51. Scientists look to disrupt the brain chemistry of violence

Comment #35683 by John Phillips on April 28, 2007 at 9:22 am

the_central_scrutinizer: There is a great deal of difference between the level of violence that may be evolutionary necessary to be 'top dog' and psychopathic behaviour or violence due to abnormal brain chemistry or structure. Observe in nature how so many different creatures actually take many steps prior to actual violence in an attempt to avoid any actual physical encounter. For the simple reason that in any serious fight even for the victor it can be a Pyhrric one if they get seriously injured in the process. There are many such examples of such behaviour involving often long periods of preening and posturing and similar displays. A classic example is stags, where often the quality of a stags roar is enough to maintain dominance over others, especially if the stag already has a harem. Working on the principle that the one with the greater roar has more power to spare and is more likely to dominate in any actual physical encounter. It then only advancing to actual physical encounters when that and subsequent display behaviour is insufficient to stamp dominance over a rival. There are similar examples throughout nature. Even then, when this method fails and actual fighting happens it is often very ritualised leading to very little physical injury to those taking part. In the case of stags, the actual structure of the stag's rack is such that it is more about a contest of strength than actually physically injuring the opponent. With injuries being more the result of accidents, such as racks snapping, or in the case of one stag in the highlands he had a mutated rack meaning that it was much more likely that he would dangerously gore an opponent in the standard fighting technique. In one case actually killing a rival because his mutated rack pierced the skull of his rival, though this type of incident is rare. In another fight, the rival became aware during the fight, due a couple of near calls with this stag's rack that as soon he could he actually withdrew from the fight, even though he had been successful for weeks. Even among most of the top carnivores, fights to the death type encounters are the exception rather than the rule, for the reasons already mentioned.

However, here we are not talking about that type of evolutionary violence but about abnormal levels, such as with those suffering from psychopathic disorders or other brain disorder related problems and there is a great deal of difference between treating 'normal' people to turn them into 'vacuous, obedient citizens' and offering treatment to those with the aforementiones types of brain disorder, genetic or otherwise, which predisposes them to abnormal violent behaviour. As it happens, we already offer drug treatment to those with mental health problems due to brain chemical imbalances to try and enable them to live a better life, imperfect a solution as it may sometimes be.

Similarly, we already try to eliminate the sick, or at least sickness, it is called medicine and some of that treatment will in future be genetic in nature. Possibly even before birth in some cases, as we already perform operations on babies in utero. What is the difference in offering a treatment for a physical disability or illness and offering the same kind of treatment for a mental health problem of some kind.

Why is it whenever a possibility arises due to new knowledge some only see the negative. On that basis we would still be living in caves in fear of the negative anything the new would bring. Of course we shouldn't ignore the possible negatives, but to do nothing in fear of any negatives is a retrograde step in my opinion.

As to the poor, that is largely a political will and educational issue, rather than requiring the direct elimination of the poor themselves.

52. God Is in the Dendrites

Comment #35645 by John Phillips on April 28, 2007 at 5:10 am

The only really relevant part of the article and which says it all really;

"Out of politeness, perhaps, or a hope for future Templeton grants, neurotheologists tend to play down the most direct implication of their research—that religious ecstasy is an illusion. Harder to finesse are studies suggesting that the visions of mystics like St. Paul and Sister Teresa are a kind of brain damage—temporal lobe epilepsy, or TLE for short."

53. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35426 by John Phillips on April 27, 2007 at 5:52 am

krogercomplete: Why do I need to offer up any objective, meta ethical justification for the golden rule as for to me there is no higher morality than the golden rule. Ignoring the fact that from observation of not just humans, the golden rule, or something approaching it, is quite widespread in nature beyond even humans. Suggesting that it is of serious evolutionary advantage. What we perhaps should be doing is strongly and loudly proclaiming to all how fluid that god given morality is. For unlike the golden rule, as has been seen numerous times in history, the god bestowed morality is one that is purely at the whim of that god's often self appointed spokesmen (I use spokesmen as it invariably is men). Where is the objectivity in that. Perhaps that is why the works of prominent atheists is coming under such fierce attack from religious quarters, as it questions the very legitimacy of their claim to be the keepers of objective morality.

54. Darwin nearly failed to evolve in print

Comment #35416 by John Phillips on April 27, 2007 at 5:06 am

umeshbilagi: I was about to put pen to paper, so to speak, to offer a list of rational answers to your gibberish. But I thought, why bother wasting even more of my time, for anyone capable of such gibberish wouldn't recognise a rational argument if it hit them between the eyes with a baseball bat. Though I will add that if you really are medically trained I have great sympathy for any sick humans you may have contact with in your professional capacity.

55. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35376 by John Phillips on April 27, 2007 at 2:55 am

The Spaghetti Monster: It is true that some scientists, only being human after all, will be liable to the same frailties as everyone else. However, the advantage of the scientific method is that however some might want to stick with and protect what they consider their cherished beliefs, if another comes up with an alternate theory that withstands scrutiny then eventually they will have to accept the new theories. Either that or be sidelined, much as Einstein was with regard to his refusal to accept quantum mechanics.

As to hypotheses about mutliverses and similar ideas, at the moment that is all they are. As there is no evidence beyond some mathematical models which show that they may be a possibility. Whether we will ever be able to prove that they are real or not, who knows. That is the beauty of science, for we don't know from one day to the next what the next discovery or observation will bring to the table. The difference is that most good scientists are quite happy to say that they don't know but will continue to work on it until they or someone else bring enough evidence to either support or dismiss a hypothesis.

That is the difference between faith in the scientific method and its results and religious faith. Scientific 'faith' about a particular subject is always provisional and depends on the actual evidence. However, religious 'faith' is quite the opposite, revelling in its certainty yet based on no evidence whatsoever. Additionally, often reserving its highest praise for those with the strongest 'faith' in spite of there being no evidence whatsoever.

56. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35370 by John Phillips on April 27, 2007 at 2:35 am

nepeta: Except for one thing, religion actually stopped nearly all of what we would now call scientific research for a thousand years or so. One prime example being the destruction of the library of Alexander at the hands of religious fanatics. We did not start to truly recover and relearn much of the knowledge then lost for another thousand years or so thanks to the churches strict control on what was and wasn't allowed or acceptable knowledge. If we had that thousand years back we might well be much more technically advanced than we are now. Of course I can't prove this, but I find it hard to think that all of that thousand years would have been wasted.

57. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34897 by John Phillips on April 25, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Bizzaro said:

"Can I be blamed if I lack his unwarranted confidence in the scientific community that gave us such intellectual beauties as spontaneous generation and Piltdown man?"

Why not, after all it was scientists using the scientific method and not faith heads who then went on to prove that these were frauds or wrong. I.e. unlike religion, science is ultimately self correcting for the very reason that in science, uncertainty is the name of the game. However, if religion was as equally honestly self critical, rather than using theology to promulgate ever dafter justification for faith, it would have critiqued itself out of existence centuries ago, if not millenia.

58. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34873 by John Phillips on April 25, 2007 at 1:38 pm

CJ Said:

"And we all know while he's here he's off the streets and not trying to convert anybody ;)"

How very true, we are suffering so that others may stay free of his poison :) Though to be honest, it can't really be called suffering to see his twisted use of language and logic get him ripped another one by so many.

59. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #33949 by John Phillips on April 22, 2007 at 8:02 pm

All I see is another telling us to be quiet so as not to upset the apple cart. We have all seen how effective that approach has been, NOT. I am getting really tired of this hypocrisy, where the believers can refer to us in the most derogatory fashion possible and yet we mustn't even raise our voices above a whisper before being labelled militant or fundamentalist, even by those who should welcome the call to the rational.

60. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #33947 by John Phillips on April 22, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Chambers:

You said;

"Holy Books are the interpretations and explanations and catalogue of the world and universe. We believe in God because we see his Art in his creation not only holly books tell us. Prophets, holy books, our universe and our conscious are the proofs of God."

So effectively, your proof for goddidit is because someone told you that goddidit with no proof whatsoever and that the bible is right because the bible says it is right, i.e. circular logic. You don't really expect us to take you seriously with an argument like that, do you. As to your so called claims about the perfection of the human body, unfortunately, as others have already pointed out to you, that only shows your ignorance about another subject. For anyone who really knows anything about the human body will tell you how imperfect it is, even in a perfectly healthy human. Such as the blind spot in the eye or the already mentioned curved spinal column, which is better suited to a quadrupedal posture rather than our bipedal one, to give only two examples of the imperfection of the body. For a supposedly omnipotent being he did a pretty piss poor job of designing us.

So do come back when you have some genuine education and knowledge about the subjects you are trying to talk about and you might then not look so foolish. Until then, I suggest you hide away somewhere where your ignorance isn't on open display for all to see. For to repeat myself before taking my final leave of your nonsense: There is no disgrace in being ignorant about a subject, the disgrace comes from wilfully remaining ignorant when the evidence is there for you to research for yourself.

61. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33651 by John Phillips on April 20, 2007 at 10:40 pm

Bizarro, I would argue about it being a logical fallacy for the simple reason that many of the statements I have seen from numerous fundies, even on this site, is very far from loving. At least when it relates to anyone who is not one of them. In fact, they seem to take an almost perverse pleasure in relating how us godless ones will suffer eternal damnation for our non belief, so much for a supposedly loving god.

Then again, on the evidence of much of the bible, which the fundies do like to use to support their stand and belief, love is the last thing I would equate the xtian god with either. As others have said previously, the one thing you can respect Phelps and his brood for, as with many other fundies, is that at least they don't try to sugar coat or rationalise away the less savoury passages in the bible.

62. The Empty Wager

Comment #33625 by John Phillips on April 20, 2007 at 6:41 pm

gmurphy: I agree that the question of whether god or gods exists is important, but only because of the immense damage that believers regularly do in his name and with only their belief as justification. If there was no belief in god or gods, then the question of his existence would be irrelevant and the time, effort and money wasted on such could be better spent on more worthwhile endeavours. That is why most regulars here have the attitude to theology they do, for as Seti put it above, we see it as little more than akin to a fashion article on the emperor's new clothes.

63. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #33620 by John Phillips on April 20, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Chambers: Just to correct you on one point in particular that you and many creationists seem to get your knickers in a twist about, we are not evolved from worms. Now we do share a common ancestor with worms, i.e. the polyp, but we ourselves, didn't actually evolve from worms as worms evolved along one line while we evolved along another. This can be shown from analysing our respective DNA even to the extent of showing where the evolutionary branch occurred. I mention this one particular glaring error in the hope that you will look openly at other assumptions you may have about evolution that are also no doubt equally error strewn, at least if some of your replies to other posters on this site are any indication.

There is no disgrace in being ignorant about a subject, the disgrace comes from wilfully remaining ignorant when the evidence is there for you to research for yourself. Of course, it does involve more effort on your part than simply accepting what some supposed religious authority figure tells you about evolution. But what price a little effort for real evidence backed knowledge instead of being told goddidit. Of course many believers dismiss evolution for the reason that it doesn't equate with their religion's ego-centrist world view, i.e. they are no longer 'special' or 'chosen', simply a differently evolved member of the animal kingdom. But then again, science is no respecter of egos, religion's or any one else's either for that matter.

64. Christians at Bible publishers have their throats cut

Comment #32953 by John Phillips on April 18, 2007 at 8:00 pm

Steverooot: yep, they are constantly striving to prove how peaceful their religion is, oh wait...

65. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #32935 by John Phillips on April 18, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Chambers: It is quite refreshing to see you admit so openly to stupidity and ignorance and I commend you on it. Though I fail to see what you hope to achieve with such an admission if you then refuse the opportunity to learn.

66. The Empty Wager

Comment #32934 by John Phillips on April 18, 2007 at 6:39 pm

Additionally, one would assume that a supposedly all knowing, all seeing god would be able to differentiate between those who are true believers and those only taking Pascal's wager. Then again, if his so called earthly representatives are any example, perhaps not.

67. Who Needs Sex (or Males) Anyway?

Comment #32919 by John Phillips on April 18, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Perhaps the question should be how many species would have evolved in a 100 million years through sexual reporoduction. If there was a similar creature that had reproduced sexually in the same time period it would be interesting to compare the number of species that then evolved.

68. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32916 by John Phillips on April 18, 2007 at 5:28 pm

The_Pun_King and Douglas Wilson: Try the golden rule, i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you. A practise that is obviously of evolutionary advantage as it can be observed daily throughout the animal kingdom and not just in humans. By your arguments, there must be something really screwed up about humans as according to you they need the threat of the fairy godfather in the sky to keep them 'moral' while others in the animal kingdom don't. Yet that very morality you claim is god derived is in fact a hodge podge of societal norms that have developed over the millenia and which many religions have co-opted as a means to claim control over their followers. Your very own bible is one of the most immoral tracts one could suffer to read, with rape, genocide, misogyny and slavery, as just a few examples of the many acts now considered immoral by most, actually endorsed by your god. Thus who is the more moral, the atheist who treats others as he would be treated, because it is logical to do so, or the believer who only does so out of fear of retribution in some imagined hellfire. When I hear believers state that the only reason they have for not murdering or raping people is their fear of god, that doesn't fill me with a warm fuzzy feeling toward believers, quite the opposite along with a wish to be as far removed from them as is humanly possible.

69. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32655 by John Phillips on April 17, 2007 at 11:27 pm

Which if the short excerpts on his site are any guide are no different to the garbage we have already heard from a myriad other creationists. Simply another creationist hoping to sell books on the back of Sam's book, much like the attempt to sell on the back of TGD with titles like The Dawkins Delusion. It appears that they only display any actual creativity of their own when it comes to devising ways to twist the truth to promote their viewpoint.

70. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32641 by John Phillips on April 17, 2007 at 8:43 pm

Who is truly humble, the scientist who says he doesn't know but will work to find an answer backed with evidence or the religious who says goddidit without any evidence and you must believe without question.

71. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #32638 by John Phillips on April 17, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Chambers: Usually, I am more than prepared and happy to spend any amount of time explaining evolution and any other subject I have knowledge of. Unfortunately, it is sometimes obvious that it would be simply a waste of energy as the person is either not capable of understanding or unwilling to understand the explanation. Sadly, you appear to fall into the latter category and prove the adage I first quoted to you more and more each time you post.

72. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #32093 by John Phillips on April 15, 2007 at 3:02 pm

"What is the collective noun for religious fanatics anyway?"

An emptiness.

73. Against God

Comment #32085 by John Phillips on April 15, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Cheshirecat said "Is it not reasonable to fear. Why should we be protected from it always"

Perfectly reasonable, providing the fear is based on something to be afraid about rather than some imagined hell. For instance, a long time ago, I used to be in the military, and was often in situations where I stood a real chance of being injured or killed. In such circumstances, fear was quite natural as it related to very real possible outcomes. Though even then, if the fear is allowed to be more than a very useful adjunct to heighten awareness and is allowed to take control, the very outcome one might be afraid of has a better chance of coming true, as I witnessed more than once.

The problem with fear, is not fear itself per se, but whether that fear is real and how we react to it. We have a classic case of this in the US since 9/11, as well as other countries, where peoples fears have been manipulated by politicians to reduce their freedoms and give the politician more power with little real discussion whether the steps were necessary or not. Especially when you consider, that however tragic 9/11 was, significantly more people are killed annually in auto accidents or firearm incidents. Thus the fear about being a victim in a 9/11 type attack, while understandable, especially with the media cover they garner, is in actuality, largely irrational.

Religion, plays on this irrational response to fear.

74. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #32056 by John Phillips on April 15, 2007 at 11:26 am

Chambers: I have encountered a few of your posts now, such as in the Einstein thread, and what is clear is that not only do you have no understanding of science but you have even less understanding of Evolution. Give it a rest man for there is an adage and to paraphrase, better to keep ones mouth shut and simply be thought an idiot than to open it and prove it beyond doubt. Unfortunately, in opening yours you have simply proven how true an adage it is.

75. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31883 by John Phillips on April 14, 2007 at 9:24 pm

What I find ironic is all those who criticised RD for the level of the theological arguments used in TGD. Yet it is now obvious that RD has orders of magnitude greater knowledge of theology than the pope's level of knowledge about evolution, which is apparently close to zero.

76. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31879 by John Phillips on April 14, 2007 at 8:53 pm

Mind_rebel: you must also realise that Einstein was talking at a time when the word had a much greater negative connotation to the average person than it does today, except by todays fundamentalists of course. Then again, it is this very perception of atheism that Einstein refers to is what still makes atheists so untrusted in the US.

I think Einstein was simply distancing himself from societies then perception of atheism. Even now, on this and other forums, I have seen theists not understand atheists awe at the wonders of the universe as revealed through the scientific method, often implying or outright stating that our lives must be empty and without meaning without an awe based on faith. Sadly, this only displays their lack of understanding of the wonders of the universe as seen through the scientific method, i.e. Einstein's real god, so to speak.

I think, though of course this is only an opinion, much of the misunderstanding arises in part from Einstein's use of language. In that perhaps he used the language he did thinking that it metaphorically resonated better with people. Unfortunately, many people take words at their literal meanings, rather than their metaphorical or allegorical meaning, irrespective of context, especially when a literal interpretation supports their world view.

Then again, compared to what his genius gave us, apart from some curiosity value, this aspect of his character, whichever interpretation you give his words, while interesting, is largely irrelevant, as it neither adds to or detracts from the value of his work.

77. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30566 by John Phillips on April 8, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Re: the definition of Schizophrenia. It is not so much that a non existent god is schizoid, simply that those who claim to speak for him demand that believers be effectively schizoid. I.e. give up actual reality for an invented one and believe the invented one the real one.

78. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #30411 by John Phillips on April 8, 2007 at 2:51 am

The author herself gives the game away herself, probably without realising it, when she quotes Deleuze on her Philosophy of teaching page;

http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/academy/carolynguertin/phil.html

Having just read her philosophy of teaching page after reading Richard's article Postmodernism Disrobed, irrespective of what she claims or what she believes and as I first thought when I struggled through it, it is more postmodern garbage. A mix of scientific words and mistaken, to be generous, scientific concepts strung together in a such a manner as to hide any actual meaning, otherwise it would be plain for all to see that it was pigswill. I have actually more respect for the Discovery Institute than this, at least they actually say something understandable, wrong and dangerous to modern education as it is. However, being understandable, it is easy to discount with actual evidence. This on the other hand, needs real stamina simply to wade through it to the end, let alone try and fathom any meaning.

79. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30391 by John Phillips on April 8, 2007 at 1:41 am

"What's really bothersome is the suggestion that believers rarely question themselves while atheists ask all the hard questions."

The problem is that the question believers generally ask is usually along the lines of how to justify their belief instead of asking whether their belief is justified in the first place.

80. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30385 by John Phillips on April 8, 2007 at 12:41 am

"What they say is dry and unnourishing"

If this is true for Moore, then obviously he is another who apparently prefers the false certainty offered by religious fantasy instead of making some effort to understand the true wonder of our universe as revealed by the scientific method, a tool of the intellectual elite. If it is intellectual elitism to use my brain, then guilty as charged, pity more didn't truly use theirs. After all, without those prepared to actually use their brains, we would still be living in caves and even the thickies amongst us would have to suffer the myriad diseases that the intellectual elite in science have found cures for. Strangely, few if any, Moore included I wager, refuse the many actual fruits of intellectual elitism compared to the lack of fruits of the religious elite.

81. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22200 by John Phillips on February 13, 2007 at 11:49 am

yoursdhruly: You forget that that was for an US audience who very much believe in a heaven and hell. Actually the point of mentioning Thor or the Spaghetti monster is very much to the point as it highlights the stupidity of belief in any god. After all, as RD said, xtians are atheist about all the other gods, us atheists just add that last one to the list.

Whether atheist come together at some future date and carry out acts of violence and whether it would be negative for other atheists would surely depend on whether they carried it out in the name of atheism or not. Though I have yet to hear a single atheist talk about taking up arms against believers, quite the opposite generally. For while the delusions of the believers often puzzle us, if they kept their delusions on a personal level all atheists I know are happy for them to keep them. The only worry most I know have is when the religious try to impose their beliefs on us. Either by influencing the introduction of laws based on their irrational beliefs that affect all of us or directly by attacking us in the name if their beliefs. Like the suicide bombers or the extremists killing those working at abortion clinics.

As to forming into groups, unfortunately, if we don't we are likely to be sidelined. This doesn't always need to be directly organised groups, simply a support structure of some kind so as to give those in the 'closet' some confidence that they are not alone. But in countries like the US where political lobbying is the norm, often the only way to gain some semblance of political influence to counter such as the xtian right is to organise. Without it you have little or no voice in such countries. Especially when the religious are very organised. This is even true in the UK where they are trying to use their influence to affect UK laws and where only concerted organised effort has stopped them, again and again.

82. Debate between Sam Harris and Reza Aslan

Comment #22196 by John Phillips on February 13, 2007 at 8:23 am

To be honest, I didn't bother watching this as I have seen him talk before and from the comments already posted it appears he is spouting the same old, same old. He reminds me of those who criticise RD for not knowing his theology, i.e. being unsophisticated in his criticism of religion, when even the average believer hasn't a clue about theology and is order of magnitudes less sophisticated than RD, or Sam for that matter, about their understanding of their faith.

They always argue about some religion that is so obviously not the religion practised and believed by the average believer yet try to imply that their interpretation is that understood by the majority. It is both extremely dishonest and extremely dangerous when applied to either of the two main Abrahamic religions but particularly when applied to Islam. If the flavour of religion that he and the equivalent xtian apologist theologians espouse was the aspect practised by the respective majority in their particular faith there would be little problem. However, intellectually bankrupt believers such as him underline precisely why RD is so right to highlight the danger of the moderate believer in enabling the extremist.

