1. Comment #230296 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 2:18 pm

"Yet, today, society appears to be retreating from reason."

Are there not more atheists now than ever before? Are we truly retreating, or does it just seem that way?

[edit] I know my parents were alot more superstitious than I am (if I am), and my grandparents were more superstitious than my parents. I want to be optimistic about this.

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #230299 by Matt7895 on August 14, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Glad to see it has finally been given a DVD release. Any extras?

Other Comments by Matt7895

3. Comment #230302 by William Carlton on August 14, 2008 at 2:22 pm

I have only seen the first segment of this program available on YouTube. I'd love to see the rest but sorry, Richard, I cannot afford it.

I expect to see the rest posted online in the near future.

Other Comments by William Carlton

4. Comment #230306 by admin on August 14, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Matt7895,
We are going to be releasing an 'Uncut Interviews' DVD soon as well. It was just too much content (at least 2 full DVDs worth, maybe even 3) to put it on this DVD or just one bonus disc. We'll do something like we did with 'Root of All Evil?' where we'll do a discount for people who want to buy them both. -Josh

Other Comments by admin

5. Comment #230307 by Dadeolus on August 14, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Is society truly retreating from reason? There are many more practical atheists than any other time in the past (people who may say they believe but only go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals). Many of my friends have recently had kids, and all of them are only getting their kids christened to avoid an argument with grandparents. If we truly are rational, I want to see evidence that society is retreating from reason!

Other Comments by Dadeolus

6. Comment #230312 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Comment #230307 by Dadeolus

Is society truly retreating from reason?

I don't see any real evidence it is. I think it is becoming more acceptable to question superstition and irrational beliefs, so we hear more about them. Also, the mainstream religions are getting concerned about people switching to other forms of supernaturalism.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

7. Comment #230320 by evotruth on August 14, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Just ordered mine along with the Genius Of Charles Darwin.

Thank You.

Other Comments by evotruth

8. Comment #230325 by Spinoza on August 14, 2008 at 2:37 pm

The "retreat from reason" isn't easily evident to educated academic Western (mostly white) people.

But the numbers are weird. While church-going Christian numbers are decreasing, sanity-abhorring belief-junkies are traipsing over to Islam with open skulls... and all manner of junk is squashed in...

"Non-religious", too, is certainly no guarantor of "(wo)man of reason" in the Enlightenment sense of the word.

The retreat from THAT sense of the word "reason" is actually even more confusing among academics... at least, outside the research-oriented sciences.

Among atheists, too, there is an alarming amount of anti-intellectualism (read: "unenlightenment values")... has ALWAYS annoyed me...

Other Comments by Spinoza

9. Comment #230328 by Durant on August 14, 2008 at 2:39 pm

"More of Richard Dawkins's Irrational Bigotry" Available now on DVD!

Other Comments by Durant

10. Comment #230332 by Jaz on August 14, 2008 at 2:45 pm

You put up a well articulated account there for the devil's advocate Spinoza.
But that "today, society appears to be treating from reason" stuck out like a sore thumb in its wrongness

It's the sort of tripe my Christian friends say..."oh we're going down the pan, losing our core values etc etc"

The truth is, the society I assume the comment is refering to, in the scheme of things has never been more enlightened, Atheists may enjoy the fight, but the tide has well and truly turned.

Other Comments by Jaz

11. Comment #230341 by Apathy personified on August 14, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Durant,

"More of Richard Dawkins's Irrational Bigotry" Available now on DVD!

Can you explain how Richard Dawkins, or this particular series, is irrational or bigoted?

Of course, you must have already watched it, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting our time with that comment.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

12. Comment #230346 by HourglassMemory on August 14, 2008 at 2:53 pm

That's the best cover yet!
You can almost see it as a book cover.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

13. Comment #230349 by fizhburn on August 14, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Durant,

Welcome to the site. Would you care to elaborate, with evidence, on your impugning of RD's rationality and character? (And by extension, of us others who agree with his stances on reason and science.)

