1. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #71212 by RabbitDynamite on September 18, 2007 at 3:45 am

How can anyone say atheists don't do good works? Dawkins and Harris are single handedly keeping these men in gainful employment, for one thing.

2. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70964 by RabbitDynamite on September 17, 2007 at 10:50 am

The Independant seriously does not like Mr. Dawkins. Howard Jacobs, an interminable blight of a columnist in an otherwise fine paper, also had it out for Dawkins. Unlike most of his columns, where any point he makes is swaped in intelectual filler and rhetorical questions, his attacks on Dawkins were direct and clear. The first stated that Mr D simply didn't know how religous people thought (fair enough, something Dawkins himself admits and a fair weakeness when dealing with a topic) and secondly the "complacency of Dawkins' prose".

How did Jacobs prove this "complacancy"? He quoted the "new ten commandments" section from TGD and scornfully compared it with the "majesty" of the bible, backed up with a quote from Nietsche. The implication was that Dawkins was dull and totally unable to rise above the lnaguage of the everyday, a poor "prophet" for atheism (the latter image not his). The problem, of course, was that Dawkins states right before his ten commandments was that they were taken from the first result to come up in a google search, something anyone can come up with. It's impossible that Howards could miss this bit, therefore i can only assume that in pretending that the "new commandments" were Dawkins' and that they were set up to have equal authority to the decalogue, Jacobs was actively misreading his readers. Considering the Independant in the prof's daily, I'm surprised he's never responded to this. But perhaps he has merely been reading it longer than me and has learnt to avoid the confused ramblings of that column.

3. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52839 by RabbitDynamite on June 28, 2007 at 7:28 am

Does anyone remember the twilight zone episode where everyone has too be happy in a town or a psychic boy will send them to the cornfield? That's what the fox news is like. Only with more stupid crap and patriotic chest-beating.

4. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52821 by RabbitDynamite on June 28, 2007 at 6:16 am

The religious in America are a vociferous lot because they spend all their time trying to achieve the degree of power the religious in Britain already have. You guys really have no basis to call the States "less free". Try legislating an actual separation of church and state and see what happens.

That's the strange thing about Britain - it's a very liberal country at heart, but has a bunch of scraps of legislation from less elightened times. Technically, we have no seperation of church and state, but our Prime minister wasn't the one who opposed pro-homosexual legislation and stem cell research due to his religious convictions. There was a public outrage when a member of Opus Dei was made head of the government's equality legislation group. The Church of England is so liberal and easygoing (look at men like the Bishop Holloway) that there's no hint of Christian Theocracy here, indeed, local governments in prticualr often bend backwards to avoid offending Muslims, Hindus etc. (despite the fact that until recently it was not possible for Hindu places of worship to claim tax-exemption because they aren't monotheists - told you it was a mess).

So I don't think or amiable church still holding unused or not highly significant positions of power is a blow against the UKs freedoms. Does this mean that I think the UK is more free than the US? Nope. But if you're going to make that point, I would point you in the direction of our lack of a constiution of personal rights, in particular the governments ability to supress what appears in the press.

5. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #52806 by RabbitDynamite on June 28, 2007 at 5:51 am

"If actual forceful evidence of God existing was found ..."

What would that be for any of us? Parting of the waves? Storms of locusts? A second moon suddenly appearing in orbit around our planet?

For me, if something 'way out there' happened with no natural explanation, I'd still be no closer to believing in a god. I might be comfortable discussing the possibility that some alien race, millions of years in advance of us had popped round to see us.

How about if a plane was about to crash in the middle of a crowded city, and a giant human hand came out of the sky, placed the plane gently on the ground, and lo, in a voice understandable to peoples of all nations "I am the Lord, thy God, Yahweh, Jesus Christ, the Alpha nd the Omega. Her my voice and know my will. Incidentally, I don't hateth the gays. I used to, but now I don't. Don't argue with me, monkeys, or verily, thou shall be smite-ed. Ciao."

