1. Comment #36501 by Greg23 on May 1, 2007 at 10:52 am

Ahhh, I love the TED talks. So many interesting people with so many interesting things to say. Probably my favorite thing on the web.

Other Comments by Greg23

2. Comment #36508 by BaronOchs on May 1, 2007 at 11:19 am

He remarked that the Pope supports evolution, though I personally find the pope at best very ambivalent on the subject. I think there was an article on the matter on this site . . .

Other Comments by BaronOchs

3. Comment #36511 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2007 at 11:40 am

This was 2002, so he would have been talking about the last pope.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

4. Comment #36512 by flyingscot on May 1, 2007 at 11:45 am

Good stuff, I really enjoyed this talk.

Other Comments by flyingscot

5. Comment #36513 by cassdenata on May 1, 2007 at 11:49 am

Hey Greg23. What are some other interesting TEDtalks that you enjoyed?

Other Comments by cassdenata

6. Comment #36534 by AnatheistinNigeria on May 1, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Reading the posts on this site, let me believe that there is a world filled with well-thinking people.

But look at the comments made on Richard Dawkins TED talk. Filled with nonsense and such empty allegations of miletant atheism of the side of RD.

Perhaps we shopuld devote some of our energies to responding to the more general blogs

Other Comments by AnatheistinNigeria

7. Comment #36541 by AtheistJunkie on May 1, 2007 at 1:05 pm

I never get bored of this stuff. Thanks RD.

Other Comments by AtheistJunkie

8. Comment #36551 by Greg23 on May 1, 2007 at 2:03 pm

cassdenata -

There are so many. If you are not familiar with TED there are the 'wish' talks where people get TED money to help with their attempt to 'change the world' (affordable housing, clean burning local fuels, improving a ghetto neighborhood, peace through media, $100 computer, etc.). They are people who are already working on the projects and get a boost from TED. Those are interesting to see what people's visions are.

There are talks by famous people or people in the news.

There are a few 'artistic' presentations.

There are talks by visionaries.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of:

Julia Sweeney - an excerpt from her "Letting go of God' one woman show.

Gladwell - wrote 'Blink' and 'The Tipping Point' talks about how we came to have 43 choices in spaghetti sauce.

Schwarz - who tells us why having too many choices is making us miserable (Good combo with the previous one).

Levitt - wrote 'Freakenomics' and talks on the chapter about street drug dealing as a business.

Deutsch - paints one h*ll of a picture of the universe and the contribution of knowlege.

Dawkins - has another talk about 'middle man' why we have such a hard time understanding the very small and the very large.

Rutan - did the non stop flight around the world and is working on private space launches. Tells whats wrong with the way space exploration is being conducted.

Rosling - talks about countries, populations, health and how they interact. Great graphing software presentation.

Huang - Cool 'hands on' computer input interface (think - Minority Report movie).

Gore - If you didn't think he had a sense of humor. Everyone's told him, if he had been like this he would have won the election going away (I know, he won anyway but that's different story).

Kurzweil - something futuristic about computational power not being able to keep up with progress in bio-genetics, maybe using DNA as computers (It's been a while, I think that's what his talk was).

There have been very few I haven't liked. It depends if you just like anything that's intelligent and creative or you have a particular area of interest.

I download them, convert them to DVD then watch them on T.V. They are only 18 - 20 minutes each. Good for when you have a free moment.

Happy hunting.

Greg

Other Comments by Greg23

9. Comment #36561 by nine9s on May 1, 2007 at 2:33 pm

What does TED stand for?

Other Comments by nine9s

10. Comment #36562 by AtheistJunkie on May 1, 2007 at 2:36 pm

nine9s

TED = Technology, Entertainment, Design

Other Comments by AtheistJunkie

11. Comment #36565 by sane1 on May 1, 2007 at 3:16 pm

The TED talks are great. 'Twas I who sent this to Josh.

Peruse the list your self at: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/list

They have recently posted many new ones. They are organized and delightful. Personally, I like the science ones best, but many others are interesting as well.

