Comments by Rtambree

201. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99833 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 4:22 pm

A fantasy four-way chat...

1. Bertrand Russell
2. Carl Sagan
3. Charles Darwin
4. Albert Einstein or Francis Crick

Among the living...

1. Jonathan Miller
2. Noam Chomsky
3. Richard Dawkins
4. Stephen Fry

202. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #99830 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 4:09 pm

7. Comment #99824 by Gymnopedie

I think that generally the further you go down the church hierachy, the more people do genuinely believe. But I'm skeptical that high ranking clerics, cardinals, bishops, popes, rabbis, mullahs, etc actually believe themselves, althought they may delude themselves into thinking they're performing a social service for the helpless flock.

203. This Is Not a Test

Comment #99829 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 4:04 pm

16. Comment #99823 by Gymnopedie

>No one voted for Nader because people ignore him on the ballot as they think they are "wasting" their vote on a candidate that does not have a chance

That's circular reasoning isn't it? I agree, the system needs an overhaul so voters aren't always forced to choose for the "least worst" candidate - a terrible corruption of democracy.

In Australia, you can put a first preference, and then second preference and so on.

In the USA, it seems the system is geared to ratchet to the right as left wing voters are 'forced' to choose candidates with right wing policies. In hindsight, Richard Nixon's policies were pretty progressive, although at the time he was an arch-conservative. In the future, George W Bush may look like a bleeding heart liberal, if the political system continues to track to the right.

In any case, in what sense are voters discriminating between candidates' actual policies (as opposed to personalities)?

204. This Is Not a Test

Comment #99817 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 3:49 pm

10. Comment #99816 by Arcturus

>When will a secular humanist, openly agnostic or atheist ever try to run for office?

The third candidate the last two elections was a scientifically literate agnostic/atheist, Ralph Nader and next to no-one voted for him and he was vilified for even running. Dawkins estimates that there are about 30 million American atheists and Ralph Nader received less than a million votes in the last election.

205. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #99814 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 3:39 pm

1. Comment #99769 by theantitheist

>if we could get the Pope and the other Human Sheppards to undertake this maybe we could take the head off the beasts!!

Be careful what you wish for. If all these idiots are exposed as atheists, then they become our problem and we need to explain why atheists do evil things.

206. This Is Not a Test

Comment #99813 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 3:35 pm

3. Comment #99789 by hayesky

>The question is who can we vote for? They all seem so boring.

Doesn't seem like you get much choice over there. The political spectrum goes all the way from far right to centre right. 10,000 flavours of drink in your supermarket aisles and only 'Dumb' and 'Dumber' on the ballot.

207. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #99621 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 7:47 am

102. Comment #98276 by shad0w

>I have lost whatever respect i had for Shermer.

Yes, it is disappointing. He's been quite soft of religion of late, and seems to reverting back to attacking less important quackery.

Don't forget he was once an evangelical. Also he's a businessman not an academic, and must therefore be mindful of book and magazine sales, etc. His recent Scientific American articles seem more concerned with promoting ultra libertarian economics, than in denouncing religion. Milton Friedman might be his new God.

208. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99329 by Rtambree on December 16, 2007 at 10:23 am

Every British scientist will be honing their comic skills trashing this place. While it lasts, it'll be the laughing stock of the country. If the entrace admission fee is cheap enough, I might even visit "ironically" - there might a guilty pleasure as when Victorians visited lunatic asylums and poked the inmates with sticks.

209. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99160 by Rtambree on December 15, 2007 at 7:23 pm

>The reasons Hitchens ALWAYS gives for his support of the Iraq war, whenever he is asked about it, is always the same: to remove a brutal dictator from power

No, Matt, I've listened to all the recent Hitchens interviews, read his book and his many articles, and my conclusion is that he supports the war in Iraq because of "self-defense" - because he still believes in links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
In Hitchens' view, Islamic fundamentalists are out to destroy western civilisation and Iraq is part of the war on terror.

