151. The problem with secularism

Comment #14589 by John Phillips on December 23, 2006 at 2:59 pm

Can someone please confirm for me that it is still December and I haven't been asleep for a few months and woken up on April 1st.

152. Reply to a Christian

Comment #13869 by John Phillips on December 19, 2006 at 10:14 pm

I think the argument that Sam Harris is making though obviously not clear enough for many here, is that if the bible really is the word of god one would expect there to be more clarity, not forgetting the myriad contradictions to be found in it. He used mathematics as one example, especially as one of the only pieces of maths in it, i.e. pi=3, is so obviously flawed, even more so when the actual value of pi was already known with some accuracy prior to the bible being written but perhaps not known by the humans writing the relevant verses. As to Nick's interpretation of this as being rounded to the nearest cubit, I simply find this rationalisation after the fact.

As to other questions Sam Harris raises, such as prophecies, again the point is why are the ones that are made so lacking in clarity with none that actually match the reality of the world since. As one would assume that it would be simple for a god to phrase them in such a manner that both the society in existence at the time as well as future societies could understand them. Yet all we find in prophecies is at the best obfuscatory, a method we know that humans have practised for millenia, and still do, to try and increase their prominence in the eyes of their followers.

As to Nicks proof or evidence based on history, using this argument perhaps one could argue that islam is more likely true than xtianity. As we know that Mohamed did actually exist and that he did carry out many of the actions credited to him. This is in comparison to a number of contradictory tales written at least a hundred years after his supposed existence about Jesus. Not that I make any claims for islam based on this distinction as I look at the evidence for both religions and find it wanting, to put it mildly.

The problem from my point of view with both religion, as well as others, is that however you argue it, without faith there is no religious belief. For Nick may try to define faith any way he likes, but many important religious people have essentially said faith is belief without rational evidence and make a great virtue of belief based on faith. E.g. St. Augustine said "Faith is to believe what we do not see; and the reward of this faith is to see what we believe", sounds delusional to me, but then I am picky like that and St. Thomas Aquinas said "Faith has to do with things that are not seen". Thus if there was rational evidence, i.e. the things unseen could be seen, there would be no need for faith as the seeing would be the evidence.

Therefore, until someone actually provides more than hearsay to support the existence of a god or gods then I shall remain an atheist. However, that is the difference between the atheist and the believer, the believer is happy with belief based on, what we see as simply no more than hearsay, whereas the atheist requires actual evidence and on presentation of such evidence would change their position. Tell me, what would change the mind of the believer?

153. Talk in Class Turns to God, Setting Off Public Debate on Rights

Comment #13859 by John Phillips on December 19, 2006 at 8:12 pm

Once again we have the believers of this oh so peaceful, compassionate and merciful religion, well that's what they keep telling us, threaten those who differ with death. I couldn't write a better black comedy sketch portraying xtians as intolerant if I tried.

154. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13857 by John Phillips on December 19, 2006 at 7:38 pm

Most of the points I wanted to make about this intellectually challenged program have already been more than well covered by others on this thread. However, the one thing that constantly annoys me is the assertion that without religion there would be no morality and that morality is derived from religion instead of the true position that religion co opted existing morality for their own end, usually with a nasty twist in the tail for those outside the so called fold. After all, what we today regard as morality is simply an expression of the selfish gene writ large, where cooperation has proved more conducive to the survival of the gene than conflict.

Then again, we mustn't forget from his days as a Radio Four news editor that scooping other media outlets and giving the government a kicking was more important than checking a story's veracity, as he openly admitted over the Dr. Kelly and Gilligan affair. Thus perhaps his apparent mendacity in this program should not be that surprising. By the way, if someone thinks that the previous couple of sentences are an ad hominem attack against Liddle it is not, simply an attempt to put into persepctive the apparent import he gives, or rather doesn't, to truth, apparently seeing it as less important than the message. Hmm, that tactic sounds familiar, oh silly me, I know, sounds much like believers twisting and turning against all logic to rationalise their beliefs.

155. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #13576 by John Phillips on December 18, 2006 at 1:53 pm

Laurence Boyce post 13571: I think you just described Ron Liddle's program tonight on C4 perfectly. I.e. We question the believers rationale so we must be fundamentalist.

