1. Christians challenge teaching of evolution

Comment #204853 by hopeful on July 6, 2008 at 12:07 am

"The Education Ministry says the unsanctioned material does not breach the Education Act and there are no plans to ban its distribution."

A couple of years ago my 12 year old son told me that his teacher repeatedly talked about god in class. I raised my concern with the school who said they would remind all teachers of the requirement to keep religion out of the classroom.

It doesn't surprise me that what has been happening in the US is now starting to happen here (in NZ). The writing has been on the wall for a long time now.

The words of the day here in NZ are "cultural diversity" and "tolerance". We have had rampant political correctness for a number of years, heavy immigration from Asia and SA bringing a lot of imported religion with it, and boutique churches popping up on every other street corner.

We now have a soft-minded government and education system that is ripe for the invasion of religion.

2. When too much Rapture is barely enough

Comment #204852 by hopeful on July 5, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Re Comment #204793 by skybri. I think you are on the right track.

Apparently after the rapture those left behind will be subjected to disease, famine, war etc etc. So in other words, exactly the same as things are now (except without all the religious fanatics).

So on balance it actually sounds like an improvement.

3. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #202107 by hopeful on June 30, 2008 at 9:30 pm

"Average, well-read, modern men would be dumbfounded if it were discovered that we were alone in the universe. Ironically, it is such a firm article of faith with them that even to envision an empty cosmos is nigh impossible for them. But it is an article of faith nonetheless."

What bollocks! It isn't an "article of faith" it is merely a statement of likelihood. Average well-read people simply think that the chances are reasonable-high that there is life elsewhere.

Besides, if you think about it, proving that there was no life elsewhere in the universe would be a very impressive achievement, so it's almost a moot point. It's more a question of how common it is and how long before we encounter it.

One thing I agree with is that religions are capable of surviving shocks. They have a long history of dodging truth and logic. If a particular religion can cope with the presence of hundreds of other gods and religions on the same planet, so the discovery of life elsewhere will be taken in stride and will merely be further proof of god's almighty power.

4. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #201934 by hopeful on June 30, 2008 at 12:45 pm

I think that for many parents (both well educated and less well educated) there is a dimension to parenting that cuts across secular-religious lines. Unfortunately the faith school issue muddies the waters even further. Some of what they are doing is obviously religiously motivated, but the debate also reflects a more fundamental success ambition shared by many parents, both religious and secular.

We fiercely want our children to be safe, happy and successful, and we make decisions, and sacrifices and covertly compete against others to maximise their chances.

Political correctness, social equity and personal and cultural diversity are the words of the day. But privately we don't want our children to be compromised by bad influences and poor achievers; by people, attitudes and cultures that aren't aligned with our vision for the future success and happiness of our children.

We make decisions about where we live and who we mix with and the kinds of things we do. This consequently affects who our children mix with (see Steven Pinker re importance of peers in childhood development), the things they are exposed to and the kinds of things they do. We want our children to achieve a high level of education and we want them to mix with other children who are also going to succeed. So we go for the best schools and we want them to get into the best classes, and to do particular subjects.

I think this is largely human nature. I'm not saying disadvantaged children should be left behind or that there shouldn't be compromises for the sake of all, but I do think that trying to engineer social and education policy that either ignores or attempts to squash this natural ambition and competition is a mistake. We need to be smarter and create education systems that are in harmony with basic human motivations - I'm sure they would work better as a result.

5. Rapture site sends unbelievers their last chance ... via email

Comment #196404 by hopeful on June 19, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Oops - I jumped the gun. Apparently they have it worked out - if certain people don't log in for a certain period of time all the messages get sent.

6. Rapture site sends unbelievers their last chance ... via email

Comment #196400 by hopeful on June 19, 2008 at 9:42 pm

This is hilarious on so many levels!

Perhaps someone has already mentioned this, but the About Us page includes the statement "Messages sent out 6 days after the rapture".

I wonder how they will do that? Have they employed an atheist to press the button when they vanish?

Anyway it's actually a great way of making money. I'm dissappointed to hear it is run by christians (assuming that claim is true). It would be deliciously ironic if it was actually being run by atheists. Damn I wish I had thought of it first!

7. Only a Theory

Comment #193554 by hopeful on June 15, 2008 at 8:08 pm

I thought it was quite interesting when one religious caller used the phrase "what about the fossil record?"

He was so obviously repeating a stock phrase that he had been fed, as if just using these two magic little words is sufficient to make a powerful counter-argument.

