101. Brian Lehrer interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34316 by k1mgy on April 23, 2007 at 7:22 pm

This is worth a listen, particularly for the (clearly religious) caller who made a pathetic attempt at trapping Dr. Dawkins by equating the "big bang" with a creator.

The caller's painful logic went thusly: the big bang was a creation, therefore it must have had a creator.

A suitable trouncing followed.

102. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33404 by k1mgy on April 20, 2007 at 3:08 am

The headline should read "Virginia", not "VT" which abbreviates Vermont. Although Vermont has a rather liberal gun law it has not suffered this level of violence.

--

The alleged humans who make up the "Westboro Baptist Church" are semi-corporeal proof of exactly the sorts of dangers which Professor Dawkins points out in his book. Particular mention ought be given the indoctrination of children (the photo above as brilliant illustration) which for this group really goes beyond the almost-innocent "child abuse" that Dawkins refers to, because of the actions it engenders.

Suppressing the hate speech of WBC will of course know no boundary and therefore be quick to shut off even reasoned debate (although if there were ever an argument for a "free speech zone" they are certainly candidates), so I say let these true nut cases continue on. Eventually, over time, they will dwindle and go away, as do other nasty things such as mosquitoes at a picnic.

To me, WBC are analogs to an aggressive male character type - one who puffs themselves up in every quarter simply out of their own inner insecurity. You will find these in every sphere of life, particularly in males who have gained "success" in business and politics. They turn out quite smaller than one might imagine, like the little pipsqueak behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz. In WBC's case media attention tends to amplify - creating an illusion of power - but may well hasten their end.

These are people who the phrase "get a life" was made for. It's very sad that - because they are in so deep - likely nothing will have the power to pull them back to reality, not even the sorrow and hatred that they generate from the defenseless victims of this horrific tragedy in the US.

103. The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement

Comment #30764 by k1mgy on April 9, 2007 at 5:53 pm

"Ann Coulter's own existence provides infinite plausibility to mutation within natural selection."

Ann Coulter's existence underscores my breeding motto: "only with humans".

104. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30762 by k1mgy on April 9, 2007 at 5:48 pm

"In one respect, atheists have an easier task than theists. In order to deny the existence of God, it is only necessary to accept one proposition. Believers have to try to understand what they believe. After two Christian millennia and many libraries of theology, that task seems harder than ever. St Paul told his fellow Christians that in this world, they would only see through a glass, darkly. That is becoming increasingly true."

Actually, in not one, but every respect.

The writer, as in all the critics of atheists I've read so far, seem to wrap their argument around a fairy tale. It is all they have.

Translation: It's mind-bending work to find a way that this total fantasy of religion can be made to function, but we must do so because the alternative is too easy.

Well, then onward christian soldier. Onward, over the cliff of ignorance.

Swiftly now. Be gone.

105. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30336 by k1mgy on April 7, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Dionne is a fairly good fellow - being a harsh critic of the current US mal-administration - and therefore gets my attention and respect, certainly more than an apologist for the US mal-administration would. He's also a leading thinker and proponent of the liberal wing of christianity, as if doing good things and allowing people their own humanity can somehow be drawn from the pile of conflict that is christian dogma.

I see his column as less an attack on "neo" atheists as it is an admission of his own intellectual lack, for he has hung his pursuits on the "challenge" of christianity. Yes, it sure poses some challenges all right, such as a challenge to rationality. Why not pick something that makes sense and isn't based on pure emotion and false hope?

So E. J. will head off to "celebrate" the mythical resurrection of an equally dubious person who made all manner of claims about some guy in the sky.

Enjoy it.

Meanwhile my own challenge will be, should Bush not shut out the lights in the next 24 hours, deciding between strawberries or blueberries on the pancakes.

106. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29636 by k1mgy on April 3, 2007 at 6:12 pm

"Who would want to marry us?"

Only with humans.

107. The God Debate

Comment #29226 by k1mgy on April 2, 2007 at 6:38 am

Harris says, " ...I think our situation is that urgent. I am terrified of what seems to me to be a bottleneck that civilization is passing through. On the one hand we have 21st-century disruptive technology proliferating, and on the other we have first-century superstition. A civilization is going to either pass through this bottleneck more or less intact or it won't. And perhaps that fear sounds grandiose, but civilizations end. On any number of occasions, some generation has witnessed the ruination of everything they and their ancestors had built. What especially terrifies me about religious thinking is the expectation on the part of many that civilization is bound to end based on prophecy and its ending is going to be glorious."

I should think this statement alone would leave readers with much to consider.

The collision is one of ever-expanding knowledge over ignorance, which expresses itself in the parallel of scientific truth versus baseless superstition.

The field of battle is everywhere.

If there were ever a call for Rationalists/Humanists/Atheists, here it is.

108. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28572 by k1mgy on March 29, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Well done!

Hearing Professor Dawkins interview with Terry Gross of National Public Radio's "Fresh Air" programme left me feeling all the more inspired and hopeful.

It may be his birthday, but it is he who is giving out the gifts.

Thank you!

109. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27519 by k1mgy on March 25, 2007 at 6:16 am

Atkins remark on arrogance was downright funny and well put. I shall have many occasions to use it myself.

The sound was not from a camera microphone but appeared to be snagged from a microphone on a stand to the front of Professor McGrath. Might say something as to a possibility of the technician's leaning, or lack of thought. Had it been placed front and centre of the table, we would then have heard both speakers equally poorly.