156. Day 1: Is God Still Necessary?

Comment #13567 by John Phillips on December 18, 2006 at 12:30 pm

Vardu: But it's not fair enough, for while it might possibly be true that some atheists would be lost if there was no believers to castigate, the majority of us would simply give a huge sigh of relief and get on with living our lives without having to worry about our lives and our world being affected by the influence of the irrational religites. For as you no doubt know, we only pick, so to speak, on the believers and their irrational beliefs because of the very real dangers they pose us all.

157. Day 1: Is God Still Necessary?

Comment #13553 by John Phillips on December 18, 2006 at 10:35 am

Excellent article and another one sees the light :) Unfortunately it will probsably be dismissed by those who need to listen the most. Now if we could only get a prominent right wing xtian to post such an article we might have a chance. Though even then, their fellow fundies are probably only going to say that they have been seduced by the devil or similar rubbish. But at least the article adds to the overall growing zeitgeist, brick by tiny brick.

158. Atheist Chic

Comment #13480 by John Phillips on December 18, 2006 at 12:46 am

Strange isn't it, even self professed atheists say that we must be nice to the believers when many of those same believers have no problem describing us pejoratively as godless or worse. Such as the US president who stated that atheists should not be considered as citizens or patriots and where atheist veterans have been actively discriminated against by some public officials.

Yet we are constantly told we must be tolerant of the intolerant. Sorry, it doesn't compute and it is long past time that it was made clear that being tolerant of intolerant believers only strengthens their hand and weakens ours if we simply sit in the shadows whispering about the irrationality of it all but afraid to upset the irrational. We need people like RD prepared to shout it from the rooftops so that all can hear, whether they like it or not. As I have heard too many fundamentalist xtians and muslims state that they use our very tolerance as a weapon against us. Though when we are called intolerant it is only because we make a clarion call for rational thought while their intolerance can often be dangerous, either socially or literally, to their perceived enemies.

When they treat us with the same tolerance they demand of us and don't try to affect the way I live by using their influence to promote faith based laws and faith based education in science then I will leave them to their delusions. Until then I will continue to oppose them at every turn, but by rational argument and the ballot box, not by violence as is often their want.

Merry xmas to one and all, even the believers among us, though I would ask that you believers actually live by the tenets of what you so often claim is a peaceful and compassionate religion. If you actually did that you would find that us atheist might tut tut at your irrationality but we would largely let you get on with it.

159. Intelligent Design packets

Comment #13215 by John Phillips on December 16, 2006 at 8:28 am

A so called botanist believes there is good evidence to dispute The Theory Of Evolution. Fine, show us the peer reviewed evidence rather than opinion based on belief and we will listen. Until then, keep out of the science classroom and get back to church. To parapahrase, don't you preach in our science class and we won't teach in your church.

160. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13212 by John Phillips on December 16, 2006 at 7:59 am

Citizen of Earth said: So do not stop me because of my age, I am not indoctrinated, I am returning fire.

Fire away and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and likewise deny all the irrational symbols of all religions, though I am well, well past my youth, at least in body :)

161. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12990 by John Phillips on December 14, 2006 at 11:53 pm

Just one point, the British Airways issue wasn't about her not being allowed to wear a cross but was a standard condition of employment about staff not wearing visible jewelry. The woman involved made it out to be about religious symbols and the knee jerk right wing yahoos in the UK jumped on the bandwagon and misrepresented the whole issue.

162. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12975 by John Phillips on December 14, 2006 at 6:10 pm

Actualy, the creed of RD and most atheists I know is the very opposite of me, me, me, as we do what others might consider good or the right thing because it is logical to do so and makes it better for all. Conversely, it is the believer who has the creed of me, me, me, for one of the reasons many believe is that they will be rewarded or punished in their afterlife depending on how they act now. Is that not more selfish than the atheist who does the 'right' thing because it is logical to do so and not because of some Damoclean sword hangin over them.

163. Science Weekly for December 11: Creationism special

Comment #12966 by John Phillips on December 14, 2006 at 4:54 pm

Unfortunately, it is not that surprising that many of those teaching biology in UK state schools have a problem understanding evolution, even though the basic idea behind the Theory of Evolution is wondrously simple, as far too many don't even have more than a basic qualification in the subject they are teaching, if that.

