1. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75638 by Lee Harrison on October 3, 2007 at 7:27 am

A well written, articulate, erudite article, despite a sprinkling of somewhat pointless and confusing meditation-exhortation. Everything we can expect from Sam Harris except that it seems to be largely wrong.

I am an atheist - it's not a label, or a club, or an outlook. It's simply a correct description - I do not believe in God(s), therefore I am without theism: A-theist.

I don't have a problem with atheism as a label anyway - overall, I prefer truth to politics and it is simply true that I am an atheist. Besides, I don't actually think that atheism as a label is at all politically bad. Yes, people have knee-jerk negative views of atheists - good! That gives us something to be compared with. Those who succumb to knee-jerk responses are very easily shown up as bigotted jerks. Once you've done that, by being reasonable, honest, relatively polite and sensible, others pay less attention to the knee-jerk responses and may actually begin to think.

Let's not forget that we don't want crowd-following dogmatic theists to become crowd-following dogmatic atheists. Atheist do indeed need to unite, and we do need to speak loudly and together, but it would be awful if atheism simply became the latest 'I'm pissed at my parents' fad. We want people to actually think - atheism will tend to flow from that.

If someone asks me if I'm an atheist I say, "Yes." If someone asks me if I'm religious I say, "Not at all - I prefer reason to faith." I've found that both lead to useful conversations.

2. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36705 by Lee Harrison on May 2, 2007 at 3:52 am

[quote]The "Hitchens is a drunk" ad hominem is getting to be extremely tiresome.[/quote]

For crap's sake - you do understand what an ad hominem is, don't you? If people were predominantly saying, "Hitchens is a drunk therefore his arguments are wrong and he's not worth listening to" you would be correct. If you look twice at the comments, however, you will see that this is not the case.

Most people are not dismissing his ideas just because he's drunk in the interview. Most people aren't dismissing his ideas at all. It's simply sad that a generally eloquent proponent of rationality and atheism IS a drunk.

And those of you who couldn't tell from the interview above - the lenses in your rose coloured glasses are too thick. The guy was clearly tanked and he was operating on automatic pilot - fortunately his arguments are both good and 'sound bitey' enough to survive despite this.

3. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #36111 by Lee Harrison on April 30, 2007 at 8:00 am

What an appalling thing to do! And arseholes like these have the effrontery to say that people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are unforgiveably rude for just writing books!

There are three things that made me feel good watching the video. First, a significant portion of the audience laughed at the cowardly arseholes, both as they were going and afterwards - this is a good sign.

Second was Mike's response - after he'd gotten over the initial shock and adrenaline response he did an exceptional job of making the audience comfortable again without trying to pretend that nothing had happened. As a performer myself (different field, though) I know how hard it can be to refocus an audience and it was good to see professionalism on display.

Third, his response at the time and afterwards as outlined in the article above are an exemplary illustration of how a rational atheist/humanist should respond to shit like this - strongly without a descent into the rabid raving that we see from 'the faithful' or that they falsely expect from us.

4. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #35459 by Lee Harrison on April 27, 2007 at 8:19 am

Billy Sands wrote:

I will only continue when he proposes a mechanism for creation that can be tested. I think he is just here to deny evolution takes place. He has ignored the evidence presented so far and just gone quote mining

Hear hear Billy! There's no point to feeding trolls - food just reminds them how hungry they are.

And Richard - if this 'conversation' is to continue, I agree with you that it should be reposted in the forums - where all can see it and be amused/appalled by trollish unwillingness to give an inch of the space under that bridge.

5. Bill O'Remix

Comment #35060 by Lee Harrison on April 26, 2007 at 5:34 am

Pretty reasonable - not hilarious, but anything that shows Bill O'Lielly as a pillock has got to score some kudos.

6. Jesus 'Love-Bombs' You

Comment #34967 by Lee Harrison on April 25, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Damn that's disgusting...

My wife went through crap like this in the Assemblies of God church in Australia. It was exceptionally difficult to get her out of there. She still hasn't left 'The Church' but I think that leaving those crackpots and becoming Lutheran is a baby-step in the right direction.

7. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34417 by Lee Harrison on April 24, 2007 at 2:20 am

I notice that Devolved has chosen not to take up my challenge to display some intellectual courage and honesty (see comment 34253 - the last one on the previous page).