110. Even Stephven: Islam vs. Christianity

Comment #24641 by k1mgy on March 7, 2007 at 7:54 pm

"Steve, this debate is about religion, so let's discuss it rationally".

That was a show-stopper right there.

111. Senator calls for answer on creation of universe

Comment #23973 by k1mgy on March 3, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Is it that these idiots sit idle for months and then - quite spontaneously - get a grand idea such as this? Or is there a much wider plan with Finney's little idea representing one speck?

Fact is they just don't give up. These buffoons keep trying with new angles to turn our free and secular nation into a religious state.

"Freedom isn't free" is often put against those who would criticize the US's Great Leader and his world domination/destruction plan. It better applies to the work that those of us who love America must continually do to keep it truly free.

Numbskulls like Finney need to be swiftly run out of town, or at a minimum re-educated as to the foundational basics of the nation which he signed on to "preserve and protect".

112. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23323 by k1mgy on February 27, 2007 at 7:57 pm

"I was a good man.. I was honest.. I was kind. Isn't that more important than belief?"

Professor Dawkins was coupled with a great interviewer who brought out the very best.

I'm glad I was able to see this. Dawkins' final words brought some mist to my eyes.

113. God, sex, drugs and politics

Comment #22776 by k1mgy on February 22, 2007 at 6:42 am

Regarding Steveroot's comment about Hepatitis B.

During my son's first few days of life in hospital I convinced the nurse who offered the shot that he would not be having sex for quite some time, we had no drug addicts in the family, and he would not be shooting any either.

The needle was retracted.

Because of sheer volume, public health medicine is often delivered in somewhat a factory manner. Hence withing 30 minutes after a difficult time getting a heel blood sample from my infant son in hospital (the blood was clotting quite efficiently) the same nurse arrived with a "Vitamin K" injection. "What's that for?", I asked (knowing the answer). "Some children have a low clot factor. This helps to raise it during the first few days of life.".

I lifted my son's heel. The nurse blushed. She must have forgotten.

The injection was withdrawn.

As receivers of medical treatment, we really are entitled to and should avail ourselves of as much information as possible. Decisions need to be made by us not for us. Ultimately we have a right to our own body.

Here's an irony: the "religious" exemption to vaccination, and particularly the Haggardists all in a tizzy over Gardasil, may be the one legal objection that stands to protect those who are not religious in the slightest.

114. God, sex, drugs and politics

Comment #22754 by k1mgy on February 21, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Steveroot: >>Vaccination has, by and large, been a very successful public health measure. <<

If Steveroot means that "vaccines have practically eradicated most of the diseases they targeted", and therefore this is a measure of the success, then I agree. However as a "public health measure" it is a prophylactic that has, in nations like the US, now used more for convenience and a sense of security than being a tool of necessity. It is also one that continues to carry a wide spectrum of risk which has yet to be properly scrutinized.

I think the time for most of the shots has come and gone. Why?

Let's take one disease - poliomyelitis. Polio has been practically eliminated. Last year in the US there were a handful of cases and these were all traced to the administration of the oral form of the vaccine itself. So in this case the cure is causing the disease.

With other maladies that have not been entirely eliminated, such as tetanus, the incidence of these is so low as to be statistically insignificant. Proper wound treatment and the availability of treatment when tetanus is suspected has reduced the incidence of tetanus to an very tiny number across the population.

The one disease of concern that maintains regional prevalence, particularly in close-knit communities who collectively do not vaccinate (the "Jehova's Witnesses" come to mind) is pertussis. Pertussis is a dangerous disease for infants (birth to about 18 months). It is deadly if left untreated for too long yet in the US the mortality and morbidity statistics are still quite low. Successful outcomes take weeks and severe cases require advanced life support, but only when parents wait too long for evaluation and treatment (which is where education kicks in).

The vast majority of cases start when infants are exposed to vaccinated teenagers. This population is clearly strong enough to withstand the disease as is. Being vaccinated doesn't mean you won't get sick. This depends on the strength of the programmed resistance to the particular bug. Generally teens have a weakened form of pertussis resistance. So they acquire the disease and carry it about in attenuated form thinking they have an ordinary chest cold. Parents of infants who risk exposing their children to the general population without basic precautions are also to blame.

The common theme in all diseases that vaccines target is fear. Fear is used to motivate parents of children to be injected with 56 doses of 16 vaccines recommended by the CDC between birth and age 12. When one considers the complexity and wonder of our evolved human body against the still-minuscule knowledge of medical science as to how it all works, how can one hand off their genetic and neurological future to such manipulation? How can this be justified?

Vaccine proponents would argue honestly that the necessity for most of the vaccines used in the US today rest almost entirely on (a) poor public health education and practice in the US and (b) the commensurate need for "herd immunity".

If (a) were dealt with more effectively and the human immune system were not tampered with by the injection of genetically-altered tissue, perhaps the human body would have a chance to do what it does best: fight back with its own immune system.

I believe the best public health measure is education, not injection.

(I realize this discussion may be going off topic a bit. If I need to attenuate, the moderators should scold me.)

115. God, sex, drugs and politics

Comment #22748 by k1mgy on February 21, 2007 at 8:54 pm

>>("Amazing", because it was recently reported that 100% - yes, *100%* - of ALL clinical trials EVER, of ALL drugs, when sponsored by the company manufacturing it, have been resounding successes. Go figure.)<<

Pfaff!!

