101. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41961 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 11:13 am

Well Brian, I don't really feel like I need to say anything, your comments speak for themselves.

You seem to have replaced the religion of the church with the religion of science.

102. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41941 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 10:46 am

48. Comment #41931 by briancoughlanworldcitizen ..."I don't think it's productive or helpful for non-experts to debate the detail of these issues. Or evolution, quantum physics, or any seriously complex subject. For fun, sure. But lets not pretend that what you or I think about a particular piece of evidence is remotley relevant."

So, what do we do then Brian... pray at the alter of the gods of science and wait for them to pass down their commands.

I'm sorry, but your comments are about as silly as anything I have ever read. Nobody but "experts" (whatever that means) are capable of understanding the facts. Your definition of science isn't science, it's religion.

It may be true, that Quantum Physics is hard for the average person to grasp... But is that a reason to not even try?

As for evolution, that is in the grasp of understanding of the average person and so is much of climatology.

You don't need a PhD, to think scientifically, look at Douglas Adams or what about Michael Faraday, who was largely self-taught.

103. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41924 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 10:00 am

"Well, you've got that on me:-) I clocked up about 40 years before realising .... WTF? Still I'm making up for lost time now:-) Especially now that I realise how precious time is."

Well, as Morpheus said in the Matrix... "Welcome to the Real World"

104. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41910 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 9:39 am

"Fundamentalists Christians hate the idea of doing anything about global warming, ostensibly because they don't "believe it", but also because maybe it's real and part of the coming "end times" tribulation. I am not making this shit up."

That may well be true... But like I said, I am not in the Bush camp and I'm most definitely not a christian fundy. I have been an atheist all my life. Well at least from the age that I understood what it meant. Even as a young child, I never bought into religion and saw through it as a man-made hoax. Perhaps, because my parents were atheists... But they never forced their view on me.

105. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41891 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 9:14 am

"The minority will go at it within the relevant community and convince them of their case, if they have a case."

Indeed, and I think that is thankfully finally what is happening, the minority are finally standing up to be counted.

"You and I though as non experts, should have our views formed by the majority position in the relevant community, not some hysterical outlier supported by the Bush Administration and fundamentalists. Especially where that majority is overwhelming."

Not quite sure what you mean by that.... I try not have my views formed by anyone. I try to weigh up the evidence from both sides (or however many sides there happen to be) and then I think for myself based on that evidence... And I am certainly not influenced by Bush fundies.

"The meme you are falling prey to is the creationist meme, that any opinion is equal to any other, it is empatically not."

Well, finally something we agree on... You are correct all opinion is not equal... try re-reading what I wrote, you are putting words in my mouth again. Of course all opinions are not equal, someone has to be right... I happen to think I am.

106. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41851 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 7:46 am

QUOTE... 37. Comment #41826 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 6:30 am I'm a modestly intelligent person, and you don't seem to be vastly more intelligent than me. How do you justify taking a position, supported by only a fraction of the relevant experts, on an incredibly complex subject? ...CLOSE QUOTE

Well, I actually don't think it is a fraction of the scientific community. More and more scientists are starting to stand up against the consensus and don't be surprised to see more and more over the next few years. I have followed Global Warming science with interest for over ten years... Even ten years ago, the numbers that disagreed with the consensus were not small.

I think what first convinced me, was a cassette tape series I purchased about ten years ago, called - "The Case Against Environmentalism: Moral, Economic and Scientific" by Peter Schwartz, Richard Salsman and Richard Sanford. Since then, I have read more and more and only become more and more convinced that AGW is wrong.

You say "how do I justify taking a position, supported by only a fraction of the relevant experts" ? ...Now in that statement, you have said a very telling thing. Are you saying that the minority scientific opinion cannot be justified?

In science there will always be a majority vs. minority opinion. But unlike politics, the minority do not get voted out. But, politics has crept into climate science and the minority are not being fully heard.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity was a minority opinion, even after it was known. Does that mean it should not of been justified?

What about the minority opinion of Charles Darwin, should his opinion of not been heard?

Or what about Copernicus and Galileo, should they have been muzzled? ...Such attempts were made.

The minority in science can often be right, as history has shown. Science is not a game of numbers, it is not politics, where the vote of the majority wins the day. It is evidence that counts, whether from the majority or minority. Indeed, the minority opinion in science, when it is found to be right, is given the highest prize.

As for your comment that delay could be dangerous. The obscene regulations of the Kyoto Agreement would devastate World economies and lead to deaths by the millions.

Even if it were found to be true that AGW was happening. I would still be against Kyoto. The Kyoto protocol is a political boondoggle and has nothing to do with science. The reason that the Kyoto agreement has been constantly re-worked, is because it is totally impractical.

Also your statement that; "A minority top heavy with known industry shills." ...This is one of those none-thinking statements, that gets passed from person to person, It must be true because everyone says so. It's a case of, if you say something enough times, people will believe it. There is no evidence whatsoever, of a connection between industry and those scientists who disagree with AGW.

107. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41779 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 12:34 am

QUOTE... 35. Comment #41771 by Mr. Grape on May 16, 2007 at 11:37 pm
If you've ever seen "Jesus Camp" (Which is what fueled me to become more outspoken about atheism) the correlation between evolution denial and Oneclimate change denial is valid one to bring up. ...CLOSE QUOTE

This is a complete non sequitur. It is rather like the cogent argument Richard Dawkins makes against theists, who blame atheism for Stalin. He simply says, one might just as well blame communism on moustaches.

It suggests that individual scientists who don't agree with the current AGW model, are in denial because of some kind of hidden agenda (like the silly claim, that they are all receiving funding from oil companies), or religious programming, or that they are coming out of some kind of - denial against AGW training camps.

Most of these scientists, who are standing up against AGW, don't even know each other and have come to their conclusions independently. Their stance against AGW is purely scientific.

The fact that a few Jesus Camp religious nuts, are in denial of AGW, would not be used as evidence against AGW in a science lab. The fact that these evangelists are in denial, is purely coincidental and that is why I said, it is a non sequitur.

One think to your credit, you did not push the envelope as far, as to suggest ...that AGW sceptics (scientists), have the morals of holocaust deniers. But some individuals do, do that.

