1601. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64112 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Thor, these metaphysical positions are all reasonable: materialism, naturalism, deism, idealism, brain-in-a-vat-ism.

Theism, or the notion that an interventionist creator God exists, is not reasonable. The onus is on the theist to produce credible evidence for God's interventions in the natural order. No one has done so yet. Belief without evidence isn't rational.

Deism = atheism, for all practical purposes. A God who doesn't intervene is indistinguishable from a God who doesn't exist.

Maybe I'll become a deist, just to throw the theists a curve ball.

1602. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64064 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Thor:

I'd love for someone to prove me wrong, honestly, but at the deepest philosophical level I don't quite see how the assumption that this world and its natural laws are all there is and can be explained and understood by us is entirely falsifiable or verifiable, i.e. testable.

Maybe everthing is:

a) matter and energy, nothing more
b) matter and energy and some other natural phenomenon not yet understood
c) an illusion or dream created by me/God/humankind/combo of beings
d) an illusion created by a mad scientist playing with my brain-in-a-vat
e) some other answer I'm not smart enough to imagine

It hardly matters which metaphysical position you prefer. All the above assume the same phenomenological world, which we study using the scientific method.

Don't let the sneaky theists trick you into thinking metaphysics changes the meaning or role of evidence.

1603. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64056 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Good point J.

I'm sure you've heard, "What would it take to convince you that God exists?"

Having been a believer, I know what's behind this question: the notion that the atheist rejects God, in spite of evidence for God. They say this in church over and over. Repeat an idea often enough, and everyone knows that everyone knows it's true.

The Christians who've asked me this behave as though they don't expect an answer. When I say that the rapture or second coming would be examples of good evidence, they go, "Hmm," and fall silent for several seconds.

I add that I'd settle for less. An up-close visit from an angel or Jesus which others could witness and corroborate would probably do it for me, although I'm not sure the rest of the world would be content with that. Videos can be faked, obviously.

The believer then asserts that he's had experiences that convince him of the reality of God. He means something vague, emotional, and difficult to describe.

So it goes.

1604. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64027 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 11:03 am

Head down, Shemp. You're my favorite stooge. BTW, have you read this: Hearing on Iraq Reconstruction 2-15-07

Corylus, guys in Iraq have blogs, upload stuff to YouTube, watch 24, and so on. Generators and satellite, I reckon.

1605. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64014 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 9:34 am

Each time a Left Behind player kills a UN soldier, their virtual character exclaims, "Praise the Lord!" To win the game, players must kill or convert all the non-believers left behind after the rapture.

Alec, please smack your little brother upside the head.

1606. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #64010 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 9:15 am

I was a kid prone to boredom. I'd have never survived Mass all those Sundays, were it not for the Bible readings that month printed on the missalettes, which were always stuffed in holders behind the pew in front of you.

I'd have preferred a comic book, but the weird stories were better than nothing at all. Usually I didn't bother with the epistles, which offered no plot.

Bad music, bad PA system, endless repetition. Miraculous the show still exists.

1607. A Defense of Atheism

Comment #63997 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 8:00 am

Lime:

I like your new avatar. Turing is somewhat of a hero.

Turing looks touchingly happy in the photo I lifted from Wikipedia.

Gender identity, pair bonding, and sexual behavior tend to correlate, but there's a fair amount of phenotypic variability among humans. Add up all the people who fall somewhere between male-dominant-hetero and female-submissive-hetero - all the homosexuals, bisexuals, cross dressers, male slaves, female doms, nancy boys who fancy girls, tomboy girls who fancy boys, and so on - and you may have a third of the population.

Religion largely shits on all of them. Think of the suffering we could eliminate if we canned religion's claims concerning God's sexual preferences.

1608. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #63985 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 6:47 am

PaulEmecz:

It has nothing to do with God's wants or wishes. It is to do with God's will. What is God's intention or purpose for this universe?

What's the diff between "wants or wishes" and "will, intention, or purpose"? These are all "ought" words, differing only in emphasis or priority.

Our bodies issue a number of oughts, like "thou shalt breathe" and "thou shalt empty thy bladder" and "thou shalt fart" and "thou shalt eat that delicious piece of chocolate cake on the table."

Those around us impose a few oughts like, "thou shalt not fart too close to me."