Instead all I'm seeing is another simplistic 'challenge' gleaned from a fellow creationist, a sarcastic restatement of a question that has already been thoroughly answered and, considering that this is coming from an almost-certainly Christian, an utterly perverse statement about damning people of different views.

Oh well...

8. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34397 by Lee Harrison on April 24, 2007 at 12:39 am

Theorrhea (comment 34357)

You're automatically assuming that there are only two reasons for anyone to support the Iraq war - either they're stupid or evil.

Sorry, but I'd recommend you read my post again - and yours. I did not say that Hitchens was either evil or stupid. If you read the post again, you'll see that. There were many reasons to support the Iraq war - there aren't so many now. While I do consider it foolish to conclude otherwise, this does not mean that Hitchens is automatically dismissed as a fool - one decision or viewpoint does not make the whole man.

To assume they're either dupes or oil-thirsty supervillians is a comfortable simplification that allows you to avoid thinking about the real issues, in favor of something you can focus your energy and feelings on in an obvious and cathartic way.

Since my post makes it clear that despite finding the man personally odious and despite disagreeing with his, in my opinion, dubious conclusions regarding the war I still respect the man in other areas - hence the ambivalence that was the subject of the very first line of my post.

Who's really guilty here of pigeonholing in order to avoid thinking? I am, at least, grateful that you recognised your post to be polemical but perhaps that should have made you think twice.

9. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34347 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 8:47 pm

I'm ambivalent about Hitchens - on the one hand, he is doing a great job poking big and public holes in the fatuous arguments that supposedly support the sky fairy; he's a true iconoclast, giving Mother Theresa a richly deserved blasting and pointing out Ghandi's feet of clay; and I agree with every one of his statements in the article above. I'll happily cheer him on every step of the way.

But... (you knew that was coming, right?)

He seems so very unwilling to turn his skills on himself and his own behaviour. His support for the neocons and his willingness to get sucked into the bull surrounding the Iraq war (which is verging on being the Iraq genocide) don't say much for his ability to use skepticism as a tool to avoid fooling himself.

Add to that the fact that he is so often an utterly odious human being. His behaviour is appalling, especially during debates. Richard Dawkins can get his points across witheringly, without compromise and without kowtowing to the religious demand for unearned respect and still not lose his cool, be a perfect gentleman and earn grudging respect from his opponents. Hitchen's doesn't seem capable of that.

I'd happily read his book, laugh in the appropriate places, rant in the appropriate places, etc - I'm sure it will be excellent. I just don't want to ever meet the guy.

10. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34253 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 4:26 pm

In response to comment 34235 by devolved.

Given that I already feel that I have been wasting my time with you, I will not be writing one of my overlong screeds (do I hear distant sighs of relief from others...?).

There is little point arguing details when all of the answers you require are freely available all over the net and in libraries. You will find everything that you need if you would care to just look honestly and not require other people to do your homework for you.

There have been a lot of answers to your questions on this thread so far, some patient and some less so but all of those with substantive content have been reasonable. In your latest comment I see no acknowledgement of any of those arguments.

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I will not be spending any further time on you until I see proof that my words aren't simply disappearing into the black hole of your dogmatic presuppositions. In other words, I'll need to see, as a gesture of intellectual good faith on your part, a post acknowledging arguments that you found convincing or reasonable.

If it is your contention that there are none then you will have shown us that you really are nothing more than a hopeless troll.

11. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34148 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 11:04 am

I find the whole question of the Vatican being wrong on a matter of dogma fascinatingly odd given that they have no more basis for saying that they were wrong than they originally had for saying that they were right. On what basis are they comparing understandings? What new information has come in? Did someone just add another couple of verses to the bible?

Or is it just a load of old bollocks that deserves however many howls of derision I can get out before my throat is sore?

Guess I'd better make sure I have some cough syrup...

12. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34130 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 10:17 am

If you don't understand how evolution works, trying to question it using terms that you also don't understand won't help you understand it.

Beautifully put, Denoir - that's going into my little book of 'phrases to find excuses to use'

The rest of the comment was rather good too, incidentally ;-)

13. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34100 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 8:18 am

I've just discovered that Devolved's 'interesting' quote on the Anthropic Principle comes from "Astronomy And The Bible"
by Donald B. DeYoung, a creationist extensively quoted on Ken Ham's 'Answers in Genesis' site.