I think it really shows how widely and routinely flawed anti-evolution arguments are propagated, and how they are dished out as small easy to handle packages - "Anti-Evolution for Dummies".

8. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #193139 by hopeful on June 14, 2008 at 7:08 pm

"In most other parts of the world, religions are growing."
- because it is an infectious virus

"...Faith provides a structure for people's lives,"
- only because it is forced upon them at an early age and is pervasive in the society in which they live

"... values to guide their behaviour and aspirations"
- only because they are told that it does

"... and ideals which endow their existence with meaning."
- only because they are told that it does

9. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192621 by hopeful on June 13, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Excuse me for getting on to my soap box, but I find it interesting that there are lots of words that are no longer used, but when it comes to words in current usage, such as the word "intelligence", we never seem to question whether the word is still relevant.

With all our knowledge of the various aspects of brain function, we still talk about "intelligence" as if it is a simple, precisely defined and measurable thing.

I think the continued use of an overly simplistic and arguably obsolete word is one of the reasons there is so much confusion and argument in discussions like this.

In my opinion it's time to relegate the word "intelligence" to the history books and update our language to match our improved understanding of the subject.

10. Godless

Comment #192204 by hopeful on June 12, 2008 at 2:44 pm

zosky said "On the contrary, people in the medical field do this very expertly. A friend of mine, who is a surgeon is very able to critically analyze study data and information pertaining to science but when it comes to religion, he just believes. That's it, he just believes. It is called compartmentalization."

Yes, but could your friend remove someone's kidney if he believed in religious dogma that said that removing a kidney destroys the soul?

I agree that compartmentalization might be possible in some situations. However I specifically mentioned jobs that are involved with the management of society.

Can a government leader make genuinely good policy on science education if he doesn't actually believe in science?

11. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192186 by hopeful on June 12, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Another consequence of the PC world we live in is the denial of the obvious, and this is a very sensitive issue because the religious world doesn't want to hear it.

We are talking about a rough correlation not an absolute and simple rule. Sure there are exceptions and probably other factors involved, but it seems obvious that the higher the intelligence and education the less likely to be religious.

Look at what religion is: myths, superstition, dogmatic belief, ritual, lack of scientific understanding and faulty reasoning. By definition, anyone with better reasoning skills and a broader education is going to be less likely to buy into this.

The fact is, that people are afraid to speak out about this, because obviously anyone who is religious is going to get offended, and there are plenty of non-religious people willing to get offended on their behalf.

12. Godless

Comment #192142 by hopeful on June 12, 2008 at 1:41 pm

"I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair."

This is slightly off-topic, but I just don't buy in to the whole "religion is ok as long as you keep it private" idea.

It is not in the nature of religion to be kept private, and I don't believe it is possible for a person to behave outwardly completely independently of their heart-felt inner beliefs, particularly when we are talking about a job that involves the management of society.

Such key jobs should not be entrusted to people who believe in stone-age myths regardless of whether they talk about it or not.

13. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187634 by hopeful on June 2, 2008 at 12:01 pm

I thought this article was going to be agressively against religion in education then it turned into liberal pandering of the kind that got us where we are now.

A disturbing trend I notice is that "choice" seems to be the next contrived issue, much like the manufactured controversy of ID, and my old favourite "diversity".

Portraying religious involvement in education as a matter of "choice" gives it legitimacy, and allows people who oppose religion in education to be portrayed as "anti-choice".

I see society becoming increasingly confused over the issues of sameness and difference between peoples and cultures. What should we celebrate and embrace? That we are all the same? or that we are all different?

It seems backward, but I actually think the drive to embrace diversity actually ends up emphasising differences rather than bridging them. Perhaps we need to start embracing our sameness.

14. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187182 by hopeful on June 1, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Cartomancer said "I'm not entirely sure how people who seriously believe in this creationism nonsense, having been presented with even a fraction of the evidence, could be anything but idiots and morons. The evidence and arguments are so copious and so watertight there's no other possible explanation."

From my experience, I think what happens is that false "evidence" for creationism is often implanted in these people before they are exposed to real logic and evidence. I also think the key is the huge emotional investment that people make to religious beliefs, which creates an automatic resistance to counter-evidence.

15. Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?

Comment #184304 by hopeful on May 24, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Comment #184197 by Mitchell Gilks

Mitchell, I can't help feeling that you have fallen into the trap of automatically ripping this article to shreds just because there are so many articles that DO deserve to be ripped to shreds.