Dammit. Again I have to clean the coffee off my monitor.

I'd challenge the author of the above statement to back up what they are saying with facts. I believe they'll find that with any clinical (vaccine) trial, and particularly if the Gardasil trial is examined thoroughly, the blanket term "success" should remain within a cautious set of quotes. Stating that 100% of all vaccine trials have been successful because somewhere a magazine or newspaper told you so is unworthy of a community where rational argument is encouraged.

I think it's important to separate - widely - the many objections to this vaccine, and the social policy being tested and developed using it as a catalyst, from any of the problems that the religious find in it. The religious objection alone is, of course, not based on science or rational thought, so approaching the vaccine argument on this basis is worthless. The public should be educated, if there are any neuro-receptors available, to see the religious objection as one of personal preference and nothing more.

I urge caution in this discussion: presence of the religious objection to a certain social policy like this does not therefore make the social policy instantly good. I believe Gardasil is the poster vaccine for this statement and I will be happy to set out the facts as I understand them if anyone here would like this information.

As a catalyst (or adjuvant if you will), the objections I have include (a) the mandating of a medical treatment for any disease, but particularly one of the class that Gardasil targets; (b) flawed testing of Gardasil; (c) questionable efficacy; (d) cost; (e) application of this vaccine to a population where this same group underwent very little testing; (f) lack of testing for undesirable interactions with other vaccines and medications; (g) lack of testing to screen out individuals genetically predisposed to adverse reactions of the vaccine and its various chemical and genetically-altered tissue components; (h) safety (based on current data); (i) lack of long-term study of neurological/genetic effects from this and other vaccines.

Medical treatment, or not, isn't a black and white issue. The rejection of a government-mandated vaccine policy ought not peg one as a candidate for the Darwin Award. Unfortunately on this one, however wacky their argument, the "religious" get to rest their case on the book of basic human rights. If they want the science to help them, it's there, too.


/mark richards

116. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22569 by k1mgy on February 19, 2007 at 6:57 pm

>>These people run my country?

It could happen again if the deepening insanity and paranoia gets the best of America.

Willard Mitt (fraud ex-Massachusetts governor) Romney, 19 February, 2007:

[Romney] showed poise when a heckler attacked him for being a Mormon: "You, sir, you are a pretender. You do not know the Lord.'' {translation by Mark Richards, "You, sir, are a fraud."}

The audience booed the heckler.

''One of the great things about this land is that we have people of different faiths and different religions, but we need to have a person of faith lead the country,'' he said, as the audience gave him a standing ovation.


And we all reached for a nearby wastebasket and upchucked.

117. Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate

Comment #21160 by k1mgy on February 7, 2007 at 8:02 pm

>>He's calling on his flock to boycott the exhibition and has demanded the museum relegate the fossil collection to a back room -- along with some kind of notice saying evolution is not a fact but merely one of a number of theories.<<

Words on a page often evoke instantaneous visual images for me. These brought back the video I saw some years ago of the Taliban in Afghanistan blowing up the giant Buddha sculptures of Bamiyan. The pair were around 1500 years old and were destroyed because they represented "graven images". I am fond of Buddhism and particularly respectful of this more peaceful of all the religions (if it can even be classified as such), so seeing these relics destroyed at the hands of ignorance was overwhelming.

The Taliban had a direct way of wiping out any contrary evidence. Would Bishop Adoyo, if he had his way, do the same to these old bones?

If the evidence is overwhelming, destroy it. If those who argue soundly and rationally are undeniable, attack them personally. These are the tactics of the deluded.

Shoving the evidence into a back room only works for a while. It has a way of coming back.

118. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #20911 by k1mgy on February 7, 2007 at 2:22 am

>>I would also argue that in terms of its own
place in history the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is extremely well grounded. And above all, it's relevant.<<

Pfafff!! (Sound of coffee splattered upon screen).

>>Dawkins has this idea that faith is simply a refusal to think, a process of non-thinking. But it's obvious that people think a lot about their faith and this is grounds for evidence - but it's not the same as scientific proof. It belongs in a different category.<<

Huh?

Well, there we are. McGrath has set out the difference. From his intellectually-lacking high tower he shouts down all argument with the old excuse that "god" thinking is different than "man" thinking. "god" thinking belongs in a different category and therefore "man" thinking can't reach it. "god" thinking is not, of course, rational.

And you... "professor"? Ah yes, you and your promising mind have been "seduced by theology".

What a sad waste.

119. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20176 by k1mgy on January 31, 2007 at 7:25 pm

It seems amazing that a reporter for a major news organization could sit there and resort to an argument claiming the Rational Response Squad is being "disrespectful". Apparently, Joe Reporter had little else to grasp onto.

Apparently it's disrespectful to challenge "beliefs" that billions of people have held for thousands of years.

It's disrespectful to offer reason in the face of insanity.

I should think we might all brace ourselves and prepare for being labeled as such, but be quick to deflect the argument back to the main point. Also disguised as the "civil discourse" entreaty, this "disrespectful" baloney is a very clever trick indeed.

