101. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115165 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Now in case some of you may be wondering whether it was a coincidence that Western societies where and have remained technologically and scientifically the most progressive society in the world. And in case some of you maybe thinking whether there is something special in the genes that can explain that. Well there is not. Dr. James D. Watson, who should have known better, made a remark to that extent and was rightly reprimanded.

But by far the most rational explanation so far has been proposed by Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs and Steel along with a PBS documentary by the same name. I found it very enlightening:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4008293090480628280

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6846344734969027300

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3449100874735282191

102. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115150 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Darwin was not advocating genocide. Merely predicting ways in which "more fit" varieties within a species would displace other varieties.

But yes Darwinism has within it the potential to create toxic racist cults based on pseudoscience, when devoid of objectivity and intellectual honesty.

However keep in mind that teaching nuclear physics has within it the potential to create mad scientists who will develop a bomb to destroy the world as we know it. Yet no one is using that excuse to prevent the teaching of good physics.

I would like to hear Richard Dawkins comment on this article.

103. Banned From Church

Comment #115124 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Deepthought if you are talking about Francis Collins, I think I can explain. Collins was a default atheist. He decided to become a scientist, and serious scientists where atheists, so he decided to be one.

He did not struggle with deep questions that most normal people struggle with before they realize that religion does not give good answers. And such people are more gullible for religious thinking. They have not been vaccinated against this virus.

Once you take the plunge, it is difficult to change without loosing credibility. What most people do then, is to quietly refuse to put themselves in any situation that would require them to reconcile their religious views with reality.

25. Comment #115101 by Deepthought on January 23, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Out of curiosity how would you approach an atheist who has converted to christianity?

Now for the last question, you cannot generalize on your approach for the same reason that you cannot generalize on atheist morals.

Atheism is a term without content. No atheist needs to be intellectually honest, moral or sincere. Like Christopher Hitchens says Irreligion is a necesarry not a sufficient condition for a just society. So unless you have some insight into their nature, their thoughts, their tastes, etc., you cannot approach them effectively.

104. Lewis Black - The Devil's Handiwork

Comment #115116 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Lewis Black got confused, the fossils do not disprove that the earth was created in seven days. It disproves that the earth is 6000 years old and that man lived with dinosaurs.

105. Death Sentence for Afghan Student

Comment #115111 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 3:20 pm

What exactly was the insulting article? I would like to read it.

106. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115109 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 3:15 pm

This is a lot of Bullshit. I was raised in the UAE for the first ten years of my life and I have seen cartoons there on Government owned TV, dubbed in Arabic that featured pigs case main characters!! In the UAE!!

Perhaps the problem is that there is too much freedom in the West and the muslims are not used to it and do not want to be used to it. I mean what can they do in the UAE, petition for religious freedom in the courts? Take to the streets? They can do nothing there. It is not a democracy. Perhaps that is where they need to be. They will be happy submissive to a theocracy. Where someone else makes all the decisions for them. No need to think for yourself about the most important questions in your life.

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

Comment #115096 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Experiencing something and coming up with a good explanation for the experience are not the same thing.

108. How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #115093 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Earth is not perfectly suited for life. Indeed 99% of all species that have ever been on this planet are extinct. Life forms have been continually adapting themselves to become more fit to earth's changing conditions. And from that view point, religion is a step in the reverse direction.

109. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #115091 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Free will to me means an opportunity to continually improve my understanding of the real world; and act optimally based on that understanding. In short the essence of free will is not about the variety in my behavioral choices, but the level of intelligence that goes into my opinions, decisions and actions.

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

Comment #115086 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Co-relation does not equal causality my friend. Today it is known that several members of the Catholic clergy where pedophiles yet no one claims that they where pedophiles because they where Catholics. Speaking of Catholics, by the way, Hitler was Roman Catholic not an atheist.

111. Atheists only promote divisiveness, as any other separatist movement.

Comment #115083 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Being divisive is not the same a being dogmatic. Other movements are dogmatic and consequently divisive. Our movement is divisive precisely because we question are not ashamed to question dogmas, even amongst each other. If the price of consensus is intellectual dishonesty, then it is of no value to us.

