1. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141556 by Tanglewood on March 10, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Still waiting for "Thou shalt not diddle little kids and then lie about it..."

2. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120471 by Tanglewood on February 1, 2008 at 6:23 pm

I've downloaded the free e-book (wouldn't dream of paying for it) and am currently trawling through it vainly searching for slivers of positive argument under the morass of cheap snark which comprises 95% of the book thus far. To his credit Day isn't a bad writer, and I do enjoy a bit of cheap snark, but as a philosopher he's abysmal. I've not finished the book yet and I'll allow for the possibility that things may perk up a bit, but based on my reading so far I consider that unlikely.

3. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94414 by Tanglewood on December 5, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Yeah, turns out they just want to give someone an award, not get themselves blown into a million itty-bitty pieces.

4. Mind your manners

Comment #88386 by Tanglewood on November 16, 2007 at 12:02 pm

ACG is unhappy with the level of debate on Cif? I wonder how he'd feel about somethingawful.com?

5. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88380 by Tanglewood on November 16, 2007 at 10:51 am

Oh, cheers. I guess Hitch must've been quoting. I've not gotten any response yet, and I doubt I will, but I'll post what I get if I'm wrong.

6. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88344 by Tanglewood on November 16, 2007 at 5:26 am

I just sent the following e-mail to the creators of 'Expelled'. Tell me what you think:


---------------------------------------------

Sirs,

I am writing to register my disapproval toward the upcoming polemic, 'Expelled'. While the film has yet to be released, I *have* seen the extended trailer and, if it is genuinely representative of the quality of the finished product, I believe it will be a masterpiece of propagandistic distortion. Precisely the kind of "contribution" this debate doesn't need. I have achieved a BSc. in biology, and have also wasted many hours I will never get back rebutting the fatuous (and I don't use that word lightly) claims of Intelligent Design proponents like Mr. Stein.

My first criticism of 'Expelled', is the title itself. Intelligent Design (I.D.) has not been 'expelled' from our institutes of higher learning. It has been flunked. Intelligent design can be compared to a first year college student, who doesn't turn up for lectures, doesn't read the books, and doesn't turn in any assignments, but cannot understand why he keeps getting F's. Instead of hitting the books and grappling with the fundamentals (ha!) of his discipline, he instead spends all his time haranguing his professors for perceived 'bias' against him. At first, the professors are accommodating. They show him where he has gone wrong, and clearly explain why he doesn't belong at college. The student, however, is undeterred in his crusade. He returns the next day, and the day after that, and again the day after that, presenting the same objections and flinging the same accusations. Years pass. The student is now middle aged. The professors, who have wasted countless man-hours dealing with this obstreperous little twerp, are close to retirement. Can you really blame them, or the next generation of professors working their way up the ranks, for eventually turning to the student and saying "Look, just shut up, why don't you?"

Christopher Hitchens once wrote that while "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no-one is entitled to their own facts". The facts themselves are mute, awaiting interpretation and explanation. While numerous theories have been concocted to explain them, from the creation myths of various cultures to I.D. itself, only one explanation fits the facts as we know them: Darwinian evolution by natural selection. If you are unclear on what this theory actually entails (and a great many I.D. proponents are woefully unclear), you could do a lot worse than visit the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (http://www.richarddawkins.net), and view the free lectures posted there entitled 'Growing Up In The Universe'. Alternatively, you could visit http://www.talkorigins.org, which contains a wealth of information about evolution written for the layman.

My second objection to 'Expelled' is the idea that evolution is somehow sacrosanct. This betrays both an ignorance of evolutionary theory *and* a woeful misunderstanding of the ethos of science itself. Remember, it wasn't too long ago that *evolution* was battling against expulsion. Evolution, when Darwin first suggested it, was violently rejected in virtually every quarter. It was excoriated from the pulpit, viewed as pernicious by parishioners, derided in the press, and dismissed by politicians. Evolution has *earned* its status as the prevailing theory of our origins through decades of intense investigation and rigorous testing. The I.D. movement does not embody progress, but *regression* to an earlier, less enlightened era.

