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

Comment #115382 by Incredulous on January 24, 2008 at 5:54 am

I think the real danger in Darwinism for the religious is that it shows that we are "just atoms". There is no magic and no spirit needed to make us.

Indeed and agreed. The propensity for the theist to erroneously take ideas out of context is well known by us.

Not only can they maliciously misrepresent well tested ideas, but they can also simply use an idea where it was never meant to be used, causing more murkiness and misunderstanding than is necessary.

Some people seem to need to generate artificial kinds of magic and wonder to make life interesting for themselves, without realising that there is more than enough mystery in the unexplored universe to keep us in awe for a little while yet.

I am absolutely amazed that anyone with a pulse and two connecting neurons can actually believe in or find a unique use for religious belief.

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

Comment #115339 by Incredulous on January 24, 2008 at 3:33 am

The real danger in darwinism is that it is closer to the truth than religious belief. The real danger of SOCIAL darwinism is that it is an inappropriate, possibly racist bastardisation of biological darwinism.

The observation of evolution is unquestionable, its details constantly updated with more and more accurate observations. Maybe there was something potentially pernicious about darwinism in its infancy, but that has been kicked headlong into scientific touch by more modern findings.

We must all remember how important it is for science to tell the truth, give us the facts and also to generate and test hypothesese about its findings

Currently, biology appears not to recognise the concept of race - whether this is absolutely true remains to be seen as we find out more about how we are genetically constructed over the coming years.

This does not mean however, that we should run away from the possibility of racial differences, if and only if they are found and ratified by objective and peer assessed tests.

It is a particular bugbear of mine to find scientific enquiry obstructed by political correctness, and, often justified social indignation. Science is not politics, science is not nice or nasty, but simply exists to help us get a 20-20 view of reality.

Truth is truth and what makes this article nasty is the way it distorts the search for truth into an ill-researched and badly interpreted political statement.

There may come a time when a piece of research contradicts our sense of social equality, this must be faced head on; this kind of article creates the climate of fear of truth which prevents the facts being faced and if necessary worked around.

I know black people who suffer with stereotype threat and have gone the extra mile to destroy the effects of negative beliefs, and, as a result I have learned to stand up against what appears to be nothing short of psuedo science nonsense wherever I see or hear it.

It has not made me afraid of facing the truth as we know it today, tomorrow or any other time, and nor should it.

153. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114484 by Incredulous on January 22, 2008 at 9:37 am

Top reason for me is because religion is based on bollocks ... I mean it's not based on empirical, falsifiable evidence.

154. Florida in the process of approving new science standards

Comment #114424 by Incredulous on January 22, 2008 at 7:39 am

Steve, I think I need some education here. Creationists don't believe in evolution. ID is considered analogous to creationism.

Therefore, is ID a form of evolution, i.e. an attempted explanation of evolution? In which case it is simply a crazy theory of evolution, or is it an alternative to evolution? When to me it would simply seem crazy.

Sorry to be so foggy, Steve. I just thought ID was an alternative to Evolution, i.e. God made us and everything in the 'perfect' form we see today. I didn't realise it could be seen as an alternative theory of evolution, in which case these people believe in evolution and we can all hug and forget the whole sorry discussion.

Simply writing that last sentence made me want to laugh out loud at anyone who believes this creationist nonsense.

155. The Group Delusion

Comment #112435 by Incredulous on January 17, 2008 at 5:24 am

wooter:

I don't need you to tell me about Genetic Algorithms, or anything else for that matter.

Where I come from we have appropriately qualified people who will tell you what they are skilled and experienced to tell you, not some self-appointed fuckwit who hasn't the maturity to accept his own ignorance, let alone do something about it.

You have been told where to look, what to look for, how to think, what is meant by evidence, why we as a group think the way we do, why we don't believe you, and you still continue to bore and irritate us with you half arsed nursery rhymes.

We are not trying to delude you in any way, we are simply trying to explain stuff and the least you can do is try to understand it.

Don't you have any shame?

I see myself as a pleasant kind of fellow, but it is taking me all of my time not to explode in a way that would make the Reverend Dark's recent utterance seem like an invitation to the pub.

156. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112429 by Incredulous on January 17, 2008 at 4:53 am

Steve, could you please explain your take on this, because I can't understand or agree with you, here.

Steve Zara, 218

Charity can indeed become a problem, which is why I support projects like The Big Issue, which encourages people to help themselves.

This is where I'm not sure I fully understand or agree with my secret virtual mentor Steve. Charity, for me, does begin at home and therefore is a problem. Anything that takes autonomy and freedom away from the individual should be seen as a problem, in my view.

But I don't see how socially acceptable begging helps people solve their homelessness problem, which may often be caused by other unsolved problems.

Surely the whole point is to encourage people to be part of the interdependent entity called society from which they give and take as valued, independent fellow humans?

Naturally, these unresolved issues can range from chronic criminality, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, even religion, breakdown of relationships.

Surely, the point is to solve the problem and not to create a culture around it?

How does typecasting these unfortunate people as outsiders by having them sell an unwanted product in return for the illusion that they are an accepted part of society, help them help themselves?

