51. Brazil's Indians Offended by Pope Comments

Comment #41802 by glittergulch on May 17, 2007 at 4:57 am

And yet the pope speaks for god! Hmmm, I'm not sure how I can spin this one to make it fit with church dogma... I got it! God is testing us!

52. A Brief History of Disbelief

Comment #37343 by glittergulch on May 4, 2007 at 6:15 am

Very surprised to see it running in the US. Not at all surprised to find that it's not running today here in Maryland, a firmly blue state. We'll see if it runs later on. But none of our numerous PBS affiliates are listing it.

53. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37341 by glittergulch on May 4, 2007 at 6:10 am

Oh Time. *slowly shakes head in shame*

I see Al Gore on there. I assume James Inhofe wrote his entry.

54. Sam's Flea!

Comment #37337 by glittergulch on May 4, 2007 at 6:05 am

"If there is no God, what could possibly be wrong with theocracies? They provide high entertainment value, and they give everybody involved in them a sense of dignity and high moral purpose. They get to wear ecclesiastical robes, march in impressive processions to burn intransigent people at the stake, believing that they are better than everybody else and that God likes them" (p. 7).

"Christianity is injurious, you say, but I would want to inquire why it is bad to be injurious. What standard do you appeal to here . . . Okay, so I am part of a divisive, injurious and retrograde movement. Is that bad?" (p. 10).

55. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #35407 by glittergulch on April 27, 2007 at 4:40 am

Um, I think it's pretty clear that I was pointing out that Mr. No Spin lied and not that I was trying to make some socio-economic statement. But if you want to go there, no laziness is NOT the cause of poverty. Poverty is an immensely complex issue with countless causes. Bill is a lazy asshole who pins it all on something that makes sense from his pinheaded viewpoint. The big picture means nothing to him.

56. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #35131 by glittergulch on April 26, 2007 at 9:57 am

Did Richard say he has no moral foundation at the end of the interview?!?!

Just kidding. On the one hand this is a great clip because it might be the biggest exposure Richard has gotten in this current press cycle but on the other hand BillO could not rise to the occasion and offer anything to chew on. Oh well.

I'm searching for a pro-O'Reilly message board to see what people said about the interview. I haven't found anything yet but I did find this hilarious non-Dawkins bit on Bill's blog:

April 26, 2007
Bill's comments on poverty taken out of context
On June 16, 2004, a far-left smear site reported that "on the June 11 nationally syndicated broadcast of The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that poor people in the United States are 'irresponsible and lazy.'" The site excised parts of the quote, changing the context.

Here's the full quote, in context:

O'REILLY: Reagan was not a crusader. He didn't say, "You know, in East St. Louis and parts of the capital district—these kids don't have much of a chance down there. So, I, Ronald Reagan, am going to go down there and make it better—force people to do a better job." He didn't do it. He didn't have the fire in the belly for it. Very few politicians do, including black politicians. Jesse Jackson doesn't do it. Al Sharpton doesn't do it. It's hard to do it because you gotta look people in the eye and tell 'em they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's gonna wanna do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen. In this country, you
can succeed if you get educated and work hard. Period. Period. I mean, I know people from Haiti, from the Ukraine, from, eh—we got callers all day long on The Factor. From Romania. You come here, you get educated, you work hard, you'll make a buck. You get addicted, you don't know anything, you'll be poor.

57. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33433 by glittergulch on April 20, 2007 at 5:15 am

Looking forward to this. O'Reilly is a dummy but it's great to introduce some intelligent concepts to his audience. The only problem is the same as all American shows: The segments are too short. RD will barely get out the usual set of introductory statements.

58. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32543 by glittergulch on April 17, 2007 at 10:44 am

That really in an incomprehensible mess.

59. For Some Hispanics, Coming to America Also Means Abandoning Religion

Comment #32532 by glittergulch on April 17, 2007 at 9:53 am

Ridelo:

It's most likely a reference to Jim Jones and the Jonestown tragedy. If you're unfamiliar, Jones was a cult leader, and he used the grip he had on his followers to convince them all to drink poisoned KoolAid for a mass suicide.

