1. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202400 by 82abhilash on July 1, 2008 at 12:38 pm

if only many believers were more sophisticated and atheists less dogmatic.

Calling passionate people dogmatic for calling foul on those who hold an untested assumption and impose their will on others. That could confuse a lot of the undecided.

I suspect someone is shooting for a linguistic coup.

2. Texas Supreme Court rules church can't be sued in exorcism

Comment #201191 by 82abhilash on June 29, 2008 at 11:55 am

How about prosecuting individuals instead of prosecuting institutions. Institutions do not commit crimes people do. Some Institutions may be more agreeable to people with criminal tendencies but those too are created by people.

So the people who actively took part in the exorcism can be prosecuted as accomplices taking part in an act of torture. People who actually are responsible for inflicting the physical harm can be prosecuted for more severe charges.

The leadership of the church can be prosecuted for failing to exercise their authority to prevent a criminal act from taking place in the institution that they claim to run responsibly.

I do not know what laws are there in Texas that allows for this kind of legal strategy but it would have been a better way to go.

The beauty here is that the court need not officially express any opinion on the ideology of the institution in question. Only the criminality of the action of its individuals. So the first amendment is not an issue.

3. Non-voters: It's all in God's hands

Comment #200303 by 82abhilash on June 27, 2008 at 9:25 am

9. Comment #200294 by foolish sea otter on June 27, 2008 at 9:07 am

RE: Comment #200281 by eh-theist.
"Vote or Die" by basically saying "If you aren't educated on the issues, don't vote."

It was more like if the choices are between a giant douche and a turd sandwich what's the point of voting?

EDIT: But then how does this fit in?

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2746,Pastors-Challenge-Law-Endorse-Candidates-From-Pulpit,ABC-News

/edit

Looks to me like the religious vote when the representatives of their benevolent dictator (the pastors who talk for god), tells them to and they vote to those they are told to vote for (whom they 'endorse'). In other words the pastors think for them. That kind of people are a prized vote bank for politicians. People who think for themselves, makes politicians to earn their vote by actually doing good work.

4. The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete

Comment #199867 by 82abhilash on June 26, 2008 at 12:48 pm

There is now a better way. Petabytes allow us to say: "Correlation is enough."

Because for Google to make lots of money all they have to do is co-relate popular data on the net with monetizing instruments like ads, banners and product placement. The process is mechanistic and efficient. Correlation is enough for this particular business model, for now, business models too tends to get outdated over time. Wait did I say model? A system visualized in the mind of an entrepreneur? A model he tests in the real world, where the success is defined by profit? Which means google has to have an idea of why some people buy their ad space and why some people click on them? After all they are still in business are they not? And they are consistently making good decisions. Which means it is not just luck.

But in any case, it is a stretch of the imagination to say 'and therefore that is how science should work from now on.' That is plain stupid.

What else is plain stupid? This article. Even in business you need more than co-relation if you plan to last. I think the people at google know that.

5. Galaxy map hints at fractal universe

Comment #199375 by 82abhilash on June 25, 2008 at 3:54 pm

14. Comment #199368 by Double Bass Atheist on June 25, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Don't be telling Christians there are patterns in nature other wise they'll be asking, 'Who designed those patterns.'

Correct Animavore.
Articles like this simply become another source for the creotards to misunderstand and quote mine.

Well, snowflakes have patterns yet the natural unintelligent phenomena that resulted in it is well understood. That would not matter to them. They are trying to protect their dogma.

6. Science is not philosophy

Comment #198600 by 82abhilash on June 24, 2008 at 9:36 am

Science is not philosophy - agree. And philosophy is not science.

I have a useful definition of philosophy here:
Philosophy is an attempt in the part of man's unaided reason to give a fundamental explanation to the nature of things.

In which case:
Science is an attempt in the part of man's reason aided by experimentation, to give a fundamental explanation to the nature of things.

Which means at it best, philosophers and scientists can help each other, (especially if the philosopher is Daniel Dennett). At its worst philosophers can mislead scientists by promoting a false institutive sense about the world we live in.

But if philosophy is informed by science, then philosophers can help scientists ask the right questions, thus greatly catalyzing the process by which scientific advancements are achieved.

7. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #198356 by 82abhilash on June 23, 2008 at 4:02 pm

5. Comment #197077 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 3:38 am

I am a bit cautious about blogging in general being that effective. It reminds me of the Tom Lehrer song "The folk song army":

If you feel dissatisfaction,
Strum your frustrations away.
Some people may prefer action,
But give me a folk song any old day.

