1. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem

Comment #187810 by MrEmpirical on June 2, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Steve Mading said:Unless the argumenter makes his character become a part of the argument, which was the whole point of the article. For example, "I'd make a better nominee for president than you, and here's why..." To counter such an argument, an ad-hominem attack would be right on target, and quite valid, as in "No, you wouldn't make a good candidate because you have a history of lying", or "No, you wouldn't make a good candidate because polls show that people really hate your personality and that would hurt your chances."

Steve, I don't think your example demonstrates acceptable ad hominem, because, in the the example, the protagonist argues against the candidate by using evidence to dismiss the candidate's claim. The fact that the evidence is related to the candidate is neither here nor there. The protagonist is still addressing the argument; he is not trying to dismiss the argument merely by attacking the candidate. Rather, he attacks the argument, and it just so happens that the candidate is attacked in the process. I think there's a big difference.

2. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177141 by MrEmpirical on May 8, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Pwned.

3. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176185 by MrEmpirical on May 6, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Muslims think?

4. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175239 by MrEmpirical on May 5, 2008 at 1:29 am

MPhil,

I know what you mean about there being a middle option, but sometimes it's unavoidable. If there had been no middle option, I would have been stuffed by some of the questions. For example, to the question "I am more honest than the average person", I had to answer "I don't know", because I simply have no idea how honest the average person is, and so I have no idea whether or not I am more or less honest.

I think when you're asking about factual matters, such as whether or not people speak certain languages or whether the government ever raises taxes, it is appropriate to have a "I don't know" option. When you're asking about personal feelings, such as anxiety, depression, positive affectivity, etc., then it is a good idea not to include a middle option, because most people will lean one way or the other.

MrE.

5. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70042 by MrEmpirical on September 13, 2007 at 9:13 pm

I find it strange that some people think Harris' final paragraph was weak; I found it to be the best paragraph of the entire article. Why? Because it sums up the most unassailable objection to religion: that it is irrational, and that we should not be prevented from exposing this irrationality. And, furthermore, that religion is unnecessary; that we can live happy, ethical lives without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality.

6. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69326 by MrEmpirical on September 10, 2007 at 10:41 pm

I hope this kind of thing becomes more widespread in Europe. As the Muslim population there grows, it will be important for anti-Islamist groups to be in place.

7. Ancient Protein Tells a Story of Changing Functions

Comment #65327 by MrEmpirical on August 23, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Well, from the sound of it, Dennett has reformed his views of evolution. But you should still check out 'How We Believe', because Shermer places quotes from Dennett side-by-side with quotes from Gould, and the pwnage is evident.

8. Ancient Protein Tells a Story of Changing Functions

Comment #64793 by MrEmpirical on August 21, 2007 at 10:26 pm

I suppose the best way of summing it up is like this:

In the final chapter of 'How We Believe', Shermer pwns Dennett big time.

9. Ancient Protein Tells a Story of Changing Functions

Comment #64792 by MrEmpirical on August 21, 2007 at 10:26 pm

I've just finished reading Shermer's "How We Believe: The Search For God in an Age of Science", and the final chapter discusses Gould's views of evolution in a fair amount of detail. Shermer presents a number of quotes from Dennett, which demonstrate Dennett's willingness to create straw-men and to utterly misrepresent Gould's views in an attempt to argue that humans (or at least humanoid organisms) were an inevitable result of evolution. I'm not sure whether Dennett has since abandoned his anthropocentric view of human evolution, but, at the time of Shermer's writing, Dennett was arguing for the necessity of the evolution of humans (assuming I can rely upon Shermer's quotes, and I have always found Shermer's scholarship to be sound).

Roach, no Dawkins is certainly not in the 'unidentified group'. After all, Dawkins defines evolution as the 'non-random survival of randomly varying replicators', so Dawkins certainly acknowledges the role of chance and contingency as well as necessity and determinism. And I'm sure Dawkins has acknowledged in the past that the human species is a fluke, and that we should all be thankful that we are lucky enough to be enjoying a brief period of conscious life on Earth.

