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

Comment #159239 by The author on April 11, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Oh, I can understand this. Every time I have a bad day I blame it on the christians.

Then again, it's normally really their fault. For example, having read the remarks of Monique Davis, my mood tuned down considerably.

2. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #149991 by The author on March 26, 2008 at 11:37 am

Oh my... Well, something. Merlin's Pants!

The world religions are uniting to kill us.

That's "religious tolerance", see, see...

3. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126945 by The author on February 14, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Oh my Zeus: Madeline Bunting doesn't have any idea of anything, yet she is earning her money as a journalist - someone who is expected to enlighten people.

4. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88225 by The author on November 15, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Now, there we got another evil propaganda movie. Seems a bit more expensive this time.

5. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #86947 by The author on November 10, 2007 at 1:53 pm

@ pzmyers, comment above

"I think Nusmus and "the author" need to go sit in a corner with a dunce cap on their heads until they grow a sense of humor."

Well, if two otherwise reasonable persons misunderstand a point you make, perhaps you didn't make that point sufficiently clear? I think there are surely more people than just the two of us who didn't "get it". Although, after all these discussions I had with theologians, it became harder and harder to seperate what people really think and what they merely intend as a joke.

Yet beside from that we perfectly agree, I'm even thinking about translating that article into German, if you don't mind, it's pretty good.

6. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #86906 by The author on November 10, 2007 at 12:14 pm

@ Cartomancer, comment above:

"As a medievalist I am of course legally required to point out that the traditional view of the emergence of humanism in Renaissance Italy is a misleading and outdated piece of Burckhardtian Victoriana"

Surely, the sources lie in ancient greek philosophy, yet they were transmitted to Europe by the humanists. What's wrong with that?

7. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #86880 by The author on November 10, 2007 at 11:14 am

"I'm not a humanist. I'm just not that keen on defining myself by my species, and I'm not going to join a group that willfully excludes squid."

That's really a bad argument. You don't have to like the word "humanist" to be one. Modern humanists are normally not centered around humans, they very well acknowledge that humans are animals too. It very often are the humanists who call for animal rights.

Just the same with "brights". You don't have to like the word to be of the opinion that a naturalist movement that fights for the rights of naturalists on a democratic and voluntary basis is a good idea.

I would even say it is incredibly childish to come up again and again with such ridiculous semantic details, when it's really about something else and far more important.

8. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #80190 by The author on October 20, 2007 at 2:17 pm

notsobad:

"knowing that you can and are going to die has many logical functions."

...like getting scared and becoming religious?

"It's ironic to doubt this on this website since fear of death is one of the main factors in religions."

Even more ironic to name religion as an example for a "logical function".

SilentMike: I think I made myself and my intentions very clear.

9. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79238 by The author on October 16, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I think McGrath is actually a pretty good christian apologist. He certainly has a talent for selling nonsense in a cheap way. And if the nonsense is cheap enough, many people feel motivated to try and buy it.

10. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #79107 by The author on October 16, 2007 at 6:26 am

96. Comment #78975 by SilentMike on October 15, 2007 at 3:18 pm

I wasn't talking about you, more about shaunfletcher. Or look at the "Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize" commentaries. "briancoughlanworldcitizen" is defending each and every syllable by Dawkins, no matter how wrong he is.

"you are like the religious" crap

I merely said that there is a certain danger for some people to turn Dawkins into a kind of prophet - Richard has said the exact same thing. Yet another example that it isn't really about the content but about who says something.

99% of the community here consists of the same freethinkers you find everywhere in comparable organziations. Yet perhaps 1% doesn't seem to have much of an idea and are merely repeating and defending everything Dawkins says. How can you not be skeptical about that?

As for the Gould stuff: I'm sorry, of course Dawkins is mainstream and Gould just wanted to hassle a bit. The interesting part is that the pro Gould comments were instantly associated with creationism. Yet another ingroup/outgroup phenomenon.

11. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78974 by The author on October 15, 2007 at 3:17 pm

For the case I haven't mentioned it: There is no one in the world who has deserved this prize more than Richard! Without him, we would still be discussing religion as is it were of some value (no irony implied).

12. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78876 by The author on October 15, 2007 at 7:22 am

I think I will have to agree with Nick Good, although he is putting it a bit too hard. Concerning politics, I'm closer to Christopher Hitchens than to Richard. Hitchens very well refuted many points Richard is unfortunately making.