If we are going to be effective we need to do more than just "blogging our frustrations away", that is, unless we are sure that our blogging in a way that has an effect. Blogging alone is not action. For those without the huge audience of PZ Myers it can be equivalent to a conversation between friends in a pub. One puts the world to rights over a beer, but nothing changes.

Blogs can be used to discuss ideas, and to arrange campaigns. They can also be used as a resource, where one can archive thoughts and links.

But unless there is visibility, blogging alone is not a step forward, I think.

I agree blogging is a good idea. But to have a lasting impact one must move from cyberspace to the real world. I was at the Amazing Meeting which was arranged by the James Randi educational foundation and PZ Meyers was there to speak.

An environment rich with intellectually honest, realistic and level-headed people has a powerful impact. There where about 980 people this time. they do not want it to grow too big because then the event will become more impersonal.

Which means what is required are personalised interactions between level-headed people at the local grass root level. That will make for interesting situations.

8. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198290 by 82abhilash on June 23, 2008 at 1:55 pm

George Carlin will live on in the memory of those that admire him. George Carlin will live on in the memory of every new generation that can appreciate his work. BUT WHY NOT BEN STEIN!!!

9. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #197641 by 82abhilash on June 22, 2008 at 12:15 pm

If Bobby Jindal signs this bill he will never ever be able to enter national politics. Ever. I guess he does not want to. It is for the better.

10. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195539 by 82abhilash on June 18, 2008 at 12:32 pm

4. Comment #195532 by jonnymac27 on June 18, 2008 at 12:16 pm

at this point, let them be stupid

Agreed. This issue is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning. No government in this universe can turn its back on reality and hope to last. Nature cannot be fooled.

11. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192088 by 82abhilash on June 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Lot of people have got it wrong here, especially the non-US people here. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people of the US. It protects them by abridging the government's capacity to infringe on the people's rights. The rights itself are inherent (self-evident and inalienable). The document protects those inherent rights by directing the functioning of the government. I would invite everyone to read the document.

Also note the ninth amendment (The US Bill of rights are the first ten amendments to the US constitution) states.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Which means one must recognize that people may have other rights not mentioned in the US constitution and thereby not protected. But people have it all the same and if they feel it is of supreme importance that those rights be protected, they can spell it out and have the constitution amended to incorporate it.

12. Analysis of SB 733: 'LA Science Education Act'

Comment #191666 by 82abhilash on June 11, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Piyush "Bobby" Jindal comes from a Punjabi Hindu converted to Caholicism in high school and practices his faith devoutly. He is also on the ultra-conservative send of the political spectrum. He is extremly intelligent and can pose a formidable challenge to any worthy opponent. And yes, he thinks there is validity in the 'teach the controversy' stand.


These are his words:

"[L]et's talk about intelligent design. I'm a biology major. That's my degree. The reality is there are a lot of things that we don't understand. There's no theory in science that could explain how, contrary to the laws of entropy, you could create order out of chaos. There's no scientific theory that explains how you can create organic life out of inorganic matter. I think we owe it to our children to teach them the best possible modern scientific facts and theories. Teach them what different theories are out there for the things that aren't answerable by science, that aren't answered by science. Let them decide for themselves. I don't think we should be scared to do that. Personally, it certainly makes sense to me that when you look at creation, you would believe in a creator. Let's not be afraid to teach our kids the very best science."

How many logical fallacies can you count from that quote?

13. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191621 by 82abhilash on June 11, 2008 at 10:24 am

Truth is not democracy. I do not see any co-relation between the number of signatures on this petition and the validity of what is claimed in it.

Personally I think threatening children with hell fire is child abuse. But that is my ethical intuition speaking. And it has been wrong at times.

So I pose questions, are there studies documenting the long term ill effects of threatening children with hell fires? And what do those studies show?

14. New Online Survey

Comment #191605 by 82abhilash on June 11, 2008 at 9:49 am

I felt like the questions where playing a forced move on me. As if I was for boxing me in and categorizing me instead of capturing proper information about my state of mind.

It was not as if I could answer the question in a way I saw fit, but I had to pick ready made answers, even if they did not suit me. And I noticed some false dichotomies.

After a while that made me uncomfortable, so I stopped.

