1. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203755 by troodon on July 3, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Ariana Huffington has a couple of articles here - not specifically to the faith-based initiatives - but to the pandering he's doing trying to appeal to the "undecided" voters, which is costing him support from those who brought him this far.
Some of her statements:

Heed the old Texas advice of Dandy Don Meredith and Molly Ivins: "You got to dance with them what brung you."
Voters longing for hope, inspiration, a new kind of politics, and fundamental change are "them that brung you" to the big dance. Don't let the pundits, the advisors, and the cowards convince you to let someone else cut in.

…..Go to YouTube and watch the concession speeches of Kerry, Gore, and Hillary Clinton, each of whom decided to run to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters.

2. Regime change in heaven

Comment #191354 by troodon on June 10, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Prayer: negotiation with the father of all terrorists.

3. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181324 by troodon on May 17, 2008 at 12:12 am

Robert Maynard,
Good points.

Watching Shmuley shriek makes me fantasize about a geek rigging up the microphone to a voice modification program so that whenever he raises his voice above a certain level, the program would lower the output volume and raise the pitch to a squeaky sound, maybe like Donald Duck.

4. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180356 by troodon on May 14, 2008 at 4:40 pm

jaytee_555, #17.

I completely agree that maintaining intellectual integrity is essential, as it separates us from the creationists, who continue to astonish me with the scale of their blatant dishonesty. Maybe Dawkins' honest approach won't win over many middle-aged religiolites who are now comfortable with the brainwashing they've endured for 40 years, but frankly they aren't the ones that matter. The battleground is for the hearts and minds of young people - kids, young adults and parents concerned about the kind of world their young children will inherit. For those people, keep the arguments sound, show how absurd and dangerous religion can be and inspire them with the wonders of the natural world.

Some people suggest that scientists should adopt another word for "theory" to prevent creationists from fooling the public with "evolution is just a theory, not a fact". I disagree with that approach. Instead we should use this to our advantage and challenge the IDiots every time those words leave their mouths. They are either being deliberately dishonest or are simply ignorant of what "theory" means in science and we should make that perfectly clear to anyone listening whether we're at a public meeting, a debate, or just writing a letter to the editor in response to a creationist public figure.

I do sometimes take the following approach and I don't really think it's framing: "Yes, Dawkins' understanding of evolution led to his atheism, but my path was different as I was an atheist at age 7 or 8, long before I knew about evolution. There are also very good scientists like Ken Miller who fully accept evolution, but keep their religion."

Personally I can't wrap my head around how Ken Miller is able to understand evolution as well as he does, yet still remain a Catholic. A deist I could understand better, but a Catholic? Oh well.

While I disagree with framing, that doesn't mean we can't form strategic alliances with liberal churches over issues like science education. For example, the United Church in Canada is frequently on our side as is shown in their current sponsorship of the Darwin exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum and their support for gay rights. Kudos to them.

5. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180329 by troodon on May 14, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I'm using Firefox. PDF links have never worked for me, btw. Always with the blank white page.

6. Religious groups want Russian cartoon channel shut down

Comment #146028 by troodon on March 18, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Someone should make up some information flyers, with lots of simple diagrams and pictures, to show those Christians and Muslims how to push the TV "off" switch, or change the channel using all those fancy high-tech buttons on their remotes. I know that's pretty complicated stuff to grasp, but with the right training they may get it.

7. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #133662 by troodon on February 26, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Nails,

And that doesn't even include travel time, building the pressurized submarines for deep sea species etc. How did he and Eve have time to make babies? She must have been one frustrated woman, unless she got a bit of help from one of Kirk Cameron's perfectly-designed bananas.

But Adam's accomplishments surely pale when compared to Noah. Adam just had to name them while Noah had to bring them all back to the Ark, then take them back to their homes all over the world when the flud was over. Must have been tens of thousands of years to accomplish that. But wait - the earth is only 6000 years old!