120. Just 'Evolution in Action'

Comment #19950 by k1mgy on January 30, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Greenwald is a great writer and advocate for American civil rights (and human rights). Unfortunately in this piece, he chooses a rather poor analog. By suggesting that resistance against a new HPV vaccine (Merck's Guardasil) is the stuff of idiots, Greenwald overlooks several valid arguments that call the vaccine, and others, into question - arguments that rest in science. Haggardists resist the vaccine because they see it, like condoms and the birth control pill, as providing license for sex and sex, of course, is bad bad bad. The more rational resist vaccines for perhaps three reasons: the long-term genetic, immune, and nervous system effects are unknown; those predisposed to hypersensitivity to the genetically-altered cells, adjuvants and preservatives in vaccines (delivered directly into the bloodstream) are not screened out; and because there are, plainly, very little justification for almost all of the widely-used vaccines, making the risk-benefit analysis quite clear.

Greenwald should, as I argued in comments posted to the original piece, become familiar with the fascist forced-vaccination proponents who are working in the current US government and who have already gained new laws and powers which will permit wholesale violation of informed consent to "medical" treatment.

The right over one's own body is about as sacred as you can get and is above all the other arguments that Greenwald posits.

As I also suggested in my comments - there are plenty of other reasons that make the Haggardists out to be complete idiots. Greenwald has unfortunately picked the wrong analog to pursue an otherwise justifiable claim.

121. CNN Sylvia Browne Fraud

Comment #19593 by k1mgy on January 28, 2007 at 6:33 pm

It's time that these wackos were subject to some type of licensing with an exam, standards, and some level of protection afforded by state oversight.

This -creature- looked into the eyes of a distraught parent (having children I can somewhat connect with the level of pain a parent might carry) and lied. Did she know she was lying, or is this individual so self-possessed that she believes in her own "powers"?

I am sickened on a number of levels, including a disgust with a mass media that would knowingly allow such a horrible display of deception to be put forth.

I would think that Richard Dawkins might compare this incident, too, as less damaging than the slow and steady religious indoctrination of defenseless children. Perhaps, although this case has a very strong sting.

Damage done by frauds like Sylvia Browne are despicable. She should be put out of business and face, at a minimum, civil penalties for her charlatanism.

122. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #18748 by k1mgy on January 22, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Dennett, although certainly not difficult to hear out, does not strike the same fire that Richard Dawkins lights.

He uses the term "deluded" and even evoked the same experience with young persons as does Dr. Dawkins: "they come up to me and thank me", Dennett says.

Is he riding in the furrows already scribed by the hard-charging RD? Perhaps so.

It would be interesting to pair Dennett up with another Haggardist type and see who leaves the fray at the top of the heap.

123. Skyway to Heaven

Comment #18578 by k1mgy on January 21, 2007 at 6:28 pm

In my neck of the woods, light poles are still adorned with very durable posters proclaiming the "rapture" and a date (my recollection): July 10th, 1987.

I suspect the highway maintenance crews have failed to remove them simply to allow the statement to live on for as long as the glue holds.

124. Zeus devotees worship in Athens

Comment #18577 by k1mgy on January 21, 2007 at 6:19 pm

The Zeus stuff is great, but it's a bit far to travel for some of us.

I say, bring back Baal.

Not far from my home is a site called "Mystery Hill", located in Salem, New Hampshire USA.

The site includes a 12 acre astronomical calendar fashioned 4,000 years ago from stones (all they had to work with at the time). In the center a sacrificial table made of granite adorns the site.

Some fertility rites and sun worshiping ought to be A-OK with the authorities. The human sacrifice stuff will have to be omitted.

I say we crank up some nice baal worship, form a church, and sink our teeth into some of the current bush mal-administration's "Faith-based" funds. Equal treatment and all, baal ought not be left to starve but have his, her, or its piece of the great American Pie.

We can hand out snacks and, while the faithful eat, fill their minds with some baal mythology, then settle down for more of them fertility rites.

Anyone interested?

125. Some stars and planets in scale

Comment #18574 by k1mgy on January 21, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Regarding #5 comment:

Hmmm. One would think, "god" and all, that the shape would be of a crescent moon, a cross, or a sitting buddha.

The intelligent designer missed His chance to send us a big clue.

126. God, Inc

Comment #18572 by k1mgy on January 21, 2007 at 6:03 pm

A friend who is a reformed religionist recently likened "god" to "Mr. Hands", the character that would appear and squash a claymation character "Mr. Bill", both featured in the late night US comedy programme "Saturday Night Live" (when it was good).

Mr. Bill ambles along enjoying life and suddenly Mr. Hand appears on the scene and squashes the poor fellow.

Perhaps Mr. Diety is swinging from the same branches as Mr. Hands, eh?

127. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18414 by k1mgy on January 20, 2007 at 4:34 pm

>>How can America be described as a "once great country"<< writes Martha.

Given the article was written in 2004, I bet the author was contrasting 4 years prior. Certainly we were greater then that the mess we've become present day.

The author's prediction that America would likely be voting back in the band of thugs that got us into this mess has fallen somewhat flat. What tempers my celebration is just how close we were to going the other way.

In all, a really well done piece. If anyone has a reference to any video or audio of this matchup please post a link here.

128. Sex and the Single-Minded

Comment #18363 by k1mgy on January 20, 2007 at 4:34 am

I am sorry for my home state.

129. Wash. school board restricts Gore's global-warming film

Comment #17738 by k1mgy on January 15, 2007 at 9:24 pm

>>As a data and systems analyst I have to ask that question all the time. Same goes for the carbon 14 factor. Where do the calculations come from that the world is several billions of years old when carbon 14 data is only good for a few thousand years?<<

~~Cringe~~

I think at this point we all owe a debt of thanks to the armies of computer scientists, engineers, and managers who work hard to prevent potentially disastrous miscalculations caused by bogus algorithms from fowling up critical software.

130. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17444 by k1mgy on January 13, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Regarding the Quote from "An Inconvenient Truth" p.160/161 referenced earlier:


"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.

Al Gore comes from the Bible Belt of America and I am not surprised that he has been influenced by it.

The difference is that he is not attempting to ram his belief down the throat of America.

President Kennedy gave a wonderful speech which set to rest the blather about his catholicism during the presidential election campaign.

It's worth a read and is very applicable in today's Bush "faith-based" climate. I bet that Al Gore would agree with every word:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html

131. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17306 by k1mgy on January 12, 2007 at 8:54 pm

>>Out of all the people in this world that could've made this movie, why did it have to be a politician? :(<<

Al Gore was influenced by science long before he became active in politics (though from a very politically-active family to say the least). He points out in the film that his environmental interest began in his college days.

Those of us in the US who understood his background all trusted that he'd carry his environmental science into his political life and knew that if he became President, we'd see some big environmental initiatives. Unfortunately 'Murca rotated 180 degrees in the other direction, but Gore continues to use his influence and recognition for a very worthwhile fight.

132. You come up here and say that, Dawkins!

Comment #17297 by k1mgy on January 12, 2007 at 6:48 pm

"god" needs a shave.

133. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17295 by k1mgy on January 12, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Dear Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

(Author's note: somehow the newspaper's name and the crux of this story are in severe discord)

I read your story about the Federal Way School District's decision, based on the protests of Frosty Hardison - who "believes" the Earth is 14,000 years old - to restrict the showing of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". Then I became ill. And then I kept repeating to myself, like Dorothy did in the Wizard of Oz, "there are still a few pockets of sanity and rationality left in America. There just have to be."

Perhaps sanity and rationality existed once in the Federal Way School District, but they're surely a gonner now.

Thanks for writing this story (likely as painful to write as to read) which serves to bring into the nation's conscience yet another pocket of rural idiocy, where one dolt can bring down the curtain for everyone else. Surely this community, and the school district that speaks for it, deserves some standing as a focal point of national laughter, and pity. You've earned Frosty Hardison. Just do the rest of us a favor: don't let him out.

134. Judge: Men can seek damages from church

Comment #17201 by k1mgy on January 11, 2007 at 7:13 pm

>>...the remaining allegations rely on the unproved assumption that U.S. bishops act as agents of the Vatican. He predicted that claim would not be borne out as the case proceeds.<<

Interesting how the "holy see" keeps a tight thumb pressed on their "agents" when proscribing old-world social policies (anti-birth control; anti-abortion; anti-gay, etc). Equally interesting how quickly the thumb releases when these same agents commit child rape and place the "holy see" in the grips of basic justice.

The actions of the religionists in this regard demonstrate the hollow drum of nothing that their "faith" truly is.

135. Open Letter to Rev. John Auer

Comment #16954 by k1mgy on January 9, 2007 at 6:44 pm

The church is such a political institution that, here in Boston, they got away with these same crimes.

Had you or I owned a business whose managers knew that child rape was occurring on our premises and by our employees, and we did nothing to stop it and even attempted to cover it up, we'd have our ass hauled right quick before a judge, answering to criminal charges such as "Conspiracy", "Obstruction of Justice", and "Racketeering".

But because the "holy" church is such a political institution, it survives unscathed from the retributive hand of the state. Prosecutors were apparently as afraid to drag the fat arses of the high preists before Grand juries as many are of criticizing religious "faith" for the sham that it is. In the end (sad pun) only a few individual priests were charged.

Thanks to civil litigation the holy church continues to be thrashed - forced to sell off property to pay out reparations for all the crimes, but the sad part is that because of the free ride they get here in 'Murca (tax-exempt status applies to property tax which can be significant for equivalent buildings and land) the citizens actually help in the pay off.

The forced religious indoctrination of children is a slow crime and therefore goes on virtually unnoticed (except perhaps not so now that courageous thinkers like Professor Dawkins brings this to light). The greater sin is the use of the power and "spirituality" of the holy church to effect child rape. This is deserving of the harshest punishment, both individually and institutionally, but the church as an institution will shake this off, just as they have all other forms of challenge.

Then, they will tell us that "god" forgave them, so why don't we?

136. Questionable Mission

Comment #16638 by k1mgy on January 7, 2007 at 7:18 pm

>>As a uniformed Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack J. Catton Jr. explains, "I found a wonderful opportunity as a director on the joint staff, as I meet the people that come into my directorate, and I tell them right up front who Jack Catton is . . . and my first priority is my faith in God, then my family and then country. I share my faith because it describes who I am."<<

The uniform that Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack J. Catton Jr. is wearing ought to be removed. The Major General's priorities seem inconsistent with it.

"God, then my family and then country", he spouts.

When I arrive at the office in the morning, my first priority is my work. I'm no Major General, nor the equivalent: a CEO. Nor have I a need to boast.

Why should this alleged leader have such confusion over the basics? I would suggest his religion, which is a fraud, has the Major General by the gonads, an unenviable position for any military leader. When trouble comes knocking, who is the Major General going to call? "God"? While waiting for the answer, which will never come, we may all get creamed.