83. Interview With an Atheist

Comment #22185 by John Phillips on February 13, 2007 at 6:58 am

MohaMad and steveroot, thanks, they were both priceless, my sides are still aching :)

84. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #22165 by John Phillips on February 13, 2007 at 5:45 am

Discredited by those with a vested interest to discredit as other similar papers, one by the UN if I could only find the link, mirror it fairly closely. I don't take the new testament as an unbiased source, though I have no problem accepting that there well may have been a man named Jesus at the time in question but not that he was who the bible claims he is.

85. Response to Orr

Comment #21929 by John Phillips on February 11, 2007 at 11:16 pm

No need to add to what Daniel has posted really, as it does the job rather nicely. Though admittedly, like Daniel, I would like more details of these reviews that apparently shredded the 747 argument as well as how C. S. Lewis's had dispensed with one of RD's claims. Then again, reading between the lines of the last couple of paragraphs of Daniel's rebuttal it wouldn't surprise me if Orr was again playing fast and loose.

86. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21921 by John Phillips on February 11, 2007 at 7:18 pm

FortunaAdiuvatForte: Two points, firstly, the actual documentary evidence IIRC for the existence of Jesus is a Roman author writing some hundred years later and that consisting of not much more than a footnote.

Secondly, if you hold Mother Teressa up as an example of goodness then you are on very shaky ground for if you do any real research on her you will find almost the opposite. Except that is, from religious apologists who need the publicity associated with the false image many have of her for fund raising and to bolster the RC church by making her a saint.

As to being or doing good, I have been an atheist for over 40 years and in that time I have spent long periods doing voluntary work and have only recently stopped because of health reasons. Sometimes even with religious organisations as they were the only ones who needed my aid, where I was often mistakenly praised for being a good xtian by those who didn't know me beyond seeing me work. Often to the amusement of myself and the religious people I worked alongside who often took a mischievous delight in telling those complimenting me that I was actually an atheist. I must admit I did tend to enjoy the confusion this often generated. However, I never did it for any reward, except perhaps for some personal satisfaction that my efforts were of use. I didn't always enjoy it either as I was often working with people with some of the most difficult problems in society. The only reward, if there was one, was a sense of satisfaction that I had contributed and not that some pie in the sky character would reward me when I died. For being an atheist I believe that when I die that is it.

So please, don't try and claim the golden rule, i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto, for religion, as all religion has ever done is to co-opt existing moral codes for its own purposes, i.e. better control of its followers. Additionally, when society has decided that the existing moral codes are insufficient and need expanding religions have nearly always fought tooth and nail to prevent it and maintain the status quo. We have a current example of this with the RC's fight against the new UK bill about prejudice, which included prejudice against gays. Yet the church wanted the right to continue to be prejudiced against gays because of the irrationality of their beliefs. I could give other examples, such as the RC church's stance on condom use in AIDS stricken Africa, but I think you get the idea. In such cases I actually consider religion a source of great evil, rather ironic don't you think, for an organisation that claims to be for good.

Well a third point since I saw other posts you had made when my first submission of this thread failed and this relates directly to your claim of the value of religion to society. If you want to argue about the benefits of religion to a society I suggest you have a look at this document.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf

It is a PDF file and only a MB in size so not a large download. You don't need to wade through it all, simply look at the graphs near the end of the document and then tell me of the benefit of being a religious country. Additionally, what is also noticeable, is that when these figures are looked at on state by state basis in the US, the same correlation between apparent religiosity and societal dysfunction is repeated. There are other studies that largely mirror this one and a good search of google will turn up plenty. After that, feel free to return to try and argue for the benefits of religion to societies.

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

Comment #21917 by John Phillips on February 11, 2007 at 5:27 pm

uzi: Thank you. You expanded perfectly what I meant by religious belief in our supposed creation by a god or gods as demeaning and restrictive to mankind.

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

Comment #21677 by John Phillips on February 10, 2007 at 2:14 pm

gimlibenglon: But that is the difference between me and you, I see the steps that the various religions have made and some still try make to stop our investigating our universe. Particularly when those discoveries disprove what the religions have been telling us over the centuries. I don't need some mythical monster or super being to give my life meaning, my very existence and the way I live my life does that for me. The difference is that I don't waste any time worrying about what this mythical super being thinks of my actions or what happens to me after I am dead. It is not relevant to living my life except when the religious try to impose their irrational beliefs on me or the way I live my life. If they all kept their beliefs to themselves as a personal belief system we would not need this debate as it would not affect me. Unfortunately, down the centuries and even today, believers are trying to gain control to affect how I live my life, as can be witnessed on a world wide basis every day.