Other Comments by fizhburn

14. Comment #230353 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Where do these guys come from (Durant)? Just stop by to make a stupid comment, then on their way? Or is it the same guy with different names?

Other Comments by mordacious1

15. Comment #230389 by Kinzuakid on August 14, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Troll Sock Puppet.

I'd love to say we're winning the battle for the minds, but the statistics tell a woeful tale here in the US.

Other Comments by Kinzuakid

16. Comment #230415 by Durant on August 14, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Gladly. Dawkins ignores the historical complexities involved in the relationship between science and religion, invoking the oft-discredited notion that they're "at war"; makes disingenuous assertions (e.g. nobody has ever killed in the name of atheism,); cherry picks the worst of religious fanaticism and props it up as a case against religion in general; makes no sociological distinction between moderates and fundamentalists, saying instead that moderates only serve to help the fundamentalists; has declined to participate in unscripted, candid debates with serious theistic philosophers; dismisses responses to his propagandistic TGD as 'fleas' rather than replying to the objections; makes profoundly controversial assertions all the time and presents no supporting arguments for them (e.g. "there is no right or wrong"); absolutely will notpresent his opponents' views in an intellectually honest fashion, but responds instead to caricatures and straw men; spreads ambiguities (or perhaps downright lies) about scholars with whom he disagrees (e.g. "Swinburne tries to justify the holocaust"); employs monstrous fallacies throughout his work (e.g. the following question-begging: "Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. (p. 31)"); uses ridicule, insults, and ad homs rather than logical argumentation; I could go on. All of this and more suggests that Dawkins is positively irrational, bigoted, and uninformed. He is interested primarily in the commercialization, dogmatization, and popularization of his pseudo-skeptical atheistic ideology and not truth for its own sake. Rigorous logic and free thinking are absent from his work. He is a charlatan and an ignoramus, as educated theists, agnostics, and nontheists from a variety backgrounds have agreed upon.

Other Comments by Durant

17. Comment #230418 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Durant

Stick around for a few minutes this time.

Other Comments by mordacious1

18. Comment #230422 by Vaal on August 14, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Durant. Do you actually believe all that hogwash? And all in one sentence as well.

Is your name David Robertson perchance?

Other Comments by Vaal

19. Comment #230424 by Lucas on August 14, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Okay, Durant, that's an awful lot of claims you make there, but none of them, even the ones with "e.g."s and quotes provide any evidence for your claims. Examples: "oft-discredited notion that they're at war" - discredited by whom? And how often is "oft"? "makes disingenuous assertions" etc. - how is the assertion you give disingenuous? I might just say every one of your assertions is disingenuous.

Also, may I ask what your personal religious beliefs are? Just so we all know where you are coming from. It's only fair. You know who we are (or so you think.) I will give you credit for spelling and punctuation; thank you for taking the time to at least try to make sense.

Other Comments by Lucas

20. Comment #230425 by Diacanu on August 14, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Durant-

...serious theistic philosophers;..

There's a phrase that gives me a chuckle every time.

Either there's a God, or there isn't.
No middle ground there.
If there isn't, then all of this theistic philosophy is delusion, and can't be treated seriously.
If it wants to be treated seriously, present evidence of the existence of God.
In 2000 plus years, these assholes haven't done that.
And then they demand respect they utterly refuse to earn.
Fuck 'em.
Go ahead and cry.
Go ahead and label it "bigotry", for all the good it does you.
That kite won't fly.
So go ahead and piss up its rope while you're at it.

Other Comments by Diacanu

21. Comment #230427 by mdowe on August 14, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Durant:

Yawn ... whatever ....

Other Comments by mdowe

22. Comment #230428 by Laurie Fraser on August 14, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Josh, where's the [cretin] button?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

23. Comment #230429 by 8teist on August 14, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Oh Durant , just another post and run loser....

Don`t let reality get in the way of your ability to form an opinion.

Other Comments by 8teist

24. Comment #230430 by 8teist on August 14, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Gday Laurie,

Other Comments by 8teist

25. Comment #230431 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Actually, for once there is a theist who can at least write.
This is a rare event, and should be cause for celebration.