I have used the word denial in this response, only where I think it is appropriate and because it was the word you used... and in a religious context of simply denying something, based on faith, then it is the right word to use.

However, denial, as in AGW denier, in the context of what scientists are saying, is the wrong word. I don't think scientists would use the word either. Denial is often used in a derogatory manner, to verbally attack someone's position, it has negative connotations. I would use the word sceptical. One is sceptical because the evidence they have arrived at draws them to be. Denial on the other hand, is simply a negative statement and does not draw on evidence, but is often based on false assumptions... Such as, Holocaust and Evolution deniers.

The big difference between an Evolution denier and a AGW sceptic (scientist) is exactly that. One is in denial based on faith or just plain ignorance, the other is sceptical based on the evidence. There is the major difference.

The anti-evolutionists are not producing science that contradicts the Evolution by Natural Selection theory. The AGW sceptic scientists are producing science that contradics AGW models.

108. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41613 by chbg21808 on May 16, 2007 at 11:53 am

I'm sorry briancoughlanworldcitizen, I am not going to respond to flaming.

I will say one thing, you are putting words in my mouth. I have never once "made the assumption that thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries, over several decades are colluding (other than some heroic outliers) in a massive scam." ...As you put it.

What I have said, is that the science has become politicized. It is the politicization of the science that has led scientists to tow the "concesus". It has nothing to do with a conspiracy.

This message board is democratic. If you don't like what I have to say, then fine don't read it.

109. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41593 by chbg21808 on May 16, 2007 at 11:25 am

QUOTE... "Before cluttering the board with conspiracy theory nonsense." ...END QUOTE

The link you presented brings back a blank page too.

You can find her however, by going to the home page at http://www.sourcewatch.org and doing a search.

I have tried to put the link here, but it creates a blank page. I have read the article directly form the page.

Nothing in this article, as far as I can see is damning of Baliunas reputation, it just gives a list of references of her achievments and who she is and what she does.

I don't think anyone has mentioned it being a conspiracy theory?

And to simply say that the sources you quote "are known to be tainted" is not an argument... anyone can do that.

The article even presents her original article with Willie Soon, Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual? by Willie Soon & Sallie Baliunas
Lessons & Limits of Climate History

110. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41375 by chbg21808 on May 16, 2007 at 3:25 am

QUOTE... 25. Comment #41372 by Aussie on May 16, 2007 at 2:59 am
Have you noticed the extremely strong correlation between fundamentalist Christianity, anti-Darwinism and global warming denialism... END QUOTE

Actually, the correlation is a poor one. It is a poor one because on the whole, the anti-Darwinians are not coming out from a scientific standpoint. It is a purely religious move.

There is no Global Warming denialism. Everyone can agree that the globe warms and cools and has historically always done so.

The counter argument to anthropogenic global warming, is coming out of the scientific community. These are not religious nuts, they are trained scientists, who do not agree with the scientific models. For example, Dr David Legates, Center for Climate Research at the University of Delaware and Dr Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist at Harvard University.... Who is considered to be one of the most prominent astrophysicists in America.

I believe that rather like the snowball effect of atheists coming out in America. In the same way, I think more and more scientists will begin to stand up against the current consensus and science will get back to how it should be, open and honest... and we will get away from this obscene idea of scientific truth by "consensus". Which has become a political weapon against reasonable counter argument and a favorite weapon of Al Gore and other politicos, who basically say: "the consensus of scientific opinion is in, investigate no further".

Since when did the concensus of the majority in science, become the measure of the truth. The measure of truth in science is evidence and if you are only going hear the voices of the scientists you want to hear and ignore the rest, then it is no longer science, it becomes dogma.

QUOTE... "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians." ...Czech President Vaclav Klaus ...END QUOTE


Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change
by Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D.

Also, check out these excellent podcasts:
Global Warming Podcast News

111. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41350 by chbg21808 on May 16, 2007 at 1:23 am

QUOTE.... Comment #41323 by Jimill on May 15, 2007 at 10:43 pm
From an ethical standpoint, it is in our best interest to do something about our consumption habbits and the wreckless wasting of our natural resources. This Global Warming Crisis is, in a way, a call to our common sense, and to that mammallian part of our brains that contols our caring nature.... END QUOTE.

In a free market, technological progress naturally drives society towards more efficient fuels and more efficient fuels produce less waste. Waste reduction is a net benefit to business, because it is the flip side of efficiency, the less waste one produces, the more efficient the output... that increase in efficiency, also leads to reduced prices. It is free market competition, that drives business toward efficiency and advances in technology.

Ironically, the recycling regulations forced on businesses, have the opposite effects to that which is proclaimed. Businesses, that are forced to spend much of their time focused on recycling, become less efficient and that reduction in efficiency produces more waste... Thus, recycling ends up being counter-productive.

The burden on that advance in technological progress today, comes from over regulation by big government, which has created a recycling boondoggle, that is eating into economic growth and making it very difficult for business start ups, to drive from red to black... and much of those rules and regulations, comes from arbitrary, bureaucratic government dictates, that cannot be objectively defined.

The insanity of the environmental movement, has driven us to a recycling frenzy, which has grown to insane proportions.

The cure for genuine environmental problems, will not come from government, it will come from and grow naturally out of science and technology, driven forward by business and consumer demand.

QUOTE... "First, we are told that recycling will help preserve scarce landfill space. We are not, however, even remotely close to running out of space for our garbage. Despite the "garbage trucks could ring the Milky Way galaxy" rhetoric, all of the trash America will produce over the next 1,000 years could fit into a landfill 15 square miles in size." ...The Cato Institute... END QUOTE

Recycling is Not the Answer - By Jerry Taylor

112. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41208 by chbg21808 on May 15, 2007 at 4:10 pm

It's not perfect Buddha, I agree. Although I don't think it is as bad as is often claimed. But then again the IPPC report is far from perfect. One thing you can say about the Oregan petition that you cannot say about the IPPC report, it did not become corrupted through politics, at the expence of science. I guess it would be possible to pick holes in most petitions that have ever been produced. But that does not neccessarily mean that they have no merit because they aren't perfect.

113. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41107 by chbg21808 on May 15, 2007 at 1:52 pm

The Great Global Warming Swindle producer Martin Durkin appears on Glenn Beck to discuss global warming hysteria and defend charges that his documentary contains major misrepresentations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efe7LzQ36Pk

Watching this video, I'm thinking: Is this the sorry state science has come to, when scientists express an opposition to the current "consensus" they get pilloried. It's one thing for a scientist to condemn creationists for promoting none science in the guise of intelligent design. But when scientists are not even allowed to express a scientific disagreement, that goes against the consensus, without fear of losing their job, then something is seriously wrong. Science is supposed to be open.

I am convinced that in ten years from now (hopefully less), we will look back at this period in Global Warming science as a period of unreason.

And the claim that those who disagree with the current climate models are few and far between is also false. Many scientists disagree.

Quote: "The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists."

From:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ten_facts_about_global_warming.htm

CBC (Canada) has also produced a documentry... You can watch it on YouTube, it's in five parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

114. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #40553 by chbg21808 on May 14, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Since February 16 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost US$ 294,651,440,203 and counting, while potentially saving an undetectable 0.003487612 °C by the year 2050. You can see the counting clock at: http://www.junkscience.com/

I've been saying Anthropogenic Global Warming is wrong for ten years. Man-made Global Warming has become the new religion.

To criticise Global Warming is the sin of all sins. I've been called every name under the sun for criticising the science.

What is tragic, is that this obsession with Man-made Global Warming is literally killing thousands of people every year. People in the Third World are denied electricity because of the Anthropogenic Global Warming model.

It has also led to a corruption of science. The science has become politicized and few scientists dare speak out, without fear of being ridiculed. Or indeed, if scientists dare to put forward potential research, that goes against the current Anthropogenic Global Warming mantra (Sun spots for example), then they are likely to be denied a research grant... That's not science, it's dogma.

And as for environmental groups; look behind the veneer. They are not pro-environment, they are anti-technology. Many of them want to revert to living in wooden huts in the forest.

You only have to hear one of these environmental leaders with their megaphones, shouting out diatribe on their soap box. You'll be surprised how often their language is framed in the negative... "Down with business and technology" ...Now an again they will slip in the occasional "we must save the planet" statement. But it is mostly a hate-filled attack on technology.

Simply ask yourself the question... How many members of the environmental movement are actually doing anything genuinely positive to improve the environment? ...They spend most of their time protesting and here I'm being kind; the more extreme members can be vicious, I know from personal experience.

The fact is, that it is not primarily the science that has driven to a certainty of the facts of Man-made Global Warming.... It is fundamentally driven by politics, the environmental movement and the media. Indeed, the science instead of taking the lead, has become a passenger.

It becomes very disturbing indeed, when Al Gore gains godlike status in the scientific community, a politician with no scientific training. And a film, which is almost pure science fiction is taken as literal truth by millions.

Glenn Beck's Global Warming Special 'Exposed: The Climate of Fear' Now at YouTube:
http://newsbusters.org/node/12677


One thing I find astonishing, is that I have read several comments by scientists on Al Gore and they talk about him with the kind of reverence that a disciple would give to the Messiah... I'm left thinking, where has the science gone.

It also shows that scientists can be just as gullible as the rest of us.

Finally I want to elaborate on Brian Coughlan's claim that seems to suggest that a scientific theory, by definition of being a theory is true. This is simply false... Scientific theories are always classed as tentative and some are supported by more facts than others.

To view a scientific theory from Brian Coughlan's definition one would have to assume that all theories are equal. But some scientific theories carry more weight of evidence than others. For example, the theory of evolution has an overwhelming body of none contradictory facts, literally millions of facts to support it. For all intents and purposes Evolution by Natural Selection is as good as fact, because of this overwhelming evidence, although strictly speaking, in scientific terms it is still classed as tentative. Anthropogenic Global Warming on the other hand, is a very weak theory... Indeed, no scientist has ever been able to prove an absolute correlation between Global Warming and mankind... I think "Comment #40801 by Newton30" has made a similar point.

I would actually go farther as to say something even more radical: To call Anthropogenic Global Warming a scientific theory, is "stretching the bar" ...At best I would call it a hypothesis. Before one can move from hypothesis to theory, one has to produce a series of non-contradictory facts. I have not once seen one single fact that proves a correlation between Global Warming and mankind.

Read: The Rhetoric of the Environmental Movement
By Ronald Hamowy (Ludwig Von Mises Institute)...
http://www.mises.org/story/2119



Eight Reasons Why 'Global Warming' Is a Scam
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548

Climate change 'is the norm' (BBC News)
Viewpoint ...By Dr Martin Keeley Geologist, and a Visiting Professor at University College London.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4066189.stm



Al Gore's Personal Energy Use Is His Own "Inconvenient Truth" Gore's home uses more than 20 times the national average.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367



The Real 'Inconvenient Truth' Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Read the excellent book: Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media
By Patrick J. Michaels

115. Dogma

Comment #40427 by chbg21808 on May 14, 2007 at 9:29 am

Comment #40416 by steve99 on May 14, 2007 at 9:11 am

I disagree... I think these videos are very educational and that is merit enough for posting them here. What is wrong with posting 4 videos from the same person. It is the value of the message that counts.

Does it really matter if their from the same person... I don't get it?

116. The Golden Rule

Comment #40420 by chbg21808 on May 14, 2007 at 9:18 am

Excellent explanation of where the Golden Rule comes from and how it possibly stems from a precursor in nature. I don't think it will convince the fundies though.

117. Atheism in America

Comment #40290 by chbg21808 on May 14, 2007 at 4:54 am

I found this almost unbearable to watch... It was like stepping back in time. What a backward State, are they on the electric yet? I really felt for this girl.

118. Growing Up in the Universe: 2-Disc DVD Set

Comment #40275 by chbg21808 on May 14, 2007 at 4:17 am

I've just bought a copy... about 5 minutes ago. Nice to know that the money is going toward the Richard Dawkins foundation too.

I watched it on TV when it was originally released... It was my favourite of all the christmas lectures.

Why isn't "The Root of All Evil?" on sale here? (my mistake, I've just found the link).

119. Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39840 by chbg21808 on May 12, 2007 at 4:53 am

In response to Comment #39836 by John Turner

Well I disagree. The fact is that Hitchens is not Dawkins and he is not Harris. His approach is different. He comes into a debate with a historical perspective.

