251. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65110 by 82abhilash on August 22, 2007 at 11:26 pm

I Just wanted to state that Brian Sapient's Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter... was precise and rational. Very much up to the point. Michael Shermer grew up in a time when it was considered 'the right thing' to be polite to people of faith. He seems yet to fully grasp the fact that it doesnot work, we need to be more proactive and he has told him why.

On another note I would like to add that this event is the best display of the tendency of reasonable people to self-critical, something the religious are not. We must always be suspicious of people who are absolutely certain, but donot feel complled to offer proof.

252. Rational Atheism

Comment #65089 by 82abhilash on August 22, 2007 at 9:53 pm

50. Comment #64908 by ChrisMcL on August 22, 2007 at 10:04 am
Some of Shermer's arguments remind me of those made by African-American's in support of the policy of "Separate but Equal". Atheists should not be satisfied with with thier world view simply achieving an equal status of respect. If we achieve that, then what? We will see the same kind of subtle discrimination that Afircan-Americans are still subject to these 35+ years after Dr. King's struggle.

No, I say. We should insist that others regard their beliefs with the same skepticism, rationalism, and scientific information that we use. That is the only way that we will TRULY be equal.


I TOTALLY AGREE. BUT I THINK IT IS LESS LIKELY. MORE POSSIBLE IS TO PUSH RELIGION OF OUT OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, THAT GIVEN ENOUGH TIME AND ADVANCEMENT IN VAARIOUS FIELDS OF KNOWLEDGE especially, science and philosophy, PEOPLE WILL CONSIDER ENDING ITS PRACTICE IN THE PRIVATE DOMAIN AS WELL.

Afro-Americans are less discriminated than they have ever been. I think part of the reason for the slow progress has been the lack of understanding of the specific needs of people from those communities, although that is changing. And I dare say, I suspect their own social set-up make them more inclined to religiosity and superstition, than hard facts. That is why Martin Luther King had to use the faith card. I think he was a secularist in religious disguise. He provided inspiration from the Bible, but he drew inspiration from the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi.

253. Rational Atheism

Comment #65085 by 82abhilash on August 22, 2007 at 9:36 pm

It is rather unfortunate that there is so much bad blood for Dr.Shermer in this forum. He makes a valuable point that is so well demonstrated by all those who made knee jerk reactions to his article.

Christopher Hitchens had claimed that atheism is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for a society where free thought is necessary. And no point demonstrates it better than the illogical, dishonest and insincere comments made by some people on this site.

Atheism does not automatically make you a good person. You could still be Stalin and conduct show trials or be Red China and oppresses Tibet.

I will say agree that Martin Luther King was anti-racist, however he is remembered as a Civil Rights leader. If you are a humanist or a secularist, it is pretty well given that you do not think there is a personal God, but now you have a positive assertion to your cause, because you are defining yourself by what you believe, what you disbelieve is implicit.

Michael Schermer quotes Ludwig von Mises School an economist. And everyone who believes in him will be a staunch anti-communist. But he preferred to be defined by his pro-market stance. The story of the communist collapse is a story of their failure, not a story of our success. Likewise this is most probably the story of the failure of faith not the success of non-theism.

Now none of this means anyone should let people make declarations in the name of religion and get away with it. Religion can no longer be the conversation stopper that it was. All I am implying is to be thoughtful and intelligent when putting forth your point of view, but that holds true at all places and at all times.

254. Authors at Google: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #64031 by 82abhilash on August 17, 2007 at 11:18 am

This guy verifes facts doesnot take things just because everybody agrees. I like that.

255. The vanishing jihad exposés

Comment #63018 by 82abhilash on August 12, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Well people like us meet at forums like this, the word about such books spreads from us. I am sure some of you may know Christians who would love to hear about what is in this book.

I have nothing against, letting my enemies fight each other. The lesser of the two evils is still evil, and in my personal opinion, Islam as a greater threat to free society today than Christianity.

256. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #63017 by 82abhilash on August 12, 2007 at 11:27 pm

Did anyone notice David Allen White trying to suggest, science cannot do this, science cannot find that and so on. Even using the argument - 'We donot know, so God did it.'

Also he was arguing against positions Christopher Hitchens donot necessarily hold.