And Greg23 left off one of my favoites: Micheal Shermer on "why people believe wierd things."

Other Comments by sane1

12. Comment #36567 by Shuggy on May 1, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Greg 23:

Deutsch - paints one h*ll of a picture of the universe and the contribution of knowlege.

What do you think would happen if you spelt "hell" in full?

Other Comments by Shuggy

13. Comment #36575 by Greg23 on May 1, 2007 at 3:39 pm

sane1 -

Afraid I've gotten too familiar with Shermer and lost my sense of awe. No rap against Shermer I've got all the books and heard him speak many times.

Many others I left off as well. Too many to remember them all. I think there are about 100 total, although I've never counted them up.

Shuggy -

A leftover habit from apparently offending people's sensitivities once too often, in other groups. Wasn't really thinking.

Should I even give the concept of hell credence by writing the actual word??? Hmm, I'll have to think about that. At least I didn't go for heck as a euphanism. ;-)

Other Comments by Greg23

14. Comment #36585 by catchy_nick on May 1, 2007 at 4:19 pm

I highly recommend Dennett's TED lecture. Good shit.

Other Comments by catchy_nick

15. Comment #36608 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 1, 2007 at 6:14 pm

2002. Hmm. This really does look like the "birth of the movement", doesn't it?

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

16. Comment #36631 by Enlightenme.. on May 1, 2007 at 8:16 pm

^On the contrary, watch the excellent Jonathan Miller series "A brief history of disbelief" to appreciate the enormous debt we owe to many brave people who dared challenge what Hitchens labelled 'the origin of authoritarianism'.
I'm saying the birth of the movement dates back past Epicuris, probably to the unknown's who challenged the village witch-doctor!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

17. Comment #36640 by chionactis on May 1, 2007 at 9:36 pm

This is an excellent speech. Thank you, Dr. Dawkins. I remember exploring my neighborhood when I was a child, and the sense of wonder, the mystery of the natural world, and I remember wanting to share it with others. I always wondered why other people weren't as excited about the fantastic organisms we live with. Religion teaches you that an invisible man made it, and that's it. Religion doesn't want you to dig too deep, because the truth is a very real threat to an institution based on belief without evidence.

Other Comments by chionactis

18. Comment #36645 by oao on May 1, 2007 at 10:16 pm

As a militant atheist, I watched quite a few presentations by RD and I noticed he tends to use judaism/yahweh as a specific reference more often than other two major religions/gods.

Given that judaism is the least virulent/violent of the three -- indeed, his references are mainly from the old testament, while christianity and islam have tons to answer for in much later times, the latter in the present -- it suggests that whether consciously or not he is not using the most blatant evidence supporting his main argument.

Given RD's sophistication I do not think that this is inadvertent. Whether consciously or not, I suspect that he either (a) senses that referring to judaism is not as dangerous as to islam (b) given the current general anti-semitism/anti-zionsim, judaism is a more acceptable example or (c) both.

If that is the case, this is rather incongruous with the spirit of his position and he should be more sensitive to it.

Other Comments by oao

19. Comment #36688 by Richard Dawkins on May 2, 2007 at 2:56 am

I find it hard not to resent the implication of Comment 36645 by oao. I obviously refer to Christianity, by default, more than to Judaism (or Islam) because I am a cultural Chrstian, writing in a cultural Christian country (Britain) with an eye to a larger audience in another (more than merely cultural) Christian country (USA). I use the name Yahweh when I want to refer to the Abrahamic (Judaeo-Christian-Islamic) God as opposed to other gods such as Zeus or Wotan. When I specifically want to refer to the Islamic God I use "Allah", although that is just the Arabic word for God/Yahweh. If I wanted to refer to the Christian God AS OPPOSED TO the Jewish God, what name does oao suggest I use? I do not believe that such a name exists.