The only question that Sharpton really had is... "Can you disprove God?" ...He absolutely refused to debate on Hitchens terms. As a Christian minister, Sharpton was being completely disingenuous in not being willing to debate the bible and religion.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in the questions section, asked him this very question, on his refusal to debate religion and he came out with the most lame excuse... "We're here to discuss Hitchins book" ...How pathetic.

I just totally disagree... I thought Hitchens was superb... and with a sharp wit too.

120. Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39829 by chbg21808 on May 12, 2007 at 4:15 am

I'd already listened to this a couple of times on audio. It's great to see pictures too.

I think Hitchens won this debate hands down. Not surprising, when you have reason on your side, how can you lose.

Sharpton's silly comment on comparing electricity with God, because you can't see either... The difference is that electricity is a known physical force that can be measured. God on the other hand is just an arbitrary mind-spun speculation, that has no context with anything knowable in reality. Even the false can be verified to be false through context, such as 2 + 2= 5. This is exactly what one cannot do with the arbitrary. The fact that it is an arbitrary speculation, is itself the measure by which to discount it as meaningless.

I love it when Hitchens said to Sharpton, you disappoint me... I presume he meant because Sharpton hadn't got the guts to discuss the bible. He probably knows about Hitchins formidable ability in debate and thought it would be unwise to attempt to defend it.

Then Sharpton comes up with the old silly argument, that without religion there is no morality. I really am fed up of hearing this pathetic "old chestnut" ...We know as Hitchens said here and Sam Harris has also made the point, honour killings and mutilation of sexual organs are not good stratedgies for living in a socially viable, civilized World.

121. Neil Peart cites The God Delusion in new album's liner notes

Comment #39696 by chbg21808 on May 11, 2007 at 3:10 pm

I love Rush and have seen them in concert three times... The Permanent Waves Tour, The Signals Tour and the Moving Pictures Tour.

One was at Birmingham Odeon (That was before it became an ABC Cinema and concerts were regularly held there), one at Birmingham NEC Arena and One at Stafford Bingley Hall.

Neil Peart is perhaps the most intelligent lyric writer on the planet. His lyrics are very pro-technology, science and reason.

Here are the lyrics to the brilliant 'Tom Sawyer':

A modern day warrior
Mean, mean stride
Today's Tom Sawyer
Mean, mean pride

Though his mind is not for rent
Don't put him down as arrogant
His reserve, a quiet defense
Riding out the day's events
The river

What you say about his company
Is what you say about society
Catch the mist, catch the myth
Catch the mystery, catch the drift

The world is, the world is
Love and life are deep
Maybe as his skies are wide

Today's Tom Sawyer
He gets high on you
And the space he invades
He gets by on you

No his mind is not for rent
To any god or government
Always hopeful, yet discontent
He knows changes aren't permanent
But change is

What you say about his company
Is what you say about society
Catch the witness, catch the wit
Catch the spirit, catch the spit

The world is, the world is
Love and life are deep
Maybe as his eyes are wide

Exit the warrior
Today's Tom Sawyer
He gets high on you
And the energy you trade
He gets right on to the friction of the day

Talking about music and I know this is a bit of topic, but after watching Richard Dawkins wonderful speech at Ted Talks... I visited the website and stumbled across an extrodinary piano performance from a 14 year old Jennifer Lin. ...She does an improvisation about half way through, that I am not ashamed to say, was so beautiful it made me cry.

It made me think, who needs the so called spirituality of religion, when there is human potential like this? ...Which can be far more spiritually uplifting, than anything religion can offer. ...here's the link:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/46

122. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39520 by chbg21808 on May 11, 2007 at 3:52 am

32. Comment #39517 by Yorker

Sorry Yorker... I confirm that you trumped me :)

123. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39509 by chbg21808 on May 11, 2007 at 2:56 am

I have to comment on: 17. Comment #39400 by PN.Shreeniwas Aiyer on May 10, 2007 at 1:58 pm

He/she said: QUOTE... "Having this Christopher Hitchens fellow in the Atheist camp may do more harm than good. He loves controversy, he has joined this bandwagon because he wants to be in the lime light. This fellow is bad news.

This fellow should not be put in the same league as Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris... I don't think he will help the atheist cause.I won't be surprised if he makes racist remarks. It is time we ignore him." ...END QUOTE

I just wonder whether you have even read any Hitchens at all? ...To say that he is not in the same league as Dawkins and Harris is absurd.

And where did that slanderous remark of him being a racist come from... If you knew anything about Hitchens, you'd know he detests racism.

Hitchens knows his subject and probably knows more about religion than Dawkins and Harris put together... He is also a master of the written word.

I think Dawkins and Harris are brilliant, but the more rational thinkers on our side the better.

And to say that Hitchens has "joined the bandwagon because he wants to be in the lime light" ...Well, what a pathetic thing to say... do you have any evidence for this. I suggest that Hitchens has "joined the band wagon" because his integrity moved him to do so.

I've said this somewhere else, but I would love to see Hitchens at the next Beyond Belief conference.

Someone else made a comment about the British accent adding 50 points to IQ... Well I'm from England and trust me, Hitchens intellect is the real deal and has nothing to do with his accent.

I'm not suprised that Hitchens became an American citizen, he was probably fed up with the political correctness that has grown to mammoth proportions in the UK. I'm tempted to leave myself.

124. The God Delusion

Comment #39392 by chbg21808 on May 10, 2007 at 1:34 pm

It is true that "randians" dogmatised her philosophy. It is also true that she herself was not perfect, in fact she could be a right bitch.

The sad thing is, that many of the individuals who vilify Rand, have never read any of her work and just blurt out attacks on her, based on second-hand knowledge.

I think Rand's time is yet to come and when all the fuss has died down, she will be remembered as one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived.

Her whole philosophy is beautifully integrated into one book by Leonard Piekoff, 'Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand'.

And those that have never read any Ayn Rand and make comments like 'loons' and 'quacks' are themselves guilty of the same intellectual dishonesty, that many creationists get up to, when they attack Evolution.

If you have read Rand and you still think it's the work of a loon, fair enough. But second-hand comments, are simply intellectually dishonest.