Pity us here in 'Murca. With wackos now entrenched in our military service, finger on the trigger, we're clearly in some very deep doo doo.

137. Ancient religion may face extinction

Comment #16479 by k1mgy on January 6, 2007 at 7:24 pm

From the article that TranshumanAtheist referenced:

"The rise of the conservative religious Right in America is due to natural selection. Liberals have fewer babies than conservatives. Some of the difference is genetic. Some is due to values passed along to children."

Scary.

I should at least feel somewhat vindicated. We have twins and they will continue to be raised without religion, superstition, myth, and all other such foolishness.

138. Ancient religion may face extinction

Comment #16394 by k1mgy on January 6, 2007 at 1:35 pm

>>"Why am I hanging out with these folks?" he asked rhetorically.

"You're nuts", I answered, plainly.

139. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16335 by k1mgy on January 6, 2007 at 6:48 am

To Tobias, the esteemed author of this.. rant:

Banning religious symbols from public schools, such as the Hijab ban in France, is hardly militant. Schools are funded by state cash and state cash come from all people of all different beliefs and, notably, without an option.

(I should not have to educate the author on this, but pathetically I must.)

So the distinction is that institutions held in the public trust have an obligation to (a) protect the rights of everyone; (b) allow no one to assert their beliefs on others; and for schools, (c) provide a safe, open-minded, yet structured environment where learning can be developed and fostered.

Gang clothing, in my community, is banned from schools. Certain brands of - believe it or not - sneaker shoes are banned, as are more provocative shirts. The outright display of gang symbols is severely discouraged.

Schools ought not be the place of fear (or in the case of religion, fear and ignorance). Which is it (the fear or ignorance) you're defending? Both?

I'm an atheist and consider myself in a community that would wish to banish ignorance (and therefore fear) from the planet. Is this "secular fundamentalism"? Fine. Perhaps we should take up the banner. It's needed. But to dispel your assertion, I could give (pardon my crudeness here) a rats ass about protecting one religious convert from being offended by another holding a different (equally twisted) view of reality, with the exception that all the thrashing generates collateral casualties and, present day, planetary destruction. If something deserves a little militancy and fundamentalism, it's that.

Tobias, you attack Richard Dawkins for a mild indescretion, his "stupidest faces" remark as quoted in The Australian which was taken out of context, and let pour down from there a dis-accreditation of the entire argument.

Read:

"I saw a picture of this woman," Dawkins says. "She had one of the most stupid faces I've ever seen. She actually said, 'Christians should be allowed to work for British Airways."'

He continues, face reddening: "Well, of course, Christians are sodding well allowed to work for British Airways. It's got nothing to do with it. She is clearly too stupid to see the difference between somebody who wears a cross and somebody who is a Christian."

I would have been far less generous.

Citing this example, you trash your own assertion that Dawkins and all the others (me included) come from a previously-cloaked persona, one that relishes "civil discourse" and is "P-C". The discourse needs to change, especially when it's a matter of our collective survival. Facing down mass-delusion demands no less.

"They will dictate what you can wear and what you can say. That, after all, is what totalitarians do.", writes Tobias. To which we all might reply, "They will dictate what is taught in the schools, have their belief systems institutionalized and sponsored by the highest offices, and create an atmosphere that makes any diversion from them an act of treason. This is, after all, what religious fundamentalists, who have become totalitarians, do."

Now, go back to your closet.

140. The New Atheists

Comment #16286 by k1mgy on January 5, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Harvey Cox claims "the canons of proof are not applicable to the question (of god)... It's just not something that can be proved or disproved". This, after claiming that Professor Dawkins (and others by implication) are all wrong simply because they are taking "narrow" and "legalistic" positions on religion and then deciding based on these that "he's against it".

How frigging convenient. Canons of proof my ass.

Harvey Cox, sitting there with stained glass in the background, white bearded, looking all scholarly, eloquently delivers one of the most irreverent cop outs that I've heard in some time. What he said makes me want to challenge him sternly: STAND UP and SHOW US THE MONEY. You think your god exists? Great. Prove it, or shut up, because there's nothing more disgusting in academia than someone who asserts fiction as truth and then refuses to sit for an exam.

Cox can't be allowed to set the rules in his favor and walk away, unfettered by a reasonable process of argument, yet he did so, and by all appearances was allowed to get away with it.

Someone please take Professor Dawkins off the leash and send him to Cambridge (Massachusetts). Clearly, some thrashing needs doing back here (although he apparently managed some at the Harvard Bookstore - which I unfortunately missed).

I'll give Cox one bit of credit. He says that when the Haggardists (my term) come out of the closet and start thrashing society with their views; when they become, in his words, "arrogant", then the Atheists serve as a needed challenge.

"I welcome that", he said, smugly.

Deservedly so.

141. Atheists challenge the religious right

Comment #16133 by k1mgy on January 4, 2007 at 8:06 pm

Sanel shares an article suggesting that rational conservatives do exist and that "it should be possible for conservatives to unite on policy without agreeing on theology".

Baloney. I see not a sliver of this possibility. All I need do is look at the menu.

Most conservative policy, at least that which I am aware of here in the US, has been wound up in the following:

- corporations know best
- individual citizens know least
- patriarchal authority structures are preferred
- the world is our oyster to plunder
- bombs and bullets first; "negotiation" later
- let the poor work hard and maybe they'll "succeed"
- even corporation executives who fail deserve $200 Million golden parachutes

The religion (and "patriotism") is left out of this list simply to show how insignificant these are to the overall problem. Sure, the religion is problematic, but the other assaults on humanity are not to be overlooked.

