Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Comment #17389 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 7:48 am

Keynes was livid, originally preferring that they be politically independent economic entities, which they should have been. However, Keynes was apparently willing to give that up in favor of getting money for socialist Britain and its expensive ass empire.

I recall reading somewhere that the US representative stronged armed Keynes into accepting the current boom/bust model, and that he predicted it would be problematic.

Anybody know a good site with the details?

1152. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17367 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 3:38 am

"I believe that when God created us (and I do believe evolution was part of the process God used), He shaped us, breathed life and a soul into us, and then set us free within nature, not seperate from it, giving us intimate connections to all aspects of it. The relationship we have to the natural world is not a relationship between "us" and "it." It is us, and we are of it."

Al Gore, 2006

Your comments, please.

Maybe he beleives it? Maybe it is even the case, as long as God is relegated to the "of no conceivable value or interest" category, he can say whatever he likes.

Odds are he knows it's crap and is indulging in some unavoidable pandering.

1153. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17366 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 3:36 am

1154. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17363 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 3:20 am

31. Comment #17362 by Logicel on January 13, 2007 at 3:13 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen, The EU and America both sicken me in this regard--the EU by blah blah blahing about solidarity with the world's poor and then choking off their economic growth with EU protectionism, and America blah blah blahing about how effective capitalism is for fighting poverty and then contributing to world poverty by its protectionism. A plague on both of their houses--how nice if locusts would come and eat up all of their crops? Come on, God, you did it once.

Drives me bonkers. I think both the EU and US are amazing acheivements, with varying strengths and weaknesses, but both are blind in this regard. That said, the agricultural lobby is weakening in both entities, it's just a matter of time.

Here's hoping they crack it this time.

1155. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17359 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 3:00 am

Authentic globalization--where America would drop its absurd argricultural protectionism--would lessen world poverty. Capitalism is the least worst means of accomplishing that goal of reducing world poverty at present.

Likewise in the EU. Looks like the message is getting through, we just need to keep yelling:-)

I'm a cautious fan of capitalism myself, the biggest problem I see with it is the unaccountability of global corporations. Their local authority (in as much as they even have one) generally no longer have the political power to reacte to and legislate for their worst excesses.

Global capitalism is perhaps the strongest argument there is for a more representative form of global governance, I say bring it on!!!

1156. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17342 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 1:41 am

22. Comment #17338 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 1:25 am

Brian, I am actually deeply sympathetic to your point of view, but my own intellectual trajectory (which never involved religious belief) has gentled me towards a less judgemental approach on many issues on which I would previously been the bearer of indubitable certainty. Steve Gould's last book of essays I Have Landed is a moving and insightful exploration - in practice - of how these different dialogues can co-exist without corrupting one's sense of truth and integrity. And it's a volume that bears repeated readings ...

I appreciate that, and I always enjoy your posts:-) I think, on balance, things are moving in the right direction. Now, if someone could just have the guts to impeach GWB, we'd be on the way to a truly rational global society:-)

1157. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17337 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 1:16 am

Theological discourses (from Aboriginal Dreamtime stories through to Hans Kuhn) are also historic documents of humanity's struggles to find meaning in the world and our lives, which is I suspect the direction from which Eagleton is approaching the question.

I accept that, and it even makes sense. Culture and history are important for us. In that case I just find Eagletons complaint misdirected, and I say this as someone uncomfortably conscious of the undercurrent of partisanship that is sweeping a lot of us along to defend Dakwins, Harris and Co. without really thinking about the substance of the complaint.

In this case I genuinely don't get it. Maybe the broadening of the "atheist family" :-) is coarsening the debate, maybe thats the price we have to pay. As long as we don't become violent, or start burning "heretics", I'm happy enough to see guys like Eagleton get the occasional virtual savaging by the online mob.

Everytime an elite clique suddenly finds itself being transformed to a mass movement, we hear similar complaints. Maybe we should chalk it up to that?