I'm certainly not a "randian" ...I get my ideas from all sorts of writings. But Rand had some very important things to say about ethics and I think individuals should give her work a chance.

Michael Shermer did identify cultish behaviour that came out of Objectivism and there is no doubt that it did become a cult and many followers held Rand up as a godess to worship.

But having said that, Rand's philosophical identifications on the nature of existence for example, I believe have never been matched. So, I don't think one should throw the baby out, with the bath water.

Over the years I have pretty much read most of Rand's works. But I never became cultish... I haven't read any of her stuff for a few years now, I've moved on to other things. But, because I integrated much of her work I guess it probably has shaped my thoughts and ideas to a degree, it has certainly helped me think more Objectively and scientifically. On the whole, I think her writings have made me a better, more rounded individual.

125. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton: A Debate God Is Not Great

Comment #38820 by chbg21808 on May 9, 2007 at 8:38 am

I suspect that Sharpton realised that Hitchens was a cut above his usual intellectual foe and thus, It is no wonder that Sharpton spent most of the debate; weeding out of having to have an intellectual debate on religion, by going straight to God and ignoring the Bible.

Nevertheless, Hitchens still managed to verbally, beat Sharpton to a pulp. When you have reason on your side and your as well read as Hitchens, then mysticism loses every time.

I love the bit when Sharpton said to Hitchens... "Don't look to the referee for help" ...lol, as if Hitchens needed any.

Great to hear Ayaan Hirsi Ali ask a question at the end.... what a women!

126. Lou Dobbs Interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #37508 by chbg21808 on May 4, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Re: Comment #37501 by Steve Scott - "He cracks a bit on Dawkins and Dennett, but Hitchins calls it as he sees it."

But that's what I love about 'Hitch' ...He is one of those rare individuals who genuinely thinks for himself.

I've just ordered his latest book and can't wait to read it.

127. Lou Dobbs Interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #37473 by chbg21808 on May 4, 2007 at 2:42 pm

I really don't want to have a go at crucifiction too. But I think you did over react and am suprised you didn't even apologise to Josh. He after all, did explain the situation. At the end of the day, does it really matter who gets credit for the link? Getting the knowledge out there is all that really matters.

128. Lou Dobbs Interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #37442 by chbg21808 on May 4, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I love Christopher Hitchens, his depth of knowledge always astounds me and like Richard Dawkins, he never pulls any punches.

It's a shame Hitchens wasn't at the Beyond Belief conference that Dawkins and Harris attended.

Never heard of Lou Dobbs before... very impressed. If only all journalists had the same integrity. You could see that they had genuine respect for each other, which is nice to see.

129. Some stars and planets in scale

Comment #19133 by chbg21808 on January 25, 2007 at 5:24 am

Wow... This video is silent and doesn't need words. The gravitational pull of these giants must be astronomical... Although isn't gravity related to density? ...any science brains please.

Gives a whole new meaning to "Pale Blue Dot".

How insignificant and mind shrinkingly pathetic is the God myth, compared to the Wonders of the Universe.

130. Lil' Markie live, part 2

Comment #17629 by chbg21808 on January 15, 2007 at 7:40 am

I was just about to eat.... But after that, I feel quite "Tom and Dick".

What sane person would want this nutter anywhere near their children.

131. Creationism Song

Comment #17625 by chbg21808 on January 15, 2007 at 7:15 am

Well of course, it is not a case of belief. I accept evolution based on the overwhelming evidence, from many separate scientific disciplines. Indeed, there is so much evidence in favour of evolution today, that it would take one person a lifetime to even scratch the surface of what we know... millions of none contradictory facts that fit the theory.

The song starts of from the premise that evolution is just a belief and is thus held based on nothing more than faith. Indeed, it is a favourite of creationists to call evolution another religion.

What is particularly sad in that video. is the children who are being brainwashed with creationist nonsense at the expense of science.

132. FiveLive debate on faith and discrimination

Comment #17219 by chbg21808 on January 12, 2007 at 5:05 am

It is important to recognise that the attack on homosexuality is based on Biblical interpretation, based around the concept of sin.

Sin is uncoupled from objective evidence with reference to reality, of any crime being committed... Indeed, the Bible itself is uncoupled from objectively definable evidence with reference to reality.

Sin is simply "judge and jury" and points the finger without evidence of any objectively definable crime. One should be judged through the moral process of justice, based around mans physical, psychological and philosophical nature and not the immoral concept of sin. Indeed, we do not judge individuals based on sin in a court of law, but based on justice, at least we do in civilized democracies.

If you wish to live in a society where they judge individuals through sin and not by justice, then go and live in Iran or invent a time machine and go back to the Dark Ages. Indeed, in America at this moment in history, this is the very kind of society the religious extremists are demanding.

I think one does have to be careful, when giving rights to minorities, as a "knee jerk" reaction to public demands as is often done by politicians and not because it has been objectively thought through, but because it may help their political career... it can lead to sacrifice of the rights of individuals on the opposite side of the actual individuals you are trying to protect. I have heard it said that there is really no such thing as a minority, other than the minority of one and once you create rights for minorities, you just end up seperating humanity, which pits one group against another and causes hostility.

Rather, there should only be individual rights, if the minority of one is protected, then everyone's rights are protected equally. Meaning, it is surely possible to create univeral applicable laws, not based on whether one is gay, black, disabled etc, but rather, based around individual rights, the rights of the minority of one.... Such universals would recognise all humanity as equal. I think so called minority rights based on anything else, is the very thing that seperates humanity into us and them and leads to the very racism one is attempting to eliminate. Thus we end up with the absurdity of giving quotas to employers of how many black individuals they should employ, instead of employing individuals, black or white, based on merit. It is essentially placing colour of skin above humanity and is discrimanatory against the individual who is best suited to the job.

I think there is a question of property rights here however.... I think it is perfectly reasonable for a landlord of a privately owned property, to deny a room to a gay couple at his own discretion and without being racist in any way whatsoever. The reason is simply private property rights. He should not have the right to turn the couple away just because they are gay, rather, he should have the right based on the fact that it's his property and thus, he has the right to turn anyone he chooses away and that includes a gay couple. If for example a landord allows gay couples and starts to get bricks through his window, then I think it is perfectly reasonable for that individual to turn gays away to protect his business interests or indeed, if he feels his life is being threatened. One may of course argue, that it would be cowardly of him to do so and that he should stand up for the rights of the gay couple and I agree this would be very noble.... Nevertheless, because it his private property, it should still be his choice.

133. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16616 by chbg21808 on January 7, 2007 at 3:57 pm

I watched 'The Life of Brian', when It was first released at the pictures (I'm showing my age). It still stands as one of my favourite films of all time... I watched it again over Christmas (is that blasphemy?). I also watched this documentary only a few days ago on TV... I'm amazed how quickly it ended up on the Internet after being shown.

The religious fundies, really do seem to lack a sense of humour. Some might argue that the individual councils that allowed the banning of this film were moderates, but to me this is the behaviour of fundies. If they believe in their God so strongly, why should they care what anyone else thinks. Question: Was the film banned by council members because of their own personal religious views or was it because of the political pressure applied by Whitehouse and her cronies? ...I suspect it was both.

As for Mary Whitehouse.... What a pain in the posterior she was. Her manic obsession with censorship was scary... How did she get so much power? Censorship rarely solves anything, it simply leads to the curtailing of individual freedom... Here is a quote from, A Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Etienne de la Boétie, written in the 16th Century:

"The oppressor has nothing more than the power you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had not cooperation from you?"

I think the above quote relates perfectly to those idiotic councillors, who haven't got the slightest inkling of the importance of freedom of speech. Once you start censoring, because you may offend a few people, where do you stop, it is a very slippery slope.

I think the quote relates to atheists too, we have been quiet for far too long. I think, if there were more secular groups within government, applying political pressure, these things would not be allowed to happen.

Blessed are the cheesemakers... tee hee! ...I love it!!!

134. General Synod's Life of Christ

Comment #16537 by chbg21808 on January 7, 2007 at 7:44 am

Great clip... 'Not the Nine O'clock News' was a brilliant comedy show. The host in this parody, is Pamela Stephenson, the wife of Billy Connelly.

The Not the Nine O'clock News team, did a fantastic job of mocking the absurd and the too politically correct. There comedy at times could be very biting, but almost always very funny.

There was a documentry about the Monty Python team on UK TV, only last week, where they showed the original genuine debate with Michael Palin and John Cleese, from which this sketch is parodied and who quite frankly, made their debate apponents look foolish.

I love the Fawlty Towers reference: "Set in a Hotel in Torquay, where hundreds of Spanish waiters are clipped round the ear, by this Jesus Christ bloke" ...Lol, Hilarious.

135. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #14537 by chbg21808 on December 23, 2006 at 3:55 am

Mike Dickin, was one of the few politically incorrect individuals left in the media... great shame.

There were some real 'loony tunes' on this one. ..."Still at the hopping stage", that was hilarious, it was worth listening to, just for the unintentional comedy.

I haven't really got a problem with these nuts, at least their not trying to blow people up.

"Jesus loves you Richard" ...lol - What a bunch of 'fruit bats'.

"Let's remove one urban legend right up front - Paper Mites! There simply is no living organism that is called a "paper mite", and yet these critters are consistently blamed for causing bites or allergies on people. Even professional medical people often diagnose a cause of someone's skin rash or bites as paper mites."

http://www.buginfo.com/articles/mites.cfm

Mike Dickin, made a comment about jury service and not taking an oath on the Bible. This is exactly what I did, when I was called up as a juror. Although I don't think I was ridiculed or not taken seriously for this, it is a little embarrassing being the odd one out and you do feel like your being stared at.

From another perspective, If I'd been accused of a crime, I would ask for a jury of atheists.

Question: How does UK law stand on this? would I be allowed to request a Jury of atheists?

Richard Dawkins himself has commented that there was a study, that suggested atheists are more intelligent than theists... Well, if I was on trial, I would certainly want the probably more intelligent jury.

136. CBC Segment on Evangelist Christians

Comment #14118 by chbg21808 on December 21, 2006 at 7:37 am

Re: Comment #14067 by Aussie on December 21, 2006 at 3:16 am

"After all look at the rate of accumulation of Nobel Prizes by residents of the country."

It does make you wonder though, how long the US can hold on to this "crown". Even religious moderates by American standards, seem like wacky extremists to Europeans.

With so many fundies in America, it makes you wonder where the next generation of scientists will come from.

Having said that though, I do sense a change. You can see it on places like YouTube... American Atheists are coming out of the closet.

137. Merry Mithras

Comment #13731 by chbg21808 on December 19, 2006 at 8:25 am

With so much garbage on TV, QI is an excellent exception, very entertaining... Like 'Have I Got News for You' not scared to cut through the bullshit, but always in a humorous way.

Alan Davies: "Is he a tribute band?" ...LOL

138. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13665 by chbg21808 on December 19, 2006 at 4:10 am

Rod Liddle's whole approach seemed to be based around the belief, that if you criticize religion your being arrogant. What's the big deal about religion that you cannot criticize it, even aggressively?

The whole program came across as an attack on atheists for attacking religious dogmatism, with the claim that the atheists are being just as dogmatic. Well, if religion were not as destructive in the World today, as it so clearly is, then Liddle may have had a point... As it is, his claim "rings hollow". Is it so surprising that atheists are so strident, when religion is causing so much violence in the World? ...I don't think so.

One of the most annoying claims that Liddle made, is that atheism is synonymous with communism. But, I agree with Richard Dawkins, it is incidental to it.

Communism itself, I would say is a form of religion... secular yes, atheistic no; there is a difference. It is a dogmatic belief system, which is detached from reality, as is the belief in a personal God... Both theistic religion and communism are dogmatic belief systems, without objectively identifiable evidence of their validity.

Atheism, is not a dogmatic belief system, it is simply the none acceptance of God, based on improbability.

Liddle then goes on to do the same annoying thing with Darwinism, implying that Darwinism and atheism are synonyms (they are not of course, Darwinism is not an atheist Bible)... It is true that an acceptance of Darwinism may weaken an individuals religious convictions. But, the fact that it does is not the primary fundamental of Darwinism ...again, it is incidental. Rod liddle does not seem to be able to tell the difference between fundamental primaries and incidental coincidences. Why did liddle fail to mention that many Christians do accept evolution? ...Would that have weakened his argument?

