351. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13955 by Luthien on December 20, 2006 at 9:06 am

Yorker, I am impressed by your insightful comments. Perhaps we should start with getting young people to read and discuss Machiavelli's "The Prince"?

Regarding education, I think that the best way to 'educate' children is to set them on a personal voyage of discovery. It would be possible to write a software package that was 'open source', and allowed children to browse through multimedia content on any subject, taking feedback from their reaction times, and general interest (an "I'm bored" button), and reducing the complexity of the language if it is too advanced, or increasing it if it is too simple. The content could then be provided in an 'open source' format compatable with the software, in a project much like wikipedia.

352. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13934 by Luthien on December 20, 2006 at 6:34 am

Interesting article on constructing arguments from the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6193691.stm

"Those familiar with internet culture may have heard of Godwin's law. Coined by the American lawyer Mike Godwin in 1990, it states that the greater the length of an internet discussion, the higher the chances of a comparison involving Hitler or the Nazis."

Discussion of Darwin, ends up with the predictible 'Hitler' in record time, another triumph for 'Godwin's Law'. ;)

353. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13697 by Luthien on December 19, 2006 at 6:03 am

If I were being kind I would say that he has not understood the nature of scientific progress, but I suspect it is more the case that he set out to deliberately misrepresent it.

One of his 'arguments' was that Darwin predicted "gradual change", but here is a scientist that says evolution can happen in 'sudden leaps' due to the nature of DNA, therefore...

therefore...

erm...

Oh yes, science has moved on in it's understanding since "The Origin of the Species" was written, what with the discovery of DNA and all that. So this means that atheists are...

are...

erm...

354. The Grinch Delusion: An Atheist Can Believe in Christmas

Comment #13539 by Luthien on December 18, 2006 at 6:38 am

Christmas: A great excuse to buy everyone you know a copy of "The God Delusion".

355. Atheist Chic

Comment #13523 by Luthien on December 18, 2006 at 5:00 am

Oh boy, haven't you got the wrong end of the stick!

Tolerance of children being indoctrinated into a religion is directly equivalent to tolerance for slavery. "It's a parent's right to bring up their children that way" (what about a child's right to intellectual independence?). Many people are 'slaves' to their own superstitions, unable to live a full life because they must not do this or that. Many people have been sexually, physically, and / or mentally abused by a religious 'authority' and did not know that they had the right to complain (the abuser played directly on the beliefs that had been instilled in them to ensure their compliance). Many more people have had money extorted from them, or have refused lifesaving treatment for themselves or (worse) for a child in their care on the basis of 'religion' (a relative of mine died because his 'prayer group' decided they could heal him through the 'power of Christ', and made him stop taking medical treatment). The worst case scenarios are the young men (and women) who have been convinced to martyr themselves by flying planes into buildings, or strapping bombs to themselves, killing many innocent people in the process.

We need to speak up on behalf of all these vulnerable children, so they can be allowed to develop intellectually (without being brainwashed by irrational beliefs) and protect themselves from those who would abuse their power.

356. Ministers to ban creationist teaching aids in science lessons

Comment #13063 by Luthien on December 15, 2006 at 8:30 am

I certainly hope that "Truth in Science" have not been awarded 'charitable' status, or given any kind of tax exemption.

We need to go check this out ASAP!

357. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #13060 by Luthien on December 15, 2006 at 8:12 am

Regarding Comment #12977 by JONATHAN DORE on December 14, 2006 at 6:29 pm

Yorker (#12974):
>>Eagleton does rightfully take Dawkins to task for his political and historical naivety -- he's particularly baffled when Dawkins's suggests that the words "nationalist" and "loyalist" are, in their Northern Irish context, merely euphemisms for "Catholic" and "Protestant," respectively.<<

"I see it Dawkins' way, because that's basically how they're divided."

"Yes Yorker, precisely: whenever I hear someone say the difference isn't religious (because their disagreements are chiefly political rather than theological) I want to ask them why the Northern Irish therefore need to continue being educated in religiously segregated schools? If it was a mere political disagreement, what would be the justification for them maintaining two completely separate and parallel public education systems? Is there any other conflict in the world in which a purely political disagreement has led to the creation of two separate, parallel education systems? Yet in Northern Ireland we are told that is precisely what is happening, even though the segregation, strangely, takes place precisely along the lines of (an of course arbitrary and totally irrelevant) religious identity! Yeah. Right."

I am from Northern Ireland, and I can confirm that Dawkins is correct to say that "the words 'nationalist' and 'loyalist' are, in their Northern Irish context, merely euphemisms for 'Catholic' and 'Protestant,' respectively".

Your point about the schooling system is bang on the mark too.

The divisions in Northern Ireland can be directly traced back to the religious war fought by the Catholic Church (via the Spanish, and other catholic nations) against the nations that had thrown off their control in favour of Protestantism. Unfortunately Ireland was a convenient 'back door' to England, complete with a ready made army of uneducated people who would do whatever their 'priest' told them to do. The divide is still there to this day, although I suspect that the liberal (for his time) William of Orange would be horrified by some of his modern 'supporters'.