[Sits waiting fearfully for the wrath of Steve to rain down on his head]

157. The Group Delusion

Comment #112016 by Incredulous on January 16, 2008 at 7:59 am

Thanks to Google, I've been able to uncover the true nature of wooter:

http://tinyurl.com/2z64j2

lol; that is too cruel. I'm starting to feel a little sorry for our theist friend.

158. The Group Delusion

Comment #112013 by Incredulous on January 16, 2008 at 7:56 am

Just joking with you Steve; trying to change the temperature on this thread.

Genetic Algorithmics were part of my final year university degree. I found them relatively simple to set up but almost impossible to understand and interpret. There are so many types of network which are similar to GAs, but are not quite the same, which confused things a bit.

They are a great idea though and another example of how simply understanding scientific ideas in one area leads to potentially important technologies in another.

It's always a good idea to sell benefits, especially commercial ones, when trying to get across ideas.

I honestly think, wooter, is either so died in the wool theist or simply too stupid to appreciate anything, whether it has positive commercial benefits or not.

Pity really, because his ability to obfuscate, does tend to spoil the general good feel that exists on this site.

Oh well, it takes all types to make a website. Keep the posts coming; very enlightening!

159. The Group Delusion

Comment #111980 by Incredulous on January 16, 2008 at 6:18 am

Comment #111971 by The Reverend Dark

Well I guess it had to happen. Someone had to lose it with wooter or one of the other theists that contribute to this site.

I guess they just don't want to know. They will continually misunderstand and misrepresent every observed and evidenced argument and literally do everything to cloud, bewilder and befuddle even the simplest of rational arguments.

It's good for me because I can see the gaps in my knowledge because of the intelligence and knowledge of people who post supporting the atheist stance.

It's probably not so good for the blood pressure of some of us though.

Must go, I want to investigate the link between IQ, educational attainment and atheism. I'm wondering if religion not only poisons everything but simply makes people remarkably stupid.

Poor Reverend Dark - wooter's not worth it. A nice cup of tea is required I think.

160. The Group Delusion

Comment #111956 by Incredulous on January 16, 2008 at 4:34 am

In many areas of science and technology, we use self-organising systems, and we are starting to use "genetic algorithm" techniques to design new products. Both of these involve design without a designer. So what you claim is impossible is being used for commercial products.

Genetic algorithms!! You've brought back some very painful academic memories, Steve. I don't think wooter is of this world and asking him to be reasonable is too much like stress as far as I can see.

Goddidit, Goddidit and then Goddidit some more. It seems like that's all there is to this person. That's all we're gonna get.

Sad thing is that he doesn't realise what he's missing out on by not truly appreciating the human endeavour that has gone into finding out these things and then creating wonderful solutions and products.

Genetic algorithms. I'll have nightmares tonight.

161. The Group Delusion

Comment #111560 by Incredulous on January 15, 2008 at 2:34 am

wooter, you have stopped being entertaining. To tell the truth I'm getting a little fed up of having my atheist mates patiently answer your questions with rational and sane responses only to have you completely abuse this intellectually profitable exercise. Well, I assume you're deliberately goading us, because I can't understand what you say either linguistically or intellectually to actually say you are.

Clarity in thought and language is not such a bad idea.

162. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111557 by Incredulous on January 15, 2008 at 2:21 am

Dear Mr Scales

Here's wishing you a complete and speedy recovery. Thanks to you for being the beacon lighting up the path to reason. Thanks to RD for reminding us of the tremendous debt we all owe to people like you so we can in fact continue our long walk to enlightenment.

[Salutes] You are a hero sir.

163. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110742 by Incredulous on January 12, 2008 at 8:46 am

I worked at Microsoft(UK) for a year as what is called an intern, so I'm not going to get involved in Gates baiting, though I understand what you are saying, Steve. I see the whole Microsoft thing a bit differently.

Given that it is agreed that moral objectivism or moral absolutism, does that mean that there is no way that logical or empirical investigations are possible in this domain?

Does science really have a part to play then in developing moral codes as it is based on logic and empirical evidence?

Naturally, for objectivism to be true we must get our values from god or nature, I don't believe this, I'm wondering what people here think the driving force for resolving value conflicts and development of moral values should continue to be derived from.

164. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110724 by Incredulous on January 12, 2008 at 7:33 am

Moral intuitions are being drawn out of people in the lab, on Web sites and in brain scanners, and are being explained with tools from game theory, neuroscience and evolutionary biology.

Anything, as long as it corrects the strange moral insight that suffering is good for the soul.

Mother Teresa, for her part, extolled the virtue of suffering and ran her well-financed missions accordingly: their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care.

Just what people need, eh?

Am I the only person who thinks that when people need help the last thing they need is sanctimony, psuedo psychology and guilt loaded inhumanity advising it on how to bear poverty and disappointment.

At least Borlaug and Gates are for real - as are many true philanthropists who offer practical solutions and not 'wallow in the problem' philosophy.

I have to admit a little Christopher Hitchens' influence here, but sometimes he makes a lot of sense.

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

Comment #110713 by Incredulous on January 12, 2008 at 5:35 am

Since JW's mostly don't do violence, the only power they have is social isolation. Break yours, and they're paralyzed.

I think the social isolation is worse! A bruise heals, it is the guilt, fear and intimidation which compounds the isolation which seems to leave lasting harm.

