1. Science is thrilling - except in our schools

Comment #204229 by DalaiDrivel on July 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Hari is a very eloquent writer indeed. He needs make no defense for science, like a religious apologist. Science has nothing to apologise for. No, Johann more apologises TO science for our misunderstanding and neglect, and makes the reader understand why, with the added message of "Now would you please get off your ass, teachers, students, politicians, and public and get involved so I don't have to continue to write these unfortunate apologies?!"

I certainly think science deserves one.

"It's as if art classes consisted solely of learning how to perform individual little brushstrokes, without ever stopping to look at a painting by Caravaggio."

What an apt illustration of the matter, it seems to me.

2. Group Asks for Divine Intervention to Ease Oil Prices

Comment #204225 by DalaiDrivel on July 4, 2008 at 12:38 pm

At least they're trying to move beyond prayer...

God's not so omnipotent as to accommodate whole faith.

But he IS omnipotent!

3. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204203 by DalaiDrivel on July 4, 2008 at 11:43 am

"Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said."

Ah well, wait until the misogynist arbitrator or court attendee declares it is "my religion" that necessitates such punishment.

At least then we could see the true friction between religious justification and liberal norms and ideals.

And we could throw the whole rotten and superstition enterprise out the door.

And what of that quote, anyway? Parochial as my point of view may be, I have always regarded flogging, honour executions, stoning and amputations were some of the charming hallmarks of Sharia that distinguished it from civilised judicial systems.

Outlawing these practices seems like attempting to make friends with the school bully- give him a second chance to be a gentleman. It's more appeasement I think to Sharia and Muslims keen for Muslim influence in various liberal democracies around the world than a proper neutering of it.

Carte blanche. Benefit of the doubt.

The bully will weasel his way back unto his old self. Sharia proponents may well make religious justification for atrocities...

Or as marv78rpm said, wait until we "give the theocrats time to work their magic."

Magic indeed. But I don't think any spell-casting will be necessary. The spell in question of course, we have cast over ourselves, and theocrats need only wait until we are too tolerant, too small, and too timid to mount any objection.

Like the bully's true nature, it continues to be depressing, yet concerning, how willingly people ignore or forgive the true nature of the Abrahamic God and his accompanying legal systems.

Does it really ever occur to people that there actually is such thing as a disqualifying aspect to either? Perhaps a few (quite a few) really, but...

It is another example amongst many of the general public's, religious and not, comfort with superstition.

In public dialogue of true superstition (horoscopes and paranormal events), even when scientific first-instance disqualification is warranted, people overlook the various snags and embrace the more palatable considerations ("but there was this ONE line in the horoscope that matched my day"; "I can't think of a way he could conjure what he did, therefore he really must have done it!") out of this comfort.

By the way, I'm reading a chapter on public credulity in matters of this sort in "Unweaving the Rainbow." It's brilliant, and though I love the hard science of previous chapters, I admit I am finding metaphysical debunking more absorbing... You just know RD wants to hit the issue hard!

In any event, try treating a religious proposition like a scientific hypothesis. The first findings to falsify it, discard it in its entirety.

RD has been saying for ages how harmful credulity is. He only becomes ever righter with time.

My final word is, that in an inncocent-until-proven-guilty system already in place, Sharia is most certainly guilty-until-proven-innocent. But then we shouldn't allow it to prove its innocence because the risks are too great, the motivations and underlying metaphysics too morbid.

Sharia has already flogged, stoned, decapitated, honour-killed, and amputated. Begone with it now. Yes, now.

We won't lose anything by keeping limbs and losing a bit of our love affair with superstition.

Like always.

...............

mrjonno,

Careful there. I hold the monopoly on drivel! :D

4. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202358 by DalaiDrivel on July 1, 2008 at 11:29 am

EvidenceOnly,

"- if you don't want to learn how to fly a plane, you have decided not to become a pilot."

No- the 9/11 hijackers certainly wanted to learn how to fly a plane. Sadly, what nobody figured out in time was why they didn't bother to learn how to take off and land it...

Your other points are superb, and eminently rational.

5. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202357 by DalaiDrivel on July 1, 2008 at 11:25 am

It just occurred to me to add one justification, if any further could possibly be needed for this Equality Bill:

All of humanity is equal, but all humanisms are NOT created equal.

It is Canada Day today, and with the above statement I raise an especially extended two-fingered salute to dogmatism and superstition, and my beloved country's resistance (thus far...) to it!

6. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202345 by DalaiDrivel on July 1, 2008 at 11:06 am

Hmmm... Religions seem to me like bad unions in the workplace.

They seem to attempt to present workers with rights they shouldn't have.

i.e. "I want this job, decreeing that my physical appearance is not open to criticism nor can it disqualify me from employment."

Now to paraphrase one Douglas Adams here:

"Why not?"

"Because its not!"

The legitimacy of religious rights seems to me to rest on the legitimacy of religions themselves. Arguments for religion's utility are made constantly by the religious, although with their constant groping for evidence to support their insupportable "faith," it can be generally agreed that verifiable truth trumps considerations of utility and the benefits of illusion. Having read Sam Harris' account of Pragmatism in the End of Faith is particularly enlightening here I find.

I must say, the Supreme Courts of countries beleaguered by attempts to politicise sexual, racial and other forms of discrimination (scientific?) at the hands of the religious impress me in their resistance to the viral corruption inherent in religious influence.

There is no evidence for religious metaphysical truths, and (thankfully) therefore none for the morals derived in tandem. That a Supreme Court (or perhaps simply the government, as Johann Hari mentions) here has clearly denied criminalisation of religious discrimination warmly reminds me that a) the dubious philosophical and scientific implications of religion are not lost on its members, and b) with so many stupid people eager to jump into a nation's driver's seat, there are smart individuals already there to kick them out.

To finish esoterically....

Yes indeed, I delight in seeing another light appearing to fend off the ever-encroaching darkness. :)

7. Galaxy map hints at fractal universe

Comment #200963 by DalaiDrivel on June 28, 2008 at 4:08 pm

William Carlton,

I'll believe that. I wasn't sure to be honest who the true originator of the remark was, but we all remember Dawkins using it in his slideshow.

The point seems to become more and more poignant to me every day.

8. Galaxy map hints at fractal universe

Comment #199327 by DalaiDrivel on June 25, 2008 at 2:23 pm

And still, as RD would point out, it has never occurred to the religionists to ponder,

"Yes! The universe may indeed be stranger, more fascinating, and more wonderful than our Prophets indicated!"

The universe of the Holy Books is indeed only Earth-sized. Without science, we never could have speculated the nature of the universe at scales encompassing hundreds of millions of light years.

The breadth of our scientific knowledge, and capacity to learn more, staggers me already, and I'm so grateful that a visionary few exist who are willful enough in their curiosity to continue to attack the gaps of our understanding.

We should be clapping and cheering them on, if we can't participate. I'm reading "Unweaving the Rainbow" presently (Of course it comes recommended here!), and Dawkins makes an analogy to music, between practioners and listeners, listeners who can still appreciate the work of musicians and even be connoisseurs of their art.

How I appreciate the work of scientists!

I guess all that Dawkins et al, and we, can do is continue to prod them with the thought about religious insufficiency of information.

9. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198975 by DalaiDrivel on June 24, 2008 at 11:33 pm

Here is the very definition of blind faith.

I never would have thought to ever find proof that we (well some of us...) actually worship paedophiles of all people- and follow their example unquestionably.

Remember, if it's in your hadith, it's the inerrent example of the Prophet...

This is a prime example of what Hitchens means when he says people are capable of even more extreme actions when they believe (really believe) in God, then when they don't.

I think very few Muslims are true believers though- I mean they would not personally emulate the actions of their Prophet. They do not truly believe in the legitimacy of paedophilia, and their divine right to practice it (but, I'm open to evidence- cringe though I might when I discover it). They will simply condone this instance of child rape by setting up a partition in their minds, between legitimacy of the perfect word of the Koran and Hadith, and their personal understanding that Muhammad committed child rape, and that child rape is immoral and barbaric.

