1. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #223168 by Happy Hominid on August 1, 2008 at 4:21 pm

One of the topics on this weeks' Another Goddamned Podcast is the greatness of Darwin; but that it not so great being referred to by religionists as "Darwinists". http://anothergoddamnedpodcast.blogspot.com/

2. Obama Should Re-Think His Faith-Based Agenda

Comment #220572 by Happy Hominid on July 28, 2008 at 3:29 pm

The newest edition of Another Goddamned Podcast (not out yet, but should be up in the next 10 hours) is a full-blown discussion of the McCain/Obama meeting that will take place at the Saddleback Church of Rick Warren (famous for "The Purpose Driven Life").

Just use this link later. Don't be fooled by the current podcast which shows McCain and Obama. That one is more about the options available to atheists/free-thinkers and if there is any realistic choice other than Obama. Also - why the reason-based community is pissed off at Obama.
http://anothergoddamnedpodcast.blogspot.com/

3. Daniel Dennett: Autobiography (Part 1)

Comment #220564 by Happy Hominid on July 28, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Darwin's Dangerous Idea is one of my top 4 or 5 evolution/science books. There is a nice and fairly recent interview with Dan here http://thesciencenetwork.org/the-science-studio/
And The Herd have brought him up a number of times in the weekly atheist discussions. http://anothergoddamnedpodcast.blogspot.com/

4. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #219977 by Happy Hominid on July 27, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Sorry about that link. Try this:
http://anothergoddamnedpodcast.blogspot.com/

5. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #219976 by Happy Hominid on July 27, 2008 at 10:25 pm

This is interesting, even if it's http://anothergoddamnedpodcast.blogspot.com/">not exactly the Four Horsemen or four of our best scientists. More like a Herd of Heathens.

6. Good Science Writers: Richard Dawkins

Comment #216324 by Happy Hominid on July 23, 2008 at 1:31 am

In this recent edition of Another Goddamned Podcast the discussion came to Richard Dawkins and his value to atheism - is it greater if he just writes the fantastic science that gave him his fame? Or does his fame now make him a better spokesperson for rationality?
http://anothergoddamnedpodcast.blogspot.com/2008/07/another-goddamned-podcast-20-june-26.html

7. 'Uncontacted tribe' sighted in Amazon

Comment #186615 by Happy Hominid on May 30, 2008 at 8:57 pm

The Herd over at Another Goddamned Podcast discuss the pros and cons of "leaving them alone".
http://anothergoddamnedpodcast.blogspot.com/

8. Kenya mob reportedly burns 11 'witches'

Comment #184099 by Happy Hominid on May 23, 2008 at 3:39 pm

The latest edition of ANOTHER GODDAMNED PODCAST tackles the issue - atheism being more about rational thinking than being "against" any particular god and why we're unable to get that message across to theists.

9. The Group Delusion

Comment #110529 by Happy Hominid on January 11, 2008 at 12:38 pm

"Son of God Delusion" is a hilarious title IF RD is going to write another book along these lines. I guess it will be hard for him not to, based on the degree of interest he, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens have generated in the topic of atheism. We certainly owe them a debt of gratitude for doing this.

That said, I think RD is perhaps our greatest living scientist/explainer (with the deaths of Gould and, more importantly, Sagan) and while I personally have little need of having my rationality boosted, I DO need to know more about our world and universe. I'd take 3 chapters of The Ancestor's Tale over 3 versions of The God Delusion.

But that's just me. I know that most of the traffic to this site is not generated by the scientific interest of laypeople.

10. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69603 by Happy Hominid on September 11, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Hi, you all know me here as "Happy Hominid", and at my blog I am "The Evolutionary Middleman".

I want to thank everyone for the kind remarks and support for the project. It's very heartening that what I wanted to do - get us long-time atheists thinking about the trials of new free thinkers - seems to be having just that effect. I believe if we understand what they have gone through and how they came to the default position of atheism (or tea-pot agnosticism if you prefer), we are automatically preparing ourselves for how to approach those who have not yet made the leap of reason.