112. What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #114988 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 11:35 am

Like Sam Harris keeps emphasizing atheism is a term without content. It is not a world view, so there cannot be a single atheist view on the meaning of life. Most atheists live under the assumption that life is worth living. But I personally feel that what adds value to a life is the level of intellectual honesty one practices in every day living and the consequences it has on the questions we ask and the answers we receive. It is this process driven by intellectual honest that makes life meaningful and purposeful.

113. Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

Comment #114985 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 11:25 am

I can speak more about Hinduism and a bit about Buddhism. Since I was raised a Hindu. Generally speaking Hinduism is less structured than Buddhism. There is no single dogma, no single creed. Hindu sects exist in an ocean of other mostly Hindu sects and everyone has a general understanding that they can believe whatever they want as long as their beliefs are compatible with us believing whatever we want. Even Muslims and Christians in India tend to have a tacit appreciation of this consensus. This of course creates an environment where criticizing dogma is the only taboo, which is very true of India today.

Buddhism though originating in India has had long ceased being part of Indian culture until recently where it has made a come back with low-caste and untouchable Hindus who find it an easy way to obtain upward mobility without abandoning their traditions, something which is very difficult if one embraces Islam or Christianity.

It is absolutely correct that, "Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews." Indeed most Hindus and Buddhists are sophisticated thinkers, especially those Hindus and Buddhists who are in the habit of thinking a lot. And unlike Muslims or Christians, they try to accommodate new ideas and concepts into their world view. This makes them highly receptive not only to Christian and Islamic world views but to Communist and even Scientific worldviews.

However they suffer from the same weakness of other religions in that they do not have a rigorous and objective means to validate their world views through scientific experimentation. This lack of objectivity means that any attempts for validation tends to gravitate into some form of pseudoscience. Sophisticated worldviews and objective worldviews are not the same thing.

But like I said before Hindus and Buddhists are receptive to ideas outside their worldview. Hence in today's world there are extremely good at adapting and incorporating ideas from the scientific world into their living system. If you look at the world map for the most technologically adaptive countries, most of them are in Asia. But if you look at the most technologically innovative countries most of them are in the West (except Japan). And I claim this is no accident. The answer lies in the weakness of Eastern philosophies – while they are adaptive to change, they lack within them the potential to seize the initiative and be active in changing the world. Like the Abrahamic dogmas, they like to maintain existing power structures and the status quo that comes with it, so more time is wasted playing verbal gymnastics.

114. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #113768 by 82abhilash on January 20, 2008 at 1:30 pm

You know what I think. I think the founding fathers valued independence above all. Some of them did believe in some form of deity but even they felt that the decision to worship must be made by person of his/her own free will, not compromised in any way.

That is why they worked so hard to maintain neutrality in religion. In fact their notion of independence included economic independence as well. Something which is lacking the US today, is it any wonder that the religious right are trying to hijack the economic machinery?

115. The New Theology

Comment #113159 by 82abhilash on January 18, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Passing through my mind:

Creeping normalcy

The frog in warm water

It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he neednot exist in order to save us.

116. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #111015 by 82abhilash on January 13, 2008 at 10:48 am

Richard Morgan,

I will choose to remain with the term 'unknowingly'. People tend to internalize contradictions that form part of their daily lives quite effectively without even realizing it, especially when it pays for bread and butter. Scientists are less likely to do so because their profession demands intellectual honesty more than any other.

I will do the Christian thing, and believe that there is. Until further evidence proves me wrong.

Of course it is the word Christian that pops out here. Makes it sound as though good deeds are something that only Christians are capable of. That is condescending and dishonest.

But that old Christian tradition is exactly what we are hoping to get rid off here. Are you a religious lurker?

117. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #110945 by 82abhilash on January 13, 2008 at 9:10 am

467. Comment #110647 by garp on January 11, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Comment #110491 by 82abhilash
"...this man tells things that are rational and sensible...."


No he doesn't. His assessments are often incorrect...and I stand by my words that I stated in my previous post.

(shhhhh don't tell anyone on this board that I said this as I would be insulting their God lol)

You know garp I kind of noticed it too. But I was not as brave as you to be too open about it. I cannot put a finger on it, but yes Hitchens seems to fall into the trap the many journalists do, quiet unknowingly. They see someone present a biased point of view, they try to correct it by presenting an opposing point of view (in the case of theism, it is anti-theism); and before you know it instead of being objective in their criticism, they end up cherry picking facts to fit their view point, just like their opponents.