I feel much the same way about rape: it is not the sex, a shower and time heal the violence, it is the overpowering and the disenfranchising and the associated guilt of 'letting' this happen to you so you must be a deservedly bad person, which causes the real damage.

Many religious groups will encourage you to have a downer on yourself simply to keep some imaginary control and it is imaginary.

I have to admire the courage of you defecting JWs. For many the abused or bullied people the feeling of personal worthlessness stamped on to someone can make making new social contacts and friends a lot more difficult.

I guess the whole idea of deprivation is to make you think again and this whole tactic of enslavement can be devastating for anyone without the strength to realise they never have to go it alone.

I've always had a problem with bullies or abusers and for me the most pernicious of all of these kinds of people - and I use the word people through gritted teeth - seem to have a completely unnatural relationship with religion.

I hope on this site you are made aware of the number of people who feel the same way about the lies and distortions of theists. Multiply this number by thousands and that is how many people surround you who are not trying to delude you into strange beliefs and want you to have what you want from this life.

166. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110394 by Incredulous on January 11, 2008 at 5:35 am

OK, I'm a conservative when it comes to faithfulness, commitment to one person etc. I don't need to make any apologies for that do I?

Absolutely not. But do I have to kow tow to your opinions?

Religious leaders have advanced different interpretations over the centuries, mostly to justify societal mores. ... The earliest interpretations were straightforward... -ADH

ADH and you wonder why everyone jumps on the confused ideas perpetrated by creationists.

The proplems arise when your fantasies centring around another person are simultaneous with indifference towards your husband/wife.

It seems to me the problems arise when your partner finds out your fantasies centring around another person are simultaneous with indifference towards him/her.

For he/she can be a jealous partner.

167. The Group Delusion

Comment #110336 by Incredulous on January 11, 2008 at 2:33 am

Thanks for the twelve misunderstandings article. I had difficulty understanding this group selection controversy when it broke out, but this has definitely helped though I'll probably dig a little deeper to make sure I do understand it better.

I used to get it in the head from my Biology teacher for not pursuing Biology as a possible career move, but your books, plus university courses in neuroscience and genetics(for AI portion of degree), have filled the gaps.

Great Site!

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

Comment #109945 by Incredulous on January 10, 2008 at 6:09 am

I have been routinely marking Wooter's posts as trolls

How does the trolled person know he has been trolled? if you see what I mean. Do the website administrators email him or something to let him know?

169. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109499 by Incredulous on January 9, 2008 at 6:15 am

I listened to the beginning of this brilliant rant and it reminded me of this, taken from the metro this morning:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=82911&in_page_id=34

170. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109474 by Incredulous on January 9, 2008 at 5:39 am

That said, most of us are interested in character to some degree. Its just human nature to be interested in other people.

This I will never disagree with.

It would just be good if we could do it based on the right information.

Is how I go about it anyway. Someone's got to be fair.

I wasn't criticising you when I said I research subjects and not people; it really was just a statement about me.

I get fed up of learning about other people through their own horrendously jaundiced attacks on other people. I simply believe you give more about yourself away when you discuss other people then you ever could about the person you are assassinating. Don't worry, you're cool.

That's why I like Steve Zara's posts. He sticks to the point and I'm a fraction less ignorant than I was after I read him. Paula and epeeist have that effect as well.

171. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109445 by Incredulous on January 9, 2008 at 4:37 am

The truth is, I guess, most of us don't have the time to fully research every person before forming an opinion, but you can't just sit in silence down the pub!

You're saying something quite interesting here. I tend to research subjects and not people. I've followed RD's work for 25 years, but have no opinion about RD as a man.

I'm not even aware he has a media image, though he always seems polite and well-mannered whenever I see him interviewed or presenting.

I'm very interested in what he has to say though. But you are right when you suggest we live in a celebrity dominated world, but isn't it that world that RD and his mates are actually challenging!

Madonna misrepresents her religion as science's advisor; Tom Cruise is lauded as a spiritual icon; and every sport star blames god for their sporting prowess.

RD simply says what research has found. Yet he is attributed a celebrity personality - an infamous one at that.

The injustice of it all.

172. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109423 by Incredulous on January 9, 2008 at 3:26 am

I suppose the only way that can happen is if atheists can convince the rest of the population not to give religion a special pass when it comes to discourse.

This is why I think it was appropriate for Paula to introduce Dan Dennett into the conversation at this point.

As far as I am aware Dan Dennett's book attempts to take religion's special pass away from it and ensure it actually faces the same sanity checks every other human activity has to undergo.

I guess this is why it is important that religious claims are not just seen as the intellectual property of psuedo subjects like theology, but must allow itself to be rigorously health checked by rational processes, namely the same processes used by Science.

I have arguments with atheist friends who say things like "Well I don't believe in God myself but I don't like Dawkins. Far too arrogant", or somesuch. This impression is always almost entirely based on second hand media reporting.

Ad hominem attacks are the price RD will pay for shooting the golden goose.

I do think the media can be unfairly blamed for a lot of the skewed, ignorant and complete tosh that has been written about RD's book and, more sadly, RD.

Reporter's report and many aren't there to analyse but merely to give as many sides to an issue as possible.