The ethos of science is very simple even for the layman. Look at the evidence. Theorise an explanation for it. Make a prediction about what would happen if the theory is correct. Test the prediction. Observe the results. If the prediction is borne out by the test, the theory is strengthened. If the result contradicts the prediction, the theory needs to be revised. Darwinism has been subjected to that process on innumerable occasions (indeed, it is being subjected to it by reputable scientists as we speak) and has undergone numerous revisions as new facts have come to light. If further facts are unearthed which turn evolution on its head, the theory will need to be revised again. If this new evidence disproves the central tenets of the theory, Darwinism will be rejected, and a new explanation sought. After decades of successful testing, the chances of this happening are dreadfully slim, but the possibility still exists. Furthermore, the scientist who conclusively disproved evolutionary theory would become an instant celebrity. His name would forever more be mentioned in the same breath as Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Planck. He would accrue riches beyond his wildest fantasies and be forever feted as a genius among geniuses. The reason why I.D. proponents are not treated in this way is that they have yet to come anywhere close to disproving, or even denting Darwinism. Contrary to the insinuations in your film, there is no shortage of incentive to disprove evolutionary theory. The reason it still prevails is simply because it really is pretty damn solid.

I.D., by contrast, is flimsy. The arguments of Behe and Dembsky may sound convincing to the layman, who is easily blinded by science and has difficulty distinguishing between genuine fact and factual sounding nonsense, but to the professional they represent a depressing misuse of intellect. I will not waste space retreading old ground, but I strongly urge you to consider the impact your film will have on the public understanding of science. It will breed mistrust in our educational institutions, foster resentment against scientists themselves, and provide a genuine disincentive to further research in this area. After all, who would choose to devote ones life to a discipline plagued by inane conspiracy theories? Who would choose to spend their best years working steadily, and for little by way of financial compensation, toward earning the mantle of a colluder against God? Films like yours don't advance genuine debate because the real arguments are taking place miles away from the intellectually incestuous I.D. clubhouse. Instead, they scare people away from taking part in the conversation in the first place. I hope this was not the intended effect.

Sincerely,

Malcolm Dowling.

-------------------------------------------

7. Fox News Discussion on 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #86210 by Tanglewood on November 8, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Fanusi Khiyal wrote

'Pushing Atheism on Kids' - will you get real? I read the Narnia series avidly when I was young, and I am hardly a Christian.

Same here. This video is just another steaming load of unctuous nonsense from the perennially God-boggled.

Firstly, does anyone else find it hilarious that the Catholic Church is objecting to people pushing things on kids?

Secondly, children aren't born knowing the tenets of Christianity. A child raised by wolves in the wilderness isn't going to know who Jesus is, and isn't going to know about Heaven or Hell. If a child does know about these things, and believes in them, it is because these beliefs have been pushed on him by the Catholic Church, or by Catholic laity at the encouragement of the Catholic Church.

Thirdly, last time I checked Christianity had held sway over the West for the last 2000 years, and our species is just as petty, venal, and bloodthirsty as it's always been. Maybe it's time for someone else to talk.

8. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85667 by Tanglewood on November 6, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Some have raised the argument that the doctors should have overridden the patient's wishes & given her a lifesaving transfusion anyway. To those people, I would point out that a doctor's duty of care extends to all patients, not just those deluded enough to turn their backs on secular medicine for fear of offending Dr. Jesus. If this woman had sued after her recovery, she could have dealt the hospital a financial blow severe enough to impede the treatment of many other patients.

9. A House Divided: Hitch at Georgetown

Comment #85015 by Tanglewood on November 4, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Namely?

10. A House Divided: Hitch at Georgetown

Comment #84689 by Tanglewood on November 3, 2007 at 7:40 am

Ick of the East wrote:

"Really? If I cut your throat in the night, I would say that it is more a sin against you than against the god who gave me the full moon with which to stalk you."