In fact, I think that the religion and "patriotism" are used simply as adjuvants - to shove the rest down and suppress complaint. How many Republican members of the US Congress or Senate really hold religious belief? (Maybe only the total wackos among them, which are arguably numerous).

My view of the article is similar to my view of the reaction of Republicans in the US House and Senate and the current US mal-administrator, Bush, who are all suddenly seeking "cooperation", "bipartisanship" and "fair play" now that the tables have finally and mercifully turned. Sure, there are rational thinkers everywhere and of every political persuasion, but removing religion from the equation doesn't cure us of the ills.

Sorry, no play your game.

The only cure is a good flushing with political and social Lysol. Scrub, rinse, drain and repeat the cycle until the very last vestige of conservative political philosophy is wiped clean. The religion problem will likely be less so, once the others are excised.

142. No religion and an end to war: how thinkers see the future

Comment #15975 by k1mgy on January 4, 2007 at 3:55 am

>>The spread of information through the internet and mobile phones will "gently, irresistibly, undermine the mindsets requisite for religious fanaticism and intolerance".<<

Since we're into predictions now (Pat "chuckles" Robertson is off his meds) I see in the near future the Haggardists coming down hard against the use of mobile phones and computers.

A new day dawns for the Abacus and word of mouth.

143. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14734 by k1mgy on December 24, 2006 at 8:03 pm

The Haggardists keep hammering on Dawkin's door: "Let's argue about the Bible". It's a trap. The God Delusion was certainly not written as a scholarly critique of the Bible or any other religious text. Why? Because from the start the validity of these texts are dubious at best. Besides, Dawkins shreds the existence of any God, and without resorting all that much to any Bible, other than using passages as laugh-track.


Orr writes, "But since when is a scientific hypothesis confirmed by philosophical gymnastics, not data? Second, the fact that we as scientists find a hypothesis question-begging--as when Dawkins asks "who designed the designer?"-- cannot, in itself, settle its truth value. It could, after all, be a brute fact of the universe that it derives from some transcendent mind, however question-begging this may seem. What explanations we find satisfying might say more about us than about the explanations. Why, for example, is Dawkins so untroubled by his own (large) assumption that both matter and the laws of nature can be viewed as given? Why isn't that question-begging?"

We have what information we have, and the vast majority of it points to an evolutionary past, not a creationist one.

The trap is to enter the argument on the Haggardist's terms. This is to be avoided. They have no cards to play, so it's smart to avoid the game entirely and "call a spade a spade".

144. The Only One in Step

Comment #14550 by k1mgy on December 23, 2006 at 5:43 am

Perhaps Richard Dawkins is Science's answer to the Jehova's, or better put perhaps, their worst nightmare.

Having read "The Only One in Step", I now understand why RD seems to go tilt when Moron McIntosh and his band of biblical brothers carry forth their trade.

I should think occasions like this deserve a re-thinking of tenure at great institutions like Leeds. There's a good basis for the protection of academic freedom and I believe we'd all support this as we in 'Murca still (I hope) cherish our Freedom of Expression. But as here, when someone falsely cries "FIRE!" in a theatre, the expression finds itself severely regulated.

McIntosh needs, along with therapy and medication, a very strong regulation indeed!

145. Security tight as Mozart production resumes

Comment #13703 by k1mgy on December 19, 2006 at 6:24 am

Years ago I worked in radio broadcasting and, more than once, took a complaint from a listener. My standard retort, away from the ears of management, was "the radio has a dial. Please use it."

My brother, a restaurant manager, was summoned to a table. A gentleman had a complaint. "There's too much ice in my drink".

"Wait a while and it will go away", was his swift reply.

I once attended an exhibition at Boston's Institute of Contemporary Art featuring Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs which were shocking and generated much protest. Frankly, I didn't like his work, but went out of my way to attend as my way of protesting the protest and supporting cherished rights of public free expression.

It seems an irony that individuals will rail against one expression yet expect that their own should remain unassailable. The listener who complained had an option. The restaurant customer had one, too. And no one forced people to visit the ICA and view a bucket of urine. We have free will, as the Haggardists like to say. So I say "use it".

I should think it would be interesting to see how long a picket or protest might last in front of, or for that matter, inside of a church.

Here in the US, about 5 minutes.

146. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13451 by k1mgy on December 17, 2006 at 7:38 pm

It was as if RD was being gentle with an old friend. Yes, it must have been frustrating, being cut-off and all, but so polite to allow Benn to blather on with irrelevances like "I don't want to go out with a diagnosis". Plus, it permitted him to jab a few in the direction of Bushland, which is a great use of the airwaves any day.

Despite the inherent handicaps in the setup and the lack of debate from the other corner, RD managed to get his point across rather well.

Only problem: his hair. That clump in the front that hung down as if ready to prod poor Richard in the eyeball. Distracting as hell and gave one the impression that Dawkins had just jumped off a motorbike, plunked down his sweaty helmet, and swaggered onto the set.

147. Response to Richard Dawkins' Criticisms in The God Delusion

Comment #13285 by k1mgy on December 16, 2006 at 7:31 pm

Swinburne: "Here the fault is mine - I should have given a reference to some place where I point out the advantages of having to rely on a balance of probability, and not total certainty, with respect to the existence of God."

