201. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #98718 by Incredulous on December 14, 2007 at 6:08 am

#98711, steve99

I think that to be that confrontational and effective you need the wit and wordplay of a Hitchens, otherwise it verges on just ranting for effect.

There is no doubt that Christopher Hitchens is the kind of guy you wouldn't want to meet in an intellectual dark alley and he is a very strong spokesman for us sceptics, especially in more formal, journalistic and presentation situations.

Nonetheless, I am quite taken by Pat's 'ranting for effect' he has, for me, a kind of everyman feel him. He always comes across as 'Peeved from Peterborough' or 'Annoyed from Birmingham'.

You're quite right about the bandwaggon feel, but is that necessarily a bad thing, Steve? I'm assuming you mean he's just another comedian making a living out of having a humourous stab at fundies.

Ok, I wouldn't dare see him as an 'official' spokesman or even someone on the same level as 'The Big Four' but maybe he captures something for us not so smart atheists who also like it earthy and apparently, if not genuinely, heartfelt.

Yes, Pat is as subtle as a house brick, but does being an atheist need only appeal to the highly intelligent, superbly educated and sensitively aware amongst us? Can it be that a good old belly laugh at some of religion's inanities is also appealing?

Just who is likely to be atheistic? Are we alienating anyone or group? Are there other ways of fighting the oppressive, overbearing, authoritarian meanness of faith unreasoning?

As ever written with the utmost respect for you, but this question of representation and appeal is quite interesting.

202. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #98707 by Incredulous on December 14, 2007 at 5:19 am

On the other hand the fmri will be the new lie detector. You cannot hide from it.

Agreed. But we must make sure we get the interpretations correct. The devil is sometimes in the details.

For me, I want to know the answer to the question posed by RD in one of his postings 'Honest Mistake or Willful Mendacity'. Some people have deceived and deluded others deliberately, and I would like to know whether they were just mistaken or out to do harm.

203. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #98704 by Incredulous on December 14, 2007 at 5:08 am

I think it's pretty obvious what was in his head - he hated Christians and he wanted to kill them, and he thought they were the cause of most of the world's problems, much like the atheists in here think, just as he said.

Ruht, I wish you wouldn't say things like this. Not only are they not true, but they are pretty inflammatory. You're better than this.

I'm assuming you have come here to wind us up, but I can think of no time when anyone on this site has wished any harm to anyone of faith; in fact to anyone.

You'd be doing yourself a favour and be encouraging decent relationships if you apologised for such an insulting, inaccurate and unfortunate sentence.

If religious people were half as friendly, welcoming, tolerant of other opinions and knowledgeable as the people on this site then maybe we could move things forward a bit.

But not like this. You've gone a bit too far.

204. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98107 by Incredulous on December 13, 2007 at 4:42 am

But I percieve that there is a growing unity and sence of organisation

I take your point, but could it be simply a group of people getting together because they are fed up of being bullied by people with beliefs with which they do not concur.

Let's be honest, there are millions of people who long since abandoned belief in a supernatural being who are simply fed up of lying to themselves and their theist friends about their lack of belief.

This, I think, is what RD means by comparing the atheist(I hate that word, but it is commonly used) movement with the gay movement.

As there are people who find people of the same sex attractive - love of another human being is to be encouraged I thought, the form is no-one's business - there are people who admit they are, as in my case, incapable of believing in god, simply because my brain won't let me.

Of course, you could waterboard me and I will lie about anything, but it would be just that, a lie.

I preferred Genesis and Led Zeppelin, though I thought the Yes Album was a tremendous album. Where have all the years gone? I grow old, I grow old...

205. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98086 by Incredulous on December 13, 2007 at 4:01 am

But this is the official Richard Dawkins site and he tries to prove the non existance of god, through reason.

Is this true? Or could it be that the application of his reason over many years of research in evolutionary biology and an incredible understanding of the bible and its apparent inconsistencies have led him to conclude that god is very improbable?

206. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98078 by Incredulous on December 13, 2007 at 3:45 am

I can tell you my name and which diocese I serve in if you want. But It shouldnt be neccesary

It isn't necessary at all. Try to see atheist as just a bad label for what RD would call a cat's choir. We don't sing in tune - we certainly don't have any hymn sheets - and we are individuals as you can see, and some are a little more vehement in their ad hominem attacks. We get all sorts, each with views as valid as anyone elses - including yours - if sometimes mistaken, as we all are sometimes. But that's the way we are: just a rabble with no pretentions, our own dreams, lives, feelings, failures, foibles and one thing in common: we don't believe stuff without evidence. That's what I like about these people - they're just people.

207. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98061 by Incredulous on December 13, 2007 at 3:15 am

Oh dear Father Mike.

I don't doubt for one minute you would like to have a rational debate with us, and I hope that would mean what I understand rational to mean, which by my dictionary means reasonable and sensible.

Unfortunately, reasonable suggests the LOGICAL and EVIDENCE BASED reasoning paradigm employed by many on this site. Sensible usually relates to accessible to the senses. I take your point about calm, but unfortunately hot under the collar does not preclude rationality or clear thinking.

Either way rational does seem to suggest some kind of educated technique is used, which precludes anything people of god can offer.

Is'nt it impossible to prove that God exists... or that he does not exist either. You are being irrational. It is like trying to prove the existance, or otherwise of, love for example, it canot be done.

I think this is what Baeoz is trying to say. We don't trust anything that is not empirically available to us. You have stated a belief in god without

a) Telling us what you mean by god - and that doesn't mean shifting the goalposts every time you score an own goal in your definition

b) Giving us ANY rationale, rational grounds, evidence or that which can be uncovered by the senses, for this belief

c) Understanding that it is your responsibility to prove what you say; if it is impossible then who's being irrational? I'll give you a clue: It isn't us!

You may be a thoroughly decent fellow, but I for one am fed up of playing your silly games of let's turn atheists into dogmatists.

I will restate for you: Atheism is not a true ism. It is not a system of beliefs, it is not a dogma, it is simply a statement saying we don't believe you when you say we were created by a secretive and probably incompetent deity.

We are not saying it isn't possible, just probably the most unlikely thing to imagine and we don't believe it, deciding instead to concentrate on what can be understood and leads us to what is workable, understandable, testable and earthly.

208. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97503 by Incredulous on December 12, 2007 at 8:00 am

Evangelical atheism is the mirror image of the faith it attacks - without that faith's redeeming doubts.

Since when does faith allow doubt. By its very definition faith cannot doubt. The whole atheist thing is based on doubt. wtf is evangelical atheism.

These people! when are they just going to shut up and find some evidence, so we can start a real process of theist discovery!!!

209. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97431 by Incredulous on December 12, 2007 at 4:39 am

Comment #97081 by PJG

God told Adam that if he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, he (Adam) would die (on that day). The serpent told Eve that this was not true. Eve believed the serpent and ate, and gave some to Adam, and they didn't die but, as the (honest) serpent had told them, they gained knowledge of good and evil.

I have a problem with talking serpents. Unless, of course, you're talking about Disney cartoons. This is not a criticism of your post, PJG, as I agree with you. I just can't take anything to do with Genesis seriously, and the above article leads me to question the sanity of someone who does.

210. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97412 by Incredulous on December 12, 2007 at 3:39 am

While I would usually agree with your caution, I think that cultural and religious factors should be the very centre of the prosecution's case in this one.

I sympathise with the apparent influence of primitive dogma on this case, but I really do think that facts and evidence should be the very centre of ALL legal process.

At the moment we only suspect cultural and religious are major factors but it is correct, in my opinion, to remain consistent to the view that evidence based reasoning is what matters.

While I understand the 'It takes a thief to catch a thief' approach to certain undertakings, I'm not sure that we need to respond to theist irrationality by behaving as irrationality.

As someone said: 'An eye for an eye makes everyone blind'. There's a difference between protecting what is yours and ill considered knee jerk responses potentially inflaming the situation.

Let's wait for all the evidence to come out in public and if there are cultural and religious factors then we can take steps to ensure our societies no longer comply or condone such madness. There will be nowhere for them to hide when this happens.

I am in full agreement with epeeist here. The poor girl is dead, it is the use of reason which appropriately applied will prevent others going the same way.

211. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97408 by Incredulous on December 12, 2007 at 3:24 am

Truth may be beauty, and beauty truth, in more than a metaphorical sense, and false propositions might actually disgust us.

Possibly explains why I reach for a bucket whenever I am forced to listen to or read something written by faith based reasoners. Luckily, that isn't too often on this site.

#97236 eric.malitz

This could be used as a lie detector it sounds like, unfortunately.

I think this use of current aspects of neuroscience has been proposed, but I think that's a little way off into the future.

In the same way I think it is not possible to brainwash someone - CIA, FBI, MI5, would all be doing so if it could be done, rather than employing primitive and possibly illegal torture techniques - there are many other things to understand in this domain before we can understand categorically a person's individual patterns when he/she lies or when he/she tells the truth.

