51. A force for good?

Comment #55095 by ricey on July 10, 2007 at 2:27 am

Oh dear ... I think we have new-age religous man on our hands here.

Inane, risible, pseudo-psychological claptrap. Criticising him almost seems unfair - like shooting fish in a barrel or, much worse, laughing at the afflicted. However, I can't resist just one shot:

First we have:

God is not an "invisible being"...

God is not to me a particular "being" at all, but rather the power of Being itself. God is a supreme moral ideal to be reverenced for its value not for its controlling power

52. Bill Moyers interviews E.O. Wilson

Comment #55086 by ricey on July 10, 2007 at 1:47 am

What a true gentleman ... my faith in Americans is restored. What a pity brash, ignorant, bullying "pastors" seem to get most of the popular media attention in that great country.

I think Prof. Wilson is correct to be conciliatory towards religious moderates - so long as both parties stick to shared basic ethics and avoid metaphysical differences. The impending crisis requires cooperation between all parties and, unfortunately, most people in the world remain religious.

53. A force for evil?

Comment #55072 by ricey on July 10, 2007 at 12:43 am

Ignoring the author's subtle "borrowings" from Dawkins' The God Delusion, (for the sake of a good cause); this was a well constructed knockdown of faith-based dogmatism.

Lets hope a few fundies, pumped up by an almighty faith-based rage, follow the Guardian link and join the debate on this site.

54. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #54777 by ricey on July 9, 2007 at 12:35 am

If Hannity were British he would be a Sun columnist - too dum to know how dum he sounds.

55. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54529 by ricey on July 7, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Reference the material we are debating: activists, such as Hitchens motivate me.

The logic of Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, etc ...
Very true; but very dry?

Perhaps only "the Hitch" has the motivational qualities to pull this off?

Maybe you think the opposite - maybe popularists such as Hitch are what you are railing against.

I'm finding the subject over-bearing. Is Hitch the easy way out for intellectually challenged atheists, such as I?

56. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53117 by ricey on June 29, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Reassuring to note that Darwin was as disorganised as I am. There is hope for us all!

This was a well presented and critical appraisal of RD's personal hero by RD. Perhaps a biography is on the cards?

Also reassuring to note that during this series of presentations RD suffered from "middle-aged man dress code syndrome", Although a fellow sufferer, even I was taken aback by the shorts ... or rather, the legs, "like something you'd see hanging out of a nest" - as they say in this part of Ireland.

The green tropical shirt for the final "piece to camara" was the most sober in the series. In fact, I want one ...

(Sorry, I don't get much deeper than that after two 14 hr day shifts.)

57. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52410 by ricey on June 27, 2007 at 1:43 am

Reading some of the hysterical, nay, apocalyptic comments on this discussion, it is interesting to note that not all "rage-boys" are confined to the middle-east or to fundamentalist Islam.

And not all "nut bags" are religious.

58. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #51740 by ricey on June 24, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Well said Linda,

What a scary thought that a guy who thinks that the Flintstones is a true story could join the socially dangerous crowd of religious fundamentalists that hold the top jobs in too many nations

59. In the name of the Father

Comment #51526 by ricey on June 23, 2007 at 9:17 am

Religion is rooted in our capacity to recognise and appreciate value; in our search for truth; in our recognition that some things are good in themselves

60. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50942 by ricey on June 20, 2007 at 3:06 pm

The woman who "read about" the deathbed conversion of Darwin makes a salutary point; we all beleive things we read in books - text books, books by Richard Dawkins, etc ... .

The trick is to cross reference your sources; something I have been guilty of neglecting in the past.

All sources, even those that support our own opinions, need to be cross-referenced in this way to be validated.

61. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50697 by ricey on June 19, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Sam Harris showed more dignity and politeness than I would have done given the hopelessly partisan behaviour of the "moderator". This old fool always wanted to lead his own parade and, boy, did he!

Truthdig need to find a better moderator if they expect to retain credibility.

Interestingly, the old fool shot himself in the foot. His question re why, now, the koran should be undergoing such a populist resurgence in its literal interpretation was quite interesting and worthy of a reply. However, he proceeded to box Harris in, lending him the sympathy of the neutrals - Harris hardly needed to reply - and he didn't.

Harris is too easily drawn into other people's wars (literally in this case). Atheists didn't start the war in Iraq and it is peripheral to the subject being debated. Sam tried to put this point a few times but wasn't strong enough. He was too ready to respond to Hedges' rhetoric. That fight is not Sam's - or ours (I hope).