Our capacity to appreciate long-term consequences introduces oughts: "thou shalt cut out sweets which are making thee fat."

Interest in sustaining cooperative relationships imposes a sense of fairness with its oughts, like "thou shalt not take a second piece of cake until everyone has been served."

Appreciation for how fairness and justice are influenced by the greater social ecology imposes oughts like, "thou shalt advocate for the basic needs of the poor."

Principles of fairness are prioritized above cake. Usually. So justice might be something we "will" while cake might be something we "want."

But this matter of priority doesn't change the essense of my earlier point: asserting "X is something in accord with God's will" might be a true statement about God's will. A bridge is still required from the "is" about God's will to the "oughts" which are the rules we accept for ourselves.

Your tacit bridge: we ought to act according to God's will. Is this correct?

1609. The Out Campaign: Interview with Josh Timonen

Comment #63972 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 5:04 am

Thanks for all your hard work, Josh.

1610. A Defense of Atheism

Comment #63971 by Dr Benway on August 17, 2007 at 4:55 am

There are a lot of Nobel Prize winners who openly profess atheism. Potential for a nice video, like the one done by our friend Zachary Kroger.

1611. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #63932 by Dr Benway on August 16, 2007 at 7:18 pm

bluebird:

Dr. Benway, thanks for suggesting "Primer" (another thread). The Hubby thought it was good, albiet dry.

Yes. There are a lot of button downs and ties worn around necks outside the workplace. The acting is wooden. Scenes are not entirely in focus and the sound quality isn't Hollywood. The plot has loose ends that don't get fixed.

Still, for the sort who like puzzles and games within games, it can hit a nerve. There's a lot of work on the web untangling the plot. Best not to read any of it until after a first viewing.

I like the beginning, the recorded voice speaking to someone - who? - saying:

Here's what's going to happen. I'm going to read this, and you're going to listen, and you're going to stay on the line. And you're not going to interrupt, and you're not going to speak for any reason. Some of this you know. I'm going to start at the top of the page.

Meticulous, yes; methodical, educated - they were these things. Nothing extreme. Like anyone, they varied. There were days of mistakes and laziness and in-fighting. And there were days, good days, when by anyone's judgment they would have to be considered clever. No one would say that what they were doing was complicated. It wouldn't even be considered new, except for maybe in the geological sense. They took from their surroundings what was needed and made of it something more.

I liked the fact that a couple of guys could make a movie on $7000 that could grip me more than many big-budget blockbusters.

1612. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63926 by Dr Benway on August 16, 2007 at 6:50 pm

spiritual1:

No, really, I am an imposter. I just thought these posts are so much more interesting when someone presents wacky ideas.

Ah. Yer but a wee pup. Allow me a word:

You may admit you're trolling, if you do so ironically and with a roll of the eyes. You can pretend disinformation, but on the the whole, you must feign sincerity. Don't admit the game, even if caught with your sockpuppet hanging out your open fly.

Even if Dawkins or Josh comes on here with your IP and your home phone number: deny deny deny. Keep 'em guessing.

I could give you further advice... but then I'd have to kill you.

1613. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63915 by Dr Benway on August 16, 2007 at 5:45 pm

spiritual1:

Well, Roach, it is not up to you. It is up to God. You'll have to live with that.

Says you.

So God's revealed Himself to you but not to me. I wonder why. Are you more lovable? Or perhaps I am more evil and deserving of hell fire?

1614. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63895 by Dr Benway on August 16, 2007 at 3:13 pm

The D's demonstrate that language is indeed a dangerous virus from outer space that invades and controls its host-minds utterly.

These men pop out circular arguments like children blowing bubbles. This seems the kind of guerilla tactic one might expect from desperate men.

1615. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63888 by Dr Benway on August 16, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Lime:

For a while I thought there was an interesting conversation to be had on this thread about the space shuttle; then everyone went insane.

I saw shuttle mock-ups at the Johnson and Kennedy Space Centers. Kinda reminded me of Heath Kits I put together as a kid. The dashboard switches have a Tandy Corp look.

Garage built tech is cool. Ever see the movie Primer? A must see for anyone who likes to putter, tinker, engineer, or invent.

The movie itself is pretty low-tech. I think it cost $7000 US to make.

It messed with my head so bad the first time I watched it, that I immediately had to see it again.

Don't wiki on it until you see it once, at least.