This stuff is so interesting and shows also that Sam Harris is not woo wooing when he talks about taking a scientific interest in some of the meditative techniques employed by, say, buddhists.

212. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95447 by Incredulous on December 8, 2007 at 11:10 am

Steve99, polite or not, you always make sense to me and are always interesting, though I don't always agree with what you say. Ok, Dr Benway is a tad more humourous and Northern Bright a little clearer in what she says, but you'll do for me. Anyway, I believe it is sometimes better to be interesting than right and you are never boring! Keep posting.

213. Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

Comment #94963 by Incredulous on December 7, 2007 at 4:14 am

It seems to me that it really is only a matter of time before the new avenues of thinking finally opened up by taking an evolutionary approach to religion will have to give way to full blown atheism.

It seems the evangelists are simply looking for a way to stay in business in the light of overwhelming evidence that what has been written in the past about a probably fictional deity's role in our appearance on earth is a disturbing pack of lies.

However, we must acknowledge this attempt to help believers understand that their primitive beliefs do need modernising and maybe the search for objective truth is best left to those who believe in reason and evidenced.

Eventually, religion will adapt itself out of existence.

214. Riding with Rocinante: 'It's me or the crucifix'

Comment #94957 by Incredulous on December 7, 2007 at 3:48 am

I am totally confused!! This professional, hardworking professional is being abused because he believes the law should not have any bias towards any individual or group, right?

Am I right in being led to believe that this ordinary man is being attacked by the system for trying to uphold the values of that system?

This man is beng tried for ensuring that everyone is actually seen as being equal before the eyes of the law, if not before the imaginary eyes of our imaginary myth making mythological beast?

How do we, in Europe and the USA stop this degenerate sliede into this murky, degenerate mess?

215. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #94630 by Incredulous on December 6, 2007 at 5:33 am

I think it was Swiss psychologist, Carl Jung, who once stated that he did not believe in God, he knew there was a God. Yet I know very view atheists or scientists who would say there is definitely no God, we just have no evidence for such an extraodinary claim.

Does that not sound like a saner, more reasonable stance than the certain, and probably wrong stance you are taking, which is based on personal perception.

Ruht, the point is not your subjective experience, which I could not share even if I wanted to, it is simply that the people on this site, myself included, simply want hard, verifiable evidence of God so the process of falsification can begin.

I, like others, am fed up of the free ride religious claims get by not having to go through the same sanity check everything else has to in order to be accepted as valid.

Yes I have my own subjective experience but I tend not to get it mixed up with stuff that actually exists and is evidenced. Of course all subjective experiences are valid and to be enjoyed and shared, but they are real only to the experiencer. I'm as human as the next human.

It is too much to ask us sceptics to believe you about something with no evidence to support it.

As Richard Dawkins might say, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, just let us have that, but please no revelations, you're wasting our time and your time with that.

216. Sherri Shepherd needs to go away now

Comment #94587 by Incredulous on December 6, 2007 at 2:56 am

We don't need no education. Especially when you can be paid a lotta money for spouting so much ignorant, arrogant, poorly understood, nonsense.

So depressing! What's worrying is the number of people who turn on and tune in to her, literally condoning this expression of educational and intellectual failure.

217. Finding My Religion: An Interview With Shalom Auslander

Comment #94208 by Incredulous on December 5, 2007 at 3:04 am

This guy is so funny. What I like about this is his acceptance of and honesty towards his own person and the effect his early childhood training has had on him and will continue to have on him.

To my mind, he accidently speaks for a lot of people I have spoken to who see all the arguments for the non-existence of god, but can't get rid of the internal existence of what they have been taught, trained or learned. It's all a part of the pattern to them it seems.

As an aside, I know some people who were once staunch racists, who have told me honestly, that although intellectually they know how unfair, ignorant and arrogant their beliefs are, they feel overwhelmed by their cultural programming and give way to irrational beliefs about the 'other' ones. You don't need me to tell you where that can lead.

I gave up smoking about seven years ago and there are times and activities which remind me that I want a cigarette. After a meal, say, or when I'm reading something.

Intellectually I know this is bad, but it doesn't stop some, possibly, neuronal based percept from firing to remind me this is what I used to do or believe at a particular point in time.

For me, his humour shows how aware, yes, and in control he is of the stuff most people simply aren't aware control them. I'm not even sure we can be completely self aware.

218. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93431 by Incredulous on December 3, 2007 at 6:32 am

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Einstein

Sometimes I feel the only benefit I get from listening to the debates between rationalists and the faithful is that I get to extend my "I'd better find out about that" list as a result of great contributions from people like Steve99, Dr Benway, Sent2null et al.

It is sad for me to listen to someone as smart, articulate and well read as D'Souza confuse himself and others by scattering his badly processed knowledge everywhere, like a farmer spreading muck.

Daniel Dennett, it could easily be one of the others, could not possibly have time to refute and rebut all of the intellectual errors made by D'Souza in this short debate. For me the major error committed by D'Souza was to confuse Atheism with other dogmas, and bases his whole argument technique on dragging us into something akin to party political broadcast or religious rally.

Is this the right way for us to proceed?

Atheism is not a dogma. It is not a system of thought; A collection of policies. It does not pretend to be a universal idea like Justice, God, Freedom, Democracy, etc. It is simply states that it does not believe there is any deity behind the realities we see every day and that natural processes are responsible.

I suspect atheists fully appreciate the need for a moral code; but the code must be relevant to modernity; god based fictions are simply not up to the job, as we will have surmised from the recent Sudan teddy bear incident, and the poor girl sentenced to a severe beating for being raped.

Neither is Atheism a belief to be rebuffed, it simply remains doubtful and sceptical of the existence of god, preferring to wait for evidence.

Atheism sees probabilities where religion sees certainties. The result must be clashes that cannot be resolved in an entertaining, though fruitless, debate.

Listening to this debate I just got this overwhelmingly sad feeling that there is no arguing against propaganda tactics like those employed by D'Souza, therefore, more distant, rather than direct, means have to be employed. Someone suggested arguing by email. Why not? It cuts out the shouting and the propaganda based bullying approaches used by people like D'Souza, who is looking for disciples, or sheep to fleece, rather than exploring the truth value of what is to be believed and what is not to be believed.

The most important thing for us to do is to continue showing that it is science and reason which has seen the past 50 years be the most fruitful for all of us who embrace rationality without interference from the demeaning thinking habits of the faithful; and that its future promise must not be hampered with.

219. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92682 by Incredulous on December 1, 2007 at 7:59 am

What we need is a way to eliminate the mind-viruses without killing off the human beings. Unfortunately, I admit that with our present knowledge this may not be possible in a lot of cases. Tragic.

But what do we do about those who want to kill off the human beings who have painstakingly built up sufficient cognitive immunity to the mind virus and merely want to dispense the educational antidote to those who want to take it - with care and affection?

220. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92665 by Incredulous on December 1, 2007 at 5:31 am

When someone speaks to you and for you in so many ways, enlightens you, "raises your consciousness" on important issues, you establish an emotional bond with that person, even without knowing him personally.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not sure I agree with this. Richard Dawkins as a kind of quasi Jesus Christ figure doesn't work for me.

Dear Richard, you have a daughter, I have two. Would you really like or be absolutely indifferent to your daughter having several ... simultaneous relationships throughout her life?

I'm not sure his daughter would actually tell him, and I would be surprised if he asked. There's a difference between being indifferent and accepting certain realities over which you have no control.

221. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92660 by Incredulous on December 1, 2007 at 4:41 am

think we should make use of that change, and we should make use of it by taking the chance to debate and discuss these beliefs. My view, for what it is worth, is that encouraging people to proceed straight to mockery and ridicule is to dismiss this opportunity.

Let me first say that I have nothing but respect and admiration for the views of Steve99 as he does show respect, consideration and clear thought in everything he expresses to anyone.

I make a point of reading his posts before anyone's because I know it will make sense. But while I would like to be nice all the time, even I feel some faithheads are taking advantage of the rational person's desire to move forward and be inclusive in as pleasant a way as possible.

Rudeness for the sake of rudeness is childish. However, rudeness - I prefer bluntness - to make a point that an idea is understood and rejected surely cannot be.

Time and again I have seen some of the most intelligent and rationally thought through arguments simply crushed, not by an intelligent response, but by faithheads digging their heels in and say no you cannot move me from my belief.

I think Pat is merely displaying a heartfelt frustration at some of the comments made and in its way this rings a bell - ok, not a very genteel bell - with many.

We want to be straight and in your face but find it socially unacceptable to be so, when maybe it may not be such a good idea to give even short shrift to bad ideas.

222. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92656 by Incredulous on December 1, 2007 at 3:52 am

You need to question not just religion, marriage, and societal mores, but you must question most closely YOURSELF. WHERE do YOUR feelings and THOUGHTS about marriage come from?