Sam Harris is right, there are honestly just a few ways to defend religion.

Here we have 4 people with 4 somewhat original ideas against religion, but all the religious people seem to gravitate on a few points.

The non-catholics seem to put up a more varying defense though, their dogmas are not as homogenous, although very similar.

257. Islamic Finance and Its Critics

Comment #62459 by 82abhilash on August 9, 2007 at 7:53 pm

first

258. Electrons to Enlightenment 4: Debating Darwin

Comment #61592 by 82abhilash on August 5, 2007 at 11:14 pm

Paul Nelson keeps claiming that the question of whether there is an intelligent designer is a scientific one not a religious one. Fine, maybe we where designed by aliens. Is the Discovery Institute funding studies that examine that? So if it is not religious prejudice, but curiosity that drives you, would you accept people with no religious affiliation into the discovery institute? They can be curious too you know.

259. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58860 by 82abhilash on July 26, 2007 at 12:40 pm

js5535 is right, Chris Hedges is jealous and his arguments are poor. Not to mention he was embarrassed by Hitchens in The 'Is God...Great?' Debate. Hitchens virtually mopped the floor with him. Sam Harris was kinder to him.

Maybe he should write on a different subject for a while.

260. Camp Joins Summer Fun With Teaching Hindu Faith

Comment #58586 by 82abhilash on July 25, 2007 at 9:11 am

Hindus in US are a dispersed lot with varying beliefs and traditions and even languages (India has 18 official languages), but cut off from their homeland, they may homogenize into a single unit and this article seems to indicate.

It they do, that would mean they would have critical mass as a group that they otherwise would not. And there is no reason to believe that if they do reach critical mass, that they wouldn't demand their version of facts and beliefs taught in public schools, be it in science or history.

So nip this in the bud at the grass root. If you know any Hindus, appeal only to their sense of reason and rationality. Do not give them (or people of any other faith for that matter) an opportunity to express themselves religiously in the public domain.

261. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58451 by 82abhilash on July 24, 2007 at 10:47 pm

Edd Doerr uses the term 'faith in science.' That is an oxymoron. In fact there is no such thing. Indeed if there was such a thing it would mean that you can get away with anything 'in the name of science.' Is a means to come up with natural explanations about how our universe works.

Physicist Richard Feynman had put this point when he said - " When someone says, "Science teaches such and such," he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, "Science has shown such and such," you might ask, "How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?"

It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect, has shown." And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at."

Science is just our logical, consistent and most reasonable interpretation to the observation made after proper proper experimentation.

So please don't say 'faith in science'. At best say, ' I believe in the potential of the scientific method to help me gain a better understanding of the world.

262. Christians disrupt Hindu Prayer at Senate Invocation

Comment #56804 by 82abhilash on July 17, 2007 at 10:11 am

ChinmayKukade wrote:
Hinduism is really an umbrella term for an endless variety of cultural/religious belief systems - including ATHEISM..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism

I wonder how many of you are knowing this for the first time..

But I agree with k1mgy on this one. The should start the Senate and Congress sessions with by reading from the oath to the constitution, the declaration of independence or some other document that is all American.

263. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56634 by 82abhilash on July 16, 2007 at 4:52 pm

About not needing to be educated to doubt the existence of God. I know from experience that Christopher Hitchens got that one right. When I lived in India, I had a barber, I think he doesn't know beyond reading and writing, earned not more than $4 a day and that was on a good day, and yet he was a staunch anti-theist (in retrospect). If ever the conversation talked about unbelief, he will always bring up strong points as to why worship of a deity was unhealthy.

264. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56108 by 82abhilash on July 13, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Perhaps repitition is necessary, until the idea gains critical mass and gets internalised by mainstream society.

265. Bill Moyers interviews E.O. Wilson

Comment #55057 by 82abhilash on July 9, 2007 at 10:57 pm

I got a sense that E. O Wilson is trying to be nice and reasonable with the dogmatic and the religious. But religion is the opposite of reason. It is encapsulated in faith.

I donot think he can make any long term inroads into the world of evangelicals. But he makes for good PR, it is extremely hard to disrespect him, even if you are a right wing fundamentalists.

If people like him begin to consolidate the victories that generals like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens , Daniel Dennet and others are winning for them, a new age of enlightenment may dawn in the near future.