Sadly, this is true across the whole UK state secondary school science curriculum.

164. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

Comment #12816 by John Phillips on December 14, 2006 at 12:49 am

I must admit that this is not only one of the best rebuttals, well more like death blows really, of ID I have ever seen, but done in such a fashion as to leave no doubt as to the primacy of the Theory of Evolution.

I initially intended just to dip an and out to get a flavour of the lecture but without realising it two hours has past and I am now writing this in appreciation of a brilliant speaker.

As Nazgul has mentioned, after listening to Miller, I also believe that he is either simply a cultural catholic or one whose belief is a personal and private matter not to be foisted on others. His disdain for those involved in ID as well as their tactics was palpable. If there must be theists in the world let them be like him.

165. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12750 by John Phillips on December 13, 2006 at 2:59 pm

"One way to avoid permanent misery is not to demand more of life than it can yield."

A counsel of despair and rather depressing, then again, considering his remark about 10% being on anti depressants, perhaps his problem is that he is one of the 10% and explains his apparent despair. It is also redolent of the very conservative with a small c school of thought of 'knowing your place in society and staying there'. Unfortunately, those who espouse such a depressing counsel apparently fail to realise that if the majority had such an outlook we would still be living in caves cowering at the dark, figuratively speaking at least. It also reminds me of those who argue against wasting resources on any process or progress that isn't immediately a 100% successful without understanding that rarely is any process or progress a 100% perfect from the off. It appears that he is another who concentrates on the negatives in any progress, technological at least. Yet contradicts himself when noting that the most apparent moral progress has largely been in the more technologically advanced societies. Societies, that with the exception of the US, have largely forgone active religiosity.

166. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12533 by John Phillips on December 12, 2006 at 12:28 pm

No Billy, Dr. Who dropped in and loaned them the tardis, ater all he is a time lord, though he had to widen the doors a bit :). It makes at least as much sense as any BS they come up with.

167. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12230 by John Phillips on December 11, 2006 at 11:02 am

My answer to a God if one appeared to judge me would be the same as it has been to bullies all my life, do your worse you piss poor excuse for a being.

168. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12219 by John Phillips on December 11, 2006 at 9:58 am

For those interested, today I e-mailed Melvyn Bragg (Leeds chancellor) via his university secretary about my dismay at the university employing a so called academic who plays so fast and loose with a field that is apparently his expertise. Who is openly willing to deliberately lie, I can't think of any other word, about the second law in promotion of his beliefs. Either that or he is so deluded that he should be considered certifiable, except of course that religiously based delusion is the one form of delusion that society finds acceptable and largely beyond reproach. As Bragg is someone I have respect for as a thinker it will be interesting to see if I get any real response beyond the usual form letter, assuming he ever gets to see it of course.

169. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12151 by John Phillips on December 10, 2006 at 10:51 pm

Yorker and Billy, it has happened to me a few times. What I find best now is that if it is a while since I logged in or posted something I either type it up in notepad, which I keep open alongside, and then log out and back in before copying and pasting and submitting it.

Having copies of my posts in notepad also makes it easier to keep track of posts and replies as I will copy and paste a post I am replying to in the same note so that I can see the flow of the conversation.

Or if it is a fairly short post log out and back in and then type my post and submit it immediately. Since doing that I haven't lost a single post.

Or the last option is to copy your post before you submit it so that if it doesn't appear you can log out, log back in and paste it to resubmit immediately.

170. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #12092 by John Phillips on December 10, 2006 at 2:04 pm

Martha: We couldn't possibly make that same mistake again, now could we!!!

Unfortunately, we only have to look at the spoutings of many of todays so called religious leaders of the world's most powerful religions to know that if left to them then it is not only possible but probable that we will make the same mistakes. Witness the catholic's church stance on AIDS and condoms in third world countries as a rather frightening and evil (and I use the world deliberately) example of such.

171. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #12029 by John Phillips on December 9, 2006 at 12:04 pm

So let me get this right, according to Little, our moral compass as defined by relgion hasn't changed in 2000 years. Great, so I can sell my daughter, keep slaves and beat them close to death as long as I don't actually kill them, after all they are my property, etc. etc. Somehow, for all its, faults this is not the world I live in.