Some articles are just interesting.

16. 'Reverse Evolution' Discovered in Seattle Fish

Comment #183653 by hopeful on May 22, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Could it be that the article uses the term "reverse" in the sense that evolution is bringing back a characteristic that is already present in the genes, as opposed to re-inventing the same characteristic at some future time?

However I agree the term is little unfortunate since it could be mis-used by some ("Don't tell me I might evolve back into a Monkey!"), but let's face it - they already misunderstand so many things what's one more?

Regardless I think the value of the research in terms of being yet another vivid example of evolution, outweighs anything.

17. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #181863 by hopeful on May 18, 2008 at 1:44 pm

I can imagine how certain fields of science might be conducted effectively while having a separate, compartmentalised, religious belief. To count these as indication of the compatibility of religion and science would be misleading.

In other fields, such as psychology, anthropology, evolution, and philosophy, I suspect it would be more difficult to simultaneously hold religious beliefs since there is too much inherent conflict, or because the particular field of science or philosophy actually explains or relegates religion and belief (or at least important aspects of it).

18. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #179606 by hopeful on May 13, 2008 at 12:29 pm

I find the aversion towards longevity that many people show an intriguing thing.

I think it may be largely a coping mechanism; we know we are going to die so we say "well who wants to live for ever anyway?". Mortality has also been romanticised; the stuff of great love stories and tragedies. Not to mention of course the religious agenda which has a vested interest in mortality of the body.

I think the reality is that, biological aversion to dying aside, most people who enjoy life would like to keep doing it for longer (reasonable quality of life assumed of course); I certainly would.

The only thing that ever makes me thankful for mortality is religion.

19. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #179589 by hopeful on May 13, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Comment #179138 by Prieten
"But I have a question. If genetic engineering has the potential to eliminate fatal genetic diseases or even slow the natural aging process, won't this just cause more overpopulation of the planet?"

I think we need to take a longer term view. Yes there are resource consequences associated with people living longer but those are simply additional problems we need to solve. We have solved plenty of other difficult problems in the past.

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

Comment #178089 by hopeful on May 10, 2008 at 1:18 pm

I think Richard Dawkins' 3 minute interview was the best 3 minute argument against religion, faith and people's attitudes towards it that I have ever heard.

If that doesn't make a lot of people think then there is no hope for any of us.

21. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174957 by hopeful on May 4, 2008 at 12:06 am

The amazing thing about this and everything else about religion is how something can be so absurdly funny and so gravely disturbing at the same time.

22. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174955 by hopeful on May 4, 2008 at 12:00 am

"Ok class, I'm going to give you the evidence that the earth orbits the sun, and then I'm going to give you the evidence against, and then I'll let you decide"

Good grief!

23. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174951 by hopeful on May 3, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Re some earlier comments.

Yes I can indeed see the subtle and complex dilemma facing anyone watching this.

It first glance it might look like a bunch of ignorant superstitious villagers tossing their babies off a roof, but then they are obviously taking the appropriate precautions and taking great care and there are issues of evidence and ethics and cultural diversity and perspective to be considered. No wait... it is just a bunch of ignorant superstitious villagers throwing babies off a roof.

24. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174948 by hopeful on May 3, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Re Comment #174727 by JesusChrist:

"Surely this seems bizarre by our standards, but if it is true that there has been no evidence of physical harm, then how can we condemn them from the outside? If there really have been no injuries or fatalities this is a great testament to the care these people are taking. To their credit they must understand the danger of what they are doing and are taking what they believe to be the appropriate precautions."

Err.. you're joking right?

25. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168196 by hopeful on April 24, 2008 at 5:45 pm

In case anyone was interested in that link I tried to post, here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

It's the blind watchmaker clip which everyone has probably seen anyway. Also this one is good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s

I must have messed up the URL somehow. Lucky I didn't accidentally send TruthID off to look at a porn video!

More importantly, great letter from Richard Dawkins. I hope this gets well publicised.

26. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168119 by hopeful on April 24, 2008 at 2:31 pm

I too found much of the text seemed to have a theist bias.

As others have mentioned, I also checked the "About Us" page.

The first person in the list:

"Fraser N. Watts, Ph.D.
...
Director of Studies in Theology, Queens' College.
...
Fraser was ordained in the Church of England in 1990 and is now Vicar-Chaplain of St. Edward King and Martyr, Cambridge. In 1994 he took up the Starbridge Lectureship in the Faculty of Divinity. "

and so it goes on.