The issue of Saddam being a dictator in Iraq doesn't seem to be as big a problem for him. Saddam was a dictator in 1991 and Hitchens was against removing Saddam back then.

210. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99156 by Rtambree on December 15, 2007 at 7:04 pm

139. Comment #99152 by Ben Jennings

>But somehow it'd take more "cojones" to repent come back to the fold? Huh?

Yes - can you imagine Hitch saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong the last five years on this issue"?

The only way that Hitch would apologise for a previous controversial stance is to say "I should have made it earlier or been even more forceful, etc", which isn't really an apology at all. That's just his style.

Hitchens did say, right at the end of part 2, that he had a list of reservations about Iraq, but unfortunately Dawkins called "time", so it ended on a cliff-hanger.

Whether the reservations are just about tactics, troop numbers, bombing Iran sooner rather than later, etc we'll see.

211. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99143 by Rtambree on December 15, 2007 at 6:07 pm

I get the feeling that Hitchens likes to argue for the sake of it - regardless of the company, and even if he has to give contradictory statements.

To his credit, he is his own man and can't be pigeonholed into any ideological camp. Some on this forum have labelled him a neo-con, but I'm sure that if he was sitting with three neo-cons on the table, he'd be condemning the USA support of the Saudi theocracy and the support of Jewish settlers on the West Bank, etc. This makes him more a theatrical entertainer, rather than an intellectual.

His justification of "I don't wish religion to go away" was particularly convoluted and well exposed by Dawkins and Harris, and Hitchens' favourite liberal-baiting statement, how the 82nd Airborne is fighting the forces of theocracy and defending civilization from destruction is the equivalent of being a "troll".

I'm not against Hitchens. He is never boring and would always add colour to a dinner party, but I would cast him more as the comic relief rather than someone you turn to for answers.

Agreed, it takes all sorts and different approaches of atheism's four horsemen will hopefully persuade different types of theists.

One doesn't have to agree with every statement all of them make, all of the time, to recognize that they all make valuable contributions.

212. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99133 by Rtambree on December 15, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Sam Harris came out looking pretty good from this - sharp, original, clear, nuanced.

Dawkins didn't say much, but he was able to distill and summarise ideas, resolve confusion and keep the conversation moving.

Hitchens didn't do himself any favours in this encounter. As eloquently as he speaks with sentences full of quotes from the classics and references to obscure historical events, he still ended up making some stupid statements. An excellent vocabulary, education and articulate delivery helps camouflage the idiocy of some of his statements. In particular, every opinion is packaged like an absolute certain fact. The lack of scientific thinking (as opposed to a humanities background) shows up here in contrast to the other three.

But thanks to Josh for this - it was great being the "fifth presence" at the table - we all hope there's many more.

Subjects for future discussion could include:

* Cults v mainstream religions

* The example of the Scandinavian countries. Is raising the standard of livings and economic security more effective in shedding God than books, argument or bombing?

* Whether empirical evidence suggests that moderate reconciliatory atheism is more effective than hardline atheism.

* The 7% of elite highly educated National Academy scientists that still believe in God - what is going on neurologically?

* Debating tactics against theists.

213. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #98983 by Rtambree on December 15, 2007 at 5:14 am

9. Comment #98978 by allanplaskett

Yes, always good to keep in mind - separating the scientific discovery from the uglier aspects of the personality that discovered them. Although, separating the two can be taken too far. The ban of Wagner's music in Israel is a iconic example of this - where an anti-semitic man writes operas that are not anti-semitic - so why ban the operas?

In addition, Newton was also obsessed with the apocalytic prophecies in the book of Revelation and often engaged in personal vendettas in the Royal Society. Even Einstein had a few character flaws, most notably the way he treated his first wife.

