201. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #80929 by 82abhilash on October 23, 2007 at 2:48 pm

We have expert in philosophy, a science, a journalist and Sam Harris on our side. A legal expert has an important role in this campaign.

202. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80722 by 82abhilash on October 22, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Dinesh D'Souza distorts facts and lies through his teeth. Michael Shermer is too polite and does not notice it. Besides he lets Dinesh impose his world view on him so completly.

Christopher Hitchens needs to put D'Souza in his place. Look at the intellectual gymnastics he is playing. Maybe Penn and Teller should do a show. Dinesh D'Souza is Bullshit.

203. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80713 by 82abhilash on October 22, 2007 at 6:41 pm

55. Comment #80527 by catinabox on October 22, 2007 at 4:08 am

This is nauseating. I had not heard of D'Souza before. He is the most dangerous sort of apologist, one who though totally ignorant and lacking understanding of key issues, is still a gifted speaker and skilled disseminator of nonsense.

This nausea originated in India. So I feel embarassed. Sometimes I wish I could take him back, India is famous for its mob justice.

204. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #80193 by 82abhilash on October 20, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Comment #80074 by steveroot on October 19, 2007 at 9:08 pm
No offense, but do we have to study *Hindu* leprechology as well? ;-)
Stev

Well I guess you do not really need to, like Russell Blackford says in 56. Comment #80082 there are other prioritites. Besides there is no form of organized Hindu Movement worth mentioning that is threatening the free world.

But it is another bastion of irrationality, and if you want to enforce some calrity on them, you must understand where they come from.

Richard Dawkins can get by because his attack is mainly directed against scientific claims made in the name of religion . His understanding of Christianity is limited to what was exposed during his Anglican years, and Islam even less.

The other experts though do know more about the history and belief systems of particular religions. The eastern religions fall below everyone's radar mostly all of the time because they are not a pressing concern, not YET anyway.

205. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #80072 by 82abhilash on October 19, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Comment #80058 by Russell Blackford on October 19, 2007 at 7:18 pm
82abhilash, that's a nice description of what we might hope religion could transform itself into. There's another barrier, though, which is just that the moral content is often pretty undesirable, even after you strip away the supernatural elements.

Yes there are I totally agree. But how do you know unless you read it first. I am using this opportunity to encourage a new audience to read Hindu scripture.

Westerns often fall for Indian charlatans in saffron, because Hinduism has never ever come to the intense rational scrutiny that has been afforded to the Bible and now the Quran.

206. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #80032 by 82abhilash on October 19, 2007 at 3:12 pm

oh, it gets better, later in the story the leader of the monkeys, Hanuman, caries the entire Dronagiri mountain (instead of finding a single herb) to heal Ram's brother (magically) after being injured in battle by the 10 headed tyrant Ravana. Interestingly enough Ravana also had the ability to regenerate heads upon them being severed (no magic herbs needed).

However, plenty of magic herbs are necessary to believe any of this.

That would be a problem if modern day Hindus consider it to be literally true. Well it is highly unlikely that the Hindus you may meet actually think all this happened, many hope it is true, most would rather not confront the question. But the truth is it would not matter much if none of this ever happened.

Let us use the 'practical realism' vs 'factual realism' example that Dan Dennett used. If tomorrow it is found beyond the shadow of doubt that Ramayana is a work of fiction, there will be the initial shock and many people will be upset. But then, things will settle down almost exactly where they where.

Why? Because Hinduism is a brilliantly designed religion, by natural selection and by stewards. The practical realism of Hinduism does not depend on the story to be true, nor do we need to be taken in by the supernatural elements in these stories either. They are all just advertisements to get people interested in the story.

What the people who wrote it really focused upon was the 'content of character' of the characters. Each character in the story is a complex personality with their own set of characteristics. Their personality and that of the persons they interact with creates unique circumstances that we can study and relate to.

Depending on the content of our character we come to a judgment on the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the players. Of course the stories themselves are written with more focus on specific characters, but despite their best attempts none of them are flawless.

So in a sense, it is like Aesop fables. We all know animals do not talk, but the story has its morals and we can relate to that. And thus they provide us important clues about how to live in the real world. So Hindu scriptures are primarily tools for character building. Because it is perceived that with the right character, you can play the different roles in life (as a parent, as a spouse, a professional, etc.) successfully. Some of it is outdated, some of it is not.