I am about to go to sleep, but if Durant is so kind to return tomorrow, I will gladly contribute to dismantle some of his unfounded accusations, half-truths, outright lies, and uninformed misconceptions. However, I am sure that others will precede me.

Good night, all. Be kind to him, just answer his points.

Other Comments by decius

26. Comment #230432 by 8teist on August 14, 2008 at 4:58 pm

but D, he hasn`t got a point

Other Comments by 8teist

27. Comment #230433 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 5:00 pm

decius

I was thinking the same thing, that's why I didn't fling irate's word at him. I want to see how things develop first.

Hi 8, Laurie

Laurie, sorry I went to bed too early last night when the "lady" started posting.

Other Comments by mordacious1

28. Comment #230434 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Durant:

cherry picks the worst of religious fanaticism and props it up as a case against religion in general; makes no sociological distinction between moderates and fundamentalists, saying instead that moderates only serve to help the fundamentalists;

Your own comment refutes your point. If he'd made no sociological distinction or any distinction at all, how could he and you then talk about moderates propping up fundamentalists? Think about it, you proved that Dawkins has made a sociological distinction.

has declined to participate in unscripted, candid debates with serious theistic philosophers; dismisses responses to his propagandistic TGD as 'fleas' rather than replying to the objections;

Debates are not intellectual discussions, they are won with rhetoric and charisma. The end result isn't to approach the truth, it's to acclaim the guy who said something best or who agreed with your prejudices. Richard Dawkins is a fine speaker and well worth listening to, but why would he give oxygen to people who's only purpose it to spout rubbish and earn a living by perpetuating falsehoods?

employs monstrous fallacies throughout his work (e.g. the following question-begging: "Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. (p. 31)");

Let's see. We have no evidence of any creative intelligence that didn't evolve. Humans, and other higher animals being the only examples of creative intelligence we know of. Therefore, it is question begging in the extreme so say that there was a creative intelligence that didn't evolve (where's the evidence?) and that it's been around since the dawn of time (this is what you need to demonstrate, not assert).

Other Comments by Brian English

29. Comment #230435 by 8teist on August 14, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Howdy Mord, You didn`t miss anything ,just don`t let it know that mr Hari has another article posted today.:o

Other Comments by 8teist

30. Comment #230437 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 5:05 pm

8

I posted on the new Hari article that he's the UK's best journalist, just to tweak her beard. No response yet.

Other Comments by mordacious1

31. Comment #230438 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Durant

I was hoping you'd stick around for some serious discussion of your points instead of throwing out some accusations and taking off.

Other Comments by mordacious1

32. Comment #230441 by 8teist on August 14, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Dangnabbit, now she`ll back.

The funny thing is I never had much time for Hari meself ,but he is slowly changing my mind about him.

Other Comments by 8teist

33. Comment #230444 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 5:11 pm

8teist, were you involved in the attempted assassination of Helen Clark? You were the sniper on the grassy knoll who shot the guide (heart attack my arse)!

Other Comments by Brian English

34. Comment #230446 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Like I said on the other thread, he may be a hack, but as long as he's hacking in the right direction, good for him.

Other Comments by mordacious1

35. Comment #230447 by 8teist on August 14, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Brian, SSHHHHH, its supposed to be secret.




THo if it was me I`d of used a nuke.No chance of missing then .

Other Comments by 8teist

36. Comment #230450 by Goldy on August 14, 2008 at 5:18 pm

What's a nontheist?

Other Comments by Goldy

37. Comment #230457 by 8teist on August 14, 2008 at 5:24 pm

hi G,a nontheist ? is that a nonperson who does not believe in nongods like the nonpope in the nonvatican engaging in nonsex with nonaltar nonpersons? non non mes amis :o

Other Comments by 8teist

38. Comment #230458 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 5:25 pm

"Dawkins ignores the historical complexities involved in the relationship between science and religion..."

Nothing complex about it. Science looks at religion and decides it's BS, based on facts, religion cannot prove otherwise. It cannot be more simple.