Actually, if the Christians are to be believed, it's a sin against me, but it is also simultaneously a sin against God. The Christian perspective seems to be this: Whatever else it might be, the act of murder is primarily a transgression of divine law. Such transgressions are themselves sins. Thus, when one commits murder, one offends two entirely distinct entities. The first is the erstwhile human victim, the second is God. Each of these can be said to have been "sinned against". If the human victim left behind any loved ones, they can also be said to have been sinned against. Thus, we have one act tallying three sins on three completely different ledgers. The first ledger is the dead man's. This ledger is irrelevant since he has either been welcomed into God's embrace in heaven, in which case God has taken on the burden of his grievances, or he has been forsaken by God and is in hell, in which case he's not only persona non grata to God but probably has more important things to worry about.

The second ledger is God's. This is the important one. If you, as the murderer, had to choose one offended party to square things with, you'd choose God. Luckily for you, God, through the blood sacrifice of his son (who was God himself, natch) has already wiped your slate clean. The sin you had committed against Him by breaking divine law has been forgiven. Your sin against the family of your victim hasn't been forgiven, but you're not going to Heaven or Hell based on the extent of their dislike of you, so their forgiveness is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The only forgiveness that really matters, is God's, and Jesus had every right to grant that because he himself was God.

The third ledger belongs to the family of the victim. No-one, not God, Jesus, nor the Holy Spirit, can wipe that slate clean. But, like I said, their forgiveness isn't really important in the long run.

11. A House Divided: Hitch at Georgetown

Comment #84650 by Tanglewood on November 3, 2007 at 6:04 am

Hitchens argued:

"Is it moral to believe that your sins can be forgiven by the punishment of another person?" he rhetorically asked. "This is called scape goating."

I'm generally a big admirer of Hitchens' writings on religion, but I think this is a bogus argument. A sin is, definitionally, a crime against God. If it makes sense to believe that Jesus was God, it also makes sense to believe that Jesus had both the power and the right to forgive us our sins. Why this necessitated a crucifixion I don't know, but irrespective of the means God used to forgive us our sins, the fact remains that he had the right to do so, and hence the crucifixion was most certainly not an act of scape-goating.

Of course, this particular line of apologetics falls at the first hurdle because it's not reasonable to believe that Jesus is the son of God. Still, if you accept that premise Hitchens' argument is something of a non sequitur. Or am I missing something?

12. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #81370 by Tanglewood on October 24, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Rebuttal: I don't need to prove that I experience subjective states of mind. You are claiming that God exists independently of our beliefs concerning him. In other words, that He exists in objective reality and that you stand in relation to Him such that His existence is itself the reason for your belief. This is a claim that demands empirical corroboration. If I were asking you to prove that you believed in God, your analogy would hold water, because I would be asking you to present proof of your state of mind. However, I am not asking you to prove that. I am asking you to back up your claim that God exists in the same way you or I exist. In much the same way that you would surely demand proof if I claimed that Superman existed, I have a right to expect proof from you when you claim God exists.

13. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #81286 by Tanglewood on October 24, 2007 at 2:35 pm

I've seen this used mainly by wishy-washy, liberal Christians of the "Jesus was really Buddha" variety, and the best response to it is simply to say "Well, if *your* God and *your* beliefs were prevalent then we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place. Unfortunately, the majority of believers have faith in the existence of an anthropomorphic deity who cares what we say and do, how we say and do it, will punish us for all eternity if we either screw up or stop kissing his ass, and has a *really* low tolerance for heresy. Belief in a God of this sort is not compatible with the long term survival of our species. Get back to me when everyone is a religious moderate. In the mean time, stop wheeling out your drippy-hippy little fringe God as a counterpoint to my arguments against the fire and brimstone God I actually have a problem with. It's distracting, and provides cover to those whose religious fantasies are motivating them to do us both harm."

14. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81277 by Tanglewood on October 24, 2007 at 2:23 pm

I think that the common theistic proposition that God is responsible for our moral intuitions (or at least that his existence is a necessary anchorage point for them), is the most pernicious of all theistic arguments. This is rather ironic as it is perhaps the easiest argument to defeat. Below I present a mere handful of the many, many rebuttals to this argument. I hope someone finds at least one of them useful. Caps only used for emphasis.


1) The long winded and polite response:

The capacity for empathy and compassion is hard wired into our brains and is cultivated through the guidance of our parents and interactions with our peers. Were you aware of studies which show that chimps in captivity experience visible signs of distress when confronted with the mistreatment of other chimps with which they are familiar? This clearly demonstrates that even lower order primates are endowed with an innate capacity to empathise. They don't need the Bible to tell them that murder is wrong and neither do I.

2) The Euthyphro Dilemma (Plato, summary quoted from Wikipedia)

"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God? The first horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is moral is commanded by God because it is moral) implies that morality is independent of God and, indeed, that God is bound by morality just as his creatures are. God then becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge.

The second horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is moral is moral because it is commanded by God, known as divine command theory) runs into three main problems. First, it implies that what is good is arbitrary, based merely upon God's whim; if God had created the world to include the values that rape, murder, and torture were virtues, while mercy and charity were vices, then they would have been. Secondly, it implies that calling God good makes no sense (or, at best, that one is simply saying that God is consistent and not hypocritical). Thirdly, it involves a form of reasoning that G.E. Moore classified as a naturalistic fallacy; to explain the claim that murder is wrong (or the prescription that one should not commit murder), in terms of what God has or hasn't said is to argue from what Moore classified as a putative fact about the world to what Moore classified as a value (see is-ought problem)."


3) The argument that God is actually really nasty and, consequently, really shouldn't be in the business of telling anyone else how to behave (No idea who first originated this, but the Hitler bit is courtesy of poster Zakie Chan)

"Tell me, what do you think about Jesus' pioneering proclamation that sinners and unbelievers will spend eternity roasting in hell for finite crimes? Do you consider THAT moral? Do you think it right and fair that God punishes people for all eternity simply for choosing not to accept him as their salvation? Consider this: Adolf Hitler burned Anne Frank to death for being Jewish. We call Hitler evil. God is, if Jesus is to be believed, currently burning Anne Frank AS WE SPEAK, and will continue to do so until the end of time...for being Jewish. We call God loving. I put it to you that if God DOES exist, and if there IS a heaven and a hell, then God is not a benevolent saviour, he is a megalomaniacal psychopath whose insane 'morality' should be resisted at every turn."

4) The argument from omission:

"Well, I would say that secular morality is actually more advanced than Christian morality. I've read the Bible, and I don't recall God ever bothering to point out that child molestation was wrong. In fact, he actually recommends taking child sex slaves in Numbers."

5) The argument from incredulity (and the one we'd all secretly like to use):

"Say what? Are you telling me that you are so cosmically dense, that you couldn't figure out that murder and thievery weren't cool on your own? You needed the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE to take time out of his busy schedule to point that out? Are you one of those people who needs to wear a crash helmet whenever he goes outside?"

15. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81247 by Tanglewood on October 24, 2007 at 1:33 pm

D'Souza is a perfect punching bag on which novice atheists can practise their debate skills. The worst, most intellectually dishonest apologist for religion I've ever come across.

16. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64535 by Tanglewood on August 20, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Riley wrote:

I've never heard a person of faith argue that believers perform good works that non-believers do not or cannot also perform

Riley, I think you may be conflating two arguments.

1) "People of faith can perform good works that non-believers do not or cannot perform"

2) "Our sense of right and wrong comes from The ...(insert specific holy book here)"

No-one is, or has ever made, the first argument. An awful lot of people make the second. Thankfully, Hitchens' "Challenge" is a masterful rebuttal to both of them. If our sense of right and wrong really did come from scripture then people who hadn't read it, or chose to reject it, wouldn't know how to behave. The fact that no-one can name an ethical action performed by a believer that couldn't have been performed by a non-believer gives lie to that insidious implication.