Now he is not that far out, yet. Most of the thing he says are rational and sensible. But I see him trending that dangerous road. And that concerns me.

118. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #110511 by 82abhilash on January 11, 2008 at 12:12 pm

You know walk, all four does a pretty good job of insulting faith heads without being mean. But Hitchens seems to piss some people on both sides. In my opinion this is not strategy. He is just being himself. Reminds me of a jig saw piece that at first glance seems to fit any puzzle but when tried, fits none perfectly. This is his strength and weakness.

119. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #110491 by 82abhilash on January 11, 2008 at 10:43 am

Garp and Melisande

Hitchens is becoming a bit of a talking point out here. In what way you might ask. Well his tone and rhetoric can make some of us uncomfortable while others fiercely loyal. I know that sensation - this man tells things that are rational and sensible, but the way he says it he pisses off even the best of us, almost making us consider doing exactly the opposite just to piss him off.

And he invokes strong emotions. People like Styrer admire him so much that they are almost handicapped from sensibly responding to criticism against him. And people like you are so irritated by him that you fail to express your discomfort with him in sensible manner. Plus Hitchens goofs up every once in a while.

If Hitchens where a diamond, I would say he requires to be cut and polished. The words that flow out of his pen may be appealing, but the ones that come out of his mouth need to be refined.

120. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110271 by 82abhilash on January 10, 2008 at 8:03 pm

I found the link to this video from a site run by ex-JW called 'Watch the tower' - http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2919/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2183288529160546808&q=jehovah%27s+witness

It is old but it useful.

121. Blind Faiths

Comment #108763 by 82abhilash on January 7, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Just in case anyone got mislead Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was commenting in the work of Lee Harris not Sam Harris.

122. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #107813 by 82abhilash on January 5, 2008 at 12:13 pm

evilgenius,

Dennett was giving general ideas on how Deja Vu could have natural explanations, not speaking about any specific experience.
Your scouting trip example seems fine. And Dennett seems to have a good explanation for that.

But what about having two memories of the incident. Well one could be a false memory based on false categorization and the other could be the real memory, both competing for your attention. A neuroscientist may find come up with better theories.

Of course if I did not have the Occam's razor on hand I may have considered this as an experience from another dimension, but no.

123. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107480 by 82abhilash on January 4, 2008 at 3:36 pm

I think Judaism is becoming more or less a socio-cultural phenomenon rather than a religion. Sam was getting as much maybe a bit more cheers than the Rabbi in a Jewish university.

The moderator was playing fair and people where asking sensible questions. All in all it was a wonderful intellectual discourse between two gentlemen and enjoyed by all in the spirit of human solidarity.

124. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #107475 by 82abhilash on January 4, 2008 at 3:19 pm

I have a strong suspiction that Artful_Dodger is a religous lurker. I have seen some of his other comments.

125. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107463 by 82abhilash on January 4, 2008 at 2:54 pm

jim.lloyd
I think you misunderstood. It was the second adoption that happend in 1970.

126. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107435 by 82abhilash on January 4, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Yes konquererz ,

And it is precedence like these that Pat Robertson and his henchmen at Regent University hope to overturn.

127. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107339 by 82abhilash on January 4, 2008 at 12:05 pm

NJ has come a really long way has it not? Why now they are trying to let gay people marry. Make expecting mothers do the responsible job getting HIV testing and all.

NJ is known as the arm pit of the United States. But I must add, I spent some of my happiest days there.

128. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #107191 by 82abhilash on January 4, 2008 at 8:59 am

Come on Styrer,

Why all this intellectual gymnastics to justify your position? Of course you are right 'dogmatic' and 'insane' are words more appropriate to the theistic camp. They live on it day and night.

Should we act towards them as they act towards us? Well that is a good idea; it is working; besides they seem to have no scruples. What other parallels can I see to it. It is like terrorizing the terrorists. It is like being intolerant to intolerance. It is a good way of doing some real damage in the sort term, but to consolidate our gains we need to do something else for the long term.

I like to be more economical - strike at the roots of this tree. Does not matter how tall the tree is, or how broad its branches are once we strike at the roots, it dies. Once science and reason is common knowledge. Once religious phenomena are all rationally explained. Then we are in a better place. We do not need to use words like atheist or anti-theist or anything like that. We will represent the main stream.

129. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #106997 by 82abhilash on January 3, 2008 at 8:22 pm

evilgenius

Daniel Dennett as a meaningful natural explanation for the Deja Vu experience. I have the link to the video here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8084768678469239623&q=Daniel+dennett+duration%3Along&pr=goog-sl

Go to 14:50. I would love to hear your comments.

130. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #106945 by 82abhilash on January 3, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Comment #106934 by walk on January 3, 2008 at 5:48 pm

82abhilash,

Have you ever had a transcendent experience that you believe showed you the window to a reality beyond the natural world?

What a loaded question. Are you trying to expose me as a religious lurker or something?

Well here goes. Religion has been a hobby of mine for a long time. I have tried to experience the feeling of transcendence that religious people claim they feel. I must say that I am not specifically sensitive to that. I probably got that from my father's side, he thinks it is all a bag of tricks. So whatever I did experience was probably a shorter form of that experience.

In my mother's side things are different and she more than anyone provided me with most opportunities to experience such feelings, in any religion might I add. Because she 'rationally' deduced that same experience meant there was only one God even if there are many religions. So I have tried to study all of the world's major religions. But she was hoping that I will become a devout Hindu when I grew up.

The fact that these experiences can have perfectly natural explanations is something that I have considered relatively recently. Not more than 5 years. Too much rational thinking I am sure. Objectively examining several religions does that to you, eventually.

And when I said the same to my mother, she was not hostile to the suggession at all. In fact she thinks it is entirely possible. Must say that surprised me. All she hopes is that, that option of happiness does not remain closed to me.

So if at this point you are wondering whether I call myself an atheist, well like Sam Harris, I would prefer not to be labeled. However if I find myself in company of people who insult atheists, I will step up and dare them to insult me.

131. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #106938 by 82abhilash on January 3, 2008 at 5:52 pm

lindajean

And it is ironic and perplexing he does not want theism to go away since he claims it is filled with evil.

It is not ironic really. You can't have anti-theism without theism. And he needs them to argue with, he admitted just as much. And they try to use him to negatively stereotype the 'New Atheism' movement. There is symbiosis in this relationship. Harris wants to be reasonable. Dawkins likes to sing carols and Dennett can never be demonized. They are the ones who will do real damage in the long run. Pure reason will eat into faith.

Think of how much air time Fox News gives him compared to Harris, Dawkins or Dennett. They get their pay checks from the gullible faithful. Hitchens gets his paycheck by demonizing their actions. They are the geese who lay his golden eggs. He will never want to kill them.

132. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #106933 by 82abhilash on January 3, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Steve Zara

I think the phrase "speak for yourself" is appropriate here.

Don't be so rude. I said 'maybe'. One more maybe coming up. Maybe you should try astronomy.

133. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #106924 by 82abhilash on January 3, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Steve Zara

I have to disagree with this. There are "religions" which have schools of thought which deny the existence or importance of God, yet investigate transcendent experiences. Buddhism is an example.

Buddhism is more of a philosophy of thought rather than a religion. It is practiced as a religion though. You can Shintoism and Taoism to that list. However neither of them provides rational explanations for their 'transcendent experiences'. So the weakness remains. And none of them come out to be explicitly anti-theistic, though non-theistic they may be.

Not really, as there is no grand tradition of Hubble Images, and the Hubble does not promise everlasting life.

Think about it. If images from the Hubble Telescope created the same experiences, a grand tradition based on those images would have begin and created a new popular movement to challenge traditional views on transcendence. Carl Sagan made the Cosmos, sparked interest in other worlds and then it died out.

Maybe that is the problem with Hubble. It does not sustain one's enthusiasm, unless one is an astronomer. Besides it like you said it does not promise everlasting life. And there we touch upon the failure of science to effectively address the issue of human happiness. Unless that is addressed, science may never gain long-term popular support of the masses.

134. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #106910 by 82abhilash on January 3, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Well walk he begins from a biased stand point. That can distort the effect of any real explanations you might bring up and blind you to the short comings of your ideas.

That is why scientists take elaborate efforts to protect theirs experiments from their own biases. I am not sure Hitchens does that. In fact his biases are quiet evident and so is its influence. He admits it openly.

Hitchens is not a scientist, but I see at as morally superior to protect yourself from your own biases, especially once you are aware what your biases are. That is why these days, I am more keen to hear what the others are saying rather than Hitchens. The other three seems to take more safe guards against their own biases than Hitchens.

135. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #106887 by 82abhilash on January 3, 2008 at 4:29 pm

walk

Hitchens does not want there to be any God - Abrahamic or otherwise. Read it up.

As for the 'transcendent experiences' in the very quote you took from me, I used the term natural explanations.

And yes, lot of atheists do miss out on certain comforting experiences that theists find more easily accessible. That does not mean that they are supernatural, just not well understood. Is that not what Sam Harris keeps trying to address?

If that phenomenon can be successfully addressed this movement will certainly get a shot in the arm.

136. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #106749 by 82abhilash on January 3, 2008 at 11:51 am

Styrer

You must recognize that there is a fundamental difference between Hitchens and the other three. There is a general tendency (mostly among theists) to think of these four people as part of the same bundle, but they have their differences and they disagree on certain issues with each other.

When I said that no one should ever admire them so much that they become deaf to criticism against them, I had Hitchens in mind. But the statement holds true in general for anyone and I will not hesitate using any other name with it.

So what is the difference between Hitchens and the other three? Well the other three seems to be neutral to idea that God exists. They do not think that God exists, but if there is one and they know that for a fact they will be OK with it. They seem to seek truth from facts, first and foremost.

Hitchens on the other hand is an anti-theist. He does not want there to be a God. I think it is a difference that is worth noting. I not saying Hitchens is dogmatic, but I see him move in that direction. The element of insanity I see in him is anti-theism. Such a position has a lot of weaknesses, the most obvious being that you deny yourself the chance to find natural explanations for the 'transcendent experiences' which the religious claim to have monopoly on. While I find the images from the Hubble telescope to be awe-inspiring, I doubt that it is the same experience that theists talk about. If that was the case religion would have melted away as soon as Hubble images became easily available.

My problem is primarily not Hitchens himself, for he is bright enough to manage the weaknesses of the ideology he has chosen to embrace, but such an ideology in itself can be harmful. Among the non-theistic ideologies, I think this one has the most potential to be toxic.

You think I might be confusing passion with dogma when I using CAPs. That is a legitimate concern. The trouble is that the line between dogma and passion is very fine indeed and the anti-theist is more likely that anyone else to cross it. I hope you may see that my concern is not too different from yours.

But perhaps you and I need not be too much concerned. Anti-theism is a crude backlash ideology that is mostly the result of dogmatic actions by the theists. When theism ends so will anti-theism, for the word itself will loose its meaning (interesting also to note: Hitchens does not want theism to end). Certainly we can do better than that and we are doing better than that.

A new inter-disciplinary field of study is emerging, which studies religion as a natural phenomenon and find natural explanation for religious experiences. Daniel Dennett more than anyone else will contribute immensely to this field, in fact he invented it. I see his students having a big impact on how US public policy is shaped in the future and I think we will all be better off because of it.

137. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106355 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 5:51 pm

10. Comment #106352 by ianmkz on January 2, 2008 at 5:49 pm

I can't imagine why anyone would be embarrassed to be a Christian.

The times are changing. I think more and more people agree that religion should be kept out of the public arena. I hope the trend continues.

138. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106354 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 5:49 pm

It is a flea campaign. Like the flea books. Some idiot for Christ is trying to cash in on RD's popularity just like the ones selling the flea books.

139. Changing my Mind

Comment #106257 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 3:09 pm

morgantj you and I know that when the JW or others try to sound scientific, it is just a trick to impress the masses. Their real appeal is emotional. And if we can appeal to their good emotions then we have made significant in roads.

Either their faith will corrode or they will take us for the devil. But their world will never be the same again.

140. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106248 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Religion is on the retreat for now, but the battle against dogma continues.

141. Changing my Mind

Comment #106217 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 1:56 pm

artemisa

It is impossible to have a rational conversation with JW people about their faith. One thing you can do is refuse to divulge any information about your life or your opinions; nothing that they can build on. Use maybe and No a lot in the conversation and do not give precise answers. Usually they will leave. If you ask them to prove what they believe in, they would try to get you hooked and reel you in. Like they tried with your science question.

If however you want to engage in a conversation with them, then you will have to play their game on them. Exploit their weaknesses. Try to find the techniques they use to fish out personal information about you, from you. Use the same techniques on them. Instead of making it about you make it about them. Chances are they will recognize and resent you using their tricks on them, but it will work, after all it is only fair.