A prize that was awarded to Mother Teresa, Arafat and Henry Kissinger (!) isn't worth anything. Every idiot gets this prize, I'm very sorry to have to say it like that. Still, I think I would vote for Al Gore, altough for different reasons (everyone else is an even greater idiot).

According to this Political Quiz you linked, I am remarkably left and a bit liberal, quite close to their optimized Gandhi. But I'm not an ideologist, what seems to me the important part.

13. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78688 by The author on October 14, 2007 at 10:12 am

These atheists just don't get it: Our god is a god you cannot grasp nor possibly critizise. He was there before the universe, this doesn't have anything to do with evidence. It's not about evidence. It's about just accepting we are right.

Man, this nonsense is hard to parodize. I could just repeat what the bishop said.

14. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #78514 by The author on October 13, 2007 at 12:03 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychology

Well, of course ideas are storaged within our brians. In that sense, obviously, memetics has a connection to neurophysiology. But what does it EXPLAIN, and not only illustrate.

15. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #78484 by The author on October 13, 2007 at 7:33 am

"Next memes are very real in that they represent the neural assemblies as put forth in the cell assembly theory of Donald Hebb and because they impact the anterior cingulate and fusiform-gyrus well studied by Damasio, any competent brain scanner can see them."

With sufficient fantasy you can see everything. Beside from that memes don't really have much to do with neuropsychology, no matter how many technical terms you stuff into your sentences.

16. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #78475 by The author on October 13, 2007 at 5:27 am

"he was previously teaching at New College"

From 1967 to 1969, Dawkins was an assistant professor of zoology in the University of California, Berkeley. In 1970 he was appointed a lecturer, and in 1990 a reader in zoology in the University of Oxford. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, a position endowed by Charles Simonyi with an express intention that Dawkins be its first holder.[8] He has been a fellow of New College, Oxford since 1970

He was assistant professor, lecturer, reader, fellow - but never an actual, classical university professor (not that this would be all that important, but as for the facts...)

"Is that okay with you?"

It would be okay with me, but don't you see your own mistake and the ones of other contributors here? It was argued that I'm a creationist, a religious apologist and so on. But as it is, I'm an atheist and Mr. Waschke is an agnostic (with a certain deistic or pantheistic tendency, I admit). No fundamentalist was ever involved in what I said.

Sure, I also admire Mr. Dawkins work, especially when it's about religion. But I, for example, disagree with the idea of memes (doesn't really explain anything - how do the memes interact with the individual brain and why?). So I wouldn't just take over everything he says.

17. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #78412 by The author on October 12, 2007 at 6:10 pm

"Stop talking about this 'friend' of yours"

Thomas Waschke, AG Evolutionsbiologie, biology teacher, expert on the German Intelligent Design movement as well as on evolutionary biology itself, convinced agnostic (in a rather weird way, I would add)

"why he has been a tenured professor at Oxford University"

He is not teaching there. One of the Microsoft founders pays his professorship for the public understanding of science (not evolutionary biology). He is NOT an actual professor. Although he surely could have achieved that.

"A point we are all painfully familiar with because every religious apologist on here uses it."

You are talking to a concinced atheist who is actively engaged in spreading the naturalist worldview in varios freethinking and humanist organizations. Don't I fit into your ridiculous black/white worldview? I'm so sorry.

"You have to show your working or admit you have none."

No, I indeed reached what I wanted to reach: Some users here showed that Mr. Waschke is wrong and that's quite fine with me. They did so fastly because of my provocative style. Very well.

Apparently I also reached what I definitely did NOT want to reach: Some users showed a remarkable black/white, ingroup/outgroup thinking, otherwise only known to me from faitheads. I think there IS (and Dawkins thinks so too) a certain danger of people just repeating everything Dawkins says and defending him like he was a prophet, no matter what.

Of course "my" (Mr. Waschkes) critizism was exaggerated and mostly wrong. I just passed it on to you unfiltered and umcommended to see if you knew it better. Which you mostly did.

As for Dennett taking over positions or examples or whatever from Dawkins, the latter affirmed that in a speech himself yesterday in Frankfurt (for atheists only...) with concern to the parasite metaphor for religion, which originally was invented by Dawkins, altough Dennett is known for it.

All in all what I'm trying to say is: Beware of treating anyone like an omnicient, infallible being. This is an actual danger. Atheists are not infallible either.

18. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77940 by The author on October 11, 2007 at 7:28 am

"Your friend sounds a bit like a creationist."