In reality, the fact that our moral compass has changed so much in the last 2000 years has happened in spite of religion more often than not and not because of it, as the established religions have nearly invariably been on the side of the status quo. In fact, whenever a religion, or more accuarately a reinterpretation has caused some kind of social change, or even simply threatened one, it has always been attacked by the established churches as a heresy and often put down with extreme ruthlessness. If such religions are to be our moral compass for the next 2000 years then we really are in deep deep trouble.

172. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12028 by John Phillips on December 9, 2006 at 11:56 am

Shaun, I am late to the discussion but two points for now. With regards to the theory of evolution in particular, but is true of all branches of science. Science works by someone hypothesising about something. They then research the subject through observation, experiment and theorising. eventually they will arrive at an answer one way or another. Other scientists will then often try to falsify the original researchers results and if they can't it will eventually be accepted as accurate about that subject. If they can then the theory is discarded. Where there are disagreements it simply means that there is insufficient evidence to make a call one way or another, at least as yet. This is much the position with the Theory of Evolution in that the vast majority of evolutionary scientist agree that the basic theory is accurate but that there are details that are as yet undiscovered. However, nowhere is it necessary to propose a supernatural mechanism for what is as yet unknown and some of which may never be known.

However, conversely, unlike disagreements between scientists about various details in say the theory of evolution where it is because as yet we don't have sufficient knowledge, the difference between different religions, even different sects of the same basic religion, is all about how one group interprets their holy book over another and the only answer to such disagreements is to have faith that one interpretation or another is the correct one. No falsifiability, simply I (some religious leader) say it is so and if you belong to my sect or religion you will accept what I say, oh and by the way, ignore every contradiction in the holy book as it only means something if I say it means something and don't go interpreting it your self or I will call you heretic. And being declared a heretic can still be very literally fatal, as it has been down the ages. The complete opposite of how science works where to simply accept without questioning is considered the true heresy.

As to Newton, while Newton was a true genius when it came to optics, calculus etc., he was as loony as they come in other areas. For one thing he believed in Alchemy, Spiritualism et al. None of which belies his contribution as one of the greatest scientific thinkers the world has ever known but does put into context his world view. Not forgetting of course that belief in god was the norm in his day so it is not too surprising that he would believe in a creator, so claiming him as a supporter is not that smart a move, unlike his science which is correct within certain bounds, i.e. Newtonian physics being a subset of modern physics.

173. The real reasons to hate the Pope

Comment #10941 by John Phillips on December 1, 2006 at 2:19 pm

Typo: My sentence should have said: I don't think that Hari himself is saying that we should hate the pope but for those that do there are real reasons far more important than some perceived insult to muslims.

I.e. There was a superfluous 'not' reversnig the meaning.

174. The real reasons to hate the Pope

Comment #10940 by John Phillips on December 1, 2006 at 2:15 pm

While Johann Hari's (by the way, Hari not Harris, possibly some posters are getting confused with Sam Harris) title is contentious I think many are missing the point of the article. I don't think that Hari himself is not saying that we should hate the pope but for those that do there are real reasons far more important than some perceived insult to muslims. Such as the churches morally objectionable stance and teaching on condoms and it's affect on AIDS infection, it's attitudes to people's sexuality and the attempted irrational blending of science with belief in an attempt to shore up the increasingly irrational position it finds itself in. Though on the AIDS and condoms issue, using the churches own concept of good and evil I would consider their actions on condoms with regards to AIDS real evil. Of course, Hari is not expecting rationality from the religious but is only highlighting the increasing irrationality of all religions, or in deference to the Taoists amongst us :), mainly the Abrahamic ones, which are the ones with the real power and who have no compunction in wielding it after all.

175. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10924 by John Phillips on December 1, 2006 at 2:17 pm

Dan, where you go wrong, IMO at least, is that you don't understand that atheists have no problem with saying we don't know about certain things and don't need to posit a god to cover what we don't know. Especially with no evidence for one, at least none we can accept rationally. If we believe in anything it is that the scientific method has so far proven the best method in describing our universe and it is not yet finished doing so. Though unlike religious belief, there is no faith involved only acceptance of what has withstood proper scientific scrutiny. Whether there will be areas that science will never be able to explain, we simply say we don't know, at least not yet. But it is early days so far and it is not yet possible to say one way or the other whether there will be areas we can't explain and it may never be. Atheists are OK with that viewpoint, though it doesn't stop us continuing with our search through the scientific method. After all, it is our curiosity that has brought us this far and our very curiosity might well partly explain the positing of a supernatural creator to cope with the need to know before we had the tools, i.e. the scientific method, we now have to investigate the universe.