60. For Some Hispanics, Coming to America Also Means Abandoning Religion

Comment #32530 by glittergulch on April 17, 2007 at 9:49 am

"Here, the people get more materialistic," Mr. Cerritos said. "The culture here is really barren. There's no traditions."

If he were still living in his hometown of Guanajuato, he said, "I would probably go to church."

61. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29882 by glittergulch on April 5, 2007 at 10:18 am

Make sure to watch the whole thing. Any time he interviews the teenage girls is a heartbreaker.

62. Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Comment #26709 by glittergulch on March 21, 2007 at 8:28 am

I think it's pretty clear what the article suggests: The monkeys believe in God.

63. 'They Tried To Teach My Baby Science'

Comment #26707 by glittergulch on March 21, 2007 at 8:18 am

tylersoap on March 20, 2007 at 8:09 am
avatarNice work from the Onion as usual.
Heres something else to laugh at :
http://www.needgod.com/

I got all the way through that thinking it was a joke and then found out it's real. Hahaha!

64. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #25840 by glittergulch on March 15, 2007 at 11:59 am

Did Sullivan switch sides? The vast majority of that last piece said "I acknowledge that it's all horseshit but I kinda like is anyway," which is the only acceptable defense, I think, because it's the same defense I'd use for junk food, video games, and any other hobby.

65. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25566 by glittergulch on March 14, 2007 at 5:55 am

Dr. Dawkins: If you want to read a bit of the history of the recordings, here's the website where I got my physical copy of the CD-ROM a while back: http://www.tonguesrevisited.com/oxford_union_debate.htm (It seems to be a religious site but the guy was very nice when I ordered the CD and I believe him about the edits. Although I have no evidence. ;) )

And here are his comments on the edits:
"The original tapes began with about 20 minutes of Oxford Union business dealing with a motion to expel Major Robin Sanderson from the Union. This section, which contains a quite humorous speech by Major Sanderson coming immediately before the debate, has been deleted. After Professor Maynard-Smith's speech, there was an intermission of a number of minutes and the tape was left running. I'm not sure you would want to listen to a background hum of conversation and chairs and tables being pushed around, so have deleted this section also. These are the only editing changes. A very small amount of Oxford Union business occurred at one or two other points during the debate and they have all been left in.

Also...the original recording was done on audiotape and unfortunately the tape had to be turned over or changed at certain points. Thus a small amount of recording time was lost. My tapes for some reason have about an extra sentence of recording at each of these points than the AIG copy. I have inserted a 'ding' at the change points to indicate lost recording time."

So it seems that there is another tape but that it actually contains a little less text. Also, it seems to be owned by a group called "AIG" which google tells me is "Answers in Genesis." Yikes.

It sounds like the original tapes belonged to a guy named David CC Watson. Do you know who that is?

Obviously I wasn't there at the time but the amount of time lost on the recording seems very short to me: Every edit catches the speakers still covering the same material. Is it possible that his post-debate protests blended in with your memories of the debate?

I'm not familiar with the rules of traditional debate, but from a purely informational standpoint I'm glad you outed his young earth beliefs. If debaters can blatantly lie about their standings then what's the point? This isn't high school debate team where you're assigned a position for practice, whether you believe it or not. These speakers were chosen for their expertise and their views and for one of them to lie about where he stands on the issues being discussed is ridiculous. I definitely guffawed when you read those passages.

66. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25502 by glittergulch on March 13, 2007 at 8:52 pm

It's 14:03 into that MP3 but lord knows how far into the tape itself. The "dings" almost certainly indicate tape changes. Whoever encoded the digital audio files surely put them there so that listeners would know that a change had occurred and not that speakers were edited nefariously or were unable to complete sentences properly.

67. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25444 by glittergulch on March 13, 2007 at 6:40 am

I've listened to it a couple of times and I'm pretty sure that this is what the creationists are saying:

1) Creationism is a doctrine and evolution is a theory and doctrine trumps theory.
2) One species cannot spontaneously change into another.
3) Science will never - I mean never, ever, ever - answer any questions of any importance, ever.
4) Ever.
5) No one has shown any evidence of evolution, ever.
6) DNA code can't ever be created out of random chaos and therefore the origin of life will NEVER ever ever be understood.
7) A skull was found in some coal. Therefore, checkmate.
8) Evolution means that two similar wooden debating dispatch boxes share a common ancestor.
9) Creationism doesn't explain HOW the world works but WHY it exists.
10) Ooga booga.
11) Ugga Wugga.

Honestly, their comments make no sense at all. Even so, the debate is great to listen to.

68. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25340 by glittergulch on March 12, 2007 at 8:47 am

It would be great if Dr Dawkins would post some thoughts on this classic event.

69. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25319 by glittergulch on March 12, 2007 at 4:20 am

Ooh, brilliant! I have a CD-Rom of this. I highly recommend it from start to finish, especially since Dr Dawkins doesn't debate creationists anymore (easy to see why!) There are many bizarre and hilarious moments. Also, for those of us on the western side of the Atlantic some of the pomp and tradition is quite interesting.

70. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25041 by glittergulch on March 9, 2007 at 8:30 pm

What on earth is he talking about?

71. The New Atheists

Comment #21868 by glittergulch on February 11, 2007 at 9:28 am

Why does Cox get to say "You can't prove or disprove God" when theists hold up all sorts of stuff as "proof" of God, from charity and love to specific miracles and life itself? Shouldn't theists just say "nothing has ever happened that proves God exists, not even Jesus himself. I just feel it in my gut." That would certainly be more consistent.

(hehe, I see others have talked about this too. It just boggles the mind.)

72. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21177 by glittergulch on February 7, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Pretty much spot on (although, as ugly as it may be, refusing to vote for someone or befriend them based on race or gender is a private choice and should be - and is - allowed. We just hope that the numbers of people deciding in that way are small enough that they don't decide things.)

I'm not worried about the segment for any "ideas" it raised (har dee har) but, other than the car-crash enjoyment I got out of it, the thing that upsets me about it, and that I mentioned to the woman from the segment, is that it serves to almost subliminally move the debate towards the fundies. When the voice of reason is "I believe in God, and no one can take my God away from me, but even atheists deserve freedom of speech, even if everything they say is wrong," then the overall tone contributes even more to the chasm we have between rational atheism and the rest of the people. This was the second segment I've seen on CNN recently that took this tactic: The other was an hour long show hosted by Anderson Cooper that purported to look at religion from EVERY ANGLE!!! and didn't once admit that someone might not believe in one of the big ones. (It goes without saying that the program certainly never challenged the veracity of any religious statements - only the financial conduct of some churches.)

The debate in major US media is between moderate theists and wacko theists. If that is supposed to represent some sort of bell curve of rationalism then even the most mild agnostic is a freaking maniac foaming at the mouth.

I really hope Richard's appearance tomorrow is a good one. I don't know what the format will be and the statements of the dummies on the roundtable are almost too dumb to address. But I'm looking forward to it.

Let me just say, since I have the attention of a number of you, that finding Richard Dawkins (through a Root of All Evil download in January 2006, like so many others) has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. It helped me articulate so many ideas that I had brewing for so long. Being able to explore these issues through Richard's books (which I'm working through from the start) as well as Sam's and many others has been terrific fun. I have a little God Delusion-esque family situation that I keep meaning to write about but haven't had the time. Still, it's just great to see so many intelligent people out there seeing through the nonsense. I just wish we'd get a CBC Big Picture-style program in the US!

73. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21171 by glittergulch on February 7, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Russell Blackford:

Your comments are smart, as always, however, I do think the comparison to racism is as valid as any comparisons of the type. These sorts of appeals to compassion in the face of bigotry are almost never exact fits: anti-semitism is not the same as racism but we condemn the holocaust in the same way we condemn slavery. Homophobia is not the same as racism (the homophobe can argue that a person is gay in deeds and not in self; there is no equivalent argument in racism). And anti-atheism is not a perfect match with racism either, but the anger and dismissal that atheists feel from theists is comparable. Professor Hunter is hung up on the specifics of the comparison but what we would argue is that the comparison is apt in a more general sense.

74. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21126 by glittergulch on February 7, 2007 at 4:47 pm

Me n' Prof Hunter:


ME:

I'm sure you're receiving a lot of emails today concerning your comments on CNN but I just have to say that you showed yourself to be one of the most ignorant, unintelligent people I have ever seen on TV. From the "they believe in nothing" comment to the greeting cards suggestion to the repeated "shut up" statements, you revealed yourself to be an intellectual midget who makes Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson, the norm in televised stupidity, look like geniuses.

If you want to educate yourself about reality you should read Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" or Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion." These outspoken atheists would be the first to tell you that everyone should feel free to have their own opinions and feelings about the nature of spirituality. What they won't accept, however, is the intrusion of the religious beliefs of some into the public domain in a way that affects us all. While "One Nation Under God" is an intrusion on me as an atheist, it is merely a symbolic one. I'm more concerned about the ways that religion affects me and those around me: Stem cell research, gay rights, involvement in conflicts with religious origins, and any long-range planning that our leaders are refusing to undertake because they expect Jesus to rapture them up in the next 50 years. If you think that atheists want to be heard solely because God is on money or in the pledge then you are a fool. Religion is something you are entitled to but your religion is of no concern to me and the moment it intrudes on my life or the life of any person who doesn't choose to follow it you have stepped over the line.

While your statements about atheists shutting up were a disgrace to the concept of debate, your repeated comments about America being a Christian nation were the most idiotic. My family is ethnically Jewish and came here seeking refuge from ethnic and religious persecution. To think that this great land, which promised to not categorize and judge them by their beliefs, should be defined by know-nothings like you as demanding a particular religion is disgusting. Having a majority Christian population is no excuse: Our society is designed to protect minorities from the whims of the majority. After all, as an African American person, you don't need to be reminded that you are in a minority. It wasn't too long ago that you could have been told "This is a white nation, so you need to SHUT UP!" In fact, by your Christian nation definition it is STILL w "white nation." I recognize that you likely feel that there is no comparison between race and belief, and they are certainly different, except that the venom and intolerance you showed on CNN marks you as a classic bigot, unfortunately one with a podium. Affording Christians, Jews or Muslims any sort of respect for their beliefs means affording the same respect to someone who declines to indulge in those beliefs. If you can't do that then you are the one who needs to shut up. And take that silent time to read a little and learn a little so you don't make such an embarrassing spectacle of yourself again.

In the future please don't waste the spotlight on the kinds of moronic comments you made. You shamed yourself.



PROF HUNTER:

For the record, to compare atheism, again a choice, to someone who is black is definitely off.
Let's put this to rest. I hate no one. you have the right to believe or not believe anything you want. Just don't compare your plight to some sort of civil rights issue. It's not. You choose to be an atheist. I didn't choose to be black. I have never seen a sign that read: Christians Only. You never had to sit at the back of the bus because you're an atheist and I cannot recall a single atheist being hung from a tree or drag from behind a truck until his limbs fell or shot at 50 times just because he was an atheist. So while you are in the minority in thus Judeo-Christian society, you are far from persecuted.

Thanks for your comments...and I appreciate the ad hominen attacks....you showed yourself to be no better than everything you accused me of.



ME:

I'm not sure it's possible to use an ad hominem attack against someone who went on TV and told a wide swath of people to "shut up." I know nothing about you in general. All I know is the hateful words with which you chose to represent yourself on that show.

As for the question of choice in atheism, if not believing in a god is a choice then believing is a choice as well. And if some people choose to believe something then they should have no power to force their beliefs on others. I don't often hear Christians say that their belief is a choice, but it must be going by what you're saying.

I didn't equate racism with religious tyranny but the comparison is valid. I assume that you are not a fundamentalist and consider yourself liberal in most topics (I could be wrong) but your casual dismissal of the concerns of atheists is the support that fundamentalists need to move the middle of the argument - the "moderate" viewpoint - a little more in their direction. It makes even the most rational and reasonable atheist into a crackpot in the eyes of the public. And it discredits their concerns without debate.