1158. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17335 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 13, 2007 at 1:05 am

So Eagleton's complaint remains, and needs to be understood. Why? Because time and again we have seen people at this site express incomprehension at the fact that intensely intelligent scientists (Ken Miller comes to mind) who are nonetheless religious.

Understand what Eagleton is saying, and you start to understand how that is possible. These people are not suffering from a mental disorder, they are not stupid, and they are deserving of our respect.

I think I already understand this. I consider myself modestly intelligent, and yet for 20 years I was a practising, enthusiastic Christian.

However, I always had problems and struggled to orient reality with my faith. I think it is fair to say that below a certain level of intelligence, people simply are incapable of serious scrutiny of their faith, and above a certain level of intelligence, people suppress the contradictions. That is what these guys are doing, and it is ass backwards frankly. Nonetheless intelligent people for emotional, psycological, perhaps even rational reasons in some limited and personal context, simply ignore the elephants in the room.

Thus, should we really accord them respect? Really? I'm no longer convinced. The obvious evolution of religious thought, the multiple and mutually exclusive strands, the deep layers of unsubstantiated (and contradictory!!!) detail regarding the person of God, the problem of evil and the millenia spent debating these issues surely point to the utter meaningless of the exercise? Thousands of years of debate, thought, war and discussion and we can't even agree if God is one or three, whatever the hell that means.

As a fortuitous by product we got the scientific method and the kind of philosophical thinking that allowed us to break the stranglehold of religion, but absent the smothering presence of mother church, we would arguably have got there faster. In fact the greeks and romans were half way there when Christianity threw a metaphysical straitjacket over human thought.

Maybe I'm just too dumb to get it, maybe, and I'm open to that possibility, but thats what theologians have always said, so I'm skeptical.

1159. Judge: Men can seek damages from church

Comment #17327 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 11:27 pm

10. Comment #17296 by USA_Limey on January 12, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Hey, briancoughlanworldcitizen, God, Inc. Hilarious, thanks for pointing me toward it.

:-)

No problem, did you see episodes 2 and 3? Especially 3!

1160. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17324 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 11:06 pm

The trouble here is twofold. First, it's not ultra-sophisticated religious intellectuals like Eagleton's mates who are in charge of the US military and wield vast social and political power in many parts of the world.

Great post, Russell, articulates my thoughts so clearly. I think this is the bottom line John, esoteric, ephemeral and academic constructs are fine, potentially interesting in their own right, but they have no bearing on the real world. No data, no tests, no results. What could be more pointless?

Besides, the people burning embassies, rioting over comics and killing abortion clinic staff would be the first to call Eagleton and his rarified cohorts heretics and aspostates.

So in my view, Eagletons wordy critique is fatuous because it misses the point so completely.

Finally, Dawkins and Harris are right to dismiss theology, and the comparison to fairology is a nice soundbite, that resonates with the majority of people. Theologians are considered the "brains" of the religious movement, descredit theology as a subject and you remove what little intellectual credibility religion has. I actually don't think it can be said often enough that theology is to cosmology/philosophy, what astrology is to astronomy, or alchemy to chemistry.

Theology is bunkum, but it will be very hard for Eagleton and Co. to admit it.

1161. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #17255 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 10:40 am

Check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2f4heaG288

1162. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #17252 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 10:02 am

Check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2f4heaG288

1163. Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Comment #17251 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 9:59 am

check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2f4heaG288

1164. Judge: Men can seek damages from church

Comment #17249 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 9:58 am

check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2f4heaG288

1165. FiveLive debate on faith and discrimination

Comment #17248 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 9:56 am

check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2f4heaG288

1166. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #17247 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 9:56 am

Check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2f4heaG288

1167. The Only One in Step

Comment #17246 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 9:48 am

If life looks designed then it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that it is. Once we've drawn that conclusion we can then start debating identity and purpose.

Sure, if you have no other information to hand. At first glance much looks obvious, that everything orbits the earth, or that heavy things fall faster than light things. Yet all wrong, so it is with the design fallacy.