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

Comment #21676 by John Phillips on February 10, 2007 at 2:02 pm

gimilibengloin: I missed one point in your previous reply about why starstuff and not pond slime etc. Apart from the fact that Linck expanded quite accurately my original answer about starstuff I also did equate with pond-slime or amoeba, though indirectly, but not through some squeamishness at the thought of being related to what might be considered a lesser life form. I did so when I commented on the fact that all living things share a genetic heritage, i.e that includes pond-slime, amoeba, etc. etc. but didn't think it necessary to list every possible evolutionary step from the ground up. However, feel free to insert any life form you care to that I have failed to mention as it makes no difference as it still fills me with awe and wonder that I share my genetic heritage with all of them. And even more awesome is that we can learn about all of this through our own efforts, not through the efforts of some mythical super-being.

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

Comment #21673 by John Phillips on February 10, 2007 at 1:47 pm

gimilibengloin: Do you think I would have said it if I didn't. I find the belief that humans are made in the image of some mythical super-being demeaning and often restrictive of our potential, deliberately so by many religions, even to the extent of trying to even control our thoughts let alone our actions. Even if that technically means we are of no more value than any other collection of matter. Though to repeat, I find the fact that we are all starstuff and share a genetic heritage with all living things on this planet awe inspiring in itself. A oneness with the universe through our constituent parts, if you will. However, personally I consider myself of more value than any other collection of matter, but then I am selfish :) I.e. whether as individuals we are actually of more value than any other collection of matter depends on ones viewpoint and is largely up to us and what we do with our lives. We can cower and waste our time worrying about some pie in the sky monster or we can live our lives to the full for the so called three score and ten, or whatever the equivalent is nowadays, that we know for certain we have. That is what I have done, and though I only have a portion of that three score and ten left, I have enjoyed most if not all of it. If I died tomorrow, I would regret it as I am not ready to give up just yet :), but I would have few if any significant regrets.

91. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21667 by John Phillips on February 10, 2007 at 1:07 pm

iwentdowntotheriver: I have heard very few atheist try to offer science as a complete alternative to religion. What we do do, is to offer the scientific method and rational thinking as a better way of explaining our universe as it consistently provides answers that are actually usable in the real world while religion offers none. Even the claims to morality are after the fact, i.e. down the ages religion has co-opted the morality that already existed as a means to maintain control over its flocks. In fact, when society has decided that the existing moral rules need changing, religion has generally fought tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. Examples abound, even today, of the various religions resisting a changing societal morality, its attitude to homosexuality being a very modern one which is at odds with the secular stance.

92. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21662 by John Phillips on February 10, 2007 at 12:52 pm

The more of the so called arguments I see published by theologians like McGrath the more it proves Rd's point, to paraphrase shamlessly, that theology is the emptiest of pursuits.

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

Comment #21659 by John Phillips on February 10, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Linck: I agree, two things that always give me the shivers and I consider the most awe inspiring is one, to quote Sagan, that we are all made of starstuff and two, everything living and that has lived on this planet shares a common genetic heritage. How can some pie in the sky monster even begin to compare with that.

I actually feel both frustration at and sadness for the creationist, the goddidit brigade and religites in general, as their beliefs actually demeans humanity and misses out on the real awe inspiring wonder that is understanding our universe and the natural world.

Along with much better education we need to actively promote these type of events in an entertaining but subtly educational way so that we can eventually prevail over the continuing stupidity of beliefs which not only demean us all but actually restrict our further development as humans.

94. Give us back our bones, pagans tell museums

Comment #20757 by John Phillips on February 6, 2007 at 9:52 am

Playing devil's advocate, if society accedes to the demands of the other more accepted religions then logically, what they ask for is perfectly reasonable. After all, what is the difference between their irrational beliefs and the irrationals beliefs of the more established religions. Of course. as Linck posted above, this is the kind of slippery slope we get when irrational beliefs of any kind are given credence.

95. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20690 by John Phillips on February 5, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Riley: We already have school inspectors who check on both the competence of teachers and how the subjects taught relate to the agreed curriculum. What difference would there be in having such inspectors for religious teachers and institutes, whether religious schools or religious establishments in general. Any that promulgated what are considered anathema to human rights can easily be dealt with under existing law. Of course, this doesn't prevent or interfere with what parents do in their own homes but would limit what could be taught in religious establishments. Of course, one problem is that it is likely to garner ridiculous headlines from the right wing press about curtailing general religious freedom as it would have to apply to all religions and not simply islam. But I would consider this a major step forward for our society.