8. Documents detail church coverup

Comment #121050 by troodon on February 2, 2008 at 10:34 pm

Surely there more recent cases that are not subject to statutes of limitations. I'm no lawyer, but I recall something about the statute of limitations in Canada being dropped in child sexual abuse cases. So why aren't these criminal priests in jail instead of enjoying their undeserved freedom and having the gall to complain about their rights being violated?

And why are churches who protect these pedophiles not criminally charged as well? My understanding is that protecting the catholic church by moving pedophile priests around was part of Ratzinger's job description before he got the promotion with the silly hat.

Child sexual abuse is not the only crime religions would be charged with if they were any other type of organization or company. Fraud is another - just watch Peter Popoff on TV selling his bottles of "holy water". Then there's practicing medicine without a licence - Benny Hinn and his faith "healing" would be a prime candidate as he pushes people over on stage telling them they're healed. Unfortunately many people believe him, stop taking their chemo and die a few months later.

Not long ago a chain of clothing stores was forced to cover up labels making health claims they couldn't back up. This wasn't a criminal case but it does show that business is required to back up advertising claims with scientific data. Yet religion can make fantastic, openly fraudulent claims while the government turns a blind eye.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071116.wseaweed1116/BNStory/Business/

If there are any lawyers here perhaps they can fill us in on the law in these cases. Are the churches legally exempt from the charges that would land anybody else behind bars? Or is it just that governments lack the guts or inclination to charge them?

It would be most interesting if carefully-crafted criminal charges could be filed against the most obvious cases of child sexual abuse, fraud and faith healing.

Does anyone know if this has been done?

9. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120744 by troodon on February 2, 2008 at 12:29 pm

So Uncommon Descent removed the thread with all the comments criticizing Simmon's performance. The irony is delicious. After all, doesn't ID just want to present "both sides of the controversy", and doesn't "Expelled" bemoan the "censorship" that discriminates against the ID side?

PZ, your vigorous dismantling of Simmons was a joy to hear. We need more of this - the religionuts have had a free ride for too long and need to be challenged on their own turf so that young people within the "flock" hear some strong dissenting views and start using their brains.

Larry Moran from Sandwalk just published "How to Describe People Who Reject Evolution". Some of the lines are priceless. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-describe-people-who-reject.html

10. Documents detail church coverup

Comment #120715 by troodon on February 2, 2008 at 11:23 am

It seems like every time I read about cases like this, it's about a civil lawsuit with victims suing the church.

This is a criminal activity. Why are these bastards not getting criminally charged and thrown in jail? When it's not a priest involved in the child rape or a church in the coverup, the governments devote large resources to catching and criminally prosecuting. Here's an example:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/10/19/interpol-arrest.html

I think I recall a news report about an Irish priest who was criminally charged. Does anyone know of others? If these child rapists are not being criminally charged, why not?

11. For the glory of God

Comment #88557 by troodon on November 17, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Daksian,

I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish with your comments on "the more ignorant mindsets" from the west. Besides, that claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. By recent surveys, Quebec is the least religious province followed by BC and Alberta. Sure, in Alberta we have a creation museum and the Miracle Channel, but Ontario has David Warren, Denyse O'Leary, Charles McVety and the gang of Muslims who were foiled in their plans to behead the prime minister and blow up the Parliament. Fortunately there are also clear thinkers like Dan Gardner right across the country.

We're all in this battle together. Spouting off about about the west embarrassing Ontario does no good, especially when the statistics show that it's BS.

12. Talking Action Figure Jesus

Comment #73349 by troodon on September 24, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Wal-Mart has just lost me as a customer.

13. Poll: Are Dawkins and Hitchens good for humanism?

Comment #72745 by troodon on September 22, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Robert,

By endorsing these kinds of attitudes, cultural relativism is an insidiously subtle form of discrimination

14. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72184 by troodon on September 20, 2007 at 1:51 pm

My eyes glazed over about halfway through, but I think it went something like this:

"God is not all those silly caricatures and straw men espoused by Dawkins and almost every believer except the few very enlightened theologians like myself. He is much more than that. He is beyond definitions, hypotheses and images.He is greater than all things. God is God.