1616. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #63887 by Dr Benway on August 16, 2007 at 2:20 pm

PaulEmecz:

So, if we assume that there was a creator of the universe, who intentionally set it up so that intelligent life would evolve, then we can use observation and reason to work out what moral laws would hold.

It's not that science can't investigate morality without a creator, it's just that without a creator, there would be no OUGHT.

It looks like you mean that God's will (aka purpose) serves as the bridge from "is" to "ought." But I said that before, and you disavowed that position.

Maybe you just haven't thought this through.

1617. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63863 by Dr Benway on August 16, 2007 at 12:56 pm

God Is Apparently Fond Of Capitalization. Perhaps He's German.

steve99:

...I can invent a companion for him...

Godot. He'll be arriving shortly.

1618. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #63856 by Dr Benway on August 16, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Paul,

I don't get how you connect morality to God.

1619. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63764 by Dr Benway on August 15, 2007 at 5:45 pm

baal:

If I had a swear box, it would be rather full and heavy after reading that article.

I have a swear box. When it gets full, I take the money to the store for ice cream and chocolate. So all you shithead cunts can go fuck yourselves. Assholes.

1620. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63725 by Dr Benway on August 15, 2007 at 2:31 pm

IanG:

History suggests that it can get pretty personal.

If my personality comes under serious attack, I'll simply trade it in for a new one. As a Turing machine, it's no problem.

1621. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63692 by Dr Benway on August 15, 2007 at 12:37 pm

IanG:

As I said at the start I don't need to do the interpretation of the article to death, but isn't Steel saying that there appear to be some fundamentalist atheists emerging?

Unfortunately, the author did not give a specific example of some atheist speaking like a fundamentalist. The Tora Bora bit seems a parody of something, but I've no idea what. He says generally:

There's a modern brand of militant atheist that can appear horribly smug and superior.

From context, seems he's talking about Dawkins, Harris, et al, and us lot. We're the "modern brand." We are guilty of putting too much blame upon religion, and failing to appreciate how poverty and imperialism drive conflict.

I appreciate your point about group resistance to individual change. But I'm not sure it applies. This is a battle of ideologies, not personalities.

1622. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63683 by Dr Benway on August 15, 2007 at 11:02 am

My vagina used to look like that before the antibiotics.

1623. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris: The Unholy Trinity ... Thank God.

Comment #63682 by Dr Benway on August 15, 2007 at 10:57 am

Overall a nice article. Shame I must penalize the author a few points for using the word "trinity" eight times. I'm afraid three is the max allowed.

The curious thing about Dennett, Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens: each apparently began work upon books challenging religion independently. Independent sources suggest a general zeitgeist shift, meaning many people are thinking through the problem of religion in similar ways.

Critics of the "new atheists" like to boil things down to one source. For example, we hear "Dawkins and his followers." Or Harris and Hitchens are "riding Dawkins' coat-tails" (never mind that Harris' book was out first).

Several independent sources are more difficult to ignore than a single source.

I don't mind the "musketeers" or "trinity" thing, so long as it doesn't overshadow the independence of these works.

This unholy trinity is the rising voice of over ten percent of Americans who identify themselves as atheists (closeted or otherwise) who are mad as heck—we don't believe in hell—and who aren't going to take it anymore.

For the record, I do not believe in heck.

1624. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63677 by Dr Benway on August 15, 2007 at 10:16 am

Do the people of Tora Bora require Amazon? The message is so simple, it hardly needs a book:

Let's admit that evidence is better than faith, which is a bit like guessing.

It's been traditional to avoid examination and criticism of ideas based upon faith. But that can't continue in this world of global communication and travel. People with radically antagonistic faiths are now shoulder to shoulder. For the sake of peace, ideas based upon faith must be subject to our collective need for corroborative evidence.

1625. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63653 by Dr Benway on August 15, 2007 at 8:16 am

Because it's not ideas that drive actions such as these, it's circumstances.

Circumstances, and ideas about those circumstances. The ideas remain important. Getting the ideas straight is a necessary but insufficient condition for peace.

I am worried about the frequent attacks upon the style or personality of atheists - the accusations of being smug, superior, elitist, fundamentalist, narrow minded, and so on. It's not my ego I'm worried about. I'm not so thinned skin that I take offense at general digs in the media made by people who know nothing about me.