At some stage we have to take responsibility for how we process what we read. This comes down to education, which is why I am particularly saddened to hear that Oxbridge types are not being as objective about RD as they, I am sure, would be in their own particular subject.

Again your friends seem to be perpetrating this 'I'm sane but it's ok for others to be as crazy in their beliefs' nonsense.

You would be quick to point out someone's mathematical errors, or errors in spelling, so why not someone's errors in thinking about belief?

173. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109408 by Incredulous on January 9, 2008 at 2:40 am

I have to be honest Paula, I haven't yet read Dan Dennet's books, but I do intend to read Breaking the Spell at the weekend. I believe my idea for teaching children more about comparative religion actually comes from him, though I'll still blame an ex colleague who studied Comparative Religion at the University College London for corrupting me like this!!

174. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109401 by Incredulous on January 9, 2008 at 2:21 am

I've found that a lot of believers seem able to cope with this and will readily admit that the institutions of religion can be bad (whilst firmly denying that their own belief forms part of those institutions, of course.) How many believers have you heard say they don't love religion, they love God?

I think this point is moot. I have heard believers state that they love God more than fresh air, whilst cursing the existence of organised religion.

I think RD's attacks on religion have been aimed clearly at specific targets which many people are personally attached to.

He does so objectively and properly, but like any abused person, an attack on something important to them, something they've internalised to such an extent that they can't separate the idea from the person, is seen as an attack on their esteem and themselves.

Calling God a delusion will almost be like saying that they themselves are a delusion.

RD is in fact absolutely correct in the use of the word and spot on in his writings, but to the believer objectivity is absolutely not important in these matters.

I remember talking to a believer and literally laughing at the idea of a talking snake and a woman made out of a rib being responsible for a deity sending his son out to suffer for the disgraceful crime of eating an apple and then sharing one with her husband.

He thought I was laughing at him and it took a while for me to explain that it isn't him that I find ludicrous at all just the very idea.

Until people see their faiths as the extension of ideas and separate from who they are; until it becomes clear that there are only workable ideas and ideas that do not work, quite simply because they are not true, it is going to be difficult for honest men like RD to be appreciated for their work and not because they make us feel better by lying to us.

175. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107725 by Incredulous on January 5, 2008 at 4:46 am

For me Sam is the spokesman elect for atheists. The guy is simply sane. His understanding of religion is second to none; he handles arguments without getting flustered, because it seems he is confident with the material he is handling, and competently disposes of the abjectedly miserable chunterings of his opponents. If I didn't know better, I would say Sam Harris is not trying to win an argument at all, he is simply telling the truth to the best of his ability, and it is this I find completely disarming. What made this discussion worthwhile for me was that the rabbi handled himself in a very commendable way. He wasn't loud and silly, but tried to be intelligent about the whole thing. Unfortunately, for the rabbi, his material let him down. If anyone can show that the human moral code is far too important to leave in the hands of believers in ancient text; if anyone can systematically and engagingly destroy the theists arguments and show we are in the time of scientific rationalism; if anyone can pleasantly and articulately tell people to grow up, smell the coffee and deal with the evidence, it is my mate Sam. We just need Richard Dawkins to clearly lecture the population on what Evolution is REALLY all about and I see no reason why the theists can't throw in the towel. They won't of course, but I feel very happy after seeing that.

176. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105337 by Incredulous on December 31, 2007 at 9:40 am

but personally I'd rather face the bald, scary truth any day than seek comfort in a fairytale.

Oh, can I introduce you to Steve Zara? Just a joke Steve! Oops, slight error I thinkg, time to log off now. Happy new year everyone.

177. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105266 by Incredulous on December 31, 2007 at 3:20 am

Comment #105188 by Dr Benway

Each time I fit someone to a stereotype, I know I'm shrinking a 3D person to a 2D caricature. But could I live without these oversimplified, crude typecasts? Sadly, no.

Comment #105193 by Styrer

Enjoy your widened 3D view, if you care to make the effort. It's a pretty nice view.

Am I missing the point here or is Dr Benway being honest and practical while Styrer is being a little idealistic? Why delude ourselves into believing we are capable of having 20-20 views of each and every individual we meet or come across?

We have frames and scripts for all manner of behaviour, and, whether we all like it or not have stereotypes which drive our initial responses to other people. Of course, these beliefs can be overridden, but it doesn't mean that this is always desired behaviour or even possible sometimes.

I would not speak to my boss the way I speak to my partner, or share my personal secrets with a mere passing acquaintance, etc, etc.

Without cliches or chunks we wouldn't survive at all. I think that is all Dr Benway is getting at, though I'm sure I will be corrected by someone with more insight and knowledge. I believe there may be researched evidence for this in the realms of psychology and psychiatry.

I have to admit, I have no problems at all understanding what Dr Benway says and find her intelligent, funny and perceptive. It's a shame to have her insulted like this. I won't paraphrase Philip1978's post this time.

I didn't realise Dr Benway was a womnn but it doesn't really matter to me. Along with Steve and Paula I enjoy reading her posts most and it would be a shame if her unique and perceptive postings were discouraged.

I think you'll find Steve Zara's posts about his inability to understand Dr Benway were written with the best intentions – in an attempt to encourage clarity, I think.