They very well may believe in the inferiority of the female sex, however, regardless of age (no partition required...) And that is barbaric beyond words...

10. Carlin on Religion

Comment #198425 by DalaiDrivel on June 23, 2008 at 9:57 pm

"Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.
And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you. "

Thank you Terabrat for the quote.

This to me is the finest comedic dissection of religion and its insanity that I have ever heard or read. It's priceless.

I never actually had any exposure to George Carlin before this, but I knew then that he was a damn astute fellow!

11. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197074 by DalaiDrivel on June 21, 2008 at 3:20 am

"Phase One in progress Dr Evil,"

Number One reports to his superior at the Discovery Institute.

"Phase Two (Explicit Promotion of Religion in Classrooms) in.... Design... stages... haha.... hahaha,,, hahahaha... hahahahaha."

12. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196411 by DalaiDrivel on June 19, 2008 at 10:42 pm

RamziD,

I recommend "Parliament of Men" by Paul Kennedy for a dispassionate account of the UN's history, as well as a brief synopsis of a possible future.

My own view is that the UN tries, it really does, but there have always been flaws.

I think the Human Rights Council need not earn disrespect for the present UN in its entirety.

As for this debacle, since religion has universal import, and every religion claims to impact the fate of every human being regardless of the faith, any person willing to confront (and subsequently embrace or reject) this claim and others, are, due to their interest and research, truly religious scholars.

Because of the universality of religion, which perhaps constitutes its very tyranny, the definition of religious scholar should be very broad indeed.

I'm not sure what the implications to this ruling are. I do not know what constitutes a religious scholar in the eyes of the UN, and what ramifications exist in the face of dissent. The UN is plenty weak and corrupt. Hopefully the rules will be frequently broken, and change forced, to uphold the very honesty our cultures desperately attempt and desperately need to retain for the survival of civilisation.

13. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195605 by DalaiDrivel on June 18, 2008 at 3:40 pm

burn0gas,

Indeed, christian evolutionists should be up in arms over this bill.

Is this an example of the terrible extent to which religion is accorded immunity in the public domain, from without, AND, more terrifyingly, from within?

Or is this the moderates' policy of tolerance in action here- do not offend fundamentalists, even in the face of destructive dogmatism and
ignorance?

If Christians are awaiting the apocalypse, it's right here.

14. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195573 by DalaiDrivel on June 18, 2008 at 1:59 pm

It's obvious to IDiots, I should think, and everyone else, that the legal scheming they've resorted to is inevitable since appealing to substance is outside the scope of Intelligent Design.

Referring to the quote provided by RonnieG,

Indeed. Teach the controversy, but do not fail to remind these open-minded children on Sundays (in Schools too?) that if they choose to remain open-minded on the subject of a scientific origin to evolution, or even, according to some, dare to choose to embrace evolution itself, they will suffer the eternal persecution of a loving God.

This will, of course, introduce the possibility of bias to their eventual conclusion.

Blackmail... A fucking joke indeed.

15. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #195557 by DalaiDrivel on June 18, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Lucas,

For a top-notch bullshit-o-meter, I'm surprised Colbert's isn't tuned to something as painfully simple as a circular argument.

Maybe he wants us to laugh at him and not with him.

Must be the case...

I hope he had a good long think about that one when he got home. For once, Bill O'Reilly has company.

Furthermore, complexity of religiosity amounts simply to redefinition. Faith is an exceedingly simple, pray-by-numbers affair when reading one's Holy Book. It really leaves no room for complexity. It is obvious that they are meant to be read literally, just as they are meant to be understood as the products of a barbaric, bygone society, with corresponding ideas and language.

Can Colbert's bullshit-o-meter pick that up perhaps?

Colbert redefined God in the Harris interview. Happily, Harris DID catch his interviewer on that one.

16. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #195219 by DalaiDrivel on June 17, 2008 at 11:57 pm

If Colbert is religious, I'm surprised he highlighted the circuity of his arguments explicitly in the Harris interview.

"What part of my loop don't you want to jump on?" he asked Harris.

Either he knows what he was talking about, and was trying to plug Harris' book, or provide his arguments for him...