Once it becomes about their life rather than yours then you can indicate to them the weaknesses of their belief system and its problems. Try frequenting discussion groups of ex-Jehovah's witnesses to find out more about such issues.

Also, try to frame your conversation along this line – Yes, one has real concerns and real issues, but this is the wrong way of dealing with it. And be honest about why it is wrong. You may be doing them a favor, even if it will pain them at first, so you can try being gentle and effective at the same time.

As you can see confronting them requires much more effort and preparation than shoving them away. You may decide after all that shaking people's faith maybe as mean as telling people they are fat; besides you may have better things to do. So you may want to think about it.

142. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105856 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 1:31 am

So nature is neither caring nor hostile, merely indifferent to our concerns. Carl Sagan noted this a long time ago. So what else is new? I was under no illusions that the earth is like paradise. Live with it the best one can and prepare for the future to the best of one's ability. That will do.

143. Submission, 'Part 1'

Comment #105458 by 82abhilash on December 31, 2007 at 5:02 pm

http://voi.org/books/uith/ch9.htm

144. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104893 by 82abhilash on December 29, 2007 at 10:40 pm

Reading Dennett gives me a head ache. It is pretty intense and demands a lot of attention.

145. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104573 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 8:29 pm

mmurray my friend, why not try to get the spirit of what I am trying to say rather than get too stuck on the literal.

So what did I mean by 'on average'. Well let me try different terms, 'on balance', 'all things considered'. Does that help.

Maybe not. I will try to be more specific. It is easier to live your life on your terms, without worrying about prevailing social or cultural norms in the US than any other parts of the world. It is easier to be a homosexual in Netherlands, but they have a culture accepting of homosexuals. Some countries recognize the right to die, but they have societies which support that norm.

In the US, in theory, you are free without worrying about how it affects your social outlook, at least in the eyes of the state. Social prejudices are much difficult to legalize in the US than other countries, especially today. It takes the concept of independence to a whole new level. That is what makes the US free.

I agree, It is not always that way, but for most of the people it is so, for most of the time (in other words on average). And that is why I say, the US is the freest country in the world. And I wish it remains that way. But to keep it that way, we must remain active and vigilant.That is why a forum like this is important.

Of course none of this means the US is the best place to live. That decision is personal and subjective. So you decide.

146. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #104480 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 3:37 pm

al-rawandi

Why indulge in conspiracy theories? Because the guys who hijacked the planes during 9/11 went to bars and strip clubs. So did Osama Bin Laden during his youth.

You are probably an ex-muslim. Tell me, does it not say in the Hadith, that non-Islamic actions are tolerated if it is done in a cause to further Islam?

It is possible to piece together disparate events taking place at the same time and create several innovative stories. Plus we can only be reasonably sure about anything, not absolutely sure. That is why we have Occam's Razor remember?

Is not the simple official explanation remarkable enough for your taste?

147. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #104457 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Styrer

Hitchens has a lot of good ideas. There are good reasons to admire him. However there is an element of insanity in him, which I think if not checked has the potential to be dangerous. Every now and then it leaks out; more so often these days. He is an anti-theist, and this form of non-theism has most the potential to be toxic and irrational.

What I am saying we must be cautious about becoming what we hate. IT IS A REAL DANGER. Stalin replaced the image of God with that of himself. What I am hoping is that people like you while admiring Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Dennett, will not admire them so much that you will stop tolerating any criticism against them, the way Christians don't entertain any criticism against Jesus.

These people are remarkable humans beings, but they are human beings. And all humans have some flaws. In the case of Hitchens, his flaws seem to be having a tendency of showing up at the wrong times and people notice. There are still good reasons to listen to him, but one need not like everything he says.

148. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104435 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 1:32 pm

I would like to know about Fernando Aguilar. He seems like an interesting person. Is there any website or something that can give me more info?

149. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #104424 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 1:19 pm

I got the whole DVD set of the Cosmos some time back. It is a good investment.

150. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104416 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Archbishop of Canterbury is putting a spin on what Richard Dawkins said to remain relevant in the new world. Most members of his old congregation have children with secular outlooks. The new congregation mostly goes to the catholic church.

So what does he do? Puts a spin on what a popular person said and hijacks it for his cause. They have done it before with Einstein and with Stephen Hawking. This is an old trick.