We may have problems defining what God is, but we do know that he wants you to believe in his existence, praise him, pray to him and come to church every Sunday. If you do that some part of you that is beyond definition will be able to praise him for eternity in a place that is beyond definition. If you don't believe in his existence you will be burned and tortured forever in a horrible place that is simply beyond definition.

You can help your chances of getting to that good place beyond definition by having us pray for that part of you that beyond definition. But in order for us to do that we need lots of something that is well within our range of definitions - money. Lots and lots of money. We prefer cash, and there's an ATM machine at the back of the church."

15. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71506 by troodon on September 19, 2007 at 12:25 am

"Is the world flat? I've never thought about it."

Absolutely unbelievable. Yet she's certain that evolution is wrong because the bible says so. Where the f**k did she go to school?

16. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65573 by troodon on August 24, 2007 at 11:15 pm

OhioAtheist,

Thanks for your intelligent and well-written response. Like you, I was not raised to be religious, making it difficult for me to really understand what it feels like to be indoctrinated and what it takes to break free. I agree about the importance of being taught critical thinking skills at a young age and having it reinforced throughout school.

Do you credit your critical thinking skills to your parents? Your teachers? What effect did peer pressure have on you?

17. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65497 by troodon on August 24, 2007 at 1:23 pm

After reading the comments on Ben Stein's blog I'm starting to feel some cautious optimism. This movie will cast the spotlight onto the ID movement like nothing since the Dover trial. This gives us a great opportunity to present science's side to the general public through TV interviews, articles and letters to the editor. The more publicity the movie gets, the more the media (except FOX of course) will want to balance it with real science.

Any bets on how long it will take Ben to shut down the forum or starting banning "dogmatic Darwinists"?

Now up to 419 posts.
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/#comments

18. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65311 by troodon on August 23, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Does this movie signal a shift of strategy for the ID movement? After the Dover trial, especially Barbara Forrest's testimony, they lost all credibility in trying to pretend that ID was not religion. Then they came up with the "teach the controversy" strategy.

Now their argument seems to be that the Big Science bullies are suppressing the groundbreaking discoveries of a few maverick, rebel scientists. They don't seem to care so much anymore about trying to hide god behind the bacteria flagellum, but instead are playing the underdog role squealing out that "it's just not fair, they're suppressing evidence of god!".

Their choice of interviewees - RD, PZ and Eugenie Scott - suggests that they are attempting to divide and conquer the opposition. Eugenie has been trying to maintain support from moderate christians, frequently speaking out that there is no conflict between religion and evolution. Richard, of course, disagrees with that view as PZ likely does as well. With the movie they will probably try to highlight this disagreement and present Big Science as being the meanie, using evolution to force god out of public life.

One has to suspect that they are trying to drum up public support for the anti-evolution candidates leading up to the 2008 election. If one of these candidates wins the presidency, it could possibly lead to the end of church-state separation. The Wedge document makes it clear that this is their goal.

19. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65075 by troodon on August 22, 2007 at 8:46 pm

If theism were a single target, and we had only one arrow to shoot, Michael Shermer's strategy would probably be the best. But we live in a world of thousands of beliefs ranging from Osama bin Laden and Pat Robertson to the 80-year old grandmother selling cookies at a church rummage sale.

Perhaps our most important audience is young people, from school children up through about age 30.

There are a number of young adults and teenagers on this forum, so I have a question directed at them. How can we best reach out to their friends who are theists? Would they respond best to the warm, fuzzy approach like Michael Shermer? Honest, rational arguments? Ridicule of religion with humour like George Carlin and Bill Maher? Inspiring them through the wonders of science like Carl Sagan? Emphasizing the importance of human rights and protecting the environment?

With my own kids I had reasonable results with a combination of honesty, science and ridicule. Once they realize how silly religion is they don't want to be associated with anything so "retarded". George Carlin's "On Religion" was a great reinforcer.