We could all do with being a little clearer sometimes and I believe his remarks were not meant as a bugle call for people to flame her.

178. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104650 by Incredulous on December 29, 2007 at 4:22 am

See, I can do conspiracy theory if I really try!

Some paranoia is healthy. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I think what you say has some foundation given that theist seem only to have propoganda left to fight its inevitable demise as delusion of choice.

I take your point about transference of belief from religion to new age stuff, I guess I just don't see it as inevitable and like my propaganda to be backed with some kind of quantifiable evidence.

I'm still chuckling at the thought of us being pursued by the 82 year-old exorcistinchief and his fully trained ghostbusters.

This article has to be some kind of joke!

179. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104623 by Incredulous on December 29, 2007 at 2:46 am

Father Paolo Scarafoni, who lectures on the Vatican's exorcism course, said interest in Satanism and the occult has grown as people lost faith with the church.

I hope this guy has evidence for this rather strange belief. I guess this kind of non sequitir is prevalent amongst those who assume that if it is not god then it must be his dissenting creation Lucifer.

I'm not even sure I understand what he means by interest in satanism. Does trying to get a balanced view of a subject, in order to be intellectually honest, mean ignoring ideas which do not assume your probably wrong assumption.

When will a psychiatrist have the courage to stand up and do an "emperor's new clothes" on these mentally ill people?

It would be very interesting for me to hear someone from the medical profession give some kind of analysis on people who perpetuate this nonsense.

Is this pope for real?

180. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104239 by Incredulous on December 28, 2007 at 7:34 am

It's an odd phenomenon.

Your average person must be mind-blowingly stupid, and will believe whatever you tell them.

And yet, they refuse to believe scientific explanations for the origins of life.

Yes to the first sentence. No to the second sentence and probably not to the third. It is difficult for me to believe anything, especially from television.

Yet, I'm led to believe many in the UK, where I am, actually believe soap opera characters are real and reality television exposes something other than the reality of the viewing public.

Stupidity is not something I associate with any form of religious belief. Commiting suicide in the vain hope that you will have an eternity of sexual bliss with 72 virgins is not something I would do, but there you go. People fly aeroplanes into buildings sincerely believing such things. I personally cannot think of a more frighteningly crazy thing to do, especially when you are deliberately taking down a number of innocent people with you.

Nonetheless, many of these 'crazy' people are supremely well educated, at the top of the IQ range and are not sociopaths, psycopaths or exhibiting any discernible sign of a pathology.

There is no reason to believe a follower of one of those disgraceful tele-evangilists is suffering from a neurological disease or some cognitive deficiency. Maybe we need a new definition of stupid but by conventional - and maybe not so conventional - criterion, these people are extremely healthy mentally and intellectually smart.

Religious mania does not necessarily mean scientific knowledge has been dispensed with. It is obvious to me that religious authorities are often ignored by many believers when science meets religion in everyday life. A tithe or donation and God's botherer will turn a blind eye to any indiscretion and also ensure he has a word with the man upstairs about your place in the eternal hotel, which of course is yours as long as you keep up the payments.

No, the practice is simply evil. There are too many cognitive structures, which people far better qualified than myself can describe, that can be simply taken over by religion, especially if these human needs are not satisfied in real life or you're just that kind of person.

181. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104197 by Incredulous on December 28, 2007 at 4:41 am

She is not a victim; she is an idiot.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that getting personal is not really the issue for me. The point is that if I bought any product or service and I was not happy with it I could sue and get everything I invested back.

People believe and that isn't going away any time soon. We presumably agree that religious belief is a virus which is particularly pervasive and damaging.

The church is still a powerful institution; capable of mobilising millions of people with a phrase or sermon.

Awareness or consciousness raising takes time to replace gullibility with incredulity; mindless faith with healthy scepticism.

Faith institutions are usually charity based or at the very least more protected than the most endangered of endangered species by political and business leaders. They don't pay tax and they don't seem to fall within the same constraints as every other temporal institution.

Surely, if religion was treated the same way, not only in having to provide evidence for its claims, but was also made to abide by everyday laws and customs, then we can stop the cynical exploitation of human beings in exactly the same way we would do that using trading standards organisations, consumer pressure groups and watchdog organisations.

I accept I am probably wrong in what I am about to say but it is a kind of heuristic I use in my everyday existence.

People are never problems, they are just people. However, the issues are always with the way that mechanisms are implemented or process understood and designed.

The church should not be allowed to hold its dominant position, quite simply because it does not deliver. If it is to exist at all it must be done under the umbrella of all the rational systems we employ to regulate everything else we do.

If this is done then what appears to be on the fringe and ripe for exploitation irrespective of intelligence levels or thinking ability is simply brought in from the cold and interests protected - much the same way everything else is.

I will never ever believe in anything without evidence but ...

If billions of people believe their spiritual needs need to be serviced by religious institutions, then there really doesn't seem to be much we can do about that, but does it mean the service provider is somehow above the common customs of the host environment. I don't think it does.

I just feel the church has to be brought into line.

Whether people are gullible, foolish or subject to sterilisation orders is not really a concern for me. The abuse committed by service providers should be a concern for all of us. I repeat the church should be just another institution not THE institution. Bring it into line.

182. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104172 by Incredulous on December 28, 2007 at 3:30 am

Sorry Philip1978 I'm basically saying what you are saying. You say it far more eloquently.

183. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104170 by Incredulous on December 28, 2007 at 3:28 am

Biblebeltheretic: I do agree with your sentiment and feel what you feel about the religiously deluded. Of course we all spend our money how we like and as long as what we want is grounded in reality then we are simply living.

I'm just not sure where to lay the blame for much of the god nonsense I see. Is it the malicious intent of those who simply want to fleece the sheep? Is this not human behaviour, then and that all that matters is that a person controls resources, human and otherwise and that we are not really dealing with a religious phenomena but simply a human propensity to being deceived, or maybe intimidated into repeating mistakes or attitudes.

What you say is probably true.

184. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104165 by Incredulous on December 28, 2007 at 3:18 am

Comment #104157 by Bob Russell

Gullibility is our species greatest sin.

This is interesting! So the victim is also the guilty party? Is that what I should infer? Ok I would never give a penny for any religious group; as far as I'm concerned the quicker this nonsense is dispensed with the better. But a sin?

Is gullibility hardwired into the species? Many of the things I know about evolution I don't know at all. I take it on trust, because my education in that area has given me a basis, a structure if you like, which because it is based on evidence kind of confirms later pieces of evidence. However, it still requires me to be gullible to a certain extent, i.e. to believe the evidence of my own eyes and other input mechanisms. But more importantly I have to believe in the integrity of the institution which sanctions the acquisition of further knowledge in that area.

I always believed Einstein was a genius, but if you asked me why or what he received his nobel prize for and asked me about lorenz transforms or gaussian co-ordinates do, or who maxwell clerk was and what he did, I would have simply looked at you blankly and wanted to escape to a pub psychologically unharmed. I simply believed Einstein was a genius because that was the consensus around me, but I'm not wrong having since done a little work around him.

Is all education or training not based on gullibility to a certain extent because we cannot know everything?

Could it be that the church is simply another institution - one I hope does not influence anything, including individuals - which simply needs to be properly regulated, because whether we like it or not it exists?

People who invest in the stock market or in the recent housing market would not be considered foolish but stand to lose a lot of money based on the bad advice of those who are leaders within those institutions. Are they gullible?

The love of money is purported to be the root of all evil, but I would contend it is the lack of earning which leads to these desperated conditions.

Very interesting, though

185. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104155 by Incredulous on December 28, 2007 at 2:55 am

comment #104149 by biblebeltheretic

The phrases "A fool and his money are soon parted" and "You can't protect a fool from himself" come to mind.

I'd be very surprised if a 53-year-old accountant could be called a fool. I'm also not sure what is meant by protecting fools from themselves. It is perfectly clear to me that I can be fooled into beliefs not based on evidence at any time, as we all are, by advertising, education, our parents, etc. I certainly don't consider myself foolish, though there are those who would disagree with me about myself, but abusive bullies don't mean anything to me anyway.

I'm not sure I actually understand what you mean by this, so I apologise if I misunderstand what you are saying beforehand.

186. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104150 by Incredulous on December 28, 2007 at 2:39 am

comment #104140 by Richard Morgan

How many times have I heard those explanations given to people who haven't received the blessings they were promised.

A fine example of the hijacking of the human mind by religion. Deferred gratification is an important aspect of human cognition. For instance, if someone leaves school at 16 they may get a job which pays a certain amount. If they stay on at University there will be opportunities to increase earning potential further. This is testable and falsifiable, and, is also a premise on which further policies can be built. Not only deferred gratification, but a potential lynchpin of a structured society.

A problem with faith is that it simply does not deliver on its promises. In fact it does not seem to have to deliver on its promises the way every other sane and rational person, organisation has to. To cover its tracks it cites all kinds of mumbo jumbo and impossible to satisfy criterion as the reason for your human failure.

A consequence is that victims feel foolish, insignificant and inadequate for doing what any rational person would do which is invest in something they have been convinced will work for them. When things don't work as expected, these human beings don't seem to have the same recourse to compensation that every other earthly institution must offer for passing on their incompetence and bad performance to the customer.

The faithful are very quick to find one of the few fine performers - usually at the top of that particular church's food chain - to confirm the validity of its evil and unfulfilled promises.

"You're not praying enough!"

How the hell do you quantify this? When is enough, enough.

Why are these kinds of unsubstantiated claims not criminal offences. Why these fraudsters are not publically tried and found guilty of these heinous crimes, just because religion is seen as almost untouchable is beyond me.

I'm reminded of a story I heard about some events in Ethiopia which was being ripped apart by all kind of natural and manmade disasters.

Allegedly, emaciated and defeated people could be seen walking around the countryside whipping themselves as they had been told that the reason for their predicament was as a result of some unacknowledged personal deficiency. The true reasons have been documented extensively by Western authorities.

I do not know whether this story is true or not, but in the light of articles like this, why should I be surprised if it is?

187. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103839 by Incredulous on December 27, 2007 at 3:19 am

comment #103826 Steve Zara

You see, to believe in a Creator, you need something for him to have created. And there isn't much left.

A great quote to come back to after stuffing my face and trying to destroy my liver.