Or else his foot is horrifically bloody at this point.

Don't get me wrong. I found it funny until I read MaestroTj's comment above, and thought,

"Oh dear, oh dear."

My sense is that Colbert attempts to make his muses look stupid and not himself. I really hope he is not a Catholic.

Anyways, Harris should have gone for the jugular there. Laid on a plate. No need to even be funny...



I could easily envision Colbert as a closet atheist, or just someone who doesn't care about religion really.

Atheists, in order to call themselves atheists, must consciously confront questions of philosophy, existence, and metaphysics, and likely take an interest in them.

These investigations are obviously not a prerequisite to living a happy life.

You can be a Jew or a Catholic and not think what it means. A non-practising, or cultural theist, in other words.

You can't blame some people if they recoil from such specific contemplation as "what it means" or "is it true," even in the context of their own holy books that they imbibe on a regular basis.

I like philosophy very much personally. If I didn't, I doubt I would even entertain the topic of God. I might even still uncritically go to Church out of habit.

17. Divine Impulses: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #193169 by DalaiDrivel on June 14, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Just my thoughts on the videos...

Ayaan seemed more eloquent in this dialogue than she has on other occasions to me. I was well and truly absorbed.

The Satan within? Superb! Next time, when I approach my Christian friends, I'll pronounce myself as Satan, like Matthew Perry revealing himself as Batman.

"I'm Satan!"

I like it! They probably be openly amused, maybe privately offended. They won't be much in a mood to to debate me probably, but it's true I don't mind sinking to such depths for a joke... :)

Maybe we're not selling the naughtiness of atheism enough... Seriously. Everybody feels good breaking the rules... the laws of the Creator of the Universe must be the most imposing, pertinent ones out there... hmmm... you know, it IS a real thrill breaking the biggest ones out there...

I'm sure other people have thought of it- but it's the first of it for me. Oh well... one more thing to add to my elation of being liberated from the tyranny of the celestial dictator.

I skipped over the circumcision video. I got all the information on said that I could stomach from God is Not Great.

Thank you Christopher Hitchens for your lucid writing...

18. Divine Impulses: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #193164 by DalaiDrivel on June 14, 2008 at 11:19 pm

I still haven't contributed to her security trust! Well that will change now!

thewhitepearl,

Yeah, miraculous. It's just that I caught a nasty vision of a Christian cozying up to me declaring, "See, we're more alike than you think..."

No, not those kinds of miracles Damn It!

Brrrrr!

19. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191292 by DalaiDrivel on June 10, 2008 at 2:06 pm

mrjonno,

"Human beings do however have legal and moral responsibilities when dealing with animals which should and do become stricter going up the intelligence scale."

And that's as far as it'll go I think. And it is consistent I believe with some ideas on this thread, like the concept of "personhood."

I agree with the "Distinct but Equal" line (Perhaps "Almost Equal"), am fine with a chimp being defined as a person (although it's not clear to me how "person" should be defined. Singer's definition seems somewhat dubious to me. I don't understand what temporal perception should have to do with it. Perhaps someone can enlighten me) and I see not problem with a chimpanzee having a guardian, so long as that guardian understands their unique responsibility and are deemed qualified.

I do not see a problem with dog owners being deemed guardians of their dogs for instance, or any other pet. Are they deemed so already, or are they merely owners? I do not see what is so distinctly human about the concept of "guardian" apart from subtextual implications of rearing and mental/physical development etc.

Finally, to depict a chimpanzee as human seems both disingenuous and flawed with rationalisation and little reasoning to me. Anthropologists would be supported by biologists in classifying chimpanzees as chimpanzees and not human. People are always prone to anthropomorphise lots of things (take God for instance...) but that's no excuse for wishful-thinking in this case. If the law says one thing, courts can allow exemptions (can't they? I'm no lawyer), or provide precedents, or even alter laws completely.

al-rawandi,

Hah. Funny post. Cheers.

20. Regime change in heaven

Comment #191276 by DalaiDrivel on June 10, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Hah. This was a good laugh. :)

What's true is that all nations and all peoples WILL need to be united to combat the idiocy and destructiveness of religious faith.