Darwin comes out pretty good though - certainly the most humble and gentle of the "big three": from what we know he was faithful to his wife and family and friends, generous to his rival Wallace, didn't engage in personal animosities, and wanted to accumulate data before advancing theories. The worst thing that can be said about Darwin is that he shot wildlife, which wasn't considered a problem in those days.

214. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #98608 by Rtambree on December 13, 2007 at 11:44 pm

In 18th century Europe, arguments were resolved with a duel... "I demand satisfaction"

215. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98559 by Rtambree on December 13, 2007 at 9:28 pm

47. Comment #98240 by Aequitas12345

>Does anyone know what was said?

See post #27.

216. Here's an improvement on democracy

Comment #98303 by Rtambree on December 13, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Peter Watson is an under-rated public intellectual (probably because he doesn't have John Brockman as his literary and PR agent). His two books on intellectual history should be textbooks in every school - they give you the framework upon which to hang historical events that you learn throughout life.

They're big tomes, but they're worth it - years of research and writing for the cost of a McDonalds Meal.

217. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98194 by Rtambree on December 13, 2007 at 8:43 am

If you're having problems watching it in streaming mode, download HiDownload from Streamingstar - it's a little software utility that allows you to save such media on your hard drive.

Simply copy the URL address from WMP Properties into HiDownload and it'll download - the debate file is about 640mb. They you can watch it smoothly.

http://www.streamingstar.com/hidownload.htm

The video URL address is

http://qstream-wm.qbrick.com/05076/ayaan_hirsi_ali_versus_timothy_garton_ash_071209_webspecial_ESA005.wmv

218. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98158 by Rtambree on December 13, 2007 at 6:49 am

37. Comment #98154 by notsobad

>What was peeped out?

See post #27.

219. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98116 by Rtambree on December 13, 2007 at 5:14 am

32. Comment #98115 by mejdrich

>Not trying to fight over semantics

It's best not to try to make sense over all this irrationality. None of the tenants of the Abrahamic religions map well onto a logical framework.

220. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98112 by Rtambree on December 13, 2007 at 4:55 am

Apostates are defectors, traitors. Much worse than those that never believed, apparently.

221. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98111 by Rtambree on December 13, 2007 at 4:52 am

28. Comment #98102 by PJG

>Oh dear... if any nut reads that, does it mean censoring it on the website will have been a waste of time?

Worse has been said about the Prophet on this website, and in Christopher Hitchens' book, so I hope it's safe. I don't know why reaction to some comments is extreme and others are ignored.

222. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98100 by Rtambree on December 13, 2007 at 4:35 am

23. Comment #98072 by PJG

>Are there any good lip-readers amongst us who could translate the TGA censored bit? :)

Yeah, I was there - TGA simply said the the Prophet Muhammed was an illiterate delusional pedophile or words to that effect.

I guess they censored it in case it incites another Danish-cartoon like outrage and then another security trust fund needs to be set up to protect him for the rest of his life.

Dick Cheney needs to lease out his underground bunker for all these outspoken critics of Muhammed to shelter in. That would save on security costs. Salman Rushdie gets the top bunk as he was first.

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

Comment #97237 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 7:43 pm

Disgraceful. Another example of an 'Honour Killing'?

Islam is not exactly winning the PR war, is it?

224. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97229 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Carl Sagan was never for the in-your-face shock tactics like Hitchens. I think he would have been more in the reconciliatory EO Wilson, deGrasse Tyson, or Lawrence Krauss mode.

But his soothing voice, charm, supreme eloquence, passion, and breadth of knowledge made him likeable, even by Christians.

He would have been a valuable, potent and persuasive ally.

225. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97206 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 5:55 pm

I'd like to see what happens in a religious brain when Alistair McGrath is piped into the MRI machine and then, say, Dawkins or Hitchens, and then vice versa, what happens in an atheist brain.

And is there a genetic predisposition to accepting religious propositions?