Don't worry, Steve, Creationists are very resourceful; I'm sure they'll find something they wish he'd done.

188. Do our leaders believe in God?

Comment #102241 by Incredulous on December 22, 2007 at 6:36 am

But there is still a feeling that these extremist atrocities are a sort of last ditch death spasm.... but I do believe that nothing will stop the forward march of Reason.

This is the feeling I will take into 2008 where the influence of faith based unreasoning is concerned. I'm not sure the evidence supports this belief ... but what the heck!

189. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101814 by Incredulous on December 21, 2007 at 2:14 am

His last sentence was just a nod to the old credo quaia absurdum excuse, throwing a crumb to the intelligent believer (sorry about the oxy).

So you agree that it's just bollocks, then!

190. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101167 by Incredulous on December 20, 2007 at 3:34 am

Racism, Sexism, Homophobia are untenable positions, but in my experience simply raising consciousness of these awful delusions and challenging their expression personally, through changing perceptions, and, having a clear view of how interactions should take place, were the order of the day.

Many anti-racist organisations actually harmed the movement it was trying to raise consciousness of by simplistically dividing people into them and us. Is that what we are trying to do?

Many homosexuals took refuge in a counter culture which prevented good friends from accepting invitations to join 'mainstream' social life, because of entrenched belief about the others and they're beliefs about them. Beliefs which were probably justified, but it takes two to dance - ordinarily - and sometimes people with the hurtful view have to be encouraged to learn how to. A change imposed is often a change opposed.

Most of what has been written sounds like some clarion call to arms, which seems quite sad. Is this inevitable?

More importantly, while I accept completely that consistency is a mark of maturity; about what should we be consistent? Are priorities not important? Is being an atheist a position which means complete subjugation of the person to the ideal of non-belief as an absolute? We're entering a familiar realm if we do that.

Is our reputation as atheists more important than our integrity as people? Should I ignore the fact that I have been influenced, not just by my culture, but by many, many other cultures, people, events, educational attainments, accidents, experiences, etc?

Technically, I agree absolutely with what Richard Morgan and Paula have proposed, but the above are one or two of the interesting questions which arise as a result of taking such a black to white stance - in my very humble opinion, and I really don't have the answers to them.

This is said with the utmost respect and admiration for the views of the people who contribute to this site, including you Mr. Morgan.

191. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101166 by Incredulous on December 20, 2007 at 3:34 am

Yes, Richard Morgan, you do owe Paula for taking a somewhat controversial and bald statement and adding reason and flesh to it.

The reason I will not go to church and sing is exactly as Paula describes it, because I don't want to give theists an opportunity to tip poison into my ears by suggesting I am a closet god botherer.

I like everything about christmas except the praise the lord religosity nonsense.

In fact I enjoy most productive, creative and intelligent human endeavours except for anything with god in it.

She is, in my view, absolutely correct when she says having a belief may mean giving up something.

But what if I feel I have nothing to give up? What if my atheism actually means I am simply not dogmatic about anything, and therefore leave the door open to examine any experience or idea, including those which at first thought I should reject without thought? What if my atheism actually means simply accepting my own personal reality as well as exploring objective commonly observed and verifiable reality? What if RD was simply, maybe ill-advisedly, accepting the subjective reality of his own internal landscape and honestly expressing the fact that he is indeed part of a culture which, whether we like it or not, has a christian base?

Are we at war with theists? Or do we simply find the theist position untenable and therefore must reject it as a realistic possibility based on evidence?

192. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100635 by Incredulous on December 19, 2007 at 2:56 am

Comment 100456 earthchild

My home is a virtual shrine to Everton Football Club

So you don't like football then ;). West Bromwich Albion; now that's a proper football team.

I liked your post.

We know better, so we can merely enjoy them for their architecture and feel good about our human achievements.

Nuff said really. We humans are pretty good and getting better. Singing a few human created carols in human created churches to human created symbols - imaginary or otherwise - is just an acknowledgement of our human brilliance.

Merry Xmas.

193. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100631 by Incredulous on December 19, 2007 at 2:46 am

Fiction is not offensive, though certain characters in that fiction may be highly unpleasant. RD stressed this point in the interview. Didn't you understand either?

Come on guys it's not that difficult to understand what RD is saying, is it?

The bible is part of our cultural heritage, in much the same way that Bram Stoker's Dracula is, the way Coronation Street is - I don't watch that, honestly.

Jehwah is fiction's most odious character, if we reduce him to a mere cultural object and part of a historical flow then we belittle his alleged influence.

The theists won't like their imaginary leader reduced to little more than Iago or evil Uncle Claudius. They're just fictional characters too, and cultural objects.

194. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100176 by Incredulous on December 18, 2007 at 10:54 am

Northern Brights

If it wasn't it is now! I pegged you for someone tolerant as well as clear and honest. Love your posts.

195. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100037 by Incredulous on December 18, 2007 at 5:47 am

Of COURSE I know it's possible to sing carols without believing them to be fundamentally true. But then, it's possible to say all sorts of things that you don't believe to be fundamentally true - and I prefer not to do that either.

As usual written with clarity and honesty.

I've always wanted to live up to Albert Camus' great existential character Mersault from 'The Outsider', who, in the book was killed essentially, for refusing to tell a lie.