Pardon my yawn.

Explain, please, how it is advantageous to "rely on a balance of probability, and not total certainty, with respect to the existence of" your god? Parsing words here - are you saying that it's actually preferable to *not* have total certainty? How baffling! Did the word processor get the best of you?

Perhaps this statement of yours sheds some light on why science and your religious apologetic are so at odds. Perhaps it may be too discomforting to accept the science, which will clearly tell you that the "balance of probability" is nil. Embracing reality and putting away the fantasy might be too much to take.

Well whatever you might call it, the probability of your god, when correctly viewed through a logical and scientific lens, is extremely low. If the probability were higher, say 51%, you'd need fewer words to prop up your argument. Instead of spinning around the maypole you could simply offer *evidence* and rest easily right there.

In place of evidence, as you have none, instead you offer a lot of high sounding words.

How sad.

148. Intelligent Design packets

Comment #13197 by k1mgy on December 16, 2006 at 5:11 am

>>I personally have no problem with anyone
>>expressing their point of view and showing this
>>DVD in schools as long as it's presented
>>alongside evolution in a non-biased way

I personally do. My children will not be the subjects of a national experiment in religious indoctrination through the front door, back door, or by slipping packets under the door.

If you wish to have yours so exposed, do it in the privacy of your own home. You can be the "teacher", or if you like the "preacher".

There we are. Our education system will be transformed from teaching to preaching, thanks to the devolution of science teaching brought about by the vacuous theory of "intelligent" design.

--

BBC paired up a couple of light weights in their short, on-air row. It was very instructive as to the probable level of debate in the field and raises the point that, although Graham Wright spoke well, he could have easily eviscerated the "intelligent" designer with a more formidable argument. Even the presenter was more forceful straight on.

Perhaps RDF may find a "mission" (sorry for the term) in providing copies of The God Delusion or other instruction to the warriors who must take up the battle against Intelligent Stupidity in classrooms, on media, and in the courts.

149. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12979 by k1mgy on December 14, 2006 at 7:33 pm

I am very impressed with these comments.

I had once proposed, informally, that the CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) include in their "10 Commandments of Computer Ethics" (http://www.cpsr.org/issues/ethics/cei) a statement that would commit technicians, scientists and engineering professionals to avoid projects that are used for destructive, illegal, malevolent ends, such as military and government activities. I had not carried the idea forward to CPSR's board of directors. I hesitated due to lack of time and the consideration that this would open a big can of worms. Imagine the signatories being called "traitors" and "un-American" (for the Americans among us) when we refuse to help the current mal-administration?

If an oath were to be drafted, I think it might well include a statement that codified intolerance for irrationality, both as to how one conducts their profession, and what their work product supports.

In my ideal world, scientists and technologists would shun any work or even portions of work that enabled a government such as the one currently operating in the US, or such as IRAN, from building weapons, spying on its citizens, building a theocracy, and carrying forth with other illegal and immoral operations. We simply would refuse to give them the means to do stupid, awful things. Let them go elsewhere, or do it with those already glazed over.

Example: the current US mal-administration relies on armies of software engineers, many recruited from knowledge-tanks like MIT, to staff its spying projects. What if these scientists and engineers, en-mass, just said "No"? I am nagged by the question: "what does it mean currently when they say yes"?

What if license agreements in software restricted their use to peaceful purposes (and, dare I lump "general business" here)? What if these agreements included provisions that disallowed its use in military and government operations?

I am working on solar energy technology. Our license agreement will be including a statement as to end use and I intend to not sell to the current US government. I am committed to not having my work product in any way be used to enable the current US mal-administration. I've had opportunities to work for "defense" contractors and shunned every one of them.

Of course, even simple paper clips may end up being instruments of war simply because they enable the background administrivia of the war-making apparatus, and so the argument may be extended into a ridiculous black hole.

Still, a statement of principles or an oath is important. I would be early in line to take one if it is ever fashioned.

150. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12166 by k1mgy on December 11, 2006 at 3:51 am

From here in the US, the show looked similar to a classed-up Jerry Springer broadcast, and a good exercise of experience that Richard Dawkins may wish to avoid in future. The basis of his argument is sound; the force of his argument needs no invective, but in such an audience the rules of debate and discussion change. This forum clearly lives for controversial zingers.

He attempted survival in the circus, and despite not being cut out for it (which is surely to the Professor's credit) should receive a passing grade and from us a "survivor" award.

As for that other fellow, the wiry-looking character whose relaxed posture caused me to refer to him as "Mr. Leanback", he pulls one Rabbit out of the hat in the end, attempting to bring down the entire book with its tiny built-in anomaly. Richard Dawkins never says that aliens exist, making the point that any with technology enough to visit us would surely be viewed as "god-like". Instead, he acknowledges the possibility, one in my mind far greater than any god hypothesis itself might rate.

Unfortunately even Dawkins was not prepared to retort this one - but he will be next time. The best way to hold your audience - particularly a bizarre and partisan one as was gathered - is to appear to agree with them. All Dawkins has to say is, "As I say in the book, I cannot state with 100% surety that a supernatural god exists, but I can say there's a higher probability of them than any god"

This would have put the argument of Aliens (and the subliminal association, "UFO", and "nutcase") on its ass.

There are some environments Richard Dawkins thrives in; others where he is challenged as a debater. I salute him for injecting himself into one that surely challenges, and thereby hones, his reasoned argument.