176. The end of one law for all?

Comment #10912 by John Phillips on December 1, 2006 at 12:01 pm

Please people, do read it fully, for while I agree that there are many questionable aspects of multiculturalism, this is not of one of them. English common law already allows for disputes to be handled outside the judicial system as long as ALL the participants agree and it doesn't try to override the judiciary in criminal cases. As to the Somali example, paying compensation for injury and even death is the norm in many muslim countries usually alongside or part of a judicial sentence. The correctness or not of the amount usually being the perogatuve of the victim or their family. The real danger here, is for the disadvantaged in some sections of society, such as muslim women for instance, being forced to participate against their will through cultural or family pressure.

177. Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

Comment #10401 by John Phillips on November 28, 2006 at 3:12 am

Aussie and Mads: what a brilliant proposition, I totally agree with you for we could do away with all questions and all education, simply constantly repeat goddidit to all questions. All together now, repeat after me, goddidit, goddidit, godditit ad infinitum. Think of the money we could save, do away with schools, in fact we could do away with everything as well as this fake science thingy, dismissing all we don't like or find inconvenient as the work of the devil and leaving the rest to god. Oh oh, according to the bible, the devil can't do anything without god's permission so goddidit again, even science. Whoops, another contradiction, help my brain hurts, is this how fundamentalist creationists and IDers feel, I almost feel sorry for them, but only almost.

178. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10069 by John Phillips on November 27, 2006 at 2:23 am

Bobbo: I have no problem with teaching about the beliefs of the creationists or IDers as long as it is in a philosophy or religious education class. What I object to is teaching either in science as if they have equal standing with the theory of evolution. In fact, if it was explained honestly and openly in a philosophy class I think that most pupils would have the intellect to see ID for what it really is. I.e. a means to sneak religious indoctrination into science classes as well as leading to a debasement of the scientific method which has and continues to serve us so well.

179. Two who hopped off the faith train

Comment #10038 by John Phillips on November 26, 2006 at 11:43 pm

Maryhelena: While I accord all respect initially, trying to live by a do unto others philosophy, they lose that respect the minute they declare a certain religious stance. I.e. fundamentalism of any kind, for the fundamentalist has no respect for my non belief, in fact, generally portraying the unbeliever as evil is some way. Or if they are feeling really generous, as at best misguided only needing to see the light, as I have had it put so quaintly directly to my face. Part of the problem is that for many believers, simply asking questions about the source of their belief is considered disrespectful. Yet conversely, it is perfectly OK for them, and not only the fundamentalist among them, to ridicule and denigrate those with differrent or no relgious beliefs.

180. Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

Comment #10033 by John Phillips on November 26, 2006 at 11:10 pm

"Yes we shall welcome their use of more 'cognitive' language, provided it its accompanied with more cognitive thought.

Niels "

Now that really would be a first, the use of cognitive thought that is :) So I don't think I'll hold my breath for it's appearance as I only have relatively little left of my one lifetime and I would rather spend it on more productive enterprises.

181. Doubters do it from the pulpit

Comment #9976 by John Phillips on November 26, 2006 at 8:05 pm

So if I read his argument correctly, the true christian is really an agnostic when it comes to belief in god but at the same time relies on faith to bolster that belief. Atheism must be corroding my intellect for this contradiction simply doesn't compute, at least not in any logical manner.

As to RD and those of his ilk, which I consider myself one, when it comes to doubt or being wrong, we generally celebrate it. As usually it opens up new areas in which to ask questions and so increase our knowledge in general. I have learnt far from being proved wrong or making errors than I have ever done from being right. As would be the case if anybody ever produced falsifiable evidence for the existence of god.

Why is it that so many theists fail to understand the scientific method. Is it simply a side effect of blind faith?