Interesting meteorological phenomenon? :)

6. Messiah

Comment #52766 by RabbitDynamite on June 28, 2007 at 3:26 am

I have seen the "conversion at a touch" part before. The man's skills are genuinely intimidating. Cheers for posting the whole thing.

7. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #52760 by RabbitDynamite on June 28, 2007 at 2:55 am

An interesting point aout sportsmen having no time for thought about matters of God and truth. I've always found it annoying that atheletes always say "and I'd like to thank God..." it contains the assumption God had some part in helping them win, that the other guys did something to piss Him off. And when they lose they never say "and I'd like to say to God, where the heck where you?". But I suppose in a boxing ring with a guy's hand about an inch from taking your head off with a right cross is not a good time to think "why am I here?".

8. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #52757 by RabbitDynamite on June 28, 2007 at 2:42 am

...How pathetic. First you misrepresent your target with a subtle character assasination (comparing him to a mass murderer) then dredge up an old argument (athism is religion!) and then completely spread lies about your opponents views and aims (firewalls? Oh c'mon). Oh and hi knowledge of computers is rubbish too.

I don't mind aritcles critiscisms of Dawkins/Harris etc. It's just the ones with something worthwhile and worth considering are swamped by stupid twits who do not know what they're talking about.

9. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52755 by RabbitDynamite on June 28, 2007 at 2:24 am

Wait a minute! Morality and religion are NOT the same thing. And of course, there are numerous examples of the contents of "The God Package" that are clearly immoral - The 9-11 hijackers being an obvious example. An act is moral or immoral not because of a commandment from "god" but rather because it has a significant impact, positive or negative, on a being that can materially experience some form pain as a consequence of that act. Yes, it is relative -- morals do not exist in a vacuum, but there are universal truths that can be ascertained from the human experience which will tend to demonstrate that an act (or inaction) can be moral or immoral given certain circumstances.

I personally would decry the value of any purpose that we have purely because our creator put us here for it. What is this purpose? To worship him? Then it is a pathetic and vain purpose. To be good and help others? Then all our acts of goodness are sullied by the fact that they were done at the soul equivalent of gunpoint. A mouse in maze watched by lab technician has a purpose, it is to find the cheese and provide data. This does not mean that finding the cheese is a noble or good act. If I am a mouse in a maze before the creator, then screw him. I will find my own purpose.*

And as for morality... yes, as an atheist I have difficulty accepting any absolute standard of morals, and do not think this does not trouble me. However, again the issue of why good is good comes up. Should I do something that is good purely because God says so? Then I am a slave to his caprice, and in the face of greater athorities, whether written or human, must submit to moral teachings I find repulsive. I am an atheist. We are human, we feel pain, we understand the world around us. And althoug we may be but a speck on the cosmos, I have no need for the cosmos. Things should be valuable to us because we are alive, we feel pain, and we can understad what is around us. That, I think, is a much better basis for morals than "God says so".

*Before this is pounced upon, I do not believe in a personal God. I am merely pointing out that if we were part of his divine maze, it would be more noble to rebel than to follow his plan "because he is the master".

10. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52752 by RabbitDynamite on June 28, 2007 at 2:04 am

I like to use the Aztec Gods for these type of analogies. Firstly, because they were one of the few peoples in history who believed so totally they could quantify their belief on any given day (by counting the amount of human hearts, I'll grant you, but the principle is sound). And secondly, because what are they now? Dust, a few disused temples and wall carvings, a few notes in history books, not only not believed but barely understood or remembered. Who can look at the fate of these "universal truths", of nearly all the faith, save a lucky tiny number, who can say "ah, but my faith shall not pass, because I know it is true. I know that is what they said about their faith, but I know in my heart mine is true."

11. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51363 by RabbitDynamite on June 22, 2007 at 1:35 pm

That's actually physically sickening.

12. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50175 by RabbitDynamite on June 15, 2007 at 1:34 pm

On the subject of contraception, why why why is the Catholic Church so annoyed by it?