I'm just wondering if it is possible for people to act with such integrity at all times. I can't, and that is just me being honest.

Sometimes, for right or for wrong, I will say or do something that is not wholly in keeping with what I truly believe or understand, simply to get along with my tribe. Naturally, this stops at the illegal or at causing pain

I haven't been to a church in many years, except for weddings and christenings, and I never sing any of the hymns, though I find myself singing some of them whilst alone, because they are memorable tunes.

However, if a non-believing friend went along and sang songs in a church, I can't see how I could fault him. He's simply checking in with his tribe and making a statement about his cultural roots. That's part of his subjective self and I will not endeavour to take that away from him.

Needing to belong strikes me as being a powerful motivating force behind a lot of human behaviour. What is wrong with that?

There exists what is you and what is true. Sometimes there is a conflict; what is true usually wins, but it's nice sometimes to let what is you come out on top.

It's Xmas.

196. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100011 by Incredulous on December 18, 2007 at 4:05 am

comment #99990 Richard Morgan

If that doesn't give you a cognitive dissonance migraine then you need to go back to Philosophy 101.

You have made some interesting points, but I feel no dissonance about something I can't take seriously as an idea but gives me an opportunity to be with others.

That is why I can't see the hypocrisy behind simply enjoying a good old sing song with loved ones in company you enjoy, irrespective of the fact that some haven't moved on in the search for enlightenment.

I am moved by all kinds of poetry and music, some of which reference God directly, and yes, I am atheist. Though I am not African, Ben Okri's African Elegy is, to me uplifting, even though if I think clearly about it for five minutes I can think what psuedo-spiritual tripe. The same with Bach, Mozart, Ray Charles, Shakespeare. The list goes on. I am still human and haven't left my appreciation of humanity behind in the search for objectivity.

I certainly don't believe in Thor, Gandalf, the Myth of Sysiphus, but I enjoy them for what they are, what they were, a reminder of where we have come from and yes, a whole lot of fun as we move on in our understanding of what it is to be alive in the 21st century.

There really is nothing wrong in wishing people a merry christmas! And for me there is absolutely no dissonance at all. Goodwill and atheism in the same sentence does not have to be bad grammar.

Ideas only become bothersome when we start believing them in spite of evidence to the contrary, not simply because they have been created or exist.

197. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99963 by Incredulous on December 18, 2007 at 1:40 am

Comment #99951 Octupus.

Errr...is this really the news? I thought RD had mentioned it in one of his books, but perhaps my mind is playing tricks with me.

I don't think it is octopus. RD has never made secret the fact that this country's language and cultural heritage is largely christian or biblically influenced. Given that many shclars don't know whether Christ was born on 25th Dec and Christmas could have conveniently hijacked earlier pagan rituals, I'm not sure what the fuss is all about having fun singing carols and enjoying christmas for whatever you want it to be. I certainly don't see merely having fun as being contradictory to one's true convictions or lack of convictions, rather.

198. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #99961 by Incredulous on December 18, 2007 at 1:29 am

Rtambree, your comment makes me wonder what would happen if everyone put themselves through the fMRI. Everyone is exposed as an atheist and finally they all turn to one another and say "So you didn't buy that bullshit either?"

I really hope so. Willful mendacity at the top of the hierarchy and an honest mistaken belief at the bottom. Or more like willfully mendacious appeasement at the bottom to ensure dinner gets put on the table. Nothing much changes in the human zoo. The powerful need the powerless to be ... well ... powerless.

Obviously this is all supposition at the moment

199. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98970 by Incredulous on December 15, 2007 at 4:18 am

Josh,

Just adding my virtual voice to the lenthening list of those congratulating you on this well presented surprise.

It's a real shame the people who really need to watch and listen to these spokesman for sceptics will turn their heads away and plug their ears for fear of having their damaging beliefs reasoned away.

Every day I get sadder as the maddening misrepresentations of unreasoning blind faith are laid out before me with no sign of their delusions receding from the world view.

But, as a result of your efforts, I get more encouraged that there are such people in a brave new world and maybe, though doubtful, reason will somehow survive.

I guess I may as well show my appreciation for this site which reminds me, happily, I'm not alone in being incredulous.

200. Here's an improvement on democracy

Comment #98726 by Incredulous on December 14, 2007 at 6:25 am

Democracy implies ... that the political process proceeds by rational means, ... and is based on knowledge that is [as] objective, ... The objective knowledge has to come first.

What if Peter Watson simply means that instead of focussing on the universal idea, i.e. democracy, which is open to abuse, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, misimplementation and can be quite sterile sometimes, we look to more share and export knowledge, reason and ability.

I feel he has a point when he suggests that it is the clear thinking nature of modern, western societies which encourages and promotes successful attitudes and engenders successful practical outcomes.

I think many of us would agree that the most pleasant and successful communities are based on secular principles, indeed it appears that the more secular the nation the more successful and human centred that nation becomes.

The clarion call 'Democracy' seems to have a troubled recent history, and, like atheism, may also be suffering from over exposure to bad press.

Indeed I think Peter may have a point when he states that we simply need to lay more objective foundations before building democratic agencies on top.

I don't know, but it is interesting though.