Perhaps I am naive but I find it disturbing that a major university would endorse this site.

It is clearly an attempt to hit back at atheism by pretending to study it in the same way that disciplines like psychology, anthropology and philosophy study religion and religious belief. It is perfectly valid to include atheism in a study of belief and non-belief, however not when it is clearly being carried out by people with a non-scientific agenda.

27. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168050 by hopeful on April 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm

TheTruthID,

There has obviously been a drawn out debate with you.

I have a request.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Also google "evolution simulation" and have a look at some of them.

These aren't tricks. They are demonstrations of a fundamentally simple but powerful natural process that can create complex things out of simple things, and that can create things that LOOK AS IF they have been designed.

If you think you have an open mind, and if you think you can consider both sides of an argument, then look at these and think about what you see.

28. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162844 by hopeful on April 17, 2008 at 2:44 pm

"present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical evolution."

"would also protect from punishment students who refuse to accept Darwin's evolution"

""academic freedom" to explore a theory"

-the dishonesty and underhanded-ness of it is stomach churning. Also sounds like the religious squad have been taking lessons from the political-correctness squad - what a horrible combination!

29. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #161570 by hopeful on April 15, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Very amusing article. As disturbing as new-age beliefs are, at least they provide great humour!

By the way, I'd be happy if history was replaced with the Star Wars trilogy. The space ships are really cool and the good guys eventually win.

30. A New Flea

Comment #160247 by hopeful on April 13, 2008 at 8:56 pm

As a student of philosophy it concerns me to see these statements by Ward. As far as I can tell the "clear definitions, sharp arguments and diverse conclusions" of philosophy are not at all supportive of religion and god-belief - in fact quite the opposite.

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

Comment #159525 by hopeful on April 12, 2008 at 12:06 pm

The school shooting angle raises a question I think is interesting.

Clearly she has an ingrained prejudice that such problems must be linked to atheism.

Theists obviously outnumber atheists so a greater proportion of teenage problems (suicides, violence etc) are obviously going to be theists.

However, it wouldn't surprise me if theists are over-represented in the teenage problem statistics, because I don't think the inherent contradictions, inconsistencies, hypocrisy, dubious moral teachings and flawed reasoning skills involved in religious belief are a good basis for a well-adjusted teenager.

I wonder if any research has ever been done? It would certainly stir things up if research showed that teenagers from religious backgrounds have more problems than those from atheist backgrounds.

32. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156361 by hopeful on April 7, 2008 at 11:55 am

I'm not trying to apply natural selection for the sake of it, just wondering whether it might apply elsewhere.

I checked the wiki definition of natural selection and it seems to be a combination of general principles and specific biology (genes and DNA).

Assuming this issue is not just a matter of definition (i.e. natural selection must involve genes and DNA) then it seems to me that the general principles might apply to some other type of system.

For example, look at businesses (I'm not wedded to this particular example but it does seem to have some similarities):

Businesses are organisms that operate within a business environment. They survive for varying periods of time, grow, shrink and die. They have characteristics collectively determined by their people, systems, writings etc. Their characteristics are passed on (generally but imperfectly) by aquisition, disposal, break-up, start-ups, loss of key people etc:- a loose form of "reproduction". Beneficial characteristics are passed on and spread throughout the population of businesses. Harmful ones are weeded out.

Although there is conscious design by individuals at the micro level, overall it seems as if the population of businesses evolve by natural selection?

33. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156183 by hopeful on April 7, 2008 at 3:22 am

I can understand why specific systems might not qualify, but I don't understand why there seems to be general objection to speculation about natural selection in other kinds of systems. Or am I misunderstanding something?

34. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #154493 by hopeful on April 3, 2008 at 11:03 am

Proposed new debating point:

If religion is itself evolved (as atheists often argue), and since it is almost universal among human societies, then doesn't that mean that religion is "natural" and useful (perhaps even necessary) and we shouldn't be trying to destroy it?

...The above is not an exact quote, but I think it is the essence of a point made by Alistair McGrath in his debate with Sue Blackmore. Sue talked about the evolution of religion and Alistair picked this up and used it later (in a rare departure from his normal pulpit word-salad approach!)

Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but I'd like to offer the first reply to this point (a point that occurred to me while reading Steven Pinker's discussion on violence in The Blank Slate):

Violence is universal, and almost certainly evolved (and therefore "natural"), and probably played an important role in our evolution so far, yet today we see it is something that is harmful and generally try to eliminate it. That something is evolved and universal, and maybe even historically useful or necessary, does not mean it is should be considered reasonable or good for us today or that we shouldn't want to change it.

35. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153302 by hopeful on April 1, 2008 at 11:13 am

The sad thing is that if the parents are convicted they will undoubtedly blame everything on the devil, or god's will, or because they didn't pray enough. Others in the church will see the whole thing as another "test of faith" and use it to reinforce their delusion.

36. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #152215 by hopeful on March 30, 2008 at 12:57 pm

"As for Jane, her parents believe that her religious beliefs, or lack thereof, should be up to her.... I always tell Jane that she has to make up her own mind, she has to experience her experiences -- figure it out for herself."

As a parent of two boys, I don't agree with this.
I think children should be actively guided away from religion and other mumbo jumbo belief systems. The fact is that religious propaganda pervades the whole of society - it is not a level playing field.

There is so much religious belief being peddled that children really are at risk and need to be protected, the same way they need to be protected from crime and other dangers. You don't tell your child they should make their own mind up or "figure it out for themselves" how to deal with traffic, or strangers, or bullies. And religion is much more devious than traffic, strangers and bullies.

Some of the mechanisms that support religious belief are subtle and will only gradually be understood as children get older. For example, the way "youth groups" bundle religious indoctrination up with fun and games, and the way ID supporters argue that ID is a science and science is a religion.

My 11 year old recently came home from school talking about an after-school activity that looked like lots of fun. I had a bad feeling about it so I checked the web site - there was no obvious religious connection until I checked the domain names in the contact email addresses - and sure enough it was a local church behind it. I then talked to my son about how churches use these groups to brainwash and recruit, and the way they are dishonest because they try to avoid making it obvious there is a religious connection.

I think we need to actively protect children from falling victim to these ploys.

37. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #107805 by hopeful on January 5, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I liked this article - it raised some interested perspectives I hadn't thought about much.

If a man could travel back in the past differing amounts of time and mate with a woman in each time period, we would presumably find that the further back the man travelled the reproduction would be increasingly less successful and off-spring would become increasingly less viable.

Presumably the genetic differences would start to have a small but noticeable effect at some point in the past and reproductive success would continue to fall slowly until eventually reaching zero.

It would be very interesting to know how soon the genetic differences start to noticeably affect offspring viability, how quickly the rate falls and when it would eventually reach zero.

I am tempted to think that this would happen sooner than we might imagine. For example, would there be noticeable effects with respect to a woman from the year 1000AD, 0AD, 5000BC, 10000, 20000BC? etc. Or does the effect only start to become noticeable much further back in time?

38. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #104771 by hopeful on December 29, 2007 at 12:01 pm

My sister gave me the Cosmos book as a gift in 1985 and I was leafing through it the other day and then found myself re-reading large sections. It seems no less relevant today - possible more so.

"...those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries".

39. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #103613 by hopeful on December 26, 2007 at 10:00 am

"One definite way to prove that we are half a chromosome away from being chimpanzees is to look at our religious practices."

Nice quote from Christopher - although a little insulting to chimpanzees since they actually haven't come up with anything as stupid as religion.

40. Man and God

Comment #103389 by hopeful on December 25, 2007 at 11:52 am

Believers, Dawkins asserts, are "malevolent... vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent... dodgy, perniciously delusional... sanctimoniously hypocritical... cockeyed".

Assuming the writer is referring to TGD, I wonder if this is supposed to be quote of a single section of text, or is this a list of words picked out from different parts of the book (undoubtely out of context)?

I did a quick leaf through my copy and I couldn't find it.

41. Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad

Comment #102708 by hopeful on December 23, 2007 at 12:45 pm

"The great truth of Christmas is that no matter how good we are, we're not good enough to know God without the Christ," said Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister. "And no matter how bad ... we are not so bad that he cannot find us."

What utter codswallop. Sometimes the inanity of it just takes your breath away.

42. Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers

Comment #99279 by hopeful on December 16, 2007 at 8:43 am

Actually there are lot of different topics covered in their "advanced" courses:
- How to build a strawman in 6 days
- Misunderstanding Evolution
- Denial I
- Denial II
- How to Protect yourself from Logic
- Ten Logical Fallacies You can Use in Everyday Life
The list goes on.