The accusation of anti-Jewishness is ludicrous, offensive, and one might almost say paranoid. It reminds me of an occasion when I was lecturing on a ship, and I spoke strongly against religion in general, ALL religion. I never once mentioned Jews or Judaism. Yet I heard afterwards that a Jewish member of the audience was going around accusing me of anti-Semitism behind my back. To him, the very word "religion" was apparently synonymous with Judaism, and therefore to be anti-religious was tantamount to being anti-Jewish.

I don't know enough about the recent history of Israel/Palestine to be either pro or anti-Zionist, but I do know enough to say that oao's phrase 'current general anti-semitism/anti-zionism', implying as it does that anti-zionism is equivalent to anti-semitism, is offensive to my many Jewish friends who do know a lot about the history of that unhappy region, and who are passionate anti-Zionists.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

20. Comment #36741 by Jack Rawlinson on May 2, 2007 at 6:07 am

Yes, professor Dawkins, it's a sad and hugely irritating fact of life today that you cannot breathe a word of criticism of something even tangentially connected with Judaism, Jewishness or Israel without a knee-jerk response of "anti-semitism!" from certain people who are more interested in a political angle than in fairness or truth.

I have been a critic of some of Israel's recent activities on a number of political message boards and I have to deal with this sort of response all the time. It's frustrating.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

21. Comment #36751 by CJ22 on May 2, 2007 at 7:05 am

Best of all, having just taken posession of my shiny new Video iPod, the source site contains links to downloadable iPod compatible video versions. Great commute entertainment :)

Other Comments by CJ22

22. Comment #36778 by the great teapot on May 2, 2007 at 9:31 am

Excellent talk.
I take back any criticism of Richards style/humour etc. I 've made in the past.
His delivery is brilliant here, even if we have heard it all before I still enjoyed it.

Other Comments by the great teapot

23. Comment #36788 by yoursdhruly on May 2, 2007 at 10:12 am

Fascinating talk, perhaps the best I have heard by RD on atheism. Carl Sagan's statement at the end is so true - if only all that time spent in religious activity was diverted to the wonder of the world we live in...

The only thing I want to add is regarding the pie chart RD showed about religions in the US - I would imagine that the majority of theists believe that having SOME faith (even if it's not the same as theirs) is better than no faith at all. Therefore, if a politician represents the atheist section of that pie, he risks the ire of the rest of the pie...a Jewish lobbyist on the other hand can be tolerated better. And that's why I think a-theism is not a useful word: the wonderful logic of "one-god-less" and the belief in science and its pursuit is lost in the negation of theism. Anyway, my two cents...

Thanks for posting! This site is such a wonderful place...if websites were places, this site would be a Hawaii for the intellect...or should I say Galapagos?

Other Comments by yoursdhruly

24. Comment #36796 by oao on May 2, 2007 at 10:55 am

And I resent the nature of RD's response, which is more akin to how theists would respond to criticism, than it is an honest attempt to understand what I said.

1st, TODAY islam is the elephant in the room, the best possible evidence to the root of all evil argument. To focus almost exclusively on the other two just because RD "does not know much about it" is befitting neither that important argument, nor the caliber of RD as an advancer of it.

2nd, at some point in history, what was christianity's religious antagonism towards the jews became an explicit RACIST blood libel. It is not the jews who made the switch, they were the target of it. Today there is, in fact, a resurgence of the latter which never really went away, and which was brought to the surface by moslem and arab propaganda, which found fertile ground in Eurabia, and useful idiots in the so-called "left".

There is a HUGE amount of readily available clearcut evidence about all this, and that much--THOUGH NOT ALL!!!--anti-zionism today is good old anti-semitism by another, more acceptable name. By his own admission RD is not very educated on this subject. If RD wants to remain loyal to empirical evidence rather than faith, I can refer him to plenty of sources on the subject.

I did not accuse RD of anti-semitism. Rather, my point was that he is taking the lazier route, by failing to refer to the elephant in the room (which is more dangerous and less popular in current societies).

As an aside, I invite RD to ponder why ONE SINGLE person on a ship who accused him of anti-semitism prompts him to infer what seems to be general jewish paranoia. Be that as it may, has he ever reflected on whether, given the history of the jews, including present times, they would have to be insane not to be sensitive about it, when those who state openly they want to exterminate them are kept out of the story, but they are not.