Another experiment: 10 scientists that do believe versus 10 scientists that don't believe - both groups are highly scientifically literate (so that controls for education), but what causes Francis Collins, Polkinghorne, McGrath, et al to believe whereas most scientists do not?

226. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97098 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Four responses to "Stalin was an atheist..."

1. There's no plausible logical path from "I don't have any evidence of God" to "Send all my political enemies to the Gulag"

2. The last time when Christianity had complete totalitarian control over every aspect of life (i.e. the Dark Ages), Europe was regressing in every field. Even Islam was more enlightened 1,000 years ago. Europe only began to pull ahead when the influence of religion waned.

3. Christian USA is behind non-Christian Europe across an entire range of social indices: longevity, literacy, foreign aid, egalitarianism, political participation of women, etc. The less you believe in Jesus, the more you follow Him.

4. Political ideologies are secular religions. Whether it's left-marxism or right-fascism, they have all the trappings of religions: sacred symbols such as flags and holy texts such as manifestos, the promise of a future utopia if you obey and subjugate yourself to the cause, prophets to be revered, aversion to empirical evidence, the elevation of an abstract ideal above the individual, and the consolidation and perpetuation of centralised power.

227. Springer opera court fight fails

Comment #97089 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 11:45 am

>19. Comment #94396 by ChrisMcL

>You know, as backwards as the U.S. can be in regard to church and state issues - WE DON"T HAVE LAWS AGAINST BLASPHEMY!!!

I know it isn't technically "blasphemy" but the obscenity laws in the USA are much more severe than in Europe - not just examples such as the infamous wardrobe malfunction from Janet Jackson, but the sanitisation of movies, TV shows, radio, etc with nudity and swearing.

Violence seems to be OK, but nudity is repressed (typical Christian hyprocrisy) but an example analogous to blasphemy, where Christians have actually succeeded in influencing the freedom of expression.

228. A Call For a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology

Comment #97065 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 11:00 am

>What matters is the quest for the unknown, the critical thinking, an open mind, a respect for scientific integrity etc that props a scientific culture

Agreed. I've noticed that the most popular phrase that begins any sentence by a candidate is "I believe..."

Their PR minders must have told them that beginning sentences with "I believe..." shows strength, moral certitude, etc, etc and they can't be pinned down for lying.

The question is... is it the candidates or the electorate? A chicken or egg question? Or are we stuck on some feedback loop that ratchets down the level of IQ desirable in a leader?

229. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97055 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 10:52 am

"While theologians have interrogated their beliefs for millennia, secular humanists have yet to question their simple creed. Evangelical atheism is the mirror image of the faith it attacks - without that faith's redeeming doubts."

An amazing display of cognitive gymnastics! Up is down, left is right, black is white.

230. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97050 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 10:44 am

We can see a taxonomy of these standard responses from so-called "intellectuals" - very predictable, superficial and misinformed. Dawkins has addressed the first wave of responses in the prelude to the paperback edition of The God Delusion.

Perhaps it's just newspaper editors trying to generate debate by being "balanced" and giving these articles exposure that they normally wouldn't deserve.

231. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97044 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 10:31 am

It depends, Bonzai. It's certainly cheaper to destroy New York (floods, asteroids, giant reptiles, giant gorillas, etc) on your computer than to film it for real.

Where CG is most realistic is in adding to an existing set. So filmmakers only have to build the first level of a street scene or castle or whatever, and the computer can take over. This is cheaper than building the whole set.

But using CG completely to create a set or a character usually still looks cartoon-like. One day they'll get there - when CPU processing power keeps halving each year, and the algorithms governing how light and hair move become more sophisticated. One day, it might be possible to create something like Lord of the Rings on your desktop, just like digital audio recording is common and cheap now whereas in 1979, you needed the world's state of the art equipment.

232. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97032 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 10:04 am

55. Comment #97027 by Durandal

And don't forget all the marketing budget which can be 50% (ore more) as much again as the cost of the film.