Much we have discovered about the physical world is counter intuitive, and lets not get started on quantum physics.

If you are a naked human on the steppes 30,000 years ago, the world looks designed. If you are a 21st century human with access to the vast amounts of knowledge accrued in the last 100 years, you know that design is a weak cop out, almost everything we now know points against it.

1168. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #17243 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 9:39 am

"IDiots"?? Your going to have to do better than that.

No actually, we won't. Until such time as IDiots actually produce some extensivley peer reviewed science that gets broad acceptance, they will continue to be given the cold shoulder.

In fact, they have made such a shit of relationships, that any real science they actually come up will have some real discrimination to fight against.

Still if it's real, it will eventually overturn the prevailing view. I'm not holding my breath though:-)

1169. Halting progress

Comment #17242 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 9:35 am

The protest was over religious groups being forced to allow two homosexuals to sleep together in eg a christian owned B&B.

Nonsense. This is merely the spin to put an acceptable face on what is undiluted discrimination and simply unacceptable.

If two men walk into a B&B what they do in their room, as long as it doesn't infringe on any laws, is entirely there business.

For that matter, group sex and hetero anal sex may be something a group of people will engage in, but again, it has nothing to do with the proprieter of an establishment they are staying at.

Finally, issues of conscience that are purely theological on one side, yet activley inconvenience some party on the other, should be ignored. We don't accept forced polygamy, female circumcision or the liver eating of babies, because such practices have clear negative outcomes and for no rational reason. Thus it is with this purient obsession with what other people get up to.

The entire discussion, positioning and spin of this dialouge highlights yet again that religites will lie through their teeth to get their way. Their hypocrisy is beyond disgusting.

1170. Halting progress

Comment #17216 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 4:24 am

"The condition is that they do not impose those beliefs on others". Hmmm! Presumably this is Mr Grayling's belief. Which he wants to impose on others? Inconsistent? Yep, I think so.
32. Comment #17046 by Logicel on January 10, 2007 at 12:12 pm

You are either being obtuse, or really think this is a winning argument. Amazing.

If I form the religious view that beating small children and eating their livers is a critical and important observance, would you respect that? Hardly.

Demonising a section of the community for no other reason than their sexual preferences falls into the same category.

Tolerance cannot extend to intolerance, there lies disaster. Beleive what you like, just don't expect the rest of us to allow you to practice your peversion on society at large.

1171. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17130 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 11, 2007 at 3:09 am

23. Comment #17126 by Logicel on January 11, 2007 at 2:50 am

Thanks, briancoughlanworldcitizen, for your link to your blog. Why have you stop posting for over three months now at your blog? Spending too much time here? I will eventually read your back posts.

Work has been crazy, and I have discovered this site. Bit of both. Let me know what you think of the blog, maybe it'll inspire me to pick it up again:-)

1172. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17125 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 11, 2007 at 2:47 am

1. is it moral to kill one innocent to save a thousand innocents?
2. is it moral to kill a thousand innocents to save one innocent?

i guess, most of those, who are against torture in any circumstances, would say, both are immoral.

Humans have moral "grammar" which governs these kinds of decisions. In all cultures both of the positions you posit violate our inate evolutionary driven sense of morality.

The real issue however is wether we are all equally governed by law, or wether one group can arbitrarily visit death and destruction on some other group.

The hysterical "24" scenarios cloud the fundamental lunacy of a global society running at different speeds of justice depending on where you were born. Change that, and much of the rest will gradually be shoehorned into line.

Just look at the EU, not perfect sure, but 50 years ago we were killing each other in job lots.

1173. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17124 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 11, 2007 at 2:40 am

Why not put all our human energies into preventing war? Us humans have a long history of it, and we are all tired of it. Some scientists like Watson and Wilson have stated that humanity has become less violent through the ages because violence is not productive in a densely populated world. Let us continue in that direction.