Also, thanks for the constructive criticism. I particularly thank Northern Bright for -

"Though I'd like to see it developed a little further, to explore what differences their loss of faith has made to the ex-believers: whether they miss anything about their former faith, how they now deal with things they would previously have prayed about, how their loss of faith has affected their view of the meaning of their life, their peace of mind, their decision-making processes etc."

Great advice that helps clarify my thinking. Hopefully you'll be happy with the results!
What happened in this interview is that I went with my basic set of questions, in the hope that it would lead-in to exactly that sort of follow-up. As you can see from the interview, FVThinker is highly articulate and made some sensational points. Long, but great. Because they were long (and there was no way I was going to edit out what I considered to be important thoughts) I had to cut it off at that point. I don't want to do 10,000 words and Mike and I certainly would have had no problem doing that! I have a feeling some people won't give such in-depth answers and this will provide me with good opportunities to explore exactly those points you mentioned. Thanks again.

11. Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Comment #68616 by Happy Hominid on September 7, 2007 at 10:37 pm

Dr. Benway said: "Quite depressing. Play this out: some mid-level bureaucrat gets pissed at you and does some data-mining and cherry-picking, to impress others that you're a jerk not to be trusted"

and he's so right. I cringe whenever I hear someone saying "what's the big deal? I'm not a terrorist. I never do ANYTHING illegal. I don't have anything to fear". Uh, yeah, you do. When you give up your Constitutional rights (or have them taken from you without a fight) you are in trouble. You just don't know it yet.

12. Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Comment #68475 by Happy Hominid on September 7, 2007 at 8:31 am

Icculus -

Not disagreeing with your knowledge of the Constitution, but I will note the following:

It's not the Executive's prerogative to go to war.

It's not the Executive's prerogative to use torture.

It's not the Executive's prerogative to arrest U.S. citizens without due process.

It's not the Executive's prerogative to create a massive data base with the phone records of U.S. citizens.

Etc.

So while I agree with your constitutional analysis, I urge you to be highly suspicious of every possible violation of the Constitution right now. Bush is the worst thing to happen to America in the 54 years of my life, and I suspect Gore Vidal (quite a knowledgeable source) is correct when he says that "W" is worst ever.

http://evolutionarymiddleman.blogspot.com/search?q=gore+vidal

I've never been paranoid. I've laughed at conspiracy theorists. I'm being duly rewarded for my arrogance.

13. Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Comment #68345 by Happy Hominid on September 6, 2007 at 11:55 pm

Just so our friends from over-seas understand - this is an aberration when it comes to a U.S. Court of Appeals decision.

The 9th Circuit is probably the only consistently liberal circuit court in the judicial. There has even, supposedly, been talk of the Bush administration DISBANDING the court! Hey, it wouldn't be any surprise would it? It's no more outrageous than the firing of the federal prosecutors who didn't "play ball" with the Bush administration.

Justice is supposed to be blind, but let's hope nothing worse than that happens to it in the remaining 18 months of the Bush presidency. There's enough other mischief that they are sure to be up to during that time (See this video I posted. I don't think Brits get "Countdown", do you?)
http://evolutionarymiddleman.blogspot.com/2007/09/bush-playing-at-war.html

14. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62376 by Happy Hominid on August 9, 2007 at 1:10 pm

"Not so for god(s)."

Not necessarily. But we can and do test the hypothesis. So far there is no evidence. And I think the spirit of your comment is correct, and we never will find any.

15. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62360 by Happy Hominid on August 9, 2007 at 11:54 am

Stag, you said: Granted, but this is an argument against "bad religion", not NOMA. Your attack seems to be based upon the assumption that a religion has to make unjustifiable statements about objective reality (miracles, young-earth creationism, etc.) in order to fully qualify as a "religion". I see no reason why this should be the case. Taken at face value, NOMA is quite devastating to most religious claims about the universe."

and then...