I'm most worried by how these comments trivialize the arguments put forward now by atheists. It's a fact of human psychology, that you can ignore a message once you've shot the messenger. Works like a charm most of the time.

1626. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #63554 by Dr Benway on August 14, 2007 at 7:22 pm

PaulEmecz:

Did I say we ought to do what God wants, that whatever God wants is good? That's not the point ...

So if God's will or preference or whatever is irrelevant to morality... I don't get how you relate God to morality.

1627. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63485 by Dr Benway on August 14, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Hey Zakie Chan,

Just wanted to say, your atheism video on YouTube is great.

/offtopic

1628. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63471 by Dr Benway on August 14, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Richard Dawkins:

Then demand to know why the Channel 4 people responsible for the documentary were threatened with prosecution when they should have been given medals.

To borrow from Deep Throat: Follow the money.

1629. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63466 by Dr Benway on August 14, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Yet more government spending on homeopathy, per Bob Park's column:

8-10-07: THE MEMORY OF WATER: EARMARK FOR "INFORMATION BIOLOGY." I'm told the defense spending bill earmarks $2 million for the Samueli Institute for Information Biology. Its Director Wayne Jonas, is author of Healing with Homeopathy. Jonas believes water remembers the stuff you diluted away. My water comes from the Potomac River; I would prefer that it not remember.

darwin2:

You must be talking about your own claims and beliefs. I've seen this type of psychological projection many times in my life. You have my deepest sympathy.

I'm rubber. You are glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

1630. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63451 by Dr Benway on August 14, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Russell Blackford:

I also have to say, yet again, that I'm not very impressed by the moderate-religionists-enable-extreme-religionists thesis. I'm not saying there's nothing in it at all, but I think that extreme religionists are enabled by lots of people, and not necessarily more by religious moderates than by a lot of misguided secularists of various kinds.

I don't find it helpful to talk about people enabling extremism so much as positions or arguments enabling extremism. Defense of faith as a basis for belief does enable extremism.

Of course a lot of religious content is pro-social. For the sake of argument, let's say it's all good or "moderate."

But look at the basis beneath this content: something called "faith" which isn't much more than gut feeling, guessing, emotion, wishing, and so on. The positive social halo around the words "faith" and "religion" seem to elevate this basis to something more than the elastic thing it is.

Even if religious content were all good today, it would only be a matter of time before that changed just a little somewhere. A clever politician can manipulate faith-based notions to suit anti-social objectives. Every positive assertion implies a negative. "God loves X" implies "God hates X-opposite." That's a hair from "death to x-opposite."

Misguided secularists make the mistake of looking at content rather than basis. They see the positive teaching in a lot of religions and they want to support that. It would be better if they appreciated that we can have pro-social values without religion, and so avoid the problem of faith.

Moderates uphold faith and misdirect the conversation from basis to content. If moderates would openly say that uncertainty is preferable to faith, because uncertainty is honest and it leaves room for revision of content, I'd have no problem with them.

1631. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63442 by Dr Benway on August 14, 2007 at 6:49 am

AdrianB:

It must be remembered that most of the undercover reporting was done by a brave young Muslim chap, obviously keen to expose what is happening in his community.

Hope he's given a new identity and residence, and a nice financial cushion. Hope his family are safe.

1632. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63439 by Dr Benway on August 14, 2007 at 6:17 am

I am a simulation running on a virtual reality machine I like to call "my brain." You all are sims represented there.

My particular machine is of good quality. You all ought to feel pleased at how subtle and interesting each of you appears within it.

Occasionally this machine runs Beer 2.0, and many of you start talking like dimwits in need of a boot to the head, sorry to say.

1633. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63189 by Dr Benway on August 13, 2007 at 1:02 pm

darwin2:

When I use the phrase "quite spiritual," I mean I believe in One God, the Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe. I believe I have an eternal soul. I believe God has a purpose for creating my eternal soul. And, I believe my eternal soul survives the death of my body.

But, according to a later post, you give this only a 50% chance of being true. However you sound entirely convinced that:

Most of the dogmas of organized religion like original sin, redemption, the existence of the devil and eternal damnation are superstitious, ridiculous, illogical and evil.

I must point out that the happy claim that life continues after death and the less happy claims about sin and hell share the same basis - that is, all these notions were pulled from someone's ass.