This is not only ad hominem, but in a way false, that I can only describe as ideology on your side. He is an evolutionary biologist, biology teacher, member of the "AG Evolutionary Biology" (a group DEFENDING evolution from creationist attacks) and pretty much an expert on the subject. Your reaction is exactly what I was afraid from happening: Dawkins turns into a prophet for some people, his atheism into a kind of religion that is to be defended in the same irrational way as real religion.

"That's not a real site."

How about using google and look it up yourself?

"I don't know how The Extended Phenotype ranks among professionals"

Exactly.

"to ignore his published papers"

Wait a second. I hope you are aware of the fact that I am talking about peer review puplications, not about popular books?

19. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77560 by The author on October 9, 2007 at 5:02 pm

"He is trying to pull you to the dark side"

Seems so. If Dawkins really puplished several articles in peer review magazines, then some of the things the Dark Lord told me are plain wrong. According to him "The Extended Phenotype" would be his only real scientific (not popular) book and it is supposed to have been badly recieved.

"The 'ultradarwinist' name you keep flinging around seems like something you hope will stick and will sound bad?"

That's not a new term, I didn't invent it. There even is a website of that name:
http://www.ultradarwinism.com

20. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77466 by The author on October 9, 2007 at 11:32 am

Maybe. You know, there is a biologist who is following me and he tells me all the time (in about 50 mails) that we do not know enough about the mechanisms of evolution to present them in a way Dawkins does, as if all would be pretty clear. It could be that the views of this biologist are influenced by his opinion of religion (he is a remarkably convinced agnostic). But he is pretty much an expert on the German ID-movement and on the theory of evolution. So either he is trying to pull me to the dark side or Dawkins is really defending an "ultradarwinist" position that hardly any evolutionary biologist shares. I am open to both possibilities.

21. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77427 by The author on October 9, 2007 at 9:30 am

"I really can't escape the feeling that your mounting a straw Dawkins here to be burned"

Nonsense. One could really get the idea from reading some of the comments here that some people actually think that Dawkins and Dennett never made a single mistake.

Well, I made a few points and either you take them into consideration or you don't. As for me, I will read a few more books and articles by Gould and Dawkins, so that I can specify my points more clearly. Perhaps it's only here in Germany that Dawkins doesn't have that many friends in evolutionary biology departments. Let's see if I get convinced.

22. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77398 by The author on October 9, 2007 at 7:52 am

I mean "purpose" in the sense of "having a function and being selected for that reason". Our grey matter would contradict that claim Dawkins made in a number of interviews. It's actually in the Gould review I linked.

23. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77380 by The author on October 9, 2007 at 6:58 am

Well, how slow is still slow?

Further: Dawkins says that everything in evolution has a purpose. If so, why are we able to know about our own death? That, among others, doesn't seem to have a purpose, but to be a by-product. Ironically, Dawkins uses the same argument when he says that religion could have been selected as a by-product.

24. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77344 by The author on October 9, 2007 at 5:21 am

Reply to Comment #77069 by Janus:

Actually, it is rather the other way around: I read much more from Dawkins than I read from Gould. Of course it is about the details. Nobody here doubts evolution as such and I'm completely on Dawkins side when it is about religion.

To give you an example of what I mean: Dawkins often makes up stories like: There were more primitive forms of wings/eyes/whatever and they evolved into more complex forms SLOWLY AND BY GRADUAL DEGREES. That may very well have happened. Still, the fossil evidence is often not sufficient to present these stories as actual facts. So, he seems to be overdoing it a bit. We know less than he pretends we do and in pretending, he weakens his own position.

25. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77054 by The author on October 8, 2007 at 10:08 am

Dennett's reply to Gould's review hasn't really convinced me. After all, he lists up quite a few mistakes of his book himself, too many in my opinion:

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/errors.html

As for offensive language, Gould wasn't any worse than his foes. It should tell us something that there are hardly any ultradarwinists among the evolutionary biologists except Dawkins and Dennett. Evolution does not always work in slow, gradual degrees, and as the alternative is a natural explanation as well (sometimes punctuated equilibrium and other mechanisms play a role) I really don't see the great problem. Gould may very well had been influenced by his religious and political views, but the insistance on "pure" natural selection as an explanation for practically everything also doesn't seem to be objective.

26. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76851 by The author on October 7, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Let's see what happens if I write something critical about Daniel Dennett here.