Logicel, you are singing my song. I'm with you 110% on that.

http://globalconfederacy.blogspot.com/ Some of my rambling thoughts on the subject.

1174. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #17121 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 11, 2007 at 2:34 am

Yes gimlibengloin, there is much that is obvious at first glance.

That everything else orbits the earth, or that the earth is flat for example, or that solid matter is solid, are perfectly obvious, and yet wrong.

In fact, if we take your train of thought to its logical conclusion, its perfectly "obvious" that the designer is a deranged and incompetent psycho.

That's why we need armies of scientists, constantly disagreeing and testing each others theories to determine what actually is, as opposed to what seems "obvious".

1175. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17113 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 10, 2007 at 11:52 pm

It's not something that should be in question. Deliberately inflicting severe pain on another human being is wrong.

Not just wrong, but activley stupid. The real threat from terrorists has been studiously overblown so as to stampede people into handing powers to the government, they otherwise wouldn't dream of sanctioning.

Government should be fiercly controlled by the people, handing over the right to keep secrets, torture and kill people is down right crazy.

That old adage, "you might be next", may be statistically improbable, but the odds are higher of being hauled in by your own government than being blown up by a suicide bomber.

1176. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17109 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 10, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Secondly, as an ex-religite, I can testify to the power of group coercion and how overwhelming the urge can be to stay in with the "in crowd".

Sometimes we need to close ranks and protect our "own", and a little partisanship is required, if for no other reason than to facilitate some minimal level of co-operation. However, we must also be acutely aware of the ever present potential for group think and extreme partisanship.

Long term "our own" are comprised of every human on the planet:-)

Sam is well able for a little criticisim, and with luck it will help him to moderate his views, especially on the subject of torture. We don't need to cheerlead every single thing he or Dawkins do, most especially if we disagree.

A cult of personality would be an oddity in this context no? Yet, cults of personality are the HIV of religion, they fly below the radar and bamboozle the immune system precisely because they don't look like religions, but they are. They infilitrate peoples minds, and hijack their most laudable instincts for the most base of purposes. If Hitler and Stalin are anything to go by, they are perhaps the most lethal strain of the religious impulse we've seen yet.

Is it possible, don't all yell at once, but it is possible that the combination of atheisim and the religious impulse, does unleash a more virulent beast than unadulterated religion?

Regardless of the answer, we must avoid the knee jerk defense of our "authorities" that I see and I'm afraid recognise as disturbingly familiar, and almost certainly fuelled by the religious impulse. Lets be conscious that we too have all the religious machinery in place that any fundy has, it is simply looking for a vector to express itself.

1177. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17108 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 10, 2007 at 11:09 pm

I'd like to reiterate some points I made when this initially came up, and I'd love to get some feedback from my fellow atheists/agnostics/brights.

Firstly, the dropping of bombs on innocent people, should not be used to justify torture. Both are wrong, and unacceptable in a civilised global society.

I see precious little difference between a suicide bomber who blows himself up, and an airforce pilot who drops bombs and a government torturer.

All have a goal in mind, and are using violence to acheive it, all know in advance that there is a high probability of innocent people being killed or injured, and all proceed nonetheless. All beleive that the price in innocent lives is "worth it".

Violence is generally pointless and almost always wrong, especially when perpetrated by the very strong against the very weak.

I like Sam, and he takes pains to highlight that only in "extreme" circumstances should this reasoning be applied. I also think he is an articulate speaker, and an excellent representative of atheisim, but I disagree with him nonetheless.

1178. Halting progress

Comment #16964 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 9, 2007 at 9:30 pm

Right on scooter. We have go stop this scourge.

Colbert, has some salient points to make :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM59Urtgco4

1179. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16852 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 9, 2007 at 7:33 am

understand that many of you may be hostile to southpark after Richard Dawkins was also ripped on it, but even them episodes made some good points about atheism (plus they were really funny).

Amen to that:-)

As an ex-religite, I can testify to the power of group coercion and how overwhelming the urge can be to stay in with the "in crowd".