If you read with an open mind you may get infected by ar faith meme. But if you read it with a 'probing attitude' you may find some interesting ways to relate with your world, that you previously would not have considered.

207. God's honest truth?

Comment #79795 by 82abhilash on October 18, 2007 at 2:46 pm

The problem with this approach is that it has the potential to replace theological dogmas with nationalistic ones. The fact can end up being whatever the government says it is and then we are back to 1984 (the book). What if a radical right-wing party gets elected in Sweden, cashing in on the legitimate fears of Islamic fundamentalism?

The government does have the right to decide what gets taught in schools which are funded with tax payer's money, especially in a pluralistic democracy, but not otherwise. If a faith based school is a self-funded and teaching lie, who is the government to step in, unless they are encouraging and advocating their students to break laws? Telling lies by itself is not illegal, unless you are under oath. And when their students commit crimes, are they not dealt with properly under a secular constitution and law, all be it not always to our liking? Do their schools not come under more scrutiny? Are they not chastised at the very least? In short does their freedom not get compromised when they try to use it to spread fear? And more importantly, do we not use the freedom given by our laws to corrode their faith? We are already doing it now.

Dogmas are defeated in a society that encourages free discourse. When you defeat one dogma by creating a situation where another can exist, you have in effect not solved the fundamental issue, which is the tendency of people to fall for dogmas.

Let the faith-based schools continue to exist if they can pay for themselves. Let free discourse, argument and debate continue unhindered. The rational ideas will win out. The will become part of the way we do commerce, influence the way we build our industry, the way we practice medicine and further research. When society becomes dependent on facts, the faithful will be forced to shed their dogmas. The self-funded faith based will close, or they will change, because their system of education can no longer produce individuals who can become members of the society they live in.

208. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #79258 by 82abhilash on October 16, 2007 at 3:30 pm

There is a 'land bridge' between India and Sri Lanka. It is old and according to legend created by monkeys. Whoever created it, it is an object of wonder.

Why not study it properly? Why not bring some transparency to the whole issue? Why the hurry to destroy it? What environmental impact can that create? Why is anyone not open about it? Even if it is not a monument, it still has historic significance in a religious sense.

If it is artificial, it has tremendous historic significance comparable to the Great Wall of China. If it is natural, it has environmental significance like the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. In any case why does the Indian Government not see at as the National treasure that it is?

More interestingly in a country with a Hindu majority, why is a democratically elected Government jeopardizing its relationship with its majority voters by hurting their sentiments? Is it not political suicide? A sort of foolishness?

Furthermore it was never a base for religious extremism like the Madrassas in Pakistan, nor was it a magnet for violence or social unrest until the government threatened to destroy it?

Something stinks and this time, I think it is the current secular government of India that smells fishy.

209. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says

Comment #77615 by 82abhilash on October 9, 2007 at 10:03 pm

Ban it all, ban it all - laicite is the hope for the free french everywhere.

210. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76410 by 82abhilash on October 5, 2007 at 6:29 pm

I hate to burst the bubble here for a lot of people. But Andy's ideas have several shortcomings. And they came up again and again during the Q&A session. That is not to say all of what he said was trash. But it needs improvement.

One point I noticed markedly was his honesty. He didnot try to make things up. When asked a question related to his fieldand he didnot know the answer, he said "I do not know."

Maybe now he has new factors to consider when he fine tunes his ideas.

211. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76306 by 82abhilash on October 5, 2007 at 12:15 pm

I think gitmo is the product of a failed strategy on an incompetent administration. It might as well be that the people in gitmo are radicalized muslims standing on the edge of the proverbial cliff. So was Sayed Qutub.

But locking them only pushes them over the edge and when they fall, it is most likely that they will pull down a lot of innocent people with them. That is what Dennett meant by telling the prisons help create such people. It acts like a spark to ignite their gun powder.

But what can be done? Can we just let them freely preach their radical ideas? Indoctrinate millions with their poison? If they ever come out they are more likely than they where before they got in, to perform acts of terror. In fact those among them who where mistakenly put there may also get convinced that the US is some sort of satan.

I have an unsettling thought. What choice do they have except death? Die as a suicide bomber, or die in a futile raid, or get killed in gitmo itself. Do you think they will have any desire to try and live a normal life, after this? What are the chances?