"Darwins Dangerous Idea is a great book"

No, it's not. It is filled with mistakes and contains high amounts of unfair polemic against Gould, see his own review:

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/Gould.html

Further, one can't quite evade the impression that Dennett just about takes over everything Dawkins says. He has taken over memetics, his view on religion and even his ultradarwinism that hardly any evolutionary biologist except Dawkins shares. And he is not really that important as a philosopher, merely as a popularizer.

I'm especially anxious to hear your arguments against Gould's review.

27. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #71374 by The author on September 18, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I very much dislike this person. Kathy Griffin obviously only said the ridiculous Jesus stuff because she wanted to be talked about. She could also have said "Fuck the Jews" or something like this. It didn't seem to me that she would care about anything else than herself and her career. I do not declare my solidarity to every idiot who thinks he/she can make money with offending someone, if it is religion or not.

28. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68432 by The author on September 7, 2007 at 7:08 am

We need a more intelligent religion: None.

Yet another piece of ever-the-same-garbage from our theologian friends.

29. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68169 by The author on September 6, 2007 at 9:23 am

"You refer to believers as "faith sufferers", and you refer to you and your associates as "we doctors"."

As our treatment is voluntary, it's the choice of believers if they want to be cured of nonsensicality or not. In Cornwell's case I'd recommend a double dose.

30. The importance of doubt

Comment #66412 by The author on August 30, 2007 at 12:45 am

"He refers to believers as "faith sufferers", and to himself and like-minded associates as "we doctors"."

Cornwell would have pretty much deserved this quotation to be correct, which it is not, as he uses the same old argumentation strategies theologians always have used. I only doubt that such a mean-spirited and deluded thinking can be healed that easily.

"Stalin attempted, in vain, to eliminate religionists by working them to death or hanging them. Hitler starved and gassed them."

Yet another example. I am convinced that Cornwell knows exactly why this wicked attempt of an ad hoc denunciation is not fitting. Here we see that he doesn't even want to know the truth, he only wants to destroy his enemies.

31. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66328 by The author on August 29, 2007 at 5:41 pm

@Bonzai: "Well maybe it would make sense if you read the whole sentence"

Sorry, you seem to be wrong here, because, as
LordSummerisle notes:
"Hitch touches abortion shortly in "god Is Not Great", in which he essentially states that while he considers the termination of human life to be appalling, he is firmly pro-choice."

Which means that Hitchens considers embryos as "human life" which I do not. Embroys are a bunch of cells.

@Icculus:
"it is never easy, and those involved are forever changed. So yes, abortion is an ugly thing"

In that sense, yes. But it is not an ugly thing because of the embryo.

@LeeLeeOne:
"What Hitchens is TEACHING all of us is to think FOR OURSELVES in this entire article!"

I'm clearly in favor of Hitchens. Everyone can be wrong on an issue, I constantly detect misstakes and inconsistencies in my own views, that's quite ok if one is willing to change wrong views as soon as identified. I'm certainly not planning any agenda against Hitchens, I'm quite a fan actually. But he's wrong there, as far as I can tell.

32. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66300 by The author on August 29, 2007 at 4:28 pm

"regard abortion as an abomination (and, if it matters, I concur)"

Why, in the name of reason!? Hitchens was always entirely convincing for me (even, after reading his books and essays about it, concerning Iraq). But what secular, sensible reason could there possibly be against abortion?

I think it should be entirely legalized without any confinement. Let's face it: Embryos do not consciously feel any pain. In this state, they are just a bunch of cells, so it should be up to the mothers - who of course have an emotional connection even to their embryos - whether to abort them or not.

But I can tell you, who DO feels pain: Raped mothers who may not abort - or in fact any mother who didn't want to get pregnant. After all: Would you want do be an unwanted child?

33. Come Out!

Comment #59433 by The author on July 29, 2007 at 3:32 am

"A for Anarchy" - that's what people would think here, not that I care.

34. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56574 by The author on July 16, 2007 at 1:00 pm

I hope this wasn't the best example of journalism Nairobi has to offer.

35. Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism?

Comment #56411 by The author on July 15, 2007 at 4:38 pm

This article is very one-sided. Hitler also said very often that he hated the Christians. I once had a discussion with a right-wing Catholic, quite an extreme one, and he even argued that Hitler was a Naturalist. Although I knew all the quotations by Hitler in which he refers positively to Christianity, I have to say, I nearly lost. It could be argued that Hitler had some kind of pantheistic religiosity, and when you look at the negative things he said about Christianity - not so different from atheist arguments in fact - then we have another picture.