15. 'In Our Time': Trofim Lysenko

Comment #190078 by 82abhilash on June 8, 2008 at 10:42 am

Lysenko is to Communism what Kent Hovind is to Christianity, except Kent Hovind is in Jail. To the world of science they are both very similar, except Lysenko more power.

Imagine where we would be if Kent Hovind and his 'Creation Scientists' where in the White House and his team was the science advisory board for the President and the President was George W. Bush! What a nightmare that would have been.

16. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #182984 by 82abhilash on May 21, 2008 at 7:21 am

This shroud must be examined by someone who is totally indifferent to the outcome of the tests. In fact I will go one step further, tests should be conducted double blind so that researcher's biases do not impact the outcome.

None of that seems to be happening here. Instead we have an article on a supposed test about to be conducted, written in a language that pretends to be neutral. Why is it written? To sell more papers. At least that is what I think.

They keep the mystery alive because it helps the cause for the mystery to remain alive. Someone should bring this case to an obvious conclusion once and for all.

17. 16% of US science teachers are creationists

Comment #182703 by 82abhilash on May 20, 2008 at 10:08 pm

While it is true that private schools in USA can teach anything they want, I am pretty sure that if the US schooling system was fully privatized, there would be very less creationism taught in schools. Why? Because schools that try to pass it off as real science will not get enough students to stay in business. Kids that go to those schools will not get a career as scientists. They will be left behind the same way illiterates are left behind in a civilized society.

It is impossible to force religion onto anyone without assistance from the government. That is why all religions seek protection and endorsement from government run institutions either directly or indirectly.

On a positive note, given the fact that people tend to vote out creationists in from school boards in the US there is room for cautious optimism.

18. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179875 by 82abhilash on May 13, 2008 at 11:08 pm

FYI to people out here.

Daniel Dennett believes in a human soul that is made up of millions of tiny mindless activities (tiny robots) in the cellular level of the human body. Obviously this is a material soul that does not survive death.

He said so in the atheism tapes with Jonathan Miller and some other places too I think.

19. A natural selection

Comment #179869 by 82abhilash on May 13, 2008 at 10:58 pm

A Darwin exhibit sponsored by a church. I would call this is a miracle had I believed in miracles. More events like these would help Christians contain the toxic versions of their faith themselves. But one must be careful, lest they not try to distort Darwin's message to suit their theological agenda.

20. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179868 by 82abhilash on May 13, 2008 at 10:55 pm

Seems to me like some sort of advertisement because their product (Catholicism) is losing popularity.

21. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178437 by 82abhilash on May 11, 2008 at 12:16 pm

DalaiDrivel

Intelligence does NOT result from non-intelligence, at least not immediately. To find non-intelligence I'm not sure if you would have to rewind back to our origins in bacteria or not. The non-inteligent, abstract idea of evolution is the means, the cause, but not a precursor. Human intelligence evolved, result from, less sophisticated ape intelligence. All animals possess a degree of intelligence, so to say we resulted from non-intelligence in strictly true, but only in a specific, limited and distant sense. :)

I agree. Intelligence does not result from non-intelligence immediately. Evolution is an extremely slow process. Which is why it is so difficult to see within the time scales we are accustomed to. A fact that the creationists try to take advantage of. 'All animals possess a degree of intelligence' and we evolved from them. Although I would call animal intelligence as proto-intelligence.

What I understand from Dennett is that we can track the evolution of the phenomenon called intelligence beginning with species that are non-intelligent all the way up to us, the most intelligent species on the planet. Which is where things stand now. Perhaps in the distant (or not so distant future) if we go extinct and another intelligent specie may emerge or it may not. Evolution has no foresight. Besides even in evolutionary terms intelligent life seems complicated enough so as not to emerge too often compared to say single cellular life.

22. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178432 by 82abhilash on May 11, 2008 at 12:09 pm

DalaiDrivel

The world, filled with wonder, does indeed not need any real magic- nor conjuring tricks.

There are conjuring tricks all over the place and a really good magician can invoke a sense of wonder. But when I used the word 'trick' here it had multiple meanings. And in any case my statement stands.

Trick can be a good deception, but not necessarily. For people of say the fifteenth century lot of technology today will seem magical. They are all good tricks, instruments that tap in to the knowledge of how the world is. They testify to our developed sense of understanding of our world, in the same fashion a magician has a developed understanding of the human mind. Neat tricks but not real magic. Even if we can appreciate how the trick is done we may still be able to enjoy it, if it is a neat trick.