212. Christianity's Image Problem

Comment #76075 by 82abhilash on October 4, 2007 at 3:35 pm

kaiserkriss, it will take even lesser time. Christianity cannot survive unless it is able to perpetuate itself, through its existing followers. The way things are, I think they are losing more followers than they are gaining. That is the model of a failed business.

213. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76071 by 82abhilash on October 4, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I got a beautiful quote that explains this phenomenon very well.

"It is very easy to wake someone who is asleep, but very difficult to wake someone who is pretending to sleep."

214. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75517 by 82abhilash on October 2, 2007 at 10:51 pm

You know people there are a lot of good ideas expressed here by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and the like. The arguments are themselves extremely sound, even though they may not give one the sense of transcendental bliss that most ordinary people seek. Although I must add that Richard Dawkins did well with his book 'Unweaving the rainbow' and Carl Sagan's documentary 'Cosmos' is brilliant.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is, these are new arguments, plus some old arguments repackaged for a new generation. They are not going away, especially since religion is showing its ugly face too often these days. And while projects like the 'Blasphemy Challenge' can make important people take notice of the changing times, it is reason that makes the change endure regardless of any label or lack there of - atheist, new atheist, anti-theist, non-theist, skeptic, skepchick, agnostics, secular humanist, 'no label at all', naturalist, darwinian,, etc.,. So to that extent I agree with Sam Harris.

But I understand the need of the label in bringing people together. But as a member of the mainstream society, I prefer not to use my label, unless pressed upon. I would rather use reason at every turn whenever and wherever I confront irrationality.

It is something about the way the human brain works - forever handicapped by the sequence in which you feed in the information. If you bring forth a sound argument, people may listen to you, even accept your reasoning and most may not care too much if they later find you to be a 'new atheist'. However if they find that out first, then they will lock out of anything you have to say immediately.

215. Polygamist Leader Convicted in Utah

Comment #73824 by 82abhilash on September 26, 2007 at 9:26 am

13. Comment #73766 by Yorker on September 26, 2007 at 5:39 am

8. Comment #73740 by shaunfletcher

Your mention of incest made me think. I have two sisters both of whom are still very attractive and in my youth, on occasion wondered why I never had any sexual thoughts about them. This is not my field but it seems like there's an in-built mechanism against incest. Maybe in some people it doesn't exist or they're able to overcome it.

Does anyone have a professional opinion on it?

Yes Yorker the phenomenon has been studied and well documented. It was first observed by Edvard Alexander Westermarck - a Finnish philosopher and sociologist. "When two people live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one, both are desensitized to later close sexual attraction." This phenomenon was especially prevalent in the Israeli kibbutz system, where all children where made to sleep together in a huge communal bedroom. Hardly anyone of them married members within the kibbutz when they grew up, even when they where encouraged to do so by their parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect#Westermarck_effect

But the Westermarck effect does not show any sensitivity to biological relatives. It works impartially on any group of children who shared very close proximity during childhood. But we all know that most of the time such children tend to be siblings. So that is our inaccurate but useful mechanism against incest, perhaps naturally selected by evolution. Why not? Before birth control such relationships could make babies too unhealthy to live normally.

This would imply of course that siblings that are not brought up together has the potential to be sexually attracted to one another. There is at least one case in the recent media to show that is possible. It has happened in Germany.

Patrick Stübing, an unemployed locksmith, and his sister Susan have had four children together since starting a sexual relationship in 2000. Three of the children are in foster care, and two have unspecified disabilities. The couple, who live near Leipzig, grew up separately and only met many years later.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,2022008,00.html

8. Comment #73740 by shaunfletcher
does anyone genuinely care if an adult brother and sister sleep together?

No, but given that I do have a sister, who grew up with me; I feel disgusted, when someone makes such a suggestion. But that is my life and my choice right? What about other adults and their choice? Sure, if it suits them. But if someone I know is involved in such an act, I would have nothing to do with them from then on. Also given that such an act is illegal in most of the world anyway, I can comfortably say, such people can end up in trouble with the law. And if they do, I will neither feel any sympathy for them nor feel obligated in any way to defend them. Yes I am being open about my bias here.

216. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71865 by 82abhilash on September 19, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Looking at this I feel more and more convinced that humans and monkeys are related, at least women, we can be certain about that. Women and chimps are related. And since women give birth to people who grow up to be men (and women)....well you get the idea.

Theism is the best proof of our lowly origins.

Only one question - Are these women believers because they are stupid or are they stupid because they are believers?

I think, in this case, they are believers because they are stupid.

217. Radical Christians in Iraq

Comment #71857 by 82abhilash on September 19, 2007 at 7:26 pm

I got a stupid question for all you guys, what would you prefer if you had just these two to pick from - American Christian fundamentalists or Iraqi Muslim extremists.

I will pick the former. They are less lethal. Correct me if I am wrong.

Let me speak metaphorically here. If the two groups where two different types of food, American Christian fundamentalists are like rotten vegetables while Iraqi Muslim extremists are like nuclear waste.

Which would you eat, if you have just these two to pick from?

218. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69178 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 10:18 pm

Quine,
I would love to email D.J. Grothe. What is his email address?

219. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69172 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 9:34 pm

dlitt,
Correct me if I am wrong here. The way I understand it, outside his field of expertise, Francis Colins is reading sense into non-sense. I other words he is seeing meaning that he wants to be there rather than actually is there. Do you agree with me here?

220. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69170 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 9:31 pm

Quine,
I agree with you. It is amazing Francis Colins could make such a statement. All the more reason not to blindly trust authority figures.

Here is a quote from my favorite mentor Richard Feynman, which I think to be more closer to the truth. Of course he was talking about physics -

"People say to me, "Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not... If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it — that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers... then that's the way it is."

221. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69161 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 8:21 pm

BAEOZ

I see how you may have got the idea that people somehow chose to be pacifist. Now I must say, the people I am talking about are not forever pacifist, but those who are pacifist until provoked. In other words, the tit for tat kind.

In a society where most people are like so, by nature, what would be the fate of someone who is aggressive, naturally. They will either be locked up or will choose to imitate the pacifist to remain socially relevant.

But imagine such a tit for tat person living a society full of aggressive ones. Their pacifist element will never get a chance to reveal itself and the creative endeavors that would materialize as a result of it will never come to be. So the notion of choice gets very complicated because what we choose to do, would depend not only on our nature, but also on our social context.

And people of certain nature, build societies where people who exhibit certain behaviors are more richly rewarded than others who do not. There is an old documentary that Richard Dawkins hosts called
"Nice guys finish first".

Bottom line. Some of us are nice, because we fear punishment. But most of us are nice because it is our nature to think that being nice is good for us. And we help develop and sustain liberal societies, where niceness prevails.

People of the world are nicer than they have ever been, believe it or not.

222. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69155 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Yorker

"I see the problem like this. The masses are simply not saavy enough to be swayed by beautiful, elegant, insightful, logical and well-presented arguments, in fact, the majority fear intellectual thought and often show open hostility towards it."

I almost agree with you, but I think the 'open hostility' part is a bit exaggerated, especially in the Western world. Traditionally intellects have not cared for Public Relations. But that is slowly changing. Traditionally the masses where not well educated and had no easy access to information. That is changing too.

People still have (maybe always will) a tendency to fall for what they like rather than what is true. And there will be politicians to take advantage of that. But I have hope that in the long run sensibility will prevail.

Israeli diplomat Abba Eban who once said, "When everything else has failed, man turns to Reason".

223. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69143 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 7:18 pm

BAEOZ asks

"Did people just "choose" to not murder and lie after they decided that they wanted to form a society and that murder etc would stop them from doing so? "

No, it is less remarkable. More like when people with pacifist tendencies began to concentrate in one area, civilizations began to emerge where such tendencies are valued and nurtured. Perhaps the most successful of them followed a tit for tat policy in their daily lives. Tipped their hat to every stranger, but when beaten, will beat them back harder than they ever expected.

224. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69138 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Henri Bergson,
If you are involved in the secularization of Europe, Europe may become a theocracy soon. Words like 'stupid' and 'fool' do not make part of an objective argument. You are arguing from emotion.

Christianity has had a massive impact on Europe, everyone knows that. One of its impact seems to be a largely secular europe who seems to think Christianity in its fundamentals is BS. Think about that.

225. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69125 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 6:39 pm

Yorker said
"You're right that we can affect each other, but unless a few of us are people in a position to influence the masses, we don't mean much. That's what I meant. "

Perhaps. But that is just the point there is a difference between, doing little and doing nothing. So what if what you are doing is but a drop in a bucket? A bucket is more full because of the drop is it not? Besides an influential figure already has done a good job of bringing several like minded people together.

If each of them contributes in their own way, whatever little they can, then the drops of water can fill up the bucket.

226. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69122 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Henri is a religious lurker all right. This is the insulting point he had made -
"You have a Christian mindset without realizing it. You seem to value Christian values like compassion, altruism, etc"

Underline the word, "Christian values". Compassion and altruism are not Christian monopolies. These aspects of humanity has been valued and enshrined in cultures and civilizations before they became aware of Christianity.

Then he asks "Tell me why murder is 'immoral'?" Well I can tell you why, because those who think murder is 'moral' are not allowed to hold influential positions in society. In fact we cannot advance if we make too much concessions for them. Indeed we as a society are trying to solve more and more problems by spilling less and less blood.

There need not be any absolute dictatorial decree for murder to be considered immoral. Humans who build cities and develop civilizations are those who think murder is immoral, under most circumstances. Those who think otherwise cannot advance as a culture. They are contained and disposed off, by the majority.

So why is murder considered wrong? Because we the descants of those who survived the wars and the genocides that plagued mankind in the past, have a natural disgust towards it. It is our consensus that is all.

Those who disagree are probably in prison for the murder they have committed.

227. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69071 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Yorker said,
'Best not to take it all too seriously I think, what we say here carries little if any weight.'

I tend to disagree with you on that point. There are others here who may have faced similar arguments with theists, in other circumstances and can use these counterpoints that people like Oxytocin are putting up here.

It can carry weight if it can lead us to make our peers (even one) re-examine their views on life based on new evidence and new ideas.

At the least someone might (at grass root level) be able to put a good defense against the so called 'people of faith' who try to propagate their nonsensical ideas, to a less informed public and part them of their money.

I once had a 'Hare Krishna' guy tell me about how wonderfully God made the tangerine, so easy to peel and chew, and I got him stumped by asking him about the pineapple.

228. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69046 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Francis Collins said and I quote, "Belief in God is more plausible than disbelief." Eventually he took a leap of faith or so I gather. I looked up what it meant and found what plausible means.

Plausible - describe that which has the appearance of truth but might be deceptive. Perhaps Collins was not being critical enough. Why should he? That faith is a danger is a new idea, till very recently the surrender of reason was regarded a virtue.

But alas, Collins is a scientist, he should have been more cautious. I read about what science meant to a great scientist, I had admired, the late Richard Feynman. He had said "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

And he goes on, "Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation ... Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Now there was a man who believed in experimentation.

And he was not arrogant, but he was brave, "I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things; by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose — which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." He was not willing to let God fill the gaps in his knowledge.

I think we all need to be brave today. The universe without a purpose doesnot mean our lives are without purpose.

229. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69031 by 82abhilash on September 9, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I see Richard Dawkins as being a more intellectually honest scientist that Francis Colins. Dawkin's attack on religion is against the scientific claims made by the people of faith and the methods they use to arrive at their conclusions. Dennett, Hitchens and Harris's approach are a bit different ofcourse.

But the point is Richard Dawkins is a scientist talking on a scientififc subject. Francis Colins is a scientist talking out of his field of understanding, a scientist making a non-scientific claim, wanting to believe it because it is comforting rather than because it is true. When emotions are strong, we are liable to fool ourselves.

230. Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Comment #68334 by 82abhilash on September 6, 2007 at 10:06 pm

I have a feeling this will make all its way to the Supreme court if it could.

231. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68333 by 82abhilash on September 6, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Reminds me of Rudyard Kipling, and his poem IF

'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools'

John Cornwell is being a knave, and he thinks people are foolish enough to believe him. He has laid his trap for fools. I wonder how many fools he will trap with this trap.

232. India to charge writer Nasreen with 'hurting Muslim feelings'

Comment #67689 by 82abhilash on September 4, 2007 at 11:13 am

India does have a law that infringes on people's rights to free speech and free expression, in the case of religion, even to the extent of banning books. The law was enacted to prevent all the riots that seem to spring up wherever Muslims begin to concentrate. It is to their advantage of course. This poor woman is being charged under that law.