RD's is on a firm foundation when he uses his scientific knowledge to discuss science. He should strive to be equally knowledgeable about history and politics when he criticizes the latter.

Other Comments by oao

25. Comment #36801 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 11:12 am

"What do you think would happen if you spelt "hell" in full?"

"A leftover habit from apparently offending people's sensitivities once too often, in other groups. Wasn't really thinking."

You're just as well off to stick with the old habit. I have emails kicked back at me all the time because somebody's company screening software didn't like me saying things like, "Traffic was a bitch" or "Work was hell today". It's a total pain in the b*tt.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

26. Comment #36811 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 11:46 am

Comment #36688 by Richard Dawkins

"The accusation of anti-Jewishness is ludicrous, offensive, and one might almost say paranoid."

"To him, the very word "religion" was apparently synonymous with Judaism, and therefore to be anti-religious was tantamount to being anti-Jewish."

Comment #36796 by oao
"As an aside, I invite RD to ponder why ONE SINGLE person on a ship who accused him of anti-semitism prompts him to infer what seems to be general jewish paranoia."

Oao, RD was talking first about you, then about the guy on the boat. At no point did he go from the specific to the general. Please read with more care.

Also, your "elephant in the room" metaphor regarding Islam is misplaced, since Islam is most certainly NOT something that everyone in the room is politely refusing to talk about, especially not RD. He can hardly be said to be letting Islam off the hook. If one is arguing against theism, all the Abrahamic faiths are seriously impugned. And I agree with RD about his selected pronoun: what the heck else is he supposed to call the god of those faiths? 'Gojiac' (God of judaism, islam, and christianity)? It certainly doesn't have much of a ring to it.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

27. Comment #36814 by yoursdhruly on May 2, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Ahem...If I may join this discussion. I was born into a Hindu family in India and have observed that RD (almost) never addresses Hinduism in his talks. I put this down to one fact alone: his background and his audiences do not share the same background as me. Which is fine...most of the arguments RD makes are as relevant to Christianity as they are to Hinduism, some to a lesser degree, others not.

My point is, I don't see the need to isolate religions and discuss their relative merits - that is what religious scholars do, I imagine. RD makes his points based on where he's coming from, and you have to recognize that and adapt it to your specific thoughts and background, not the other way round.

Other Comments by yoursdhruly

28. Comment #36817 by oao on May 2, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Fishpeddler,

Since I stated I am a militant atheist, by what logic do I confuse anti-religious to anti-jewish?
Just the opposite: I made an explicit point that racist anti-semitism today masquerades as anti-judaism.

An automatic dismissal of such concerns and equation with paranoia is, as I said, of the same nature as jewish religious accusations of anti-semitism.

I did NOT say "politely refuses to talk about it". What I said is that FOCUSING on christianity and judaism in the presence of jihadism today makes one cringe. And to sort of bundle them together as "abrahamic" is just plain ignorant and it is the real confusion.

Other Comments by oao

29. Comment #36819 by oao on May 2, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Yoursdhruly,

Well, if you want to argue that religion is the root of all evil based on empirical evidence of its consequences, I understand why the focus should not be on Hinduism for the same reason that I understand the same about Judaism. But I sure cannot understand why the focus should NOT be on islamism.

Get my drift? Does pacifism vs. genocidal help as a hint?

Other Comments by oao

30. Comment #36820 by oao on May 2, 2007 at 12:29 pm

I think this is the rabid societal context to which I was referring:

http://www.ejpress.org/article/16358

Other Comments by oao

31. Comment #36821 by oao on May 2, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Just one further clarification: It is RD who is guilty of confusion here: even though I stated that I am a militant atheist, just because I criticized his misplaced focus he confused my position with a religious one. And he probably did the same with the person on the boat, because he knew as much about him as he does about me.