The war is not over. It is upon us still. And maybe at the end we could have a presidential address similiar to this, along the lines of,

"We're terribly sorry. There really IS a separation of church and state, and we know what it means. It's not actually a problem now, without the Church..."

Like Bill Maher's Religulous, ridiculing the ridiculous such as this does is a reasonable tactic to exposing people to their own ignorance and errors of judgement.

After all, it's all just SO RIDICULOUS!

21. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #191264 by DalaiDrivel on June 10, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Volguus,

I think Bill Maher just needs to write his "God is not Great", his "God Delusion," to avoid the stigma of PETA as Hitchens does his foreign policy. Maybe, anyway. As Phil Rimmer said, Hitchens has made a substantial contribution to the atheist literature, and not just with God Is Not Great.

For some a contribution of that sort can convince them to ignore their other qualms entirely, although perhaps that is a bit unethical. For others, it merely encourages them to balance their attacks with applause.

I for one hope "Religulous" can do that for Maher- level his reputation. Then he'll be lapped up and lavished here I bet. Well, perhaps not quite.:)

We're like pussycats on this site. Impossible to herd, as has been said, yet vulnerable to wooing and stroking. :)

Sam Harris said that we've got to accept allies even in unlikely quarters, and I agree with him. I've got a big problem with the ignorance of theists in general, but that doesn't deny what things we agree on.

It's illogical, of course, to dismiss Religulous as unworthy of praise or attention because Maher is apparently unworthy in his other beliefs, just as the atheists on the site can identify the illogicity of dismissing "God is not Great" due to Hitchen's stance on the Iraq War.

I personally think that Maher should be commended for the attempt, whether Religulous is as successful or effective as the God Delusion or not, and whether it really is or isn't his equivalent of the book. In other words, I am really eager to see this movie, and I am planted on the "Give Maher a Rest" side of the argument.

22. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #190836 by DalaiDrivel on June 9, 2008 at 5:15 pm

I'm in complete agreement with Soilworker. Just one recovered theist will render this film successful.

As to its being serious or hilarious- I am much more hopeful and attracted to the idea of it being the latter. This is because I am impertinent, politically incorrect, and deprecating as a person (it is true), and a theist asking me for a serious discussion is asking for trouble. I can show them how ludicrous their position is (which they will be sure to ignore) indicating their beliefs as arguments from incredulity, and design etc., and present that as my reason for treating them with such irreverence. Beliefs based on stupid arguments are stupid themselves. That maybe theists are "nice" people and deserve a sober audience perhaps for that reason is an undeserved privilege, in my view.

I entertain my theist friends, but it does not trouble me that I entertain them solely because they are my friends.

It is true. I am an impertinent, politically incorrect, disparaging elitist.

Remember, if my frequent unwillingness to seriously entertain theists disturbs anyone, that they often discuss the inadequacies and fallacies of other faiths quite eagerly, as RD noted I think, in the God Delusion.

Humour is the best medicine here I think, unsettling as it may be. As the Buckley's slogan goes, "It tastes awful, and it works."

These people have got to see the errors inherent in their faith, and in religious faith itself for themselves. My indifference towards them is probably matched by their indifference to any form of self-critique.

23. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182612 by DalaiDrivel on May 20, 2008 at 4:18 pm

The London Police can stick it up their corrupt, rights-breaching rear.

The only thing "abusive" is the treatment of individual liberty here by the London Police. Peaceful protest and the presentation of dissident opinion is not abuse. Full stop.

The only thing "insulting" is the treatment of that word when it is misapplied to a serious statement of opinion that the Church of Scientology is a cult, and any investigation of its practices by way of interviewing its former members should lend credence to that opinion, as if ANY opinion needed credence to be expressed in protest.

This is of course to be considered after the matter of the Police accepting bribes from the Church and appearing in Church propaganda is sorted out.

24. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178756 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 2:14 am

Barry Pearson,

Quite right. Wilful ignorance goes a long way in the minds of the political Christian.