Sometimes we need to close ranks and protect our "own", and a little partisanship is required, if for no other reason than to facilitate some minimal level of co-operation. However, we must also be acutely aware of the ever present potential for group think and extreme partisanship.

We don't need to cheerlead every single thing Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris do, most especially if we disagree.

A cult of personality would be an oddity in the context of Atheisim. Yet, cults of personality are the HIV of religion, they fly below the radar and bamboozle the immune system precisely because they don't look like religions, but they are. They infilitrate peoples minds, and hijack their most laudable instincts for the most base of purposes. If Hitler and Stalin are anything to go by, they are perhaps the most lethal strain of the religious impulse we've seen yet.

Is it even possible that religion and atheisim fuse to produce a particularly virulent strain of the religious impulse? Certainly nationalsim and religion do.

Lets not do the same thing eh? Lets not even do a weak fluffy version.

Even atheists can succumb to some wierd personality cult, and knee jerk defense against "heretics" and "blasphemers". We must never forget that long term "our own", are comprised of every human on the planet:-)

1180. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #16850 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 9, 2007 at 7:21 am

But the record shows both approaches working in tandem may deliver results. I certainly have been surprised by TGD's success in the US, which has got to be a good thing ...

It's basically a God cop, Godless cop routine:-) Dawkins and Harris are the Godless cops, forcing the weaker perps to turn to the God cops for help, but they have to narc on the hardcore perps to get that help.

Bascially the routine will hopefully drive the "moderates" to agressivley disavow their more extremist brethern, choking off finances, PR and support.

It also shifts the centre of the discussion, people who beleive in the rapture and the literal return of Christ and other nonsense, should eventually be driven from office by public disapproval. It needs to be constantly highlighted that these people are demonstrably dangerous, potentially delusional, and simply cannot be trusted in positions of power. Especially not military power.

Keep up the pressure!!!

1181. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16812 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 9, 2007 at 12:54 am

This site's banner proclaims itself as a "clear-thinking oasis". Let's not allow the stampeding herd to turn it into a muddy swamp.

Amen to that:-)

As an ex-religite, I can testify to the power of group coercion and how overwhelming the urge can be to stay in with the "in crowd".

Sometimes we need to close ranks and protect our "own", and a little partisanship is required, if for no other reason than to facilitate some minimal level of co-operation. However, we must also be acutely aware of the ever present potential for group think and extreme partisanship.

Long term "our own" are comprised of every human on the planet:-)

Sam is well able for a little criticisim, and with luck it will help him to moderate his views, especially on the subject of torture. We don't need to cheerlead every single thing he or Dawkins do, most especially if we disagree.

A cult of personality would be an oddity in this context no? Yet, cults of personality are the HIV of religion, they fly below the radar and bamboozle the immune system precisely because they don't look like religions, but they are. They infilitrate peoples minds, and hijack their most laudable instincts for the most base of purposes. If Hitler and Stalin are anything to go by, they are perhaps the most lethal strain of the religious impulse we've seen yet. Lets not do the same thing eh? Lets not even do a weak fluffy version.

I'm just sayin'!!!

1182. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16804 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 8, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Note, like Sam, I am not advocating torture but it does put it into perspective. I also think, like others have posted, that a lot of the abhorrence of torture comes down to both the very personal and deliberate nature of the act. Whereas there is nobody sitting in front of you screaming when dropping a bomb from 15,000 feet or a cruise missile from a 1,000 or more kilometres away.

I think the focus is somewhat misplaced in this discussion. The dropping of bombs on innocent people, should not be used to justify torture. Both are wrong, and unacceptable in a civilised global society.

I see precious little difference between a suicide bomber who blows himself up, and an airforce pilot who drops bombs and a government torturer.

All have a goal in mind, and are using violence to acheive it, all know in advance that there is a high probability of innocent people being killed or injured, and all proceed nonetheless.

All beleive that the price in innocent lives is "worth it".