Other Comments by mordacious1

39. Comment #230463 by kkelly on August 14, 2008 at 5:31 pm

38, One ploy, that at least catholics use for disputing any logical conflict between science and religion is that in past centuries it was other scientists, rather than the church, who were the main persecutors of dissenters like Galileo or Copernicus. I have no idea how true that is, but it's what the idiot religion teacher said, as if it isn't pointless to this topic regardless.

Other Comments by kkelly

40. Comment #230483 by IceFish86 on August 14, 2008 at 5:51 pm

surely the most important thing, regardless of the historical complexities between two subjects, is whether they fundementally oppose each other. In the case of science and religion they most certainly do. Religious faith undermines the efforts of scientific investigators by claiming explainations of a supernatural origin for phenomenon in the natural world, and so dampening humanity's efforts to know the world around us. I propose that it is Durants IRRATIONALITY that dis-allows him (i assume they're male)to understand this very simple point.

Other Comments by IceFish86

41. Comment #230487 by kkelly on August 14, 2008 at 6:00 pm

40, more like ARATIONALITY. Everything he said in that post has already been said before many times by his camp. He's just regurgitating, not thinking.

Other Comments by kkelly

42. Comment #230490 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Well, he didn't stick around. Either he took off with his tail between his legs, or he's on some xian website getting more substitute-for-thinking info.

Other Comments by mordacious1

43. Comment #230498 by DanDare on August 14, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Richard Dawkins

"Yet, today, society appears to be retreating from reason."

mordacious1

Are there not more atheists now than ever before? Are we truly retreating, or does it just seem that way?
I know my parents were a lot more superstitious than I am (if I am), and my grandparents were more superstitious than my parents. I want to be optimistic about this.

Dadeolus

Is society truly retreating from reason? There are many more practical atheists than any other time in the past (people who may say they believe but only go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals). Many of my friends have recently had kids, and all of them are only getting their kids christened to avoid an argument with grandparents. If we truly are rational, I want to see evidence that society is retreating from reason!

Steve Zara

I don't see any real evidence it is. I think it is becoming more acceptable to question superstition and irrational beliefs, so we hear more about them. Also, the mainstream religions are getting concerned about people switching to other forms of supernaturalism.

Spinoza

The "retreat from reason" isn't easily evident to educated academic Western (mostly white) people.
But the numbers are weird. While church-going Christian numbers are decreasing, sanity-abhorring belief-junkies are traipsing over to Islam with open skulls... and all manner of junk is squashed in...
"Non-religious", too, is certainly no guarantor of "(wo)man of reason" in the Enlightenment sense of the word.
The retreat from THAT sense of the word "reason" is actually even more confusing among academics... at least, outside the research-oriented sciences.
Among atheists, too, there is an alarming amount of anti-intellectualism (read: "unenlightenment values")... has ALWAYS annoyed me...

Its not just religion, its all the pseudoscience stuff. I have so many friends who are homeopathists, believe in star signs, even fall for the stupid "text your name and your friends name to find out if you are a perfect match" crap. Everyone treats you like the skunk at the picnic if you so much as raise an eyebrow at their stupid beliefs.

[edit}Why can't the quote thing work in the comments just like in the forums, eh?[/edit]

Other Comments by DanDare

44. Comment #230513 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 7:25 pm

DanDare

Yes, agreed, still a lot of this knuckle-headed nonsense out there. The question is, is there more today than previously. I knew people of my grandparents age (born in late 19th Century) who actually believed that four leaf clovers, rabbits feet, lucky dollars, etc., actually worked. Of course, there are athletes that have their lucky socks, or whatever.

I don't know the answer, seems to be more skeptics today. That's just anecdotal of course. People laugh at people who go to psychics, though many still believe. I'm optomistic that we are seeing less of this nonsense. Any studies been done?

Other Comments by mordacious1

45. Comment #230518 by Laurie Fraser on August 14, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Hi Mord - how's the pain today?