E. O wilson is an important officer in the occupation force. But we need Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins in an assault team.

As you can see I am talking like military here.

266. Journey Into Islam

Comment #52319 by 82abhilash on June 26, 2007 at 5:58 pm

I donot think any of you here have any respect for Islam. Some of you may have some doubts however about your own sincereity with regards to the nature of Islam. You may even think, perhaps even with the Ideology of Islam, there are good parts and bad parts - grains of gold lost in sand.

It is only for reasonable people to be self critical. That is perhaps why they are the last to voice their opinions. They take pride in being thoughtful and admit to mistakes once they realise it.

But here you are not mistaken and you should know that, none of us are mistaken. There is a book that clearly explains the nature of Islam - 'Understanding Islam through the Hadis'.

http://www.voi.org/books/uith/

The Indian author who wrote this had to go into hiding just like Salman Rushdie. His name is Ram Swarup

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

This book is not banned in India, but is very difficult to obtain. 'The Satanic Verses' by the way is banned in India.

READ THIS BOOK AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND ISLAM BETTER.

267. Germany imposes ban on Tom Cruise

Comment #52264 by 82abhilash on June 26, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Can you really blame the Germans for being too careful? They already have experienced a cult that destroyed their country and killed millions of their people. Scientology is not a religion, in the sense there is no form of worship, but like all other religions, they supress free thought and discourage critical thinking, plus they file law suits like crazy.

There is a book 'A Piece of Blue Sky' that tells more on Scientology. I have the link below.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/atack/

Now you don't have to believe everything you read, but you must read before you can decide whether to believe it or not.

268. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51662 by 82abhilash on June 24, 2007 at 2:16 am

Brilliant and insightful, the whole package. I never realized things where so serious. Ladies and gentlemen, this is our finest hour. May each and every one of us, rise to the challenge of theocracy to the best of our ability. We must all fight our best fight for the sake of reason.

269. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50761 by 82abhilash on June 19, 2007 at 9:39 pm

'What is your need to take science to discredit God...and constantly mention Darwinism..?'

Well because religion is threatening the free world, and discouraging thoughts for free enquiry and reason. Because theocracy is trying to take roots in the developed world. Because Pseudo-intellects and pseudo-scientists are trying to teach garbage to children in PUBLIC schools. You would think it is time someone said enough is enough. YOUR GOD IS NOT IMMUNE TO MY CRITICISM. History shows me that he has a lousy record.

270. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #50760 by 82abhilash on June 19, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Dawkins could have answered one question better I feel. About whether it is possible that there might be some omnipotent intelligence that is beyond the capacity of present day science to uncover. A better answer could have been,' I think anyone making that extra-ordinary claim must commit oneself to an extra-ordinary burden of proof and so far, they have all shied away from that. In fact they have gone on to claim the opposite which is not asking for proof or accepting limited proof is a virtue'

271. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50580 by 82abhilash on June 18, 2007 at 11:20 pm

Moderators like Robert Scheer, fan the flames of irrationality that trap and choke the greatest rationalists of our time. May his actions be remembered by history as shameful along with that of Chris Hedges - who proved to me that you can use intelligent words and still be a moron. Two men sat in front of hundreds of people and justified a grotesque act of terrorism, without fear of reprisal, the Americans cannot be more tolerant if they tried!!

Reminds me of some lines from 'If' by Rudyard Kipling 'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools'.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WHO CAN THINK SENSIBLY, IF YOU FIND PEOPLE LIKE THIS SPEAK IN PUBLIC, DECLARE YOUR DISGUST FOR THEM OPENLY AND SHAMELESSLY, WITH STRONG RESOLVE SO THE WORLD MAY HEAR IT!! MORE THAN THE SUICIDE BOMBERS, IT IS MEN LIKE THESE THAT YOU SHOULD FEAR ABOUT. THEY ARE SWEEPING THE STREETS AND PAVING THE FOOTPATH OVER WHICH THE SUICIDE BOMBERS PLAN TO WALK OVER.

272. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #50119 by 82abhilash on June 15, 2007 at 6:21 am

Olasky seems to have made a valid argument by pointing to the good things people have done in the name of religion to claim religion does not poison everything. It only poisons some things.