43. Creation vs. Reality

Comment #98659 by hopeful on December 14, 2007 at 2:09 am

I may be being paranoid but I get the impression that the message behind this is that if you change the language evolution sounds just as far fetched as the creation myth.

The problem is that the representation of evolution was utterly distorted and as a result I found the analogy to be so weak as to be meaningless.

Interesting variety of views in the blog. Some thought it was satiring evolution and some thought it was satiring creation and plenty just seemed to think it was innovative and artistic.

I can see how it could just be art for art's sake. It also might be as much about gauging people's reactions as the art itself.

44. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #96826 by hopeful on December 11, 2007 at 1:39 am

How tragically ironic that religion behaves essentially like a virus of the mind.

45. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #96018 by hopeful on December 9, 2007 at 6:13 pm

If you are lying down are your feet supposed to point towards Mecca or is your head? Does islam have rules for hospital beds in foreign countries?

I think the angle of the bed should be adjusted to compensate for the curvature of the earth.

For countries on the other side of the planet the bed ought to be upside down with the patient lying face down on the floor, or perhaps the bed should be standing on end with the patient strapped in?

46. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #95057 by hopeful on December 7, 2007 at 9:10 am

This article is so funny it is hard to believe that it is serious.

However I am horrified at the thought that the wellbeing of patients is being unnecessarily compromised by a stupid religious ritual (not to mention the unreasonable burden on staff and scandalous misuse of taxpayer money).

47. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93295 by hopeful on December 2, 2007 at 3:47 pm

The only way in which D'Souza could be considered to have "won" that debate is on the basis that he spoke more loudly, more quickly, and made more extravagent and numerous claims than Dennett. You would get exactly the same result with Benny Hinn or any other televangelist.

In terms of the proposition I can't see how anyone would consider D'Souza made a coherent argument against.

He didn't even make an attempt to refute Dennett's main statement, except to argue statistics, which wasn't the main point at all.

I would like to see a form of debate where a moderator actively stops a speaker point by point and calls them on each off-topic statement, unsubstantiated claim, straw man, false analogy, false inference and any other verbal trick. That would severely throttle people like D'Souza.

48. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92947 by hopeful on December 1, 2007 at 7:59 pm

There is nothing strong about the fine-tuning issue. It is a piece of science that theists have picked up on to try to support their special beliefs.

Argument from ignorance. God of the gaps. Argument from incredulity. Take your pick.

I think it was Dr. Massimo Pigliuci who has talked about how religious claims always occur at the boundary of knowledge. The fine-tuning topic just happens to currently be in that zone. When our understanding encompasses these topics theists will shift their arguments to new ground.

In that sense I think it is a no-win situation trying to have these arguments with theists and I think Dan was somewhat less comfortable when D'Souza galloped off in that direction.

I think a more useful approach, which is what Dan is all about, is presenting the overwhelming evidence that gods and religion and all the ideas about divine connection inherent in them, are entirely man-made. That is the strongest tactic to fight religion, the dangers of which are not supernatural, but are exclusively real things that are done by real people.

49. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92805 by hopeful on December 1, 2007 at 1:53 pm

This is the first debate I have seen with D'Souza and I had the impression from comments that he was a formidable opponent.

D'Souza is a preacher. He uses canned analogies and stories stitched together by false inferences and assumptions.

He talks so quickly and switches from one topic to another so fast that it is a challenge to capture all his errors and deceptions in real time.

I think this probably makes him tricky to debate with.

I suspect Dennett and others will have reached the conclusion this person is not worth debating with.

When D'Souza said "Is there any more time?... I think I can do some more damage" - yes you can Dinesh - to your own credibility.

50. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92735 by hopeful on December 1, 2007 at 11:01 am

It would be interesting to see how the ID and creation cults respond to the introduction of the term "law of evolution".

In some ways it is too late and calling evolution a "law" now without some significant justification that appeared plausible to the general population would be seen merely as a tactic in the battle of evolution versus creation. But then again in the long term (multiple generations) it might give the concept more credibility in the eyes of the general population.

On the other hand, the reason people don't dispute the law of gravity is not because it is a law but because it doesn't threaten their religion.

To make matters worse the new age nutjobs have already hijacked the term law, e.g. the "law of attraction" used in "The Secret", and helped to further confuse language and blur the issue.

Regardless of scientific terminology, I think that we can't escape the central issue - the answer is more about improving education levels, reasoning and language skills in the general population rather than changing the language of science.