Violence is generally pointless and almost always wrong, especially when perpetrated by the very strong against the very weak.

I like Sam, but I disagree with him on this point.

1183. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16747 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 8, 2007 at 12:30 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen - your denouncement of Allah and Islam made me laugh my ass off just now! FANTASTIC! :)

Can I just say, I did not mean to offend or impugn any member of the gay community. I bet they wouldn't let Allah near them.

1184. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16728 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 8, 2007 at 10:50 am

"Freedom of speech does not end when it offends someone. It should only end when it incites violence."

I am almost inclined to disagree with this statement as much as I believe that if someone can't control their behavior just because someone is speaking his/her mind, then the "bully" needs to be knocked down, not the person speaking.

I agree with you scooter. Violence cannot be the flag that triggers suppression of freedom of speech, this just leaves the lever in the hands of those most willing to pull it!!!

Nope, you should be able to say whatever you like about anything. If someone has a problem with it and they become violent, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

There is precious little excuse for violence, and religious "offense" is by far the most facile reason I can think of.

We should be activley offensive, so that the religious become inured and used to it.

In that spirit, let me say that Allah suck mens willies, that Jehovah is made entirely of pork, and I deny the holy spirit (again).

Get over it people, they are not real.

1185. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16565 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 7, 2007 at 10:47 am

This is exactly what myself and billy are attempting to prove to Mark, sadley he seems incapable of realsing that not only are they far from evidence of gods existance but christianty in not unique in fulfilled prophecies
615. Comment #16560 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 10:28 am

Hey, I admire your relentlessness:-) This koranic prophecies are pretty good though ... I wonder. Oh my goodness!!!! I think you people have converted me to Islam.

Alakbar!!!

1186. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #16553 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 7, 2007 at 10:05 am

Gee ... are you guys still at this. The biblical prophecies you claim are accepted only by a small select group of fringe christian cults. They are less than worthless.

1187. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #16181 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 5, 2007 at 9:37 am

I have to say that many of the responses are pretty naive. The subject of "evil" or why people do crazy things is incredibly complex, thats why research would be valuable.

If it was obvious it would hardly require research would it?

To Joads list I'd add, did George Bush think he was evil when he caused the death of 100,000 iraqis? I'd say not, but we can see that it was an evil act nonethless. I'd love to know how he came to his conclusions.

1188. Atheists challenge the religious right

Comment #16159 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 5, 2007 at 4:42 am

Wow ... Wafa Sultan ate the face off that guy!!! Excellent stuff, lets hope we see more of that from the Islamic world ... can we get that posted as main article Josh? It's great stuff!!!

1189. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #16044 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 4, 2007 at 9:11 am

The trouble with you and Richard is that you know too much about science and not enough about real people living in the real world.

Poppycock. Because we think lying to people is wrong, we are one dimensional?

For the record, I was a fundi for about 10 years and a wishy washy hand wringer for another 10. Four of those years spent in "service". It is arrant nonsense for people to stand up and insist things that they cannot possibly know, are certain and true.

First I came to this conclusion as regards groups within Christianity, then religion generally ... then I realised the whole thing was a complete crock.

Thats not to say I didn't meet wonderful people, and see love, generosity and self sacrifice, but I can see those things in all humans, not just those of a particular cult.

This whole thing is based on hypocrisy, lies and fraud. Did you see that ghastly Pat Robertson article? This is the sharp edge of what you are promoting.

1190. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #16039 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 4, 2007 at 8:29 am

Richard removes their faith and offers them nothing of any equivalance in return.

Other than the truth you mean? You are a fine one to lecture Richard on his position, when what you are proposing in it's place is a tawdry lie.

Oh, and let me guess ... you think its a fine idea to sanction the state to murder other human beings?

1191. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #16033 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 4, 2007 at 8:20 am

Guys ... Dawkins has called this correctly. Killing people in cold blood is simply wrong, and if we allow it in our societies it cheapens life generally.