10. Ancient Protein Tells a Story of Changing Functions

Comment #64758 by MrEmpirical on August 21, 2007 at 5:05 pm

"These very exquisitely adapted bodies we have represent a role of the dice," Dr. Thornton said. "And they could have turned out very differently."

More evidence in favour of Gould's model of evolution, based on a combination of contingency and necessity (see also Shermer's model of contingent-necessity in 'How We Believe').

And more evidence against the 'evolutionary theology' of Dan Dennett et al., who believe that if the tape was rewound and played again, humans would emerge again.

11. Sleights of Mind

Comment #64757 by MrEmpirical on August 21, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Oh, and by the way, Mary the colourblind neurosurgeon who knows EVERYTHING there is to know about red, doesn't learn anything new about red when she sees it for the first time.

She didn't know what it looked like until she saw it for the first time (lol).

It all hinges on how we use the word 'know'. I'd wager that a colourblind person who becomes able to see colour for the first time would report a profound sense of having been enlightened; of welcoming rich new data into their worldview. Whether that can be classed as genuine new knowledge depends on how narrowly one defines knowledge.

12. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #63943 by MrEmpirical on August 16, 2007 at 11:42 pm

windweaver,

The point is, Dershowitz laid out a number of coherent arguments, supported by numerous citations. If - that's if - these citations are accurate, and Dershowitz's sources are reliable, then Chomsky et al. got owned BIG TIME.

A crappy interview between Chomsky and Barsamian, containing almost no references or citations, will not undo the ownage.

13. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #63789 by MrEmpirical on August 15, 2007 at 11:24 pm

http://www.jbooks.com/interviews/index/IP_Dershowitz.htm

If Dershowitz's sources are reliable in the above article, he totally owned Chomsky, Finkelstein, et al.

14. After 60 Years, Will Pakistan Be Reborn?

Comment #63784 by MrEmpirical on August 15, 2007 at 10:42 pm

Was it Sam Harris who observed that territories once occupied by British and European imperial forces are now doing much better than those territories which were left to their own devices?

15. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63636 by MrEmpirical on August 15, 2007 at 7:02 am

No! The atheists are acting smug and superior!

Make it stop!

MAKE IT STOP!!! ARRGGGHHHH!!!!!

16. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63301 by MrEmpirical on August 13, 2007 at 8:38 pm

Still waiting for the evidence, darwin2...

17. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63299 by MrEmpirical on August 13, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Darwin 2,

Do you have any evidence for God's existence?

You keep saying things such as "Behind the laws of physics is God". Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Remember, whenever you posit God to explain a phenomenon (e.g. the laws of physics), you must then ask "What explains God?" or "What created God?". This leads to an infinite regress, despite the fact that many theists believe that God terminates infinite regressions. Thus, you can see that to posit God as an explanation for natural phenomena is pointless, gratuitious, unhelpful, unscientific, and just plain irrational (unless you can produce empirical evidence of God's existence...we're waiting).

18. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63295 by MrEmpirical on August 13, 2007 at 8:20 pm

automath,

C'mon, mate, do you really think that R&J were unreasonably defensive, edgy, or whatever you want to call it?

Richard looked relaxed throughout, and was definitely getting into the sceptical spirit (as evidenced by his referral to tricking people by reading them the wrong horoscope, and his referral to flipping a coin 10 times), while Judy was perhaps a little edgy, but not unreasonably so. She has the right not to be enthused by all of her guests. As for Dawkins, he looked relaxed too; he smiled throughout the interview, his brow was not overly furrowed as it has been in previous interviews (e.g. his Hardtalk interview), and he got more than enough opportunities to present his views. Further, R&J generously played not one, not two, but three clips from Dawkins' TV show.

So I stand by my original assertion that many members of RD.net are prone to see anti-Dawkins attitudes when they aren't there. Indeed, Richard Dawkins himself recently commented on a thread that the board members were being overly harsh towards a writer who had written an article about how religion can seem like a butterfly being broken on a wheel under Dawkins' criticisms. The board members mistook the writer's comments as a criticism of Dawkins, when really the writer was actually drawing attention to the strength of Dawkins' arguments and the sneaky way in which religion can seem to be weak (when really it is strong and dangerous).

19. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63013 by MrEmpirical on August 12, 2007 at 11:02 pm

Why do so many people on this site get stuck into the interviewers whenever Dawkins appears on TV? It's almost like some of the board members expect interviewers to be hostile to Dawkins, and they project this expectation onto the interviewers, seeing hostility when it isn't there. Sure, some interviewers have been genuinely irritating or irrational, but on many other occasions they have simply posed counterarguments to Dawkins', giving him a chance to rebut.

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

Comment #62982 by MrEmpirical on August 12, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Hitchens is a very busy man.

21. The vanishing jihad exposés

Comment #62981 by MrEmpirical on August 12, 2007 at 6:51 pm

"One-way multiculturalism". Good phrase.

22. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62448 by MrEmpirical on August 9, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Someone needs to point out to all the fleas how weak their faith must be if they get all insecure about the publication of a handful of atheistic books in a sea of religious literature.

I reckon at least half of the fleas' books are less attempts to convince others than they are attempts by the authors to convince themselves. It's sad, really.

23. Does the Bible have a place in public schools?

Comment #61761 by MrEmpirical on August 6, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Ev3nt H0riz0n,

God of War FTW!

24. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61585 by MrEmpirical on August 5, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Wee Flea,

For someone who claims to be Christian, you are awfully hypocritical.

I asked you to present, on THIS forum, a SINGLE argument for God's existence. Your response: "Read my book".

I can imagine how you'd react if the situation were reversed: You'd ask me "Give me a single argument against theism". I respond with "Read 'The God Delusion'". Then you say "Another example of atheist fundamentalism! You can't even back up your own position, you have to appeal to the authority of your beloved Dawkins!".

If you want to hear arguments against theism, we will be happy to provide you with many, and we'd refer you to books only for a more detailed discussion. You seem unwilling to offer even a single, concisely-stated summary of even a single argument for God's existence! Pathetic.

25. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61023 by MrEmpirical on August 3, 2007 at 11:01 am

Wee Flea,

I challenged you to share with us a SINGLE example of a new argument for God's existence. You have failed to do so. In all likelihood, you cannot provide such an example. So I shall present you with another challenge: Share with us a SINGLE argument for God's existence. Go on. Think of the very best argument for God's existence, even if it's a very old one. Out of all the numerous arguments for God's existence, I want you to pick the one that you think is the most convincing. Then I shall try to refute it. If I can successfully refute the very best argument for God's existence, then surely there is no need for me to read any of the latest anti-atheism books. If I cannot refute the argument, then I shall agree to read these books. Sound fair? Go on, give it a shot!

26. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60795 by MrEmpirical on August 2, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Come on, Wee Flea, if you have new evidence, new proof, or a new argument for God's existence, please share it with us.

We atheists only ever seem to come across two types of argument: (1) rehashing tired old arguments for God's existence that were disproved eons ago (e.g. the 'prime mover' or 'first cause' arguments. Theists can still be heard offering these fallacious arguments); or (2) nitpicking at atheism/science in order to avoid the obligation to provide positive evidence for the existence of God.

So go on, Wee Flea, put your money where your mouth is. If you seriously believe that any of the recent anti-atheist books can offer a whole new argument for God's existence, please, share it with us here on RD.net. And please, do us the favour of actually arguing FOR God, rather than arguing AGAINST atheism/science (the old 'God of the Gaps' argument). Please present some positive evidence of God's existence, in the same way that you'd demand positive evidence before believing in Santa Claus.

27. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60743 by MrEmpirical on August 2, 2007 at 7:18 pm

Only in a case of bad injustice or bullying would I make a third party intervention.

That's exactly what I've been doing. The fact that you may not agree that your actions constitute 'bad injustice' or 'bullying' is beside the point. I've made a good case that your actions have been objectionable. Which brings me to one of your other comments:

If you don't like it hurl some abuse you cowardly dork!