"As to what constitutes "good religion", that is another discussion entirely."

So I'd like to start that discussion. Can you give me two or three examples from the world today? Are they "good" because they don't make unverifiable claims of knowledge or because they do no evil or what? And, regardless, what is it about them that applies to the NOMA concept - that it is completely separate from scientific inquiry? And if we do allow them to stand aside as a separate magisterium, should we also think of it as an equal but different way of "knowing"?

16. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62192 by Happy Hominid on August 8, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Roach - agree with you on that! What I got from Black Sun's excellent post was a ripping rebuttal of those who would attempt to equate "other ways of knowing" with a scientific way; a scathing attack on their attempt to level the playing field (as Black Sun says), by calling science "Scientism" as if it is some different equivalency of "Religion".

We've just gone of an an extremely interesting tangent. If the article served as a springboard into those waters, then it was worth it for that reason alone. But, of course, it is a much more valuable piece of writing than simply that.

17. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62168 by Happy Hominid on August 8, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Stag - to follow-up on what CelestialTeapot just said in Comment 40, let me run a speculative scenario past you and get your thoughts:

In the not too distant future, science stimulates your brain in such a way that you know, to a very close general degree, what a certain type of fruit (never previously experienced by you) tastes like. You then are given the fruit to actually taste. When you do so, you have a general expectation of the taste will be and it is met when you bite in. The similarity was, in fact, as close as what you would have if you bite into a nice red apple and it turns out to be slightly sweeter and crisper than your expectation - but still causes no surprise (other than happiness that you happened upon a good apple).

Would that change your mind at all about what you've been suggesting? I know it's highly hypothetical but, honestly, I think we will be there AND a lot further in our life times.

And I still say that this type of subjective experience is really unrelated to the subjective experience of "knowing" that there is a god. Experiments have already been done where the brain is stimulated into a quasi-religious state. Interestingly, I believe it only seems to work on people who already think they "know" something supernatural. That should tell you something about that particular physical structure of the brain.

18. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62160 by Happy Hominid on August 8, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Robert Maynard and Jitten are right on this, and I understand that you are frustrated with some inability to grasp what you are saying. Remember that consciousness is a very difficult subject. There will be a lot of debate about it for quite some time until we get further along than we are now. May I suggest, for instance, reading Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate". If nothing else, you will realize that we WILL have the answers and, like I think Robert said, We will know and already do in many cases.

What's the point of subjective vs objective reality in regards to Black Sun's article? You may think there is a subjective sense of knowing the taste of an apple, loving your wife or listening to Beethoven that can never be understood objectively. But you have to admit (and, in fairness, I think Stag did) that this level of subjective "knowledge" is entirely different than the subjective knowledge of the supernatural.

Finally, let's all take a moment to reflect on the fact that as recently as 1950, someone could have looked at the moon in wonder and thought about how great it would be to go there but "it will NEVER happen. At least not in MY lifetime". Or later in the 50's after Crick described DNA and, as he recounts, not even giving CONSIDERATION to the possibility of the human genome being decoded in his lifetime - because it was so fantastically outside the sphere of knowledge at that time. So when you claim that we can "never" know certain "subjective" realities in an objective way... pause before you say so.

19. Eight-million-year-old bug is alive and growing

Comment #62146 by Happy Hominid on August 8, 2007 at 10:27 am

Most folks here are probably already aware of it, but LiveScience.com is a wonderful, daily updated site with loads of interesting science news. It's definitely "dumbed down" if you want to put it that way. Nevertheless, even if your science expertise level is high, you will still find things of interest in fields other than your own.

I'm really glad to see that a lot of you feel about this like I do (my original comment about "more science") and I just want to clarify something for those who I knew would not agree.

I am aware that there are places right here on RD that do have what I'm asking for. I'd just like to see more news articles about science, particularly evolution related, on the front page. This is where most of us and just about every new visitor logs on.