Enough said, I think.

14. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34092 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 7:38 am

Robert - decent analogy, especially suited to the probabilistic universe we find ourselves in.

15. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34087 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 7:15 am

In Comment #34080, devolved actually said this:

Now explain to me how luck, mutations and natural selection increase genetic information.

Oh good grief, have you been reading Dembski, Behe, Johnson or Morris? If so, (*tap on the nose with a rolled up newspaper*)

I don't believe that you can have been honestly looking for information and not have come across a myriad of refutations to this rubbish.

You, sir, are officially a troll as far as I'm concerned and I feel rather stupid for having just wasted a crapload of my time on you.

16. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34083 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 6:59 am

In response to Comment #34066 by devolved

Okay...

Firstly, your first quote in the context of the argument developed in the book is not showing a huge amount of faith in the anthropic principle. It is a perfectly straightforward statement of the kinds of arguments that the anthropic principle allows. You may also wish to take note of an important word near the beginning of the quote - 'might', as in 'may' or 'perhaps'.

Second:

does it really justify Richard's faith in his science of the gaps?

Flippant and unsupported comments such as this will prove to be a prime cause of degrading respect in subsequent comments.

The play on words in 'science of the gaps' is somewhat clever but that doesn't mean it has any actual substance. Exactly which gaps are you referring to, after all?

Third: If you seriously believe that your extended quote more correctly describes the anthropic principle, then I guess I now know a bit more about exactly where you are coming from.

For one, it grossly mis-characterises the Anthropic Principle and sounds suspiciously similar in form to that silly 'Banana is an atheists nightmare' video that has been doing the rounds on YouTube. There is a massive assumption in the very first line - '...the well being of mankind.' One could just as easily use precisely the same argument to claim that the universe was designed for the express benefit of pubic lice! Another problem is that it ignores the many aspects of this planet that make life such a dangerous proposition - 70% of the surface covered with a substance that we can't survive in? Earthquakes, volcanoes, lions, tigers, bears (oh my...), hurricanes, tsunamis, etc...

The worst problem, of course, is that it gets the argument exactly backwards. The Anthropic Principle is really quite simple - we should not be at all surprised to find that we live in a planet/solar system/universe generally congenial to life because we are, afterall, actually alive. If the planet/solar system/universe were not generally congenial to life, we wouldn't be here arguing about it.

To take this rather elegant principle and inflate it to mean that the world etc. was designed expressly for us is grossly unparsimonius and anthropocentric. Given what we know about the 'bottom up' nature of evolution it is far more parsimonius to say that we were 'designed' (via natural selection, of course) to fit the planet rather than the other way around.

Of course, whether it is an intricate watch or a beautiful planet, any design plan requires a designer!

The problem with the argument from design is that it performs a subtle bait and switch tactic. A clock or watch (as in '...on a heath' by way of Mr Paley) is something that we know to be humanly/intelligently designed because we have other clocks as similar examples, sundials as early forms, watchmakers as entities that can be pointed to. We cannot say the same for the universe but the argument from design simply glosses after that point and presents a watch and a Universe as if they were somehow equivalent.

There are other arguments against the argument from design in many of Dawkins' books (including "The God Delusion") and you should give them a more-than-cursory glance.

Whether describing tides, proton mass, or the earth's position in the solar system, is not a grand design present from the very beginning? These phenomena don't mutate or change with time.

Earth's position in the solar system does in fact change over time, tides also change over time thanks to the simple facts that coastlines change and that the moon is receding from the earth, and why should the mass of the proton change at all, with or without a designer? This 'argument' is really rather silly.

'The God Delusion' is meant to be about making the place a better place for people to live in. I really fail to see how unreflective and abusive attacks on people who disagree with you will bring that about. Political and religious systems that have violently persecuted people for their beliefs are evil. Please let's refrain from adding to their destructive toll by repeating their mistakes in the present or future.

First, please seperate in your mind attacking a persons beliefs and attacking the person. Second, no-one is being violently persecuted by atheism - it is obvious that the same is not true of religion, which provides a reason for the original attack on religious beliefs.

You mentioned that you were grateful to those who replied to you with logic. Can I ask that you extend the same courtesy?

17. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34071 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 6:15 am

I didn't know we could request Jessica Biel! I want one! I want one!

18. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34061 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 5:59 am

DNAtheist - Comment 34029 is absolutely bang on target.

19. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34056 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 5:51 am

Thanks Robert - just recently started posting here but I lurked for a while and I was impressed with the low bollocks:info ratio.

20. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34049 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 5:35 am

Hi BillySands

I 100% agree with the substantive portion of your post, but I'm willing to reserve judgement on Devolved's troll status.

21. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34041 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 5:05 am

Comment on #34024 by devolved

Devolved, if you are looking for 'scientific certainty' then I am not surprised at your self description as a 'backslidden evolutionist'. Certainty does not belong in science. 'Certainty' is the province of faith - I use scare quotes here because that certainty is false.

"Natural selection… needs some luck to get it (life) started. Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of luck…" (p141 The God Deluion).

Yes - why is this a problem? Incidentally, it would be better if you had included the whole quote because the bits you left out are crucial:

"Natural selection works because it is a cumulative one way street to improvement. It needs some luck to get it started, and the 'billions of planets' anthropic principle grants it that luck. Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of luck, with anthropic justification."

A part of the answer to what seems to be troubling you was contained in the parts of the quote that you skipped.

"I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection."

Assuming that the quote above is in Professor Dawkins' book in that form (I can't quickly check because you didn't give a page number), again I would say, so what? To say that this line, when read in the context of the rest of the book means that evolution is a belief system is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. The statement is certainly not reflective of a belief system in the sense of a religion such as Christianity - it is a qualified, provisionally accepted belief drawing on both the vast body of evidence for evolution and the total lack of evidence for the reality of a God-figure.

To put that more clearly Richard is an atheist and because he is an atheist he denies (without scientific justification) anything beyond the material.

This is somewhat incorrect - he does not deny anything beyond the material without scientific justification. Firstly - denial is too strong a word. If evidence could be presented, it's clear that he would change his mind like all good skeptics. Secondly, the scientific justification is the amazing lack of evidence. People say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - I would disagree. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence but it is supporting evidence (see Victor Stenger's "God: the failed hypothesis). Thirdly, it could easily be argued that the very concept of anything 'beyond the material' is so vague as to be absurd - the immaterial can't even be clearly defined. After all, so far the immaterial has been defined only by what it is not.

And to answer your question I believe that it is wrong to deny the possibility that there is life beyond death. And if there is a just and loving God he would certainly ensure that millions of aborted babies, millions of children left to die in poverty and millions of children denied freedom would enjoy eternity with him.

Actually this doesn't answer my question ;-) But anyway, the possibility that there is life beyond death is one that is lacking evidence - it is absolutely right to say that, as far as we can tell, there is no life beyond death. This is not a scary concept - life is not diminished by virtue of being finite. And as for the millions of aborted babies, etc, if there really is a just and loving God we must first ask why he allows this situation to exist.

I hope I have not reacted violently, Devolved - as far as I can tell you weren't slinging mud in the first place. Despite the mangled quotations, your questions seemed honest on the face of it and deserved to be treated as such. It's your replies that will show me whether I am being naive.

22. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34014 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 3:37 am

Comment on #34009 by devolved

So what do you believe Lee? That stillborn and aborted babies end up in hospital incinerators?

I don't actually know the hospital procedures for disposal, but assuming that incinerators are the endpoint then yes. What is there that could 'go' elsewhere?

23. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #33993 by Lee Harrison on April 23, 2007 at 2:27 am

"We cannot know with certainty what will happen" when an unbaptised baby dies, said panel member Paul McPartlan.

"But we have good grounds to hope that God in his mercy and love looks after these children and brings them to salvation," he said

If they actually believed that their sky fairy was merciful and loving, the fate of unbaptised babies should never have been in question.

24. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #33955 by Lee Harrison on April 22, 2007 at 8:54 pm

I would definitely second (third?) the suggestion to check out Pharyngula on this topic - there are some excellent arguments up right now.

Also, I recently read/heard (don't remember where I'm afraid) a wonderful point relevant to this overblown debate - why is it that a Christian has to pick up a gun and kill someone to be called 'militant' whereas an atheist need only write a book or refuse to leave idiocy unchallenged in conversation?