Other Comments by oao

32. Comment #36835 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Comment #36817 by oao
"Since I stated I am a militant atheist, by what logic do I confuse anti-religious to anti-jewish?"

Oao, your comment is apropos of nothing. I'm starting to wonder if you're posting while hang-gliding or alligator wrestling or something equally distracting. Your misreadings are substantial. You seem to be responding to me, but regarding a comment by RD about someone other than you. Mystifying.

"I did NOT say "politely refuses to talk about it".

Of course not, but that's the remainder of the standard metaphor you were using. When else does anyone refer to "the elephant in the room" except in reference to the thing nobody is willing to talk about, despite its enormity?

"What I said is that FOCUSING on christianity and judaism in the presence of jihadism today makes one cringe. And to sort of bundle them together as "abrahamic" is just plain ignorant and it is the real confusion."

I'm not even sure how to point out what's wrong with this comment, because I disagree with so much of it. Here's a start:
1. Again (and again and again), using terms associated with Judaism and Christianity in one's arguments against theism isn't "FOCUSING" on those faiths, it's using them to provide a point of reference and a source of greater comprehension to your western audience. The power of the arguments is just as compelling against Islam, as RD makes abundantly clear.
2. If your main beef is with jihadism, fine, but please let RD pick his own battles. He rightly sees that a crucial step (probably the crucial step) in addressing the problem is to attack the core false belief, which is shared by all the monotheistic faiths. He's doing a fantastic job in the particular battle he's chosen to fight. May you do as well in yours.
3. Bundling together Judaism, Islam, and Christianity as 'Abrahamic' is ignorant and causes confusion? Excuse me? In the same way that bundling together dogs, cats, and horses as mammals is ignorant, because people might then confuse them? Damn those biologists for confusing me into riding my cat around and teaching my horse to fetch my slippers! Damn that RD for confusing me into thinking Christians' holy book is the Koran and Jews make pilgrimages to Mecca! Calling those faiths 'Abrahamic' isn't the same as calling them, say, 'identical'. They are, however, identical in at least one important respect -- they believe in a fictional supreme being. That is the main problem RD is addressing, so it is perfectly sensible for him to lump them together in that context.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

33. Comment #36837 by yoursdhruly on May 2, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Oao,
I don't need to (or am capable of) speaking on RD's behalf, so I will just share my thoughts. I don't see why RD (and the rest of us) needs to "focus" on Islam . There is plenty to discuss here - RD will admit he has only scraped the surface of world religions in his books and talks.

I do not see what is to be gained by ranking religions in order of how much evil they have caused. It only serves to polarize - several Hindus in India don't even think of Hinduism as a "religion", except in the contrast with Islam and other religions. Why lend credence to theistic agendas and pull down certain religions?

I agree with some of what you say, but think your suggestion that RD was specifically targeting certain religions because he doesn't know enough about the others, is flawed and at best, not useful.

Other Comments by yoursdhruly

34. Comment #36843 by yoursdhruly on May 2, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Fishpeddler -

Well said....

"Damn those biologists for confusing me into riding my cat around and teaching my horse to fetch my slippers"

Witty and insightful.

Other Comments by yoursdhruly

35. Comment #36867 by oao on May 2, 2007 at 2:50 pm

yoursdhruly,

We must agree to disagree.

1st, I was NOT suggesting to "rank" religions. What I said was that ignoring the preponderance of best evidence for one's argument in a way that, whether intentionally or not, is more acceptable to social trends and in ignorance/dismissal of what it can be conducive to, is misleading and dangerous.

RD himself has admitted he is more knowledgeable about christianity than about islam and judaism. If he wants to make universal arguments about all religions, he better know that they have both similarities and differences, and that the latter may be more critical than the former.


2nd, the notion that you can combat religion without polarization smacks of political correctness and is in itself a delusion. Religion, and particularly imperial jihadism cannot be countered with logic and persuasion. What most atheists fail to comprehend is that religion is doing the polarizing and there is no way around responding accordingly.