I found it all rather one sided, with Liddle being far too nice to religion. The time for being nice to religion is up. Look where being too nice and too politically correct, in the name of not upsetting religious sensibilities has got us. It is this wishy-washy attitude to religion, that has allowed religious extremism to fester and spread like an untreated cancer.

It is aggressive ridicule of religion (including through the power of humour) that is necessary, to deflate its "untouchable status".

There was also a comment made, not by Liddle himself (though he didn't dispute it), that without Darwinism there doesn't seem to be any grounds for atheism... This is absurd, it suggests all atheists are Darwinist's and without Darwin atheism is not possible. The proof of the absurdity of this is myself. I have been an atheist all my life. Even as a young child I never bought into the God concept and I held this world-view, before I had any knowledge of Darwin. Of course, I am not denying that some theists may become atheists after reading 'The Origin of Species' ...But one could just as easily say someone became an atheist because they read Sam Harris, even if they are ignorant of Darwin.

And why does Liddle use phrases like "part of the atheist project" ...when referring to Darwinism, is he suggesting that Darwinism is part of an atheist plot to overthrow religion? ...Some kind of mass atheist conspiracy? (perhaps the overthrow of the geocentric view of the universe is part of the same plot). Notice, that not even once does he call Darwinism a scientific theory.

Then Liddle goes on to say that Darwin took on the religious establishment. No he did not, that is exactly what Darwin did not do, again it is purely incidental that Darwin's scientific identifications, where in conflict with religion. From what Liddle says it gives the impression that Darwin's purpose in discovering his theory, was done for the primary purpose of attacking religion. But Darwin was extremely sensitive to the religious beliefs of others and the last thing he wanted to do, was "rock the boat".

Virtually every point Liddle makes throughout the whole program is just plain wrong.

I am also utterly fed up with the coupling of the Nazi regime with atheism... Read this excellent article:

Hitler Was Not An Atheist
by John Patrick Michael Murphy
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=murphy_19_2

And finally, this was both sadly and hilariously the most pathetic comment of the whole program, Rod Liddle's absolutely absurd claim that "Marxism was a utopia based on reason" ...Lol, if I didn't laugh, I would cry at such a ridiculous comment. Marxism was not a system of reasonableness and it was not born out of reasonable thinking; but its antithesis... There was no reason to be found, that is why it was so inhumane... He is doing the same thing that he has done, throughout the whole program, linking atheism with a dogmatic belief system and making a wild claim that they can be coupled together as synonyms.

ENDNOTE:

I get the impression that Liddle made this specifically, as a direct counter-attack on Richard Dawkins 'Root of All Evil?' ...Even the filming style was similar (was it the same camera crew?), the shakey camera technique and even the music had a similarity.

The Root of All Evil? Was a superb series, in fact the only criticism I have of it, is that the interviews were all far too short. Liddle's effort on the other hand was lame.

139. Kim Hill interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #13513 by chbg21808 on December 18, 2006 at 3:55 am

It is not often I disagree with Richard Dawkins. But I think even he was being too nice to Islam and the Koran. His comments that "you can pick and choose good and bad versus" ...This may be true within the Bible. But within the Koran, I don't even think this is possible. I think most critics of the Koran, are themselves, naive to how nasty the Koran actually is; and you have to look very hard indeed, to find one pleasant verse and more often than not, it is immediately contradicted by the next one. Check out this website, it is a real eye opener:

http://www.prophetofdoom.net

I think if richarddawkins.net is serious, then it needs to be armed with this kind of knowledge.

One thing that is disappointing about prophetofdoom.net, is that the author accepts Yahweh, at first I though he was just a christian moderate, I was wrong (further investigation suggests he is a creationist, touting Intelligent Design, although not a Young Earth Creationist and he links to a site that wraps creationism up in pseudo scientific phraseology).

However, to his credit and like a good journalist, he does not use his own religious bias to identify the horrors in Islam. He gives an intelligent critique of the Koran and other Islamic books and is particularly critical of Mohamed... It's just a shame and rather bizarre that he doesn't turn the same kind of logic on his own faith, I actually sent an email to the website with the following comment:

Dear Sir,

I think your critique of Islam is excellent.... One thing I find a bit peculiar however, is that you don't apply the same logic to Yahweh, which is quite frankly, based on mystical nonsense just as the belief in Allah is.

Craig J. Hawkins

I got the following reply:

>>>>START>>>>First, our critique of Islam was a byproduct of our relationship with Yahweh. Had He not asked us to write these books and promised to protect our families, we would never have done so.

As you know, Prophet of Doom is judgmental, something the politically correct moral code of secular humanists disdains. The moral code and sense of right and wrong which were used to judge Islam, to critique the religion, to be discerning, were Yahweh's. Further, without a clear understanding of Yahweh's Scripture, Muhammad's/Allah's revelation cannot be fully known as Islam exists to corrupt and assault that message.

Second, I applied the same logic to Yahweh once I had completed Tea With Terrorists and Prophet of Doom. In Yada Yahweh, I translated prophetic passages from the oldest manuscripts and then used reason and logic to explain the full extent of what was being revealed. I confronted every possible mystical statement and nonsensical uttering which is why the first four chapters were devoted to Genesis One and creation. This 1100-page review is free at www.YadaYahweh.com.

You might actually enjoy it because the only complaints we get regarding Yada Yahweh are its universal hostility to religion, the overwhelming amount of evidence contained in it and thus the sacrifice of time to journey through it, and the complexity of the reasoning. To read it, you have to have a strong desire to know, to think, and to understand. Most people don't.

Those who see Yahweh as being based upon mystical nonsense are almost always unaware of the basis for Yahweh—they don't know what God actually revealed. They typically make their evaluations based upon the edicts of religious institutions. Further, most people who share your position accept things as being true that are in fact nonsense. The existence of life as we know it without a creator is one such example.

We encourage you to read Yada Yahweh. If you do, please take notes along the way and when you have finished the book, send us a list of your concerns and we will dedicate ourselves to addressing them. In fact, if after reading the book, if you think you still have evidence to demonstrate your current position we would love the intellectual challenge of evaluating the merit of your criticism.>>>>>END>>>>>

One can actually ignore the mumbo jumbo beliefs above and just read the Critiques of Islam that he gives, which are very powerful and I believe, rationally put across.