I can field this one. basically, it's a two pronged thing. Firstly, Catholic theologians believe that everything in the world was made by God in order to serve part of His "ultimate plan". If we help that plan, it's good, if we hinder it, that bad. According to Catholics, we can tell the purpose of the sex organs is for reproduction, so if they're used without reproducing, that's interupting God's vision and bad.

Secondly, one of of the most influential figures in early Christianity was St. Augustine of Hippo (no, I didn't make that up). He was a lovely little chap who said that God knew that some people were inevitably going to hell, but that all humans are utterly evil and so we should be thankful for God for saving some of us, 'cause we don't deserve it. He also held that sexual pleasure was a creation of the devil, and should be tterly avoided except where it was an unavoidable side effect of making babies. At the time, there was another theologian, a Briton named Pelagius, who claimed sexual pleasure was actually a gift from God and we were free to save our own souls. Augustine won, Pelagius lost. Augustine didn't create the anti-sex atitude in Christianity, but he did make it utterly dominant, the fact it's still such a strong vibe today is probably attributable to him. With Contraception, we are indulging in the Devil's creation of sexual pleasure without baby making.

So there you have it, Catholics view a spreading AIDS epidemic as morally preferable to rubber sheats because it's interfering with God's vision (the "God as a petulant artist" view) and is because an early war of religious ideas was won by a nasty, pessimistic self-righteous hellmonger...sigh.

13. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #49947 by RabbitDynamite on June 14, 2007 at 8:11 am

Sorry for asking, but was that sarcastic? (49380)

14. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #49944 by RabbitDynamite on June 14, 2007 at 7:53 am

Wow, this thread is so old it practically qualifies as a sacred text.

15. A Compass That Can Clash With Modern Life

Comment #49943 by RabbitDynamite on June 14, 2007 at 7:51 am

...My instinct is to parody here, but there is absolutely nothing I can possibly say which can make that first paragraph any more ridiculous.

16. The Great Mutator

Comment #49898 by RabbitDynamite on June 14, 2007 at 3:30 am

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov

Imagine if, when the astronomers of the past realised that the orbit of Neptune did not match up to their predictions, announced that the whole theory of orbits dictated by gravity was wrong, and that the orbits of planets were actually due to their use by a giant purple space hippo as ping-pong balls while he was practising a circling trick-shot. That is ID. Thankfully, they found another planet instead.

17. Religion - our maelstrom of ignorance

Comment #49510 by RabbitDynamite on June 12, 2007 at 8:01 am

Something to take a little heart in at least:

of the 66% who declared creationism "true", 27% said it was only "probably" true. As I see it, that's 27% that will can be chipped away at as the Behes of the world are laughed off.

18. Tome truths

Comment #49305 by RabbitDynamite on June 11, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Alas, religion still has a "place at the high table of politics and public life", and still enjoys "automatic respect, privilege, sensitive handling" in most circumstances.

True enough - the very fact that the oddness of only six books creating an inordinate stir never occurred to me before shows this is true; I and I expect many others here expect anti-religious statements to be controversial. Still, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. In this case, the journey began in ancient, ancient history when some bloke got off his knees and said "wait a minute..." and continued to take steps throughout history, with some setbacks. It's unknown what the destination is, or if the journey will ever rach it. Still, this article highlights that another step has been taken.

19. Is Prince Philip an island god?

Comment #49302 by RabbitDynamite on June 11, 2007 at 12:35 pm

My fellow Britons, before we're inclined to laugh at these silly, backward islanders, think of all the people you know of who are incredibly obsessed with Princess Diana, and get incredibly tetchy if she is slighted in any way (the entire editorial team of the Daily Express, for a start). Maybe the silly, backward island faiths are closer than we think :)

20. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #49297 by RabbitDynamite on June 11, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Does anyone find that the second Brownback quote provides an excellent definition of fundamentalist religious views - "If it disagrees with what I believe, it is wrong."