But so much seems to depend on their friends and fitting with the group. Here in Canada the young people seem pretty secular but I can see it would be more difficult in the bible belt of the U.S.

I really want feedback from the young men and women here.

20. The vanishing jihad exposés

Comment #63171 by troodon on August 13, 2007 at 11:15 am

alpha695,

Careful, that Amazon link looks like only a review of the book, not the book itself.

21. Islamic creationist group launches glitzy, global blitz

Comment #61071 by troodon on August 3, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Where does this guy get his funding - Saudi?

22. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61009 by troodon on August 3, 2007 at 9:56 am

Roger Stanyard,

Thanks for that information. What a tangled web the creationists are weaving in the UK. The website for the British Centre for Science Education is a valuable resource. http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/HomePage We need this in Canada as well.

McGrath has struck me as a fuzzy thinker and a master of using a lot of vague words to say almost nothing, but his association with the creationist/ID people is disturbing. How extensive is this movement through the UK, Canada and other countries? Where is the money coming from?

I agree with Omnibus that this should be a separate forum topic.

23. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60711 by troodon on August 2, 2007 at 6:07 pm

What a masterful dissection of McGrath's fuzzy ideas and contradictions. I'm looking forward to his book, "Natural Revelation". http://www.morris.umn.edu/ummnews/View.php?itemID=2341

24. Interview with Richard Dawkins on 'The Selfish Gene'

Comment #60656 by troodon on August 2, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Imagine - no religion. Imagine a world where our best scientists would be able to devote all their working time to original science and inspiring the public, without having to fight the religious nutcases threatening to drag us back into the dark ages.

Someday maybe. In the meantime, our civilization takes number one priority and I'm grateful to scientists like RD for taking up the fight. But as I listened to this interview I kept thinking what a treat it was to hear RD discussing science again, answering thoughtful original questions from people such as Eugenie Scott. I read The Selfish Gene about 30 years ago and remember how it opened my mind to the wonders of evolution.

25. Ducking the God Question

Comment #60283 by troodon on August 1, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Nails,

There is another error that jumped out at me. The ID boys, at least officially, are not YEC's and make no claims about Noah's flood like Ken Ham and AFDave. Unofficially, of course, who knows what they say behind closed doors.

26. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60245 by troodon on August 1, 2007 at 11:27 am

The 11th commandment: "When the truth fails in promoting Islam, Christianity or Judaism, thou shalt lie, cheat, deceive, intimidate and kill."

What a liar that Hooper is!

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017601.php#more

I visited the CAIR website http://www.cair.com/ to leave a comment on their forum, but what a shock - there is no forum.

27. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59237 by troodon on July 28, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Northern Bright,

Thanks for your insightful and well-written post. Never having been religious I've always been somewhat baffled by the incredible variety of religious belief and interpretation. I've had a vague feeling along the lines of your post, but you really brought the issue into sharp focus.

One of god's last hiding places is "where do we get our morals from?". This question is being answered on a scientific level with brain research and studies of other species such as chimpanzees. While the science is informative to atheists and skeptics, it is too complicated to penetrate the shield of dogmatic concrete protecting the brains of many theists.

You have given me an understanding at a philosophical level, and a powerful argument that will help to sway fence sitters. I agree with Logicel that this should be an article for discussion.

28. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58413 by troodon on July 24, 2007 at 6:15 pm

It reminded me of Stephen Sackur's interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali - "hard-hitting" style devoid of original analysis. Either Stephen is failing to research his subjects adequately or is letting his own prejudices override his journalistic integrity.

If I'm getting tired of listening to the same questions asked time after time, I can just imagine how RD is thinking while he's in the middle of it. Anyway, the more the message gets out there the better. I do, however, expect better from the BBC.

29. A force for good?

Comment #55482 by troodon on July 11, 2007 at 8:50 am

66. Comment #55382 by Luis_Cayetano

Excellent post Luis. You're new here?