Talk about proving my point! Well done, Yorker. You criticised IQHQ for calling a t-shirt "cringeworthy", but now you encourage us to hurl abuse at other people. Well, too bad, I'm not going to stoop to your level. You think that makes me cowardly, but look at the evidence: I've been willing to speak out in a calm and rational way against harsh and rude mistreatment.

Enjoy your trip to Madagascar, I hope you return in a far more peaceful state of mind!

28. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60444 by MrEmpirical on August 2, 2007 at 1:12 am

Wow, Yorker, you really have disgraced yourself with some of your comments on this thread.

The thing is, I agree with you that the t-shirt is a good idea. I like the t-shirt, I've ordered one, and I've defended it against criticism. The only thing I've got against you is the way in which you've expressed yourself while defending the t-shirt.

Calling IQHQ a baby, suggesting he have a wank, having a go at him for his reference to Noam Chomsky, and countless other insults... And for the most part IQHQ has responded to your insults in a calm and reasoned manner, but when he does so, you say he is still 'smarting' or 'fuming'. Do you really think IQHQ is the one who is fuming or smarting? Surely, given your rude comments, it is YOU who is a little hot under the collar. You'll probably read this post and say that I'm fuming too. Not so. I just like to stand up for fairness and good manners. I disagree with IQHQ, but I'm defending him because of the way in which you have been treating him.

I think it's pretty clear that you are quick to pounce on those whose mode of expression does not conform to your tastes. Well, at least people like IQHQ weren't rude to other PEOPLE, they just spoke harshly about the t-shirt. But you stooped to the low of actually being harsh to fellow board members.

If you learned to switch off your negative emotions, but kept your intellect switched on, you'd be one of the most outstanding contributors to RD.net, in my opinion. How about giving that a try?

29. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60384 by MrEmpirical on August 1, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Bugger me backwards, I checked out Vox Day's blog, and it is basically a giant neon sign saying "Sexists, racists, bigots, et al. come and talk crap with each other!". I was reading the discussion board of one of Vox's blog entries, and some of the comments were actually quite hideous, inhumane, and frankly obscene. And these comments were totally accepted by the board members like it was everyday speech. Bizarre.

30. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59816 by MrEmpirical on July 30, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Keith,

You obviously weren't following the ongoing discussion in which I said it is hypocritical to take someone to task only for those statements with which one disagrees.

In the context of my statement, I was saying that it is wrong to criticise only those irrational claims that do not appeal to you. If a claim is irrational, it should be opposed, regardless of whether it has a personal appeal to you.

Hope that clears things up for you.

31. Come Out!

Comment #59582 by MrEmpirical on July 29, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Re: 66. Comment #59566 by Henri Bergson

Ah, ad hominem, so often used by those who can no longer successfully argue their position.

If your points still stand, Henri, why didn't you simply logically argue that ungodlystheist's criticisms were invalid?

By the way, ungodlystheist's point about the word 'atheism', which you seemed not to understand, is that if you think a mere 'A' symbol is playing into the religionists' hands, then surely the word 'atheism' does the same thing. And yet we are all happy to use the word 'atheism', so why not simply use the 'A' symbol as a convenient shorthand for one's lack of belief? The t-shirt, as ungodlystheist pointed out, is simply a public statement that one is an atheist.

32. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59580 by MrEmpirical on July 29, 2007 at 6:54 pm

I can't remember now but you seem to be smarting a little from something I might have said earlier

Ha ha, your memory was working fine back when you were getting stuck into IQHQ just because he had the audacity to forcefully express an opinion with which you did not agree. You had no trouble recalling IQHQ's comments. I guess failures of memory are the last resort for people who can no longer successfully argue their position. IQHQ did nothing wrong, and you know it.

As for me, I'm not fuming over anything. I just like standing up for fairness and standing against hypocrisy.

33. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59573 by MrEmpirical on July 29, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Yorker,

I think the t-shirt is extremely great, stylish, useful and just all-out fantastic.