Creationists used to point out that the beauty of nature testifies to the greatness of god. Understanding evolution helps us to appreciate the beauty of nature without invoking a great god. Evolution is one of those neat tricks - complicated phenomena that tap into the fixed laws of nature. Something what magicians do all the time. Understanding it does not take away from the beauty of nature, in fact it enhances it.

Now there is another way the word 'trick' is used. As a synonym for deception. Which is what you have mentioned. Although I submit creationism was not deception for the longest time in human history. It was reduced to one only when better ideas (neater tricks, may I say) came along. So their propaganda piece is a trick intended to deceive (as opposed to a trick for survival (evolution) or a trick for entertainment (a magic show)). Well even in that case I would still say knowing the trick is still important. I think you will agree.

23. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178413 by 82abhilash on May 11, 2008 at 11:22 am

Dawkins seemed to be a bit lost. If a non-intelligent purposeless process, without foresight called evolution can create an intelligent purposeful creature with foresight (humans). Then you needed not compartmentalize your mind into darwinian and anti-darwinian. The natural world driven by darwinian evolution in itself can provide explanation for the uniqueness of human beings. Which is what Daniel Dennett claims by the way.

Intelligence can result from non-intelligence. A process without foresight can create a creature with foresight (all be it rarely). Pretty much any human endeavor can be understood as an outcome of micro processes that by them selves have no capacity to appreciate these endeavors or understand their significance.

The world filled with wonder would not need any real magic. Conjuring tricks are enough. If the trick is good enough we will appreciate it even after we find out how the trick is done.

24. Justice In The Brain: Equity And Efficiency Are Encoded Differently

Comment #178051 by 82abhilash on May 10, 2008 at 11:02 am

This research study seems to have as its basis an assumption that one person makes a decision impacting the basic necessities for a whole other number of persons.

We do not do that these days. We try not to let one person monopolize essential resources for the rest of us. We will be too depend on the whims and fancies and dilemmas of that one particular individual. We try to spread the risk so as to speak.

One person does not decide what every body else needs. Which begs the question - why was this research even attempted? To show central planning doesn't work? We already have one natural experiment to prove that. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union.

25. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #178047 by 82abhilash on May 10, 2008 at 10:53 am

This article is poorly written, by someone who thinks a bit too highly about himself and is perhaps a bit jealous of Richard Dawkins. As many here have recognized already.

26. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178042 by 82abhilash on May 10, 2008 at 10:38 am

I suspect the real reason is is the price rise in beef from £2,500 a tonne to more than £4,000 a tonne. The religiosity is just a convenient excuse.

27. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177664 by 82abhilash on May 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Since RD brought it up, I feel I can comfortably claim that there is one atheistic regime that is currently ruled by reason - "The People's Republic of China". It shed its Maoist dogmas when Deng Xiaoping came to power. He kept the Maoist image though (like secular England having a state religion). Here are some of his quotes that I find extremely interesting:

Seek truth from facts.
Deng Xiaoping

It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.
Deng Xiaoping

28. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177551 by 82abhilash on May 9, 2008 at 9:31 am

Carl Sagan best understood the nature of the Catholic church, and its obsession with worldly power. I found this video on You Tube and posted it on my channel. It seemed appropriate. This meme, I like to spread.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1BSzr43Edk

29. $271 Million for Research on Stem Cells in California

Comment #177546 by 82abhilash on May 9, 2008 at 9:24 am

I live in California and am mighty damn proud it, for now.

30. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175353 by 82abhilash on May 5, 2008 at 9:46 am

Sam may have trouble getting Christians to respond. They would most probably feel that by doing so they are fraternizing with the enemy.

The fundamentalists for sure. Even the moderates would be less willing, I would think.

31. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #172633 by 82abhilash on April 29, 2008 at 8:07 pm

I bet the people in the Anti-defamation League never expected to see the day when one of their own would stab them on the back.

32. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171527 by 82abhilash on April 28, 2008 at 2:34 pm

4. Comment #171460 by Mitchell Gilks on April 28, 2008 at 1:55 pm

I think that zoologists would fervently disagree that we are the only animals with imaginations, ethical codes, or a sense of fairness.

So you think it is written language that makes the difference. It could be. It might be that all animals have a sense of proto-morality from which our sense of morality emerged. Shaped by natural selection of course.