Per capita murder rates in the US are four times higher than those in any EU country, and in some cases 10 times higher. Yet almost no EU countries have capital punishment. Why is that? Are you chaps not even curious?

If it's merely a question of horror inflicted and the body count, surely there should be a contract out on Tony Blair and George Bush right now. We know the ballpark deaths are in the 100's of thousands, and millions of people have be pitched into a never ending war zone. On the atrocity meter, we must be inching towards the "saddam zone". Or do they got off because they had "noble" motives?

Killing people is wrong, here the religites and I agree, however I beleive it is wrong in any context other than clearly defined self defence.

Certainly it is madness to hand such a dreadful, and ultimatley futile, sanction to the faceless machinery of the nation state.

1192. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15996 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 4, 2007 at 5:56 am

All respect Mr Dawkins to your books, your fierce intelligence and your stand against this virus called religion, but really you need to get out from those 'cloisters of academe' where you received your political indoctrination and take a long hard look at the real world.

The US stance on the death penalty is almost unique in the developed world. Almost all civilised nations have stopped using it. In addition, in almost all of the countries without capital punishment, both murder, and prison populations are orders of magnitude lower. Wierd huh?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Capital punishment does nothing to deter crime, so why allow a fictious, artifical construct like the state such a sanction? As one poster comments, only states with capital punishment can commit mass murder.

1193. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15818 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 3, 2007 at 7:18 am

Those who are also politically clueless? I read that Dawkins and his minions want atheists to shun all religionists -- including the more enlightened, on the grounds that they enable the fundamentalists. The irony of their own intolerance mirroring the latter group's would seem to be utterly lost on them.

For goodness sake!! Tolerance cannot extend to intolerance, that is nonsensical, and would eventually result in the destrucion of all tolerance. By definition, revealed monotheistic religions are intolerant, it's in their genes, so to speak. Secular societies have to aggressivley reject all absolute truth systems such as fascisim or religion, it's a matter of survival. People can beleive what they like, but can expect resistance when what they beleive claim to be some kind of revealed exclusive truth that the rest of us must kow-tow to. Screw that!

Curious, how 3rd-order intellects are often attracted to atheism, whereas guys like Newton, Einstein and Schrodinger were deeply reverent.

Curious how apologists always trot out the same carnards, scientists from the 16th century beleived in God!!! Go figure!!! Or Einstein beleived in God!!! Wow!!! Actually no ... he didn't. Schrodinger I've no idea, can someone advise?

Now we read that Dawkins seems to look forward to Blair and Bush being tried for war crimes and that he thinks Saddam should have been preserved for research purposes.

What is the problem here? Dawkins is not suggesting they be hung. Did you read the article?

Why is it always the christians who want to kill people, and the atheists saying "lets think about this". Says it all really.

1194. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15717 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 2, 2007 at 8:36 am

I am a supporter of free speech and civil rights as well. The petition does not seek to outlaw adults holding religious belief, and does not seek to prevent educating children about religious belief. I see the petition as merely ahead of its time.

It's an intruiging issue. At one time a father could kill, rape or sell his progeny into slavery without fear of repercussion. Children (and women) were in a very real sense merely possessions no different from a cart, or a cow or a pair of shoes. Sigh ... good times. NOT.

Throughout the last 300 years, in effect since the Enlightenment, this sense of ownership has been steadily eroded to the point where children in some countries are rightly considered to be individuals with the same rights as any other person.

With that in mind, perhaps there are grounds for more robust action? Would society allow parents to force their children to smoke, or drink alcohol? Certainly sex below a certain age is already prohibited in all developed countries. Is religious indoctrination not worse for a 14 year old girl, than consensual sex with a 15 year old partner ... ?

If we really believe that religious indoctrination is dangerous, doesn't it drift into the same category as enforced female curcumcision, or enforced marriage? Shouldn't society at least have a helpline for children who reject religious indoctrination? That's not a terrible idea actually .....