But, boy, that moderator ... "there's no fool like an old fool" as my mammy said

62. Religion - our maelstrom of ignorance

Comment #49597 by ricey on June 12, 2007 at 1:55 pm

RJ's comment: 49548,

I agree with RJ; its not scientific research to (effectively) stand in front of, or outside a church with a clipboard and expect the congregation to state whether or not they beleive in god (or disbelieve in evolution, which to many faith-heads is the same question in reverse) and expect rational answers.

Ask the school kids, then correlate their responses to what's taught in their science class.

We can safely bet that ID students will have a different interpretation of evolution than students taught in a secular science classroom. Obvious, but central to the point.

63. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49581 by ricey on June 12, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Set in context, the Bible is like many of these ancient texts; not surprising, since they borrow so heavily from one another. Anyone interested in how the Bible's text truely developed could do worse than to read "The Unauthorised Version" by Robin Lane Fox.

Calm, articulate and devastatingly convincing. Not even the awful "Fish" referred to above could put Fox's thoughtful, deliberate conclusions down to rabid atheism. We'll .. he might!

64. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46876 by ricey on June 2, 2007 at 3:44 am

I lived and attended school in Canada for about 3 years (Toronto), returning to N Ireland aged 15. I can tell you this from memory - Canadians don't like Americans but are defferential to them.

I think they have a slight inferiority complex - not surprising given their relatively small population.

Religion in Canada is like religion in England - seen but not heard; moderate would be another way to put it.

One word of advice: if you come accross a North American of indeterminate origin (if you've live in Cananda you'll notice the pronounced difference between Canadian and US accents), always ask if they come from Canada. Canadians react badly if you ask them what part of the States they're from! Americans don't seem to mind if you confuse them for Canadians (there's that Canadian insecurity thing again).

65. Groundbreaking Research Has Scientists Talking With Apes

Comment #46542 by ricey on May 31, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Before we delve too far into the fascinating scientific and linguistic side of things, bear this in mind: Bonobos are viagra in fur - their first words to us (male, female, whatever) are likely to be obscene and of a sexual nature. Bloggers with youngsters be ready for that, in case the boffins set up the first live broadcast at family veiwing times.

66. Diary of a Deserter

Comment #46538 by ricey on May 31, 2007 at 3:15 pm

What a creepy sounding outfit the JWs are! They always seemed so nice - I almost (almost) felt guilty as I shut the door in their faces, but no more ...

Why not arm ourselves with atheist tracts - a synopsis of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens (and that other guy who's book I haven't read yet).

Even a glance at the book titles would be enough to generate fear among the God-zombies.

We leave a pile of them by our doors and insist that we won't take any tract from anyone: JW's Mormons, run-of-the-mill Jesus-freaks, etc unless they take one from us (ho,ho!).

If nothing else, it'll get us blacklisted by the faith-heads so we can enjoy our privacy without someone who feels the need to save us butting in.

67. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46527 by ricey on May 31, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Written by Brownback's press agent to appeal to his congregation - the voters. Whether or not he believes this stuff is beside the point.

Damage limitation for the thinking sector of the electorate that were shocked when he put his hand up to say he didn't believe in evolution.

Shameless political jargon.

68. Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier Than Thou With Christopher Hitchens

Comment #45129 by ricey on May 26, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Just watched it again ... Penn and Teller are a force for good in this world. Christopher Hitchens is a mesmerising speaker, even when drunk.

Christianity, MT style is an affront to decency. This should be made compulsary viewing in all RC faith schools (they can edit out the F**ks).

Finally, the Dalai Lama bears a striking physical resemblance to the late Dr Hunter S Thompson, US writer of note and freind of C Hitchens and associate of Penn - Fear and Loathing on the P&T show?

69. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #44976 by ricey on May 25, 2007 at 5:44 pm

MIND-REBEL:

Many of us are new to this idea of leaving our family's deepest convictions and, effectively, dismissing them as ignorant nonsense. It is an emotional thing. It is f**king hard to do.

So don't be afraid to express your views on this site - why should you be?

Not all of us are well educated; that dosn't make us dumb! One thing that intimidates me about this site is the philosophical claptrap you need to wade through in some of the threads.

Blah-de-blah-de-blah ...

I don't understand much of it. (Honestly, I don't think many of the contributers do either.)
This isn't a cleverest person competition - and I think Dawkin's promotion of atheists as brights is bullshit, and counter-productive.

So let's hear it for the uncouth, off-the-cuff gobshite (as we say in this part of Ireland)! Go for it!! Just don't get caught in the self-same trap - one man's fool is another's prophet ... as we know to our cost.

70. Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier Than Thou With Christopher Hitchens

Comment #44953 by ricey on May 25, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Recycling and other environmental issues aren't bullshit: but they rely on collective participation. An economist might consider individual recycling in the same light as he/she considers individual voting - one person making an effort here and there isn't going to change anything.

One vote never swung an election - you may as well have stayed at home. Just one person recycling re-useable material may as well dump it in a landfill.

It's collective effort that makes the change; or lack of collective effort that maintains the status quo.

If you believe that one person's efforts aren't important then collective effort is impossible. If you think that, don't ever use your right to vote again.

71. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44405 by ricey on May 24, 2007 at 2:38 pm

What he fails to grasp is not simply the meaning of faith ... but the supreme importance of the monotheistic traditions in creating the concept of the individual

72. Lightning damages Jesus statue

Comment #44401 by ricey on May 24, 2007 at 2:22 pm

If a statue of Charles Darwin (or Richard Dawkins) was struck by lightning every holy crackpot in the world would point knowingly skywards.

It strikes a Jesus statue (what did he look like anyway?) and its an act of nature.

73. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43338 by ricey on May 21, 2007 at 6:27 am

NormanDoering;

By all means encourage the boy to publish! He is too dumb to reach - he may as well earn a few bucks from Liberty University who would use this as a textbook.

74. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43251 by ricey on May 21, 2007 at 2:43 am

Quote JeffD:

"Who among believers is calling for tolerance, let alone "greater tolerance," on the part of religious believers toward atheists and other non-believers? Yes, modern science gestated and received its dynamism in the womb of the civilization of the West. It's gross hyperbole to call it "religious civilization" in light of official religious opposition to just about every significant advance in science."

Indeed. Copernicus among countless others could testify to the scientific contribution of "religious civilization". What a cheek to laud religion as the benefactor of science! Religion, particularly Judeo-Christain religion, has always intimidated and obstructed genuine scientific advancement for fear that uncomfortable truths will enter the public arena.

75. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #43153 by ricey on May 20, 2007 at 2:43 pm

"if God invented free will then this is all His fault anyway"

The (late) great English/Irish comedian Spike Milligan said (I paraphrase), "If I am brought before God and confronted with my (considerable) litaney of sin, my defence will be ... "you made me, you bastard, you are responsible".

76. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #43144 by ricey on May 20, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Too purile for words. Does this stuff even need comment? This viewpoint is entrenched; like a mortally wounded soldier, leave it behind - its gone. Instead, petition those independent and bright enough to still be persuaded. Surely some of this guy's readers feel a spark of doubt. Surely!!

77. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42435 by ricey on May 18, 2007 at 7:41 am

Again, a misty higher being is hinted at but his/hers/its nature is not clarified. Have you noticed that intellectual religious apologists don't like treading on each others specific definition of god? They always avoid giving the details of their beliefs.

At what point does the woolly but intellectual-sounding argument for a higher being boil down into nuts and bolts religion; miracles, angels, walking dead, incense, virgin births, prayer, infant baptism and all? Presumably Mr Larison subscribes to a defined belief structure beyond the concept of "a higher being". Let him state precisely what this is and defend it! The position of atheists is crystal clear by comparison.

It is revealing when high-brow, intellectual-sounding gibberish is employed to deflect honest questioning and, most tellingly of all, the ability to think for yourself is actively discouraged - Trust and Obey

78. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42111 by ricey on May 17, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Could this article be sub-titled "Of course we don't beleive in God any better than Hitchens does; we also beleive religion is oppressive, sexist, racist and generally exclusive. But hell, lets just get on with understanding God's purpose for us"?

This writer blind to reason and cannot see the woods for the trees. Faith does that, I guess.

79. The Debate: Can We Live by Reason Alone?

Comment #40008 by ricey on May 12, 2007 at 4:30 pm

I thought the interviewer was fair. Dawkins seemed to take him seriously enough. Sadly the download I got cut out the panel's debate. It would have been interesting to hear their thoughts ... or was it just the usual drivel?

Good to see the Prof refusing to rise to the ego-enducing bait "you are one of the most certain people I have ever heard interviewed ... ". No! Present the evidence; I will change my mind if it is sufficient (to paraphrase). Correct.

Some contributers to this web site should recall that the case against "a god" is not yet proven and probably never can be.

80. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38092 by ricey on May 7, 2007 at 12:32 am

Would this article get published in a mainstream US paper? Good for Canada!