There's plenty of "believers" still around, mate. I usually start my critical thinking courses by asking people whether they think astrology is for real. Unfortunately, at least half the hands go up every time. (Mind you, by the end of the course they mostly stay down.)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

46. Comment #230527 by DanDare on August 14, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Only "mostly" Laurie? Gosh, I'll have to put "Could do better" on your report card ;-)

Other Comments by DanDare

47. Comment #230528 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Laurie

They do want to suck up to the teacher a bit.

I wonder if more women than men believe in this crap. I hate it when I say it's BS and they reply that I have a closed mind. Nooooo, I HAVE a mind, that is the difference.

Other Comments by mordacious1

48. Comment #230536 by Dispiracist on August 14, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Dan Dare

It can never be clear whether society is really retreating from reason, even if it ever got there in the first place. Unreasonable mob behaviour and irrationality affects scientists just as easily as anyone else.

Also I've heard that some of the earliest writings from the first civilisations disclose complaints along similar lines about how 'modern' youth is undermining the values of previous generations. No doubt Richard Dawkins' works will be added to the same pile of archaeological artefacts in some museum several thousand years from now.

The prevailing level of reason isn't very useful or measurable statistically because what people actually do is more relevant than what they disclose in opinion surveys. And most people blend focussed reason witwh more indirect influences. Scientists might be a little unusual in that they have trained themselves to try and avoid a few common biases the rest of us always fall into.

But reason might be a negative concept, like atheism, if it is all you're left with when you control for the evolved automatic mental mechanisms to which humans also owe their long-term survival.

Fortunately there is a measureable concept that might better represent the underlying issue: Check out 'time preference'.

It's more of an economics term. But it is more objective and measurable than 'reason'.

Time preference is what results in the ethics of people valuing other people for the long-term benefits of their future company, support, trade, division of labour, and other contributions, whether material or spiritual. The opposite of time preference is to deal with people as an immediate means or an impediment to an immediate means.

Kill the infidel is an example of high time preference, because it is cheaper in the short run than to risk the longer term investment return associated with trusting strangers. It is not irrational or rational. Different circumstances result in different manifestations of time preference and average time preferences across entire communities.

I think it is more useful that the concept of reason, which just implies that all opponents are inherently unreasonable, never think, and are just slaves of their ideology.

PS sorry about the long post. I'll put this one down to my bad cold and the effects of pseudoephedrine.

Other Comments by Dispiracist

49. Comment #230578 by Bob Vogel on August 14, 2008 at 10:42 pm

Durant sounds a whole lot like Dinesh DeSousa. Sounds pretty doggone intelligent, but doesn't really say anything.

Other Comments by Bob Vogel

50. Comment #230582 by isthatclear on August 14, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Enemies of Seeing and Thinking


There are two kinds of people of the world â€" the ones with faith in God and the ones with no faith â€" just a few - the atheists.

Atheists' eyes cannot go up to the level of thinking, rather than sticking with " I see I believe" limited state of mind. In other words, Their eyes of mind lowered to their physical eyes. They struggle a lot to prove that they came from chemical rains. So much struggle that they publish articles day and night just only prove that universe has no design and millions of species came from a lovely worm. If you consider how illogical evolution it is, then, you can understand their very much struggle to prove otherwise.


Their evolution idea is based on a millions of assumptions following each other and if the first assumption does not occur, there you go, the idea is gone forever. Thus it was.

They try to profit every single fake or fabricated fossils by slandering and distorting the truth to prove all vegetables, fruits, trees, factory like soil just evolved.

Reason and logic cannot involve in evolution since the idea of evolution is based on pure assumptions which is not linked to science.

Still the struggle of atheism goes on while it retreats from society more and more while they struggle more. The more atheism struggles the more it retreats from the society. The way to the commonsense is only one which requires to believe that an arts needs an artist not the luck and chances.

If the reason and science are like a circle, and then creation circles the reason and science. What evolution is trying to do is to take a place in that big circle by wiping out the creation. But the problem is that the circle of creation is safeguarded by reason and logic which do not allow evolution to step inside the circle. They will never.

Other Comments by isthatclear