I'm not suggesting that the site change... just adjust a little. There is still plenty of room for the other stories. I'm in to that as well. It's definitely the purpose of this site. As Aussie said, "Reading this stuff is exciting and nourishing to the mind and one comes away with a feeling that something new has been learned." Yes. And that is equally true for visitors here who might be undecided on where they stand. Win-Win?

20. Eight-million-year-old bug is alive and growing

Comment #61997 by Happy Hominid on August 7, 2007 at 8:11 pm

This is the kind of fascinating science article that I would love to see more of on RD. I think we should intersperse more of this between the "KGOD interview with Hitchens - God Is Not Great". I know I'll take some flak for saying so, but that's OK. It's another day in paradise! http://evolutionarymiddleman.blogspot.com/

21. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61358 by Happy Hominid on August 5, 2007 at 12:32 am

Once again an important reminder that our position as rational thinkers is not simply to hammer away at Christian Fundamentalism.

There are endless examples of muddled thinking and some of them have both a devastating impact and are easier to deal with than minds that are locked into any religious belief. Let's keep our eyes open to the big picture of living in a world based on Reason.

http://evolutionarymiddleman.blogspot.com/

22. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60251 by Happy Hominid on August 1, 2007 at 11:44 am

Comment #60227 by drive1 has hit it right on the head. The more books the better. Religion and any defense of the supernatural can't win the battle of ideas. For centuries these things weren't allowed to be debated. Finally they are fair game. Fleas will always exist, but it's still better to be a dog!

23. The Out Campaign

Comment #59850 by Happy Hominid on July 30, 2007 at 9:20 pm

Deja Fu -

You said: "One should learn to read precisely so that one may think precisely. Language (math is a language) is all we have to communicate with, so we should first master that. Theocide didn't refer to his or her parents being dissuaded from religion by any of these books or arguments. In fact, he/she seems to be my "case in point" - his/her parents weren't convinced; he/she was. I'm neither correcting you nor arguing with you, but perhaps you'll see why language is so important. I learned English quite early, and of course Richard is quite proficient in his native tongue. It's important - "If you can't say what you mean, you will never mean what you say."

I think I read what he said very precisely. I'm not talking about his parents. I'm talking about him. HE is the one coming out. He was most assuredly educated and brainwashed with the religion of his parents - that's why it is worrisome to him to go against them now. Despite that, he listened and learned from others (specifically, he cites RD) and has decided he is an atheist and wants to come out.

Your message about reading carefully and thinking about it is well taken though. I certainly have made mistakes before and will make them again. I just didn't in this particular case, and I think you did.

And I'm not suggesting that you were all that far from the truth in your original post. It is EXTREMELY difficult to get someone to relinquish their cherished religious beliefs. They have to be ready for it and open to new possibilities. But if we, as atheists, aren't willing to share what we have learned about the world, fewer will ever BE ready. That's all I'm saying.

24. The Out Campaign

Comment #59788 by Happy Hominid on July 30, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Deja Fu said, " don't think any books from Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Stenger, Hitchens, Sagan, et al, will overcome the embedded generation's brainwashing as children."

A couple of posts later Theocide said, " have recently decided to come out. It is really scary because all my family are fundamentalists Christians. I can directly thank Richard Dawkins & Dan Barker for giving me the courage to come out and proclaim that I won't keep quite any more regarding my lack of belief in any gods."

People DO change their positions. Yes, it can seem impossible with some folks and it may be so, in their lifetimes. The point, to me, is to start moving the numbers in our direction. Most atheists today were brought up in a religious tradition. We all changed. We probably didn't just "do it" in some vacuum. We read the thoughts of great minds and we paid attention to the realities of history and science vs. what we were taught and came to a conclusion - to COME OUT. Others will too. How many is partly up to us who are already there.