96. What a Friend We Have in Dawkins

Comment #20438 by John Phillips on February 2, 2007 at 12:36 pm

A good review and I largely agree with the few criticisms of the book in that they largely amount to what is possibly missing from the book rather than with the actual arguments or content actually presented. Perhaps as Norman Levitt mentions, RD plans to write another covering these missing issues.

However, I am getting really tired of the Hobbesian argument coming up time and time again, not that Levitt uses it except to mention how others employ it, but I believe it is a fallacious argument and one born largely of pessimism. For if we look at those countries that have the least religious influence on their governments and peoples, strangely, they are generally the most tolerant, the most peaceable and law abiding.

@Jez: Here as an example is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_S._Paul to a wiki article about Gregory S Paul who did research on religiosity and societal dysfunction. If you scroll down to *Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look" in the Writings section it is a link to a PDF that shows that even though the US is the most religious of Western countries it has significantly higher level of societal dysfunction when compared to the more secular countries. I.e. quite the opposite of the Hobbesian argument. Of course, even the author admits it is not definitve and there has been critcism of his methods, though that is not surprising, especially the source of much of the criticism, but it tends to mirror other similar lines of research and surveys.

97. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20371 by John Phillips on February 2, 2007 at 4:05 am

Interesting program and while I find the same old, same old trotted out by the religites frustrating I found the host excellent as he generally allowed nobody to get away with rubbish statements. For example, he at least got the Jewish commentator to admit that the old atheism is bad because of Hitler, Stalin etc, argument was invalid because it was not down to their atheism but to their characters, though he did trot it out again later in the show. He also did well in showing up the contradictions of the fundy picking and choosing the bits of the bible that supported his beliefs while ignoring the bits he didn't like. Or at least said he didn't like in an open forum, I wonder if he disabuses the bits he claims to not like in public when with like minded people in private. I think more shows like this are needed as the more they are allowed to talk, or shout over people as the fundies always seem to like doing, the more intolerant and empty and irrational their beliefs appear. Additionally, isn't it strange that the fundies always demand tolerance to their beliefs while not being prepared to be tolerant of others.

98. God and gorillas

Comment #20368 by John Phillips on February 2, 2007 at 3:00 am

G Bile: While I do believe you missed the main thrust of the article your post did evince a chuckle or two, especially as many of the more fundamentalist leaders argue that we should stop thinking about such things and just accept, or at least accept their version of events. Assuming a designer god for the sake of argument, it would be rather ironic if the great apes where the intended end product of the design but the designer took his eye off the ball for a moment and evolution sneaked in. Perhaps that is the significance of Genesis where the reason for the initial innocence of Adam and Eve is actually that they were great apes with the ability to wonder but little else, but then evolution, i.e. knowledge, came along and allowed us to evolve instead :). Oh Irony, especially when we remember the famous Scopes trial or the number of times I hear the fundies ask the question about whether your grandparents look like apes to try and discredit the theory of evolution.

99. Interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson

Comment #20350 by John Phillips on February 2, 2007 at 12:28 am

Yorker: So he will be criticised, as Dawkins has been, so what, after all scientists are only human and have the same weaknesses as the rest, envy etc.. What matters is whether what he does is of value in raising the consciousness of the general public to science and its true value to us. By your criteria, even Einstein would probably be found wanting, as there were those in the community who levelled criticism at him for his perceived public persona when he was feted by the media of his time, either that or you are naturally a pessimist. Personally I don't care if the person raising the publics awareness of science has little or no actual research behind them as long as they can present the subject in an accurate and entertaining manner. After all, their target audience is not other scientists but the general public, few of who have a real understanding of science or the scientific method.

100. [Warning: Graphic] Children's foreheads slashed in Muslim saint's name

Comment #20346 by John Phillips on February 1, 2007 at 11:53 pm

intelligentperson: If you can't see the difference between a child crying because they are refused something and a child crying because they have been physically abused or fear such by their parents then I fear that there is an 'un' missing from the beginning of your username.

That others have highlighted similar arcane practises in other religions or cultures doesn't justify this one but only highlights the fact that humans are very good at deluding themselves and not always for religious reasons.

As to learning to cope with suffering, considering that this happened in Lebanon with its myriad problems, some directly related to religious belief, I would suspect they will unfortunately get plenty of practise.