I'm just throwing it out there:-)

1195. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15540 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 1, 2007 at 7:04 am

No LD. I love America. Religious or otherwise. Many of us do. Those that profess hatred of America are likely jealous or misguided. The current Iraq war is a different issue altoghether, and anyone foolish enough to make the link from the Iraq war to hatred of America is in a bad place.

An important sentiment. Whenever I feel myself tipping into virulent anti-americanisim, I watch an episode of "3rd rock from the sun", "buffy the vampire slayer" or read excerpts from the Federalist Papers.

Bush has pissed all over the ideals of the US, but those ideals have nonetheless been the gift of Americans to the world. Even if they were to be extinguished in the US (and even at my most spittle flecked Bush hating I think this almost impossible) they have already begun to burn elsewhere.

I too really love the american ideals .... but my God (just an expression!!!!) I loooooathe that maggot Bush.

1196. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15413 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 31, 2006 at 4:55 am

Brian, by everything I have read on this site you are an admirable advertisement for casting off the shackles of religious dogmatism. Does this tell us much about belief vs unbelief in general? I don't think so.

I think it does, but you are certainly correct that the process is more complex than my post suggests. I guess I was just trying to articulate the main thrust of my thoughts on the subject.

Nonetheless, when I examine my own faith, and the path I followed to eventually ditch it, "not thinking deeply about stuff" was critical to maintaining the fiction. This habit corrodes cognition generally, at least in my case I beleive it did, and given that more than 50% of the US electorate voted for Bush, I conclude that religious thinking generally contributed to that irrational choice. Voting for Bush (2nd time round) was objectivley a bad idea. So are roughly half of all americans just stupid? I don't think so, hence some other factor must be at work.

I could be wrong, about any of this:-) I'm atheist enough to reject absolutes ... erm ... at least most absolutes? ... bugger now I'm in a pickle ... :-)

1197. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15406 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 31, 2006 at 3:21 am

Perhaps, Sir, but not all. I don't think it necessarily follows that atheism means a certain world view eg pacifism.

Agreed, but it implies (generally) a higher degree of rationality. Self defence is rational, nationalism is not. Respect for and even love of the planets ecology and resources is rational, monotheistic religion is not.

Bush and the neocons are irrational and dangerous, and they have already caused the deaths (either directly of indirectly) of hundreds of thousands of human beings. How could any rational person support that?

Hence Bush draws his support from some of the most persistently irrational people in the world. American fundamentalist christians. The work to short circuit rational thought has already been done, the "muscles" of irrationality get a constant work out reconciling the completely incompatible world view of christianity, with the world as we see it.

From there, it's a short skip to "killing tens of thousands of people is a good idea", because it keeps us "safe".

1198. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15290 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 30, 2006 at 7:26 am

They are now in retreat, and I have no doubt that the Grand Canyon bookstore will be revising its stocklist in the near future.

Amen to that. I do notice that almost all atheists are consistently anti Bush/Neo Cons/Blowing stuff up.

Tells you something, doesn't it?

1199. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15271 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 30, 2006 at 5:16 am

Well John, I envy you. I am still pretty bitter about the incredible waste of time the whole business entailed. I don't know how old you are David, but get out as soon as you can.

1200. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15266 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 30, 2006 at 4:07 am

JohnC, have you ever been a Christian? I mean the real, intense full blown "touched by Jesus" version? I have, so I understand where David is coming from. Nonetheless, I am pretty certain that intelligent people can be talked around. They just need to allow themselves to pull on the threads of doubt for a few months, without restraint and the whole thing unravels.

David, have the courage to "no holds barred" question your faith, just for a few weeks. Don't go to church, don't read your bible, don't associate with christian friends. To make a break with any cult, you need to separate yourself from the reinforcing environment.

Mull over in your mind the obvious inconsistency of the world as we see it, and the existence of an all powerful, loving God. Be honestly critical of God, I mean .... look at this place!!!

Hang in there David, you strike me as sufficiently intelligent for the cognitive dissonance to get you in the end:-)