182. Our Teapot, which art in heaven

Comment #9967 by John Phillips on November 26, 2006 at 7:38 pm

Rather ironic that a writer in a paper named The Independent claims a correctness for a belief in god based on authority and not evidence.

183. The God Delusion Review

Comment #9766 by John Phillips on November 25, 2006 at 10:50 pm

"Yet the Apocalypse is far more likely to be the product of them than the work of religion. Swap you the Inquisition for chemical warfare."

And how the inquisitors would have loved to have such weapons. After all, it is not scientists who have their fingers on the trigger, but the very politicians influenced by the deluded. How many fundamentalists of both major faiths have stated that they see no wrong and even see a benefit in using them to further their ends.

184. Creation vs. Darwin takes Muslim twist in Turkey

Comment #9765 by John Phillips on November 25, 2006 at 10:36 pm

The problem with an island of our own is that it would make us far too easy a target and I can't see them having any qualms about pressing the big red button to rid themselves of us godless infidels once and for all. Now a planet of our own, especially in a solar system of our own might do the trick and we could always pop back once in a while to see how things are going. We could even start a new spate of UFO sightings with our occasional visits :)

185. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9756 by John Phillips on November 25, 2006 at 9:56 pm

There is no real point in trying to refute his statements as there isn't a single statement worthy of the term argument in any of his posts to Sam Harris. For they all appear to amount to no more than a repetition of I say so, so it must be and even if it isn't you are still wrong, so there. Plus the usual generalised ad hominem against all atheists. The level of debate one would expect from pre-school child.

186. Backlash forces British Airways to review ban on wearing cross

Comment #9573 by John Phillips on November 25, 2006 at 7:11 am

Richard Reid; which is more provocative, to wear a symbol proclaiming your delusional state or one proclaiming the opposite. Of course, in a world where the inmates are apparently running the asylum I suppose one could argue that one should avoid annoying the inmates. But apart from where's the fun in that, don't we have a humanitarian duty as well as a survival imperative to at least attempt to bring about a cure. Especially when considers the deleterious effect religion is continuing to have on this world.

187. Leaders back faith in public life

Comment #9553 by John Phillips on November 25, 2006 at 5:26 am

Of course they are worried, as even with Blair, or perhaps even more so because of him and his support for faith based schools, more and more in the UK are asking why the anglican church, or any religion, should have the special place they have in British politics. After all, not even the US has unelected religious leaders in it's second house with a direct vote on the creating of law, like the UK does, and where the titular head of state, the queen, is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

188. Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

Comment #9541 by John Phillips on November 25, 2006 at 4:29 am

""We've got to start using cognitive language and not just faith language," Moreland exhorted."

I assume by this he means that they have to lie more convincigly using more long scientific sounding words to fool the scientifically illiterate so as to twist everything that science admits it doesn't yet know as proof that we know nothing and must then all be down to their god. It would e funny if it wasn't so tragic.

189. Two who hopped off the faith train

Comment #9487 by John Phillips on November 24, 2006 at 10:37 pm

Maryhelena: While calling it delusion may seem harsh it is that nonetheless, at least in my opinion and based on the evidence. That it may not be wholely the fault of the individual holding such delusional beliefs, largely due to a combination of childhood indoctrination and peer pressure doesn't change that it is delusion. Often in treating a mental health issue, especially those involving delusion, one of the first steps, if not the very first, is accepting that they are delusions and where this acceptance is not forthcoming treatment invariably fails. The difference between the god delusion and what are accepted by most as genuine mental health problems is that the god delusion is not seen as delusion by those who hold it, i.e. the majority. Thus the first step is to confront the source of the delusion by showing that there is no evidence for the basis of the delusion, i.e. no evidence for god or gods, when that is accepted there is a potential for recovery. With children it is even simpler, don't indoctrinate them at an age when they are still dependent on adults, whether their parents or others, for their worldview. If the delusion was harmless there would be no problem with people holding it. Unfortunately, too many with the delusion attack those with either a different god delusion or those with no delusion and additionally try to use it for societal control. In fact, societal control by imposition of their beliefs appears the main focus of particularly, but not exclusively, the most dangerous fundamentalist believers. If those with the god delusion simply kept it on a personal private level there would be no problem however many held it but unfortunately they insist on imposing it on others. Either through a belief they are saving the non believers or those with the wrong belief or by imposing their moral standards on others, often through governmental influence. Even today we see this worldwide, with literal war between totally different belief systems and even between those of the same basic belief system but with variations thereof and is true of both christianity and islam. Look what is happening in Iraq right now with sunni killing shia and vice versa and all because of a differing interpretations by various of their so called prophets. If RD called for such actions against the delusional I would argue vehemently against him but he is not, all he asks for is for humanity to think rationally and to stop the child abuse. Respect has to be earned and unfortunately, too many believers have proven beyond doubt that respect is the last thing they deserve as few actually practice what they preach, espcially those with influence at government level. Again true of both christian and muslim leaders and their followers. If they actually followed the tenets of their faith perhaps we atheists wouldn't have a problem with them. But when we see the ones with religious power continuously practice a do as I say and not a do as I do policy and use their influence to directly affect the way I choose to live then I will see them as the enemies of all humanity's future.