When they come to stifle and control and even kill you, you won't stop them with RD's style of combativeness, but with what israelis are forced to do to just survive. As long as we atheists don't realize that, we won't.

Other Comments by oao

36. Comment #36869 by oao on May 2, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Fishpeddler,

I would say that you should not try so hard to justify your alias here.

Part of my response is in my reply to yourdhruly: RD's argument is universal about all religions. If he offers examples as evidence from mostly two which were quite tamed and one is pacifist, when another which is murderous comes up much less relative to its preponderance. I have a problem with that. You apparently don't.

As to your animals comment, it does not warrant a response. If you don't see how ridiculous the comparison is, I won't bother pointing it out.

Other Comments by oao

37. Comment #36891 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 4:39 pm

>>I do not see what is to be gained by ranking religions in order of how much evil they have caused. It only serves to polarize - several Hindus in India don't even think of Hinduism as a "religion", except in the contrast with Islam and other religions. Why lend credence to theistic agendas and pull down certain religions?<<

You are right in a philosophical sense. But in practice obviously there are differences between religions and interpretations within the same religion. It is not helpful to make broad stroke arguments that all religions are equally bad because they are all irrational.

I would prefer the "irrationality" of the Episcopal Church anyday to the irrationality of Wahabism. The bible is pobably more violent than the Quran, but the fact remains that in 2007, mainstream Judaism and Christianity no longer interprete the bible literally, but all mainstream Islamic schools are literalist to varying degree and in many Islamic countries apostasy is a criminal offence, sometimes punishable by death.

Recently in a muslim forum a gay muslim guy was championing "gay right". The drift of his argument is that homosexuals who don't have sex shouldn't be comdemned, in other words he sounded almost exactly like Joseph Ratzinger and this is a "gay activist" in Islam. To put it bluntly, Jerry Fawell would look like a moderate in the Islamic world.

That brings me to a second point.

I don't see the point of any atheist "movement" if it is not for engaging the world politically. By that I mean addressing the real impacts of religions rather than just criticising them on a philosophical level. Philosophical discussions are interesting and important but you don't need any movement or publicity to do that. Since it is about the real world we have to be more nuanced about religion. I think it is due to this confusion between philosphy and politics that RD and Harris et al sometimes take the bizzare stance of blasting religious moderates and fundamentalists with equal vehemence. In truth secularists can work with religious moderates on many issues and it is simply not true that the moderates somehow provide legitimacy for the fundamentalists. In many cases the moderates are most critical of their fundamentalist coreligionists. Let me just give one example, in Canada the move to incorporate Sharia into family arbitration was stopped by a spirited compaign led by mulsim women and other moderate muslims while the secular majority basically sat on the fence. When one of these women took offence at Dawkins for lumping her with the fundamentalists in the cbc "root of all evil" panel discussion I see there is a problem with RD's approach.

Other Comments by Bonzai

38. Comment #36894 by oao on May 2, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Bonzai,

Exactly my point.

But I have just been invited to move this subject to the forum, which I won't bother with.

RD is the typical ivory tower academic, getting into the real world and becoming too hooked on getting attention in trendy forums to educate himself sufficiently on a phenomenon he has the correct instinct to combat.

Too bad, but hardly the first and the last such case.

Other Comments by oao

39. Comment #36898 by oao on May 2, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Let's see how philosophical criticism is effective in some parts of Eurabia, where it's become a crime to say about islam what RD says about judaism and christianity.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/05/word-from-down-under.html

Other Comments by oao

40. Comment #36902 by Caesar Best on May 2, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Amazing to see how RD has evolved as a public speaker in the last couple of years, that clip was filled with a lot of words I and many like me don't comprehend. By turning down the complexity of his idiom he has reached a bigger audience and made his message easier to listen to. Also I haven't heard him talk about the IQ elite in recent pieces, which is very clever too, since it only portrais atheism as being too far up it's own ass. Now I know that many of the 1337 people present here will disagree, but I'd like to applaud RD for trying and succeeding to win a bigger audience.

