applied consistently.

Anyone who claims neither to be able to prove nor disprove the existence of "God", deserves the label: "agnostic".

..

89. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #110995 by Riley on January 13, 2008 at 10:34 am

I like sidfaiwu's response best. The problem has to do with being able to reliably certify the source of where the experience is coming from.

The ability to reliably authenticate the source of an experience (or message) is as important as the experience itself. A message purporting to be of "God" that exists in form susceptible to counterfeit and mimicry (e.g. a "holy book", an "experience", and any other form where the mere possibility exists of other explanation) is reason enough to know that the message is not of "God".


Here is the reasoning for this, by example:
Imagine that you are King and that you have a new set of commandments to impart to your subjects. Unfortunately, there are those among your people with their own ideas of how your subjects "ought" to behave. You have a particular problem because many of these prideful subjects are also unscrupulous enough to distribute their own set of commandments and claim them to be made in your name, under your authority.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you ensure that every one of your subjects is personally able to differentiate between messages and commandments sent with your authority, and messages and commandments sent by false messengers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order for your subjects to be able to choose to follow your commandments, they must be able to authenticate the source of the commandments they are receiving. To successfully communicate your message, you must be able to send your message in a form (i.e. in an experience) that is uniquely attributed to you (i.e. that is impossible to mimic or occur by chance). In this way, your subjects can know not only which messages are of you, they can also know that any message sent in a form not uniquely attributable to you, must be false.

In Short:
If you can't prove it is of "God", you can be certain it is not of "God".

90. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #106318 by Riley on January 2, 2008 at 4:43 pm

al-rawandi, Your comments and arguments are well made. Please keep them coming.

91. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106294 by Riley on January 2, 2008 at 4:00 pm

prettygoodformonkeys wrote:
...to point to market manipulation as a successful example is even less convincing. Did you watch your investments go down the tubes as the Savings and Loan bandits were bailed out with your own tax dollars? How about the present debacle involving loans to people without a pulse? Another bailout, one that serves to illustrate what we can accomplish when we put our ox-gored brains to it.

prettygoodformonkeys, Again, you're ignoring the calculation of alternatives.

The alternative: a market without any regulation is not necessarily better than a market with regulation. In fact an overwhelming amount of evidence suggests that markets with some regulation outperform markets without regulation. Some regulations are good, some regulations are bad, of course.

92. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106265 by Riley on January 2, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Diacanu,
I'm not particularly interested in preserving the resemblances of humanity. I'm interested in preserving the opportunity for the advancement of reason and the expression of culture and intelligence in whatever form they may take.

I can't make an argument for why you should be interested in that. You either are or you aren't.

93. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106252 by Riley on January 2, 2008 at 2:54 pm

I think you're wrong prettygoodformonkeys. Sam does seem to be arguing that we should exercise some control over the direction of our future development:

Sam Harris wrote:
Will [transforming ourselves] be a good thing? The question presupposes that we have a viable alternative. But what is the alternative to our taking charge of our biological destiny? Might we be better off just leaving things to the wisdom of Nature? I once believed this. But we know that Nature has no concern for individuals or for species. [...] Those that survive do so despite Her indifference. While the process of natural selection has sculpted our genome to its present state, it has not acted to maximize human happiness; nor has it necessarily conferred any advantage upon us beyond the capacity raise the next generation to child-bearing age. In fact, there may be nothing about human life after the age of forty (the average lifespan until the 20th century) that has been selected by evolution at all. And with a few exceptions (e.g. the gene for lactose tolerance), we probably haven't adapted to our environment much since the Pleistocene.

[...]

We are in many respects ill-suited to the task of building a global civilization.

[...]

These concerns cannot be waved aside with adages like, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I agree with Sam and many others here on this thread. Nature (like the invisible hand of the market) is blind and indifferent to the cause of human happiness. We can either take our chances and hope for blind-luck to secure our future happiness, or we can use our intelligence to take some measure of control over our future lives: guide Nature like we guide our economic markets. The process is far from perfect, but we get better at it over time and the alternative (no market regulation) is worse.

Maybe you disagree, but it's this calculation of alternatives that is the essential part of Sam's argument and it's the part being missed by Diacanu and others (or at least not reflected in their dissenting remarks). To say flatly (paraphrasing) "the outcome would be bad, we shouldn't do it" avoids the important question: What is the likely outcome of not changing human biology?

Due to nuclear weapons and other global changing technologies we may now be in a situation that choosing not to modify human biology puts ourselves at risk of an even more catastrophic outcome than that situation we might be in with genetic modification. The impact of genetic design on society might in fact lead to a period of turmoil, but we can hope to recover from it eventually. The alternative may more likely lead to global extinction in the near future.

94. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100396 by Riley on December 18, 2007 at 2:53 pm

hcholm wrote:
I think the best way to answer those dreaded Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot questions is by equating the regimes they represented to religions.
[...]
The problem is the use of the word "atheist", which does not include the lack of belief in secular dogmas. We could need another word, "adogmatic", to also include the lack of belief in all totalitarian, dogmatic ideologies. Most modern atheists are probably adogmatic as well, and their views will have nothing to with say Stalin's.

I think you're right on the mark with this hcholm.