Sure, sometimes you reach up your butt and out comes a cute, fuzzy puppy. But other times you get honor killings and clitorectomies.

For everyone's sake, just say "no" to procto-epistemology.

1634. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #63169 by Dr Benway on August 13, 2007 at 10:46 am

PaulEmecz:

I do think some moral propositions are objectively true.

Paul, you are a broken record going round and round. Yet one more time:

You claim that some ethical imperatives are "objective." Yet you are aware that we can't derive imperatives from objective facts - the old "is/ought" problem.

You seem to believe that if we can determine God's wishes, the is/ought problem is solved. If God is against murder, murder becomes "objectively" wrong. But don't you see that you still need a bridge from the "is" concerning God's will to the "ought" of the rules we accept for ourselves?

Your apparent bridge: we ought to do what God wants. Well, why is that?

Because God is big and powerful? Same might be said for a mafia don.
Because God will torture us if we don't do as He commands? Same might be said for Uday Hussein.
Because we'll be cast from His loving presence? Same might be said for a manipulative lover.

So why?

1635. Another Flea is Born

Comment #63161 by Dr Benway on August 13, 2007 at 10:03 am

dunamis7:

In the late 70's, I was entering that German atrocity, kindergarten. Now I am about to brave another German atrocity, the Ph.D.

Probably best we don't discuss German atrocities. But maybe now we know why Hitler didn't make the cover.

I've a co-worker from Berlin. I'm cultivating a friendship so she'll travel with me and my mate to Germany, maybe Oktoberfest next year. I want to see those castles.

1636. Another Flea is Born

Comment #63154 by Dr Benway on August 13, 2007 at 9:24 am

...so please, once you've read it, let them fly.

You starry-eyed optimist, you!

Last time I bumped into the word "dunamis" was late 1970s, Darby England. Name of a Christian band travelling around Britain playing pubs and churches. Nice people.

Weird how that church sign generator can buff up preadolescent jokes to something greater. I typed in "I like poop!" then "bite me." No way I should have laughed at that. And yet I did.

1637. The Out Campaign

Comment #63135 by Dr Benway on August 13, 2007 at 7:56 am

Northern Bright:

Whether or not their claim that they're only seeking to use peaceful methods is genuine or just tactical…

The "Caliphate by peaceful means" notion illustrates a common strategy: teach the ambiguity. Cherry pick for the crowd that happens to be in front of you.

Quote the Sura that says, "there can be no compulsion in religion" to the kuffar; rant about how all shall bow before Islam with your fellow believers.

Deny that you believe in a literal virgin birth when debating Hitchens, but speak of "the blessed virgin" at church.

In the company of atheists, say that Christ teaches us to love one another, including homosexuals. Then speak out against civil union or marriage for gay people with fellow Christians.

Wafflers don't like being nailed down. So nail 'em down! Say "Put it in writing."

When they claim that their religious group repudiates some unpleasant written doctrine or scripture, ask to see a specific, published statement of disavowal from the leadership of their group.

If people say something like, "although the Church teaches that abortion is wrong, I personally think its okay sometimes," ask what would happen if they were to publish a letter to the editor of their newspaper explaining their opposition to the doctrine. Challenge them to go on public record as rejecting the bad doctrine. Say that you can't take seriously their feeling of rejection without evidence of public action.

Religions with published doctrines are like ideologies or political platforms. People ought to feel responsible for their organization's stated values and objectives.

For too long we've looked the other way while religious groups promote ideas contrary to universal human rights. We've not held them to the same standard we hold other political groups. We've not insisted they work through their apparent contradictions and ambiguities.

"Put it in writing" has a sub-text: doctrine = politics.

1638. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62973 by Dr Benway on August 12, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Now the origin of our heuristics and intuitions is amendable to scientific study but knowing the biological and computational origins of our heuristics doesn't tell us anything about how to apply them effectively, this is a separate kind of knowledge in and of itself mostly gain through the unconscious process of experience.

Agreed. Saying that one must translate first person date into third person data in order to study it scientifically doesn't mean first person data isn't of value to an individual.

Where many people appear to share the same subjective experiences, communication is relatively easy and negotiations can be straight forward. But where people disagree, things are more difficult. One roommate loves country, another rock 'n roll. Maybe they can agree to disagree, and allow some time for each to command the stereo.