I don't know if you consider homosexuality a choice or not but their rights are certainly being curtailed in a way that can only be construed as coming from a Christian morality. Again, as I said before, belief in private is one thing, but using it to limit the rights of others is wrong. Had anyone on your panel really acknowledged this we wouldn't have to have this discussion. Glossing over the very real discrimination that is supported by nothing more than religious values in order to tell atheists to quit whining over the pledge or prayer in schools is dishonest.

I hope that some day CNN can have a legitimate debate on this topic since it's very important to today's society. By contrast, Canadian television held a real open forum on religion and atheism last year. I suggest you watch it. There are religious people of many stripes as well as a few atheists. You may find it illuminating as far as broadening your knowledge of the concerns that atheists have regarding the world today:

http://www.cbc.ca/bigpicture/media/evil_debate.mov


PROF HUNTER:

That's considered hate speech?! Really? My, I think that's an overreaction, to say the least. Look again. A lot of what I said was tongue in cheek, even playful. Not hateful. But I apologize if I offended you. Obviously along with a belief in God, your sense of humor must have been lost, too.

It's cool. I don't hate you or anyone. I can't do it. It's not in me.

Bottom line, live and let live. Do your thing.



ME:

That reply is sort of a non sequitur but that's ok: You don't owe me a detailed response. To be honest, I'm more disappointed with CNN for staging such a nonsensical debate. Although I'm not sure why I should be surprised at this point. Their coverage of religious issues has been weak for a long time.

Regardless, I do hope you watch that CBC show. It's good stuff.


I don't know if she'll drag it out any further. I sort of let it go with that last email. I could have questioned her about how tongue in cheek she was about prayer in school but whatever.

75. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21000 by glittergulch on February 7, 2007 at 8:34 am

That woman on the right needs to have her ethnicity as a Jew revoked. She's a disgrace to just about everyone.

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

Comment #20989 by glittergulch on February 7, 2007 at 7:53 am

I don't understand the notion that Dawkins is being dogmatic and closed minded. Is the opposite of dogmatic just accepting every single concept and thought in the universe with equal weight? He's NOT dogmatic because he is open to any new discovery and concept that might add to knowledge. Hell, he'll be the first to tell you that if someone improves on or comes up with a better theory than Darwin's own he'll be open to it. But being open to other people's ideas means being capable of discarding them when they don't bear fruit. He (and the rest of us) is open to any new idea looking forward that is worth a look. Doesn't mean he needs to cling to the old ideas that have outlived their usefulness.

77. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20957 by glittergulch on February 7, 2007 at 5:51 am

Sent this to CNN:

If you seriously want to discuss atheism and the appropriateness of religion in the modern world you're going to have to actually have a rational atheist on the channel. I've seen several shows on CNN that purport to attack the issues of religion from "every" angle but who never even mention the possibility that religion is hogwash. I know that the current cultural climate is such that rejecting religion is tantamount to treason but the best-selling books by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris prove that people out there are looking for someone who sees past religion. Just look at this Canadian program: http://www.cbc.ca/bigpicture/evil.html

They screened Richard Dawkins documentary "The Root of All Evil?" and then held a town hall including atheists and theists. I can just see Anderson Cooper hosting a similar event. It would be amazing! Click on the link for the Town Hall discussion on that site: They've included the entire thing. It's illuminating and it's absolutely crucial for America to get a similar program. How come I have to watch C-SPAN and The Colbert Report to see Dawkins and Harris taken seriously? Where is CNN?

78. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #20719 by glittergulch on February 6, 2007 at 6:22 am

Oh god, I'm watching Dr Dino's video about dinosaurs. It's frickin hilarious. Highly recommended.

79. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20642 by glittergulch on February 5, 2007 at 11:05 am

Wow, Imagine if we had a show like that in the US? Or even if a channel would show the film at all? Why can't Anderson Cooper host an airing and discussion like this?

80. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #20639 by glittergulch on February 5, 2007 at 10:21 am

Hahaha, It's not a tail! It's fatty tissue around some bone. NOT a tail!

Good grief.