It is even possible that we share common brain structures with our primate relatives. It might be only a small difference in our brain structure that makes us able to develop civilizations and them incapable.

Knowing how animals are different from us is as important as knowing how they are similar to us. I hope they can zero in on where exactly the differences began.

33. Investigating Atheism

Comment #166958 by 82abhilash on April 23, 2008 at 2:07 pm

The faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge and Oxford must be worried that RD's growing popularity coupled with the strength of his well reasoned arguments will shut them down for good.

I bet this place will become the front for religious morderates, apologists and crypto-fundamentalists.

I agree with MelM. There should be an "Investigating Theism" site. But not simply a counter current. But as an academic institution dedicated to understanding religion as a natural phenomenon.

34. Judge orders La. school district to stop Bible giveaways

Comment #166599 by 82abhilash on April 23, 2008 at 10:29 am

wtf? Why can't these people give away their free bibles to those who come looking for it? In a church, perhaps. Or a religious retreat. It is as if they can't get any sleep, unless they disturb or intimidate someone else.

35. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166164 by 82abhilash on April 22, 2008 at 11:02 pm

2. Comment #166154 by Spinoza on April 22, 2008 at 9:50 pm

With all due respect (which, intellectually, doesn't seem very much due at all), my grandfather survived a Nazi camp without any spirituality whatsoever.

In fact, the experience solidified his lack of faith.

That is an interesting story Spinoza. Perhaps you can urge your grand father to write it up and perhaps RD website can put it up. Another dent in the 'Hitler and Stalin' argument and 'we need god for hope' argument as well.

36. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #165909 by 82abhilash on April 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm

I guess the la times where being 'fair and balanced' in their response section.

37. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165611 by 82abhilash on April 21, 2008 at 9:14 pm

There is no need for a new monoculture to replace religion. Any useful function of this fiction can (or already has been) taken over by other institutions. The rest is all bunk that needs to be put in a museum, to remind us how stupid we where.

38. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162703 by 82abhilash on April 17, 2008 at 10:11 am

Santi Tafarella,

I agree with you that the law as it is written for intellectual property abridges free speech, especially in the artistic arena. But things have improved. I mean there is creative commons, copy left and many other methods by which an artist can manage usage of his/her work.

We live in a world where people are generally respectful of the artist's right to manage their works. Respect that these people have chosen not to show. They already have stolen stuff from Harvard and now the Beatles. And for what? To aid their campaign of misinformation.

The artist has recourse and that is good. Unless you hold a radical libertarian perspective that denies the existence of intellectual property, you should see no problem in that either.

39. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160779 by 82abhilash on April 14, 2008 at 11:39 am

The only thing I find wrong with this picture is that the most of the girls have not yet attained majority. If they had I would have said their body, their choice and left it at that.

40. Scientists take drugs to boost brain power: study

Comment #159036 by 82abhilash on April 11, 2008 at 11:13 am

Their body, their life. All I care is if you want to call yourself a scientist, do good science. That is all.

41. Anti-evolution bill clears another hurdle

Comment #157307 by 82abhilash on April 8, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Why not just utterly and completely privatize schooling. Then the nut jobs will be forced to teach their nonsense in their own schools with their own money. I would like to see how many people will willingly send their kids there.

42. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #155959 by 82abhilash on April 6, 2008 at 12:29 pm

This article seems to be written purposefully to sound vague and beautiful, like a verse from the bible. Usually if someone understood something well, they will try to express what they understood properly. Perhaps Wired magazine felt what was really important was not whether the article makes sense (it makes some sense), but that it appeals to their readers.

43. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153020 by 82abhilash on March 31, 2008 at 10:14 pm

I was initially alarmed, but now, not that much, when had the UN the power to do anything? Their peace keeping missions are a joke, they have little or no mechanism to enforce their resolutions and they where not able to stop the war in Iraq. And anyway which muslim country felt compelled to treat their citizens better because of the UN Declaration on Human Rights? If a UN declaration could not stop them, it need not stop us either.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
- Thomas Jefferson

44. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149258 by 82abhilash on March 25, 2008 at 10:46 am

Steve Zara you seem to have no problem telling people what they should believe as long as you call it 'education'.

I am not sure how far we see eye to eye on this issue, but let me tell you where I stand and you can decide.

We cannot protect people from themselves. If an adult makes the conscious decision to keep himself ignorant, we cannot stop him from doing so. Of course if he tries to keep his children in ignorance then we can. But I want to stick just to adults for now.