But what if one party elevates first person data to third person status? Rock music isn't just bad, it's bad for your health. It will corrupt your morals and drive you to drugs. Clearly, there won't be much room for negotiation with a person who holds beliefs like these.

Third person data is meaningful to all of us and drives our laws and social policies. First person data doesn't hold that kind of social clout. So it's important not to allow first person data to masquerade as third person data.

1639. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62971 by Dr Benway on August 12, 2007 at 4:50 pm

dianalake:

What also amazes me about Atheists is that they attack beliefs without ever properly studying them; how many have ever read the Bible with an open mind?

Have you read the sacred teachings of the many religions you reject? Finished the Qu'ran? The Book of Mormon? The Confucian Canon? The I Ching? The Vedas? The Jaina Sutras? Taken some Scientology courses?

Why are you allowed to reject a religion without reading its holy writ, while we are not?

1640. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62946 by Dr Benway on August 12, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Northern Bright:

LOL, IanG - you've missed your way in life - you'd have made a great vicar! :-)))

Or he could be the "good cop." Or an ER doc. He's inuitively grasped the "want a sandwich?" intervention.

When dealing with a potentially violent lunatic in the ER, after introducing yourself, say something like, "I know you've been waiting a while; maybe you're hungry. Would you like a sandwich?"

"The sandwich" is a good tool to have in one's toolbox. Especially when dealing with those super wonderful people totally deserving of our highest esteem.

1641. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62923 by Dr Benway on August 12, 2007 at 10:28 am

magetoo:

(The walk will have to wait until the weather improves.)

You and Mr. Lynch sure are fond of parentheticals.

1642. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62915 by Dr Benway on August 12, 2007 at 9:54 am

Arguing with people on the Internet is like competing in the Special Olympics: you might win, but you're still retarded.

1643. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62911 by Dr Benway on August 12, 2007 at 9:28 am

magetoo:

Remember the title "Root of all evil?". It's all a part of selling your opinion, of making people read it in the first place.

Man bites dog. The temptation to sensationalize is why journalists so often disappoint.

I do sympathize with the problem of competing for attention among the rapid-fire, high stim, mass media meme-plex. Most journalists do value objectivity. But shock out-competes measured prose, and over time natural selection will favor those with more flexible standards.

The problem of balanced journalism in a sea of sensationalism reminds me of the problem of fuel efficient cars. Everyone wants manufacturers to create lighter vehicles with better gas mileage. But when surrounded by large SUVs, people don't feel safe in small cars. So they don't buy them.

What's needed is more talk about journalistic integrity, why it's important, and more criticism by journalists of their fellows for hack writing. When no one can comfortably indulge in goosing up a story for sake of sales, journalists in general will enjoy their jobs more, and the ground of democracy will feel more firm beneath us.

Feel annoyed all you want. But pouring scorn on people who criticize you in public, and then getting upset by being called "militant" is stupid. (Yes, I know you didn't do that in this comment thread.)

You're on the verge of an important self-insight. There may yet be hope.

Yes, I probably should. I just wanted to get a comment on the general tone in there.

The prognosis looks good. A woolectomy is likely all that's required here.

1644. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62899 by Dr Benway on August 12, 2007 at 8:30 am

magetoo:

But then again, judging by some of the comments perhaps it's not so far from the truth. For all the talk about how everything should be open to criticism, you guys (who are posting comments on this site) sure get annoyed when someone does not agree completely with your worldview.

Perhaps I missed the memo. Are human beings not supposed to feel annoyed now? Or maybe it's just the atheists who aren't allowed the pleasure. Does lack of belief in God require a sunny disposition in the face of idiocy?

Ridicule is pro-social and progressive. By using words, we don't have to actually whack people with a tire iron.

This "you guys" is strange. Responses here are from independent parties. If you want to argue against something posted, quote the bit of interest and respond to it specifically. It's rather masochistic to generally and vaguely disparage the people posting comments here.

By the way, what is my worldview, and with which part do you or Mr. Lynch above disagree?

1645. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62876 by Dr Benway on August 12, 2007 at 6:36 am

Thanks for linking this article with the previous one, Corylus. This is the bloke who felt he wasn't getting enough publicity, the self-described "Cinderella." He's no doubt getting some attention from those with a belief in belief, which he must find warming.