Well in 1984, someone filed a case in Calcutta using this same law to claim that the Quran promoted religious disharmony and several interesting things happened. This story was made into a book, which is still banned in India. But you can read it online:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calcutta_Quran_Petition

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/

It is truly appalling the extent to which the democratically elected government of India is willing to bend for these thugs and their filthy religion, giving away their freedoms little at a time.

233. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66596 by 82abhilash on August 30, 2007 at 2:55 pm

I seem to have the misfortune of becoming a victim of Veronique's emotional outburst, which is ironic considering that her opinions do not in anyway contradict what I said. When I am usually provoked to a passionate frenzy, I try not to do anything, till I had a chance to sleep on it. My thoughts get clear and I am able to put out my ideas more skillfully.

234. The importance of doubt

Comment #66390 by 82abhilash on August 29, 2007 at 11:12 pm

Facts are twisted, ideas are misrepresented. John Cornwell wants to perform the incredible task of championing doubt as a cause for faith! We all know Richard Dawkins will change his mind when presented with evidence, so I will leave you all with another atheist scientist's comment on the need for doubt.

"If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar..............If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming "This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!" we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before."

This lecture was given by Richard Feynman in 1955. He was involved in making the first Atom Bomb.

http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/vladi/phys216/Feynman.html

So you be the judge, is Richard Dawkins suppressing ideas or fighting those who suppress them?

235. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #66387 by 82abhilash on August 29, 2007 at 10:56 pm

If this is the best argument a Swede can come up with in defense of religion, then Dawkins has nothing to worry. The Swedish edition of his book will also be a best seller. A new class of militant atheists will arise in Sweden and they will keep the Muslim immigrants under check. For their own sake, they better.

236. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66385 by 82abhilash on August 29, 2007 at 10:27 pm

Hitchens is interpreting old data in light of new evidence, which makes sense. I think that perhaps now at least the ordinary people on both sides can lay the issue to rest.

She was not a cunning charlatan, nor was she a saint. She was just an ordinary woman who tried and failed to live and work sincerely by her catholic faith. Some of us where taken in by the charm and some where not. There is nothing more to that. It is time for us to let this one go. Unless of course the catholic church tries to bring it up again.

237. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66383 by 82abhilash on August 29, 2007 at 10:09 pm

Everyone seems to be taken up on by Hitchen's abortion stance. Well here is his argument against it, 'Hitchen's opposes abortion on materialistic grounds: human life has to begin at some point, and there is no non-arbitrary way to determine that it begins at a point after conception but before birth.' It seems pragmatic to me. It is very difficult to determine which point we are talking of a fetus and which point it becomes a baby. Is a viable fetus a baby?

By its very nature it is an unpleasant decision to make, at least. While I am sure no one here would advocate a blanket ban on abortion, some check and balance system would be a good idea to ensure that unwanted pregnancies are prevented rather than terminated.

238. Hebrew Charter School Spurs Dispute in Florida

Comment #65985 by 82abhilash on August 27, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Schuermannator,
kcjerith is right. One of the reason private education is expensive right now is because it is next to impossible to compete with the government.

In a free market with open competition, all sorts of schools will arise, to fit every pocket. Each with its pros and cons. Just like today there are super markets to meet every budget. But that is a lesson in economics.

I donot think in such a climate there will even be need for banning faith based schools. They are not used to the idea of competing in a free and open market where ideas cannot be suppressed.

And without government suport through which they can force-feed their ideology, they will loose their sting.

239. Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

Comment #65932 by 82abhilash on August 27, 2007 at 12:23 pm

I agree with Kingasaurus. Before they claim disrespect for the Quran, they should establish whether, any disrespect was intended, given the context. But this is not about fairness, but about finding another excuse to insult freedom loving people, by misusing their own good will. I wonder how well they will take it if demonstrators in US burn a Saudi flag in protest.

On a personal note, I feel there are enough genuine reasons today for people to feel disrespectful of the Quaran.

240. Hebrew Charter School Spurs Dispute in Florida

Comment #65895 by 82abhilash on August 27, 2007 at 9:32 am

This is religion trying to sneak in through the back door, while making the tax payers pay for it. But the success or failure of this school will depend on how the students there perform as compared to those in other schools, academically.