25. The Out Campaign

Comment #59769 by Happy Hominid on July 30, 2007 at 3:25 pm

I like it. Could we do better? Maybe. But who cares? The point is to stand up and say what you are and if most go along with The Scarlet A then it will become KNOWN. It's not much of a statement if a million atheists have a million different ways of showing it, because the average person won't recognize the symbol. If we can rally around one, even if we disagree whether it's the BEST, it will have impact. I'm in. It's already up.

http://evolutionarymiddleman.blogspot.com/

26. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58895 by Happy Hominid on July 26, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Those few in this rather long thread who have argued that we shouldn't bother debating the examples of "dangerous ideas" that Pinker gave but, rather, discuss the merits of what Pinker says ABOUT dangerous ideas - have it exactly right.

I suspect Pinker purposely included some ideas that may be ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS on face just to strengthen the point. If someone proposes an idea then the last thing a 'free thinker' should want to do is to end the discussion simply because the idea is either distasteful or, even, beyond any reasonable likelihood. If someone is interested in the idea enough to do research on an idea, support the research and let the chips fall where they may. If it turns out to be false, the research will eventually confirm so.

27. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58306 by Happy Hominid on July 24, 2007 at 11:04 am

"I agree that some of his TED lectures (on OTHER SUBJECTS, the ones he says he likes!) are very interesting and actually have some meat in them."

I still find Dennett quite interesting, despite some of your earlier valid complaints. Additionally, Darwin's Dangerous Idea was one of the greatest books I've read. I also think you come across more of these types of problems you mentioned whenever you have a expert interviewing an expert - ESPECIALLY in a field like this!

Incidently, when I gave this link to Josh I also gave him one with Blackmore interviewing VS (Rama) Ramachandran. He didn't seem to think it's worth posting and that may tell you something about it. But just in case you're interested, here's the link.
http://download.guardian.co.uk/sys-audio/Guardian/Science/2007/07/23/ScienceExtra_Rama.mp3

28. New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

Comment #57565 by Happy Hominid on July 19, 2007 at 10:42 pm

Very interesting... I also forwarded a version of this article to Dawkins.net from Live Science, which had a different take -

Welcome to the NEW LiveScience!
Scientist: Human Origin Impossible to Pinpoint
By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer

posted: 18 July 2007 01:03 pm ET

Here's the link: http://www.livescience.com/health/070718_africa_origins.html

Apprarently they spoke with John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison who disputed the value of the skull size differences. Now, to me, this doesn't negate the "out of Africa" scenario. As has been stated, it seems conclusive from genetics. But Hawks point could still be valid that the skull difference is basically meaningless datum.

By the way, here is Hawks very interesting and valuable blog on population genetics - http://johnhawks.net/weblog/

29. Muslim heads stuck firmly in the sand

Comment #57188 by Happy Hominid on July 18, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Roach -

Hi, it's been a few days and I never made it back to the post "Muslim heads stuck firmly in the sand" until now. You asked what I meant by historical and cultural education, when in my first post I seemed to refer to education in a different sense. Please understand that I don't mean "history" education. I mean historical. In other words, the history of a given groups education. So I mean it in the exact same sense that I used in the first post, which I called "commulative education" (of a society, over a period of centuries). Hope that helps! John

30. Darwin or Design

Comment #56682 by Happy Hominid on July 16, 2007 at 11:18 pm

Dictionary Dot Com may be YOUR friend, but mine is Merriam-Webster

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

You are WELCOME to call me dogmatic. You can call me anything you want.

thesciphishow - If you have listened to the whole thing before seeing fit to comment in ignorance you would know this.

Bush - If you just wait until I finish the war in Iraq then you will see your ignorance in having opposed it.

No thanks. Good night now!

31. Darwin or Design

Comment #56674 by Happy Hominid on July 16, 2007 at 10:56 pm

"That is really funny. Atheists like PZ are the most dogmatic people I have ever encountered".

They are if you mistake the difference between "dogma" and "passion". People like PZ and Richard can undoubtedly be annoying to believers but to call them dogmatic is a total misuse of the term... just like those that equate science with religion.

It was good to actually HEAR PZ rather than reading him, but I won't bother with the rest of this. I think I'm well beyond it.

