1. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174506 by Jolly Bloger on May 2, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Jiten:

The distal cause thing is tricky. Be careful not to imply that any cause should be a source of blame. There is an endless causal chain, as with anything - for example, had the towers not been built in the first place, they could not have been brought down.

The construction of the WTC 'caused' 9/11, but I'm sure I don't have to point out the trouble you'd be in if you were to even implicitly suggest that 9/11 was the 'fault' of the builders.

Perhaps western values had a hand in causing the attack, but the blame lies solely on Islam for its utter intolerance of those values.

2. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173333 by Jolly Bloger on April 30, 2008 at 4:17 pm

I wonder if Richard would be willing to do a Q&A on this site, answering some new (and more intelligent) questions from his fans - things we'd like his opinion on - instead of the usual creationist FAQ.

I loved his immediate and thorough answer to the caller asking about the supposed lack of evidence for evolution.

3. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173249 by Jolly Bloger on April 30, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Geodesic:

Is there not already a hotline somewhere? CFI perhaps? If not, there should be, and if there is, it should be more widely known. Good idea.

4. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173219 by Jolly Bloger on April 30, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Anyone else having trouble accessing the file?

edit: never mind, it worked.

5. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172704 by Jolly Bloger on April 30, 2008 at 12:28 am

Vindicated! For all my complaining, I ended up going to the location after his lecture, and got the Selfish Gene and the God Delusion signed, not to mention saw the man himself in person. He's everything I dreamed he'd be.

He was signing autographs for a LONG time though, I bet he wishes there were two Dawkins, just to move the line through faster.

6. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172450 by Jolly Bloger on April 29, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Jiten:

There is a sliding scale of course, where complete and total capitalism is a free market and complete governmental control is a command economy. A 'war' economy, or even a non-war north american 'capitalist' economy is somewhere in the middle.

When you say "imagine no capitalism" I take that to mean 100% government controlled. Such a system punishes innovation and breeds corruption. You are proposing that George Bush essentially decides everybody's salary.

Back on topic, I don't understand the "two Dawkins" thing. Even at his most aggressive, Richard is always kind and respectful. I've never seen him yell or attack someone personally.

There is ONE Dawkins! (no Dawkins but Dawkins and you shall have no Dawkins above him)

7. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172367 by Jolly Bloger on April 29, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Think about what 'no capitalism' means. It means that when someone invents or produces something, another person has to come and take it away and give it to people who did no work to create it, free of charge. You've read Dawkins, can you think of a successful strategy for a selfish individual in that system? Where does memetic evolution take you in a socialist command economy?

8. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172309 by Jolly Bloger on April 29, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Has that announcement really been in the top left for a long time? When I did hear about the lecture I looked around this site in the events section and I swear I didn't see it. If I'm wrong then I retract my earlier complaint :)

Thanks for the replies.

9. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172207 by Jolly Bloger on April 29, 2008 at 10:42 am

Can I just say I'm a little confused and disappointed that there was no mention (at least no obvious announcement) of Richard's talk at UBC on this site? As a Vancouverite and big Dawkins fan I would have loved to see him today, but sadly I only happened to hear of his talk by chance through the Chan Centre website far too late. In the future, can you guys let us know through this channel when Richard may be coming to our town so we can get in line for tickets, rather than missing out?

10. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #161767 by Jolly Bloger on April 15, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Beautifully said CraigB, I'm going to have to steal that sometime :)

11. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #161741 by Jolly Bloger on April 15, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Colwyn:

The 'popo' line is an intentional reference to the term for police. I've been critical of the cops on my blog before so there's a relevant double meaning there.

12. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #161485 by Jolly Bloger on April 15, 2008 at 10:41 am

My comments here: http://jollybloger.blogspot.com/2008/04/audacity-of-pope.html

With the best blog post title ever, if I do say so myself :)

13. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159046 by Jolly Bloger on April 11, 2008 at 11:23 am

(reposted from my Pharyngula comment)

This is the Mel Gibson excuse. If you are drunk, or stressed out, or upset, or distracted, you don't make up crazy things to yell out of the blue. What alcohol, and stress, and distractions do is cloud your judgment, slow your reactions, and inhibit your filters.

"The drunk man's words are the sober man's thoughts" applies to Gibson, and likewise the things Davis said in a heated moment of stress induced passion reveal her honest thoughts that she is normally able to keep to herself.

The fact that she holds those beliefs at all, not that she let them out, is the problem.

14. Upside-down church sculpture on hit list

Comment #154713 by Jolly Bloger on April 3, 2008 at 3:35 pm

I live in Vancouver. I heard about this the other day, and my first thought was that Christians were protesting an anti-religion message. I don't think this is the case though. The message of the sculpture is not overtly stated from what I read on the internet, but the impression I get is that it is pro-religion, but critical of specific church practices. Not exactly an atheist monument.

Also, it really is hideous from an aesthetic standpoint, and it is in a very bad location. It is highly visible from residences. The locals have said it wouldn't be a problem if it was further into the park, but as it is, it's right in their back yard. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have it removed.

I'm not aware of any public displays of Christian or general religious pieces of art. We are a highly secular and tolerant city, this is not equivalent to a ten commandments statue in a public space.

15. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142507 by Jolly Bloger on March 12, 2008 at 3:18 pm

It's like when Sylvia Browne says she won't take James Randi's money because she doesn't like him. Randi says "all the more reason to take my money and make me look foolish!"

16. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #130877 by Jolly Bloger on February 21, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Is his argument that were it not for Islam, Christianity would be the rationalization for the majority of global terrorism? I don't disagree with that!