Okay, now I'm waiting for you to criticise me for being too forceful with my opinion; for expressing my opinion in such a way as to imply that I hold the one true viewpoint. Go on, take me to task, Yorker. Oh wait, you agree that the t-shirt is good, so of course you won't criticise me, silly me!

34. Come Out!

Comment #59476 by MrEmpirical on July 29, 2007 at 7:44 am

I as an atheist in the UK have never been discriminated against personally, what I object to are the privileges afforded to religion by the state and the threat to our freedom from religious fundamentalism.

So, religious people receive privileges not afforded to you, and your freedoms are threatened by religious fundamentalism, and yet you do not feel discriminated against for not being part of the privileged, threatening religious set?

35. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59473 by MrEmpirical on July 29, 2007 at 7:25 am

I just had this thought:

It might be a good thing that the t-shirt doesn't explicitly refer to atheism. Why? Because people might not be drawn to initiate a dialogue with someone wearing an unambiguously atheistic t-shirt. The 'A' is intriguing and mysterious, and the website URL is not widely known, so people will be drawn to ask about the meaning of the t-shirt. This will provide numerous opportunities to discuss atheism and all of the interesting reading material that can be found on this site. I can just imagine a likely scenario: "Hey, that's an interesting t-shirt, what does the 'A' stand for?" "It stands for atheism. I happen to be concerned about the influence of religion in the world, and so I want to make atheism a bit more visible." Perhaps a conversation would flow from there. If the t-shirt simply said "atheist", perhaps certain people (such as those waivering between theism and atheism) would not be enticed into dialogue. Just a thought.

By the way, I don't know anything about IQHQ's alleged history of "wanker pretentiousness", but I agree with him on the current issue. If he wants to say that the t-shirt is "cringe-worthy", fine. If someone else wants to say that the t-shirt is "totally awesome and cool", will Yorker take them to task for being too forceful with their opinion? Some people only take issue with those with whom they disagree, which is pretty hypocritical. Also, why pick on IQHQ just because of his name? Talk about ad hominem. Even if someone wanted to call themselves "I'm super awesome and the best", who cares? It's just an internet handle. I mean, I call myself "MrEmpirical". Does that mean I always present empirically sound arguments, or that I can always be trusted to brandish the best empirical data? No. It's just a name. For all we knew, IQHQ could have worked at the CIA headquarters, i.e. an "intelligence headquarters", so to jump to the conclusion that his name is self-aggrandizing or even self-referential was inappropriate (yes, we now know that his name IS self-referential, but no one knew that originally).

36. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59367 by MrEmpirical on July 28, 2007 at 9:52 pm

BT Murtagh,

Hate to break it to you, but the plural of 'anectdote' is not 'data'.

Many atheists live in fear of how others will react to their unbelief. Reactions can include ostracism, criticism, or even violence.

You say "Yes, there's prejudice against atheists, but get a grip, they're not lynching us for it." Well, maybe YOU aren't being lynched, but people like us aren't being elected either, unless we hide our rational lack of belief.

37. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59358 by MrEmpirical on July 28, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Not to mention the fact that in many parts of the world, it can be very lonely to be an atheist. At least, you might FEEL lonely, but what if you notice other people who have 'come out' as atheists? You'll realise you're not alone, and maybe that will give you the confidence not to allow yourself or your community to be dominated by faith-based agendas.

38. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59357 by MrEmpirical on July 28, 2007 at 9:20 pm

To all the idiots who have been whining about the t-shirt:

Have any of you read "The God Delusion"? Were you not bothered by the fact that religious agendas are imposed upon us because unbelievers have little or no political visibility (let alone influence!)? Were you not bothered, for example, by the fact that there are more atheists than Jews in America, yet the Jewish lobby is extraordinarily powerful and is responsible (along with other religious lobbies) for imposing faith-based and faith-motivated policies? Were you not bothered by the fact that is it basically impossible for an openly atheist candidate to be elected in American politics?

What's wrong with wearing a t-shirt to raise the visibility of atheism, so that policy-makers and community-leaders think twice before ignoring the views of the non-religious? If a powerful atheist lobby existed, mightn't that mitigate the overly strong influence of religion in US politics?