32. Muslim heads stuck firmly in the sand

Comment #56635 by Happy Hominid on July 16, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Roach, you may well be right. I'm not a Sam Harris expert and I shouldn't presume to know his entire thesis. However, I continually get the IMPRESSION from him (when he says things like "how many doctors and engineers have to fly at 400 MPH into buildings before we recognize" this (lack of education and success) is not the problem? that he is fully blaming religion without factoring in the HISTORICAL and CULTURAL education of the society. All I'm really saying is that perhaps there is reason for hope without achieving the "end of faith" (something that won't be happening any time soon. And, unfortunately, as Harris points out - with the technologies now a in the near future available, "soon" becomes a critical factor).

33. Muslim heads stuck firmly in the sand

Comment #56624 by Happy Hominid on July 16, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Quetzalcoatl;

I think it's even more deeply interesting than that, if you think about it.

Since the writings of the Old Testament and the Koran are both filled with an absolute horror-show of ideas that a fundamentalist believer could, in principle, cling to and emulate, then the next question MUST be asked: WHY NOT AMONG CHRISTIANS AND JEWS? Certainly there ARE some who follow the fundamentalism right down to orders to kill for, say, violation of the sabbath, but such are virtually unheard of among Jews and Christians.

Some, such as Sam Harris, argue that it would be nice if education were the answer but it isn't as evidenced by the fact that there are so many doctors and engineers among the fanatics. But perhaps his thesis doesn't take into account CUMMULATIVE EDUCATION among great masses of people and over hundreds of years. The West went through its dark evil religion phase 600 years ago (basically ending about 200 years ago). During that time education was beginning to and continued to flourish right up to the enlightenment. The vestigial religion remains to this day, but stripped thankfully of nearly all of the lunatic aspects.

Of course we see creationism and fanaticism about fetuses as "lunatic", but these are largely harmless and that is why they have been reacted to less severely by the larger culture, allowing the thoughts and practices to continue in some parts of the religious community. Certainly neither of these examples is on equal footing with genital mutilation, honor killings or murdering "infidels".

34. Praying to a milk jug

Comment #56029 by Happy Hominid on July 13, 2007 at 11:38 am

The one thing I would have included on this video is the fact that a year AFTER praying, a positive result will still be remembered and relayed to others while a negative (wait) result will be long forgotten, as if never prayed for. This adds to to cumulative illusion.

35. Charles Darwin - Legacy

Comment #55383 by Happy Hominid on July 10, 2007 at 11:23 pm

Quite interesting but badly titled. I was actually hoping to hear a little more about Darwin's impact. It might better have been called "Evolutionary Theory - Legacy". But I qibble. It was still worth watching and perhaps gave me a more favorable outlook towards the Gouldians.

36. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #52718 by Happy Hominid on June 27, 2007 at 11:04 pm

Konquererz said: "We have been saying over and over that we don't BELIEVE anything."

I've been an atheist for 34 years and, maybe I don't go along with the "game plan", but I haven't been saying that.

I clearly BELIEVE there is no god. What I say is that if your definition of an atheist is one who claims to KNOW that there is no god (a false definition, I believe) then maybe I'm not an atheist in your book. I agree with EggplantBren when he says, "Atheism is the BELIEF [my emphasis] that the most probable number of Gods is zero, and this has a fairly high probability."

That's me right there. I can actually respect those who say that the available evidence leads them to believe there is a god, but that they can not support any current religion as having any knowledge of god (let alone, his infallable word). I don't agree with their analysis of the evidence, but it's a tenable position that I wouldn't argue too much with.

Penn hit the nail on the head. Good job. I could have lived without the jello though.

37. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52601 by Happy Hominid on June 27, 2007 at 12:33 pm

I went ahead and emailed him, for all the good it will do. In the actual email I provided him with links to the books and articles I referred to.