190. Canadian ID Scandal

Comment #9105 by John Phillips on November 23, 2006 at 4:28 pm

No prob Josh, just thought I would save you the bother, at least until you had the the time :)

191. Welcome relief in a world full of superstition

Comment #9104 by John Phillips on November 23, 2006 at 4:26 pm

It seems that more and more rationalists are at last raising their heads above the parapet, a good thing to. If RD's book's only end product is to make it easier for the rationalist to give voice it will have still served a valuable service to humanity.

192. Canadian ID Scandal

Comment #9099 by John Phillips on November 23, 2006 at 4:14 pm

The link to the site above is wrong, missing a "t" and should be;

http://www.humanistperspectives.org/

193. Dawkins hits back

Comment #9084 by John Phillips on November 23, 2006 at 3:42 pm

While this is what I would consider a good review, it shouldn't really be a surprise if you consider the source. I.e. The Morning Star which is a Marxist newspaper and more likely than most to write a favourable review on a book it sees as anti religion. Though the above clarification shouldn't be seen as a criticism.

Here's a link to the article.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index2.php/free/culture/books/dawkins_hits_back

There's even a pdf download link at the bottom of the page.

194. New CFI Office in Washington D.C.

Comment #9050 by John Phillips on November 23, 2006 at 10:27 am

I can't help but feel a certain sadness that such an organisation is even needed in a country like the US but a huge well done and thanks to all those involved, not a moment too soon though. It will be interesting to see how the fundies react to the CFI, especially if the CFI can genuinely mitigate or even negate at least some of their influence.

195. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7709 by John Phillips on November 19, 2006 at 5:54 am

If Richard Dawkins' version of god is the wrong one as far as the catholic church is concerned but most ordinary catholics apparently believe in the type of god described by Richard Dawkins doesn't that beg the question as to what the catholic church has been teaching it's flock all this time. Obviously their teachings must either be very bad if their followers believe in a different one to what the church believes or they have deliberately obfuscated the issue knowing that the average catholic would have no interest in this more distant external god. It appears that the church has one delusion for itself and another for it's followers. Of course, if I was being uncharitable, I might suggest that this was deliberate to ensure continued control and exploitation of their flock.

196. My God Problem

Comment #7614 by John Phillips on November 18, 2006 at 10:17 pm

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

As apposite today as then, simply substitute or add aethist or scientist anywhere in the above quote.

197. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6729 by John Phillips on November 15, 2006 at 12:54 pm

Thanks for the links Billy, I remember reading an article about it a while ago but haven't really looked at it in any detail yet. Only so many hours in a day and I really could do with a minimum 48 hour day. I also noticed later that others like yourself did cover much of what I posted but this thread was such a long one I wanted to get my licks in, so to speak, while I had the time.

I agree with your other point but if they are given the information at least they can't then plead ignorance, what they do with it, well I leave that to them :) But with all the information posted by all about such issues it might just help someone else who is not so sure and might be ambivalent about the complexity argument. So I never consider repeated information or knowledge a problem, as long as it is accurate that is.

John

Robert A. Heinlein:
The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.

198. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6703 by John Phillips on November 15, 2006 at 11:49 am

@Jack Sparrow. Don't know if anyone has answered this yet but as it might take me some time to finish reading this thread I thought I might as well put it in now and apologies if someone has already covered it.