The sight when viewed as a whole, does not have the goal of releasing individuals from the trap of Islamic doctrine and from there to none religiosity... Rather, it is an attempt to convert Muslims to creationism/intelligent design.

The value of the website is only in it's critique of Islam... The reason that I recommend it, is that I have not seen a better critique and honest evaluation anywhere else on the internet. I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a Muslim who is looking for a rational escape from Islam... Simply because they are liable to end up escaping Islam and becoming indoctrenated with Intelligent Design/Creationism.

Also, Check out the excellent radio archives on the same website too... Apparently he has done hundreds of radio interviews, but because of death threats aimed at the radio stations, most of them have disappeared. An annoyance in his radio interviews is that he always mentions Jews and Christians as being under threat, but never atheists.

Here is one of his radio interviews:
HERE

This man is a republican, is very well connected politically and personally knows George W. Bush ...Despite this he thinks that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a serious bondoogle, that has simply removed a secular dictator who held Islamic factions in check. In attacking Iraq Bush and Blair have released an "Islamic Juggernaut".

Because of his political connections, he was also able to meet and interview Islamic terrorists.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net

140. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13339 by chbg21808 on December 17, 2006 at 6:08 am

I watched this on the television this morning.

Out of all the interviews and debates I've seen with Richard Dawkins, this was the most Disappointing.

I think part of the problem is that the segment was far too short... If it had been able to run, it might have gone somewhere. I was left with a feeling that it never got going.

One thing I found a bit annoying, is that it came across rather one sided, with the hosts and Tony Benn ganging up on Richard... I don't think this was intentional or done with any malice, but it made it almost impossible to get more than a sentence or two in edge ways, before getting interrupted... Why do they need two hosts?

Richard Dawkins is at his brilliant best when he's in full flight on a point he is trying to get across, no one does it better. All his answers were cut off far too short and I was just left wanting more.

Tony Benn seemed to have a total misunderstanding of the role of science. No scientist with an ounce intelligence makes the claim that we get our morals from science. He seemed to be suggesting that we shouldn't get our morals from science (which gives the implication that we do) and therefore religion is neccessary... He obviously hasn't read Richard's latest book or Sam Harris's books for that matter.

I'm not sure... But I also got the impression that Tony Benn was saying that science is a waste of time, if we do not get our morals from it. what good is it? ...I maybe wrong, buts that what it sounded like.

Despite all the nonsense that came out of Tony Benn's mouth, he still came across as a nice chap and not a lunatic fundie... It is hard to have a sharp pull no punches debate with someone who is just unwilling to "throw punches".

Also, when Tony Benn was asked... "Are you cherry picking" he became evasive. Of course that is exactly what he does, whether he admits it or not.

He was also unwilling to answer whether he believes in a personal God... If he doesn't and he is just cherry picking certain versus as part of his moral standards, then I would have to call him the very worst kind of christian moderate. How pathetic is that... To hold on to few versus of scripture, because you think they may have moral virtue and to keep your friends happy.

141. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #13172 by chbg21808 on December 16, 2006 at 3:19 am

Andy MacIntosh is an embarrassment and obviously has little respect for the scientific method.

It seems to me that Richard Dawkins was the only individual on the panel who had the guts to "call a spade a spade". I agree, that MacIntosh should not be teaching as a professor in this University (at least, not if this is what he teaches in the classroom).

After listening to the nonsense coming out of MacIntosh's mouth, it took me an hour to calm down.

As for his statement that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics... The very fact that this directly relates to the subject he teaches and is known to be scientifically false, this itself, if he is teaching it as fact, is surely grounds for immediate dismissal.

142. Alan Colmes Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #12938 by chbg21808 on December 14, 2006 at 1:45 pm

It's great to see individuals on this post who have actually come out.

For me it's slightly different. I have never bought into the God concept. Even as a young child I saw through religion as mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

The way I look at religion is that the human brain is a complex organic computer and it is "designed" and has evolved to integrate and understand reality. All religion does is destort the mind with mysticism; which cuts one off from fully grasping reality.

The more "honesty" religious an individual attempts to become, the more indoctrenated in religious dogma they become. Honesty in religion simply means dishonety qua reality... The two are fundamentally incompatible.

Imagine an engineer building a bridge. He or she does not do this from a basis of faith. The engineer would have to honestly integrate certain laws of the universe to know how to build a bridge. The better he or she understands those laws the more efficient the structure. Thus, the very act of understanding those laws is in a sense a "wiring" of the brain that matches objective reality.

Religion is the exact opposite... religion does not integrate reality, it disintegrates the minds ability to fully grasp that reality. It does so because religion scrambles the "wiring" of the brain.

And talking of scrambled brain wiring, that chap who said he would kill his neighbour... Well If I was his neighbour, I think the For Sale sign would be up by now.

And as for the questioners comment: "Where does the perfect design of man and women come from?" ...The fact is that we are not perfectly designed. Look at our backbone for example. An engineer could come up with a far more efficient design to eliminate back pain. Another example is the blind spot in our field of vision. If this was the work of God then he was very sloppy in his creation. The fact is that evolution is limited in the materials with which it can work... also, evolution cannot go backward and "re-engineer" bad "designs"... As species evolve they are left with a lot of left over "garbage". Look at all the junk DNA we now carry around... If God was responsible then he was very wasteful with his materials.

I for one am fed up to the "back teeth" (is that the right expression?) with religion and hope we will someday live in a World without it. I do not want to sound to pesimistic because I am an optimist by nature... But I do worry that as our technological ability advances a large section of the general public remain ignorant, because of their backward religious dogmas. Such technology in the hands of such ignoramuses frightens me.

What is even more disturbing and has been pointed out by Sam Harris, many of these religious fanatics may be unreasonable and ignorant with reference to and because of their religion... But they may still be intelligent enough to build a nuclear weapon, that is what is particularly frightening.

143. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12644 by chbg21808 on December 13, 2006 at 3:56 am

Dara O'Brian was was excellent and obviously a Dawkins fan... Nice to see an interview where individuals are not there to just try and trip Dawkins up.