I think the cases he explain are either that people with good-will doing good work in the name of religion or religious people doing good work with dubious motives-like proselyte - in which case their 'good' work is just an excuse to steal your soul.

Christian missionaries often do a lot of good deeds in the hope of making a convert, I can point out that few of them are good just for the sake of goodness - that is spreading the poison. Only now you put a front for goodness and spread the poisonous idea.

So what happens now? The idea spreads amongst those who may decide to spread it by not so ethical means, because there is nothing in the books against that (in fact in many cases that is theologically sanctioned). What happens in other cases? It creates apologists, who keep pointing out that it is not all that bad, because they too have been bred and brainwashed in this ideology. But more importantly it creates a pool of credulous people. Some of them, who like to do good, continue to do so in the name of religion, giving religion a good name. Others who are not so good become the cynical and power hungry that creates a dictatorship here on earth, possible now, because most of the faithful are too credulous and too gullible to stop them, indeed consider it virtuous to suffer under them to protect their faith. See how the poison affects different people differently, but always ends up creating the same problem over and over again? This pattern has repeated throughout our painful human history.

The idea lives on in the credulous, waiting to find another cynic who can assert control over them. THIS IS WHY RELIGION IS POISON. And Christopher Hitchens knows this, it is his idea and he better get good at communicating this idea to all the credulous who are out there, because RELIGION IS A FLAWED AND DANGEROUS MEANS THROUGH WHICH TO EXPRESS YOUR GOODNESS.

273. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #50086 by 82abhilash on June 15, 2007 at 12:33 am

Do you guys think for yourself? Thinking for yourself is a big burden. It is much more simpler to follow a rule book that says exactly what to do. Some people like me take joy in thinking for ourselves, but it is an aquired taste.

Olasky seems to have that same problem, he is a good man, he is looking for a manual that validates his sense of ethics, his ethical intuitions. We donot have a science for ethics yet, so we find irrational explanations for it. Trouble is irrational explanations can just as easily motivate us to do bad as it can to do good. The book is an inanimate object indifferent to our interpratations of its contents.

Hitchen's explanation that it is innate in us leaves much to be answered, certainly this is an innate quality that can be overcome, like indeed some mammals amongest us have.

Olasky and the people he talks about seems to co-relate their sense of ethics with their religion and of course they pass on their religion to those they help as the source of their ethics. Well co-relation doesnot equal causality. People will eventually find reasons to be good even without religion. There is a natural explaination for this we are yet to fully comprehend.

Trouble is we as a specie has not yet found a means to directly distinguish good from bad, we all have a strong intuitive sense of it that is all.

Religion has had a field day for a real long time and has done no better. Although I know all religious scripture has some level of contemplative wisdom that all human beings can acknowledge.

If the Godless world must become a reality, we must find real reasons about why we are good. I believe that knowing that will even force people who are not generally good to be so. For embedded in the knowledge is about why we are good is also the knowledge why we like being good. And why things work well when we are good. After evolution this will be the next best breakthrough which will enhance the quality of human life and evlavate our consiousness to a higher level of reason.

I hope to see success for the RDF in this venture.

274. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48910 by 82abhilash on June 9, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Richard Dawkins wrote: "....speaking for myself, the evils done in religion's name don't provide the primary motivation for atheism. I'm an atheist, not because people do bad things in God's name but because I don't think he exists. What Sir Jonathan doesn't face up to is the scientific implausibility of God. His passing allusions to a pair of scientific books betray this. "

This maybe true in the case of Richard Dawkins, but I have good reason to believe that most atheists do not take to it for scientific reasons. In fact tendencies for the scientific method are the exception rather than the norm for most people, and even when they do think that way, they compartmentalize religion leaving them open to credulity.

Most atheists become so, because they are disillusioned by their own religion. Then they may then come across non-theistic alternatives for their morality or perhaps even scientific reasoning for their worldview, but then again they might fall for another religion - like jumping from one frying pan to another. Some thing I hope the RDF can help understand better and rectify. But in the present context it is considered acceptable to be doubtful or indifferent to religious teaching, but you must be really pissed off or be really brave to reject religion al together. This is not yet a scientific age.