Other Comments by Caesar Best

41. Comment #36904 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 5:47 pm

To make it clear I am not faulting RD for not speaking out more specifically about Islam. It comes with one's territory. We can't expect RD to be an expert in Islam in addition to all the other things that he has done. Islam is a very alien tradition for a Wetsrener like RD.It takes a lot of work to get familiar with the historical and cultural territory before one can effectively critique its theology beyond the universial arguments which apply to all religions. If you don't know Arabic you just won't have much credibility debating Islam with muslims. Probably RD can't say much about Islam beyond some general points (which are devastating enough). On the other hand it is possible to criticize "Islam in action" as a commentator of current affairs, but a lot of people are already doing that.

I do have a lot of respect for RD as a scientist and an engaged intellectual. My criticsm of his approach is basically on the second point that I raised regarding religious moderates. I don't have a problem with "irrationality" perse, we all have some irrational beliefs though they may not take the form of religion. I don't know anyone who is 100% rational all the time. Perhaps "irrationality" is a key that seperates us from robots, this may be a point for AI people to ponder. I think what is more important is what people do with their beliefs, rational or otherwise. To me there is no moral equivalence between a Quaker and a jihadist; a liberal anglican minister and Jerry Fawell, though maybe they are all equally irrational in some abstract sense.

Other Comments by Bonzai

42. Comment #36927 by oao on May 2, 2007 at 8:31 pm

It's because I also have that respect that I am interested in alerting him that if he wants to make an argument that is true of all religions, he must recognize the fact that he is more familiar with certain religions and less with others, and his use of evidence may have unintended consequences precisely because he is an academic and not naturally involved in politics.

An argument against religion that fails to focus on barbaric forms of it is, imo, rather dangerous, for the very reason that you elaborated, and which I expressed too.

I just watched the disbelief BBC series which I found underwhelming, self-centered, somewhat pompous (hey, it's british), and often boring. But the clincher for me was the end, when a "cabal of fundamentalists in the WH" associated with Israel to CAUSE moslems to blow themselves up". Thus, a series which is targetted at countering religion ends up utterly ignorant about the reality on the ground and inconsistent with its own narrative and argument. I'm sure, though, that it was the most popular part these days in the UK.

This is the kind of stuff I am extremely concerned at.

Other Comments by oao

43. Comment #36929 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Comment #36869 by oao

"As to your animals comment, it does not warrant a response. If you don't see how ridiculous the comparison is, I won't bother pointing it out."

Hey, that's not fair. I bothered pointing out your ridiculousness. Oh well, 'not bothering' has always been the refuge of the unpersuasive. Over(your head) And Out(of your league) is about right. Looks like we're both living up to our names.

"If he offers examples as evidence from mostly two which were quite tamed and one is pacifist, when another which is murderous comes up much less relative to its preponderance. I have a problem with that. You apparently don't."

Precisely. And you certainly haven't given a satisfactory reason why I should. My understanding of your argument is as follows:
1. Islam is presently a greater danger than Christianity and Judaism.
2. When arguing against religion, one must focus on the presently most dangerous faith.
3. Thus, RD should focus more on Islam.

You have come no where near to justifying the second assumption. That claim is false within an enormous variety of conditions, affected by variables such as audience education vis-a-vis the various monotheistic faiths, audience receptivity, speaker short-term (and long-term) objectives, speaker expertise, etc. The explanation you've given so far is inexcusably weak. Forgive me for asking that you "bother" to hold your argument to a reasonable standard.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

44. Comment #36932 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Comment #36927 by oao

At least now, 10 hours later, I see that the coherence is coming together a bit. If I could be convinced that the violent nature of Islam in some parts of the world was a particularly well kept secret, I might even be ready to sympathize with your concerns. I doubt, however, that your going to convince me of that. Additionally, I don't believe that RD should have to bear the burden of every load atheism has to carry right now. Don't try to dictate his message -- open the word processor and get it out there yourself. You obviously have the passion needed for the job.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

45. Comment #36940 by oao on May 2, 2007 at 9:20 pm

If it makes you feel better and content to assume that just because I don't bother with obvious nonsense means that you're over my head, suit yourself.