And as for Europe, don't rest on your laurels. The number of Muslims in Europe is growing every year, evangelical Christians are stepping up their conversion efforts in order to compete with Islam, and the Catholic Church is influential as always.

For f--k's sake, it's only a t-shirt. I for one will wear one. If you think that makes me weak, think again. We all know what can happen to people who are openly atheist. It many parts of the world, wearing such a t-shirt would get you killed.

39. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58679 by MrEmpirical on July 25, 2007 at 6:28 pm

LeeLeeOne said:

Infant is born, infant knows nothing, does anyone anywhere label this infant as "polite" or "bratty" based on its birth to polite or bratty parents?

Great point.

Actually, I am reminded of the song "What A Good Boy" by the Canadian band Barenaked Ladies. The first verse goes: "When I was born/They looked at me and said/What a good boy, what a smart boy, what strong boy/And when you were born/They looked at you and said/What a good girl, what a smart girl, what a pretty girl". The rest of the song deals with the hardships caused by such heavy parental expectations, etc. So yes, it's not a good idea to label children from birth!

40. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58446 by MrEmpirical on July 24, 2007 at 9:39 pm

Dawkins is good, but Harris would have owned the interviewer.

When the interviewer said "We are predisposed to religious belief" I imagined Sam's great rejoinder: "We are no doubt predisposed to rape as well, that doesn't mean it's useful or ethical nowadays".

When the interviewer said "Stalin and Mao were atheists" I imagined Sam responding by pointing out that Stalin and Mao were as dogmatic as any religionist.

When the interviewer tried to blame religion's faults on tribalism I imagined Sam responding by saying that religion is the most divisive ideology, because it posits in-group/out-group differences that transcend our worldly existence.

Harris would have had an absolute door-slamming response to all of the interviewer's crappy arguments. Of course, Dawkins' response were very good, but they didn't slam the door on the interviewer the way Harris would have.

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

Comment #57628 by MrEmpirical on July 20, 2007 at 10:14 am

Why do so many people focus on body-counts? Sure, body-counts are very important, but intentions are also important when it comes to questions of morality. Harris' "perfect weapon" argument is useful in this regard, as are his comments concerning the "moral blindness" of people such as Noam Chomsky. Jihadists kill those who do not believe in Islam, in order to reach paradise. This is the height of evil. The actions of the West have often been equally evil (e.g. greed-driven military interventions), but not in those cases in which the intentions have been ethical. The 'Great Satan' has been in possession of nukes for decades, and so far we have managed to avoid destroying ourselves. But what if such weapons fall into the hands of those who share the mindset of a jihadist; those who do not fear mutual destruction?

42. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57564 by MrEmpirical on July 19, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Bonzai,

I couldn't care less if someone believe in flood geology as long as he doesn't try to peddle it to others. Unlike racism, the mere beliefs in UFOs, the flood and the tooth fairy doesn't hurt people, the catagorical difference should be elementary.

Is the difference really so clear-cut? Racist beliefs only hurt people when they translate into certain behaviours, such as unfair discrimination. Similarly, beliefs in Flood geology only hurt people when they translate into certain behaviours, such as miseducating innocent children. You seem to assume that certain beliefs (in this case racist ones) necessarily lead to negative actions, while other do not.

If you had a friend who believed in both Flood geology and the inferiority of blacks, but allowed neither of these beliefs to influence his behaviour, would you attempt to change either of these beliefs?

Of course, how possible is it for someone to hold a belief without letting it at all influence his behaviour? As Sam Harris notes in The End of Faith, beliefs are by their very nature geared towards guiding behaviour. Which is all the more reason to be suspicious of irrational beliefs of all description, because there is always the chance that people's behaviour will be influenced by these beliefs.