So in a sense The Chief Rabbi is right. The success of atheism has more to do with the failure of religion. Just like the success of capitalism has to do with the failure of communism. Never meant that capitalism was or is perfect or that science has all the answers, although both these concept do contribute in their own fashion to the corrosion and destruction of their of a rival concept which hold on tightly to dogmas that where fundamentally flawed to begin with.

275. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47824 by 82abhilash on June 5, 2007 at 4:05 pm

MEMRI is run by Israelis. True. Israelis are cherry picking and translating articles that they believe reflect ideas that are being circulated in the Arab world and the Western audience is better informed knowing. Again truth.

Israelis are planting these stories in the Arab media so they can translate and defame the Arabs. Truth? Do they have the capacity to do that? Even if the do, won't a simpler for a reasonably well educated editor to screen through the trash that they are trying to plant in the Arab media? Are we to understand that the Arab media are so loosely controlled that even the Israelis, who the Arabs are always looking out for can print trash in their news papers without them knowing. If indeed it is possible that the Israelis are really behind this so called 'campaign of misinformation', how difficult can it be for the Arab media channel to come out and denounce this actions, and tighten their control on what is broadcasted on their own channel?

Let us use the Occam's Razor and cut out the fat. We get this much plane and simple - the Arabs are speaking their minds to their people on their TV channel in their language hoping we won't notice and the Israelis are sincerely translating and put it on the internet, much to their irritation. Can you get anymore simpler?

276. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47724 by 82abhilash on June 5, 2007 at 11:04 am

This video must be a cause for alarm. Small children who have the potential to grow up to be normal adults are being brain washed. This is not GI Joe, GI Joe is a cartoon.

They are made to feel part of a real bloody war, which Hamas will fight to till the end of time. They are being drilled into acceptance of this ideology before they become too old to ask sensible questions and find people who can answer them. They are being insulated from reason.

Reminds me of a song from South Pacific:

Youve Got To Be Carefully Taught

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!


And yes, people very similar to those training the children in the video tried to have this song removed from the movie. They failed.

277. If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural

Comment #46163 by 82abhilash on May 30, 2007 at 12:26 pm

doodinthemood has a good question. I wish it was peer reviewed though.

278. Fears for Democracy in India

Comment #45932 by 82abhilash on May 29, 2007 at 4:40 pm

I am afraid no one in this community has either a proper understanding or even a basic appreciation for the complexities of Indian politics and the role of religion in it. Martha C. Nussbaum is no exception either. Hinduism is a non-abrahamic polytheistic religion and the complexities here are different. Especially given that Hindus can refer to numerous scriptures rather than rely on various interpretation of a single one like the others.

And while the religion has been and continue to be rife with superstition, many of you may not be knowing that unlike in the West where reform comes from outside. Religious reform in Hinduism has only been successful when introduced from the inside. There are several socially progressive organizations with distinctly Hindu overtones all over India.

Christopher Hitchens in his lecture on free speech at the University of Toronto, had asked people not to indulge in the false security of consensus. I urge all of you to try following that right now.

Most of you are perhaps unaware that unlike in the west where Secular and Atheistic lobbies confront the religious right, in India, it is the religious right that is pressing for true secularism - uniform marriage laws for all citizens (currently it is based on religion), removal of Haj subsidies for Muslims and fair treatment of Muslim women under the rule of law. In fact in 1986, the Secular Congress government in India nullified a Supreme Court judgment that entitled Muslim women, equal protection in under Indian Family law. Refer to:

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

Indeed in India Secular and Atheistic lobbies frequently engage in vote bank politics with Islamic and Christian faith based groups to entice votes from people of that community. The Hindus, despite being a majority, have pluralistic religious views are more difficult to consolidate under a single religious banner. That is why the right winged nationalist BJP has to deal with real issues to get elected. The Hindutva agenda shows no promise unless it is backed by real visible improvement for the voters. Interesting twist of faith is it not?

If you want gain an objective understanding of the religious history of India, try this website:

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/about.html

Koenraad Elst is a Dutch historian whose field of interest is comparative religion, with specific focus on Eastern religions. He hates Islam, Christianity and is not too fond of the right-wing Indian socialist either, although for some reason they like him, better than he likes them. Also he considers himself a secular humanist.