I like sociology. Group behavior is not easy to predict, and any attempt to see patterns in social change is generally fascinating.

If Gordon Lynch seemed genuinely curious about the recent popularity of atheist books, the objectives of an emerging atheist campaign, and the personal and social forces driving the expression of faith criticism, I'd love to read what he has to say.

But I see language designed to provoke annoyed responses from atheists. Note the title: "Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist." This is like calling your little brother a poop head. You're not gonna get a hug in response.

Note also the fear mongering in "threaten the fragile cohesion of our societies." The author is seeking a reaction. He's poking the tiger with a pointy stick to watch it growl. I think we can count on him to feign anxiety later, as he describes the shocking rudeness of the "new atheists."

Mr. Lynch isn't here for an argument, but for abuse (actually just down the hall). Tit for tat, being the most rational social strategy, guarantees he won't leave our company disappointed.

What's to be done with such attention-hungry idiots, the ones who provoke contempt then play the victim? I think we can name them. We can let them know that we're on to their game.

Social science research requires at least some objectivity. It's not compatible with self-promoting hackery.

1646. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62839 by Dr Benway on August 11, 2007 at 7:43 pm

...future conflict between militant atheists and religious conservatives may have the rest of us ducking in the crossfire.

Hey, keep straight which side started this thing.

If you didn't notice the bullets coming directly at you the past few years, you must not be gay, or female, or trying to teach high school biology. You're probably not a research scientist. No doubt you don't know any Muslim apostates. And you probably weren't in New York on 9/11. Or London on 7/7. Or Glasgow on 6/30. Or Madrid 3/11/04.

Shame on you for equating the passion of those on the side of secularism with the fanaticism of the believers. Secularists are not calling for forceful suppression or elimination of religion or other nonsense ideas. Secularists simply want to be free from government intrusion, coercion, and taxation, for the sake of stupid, unproven supernaturalist notions.

Why is this straight-forward, explicit objective given such a fearful spin? Isn't secularism worth defending?

1647. Dissing Deism

Comment #62643 by Dr Benway on August 10, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Thwarting theism.
Thwacking theism.

1648. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62635 by Dr Benway on August 10, 2007 at 1:47 pm

USA_Limey:

I hope you had a good cream for that!

O All Seeing Eye that knowth not the scurvy but who knoweth the delicious taste of Pure Evil:

I pray you tempt not the titmouse, who weareth the raiment of David Jones wearing the raiment of David Bowie pretending to be not Ziggy Startdust, nor the Thin White Duke, nor Halloween Jack, but a more subtle character who is also known as David Bowie - but that be neither here nor there;

Anyway, tempt not the wee tit to internecine teasing. We have company today and are trying to be on our best. The bloke here knew John Diamond and, as it happens, AJ Ayer was his step-dad. There are likely other importances, and I presume some are not yet dead.

T'would be too easy for the tit to cross that line into the realm of awkward twingy-cringy, and thereby provoke a large and unattractive disclaimer about views herein being the posters alone and in no way are reflective of Professor Dawkins' own opinions.

I shall email you Visine for the redness.

1649. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #62627 by Dr Benway on August 10, 2007 at 12:56 pm

stephencarrwork:

He also claims that Dawkins says... that theists are 'not intelligent enough to debate with'.

Robertson needs another hobby. Stalking Dawkins isn't healthy.

Roberston allegedly feels Dawkins is not debating with him out of arrogance. So what? Why not move on?

Robertson ought to call Hitchens, who seems willing to debate a number of believers.

1650. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62625 by Dr Benway on August 10, 2007 at 12:32 pm

So has some new scripture been found then saying DOG got it wrong first time round and here is his new idea for Hell?

So it would appear, Jiten.

This article is the 87th to claim that no one believes the nonsense attacked in TGD.

I say, then get rid of the nonsense by disavowing it in writing. Since no one believes it, no one will miss it.

What's needed is a published statement from religious authorities explaining that the Bible or Qu'ran is of historical and literary interest, but is no more the Word of God than Shakespeare. Give us that, and the heat is off.

Put it in writing, bub. Else yer pants may catch fire.

Meanwhile...

I will poke fun at the faithful AND the closet atheists pretending belief in belief. The believers annoy me, but the pseudo-believers give me a nasty rash.