30. A force for good?

Comment #55351 by troodon on July 10, 2007 at 5:54 pm

"God is not an "invisible being" who "commands, rewards or punishes. God is not to me a particular "being" at all, but rather the power of Being itself. God is a supreme moral ideal to be reverenced for its value not for its controlling power."

Wow, how many different versions of god are there in the world?

Surely any god who gives a damn would notice all the death and suffering caused by people fighting over their definition of "god". Why doesn't he simply descend from his heavenly perch and tell all of mankind who he is and what he wants from us. Such a simple gesture that would end all the religious fighting, confusion and misery!

On a serious note, however, if this kind of wishy-washy drivel is god's last line of defence against the "atheist hordes", then I'm a bit more optimistic. Kudos to Darwin, Dawkins, Sagan, Dennett, Harris, PZ Meyers, Hitchens and so many others for chasing god out of his traditional hiding places.

31. Intelligent Design and Creationism/Evolution Controversy

Comment #53817 by troodon on July 3, 2007 at 11:01 am

The NCSE is focused on defending the teaching of evolution in public schools and fighting the well-funded groups attempting to bring creationism or ID into the classrooms. As Eugenie Scott points out, the issue of whether or not god exists is a separate question.

Richard Dawkins has said it's best if he would not be called as a witness in an American ID trial, as the ID side would love to demonstrate that a scientific understanding of evolution leads to atheism.

In the long term I think most of us here want to achieve a society where rational thought wins out over superstition. In the short term, however, the proper education of our children is probably the most important battle to be won. The more kids who are taught good science and critical thinking the better.

Don't get me wrong. The question "does god exist or not?" is crucial and is being dealt with effectively by RD, Hitchens, Harris, Stenger and others. But I think it's smart of the NCSE to stay focused on the evolution/creation debate. In this video, Eugenie takes us by the hand and shows us how to do just that. Behe and the Discovery Institute have their "Wedge" strategy. Maybe it's time for us to sharpen our own wedge to split the creationists apart from Christians who accept evolution by natural selection.

32. Evolution: God as Genetic Engineer

Comment #49160 by troodon on June 10, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Quote: "Is it possible that Behe does not know this body of data? Or does he just choose to ignore it? Behe has quite a record of declaring what is impossible and of disregarding the scientific literature, and he has clearly not learned any lessons from some earlier gaffes. He has again gone "public" with assertions without the benefit (or wisdom) of first testing their strength before qualified experts."

Excellent analogy using the Black Knight. I have to admit that Behe baffles me. He must realize that he's making a fool of himself, yet he stumbles on blindly repeatedly. Is he just being paid a lot of money by the Discovery Institute? Is he a closet atheist and sacrificing his reputation to completely discredit ID? Does he think that the end (god) justifies the means (lying)? Does he just calculate that his creationist fan base will never look at the scientific refutations of his claims anyway, and that the presence of a "sciency" book promoting ID will strengthen their resolve and help recruit new IDiots?

I just don't get what motivates him. How does he benefit?

33. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48152 by troodon on June 6, 2007 at 8:34 pm

Theo is accurate on one point:
"What is religion? Believe it or not, I don't know the answer."

34. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #47016 by troodon on June 2, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Bonzai,

I agree that Canada is not as religious as made out. In fact the most recent census showed that atheism or no religious affiliation showed strong numbers, especially among younger people. This is encouraging.

The preamble to the Charter of Rights was an amendment by the Progressive Conservatives, not initially written in by Trudeau. My understanding is that it probably could have been defeated except that openly-atheist MP Svend Robinson was talked into abstaining, a decision he later regretted.

Stephen Harper, when he was leader of the opposition, openly advocated joining Bush into Iraq.

I think Alberta is, on the average, just as secular as any region with the exception of B.C. What is perhaps different here is that there is a very vocal evangelical minority, and a small minority at that. They don't make their gains by open public discussion, but rather by stealth. For example, we currently we have evolution barely mentioned in public schools, yet rampant creationism in the christian private schools, which are substantially funded by the government. To the best of my knowledge, none of this was openly discussed, just snuck in through the back doors. I think the solution is to shine the light on this issue, especially during the next provincial election.