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

Comment #49039 by RabbitDynamite on June 10, 2007 at 4:04 am

From Corylus: "This is not an easy thing to give up. The rabbi rightly states that we are tribal animals, but we are status animals too. 'Not like us' is a line we feed ourselves when we are feeling so insignificant and weak that we desire to look down upon others. We might be low, we say, but at least we are not them! We like to think that we are special, chosen, different. Nice daydream: give it up.

We can learn to love people who are not like us, but only when we realise that the differences we see are of our own making, and that in turn involves seeing that God is a creation of man and not the other way round. Until that realisation is made I am afraid that the Rabbi and his like are doomed to failure. Maybe, they will prove me wrong and bring the world together. Sometimes I like to be proved wrong. However, they have a long way to go…"

*Applause* Beautiful sir, simply beautiful...

22. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #49029 by RabbitDynamite on June 10, 2007 at 3:36 am

Because everyone needs a good laugh and it's vaguely the same breed of fundamentalist occult paranoia....

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

23. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48817 by RabbitDynamite on June 9, 2007 at 6:02 am

I'll admit to not having read Hitchens yet. But it seems to me that the writer of this article makes a decent claim - that atheist thinkers need to more fully acknowledge the depth of religion - but then ignores the fact that the range of religious beliefs is, in fact, acknowledged, just not carefully analyzed and split up. Dawkins spends the early part of the God dellusion making it clear that he is only and specifically attacking a particular kind of religion, the one with big, personal "man in the sky" type Gods who actually exists up in heaven and is concerned from human affairs. Buddhists, non-realist Christianity, etc. can generally consider themselves exempt when the likes of Dawkins/Hitchens say "religion", because to specify exactly what type of religion is meant every time would be unwieldy.

I'll admit that I've often thought that atheist thinkers should iron out a more coherent atitiude to the full range of religion (apart from the over-simplistic "they protect the fundies" response) but the fact is that the breadth is acknowledged, just that figures like Dawkins do not pay much attention to say, moderate Aglicanism, because such religion is unlikely to fight fact with scripture or create killer fanatics.

And I'm fairly sure that his critiscisms are largely the result of plucking out (admittably ill-advised) sound-bites. For example, I'm absolutely certain Dawkins acknowledges that relgiion is not the cause of many "religious" strifes, but is important as a dividing factor which perpetuates the conflict, quite different from the "blanket view" which the author claims "militant atheists" have. In that of course, the author is a blatant hypocrite. He uses an over-simplications of views to critiscise atheist writers of over-simplistic views on religion.

24. A Quote Against Theocracy

Comment #48545 by RabbitDynamite on June 8, 2007 at 10:29 am

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, kids.

25. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #48526 by RabbitDynamite on June 8, 2007 at 9:15 am

Religion is often a convenient vehicle for this blood lust. Religious institutions often sanctify genocide, but this says more about us, about the nature of human institutions and the darkest human yearnings, than it does about religion. This is the greatest failing of Sam's book. He externalizes evil. And when you externalize evil, all tools, including violence and torture, become legitimate to eradicate an evil that is outside of you. This worldview—one also adopted by the Christian right—is dangerous, for if we fail to acknowledge our own capacity for evil it will grow unchecked and unheeded. It is, in essence, the call to live the unexamined life.

As a guy who's often felt uneasy about Harris despite agreeing with much of what he says, I think this nails it. He reduces it down to "X religion/element is dangerous, so X element/religion must be removed". Though there are distrotions in this article, Harris does like to turn it into "us vs. them" far more so than the more criticised Dawkins does. He who fights monsters...

Not that there are not... problems. Hedges, despite his intelligence, seems not to realise that by taking his general "sense of transcendance" and faith in humanity and namig it, of all possible words capable of pronounciation by the human toungue, God, he not only causes many people to presume his believes in a "simplistic" anthro-deity, but gives the Falwells of the world a conveninent Hidey hole, constructs them a cosy Potemkin villiage which allows them to claim large amounts of people, including eminent thinks, are on their side, when this is accurate. If Hedges has "faith" that there is something beyond the mere physcial, that humanity's "kernal of kindness" in uncrushable, why not say that. Why choose a word so laden down with supernatural, childish baggage as "God"?