I like this idea of taking personal responsibility for who you are and what you think and feel, as I feel it is key to healthy adult behaviour. From my point of view, it follows that so many marriages fail quite simply because of the 'fairy tale' view we have of relationships. False promises, which could never be kept, are made in unrealistic earnest. We seem to forget that things change, not only in society but also in ourselves.

We all fall in love, but I would like to see a more flexible approach, not only to our interest in the private worlds of others, but in the so-called institutions that want to control our person.

Why do we have to have a marriage that lasts forever - delusion - anyway? Why not three to five year contracts, renewable if the relationship feels good for both of you and simply ignored if one or both of you simply don't want to.

Even a car has a reverse gear, why not marriage? Why acrimonius and expensive divorces, when simply not re-signing a contract does the trick?

We all like to play the gallant and be romantic, but I'm just wondering if reality is a better basis for long term relationships.

223. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92650 by Incredulous on December 1, 2007 at 3:21 am

Okay, I'm a racist, anti-Muslim, evil bigot.

I fully appreciate your feelings but as far as I can see the evils facing the 21st Century are embodied in racism and religion. They are both fuelled by delusions and along with this unfortunate incident in the Sudan, show us more than ever we need rational thinking, freedom from superstition, and secular government.

An interesting comment was made in the times today:

http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2980287.ece

224. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92631 by Incredulous on December 1, 2007 at 2:11 am

This document is written in a highly academic, professorial style in which the Pope quotes saints, philosophers and writers to make his point.

Style isn't substance and bullshit always stinks no matter who you quote. Someone needs to tell this guy to be a little more responsible in what he puts out; it really isn't good enough to trot out the same deluded lies time after time.

Add me to the list of those who believe if you want to put your faith in your invisible friend then don't seek ANY assistance at all from the fruits of our human walk to enlightenment. There are many caves you can go and sit in and wait for the call to ecstasy from your invisible friend. You'll be waiting a long time, though.

225. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92255 by Incredulous on November 30, 2007 at 6:34 am

It had to be said and Pat said it.

Anyway, the faithful will think you are rude simply for suspecting that the ideas on which they have developed such strong and persistent cognitive webs of faith are, well, wrong.

I have no wish to waste the one life I have on this earth engaged with some believer's elongated death prattle, when I only want the person to provide evidence for his beliefs.

Nice one Pat. Their beliefs are a joke and should be treated as such at every opportunity. Respect for religion? You won't find it here with me, Especially after the events of the last few days and of course, the religion fuelled madness of 7/11 and 7/7.

226. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #92214 by Incredulous on November 30, 2007 at 4:25 am

Utter lunacy!! Wouldn't surprise me if they imprisoned and whipped the teddy bear for aiding and abetting in the said crime(??).

More seriously, could you blame the poor teacher if she now turned her back on those who most probably appreciated her assistance.

Sad to think how much harm this brutal arrogance has done down the centuries.

I wonder how the kids are reacting to this? They probably haven't got a clue what's going on and probably mystified to tears how a decision that they have made has led to such harsh treatment for someone they liked.

If this doesn't add to the growing reality that religion poisons everything, well nothing can.

Utter lunacy!!

227. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92199 by Incredulous on November 30, 2007 at 3:35 am

Richard Dawkins is one of the few people I could listen to over and over again when he's talking about his passion, science, or when he's just talking intelligently as in this video.

If ever anyone needed a reason to develop a love of life or lacked that bit of confidence to simply live life to the full in their own inimitable style, without offending others naturally, then just let this guy loose on them.

Great to see an interviewer who asked pertinent questions and let the man speak.

228. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #91720 by Incredulous on November 29, 2007 at 4:36 am

I fear an opportunity is being lost by the 'moderate' muslim population everywhere to come out and say not in our name and not in the name of deceny, theist or non-theist. It is this lack of commitment to reasonability which condemns religion in my eyes as it seems to condone this sad abuse of power and leaves it to a mere child to protest at the sheer nakedness of the charges brought by these vacuous emporer's. I hope I wasn't being too strong with my little input, here.

229. 2006 Charles Simonyi Lecture: 'Can the Internet Save The Enlightenment?'

Comment #91088 by Incredulous on November 27, 2007 at 7:17 am

I really enjoyed that lecture. A very charming speaker with a very serious message entertainingly put across.

230. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90307 by Incredulous on November 24, 2007 at 7:25 am

Thanks for the link, phasmagigas. I wish I'd expressed these ideas as clearly as this writer. I guess I will from now on.