There is another argument to be made against irrational beliefs, even if these beliefs are not leading to any negative consequences. If I had a friend who believed in Creationism, but did not let this belief affect his actions, I would still be motivated to change his belief. Why? Because I expect that his happiness will be increased if he has the opportunity to appreciate the full majesty and wonder of the universe, as revealed by an accurate, rational, scientific view of nature. An increase in my friend's rationality might also lead to him being more willing to explore other areas of science and rationalism, and he might find his eyes opened to new and beautiful vistas of knowledge and understanding. I would never force him to drop his irrational beliefs, or insist that he change his beliefs, but I would want to put alternative beliefs on the table for him, and argue for the advantage of adopting them.

43. New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

Comment #57557 by MrEmpirical on July 19, 2007 at 8:26 pm

It began in Africa-ca-ca-ca-ca-ca

It began in Africa-ca-ca-ca-ca-ca

It began in Africa-ca-ca-ca-ca-ca

It began in Africa-ca-ca-ca-ca-ca...

44. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57555 by MrEmpirical on July 19, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Tyrone is a douche. Here's why:

We don't have the RIGHT to take away someone's beliefs

Wrong. In many situations, we DO have the right to take away someone's beliefs. If my friend believes that his bus is arriving at 10:30, but I learn that the bus is actually arriving at 10:15, I have the right to provide my friend with information with the explicit aim of changing his incorrect belief about the arrival of his bus. And no doubt he'll thank me for it.

it is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong to abrogate another's freedom of choice

Wrong again. Our freedoms of choice are subject to numerous limitations and caveats, and for good reason. Your freedom to choose to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Your freedom to believe nonsense does not give you license to impose such nonsense on the minds of innocent children. Beliefs, by their very nature, have consequences. To the extent that a belief has negative consequences, the belief should be addressed critically.

45. Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World

Comment #57011 by MrEmpirical on July 18, 2007 at 6:32 am

Mr. Yahya's ideas "cast evolution as part of the corrupting influence of the West on Islamic culture, and that promotes a profound anti-science attitude"

If Yahya and his associates don't like science, let's see them live without all the many fruits of modern science, and of the rationalist approach.

46. Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism?

Comment #56448 by MrEmpirical on July 15, 2007 at 8:18 pm

This article misses the point.

The question is: Does atheism itself cause people to be less ethical?

Even if Hitler had been a complete atheist, and even if he was supported only by other atheists, that wouldn't prove that he and his supporters were motivated by atheism.

As Sam Harris recently said, the misdeeds of religionists are not always a direct result of their religious beliefs. Harris criticises religious beliefs as harmful only to the extent that these beliefs motivate or lead to harmful actions. Furthermore, Harris has repeatedly asked to be given a single example of a society that has suffered from being too reasonable, too rational, and too willing to rely upon evidence. So far, no such example has been provided. This argument is all that is needed to dismiss those who refer to the misdeeds committed by atheists.

47. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56360 by MrEmpirical on July 15, 2007 at 9:33 am

"Let us reason together".

Wow, some people seem not to have the ability to detect self-contradictions in their own writing. It's sad, really.

If Zwartz wants to label Dawkins et al. as dogmatic fundamentalists, surely it wouldn't hurt to provide some substantiating in-context quotations from these authors' works???

48. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56343 by MrEmpirical on July 15, 2007 at 6:50 am

I think it's important not to make too much of Sam Harris' comments regarding paranormal phenomena. When I read these comments, I understood them to mean that Harris will not dogmatically reject apparently implausible claims. In other words, Harris will not dogmatically reject the same sorts of claims that are dogmatically accepted by the faithful. As with all sorts of claims, the ultimate arbiter will always be the evidence. Essentially, I saw Harris' comments as reassuring his readers that he has not entered the debate closed to the possibility of the truth of supernatural claims. Rather, he entered the debate with an open - albeit rational and sceptical - mindset. And as it happens, the evidence for religious claims is non-existent.

49. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55909 by MrEmpirical on July 12, 2007 at 8:12 pm

I have yet to see a single piece of 'evidence' for group selection that cannot be explained from a gene-centred point of view. The examples given by Wilson can be easily understood in terms of the survival value of each individual gene.

50. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55648 by MrEmpirical on July 11, 2007 at 9:31 pm

I'm glad Prof Dawkins has rejoined to Prof Wilson.

I have but one word: ownage.