In the end I would say that it really is very unclear what Hitler thought about Christianity. He even might, to a certain extent, had been a Naturalist (in the sense of not believing in the supernatural) - but one thing he was clearly not: A Humanist. In addition, he believed quite some unscientific stuff, his racial views for example. With that and with this Catholic's lunatic view that all Naturalists are secretly Nazis (kind of doesn't fit at all, just look at Einstein, a Naturalist and a jew), I won the discussion in the end.

What I mainly want to say is: We have to be careful, as some of those people are indeed intelligent and educated. For some weird reason they just believe stuff I can only call insane.

36. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54892 by The author on July 9, 2007 at 8:49 am

I agree with Ben Kington. Evolutionary psychology is to a great extend wild speculation, comparable to psychoanalysis. I've read the weirdest and most irresconciliable evaluations from evolutionary psychologists. That just doesn't make any sense, they seem to transfer what they think individually to science, but it is not. Nothing against sociobiology, but evolutionary psychology is just weird.

37. Unorthodox Atheist

Comment #54064 by The author on July 5, 2007 at 6:56 am

Where are the atheist exorcists when you need them?

38. Germany imposes ban on Tom Cruise

Comment #52158 by The author on June 26, 2007 at 11:32 am

"Only for people who are members of a church."

The normal income taxes are used to finance Bishop salaries and more that should be financed by the church:

http://www.ibka.org

39. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44513 by The author on May 25, 2007 at 3:26 am

As movement doesn't have a direction and the earth is not accelerating, the claim that the earth revolves around the sun is just a possible representation. One could also say that it is the other way around (but this would lead to incredibly complicated orbits).

Sorry, but strictly scientifically taken, relativity taken into account, one can indeed not call it a fact that the earth revolves around the sun. Does the ontological state of the parsimonical principle or the Vico theorem tell you something?

So don't be too sure about that "obvious" fact.

40. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42451 by The author on May 18, 2007 at 8:16 am

"At the heart of every freisinning appeal"

This moron doesn't even know how to write the word he is boasting with.

It is: "freisinnig", or "freidenkerisch".

41. Why Christopher Hitchens is not Great

Comment #40676 by The author on May 14, 2007 at 4:52 pm

After throwing rubbish at Dawkins they are throwing rubbish at Hitchens. What I really don't get is: Why should anyone print such awfully researched und badly reasoned nonsense? Why should anyone want to pay "journalists" for such stuff? If they just collect some gangstas from the streets they will get about the same result for less money.

I have a dream: One day someone will critizise the "New Atheists" rationally by good reasoning. He will perhaps be wrong then, but at least he would have honestly tried it.

42. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39288 by The author on May 10, 2007 at 9:06 am

Any country with such a T. V. show has a very serious problem.

43. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37702 by The author on May 5, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Blabla Quantum Mechanics Blabla Relativity Blabla God exists

Blabla!

You can literally feel your brains fall out.

44. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #36847 by The author on May 2, 2007 at 1:51 pm

The situation is already changing. With the foundation of the (atheist) Council of Ex-Muslims we are moving in the right direction. Puplic opinion is changing.

45. 'god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' by Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36183 by The author on April 30, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Hitchens really must be Satan incarnate for christians. A drinking, smoking devil who says that religion should be treated with "hatred and ridicule".

Oh, yeah. I like this guy.

46. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30240 by The author on April 7, 2007 at 10:23 am

Now I finally got enough. I demand an answer to the following question by everyone who claims so:

What are the good deeds performed by christians over the centuries because of their religion?

47. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29060 by The author on April 1, 2007 at 1:01 pm

A recommendation on the issue of postmodern philosophy (the book is one of the sources Sokal and Bricmont used):

The Illusions of Postmodernism by Terry Eagleton.

Yes, Eagleton, the guy who wrote that bad review on The God Delusion. He and Richard at least share an equal hatred of postmodern nonsense.

48. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #27188 by The author on March 23, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Ah yes, you're right. And I don't think that they will fire her, was a bit surprising anyway.

49. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #27102 by The author on March 23, 2007 at 6:32 am

They fired the judge.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,472966,00.html

50. Your Mom Was Wrong: Horseplay Is An Important Part Of Development

Comment #26607 by The author on March 20, 2007 at 5:12 pm

I always said that pogo makes sense, but nobody ever wanted to believe me. Now I got the proof!