Hi Jonathan,

I know you have received a number of "irate" emails from atheists and agnostics regarding your recent appearance on Fox. I doubt you are reading them all and doubt even more sincerely that you are giving them any serious thought. But just in case you read this, I simply wanted to offer 3 suggestions that, even if you totally retain your current point of view, at least you would have the ability to more thoughtfully articulate your position in the future.

First, if you really want to talk about the scientific viewpoint on evolution, you should know what it is. You probably think you do, but let me assure you that you do not and it shows very clearly in the things you say (particularly bringing out a tired argument like the "eye"). So may I suggest, since you don't like these men talking about areas they are not "experts" in, that you read some of the things they ARE? Off hand, I think you will find Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life by Daniel Dennett to be particularly helpful. If you get time, try grappling with Richard Dawkins most recent book on science - The Ancestor's Tale. Again, at least you would understand the arguments you should avoid and the scientific groundwork you will have to challenge in order to be up to the intellectual task confronting you.

Second, perhaps you should drop the argument about scientists writing concerning an area that is not within their expertise, for a number of reasons. A) This would mean none of us could talk about ANYTHING if we are not "an expert" - like you talking about evolution. B) religion, in general is an observable and testable human phenomenon. Science has done a lot of work in religion and I don't expect you'll be particularly pleased with the results. C) Since scientists demonstrably are among the most intelligent sectors of society, would you REALLY want such people not weighing in when it's outside their area of "expertise"? I suggest you think about the contributions to society of folks like Pauling, Einstein, Newton, Galileo, etc and ask yourself if we would be better off if they were silenced.

Third, Think about your position regarding the high percentage of people of "faith" in America. As Sam Harris points out in a recent article, 500 years ago virtually every person believed that we were infested with witchcraft and that witches deserved to be tortured and burned. Enlightenment comes and numbers change. Even the numbers on atheists and agnostics in America has changed significantly just from the 1990 census to the one taken in 2000. While that still means that atheists are vastly outnumbered, it could also indicate that within the coming century or two it could be you that is among the 10%! As I'm sure you know, widely held support for a position is not evidence that it is correct.

I hope you found this email helpful.

Sincerely,

John Blackman
Los Angeles, CA

38. Messiah

Comment #52375 by Happy Hominid on June 26, 2007 at 10:26 pm

This needs to be shown on American television (assuming it has not been already). Again, it's not something that will sway the true believers (because they just KNOW that their faith is the one exception that is REALLY TRUE) but for most people, such as many of the folks that were in Derren's video, it's a real wake-up call.

I can imagine that anyone with a reasonable sense of reality would have a hard time getting suckered into some ridiculous belief system if they had the chance to see this before a charlatan gets their claws into them.

Great job, Derren! Again, let's get this on American TV.

39. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52209 by Happy Hominid on June 26, 2007 at 1:24 pm

"Why is it that the atheists are posing as the intellectuals"?

Ummm, because no one is posing. It's simply been demonstrated over and over and over that the higher your intellect, the more likely that you will not have blind faith.

I think she really needs to THINK about her question and how it applies to her. Or maybe she has and would like a different answer than the one reason offers.

Personally I find Fox a distasteful disgrace of a network and never watch unless someone like RD or CH or SH are appearing there. I really wish they wouldn't, but I understand the need to push the books. I try to boycott the network and wish every thoughtful person would. It's the only way you have of "voting" on them.

40. Supreme Court nixes suit over faith-based plan

Comment #52201 by Happy Hominid on June 26, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Macronencer- Please DO! We need all the clarity of thought we can get. And think of the challenge. You wouldn't get it in Sweden, Holland or France!

41. Supreme Court nixes suit over faith-based plan

Comment #51998 by Happy Hominid on June 25, 2007 at 9:22 pm

"20. Comment #51988 by troyreynolds86
And so the end begins. Up until now we have only feared a theocracy. Today we stare into its glaring eyes, and shocked by its toothy grin."

Very true, and to make the scenario even more frightening, everyone should take a half hour and watch the Edward Tabash video http://richarddawkins.net/article,1323,The-Present-Threat-of-the-Religious-Right-to-Our-Modern-Freedoms,Edward-Tabash or just click on it on the main page under latest news.