There is still reason for worry though. Even a good education does not make you immune from religion. We know the 9/11 hijackers where college educated. Like Sam Harris said, "You could build a nuclear bomb and still believe you will get 72 virgins in paradise."

I think Christopher Hitchens is right when he says; we are religiously inclined by nature, and they are trying to exploit it. And if places like these can in the least make you tolerant of religious extremism, then to that extent they contribute to religious tyranny.

241. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #65683 by 82abhilash on August 25, 2007 at 2:30 pm

I am betting lot of people convinced by Dawkins's book where border line cases, who considered themselves religious, but did not take it as a seriously, until he brought it up the way he did.

The 'moderates' who did not think too much what their religion was or what it meant or even practice it regularly, but followed the social norm and remained respectful of religion and annoyed by extremists.

I think people like Dawkins are forcing them to one extreme or the other, creating a scenario where it is impossible to remain neutral or indifferent. That is OK, there is a crisis, and when the freedoms you love are threatened, you have to make your stand.

He may inadvertently swell up the ranks of the extremists in the short run. But he is also helping mount an effective defense against such elements which in the long run can remove the toxicity from religion (if not religion itself) and help safeguard the values that make a free and open society, possible.

242. Send In the Clergy!

Comment #65363 by 82abhilash on August 23, 2007 at 10:15 pm

roach

I think the majority people in those countries, are at a cross road - they want to live a normal life, but want to remain true to their faith and consequently will embrace any 'scholar' who can show them the two are compatible.

The Government of UAE and especially Dubai are highly pro-western in their outlook, in the case of Dubai, even the citizenry are more pro-western, compared to their counterparts in say Saudi Arabia, but in Dubai there are even Saudis who are pro-reform. But UAE and Qatar are just two examples in the Middle East where this strategy has been applied - there is Oman, Kuwait and Bahrain as well.

It is difficult for someone brought up in a liberal democracy to understand what it is like to live in a country without religious freedom - these people have never known anything else. I myself have lived in the UAE for 10 years. In the countries I have mentioned above, foreigners have limited religious freedom and the locals have none.

Everyone practices religion in the form that is sanctioned by the state, otherwise they go to prison for blasphemy. The local people are not given the opportunity to spread their toxic faith in any way they like.

And since the governments there are pro-western and progressive, they propagate a brand that is less toxic than the original interpretation, whenever possible in forms that is neutral or admissive of new ideas. They do not give people a free hand in religion, because if they do, the original toxin will spread, through the original interpretations.

In a side note when Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, they released from their prisons, all their radicals to fight the Russians, hoping to solve two problems at once. - communism and fanaticism. Did not work as well as they had hoped.

Now it may seem ironic to you that religion oppression is used in this manner to end religious tyranny, but that is exactly what is happening. There is no room within Islam to reform itself. In fact, Islam in its original form will violently put away anyone who suggests it to change itself - it is called the seamless garment.

243. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65359 by 82abhilash on August 23, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Comment #65323 by steveroot on August 23, 2007 at 3:22 pm

17. Comment #64952 by nothing on August 22, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Is Bizzaro for real? Or just an atheist satirist playing around? Maybe his name is a clue?

He may be a virgin, but I'm guessing he's got a few crunchy kleenexes under the desk!
Steve

VERY LIKELY

244. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65357 by 82abhilash on August 23, 2007 at 8:39 pm

Ben Jennings--On what non-religious basis could chastity be a virtue?---

That was a surprising question. Chastity can and does go a long way in enhancing trust and strengthening bonds between people in a committed personal relationship. If that is good then chastity can be a virtue, for a non-religious reason.

Also it is a better guard against unwanted pregnancy and STDs. If good health is an issue, chastity can be a virtue.

But on the other side, it forces one to delay or suppress gratification for time periods that are considered by many to be lengthy, especially given that as a society we are trained to expect and demand instant gratification.

But we can overcome the selfish tendencies of our genes, so even in a world without religion, chastity can still be a marketable idea, probably creating a small dedicated fan base, like Apple computers or something.

And no, I do not claim that chastity and promiscuity are the two sole options.