The logic is a little faulty though. "Terrorism would exist without Islam, therefore don't blame Islam." That's like saying if Hitler hadn't invaded Poland then someone else may have, so we shouldn't vilify Hitler.

Coincidentally, I'm from Vancouver myself, and the general attitude is pretty close to this kind of "let's not offend anyone" stuff.

17. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130540 by Jolly Bloger on February 20, 2008 at 7:50 pm

This was very interesting. I'm particularly curious about the question Richard kept trying to ask Dr. Venter regarding molecular taxonomy and the transfer of genes across species lines via bacteria. I had never heard of that before and I also was confused by Dr. Venter's responses. Does anyone know more about it? Link to a good explanation?

Thanks!

18. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92426 by Jolly Bloger on November 30, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Just... Wow. These people are a parody of themselves. I can't imagine a situation more horrific and ridiculous. Yet, I read that Gillian's son in Liverpool is asking people not to lose any respect for Islam over this. Is the whole world just engaged in mass self deception?

More from me here:
http://jollybloger.blogspot.com/

19. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #91503 by Jolly Bloger on November 28, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Yeah, this is absolutely disgusting. I think the worst part is the British apologists trying to calm people down, saying its just a misunderstanding. My further thoughts here:
http://jollybloger.blogspot.com/2007/11/sudan-charges-uk-teacher-with-insulting.html

20. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91495 by Jolly Bloger on November 28, 2007 at 1:02 pm

This is one of the sickest stories I have heard in a long time. My extended reaction is here:
http://jollybloger.blogspot.com/2007/11/sudan-charges-uk-teacher-with-insulting.html

21. AAI 07

Comment #82604 by Jolly Bloger on October 26, 2007 at 11:38 pm

I find it almost funny when they talk about "we shouldn't make atheism an exclusive club open only to democrats."

As a libertarian, let me assure you, atheism is not available only to democrats, nor will it ever be. If Chapman (great speech overall by the way) wants atheists to organize in favour of universal health care, he'll have a problem getting my group on board, but we sure won't stop not believing.

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

Comment #81314 by Jolly Bloger on October 24, 2007 at 3:17 pm

I agree with sidfaiwu. There's plenty of room in anyone's religion for criticism. Also, this kind of person tends to be a pushover in that they go out of their way not to offend. It's easy to back them into a corner with a little strategic questioning. Keep asking them if they REALLY believe in an old man in the clouds, or a talking burning bush, or an actual physical hell. Keep going and eventually they'll shrink back to "well religion just feels better" and then its trivial to get them to admit that feelings don't make it true. QED.

23. A Rational Universe Implies a Creator, Science points towards Theism

Comment #81313 by Jolly Bloger on October 24, 2007 at 3:13 pm

And of course, a creator would himself imply a higher creator, and so on. With this argument its turtles all the way down and gods all the way up.

24. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #81310 by Jolly Bloger on October 24, 2007 at 3:07 pm

In strict philosophical terms, we must all make certain unprovable assumptions before we can discuss anything (i.e. mathematical axioms), and ultimately it is a kind of faith that supports these assumptions. But this is not baseless faith, we use Occam's Razor to pare our assumptions down to the essentials and strive for the most parsimonious explanations. Religion most certainly does not.

25. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #81307 by Jolly Bloger on October 24, 2007 at 3:01 pm

I think it is helpful to acknowledge that atheism can potentially be a religion if it is taken dogmatically as a philosophical certainty, or is coupled with other faith claims, and that rational atheists (i.e. us) would be just as critical of this position as any theistic religion. It is unreason and dogmatic faith that we attack, not specifically a belief in a particular god.

p.s. admins: an accidental click flagged the first comment as offensive. Please ignore this!

26. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #81279 by Jolly Bloger on October 24, 2007 at 2:27 pm

As Dawkins himself says, a universe with a god will look very different from a universe without one. Science is concerned with explaining what exists, so the truth claims of religion are directly in conflict with empirical science. Those elements of religion divorced from testable truth claims are often no different from secular philosophy.

27. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71147 by Jolly Bloger on September 17, 2007 at 10:58 pm

I'd like to get in on that class action, Beth.

This is the greatest thing I've read all week. I love the little jabs he throws in. Waiving personal service because He's omniscient, thats priceless.

28. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70314 by Jolly Bloger on September 14, 2007 at 10:59 pm

The more I hear from Christopher Hitchens the greater respect I have for him. He is surely one of the most moral and honest people I have ever heard speak; he accepts no undeserved credit, and gives none in return. He's nearly perfectly impartial and objective. It is at the same time both humbling and emboldening.

29. Don't vote for ignorance

Comment #60736 by Jolly Bloger on August 2, 2007 at 7:06 pm

Is it just me, or is the question flawed right from the outset? To me its troubling enough that none of the candidates said something along the lines of "A scientific theory is not a thing to be believed or disbelieved, but yes the evidence overwhelmingly points to evolution being correct."

30. Fighting Words: A wartime lexicon

Comment #34942 by Jolly Bloger on April 25, 2007 at 4:15 pm

This is certainly one of the best written articles I have read on the topic. I first saw Hitchens on Bullshit! talking about mother Teresa and he was great there as well. I'm getting his book.

31. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31295 by Jolly Bloger on April 12, 2007 at 12:09 am

The church can go so far as to accept mathematics, Newtonian physics, chemistry, etc. as viable theories without demanding some active subject behind the scenes manipulating the puppet strings. I don't see what's so hard about evolution.

To be fair though, the pope is FAR more progressive than the average American creationist. It is not unthinkable that with some patient teaching he could be shown the error in his arguments.

My complete comments on this article at my site
http://jollybloger.blogspot.com/2007/04/pope-speaks-on-evolution.html