I don't understand where all the budget went - the lead was an unknown, the co-stars were stupid CG talking animals and most of it was just one big exercise in compositing. Nicole Kidman et al must have soaked up a big chunk of the budget. Not worth it.

233. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97013 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 9:22 am

51. Comment #97007 by wagnerpe

That's right - the simplest explanation is often the best - the movie simply sucked. Perhaps we've had our fill of 'green screen & CG' extravaganzas for the time being.

234. A Call For a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology

Comment #97011 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 9:14 am

>If the dumbasses are dumb enough to vote for Bush, they'll vote for any cretin in a sharp suit with a smile.

Some even say anti-intellectualism is rife in the American electorate and the selection of politicians reflects that. The dumber the candidates the better.

Intellectuals might be perceived as shifty and threatening. As Julius Caesar said about Cassius... "he thinks too much. Such men are dangerous".

Bush isn't the first half-witted President. Reagan got two terms as well.

I hope it isn't a race to the bottom i.e. each viable candidate and President has to be more stupid than the last in order to be trusted by the electorate.

235. A Call For a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology

Comment #96997 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 8:27 am

It'd be fun if they got asked some basic questions to test their science literacy:

1. Why is the sky blue?
2. How old is the Earth / Universe?
3. How many genes do we have?
4. What's the half-life of Plutonium?
5. If water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, what's air made of?

236. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #96990 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 8:13 am

Dennett was certainly more intelligent, but in terms of debating style, he lacked flair. A slower words/minute rate, higher disfluency and arguments that jumped around mid-sentence from topic to topic meant that he only addressed 10% of the many points that D'Souza made.

Sure, Dennett got 9/10 for substance, but perhaps only 3/10 for style, whereas D'Souza got 1/10 for substance but perhaps 6/10 for style.

Even the questions at the end of the debate from the audience were better than Dennett's points.

I was just commentating on the spectacle or showbiz aspect of the debating format. Like you I detest the O'Reilly format because it's too short, too superficial.

I would prefer an approach where the opponent of D'Souza take him to task on the first incorrect statement he uttered, and hammered him on that one point for the next three hours if necessary in order to get him to recant or apologise.

Pat has an eloquence of speaking with good rhetorical skills and low disfluency so that in the "arena" of debate, he would make a worthy champion against D'Souza.

237. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #96940 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 6:09 am

After Dennett's lame job, put Pat up against Dinesh D'Souza for the next debate.

238. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96579 by Rtambree on December 10, 2007 at 6:21 pm

He can't accuse atheists of not believing in anything, as we obviously believe in many things, for example, atheists believe in killing, mass graves, killing, gas chambers, killing, mountains of bodies, killing, gulags, killing, torture, killing, maiming, killing, genocide, killing, violence, killing, mutilating babies,... and did I mention killing?

239. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96266 by Rtambree on December 10, 2007 at 8:51 am

I'm offended by the TV channel's framing of the issue in showing the offending tree in front of the offending sign from the offending atheists offending the Christians that are offending them back again... all this offending is just an offence.

240. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95030 by Rtambree on December 7, 2007 at 7:39 am

Hyperpatriotism seems to be the glue that keeps together the class, race, and ideological divides... just.
Keep their eyes on The Flag, and they won't notice they're being fleeced.

241. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95027 by Rtambree on December 7, 2007 at 7:30 am

Bait and switch. A discussion on Mormonism was switched to the untouchable religion of nationalism which no American can question.

242. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94460 by Rtambree on December 5, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Alistair McGrath gets my vote for the "Biggest Waste of Time" award.

243. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94407 by Rtambree on December 5, 2007 at 3:56 pm

What about the Sudanese or Saudi courts?

244. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #93323 by Rtambree on December 2, 2007 at 5:29 pm

The first line of Dawkins' "Root of all Evil?" could have done with a fact checker: we haven't sent orbiters to Neptune.