245. Send In the Clergy!

Comment #65344 by 82abhilash on August 23, 2007 at 5:37 pm

roach
It has already happening, in places like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. That is why we have less trouble from there. The governments are not democratic, but they are pro-western, which is as good as it gets for now. It even happend in England a long time ago, although, there where other complications as well.

About legitimacy, who gives any clergy legitimacy, the people ofcourse, their faith in those teachings.

People will gladly do what they are normally inclined to do, if it is religious sanctioned. They will be reluctant at first, but if enough important people agree, they will follow, especially if they think, 'everybody else is doing it.'

People will be proud to do what they donot normally do if it is relgiously required.

I think the former produces a less toxic version does it not? That seems more practical in the short run.

246. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65315 by 82abhilash on August 23, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Bizarro Dawkins seems to be taking a lot of heat from a lot of people in this forum for his virginity.

He could be a religious apologist or not. And anyway one could hold chastity to be a virtue simply as a matter of principle and still not be religious. Given the innumerable ways there are in which we can ruin our lives, such an idea may keep personal relationships from becoming messed up. It is not in the least harmful. The idea may even become popular in the not so distant future, who knows?

Anyway if desire for promiscuity is the reason anyone decides to abandon their faith that is not a very good reason now is it? I don't think so, but that is just my opinion.

Abstinence is one of several practical ways in which to regulate one's sexual behavior, and like every other, it has its pros and cons. Depends on your biology and you life-style choices. Even Planned Parenthood has an abstinence program, although they oppose abstinence only, which has a religious underpinning:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control/continuous-abstinence.htm

247. Send In the Clergy!

Comment #65303 by 82abhilash on August 23, 2007 at 2:19 pm

This could be a good idea, in Iraq. The secular, democratic government,there creates a new core of clergy that will toe the government line - a clergy with Sunni and Shite religious leaders.

And whenever there is religious strife, they go about preaching peace, love and brotherhood 'in the name of Allah.'

They become popular among people, take control of the mosques. Hate stops spreading, peace starts to propagate.

The original misunderstanding in the Quran gets replaced by a watered down version which eventually fades into nothingness. How about that?

248. Rational Atheism

Comment #65128 by 82abhilash on August 23, 2007 at 1:34 am

roach
Point well put - people are not fully aware of their self-deception. When I said people are mostly secularists in religious disguise, I was thinking in more general terms, self-deception inclusive.

And also about the moving goal post thing, you are right, the fact that more people say they are non-religious now doesn't mean they always where.

But doesn't the fact that most people lead largely secular lives and do not read their holy books in itself indicate that religion has long lost their strangle hold over them? They identify with their religion, but only superficially and that is all they seem to care about. Even the words they cherry pick, is more likely cherry picked by someone else and just repeated by the majority.

I think what movements like this will do is force people to think seriously about their religion and when they do I am betting that most will fall for secularism at least in public life and that is because religion has been receding as a dominant force from all our lives for a while now. Most people have been brought up with a religious outlook, but in a largely secular world. See why I think they are secularists in religious disguise?

All that is needed is to establish a new simple social norm - religion is no longer free from scrutiny and comment, by anyone or everyone. The rest will follow. Secularism will reveal its true color and strength.

249. Rational Atheism

Comment #65119 by 82abhilash on August 23, 2007 at 12:02 am

roach
Have you considered, you where perhaps not the only person to have a knee jerk reaction. I edited my first comment. Got to admit, I got carried away.

Now to answer your question. Religion is a result of our social set-up. No one is born religious, perhaps people are born with a tendency to be more credulous and religion exploits it. But some of us may shake it off as we grow up. Some of us may never get it to begin with.

Yes your flow of logic seems to indicate that most people are secularists in religious disguise. It is more likely given all the good facts that are easily available these days. Which is precisely what Richard Dawkins is claiming. And yes non-religion is the fastest growing group in the US., especially now since the taboo against it is lifting, slowly. You do not have to be a mind reader to know that, there are opinion polls.

MOST PEOPLE DONOT TAKE THEIR RELIGION SERIOUSLY BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS REALITY

250. Rational Atheism

Comment #65114 by 82abhilash on August 22, 2007 at 11:47 pm

pewkatchoo
I have cut down and edited by post that you called inoherent. I guess I got carried away. And no I am not on Ganja nor have I ever been, but I won't stop you from trying, if you want to.