Most people around here just don't really care about religion, not strong atheists or fundamentalist believers. But with the issues brought out into the open I'd bet they would support separation of church and state.

35. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46960 by troodon on June 2, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Skip wrote:
"Recently, the Harper (Canadian Prime minister) government has started patronizing the religious right in Canada. For example the minister of the environment (Ambrose) hired the former president of Focus on the Family, Canada to be her assistant. The fellow from focus on the family has no scientific credentials what so ever. There are a number of other such appointments in our Government and people are starting to talk. Walrus magazine recently published a wonderful (but damning)article about such religious patronizations occurring in Ottawa, our capital

Finally the Canadian scientific Community is in an uproar over the recent decision by the SSHRC ("The" government funding agency for scientific research in the humanities and social sciences, etc). The board of directors will not back away from a statement made that gives equal weight to intelligent design and evolution as scientific theories go. The new chairperson of this scientific funding council is a Christian and an English professor from Alberta. AN ENGLISH PROFESSOR!"

Skip, do you have some links for this? I'd like to learn more about it.

I'm embarrased to admit that I voted for the Conservatives last election. The reasons were mainly the corruption of the Liberals, who had been in power too long, and the poor understanding of the west in the Liberal party. But I'd also read that Harper was very secular in his outlook with little regard for religion. Since he got into power I feel like I've been duped. He ends his speeches with "God bless Canada" and swore into office on his personal bible. His concern for the environment is horrible, not really giving a damn until polls showed the environment to be the #1 concern of Canadians.

36. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46739 by troodon on June 1, 2007 at 10:39 am

kLoWnY wrote:
"That was interesting, but I still don't get why America in particular seems to tend this way. Do religious leaders here have more influence? If so, how and why?"

Chris Hedges gives some insights in "American Fascists".
His reasoning is roughly (I don't have the book here for reference): Increasingly the wealth in the U.S. is concentrated among a smaller portion of the population. Many of the high-paying factory jobs are gone and there is a very poor social safety net compared to other western nations. There is a lot of uncertainty as the medical costs of an accident or illness can bankrupt a family. It leads to a feeling that the people are no longer in control of their lives, and they turn to religion for comfort and a sense of community.

37. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46516 by troodon on May 31, 2007 at 2:25 pm

"In our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves."

Hey Sam, that was a good start. It's just the other 832 words of un-fossilized coprolite....

38. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46470 by troodon on May 31, 2007 at 11:40 am

Russell Blackford wrote:
"To elaborate that idea slightly, we evolved in circumstances where a lot of unscientific ideas were good enough for our survival and reproduction. Back in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, there was no reproductive benefit in understanding that the Earth is not actually flat, or that mental states supervene on the material complexity of the brain, or that objects at sub-atomic level behave in bizarre ways, or that objects travelling at relativistic velocity have certain odd properties. Evolution had no stake in giving us the truth about all this, but only in giving us dispositions that would get us by and get us laid."

Bang on. This is the conclusion I've come to myself, and it ties right into RD's "Mother of all Burkas".
Our survival depends on "instinct", for lack of a better word. If a falling rock is about to hit us, or if a child is being threatened by a predator, we don't have time to carefully analyze the evidence, but we need fast action. In most cases these instinctive actions will be appropriate. This is much like the athlete who is successful because he doesn't "over-analyze".

In our daily lives we make a lot of decisions that are based on a "quick and dirty" evaluation, without resorting to the slow, careful analysis of scientific inquiry. We develop rules of thumb that in the majority of cases yield a good result.

In this sense, science is just not as intuitive as our "gut" reaction. But to understand the universe beyond our "middle world" we need science and math. There was no evolutionary benefit in having intuitive rules of thumb to help us understand the strangeness of the natural world.