26. Sen. Clinton: Faith got me through marital strife

Comment #48001 by RabbitDynamite on June 6, 2007 at 8:33 am

Well, Obama trying to say the absolute minimum possible regarding religion is a good sign. Usually whe a politician does that, it means they're trying to avoid a vote-killing staement without lying. Since atheism/secularism would be the biggest vote killer of the lot in the US, I'm inclined to think Obama, though not an atheist, would at least not be at the beck and call of the "moral majority".

27. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #47946 by RabbitDynamite on June 6, 2007 at 5:27 am

1: You think Dawkins ever gets annoyed at having to roll out these comments every month or so?

2: I've always thought that "Fundementalist" was something of a misnomer. What do we characterise as "Fundementalist" religious behaviour? Intolerance, resorting to violence, cast-iron adoration of rules over people, focus on fear and divine punishment and a blanket damnation over anyone outside their own specific group. These might be considered "Fundemental" teachings from the perspective of, say, the Hexateuch. But barring blips such as Matthew 10:34, the gospel, the Christ bit of Christianity, is far more about peace and love than violence (the Beatitiudes) far more about helping others than bleating the magic words *. I would say the fundementals of Christianity have more in common with Joseph Fletcher than Jerry Fallwell.

With that in mind, I suggest we name Haggard, Chick and their ilk "Extramentalists". This, I feel is more suitable both because such Christians have an unhealthy focus on the "extra" bits of Christianity, and because of course, they're out of their ****ing minds.

*And before the "I am the light" brigade gets on my case, the parables of the Good Samaritan and Sheep and the Goats would like a word.

28. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33494 by RabbitDynamite on April 20, 2007 at 11:49 am

Ahhhhh, the WBC: the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe.

29. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #33210 by RabbitDynamite on April 19, 2007 at 3:04 pm

So Papa Benedicto refutes ID, but claims evolution has "rationality"? Unless I've misunderstood what he means by "rationality" the man is arguing out of both of his two faces.

30. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33183 by RabbitDynamite on April 19, 2007 at 2:26 pm

I expect Reily's line of argument to go, in the immortal words of Bob Newhart, something like this

God exists
God loves America
You hate God
You hate America
America is always right
You are always wrong
You're going to burn in hel IMRIGHTIMRIGHTIMRIGHTIMRIGHTIMRIGHTCUTTHECAMERA!

31. Coming out as atheist: Noel Gallagher & Gabriel Byrne

Comment #33179 by RabbitDynamite on April 19, 2007 at 2:21 pm

You know, of all the things in the universe which could make me more likely to convert to religion, finding out Noel Gallagher is an atheist is somewhere in the top ten.

32. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #33174 by RabbitDynamite on April 19, 2007 at 2:14 pm

...OK, the first third or so makes a good point: disbeleif is better than indifference, and religion is hard to eradicate. Then, this turns into more than a standard, God=morality argument, it's one with an extra slice of "disconnect from reality".

1: the Jews invented the idea of a pre-ordianed divine plan. To pull a pair of examples ex recto, the Aztecs and Norse had similar ideas, and I'm sure it's only our lack of knowledge of prehistoric religion (on the basis of it being...well, prehistric) that denies us knowledge of such an idea pre-dating Jedaism. I always thought that thread of thought was stronger in the RCC, but meh.
2: the Jews invented equality. Slavery, comitting multiple genocide because the big man in the sky told you to have a particular patch of desert and sexism never exactly struck me as the hallmarks of morality.
3: The Jews are still around because God loves em. Loves em so much they've been treated as semi-humans and scapegoats for most of their existance. Special pleading, anyone?
3: God loves America.
4: I think you find it was the workshops that flamed with dollars.
5: Humility was created by a thread of human thought which inevitably claims that each sub-sets followers are the "special ones"

Trying to claim "debate ain't over" then implying only an idiot wouldn't see proof of God's existence is not only dishonest, it is hopelessly, hopelessly, stupid.