Islamism is not the most dangerous threat to Judaism and Christianity; it is so to ALL of civilization. Seems like that's over your head.

Dictate? If I understand you correctly criticizing RD means I "dictate"? You can't be serious.

And you are utterly wrong about reality: the nature of islamism is accessible, but ignored, dismissed and denied by the vast majority of what has been termed the post-west, and which is utterly collapsing instead of standing up to the what is a clear and imminent danger. Europe is an excellent example, but there are signs of it in Israel, Thailand, Pakistan and even the US. Hence my blog, which documents it. The elite and media exacerbate the problem due to fear, political correctness and sheer stupidity.

Other Comments by oao

46. Comment #36943 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 9:28 pm

Fishpeddler wrote:

>>They are, however, identical in at least one important respect -- they believe in a fictional supreme being. That is the main problem RD is addressing<<

That is the least important aspect of religion. What do you care that people believe in fictional supreme beings if they don't bother you? Would you waste your time and energy to go on a crusade against the tooth fairy?

You care because these beliefs have tangible effects on you and the society.Believers act on those beliefs.

In other words the important question is what do people do with their irrational beliefs, not that they have such beliefs. Religious people can behave very differently even within the same faith. Some people are persuaded to adopt orphans because of their belief in some benevolent fictional beings, some people are exhorted to chop off the heads of homosexuals because their fictional beings are bigots.

If in your critical framework these two groups of believers are indistinguishable or only mildly different because all you can see is that they are both delusional in their beliefs in fictional beings, I think you are sadly missing the point and your critical apparatus badly needs some serious fine tuning.

Some religions are more dangerous than others. I don't know enough about the ME conflict to comment (though I have reasons to think that the conflict is not religious in nature), but there are enough Islamic theocracies to give us an idea of Islamism in action,--I am talking about 2007 so please don't bring up the inquisition. Also, critics of Islam are routinely getting death threats and fatwas, to my best knowledge there has not been any bounty on Dawkins' head from the evangelicals.

Other Comments by Bonzai

47. Comment #36944 by BaronOchs on May 2, 2007 at 9:36 pm

oao For the most part Richard Dawkins reaches a western audience who never suspected Islam might be true anyway. If TGD went on sale in any muslim countries then perhaps an extra chapter specifically on Islam could be included.

[sorry about the bold! although if anyone does that it is possible to close the tag in your own post]

Other Comments by BaronOchs

48. Comment #37015 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 6:46 am

Comment #36943 by Bonzai

"What do you care that people believe in fictional supreme beings if they don't bother you?"

I care because that is the fundamental idea from which all their other false beliefs and religiously inspired violent acts stem. You can carry-on about the terrible symptoms of the beliefs all you want, but at some point you have to move beyond bemoaning symptoms and beginning working toward a cure. RD is addressing the root cause, and I say more power to him. Sure, there are other ways the problem might be approached, say by working toward some sort of era of Islamic Enlightenment, but again, RD is fighting an important battle, and he's doing it better than anyone else.

"If in your critical framework these two groups of believers are indistinguishable or only mildly different ..."

I'm not sure if that remark is still directed at me. I certainly made no suggestion that that was my position. As a helpful reminder, here's my earlier comment: "Calling those faiths 'Abrahamic' isn't the same as calling them, say, 'identical'." If there are real people -- as opposed to straw men -- out there who still believe all the faiths are currently equally dangerous, by all means, you and oao go set them straight. Meanwhile, RD will continue in his mission as he sees fit.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

49. Comment #37018 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 6:48 am

Hmmm. I think Baron left the bold text on.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

50. Comment #37029 by sane1 on May 3, 2007 at 7:49 am

Look, oao took the use of a word ("Yahweh"), and made a silly and unsupported accusation from it. Enough said.

But, Richard, there IS a word for the "...Christian God AS OPPOSED TO the Jewish God.." They call him "Jesus" all the time.


Other Comments by sane1