To overcome this we need children taught early to be skeptics and to learn science such as astronomy and evolution so they begin to get an appreciation of the natural universe beyond our narrow intuitive range. We need kids to think science is cool, and look up to scientists in the same way they do now to actors and rock stars.

39. Lightning damages Jesus statue

Comment #44386 by troodon on May 24, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Good aim, god!

40. Hitchens on Falwell

Comment #41967 by troodon on May 17, 2007 at 11:26 am

It doesn't surprise me at all that Anderson brought on Hitch and let him freely speak. Anderson also had a great interview with Matthew Laclair, the high-school atheist student who tape recorded his preacher teacher. Anderson, Lou Dobbs and Bill Maher are all doing a good job of letting atheists present their views. Good to see CNN being active against religious idiocy. Is Ted Turner still in charge?

41. Why Christopher Hitchens is not Great

Comment #40595 by troodon on May 14, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Another Wow! I can't remember reading a review where just about every sentence is complete nonsense, but there's always a first. "His own indulgence resists the moral guidance God has left for him. He has saturated his mind with the far less believable claims of Marx, Darwin, and Einstein."
By "far less believable" he means "Darwin and Einstein are way beyond the ability of my little brain to comprehend – much easier to just believe godditit".

It's good to read drivel like this to remind us of what would happen to civilization if we let down our guard.

42. Richard Dawkins on Canada AM

Comment #38296 by troodon on May 7, 2007 at 12:50 pm

It worked for me by going to this site, then selecting the interview
http://www.ctv.ca/canadaam

43. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38216 by troodon on May 7, 2007 at 8:42 am

"Yet The God Delusion is not a book of persuasion, but of provocation - it may have sold in the thousands but has it won any souls? "

Souls....none
Minds....well, that's different

44. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36322 by troodon on April 30, 2007 at 11:30 pm

Now this makes sense to me. I never could buy into that argument that America's religiosity was caused by the constitutional separation of church and state.

Reading this I couldn't help but think of Mother Teresa, who has been described as a "friend of poverty" rather than a "friend of the poor". She certainly had it figured out, at least at a subconscious level.

Definitely a reason to feel a bit more optimistic.

45. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35722 by troodon on April 28, 2007 at 2:46 pm

For the first part of the video I thought it was a joke and was just waiting for the punchline, which was obviously going to be sexual in nature. Then it gradually became apparent that these guys were actually serious. Unbelievable!

46. Is God poison?

Comment #31462 by troodon on April 12, 2007 at 8:09 pm

Helian,

You wrote: "The citizens of these two countries are certainly highly educated when compared to the world average, so one would expect them to be more capable of valid, informed judgments than most. However, one would be very sadly mistaken.
Most of the citizens of these countries are grossly and profoundly ignorant regarding the United States. At the same time, they typically consider themselves so well informed that they know far more about America than the Americans."

You use the word "Anti-American HATRED", but do you really think this applied to western countries such as Canada, Europe and Australia etc?. As Rtambree has pointed out, you haven't defined where you consider legitimate criticism crosses the line into unjustified anti-Americanism. Also, you don't seem willing to define YOUR view of the U.S. and its role in the world.

So here's my questions again, still unanswered: What is your vision of the role of the US in the future? What changes would you advocate on the environment and human rights? I'm picking those two issues because I think they are crucial in how the rest of the world sees and evaluates the U.S.

You wrote: "You claim you are not really anti-American. Good, then rely for your information on my country, not just on hide-bound leftist ideologues, but also on the many strong voices in my country representing alternative points of view. You may not enjoy it, but they will present you with an alternate view of reality from the one you are comfortable with, and one that, at least in some instances, corresponds more closely to the facts…."

After informing us of these "strong voices representing alternative points of view" I think it would be just courteous to tell us who they are so we can read their articles and become more informed.

47. Is God poison?

Comment #31179 by troodon on April 11, 2007 at 9:10 am

Helian wrote: "He insists that I choose which "camp" I belong to, because, for him and other ideologues like him, it is inconceivable that human beings can have any intellectual existence outside of a "camp.""