We are just an 89 year old justice from losing the majority. Hopefully he can hang in there until a new president is elected, and that the new president is not beholden to the religious right.

Of course with decision like this recent one, it looks like the majority is already lost - but it could get even worse.

42. Dobson, Armageddon, and Foreign Policy

Comment #41973 by Happy Hominid on May 17, 2007 at 11:43 am

"Tell me it's from the Onion. Please."

We could only wish...

43. The Colbert Report: The Intolerant

Comment #41968 by Happy Hominid on May 17, 2007 at 11:27 am

I heard that CBS is struggling since Katie Couric came on as the replacement for Dan Rather on their nightly news. If they were smart, they'd scrap their standard news format and partner up with Comedy Central and put on a Stewart and Colbert News Hour. They'd blow away the other two networks and, simultaneously, bring "truthiness" to 10's of millions of Americans who are without cable. But No Balls, No Bulge (in the ratings).

44. A Bunch of Monkeys

Comment #39739 by Happy Hominid on May 11, 2007 at 7:46 pm

Rusure (comments 32 and 33) I just think maybe you're being a little over-analytical about it. I think we all get that it's sort of childish, but that's ok. There's a place for it. It's FUNNY... that's all. And along the way, makes a point that you can't always make with the strong, intellectual arguments of a Dawkins. You don't get through to everyone that way.

I've been an atheist for over 30 years as well and still greatly appreciative of The God Delusion. It obviously could do nothing to change anything about my point of view. But RD is ALWAYS a fascinating read and I learned a few new things I hadn't been aware of or given thought to.

45. Apocalypse Of The Honeybees

Comment #39362 by Happy Hominid on May 10, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Agree with comment #12. I'm not for deleting any point of view, but surely there is an appropriate place for it. Instead, the majority of posts have now been about IT, rather than the very important and under-reported story about Colony Collapse Disorder.

Here in Los Angeles I've noted a decline in bees visiting our garden this spring. Our apricot tree produced exactly one piece of fruit. I'm going to be very interested to see how my vegetable garden progresses in the coming weeks.

I had already heard the rather stunning statistic of 1/4 of the beekeepers bees having died off. But the truly disturbing stat, if correct, is 90% of the the wild ones. This should be every bit as alarming as the ozone hole was a decade ago. I guarantee you we will be hearing a lot more about this.

46. Richard Dawkins on Canada AM

Comment #38856 by Happy Hominid on May 9, 2007 at 10:28 am

Dlitt said: "Works fine on a 7 year old Mac :-)"

Don't get too pompous about the mighty mac. Worked just fine on my $500 Toshiba laptop too!

There were no fireworks here, but big deal. It was an intelligent conversation about the book that many "believers" saw and will be forced to think harder about because Dawkins completely undermined their narrow view of how an atheist acts.

47. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36623 by Happy Hominid on May 1, 2007 at 7:11 pm

The important thing to take from this article is positively NOT to see the self-deception used by our adversaries, but to see it in ourselves.

Have you not tried, at some point, to convince another that he was deluding himself? What was the result? Did you get him to see it?

Of course not.

But knowing that there is an evolutionary advantage to self-deception and that we ALL have it and use it puts the possesser of such knowledge at an avantage over others. It should cause one to more deeply examine each of our beliefs/opinions/"certainties" and see if we are on the right course.

48. Richard Dawkins interview about 'Unweaving the Rainbow'

Comment #19941 by Happy Hominid on January 30, 2007 at 7:13 pm

Shine said: "Perhaps given the demographic of Charlie Rose's show that it's actually a good thing that he sometimes walks into interviews "blind." This way he asks the questions from the perspective of the person watching the show. And I think it's safe to say that the average person who watches Rose's program never heard of Dawkins until that interview."

I can't buy into that. I think you prepare yourself as well as possible, while anticipating the level of your audience while asking pertinent questions.