The evolution of the eye is not that strange though wondrous and while Dawkins might have started, by the sound of your argument, from a position whereby he appears to make an assumption about the pre-existence of photo-sensitivity without explaining it fully, he had to start the explanation somewhere and unless he was writing a book purely about evolution there is a point where you have to ask how much detail is enough. Obviously, as your attempted refutation of the argument shows, he didn't go back far enough.

However it probably (note the probably, in case you take issue with the use of the word, thinking of myself somewhat a scientist I generally don't work in absolutes only probabilities) started with a cell that had basic light sensitivity in it's makeup and a range of such single and multi cell organisms have recently been discovered with a photosensitive chemical group that in some cases can be visibly seen to react to light by changing colour. Some types use it to orient themselves toward the light as they use the light partially for energy and other types use this light sensitivity for other survival uses and as a catalyst for other internal processes. Some scientists are studying these organisms to see if the chemicals involved can be used for photochemical power generation. This is not that strange as there are a range of naturally occurring materials with varying degrees of photo-sensitivity, usually releasing an electron when one or more photons interact with them and chemistry is basically the swapping or sharing of electrons. The very chemistry that runs our bodies relies on that basic operation.

We have also found multi-cell organisms that have taken the photo-sensitivity a stage or two further to a very crude eye in the sense that it uses a cluster of such single cells to give greater light sensitivity or greater directional discrimination. There are other organisms that fill in the remaining basic steps of the evolution of the eye. From there it is no great leap to see an evolution to the eye we know in all it's variations, all it needs is time. Thus while evolution might have produced a range of 'eyes' or light receptors for different animals the basic premise behind all of them at root is a photochemical reaction. Furthermore, the photosensitive chemicals in these single cell organisms are directly related to the photosensitive chemicals that are in all types of eyes in the animal kingdom.

Thus while you may try to belittle Dawkins' explanation of the eye, all you are actually doing is showing your ignorance of the subject.
Though to be fair to you, the use of the word ignorance above is not meant as an insult, simply that I would not expect anyone but a scientist or someone with a real interest in the subject to perhaps understand the intricacies of all we know so far about living organisms and how it relates to evolution. Nevertheless, the knowledge is there for anyone prepared to do the research. That is the magic, so to speak, of science, in that what one discovers another can confirm or deny through their own research. Thus while I think that the evolution of the eye, in fact all evolution, is very definitely a wondrous process and never ceases to fill me with awe, even more so as we understand it better and better, it is relatively easily explained with ample examples of all the stages required still visible in a range of living organisms.

199. Losing Our Religion

Comment #6612 by John Phillips on November 15, 2006 at 5:26 am

"These myths you despise so much have been telling us who and what we are for longer than the last 150 years (the time science has expanded nearly incomprehensibly)".


And however well meant as an attempt to explain our universe in the lack of knowledge, incorrectly so for all that time. While science on the other hand, has at last given us a genuine understanding of our universe, albeit incomplete as yet. A myth's longevity has no relation to it's veracity, quite the opposite more often than not. All a myth's longevity often bestows is the difficulty in persuading people to dispose of it when it has passed the sell by date.

200. Is Apple Computer Insulting Islam?

Comment #6579 by John Phillips on November 15, 2006 at 1:59 am

@Norman Doering: While it wouldn't surprise me if this particular case was as you said, you have to remember that we are dealing with a belief system that nowadays finds insults everywhere, particularly from us infidels in the West. Such as the muslims who were insulted by the Danish cartoons, particularly those additional cartoons that weren't actually part of the Danish collection but were claimed to be so by a few corrupt Danish imams touring muslim countries. Ironically, it was largely their fellow muslims who suffered and died during the ensuing rioting in various islamic countries. So one can't assume that they are not stupid or at the very least, easily manipulated by those with an anti-western agenda.

Then again I consider anyone prepared to believe something without proof and to act as they often do solely on the word of their chosen religions leaders both stupid and extremely dangerous.

@Yorker: For what it is worth, one of the protesters was charged with incitement to murder and another was charged I think with a public order offence. Both were later arrested at an airport for breaching their bail conditions, i.e. trying to leave the country. However, I haven't heard anything else about the cases recently.