Okay, I stand corrected. There was no good reason for me to use the word "camp" and suggest that you belong to one. I apologize to you for this, but need to point out that in your reply you have made the same erroneous assumption about me. I don't fit neatly into any boxes such as "liberal", "conservative", "left" or "right". It is not inconceivable to me that human beings can have any intellectual existence outside of a camp.

That aside, I am interested to know your thoughts on the causes of anti-American sentiment in other countries. Do you think that there is any valid justification for this sentiment based on historical events over the past 50 or so years? Or is it just an irrational hate such as "it's just that the US really is evil"?

What is your vision of the role of the US in the future? What changes would you advocate on the environment and human rights?

48. Is God poison?

Comment #31090 by troodon on April 11, 2007 at 12:01 am

Helian, I think you're way off base to label Richard Dawkins anti-American.

As for myself, no question that I'm anti-Bush - as are two thirds of U.S. citizens by the polls and likely a much higher percentage here in Canada. I have a lot of U.S. friends, relatives, business associates and even a few former girlfriends. To think I'd be labelled anti-American because of my dislike for current U.S. politics, religion and foreign policy is a bit insulting. If I were to make a list of people (both living and dead) that I most respect, Americans would be well represented.

I don't think there's any question, however, that anti-American sentiment does exist around the world and is increasing.

I agree that anti-Americanism didn't start with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Some of it was undoubtedly a resentment simply because the U.S. is a superpower. A lot of it, however, is justified and based on U.S. interference in foreign countries for economic and ideological reasons.

You wrote: "Anti-American hate is real, and will not disappear when Bush is gone, regardless of who becomes President."

No, it won't just "disappear" by itself. The new president would have to take positive action to slowly reverse the damage, especially that built up during the tragic Bush years. The new president would have to base his foreign policy on fairness and compassion - not oil and corporate profits. He would have to ensure that the U.S. does its share in global environmental protection, especially with global warming and industrial pollution. He would have to make a strong stand for secular human values both at home and abroad. He would have to work toward a goal to make the U.S. a good global citizen, where the well being of people all over the world takes precedence over U.S. corporate profits.

I don't think the U.S. Christian right is EQUAL to the Taliban. But I do think it's just as dangerous to world peace, and just as likely to drive us back into another Dark Ages or worse. Whether they are as extreme as the Taliban is not as important as the fact that they could take control of the most destructive military force in the history of the planet.

You wrote: "Good, then rely for your information on my country, not just on hide-bound leftist ideologues, but also on the many strong voices in my country representing alternative points of view."

Okay, which camp of alternative voices do you advocate? Are you supportive of human rights and strong environmental protection around the world - even when these goals might conflict with Exxon profits?

Yes, the U.S. can reverse the anti-American feeling around the world. But it will require re-defining its place internationally - especially with foreign policy, human rights and the environment. Respect is earned, not forced by F-16's.

49. Long live satire

Comment #24555 by troodon on March 7, 2007 at 8:04 am

Thanks Sue. I agree with you and also with Christopher Hitchens in the link provided by Sancus.

Question: Does anyone know more about the history of the three additional cartoons that were used to spark the riots - the squealing pig etc?

It's plausible that the imams themselves had a hand in creating them deliberately to add fuel to the fire, but I haven't seen anything that would confirm or deny that.

What would happen if the imams were shown to have done it themselves and were therefore "blasphemous"? Would there be riots and marches demanding the beheading of those imams? I doubt it, but that would at least expose the hypocrisy.

50. Darwin's God

Comment #24266 by troodon on March 5, 2007 at 3:38 pm

37. Comment #24252 by Yorker

Yes, I am a dinosaur fan and the troodon is one of the coolest creatures from the late Cretaceous. My kids and I spend a lot of time finding dinosaur fossils in the Alberta badlands.

The title "Rational Party" might not work to capture people's imagination and its appeal may be too narrow. "Civilization Party"? Any other ideas?