As far as adults are concerned, the best we can do is provide people with ample opportunities to keep themselves well informed. We cannot force anyone to keep themselves well informed.

Consider the case of warnings on a cigarette packet. It gives the potential smoker an obvious opportunity to take the harmful consequences of smoking into consideration before smoking. It does not force them not to smoke, unless of course their own sense of prudence presents them with no other option.

45. The science of religion: Where angels no longer fear to tread

Comment #148893 by 82abhilash on March 24, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Dr. David Sloan Wilson seems to cling on to 'Group Selection' the same way Dr. Michael Behe seems to cling on to 'Irreducible Complexity' and they seem to conveniently ignore any explanations that do not fit with their discredited pet theories.

46. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146595 by 82abhilash on March 19, 2008 at 8:03 am

Christopher Hitchens always quotes Karl Marx on religion, it is very poetic, profound and compelling:

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which religion is.....Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man will wear the chain without fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower."

I am not a Marxian, but I find that statement to be profound. It forces one to ask all sorts of questions.

Do most people cling on to religion and its illusionary happiness because politicians (and all those in power) are not dealing with real issues that we are facing?

When we criticize religion are we really criticizing the shortcomings of our society to provide for the happiness of its members?

Are people clinging on to religion because they have given up on finding real happiness and settled for the illusionary happiness in religion?

If that is so and I feel that is so, it makes sense why people loath us. We are revealing to them the chains they are wearing. We are denying the the pleasure of deluding them selves in the for the sake of happiness.

As for me Happiness without truth is fools paradise. I won't lie to make people feel better.

47. Jesus saves

Comment #146545 by 82abhilash on March 19, 2008 at 7:24 am

4. Comment #146526 by Animavore on March 19, 2008 at 7:00 am

Maybe they should do a study on why atheists DONT believe. I know it seems obvious to you or me but I'm just calling for a balance.

That would be a very interesting academic exercise. And just like studying identical twins can help us learn about ordinary people, so too learning about unbelief could shed light on the nature of belief.

48. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146304 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Is is a poorly written article. Relies mostly on argument from authority, misguides our sense of intuition. Uses ill defined or vaguely defined terms, gives one no indication of the methodology used to arrive at the conclusion. Scant on detail. Mostly opinion going back and forth.

'linked to happy life' in quotes, wonder why they did that. Makes no sense of the fact that irreligion is fast growing in the developed world. (Perhaps people do not want to be happy any more?). Gives no indication of how the data was accumulated.

Transparency in process is essential to build ones reputation when dealing with a complex issue. This article has none of it.

Makes for a dubious article, perhaps planted by those with vested interests. If there was real truth in this, the theocrats would be trumpeting it around, instead we find vague statements just enough to consolidate your flock and disarm your opponents. I am mega suspicious.

But how did it make it to the BBC?

49. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146287 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 10:00 pm

neilcreek,

Perhaps the problem is religious people feel more obliged to declare publicly that they are happy while non-religious people being more reflective will not give simple answers to loaded questions like 'Are You Happy?'

Happiness is an abstract concept with no well understood definition. You do not need to be a psychologist to know that. I think religion commits you to its creed so tightly that the default knee jerk answer to that question is 'yes'. Especially if the previous question is 'Are you religious?'

Non-religious people will probably think for themselves, ask more questions and will give non-exaggerated answers that will make them appear less happier on such crudely done surveys.

Religious people cannot after all honestly express their lack of life satisfaction at any given moment without feeling a sense of betrayal to their faith. Can they say, it seemed like a good idea them, but I wonder now. It takes a brave person to come out that way.

50. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146278 by 82abhilash on March 18, 2008 at 9:38 pm

I am going out on a limb here, but I personally do not mind it if a private company discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion or gender. I would not mind as long as there is a free market in which there are other private companies that also compete that do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion or gender.

What makes me think there will be? Private firms rely on talented individuals and are mostly indifferent to things that has no bearing on the talent of the individual. Which these kinds of discrimination truly are. Those that do will find themselves fighting for a smaller piece of a large talent pie and will struggle to keep up.

I will have a big problem if the government does that. But not private companies, unless of course the government is actively or passively endorsing such an activity.

I would rather that such private companies be out competed in a free market and boycotted by responsible citizens and driven to bankruptcy. That would be my ideal.