In that sense though, why do we even need to mention "religion"? The term is such a generalization and so ill defined that attacking it as a whole makes atheists out to be unmeasured and dogmatic themselves.

Why not just criticize the dogma specifically? If a religion can survive without its dogma, then so be it.

BigChiefRainInFace wrote:
avatar"Are those people that say they have had a religious experience deluded?" RD: "I think they are"

The answer, although correct, might turn off less people if it included an acknowledgment that these experiences can be transformative [...]

I disagree BigChief, I think it's better to just say it straight forwardly.

If there were more time in the interview of course I think your points are very good. It would only be fair to acknowledge the emotional merits of those experiences, but it's best I think to start off with a succinct and clear statement that: "yes, I think these are delusions!"

95. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100256 by Riley on December 18, 2007 at 12:30 pm

I thought that Prof Dawkins did great. Fantastic.

However, if atheists are now officially making the claim that the world would necessarily be better if there were no religion in it, on top of the claim that there is no god, then we have officially made ourselves fair game for comparison to the Soviets during the Stalinist period. The cause to rid the world of religion because religion was harmful to society was an articulated part of the Soviet manifesto and the Soviets during the Stalinist era killed and oppressed a great many religious people explicitly in the name of that cause.

Of course, apt comparison or not, it's irrelevant to any argument about weather or not religious claims are true. Maybe we should just keep the focus on what is true?

96. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98449 by Riley on December 13, 2007 at 3:54 pm

gr8hands, I was seriously hoping we could resolve this, yes, but apparently not. It's the same problem again.


Follow this, it's pretty straight forward:



1) I make the statement:
"Imagine an Internet where people don't assume that the only explanation for a disagreement is that the other person must be stupid and as such deserving of personal attacks and insults."

2) You then assume that not only is this statement being directed at people like yourself (an implication of my statement, fair enough) but that my statement is ALSO a personal accusation that accuses you of specifically using the term "stupid". How do you draw that conclusion, the second one, even from implication? I have no idea.

3) You then write:
"provide the Comment # in this thread where I used the word 'stupid'".
But I never claimed that you did use the word "stupid". By implication, I've drawn the conclusion that you were calling people stupid, yes, but I never accused you of using the word "stupid". I should have never played along with this straw-man argument: my bad.

4) Yes, I consider the implications of your statement:
"Aren't you people supposed to be able to use reason? It appears to be in short supply"
to fit within the definition of "stupid". You apparently don't. Fine, you're entitled to that opinion.

5) Now you go on a tirade suggesting how unreasonable it is that I use: "the 'implications' of what [you] wrote rather than what [you] actually wrote". Again, where do I accuse you of using the word "stupid"? I don't think I ever do.

6) You yourself seem to have no problems using the implications of my words, and not my actual words.

And there we are: your straw man argument and your double standard. I'm done here, you'll be happy to hear no doubt.

97. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98354 by Riley on December 13, 2007 at 2:04 pm

steve99, I didn't change the meaning of a word, I chose the word that fit what I was describing.

gr8hands wrote in comment 431#:
"Aren't you people supposed to be able to use reason? It appears to be in short supply".

I know the definition of "stupid" and the implication of gr8hands' accusation fits the definition quite well. If you think it doesn't, make your case. On the other hand, gr8hands, if you agree it does, just apologize and all will be forgiven.

Likewise, point out to me the post where I accuse you of actually using the term "stupid", a term that I don't doubt you haven't used specifically, and I'll apologize and hopefully you'll be able to forgive me for doing you such an injustice.

98. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98322 by Riley on December 13, 2007 at 1:23 pm

gr8hands wrote:
Riley, please provide the Comment # in this thread where I've used the word 'stupid'. [...]
You will not find any such examples -- and that is not an 'opinion' but a fact.

That, by the way, is what I would call 'evidence'.

This is a perfect example of the kind of disagreements we've had on this thread.

gr8hands wrote comment 431#:
"Aren't you people supposed to be able to use reason? It appears to be in short supply"

You did not actually use the word "stupid", you used words that describe people as being stupid. Or don't you think "an inability to use reason" is an apt definition for the term "stupid"?

This is what you call evidence, and that's one reason why we have a problem reaching an understanding.

99. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98288 by Riley on December 13, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Riley wrote:
Imagine an Internet where people don't assume that the only explanation for a disagreement is that the other person must be stupid and as such deserving of personal attacks and insults.

gr8hands wrote:
is that what you assume? Not me. I just wait for the evidence to make itself known.

And that evidence is based on what? Your own opinion and ability to follow what you think my argument is. You trust yourself as the final arbiter of what is logical in a very complex argument. Certainly, you can bet I had the same thoughts about you and your ability to follow my logical argument, but for the sake of keeping this post to a higher standard, I refrain and force myself to acknowledge that I might be missing, or misunderstanding your points. For the record, I actually think I understand your points, and I understand where the disagreement between us lies, but it would get so far off the track of the topic of this thread and likely mired in unecessary details that I don't go there.

100. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98256 by Riley on December 13, 2007 at 11:36 am

Imagine an Internet where people don't assume that the only explanation for a disagreement is that the other person must be stupid and as such deserving of personal attacks and insults.