It is indeed logical to discredit the opposition as a means of neutralising it. Neutralisation can take many forms in itself, legitimate and illegitimate.

As to the lack of Christian-guided morality- well as you'll no doubt agree, there are countless other religions, past and present, and humanisms from which to derive morals.

Knowing this, which I'm sure they do, they will continue to press their agenda by saying God created the universe and all life in it, including the manner in which it should be lived, and the God in question is the Christian God. How do they know this? They have faith. Faith in what? The holy book. The holy book written by who? God. Which God? The Christian God. Who is? The God that created the universe and all life in it...

And around we could go again... I know that demonstration was unnecessary for most people on here... sorry. Couldn`t resist!

Thinking like a Christian is an unnerving but useful exercise.

25. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178746 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 1:56 am

Artful:

"Not any more than your presupposing the non-existence of God makes your argument circular. "

In addition to Epeeist's lemmata, I will simply say:

Presupposing nothing leaves nothing go back to. The dismissal for obvious reasons (namely it's raising more questions than it answers), of a skyhook in investigative methodology necessitates cranes to explain phenomena.

We don't know how the universe began. We just know the statistical unlikelihood of a supernatural entity being responsible that fulfils Epeeist's lemmata. We know not what to count on.

Perhaps, if you will forgive us, we will be skeptically agnostic about the origin of the universe, and extremely dubious of God as its cause.

26. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178725 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 1:01 am

Yes, riandouglas. That too.

God (oh oh... metaphorical!!!) I'm frustrated but I'm having fun here!

27. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178722 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 12:58 am

"Epeeist, there is nothing metaphorical about the fall, except (possibly) the images, the word pictures, that were used to describe it."

Hence, metaphorical. The narratives themselves which you cite are not literal but abstract. Genesis is a metaphor for past and present society.

Jesus Christ.

28. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178719 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 12:53 am

Artful,

Reason is not reducible? We have evolved far enough so that we can counteract our evolutionary impulses. How do you think we do this?

I contend that reason does NOT point to an extra, non-material origin of the universe. I am as entitled to opinion, and as informed as you, and I have come to the opposite conclusion. Btw- who says that the universe was always rational in the Aristoltlean sense? Why do you say origin? Because you've a priori decided God as having created the universe and then having created it rationally right from the beginning, for your convenience.

The impression of design is overwhelming. Key word- impression. And I would add, overwhelming for some.

It just so happened that God existed a priori in the minds of Kepler and Newton etc., as well.

If Newton looked around him without the a priori conclusion, he would , I would submit, have noticed that for instance, everything falls, and would have sought to equate gravity without believing that God put it there.

29. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178708 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 12:30 am

Epeeist,

Nicely played.

I hope that will keep Artful thinking for a little bit.

Perhaps Jesus crucifixion was metaphor as well? Metaphor for metaphor?

30. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178698 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 12:04 am

Artful:

"There is no "general decision procedure", only a willingness to take seriously the possibility that God could have used the medium of "the word" to make Himself known to us via the operation of reason in engaging with this "word", and also awareness of the rich panoply of literary devices available to the writers whom he inspired so to make himself known."

You've said absolutely nothing of use here.

I especially love the "Make himself known via the operation of reason in engaging with this 'word'"- as if the word were a living (but of course you'd say it's living...) biological entity with which God interacts, and that reason is something that you operate... like a car, I suppose.

I suppose what you're saying in your very dodgy way, is "God makes himself known by having a bunch of gullible theists rationalise him into existence (that's the "operation of reason" bit consisting of golden oldies like "Well the world is so beautiful, God has to exist!", or, "Well I would be sad if God didn't exist, therefore he does!"), pretending they're reasonable, and writing books and pretending that he wrote them." Aha!

The reason that it is so difficult for atheists to come around to acknowledging the possibility of God speaking through ANY text, is that he's not very likely to exist to begin with.

And there's not much point speculating which holy book he speaks through, and which parts of it he intends to be interpreted literally or metaphorically, if he doesn't even exist. I think we will agree.

I suggest you consult Epeeist and his lemmata on the topic of God's existence.

God speaking through texts is therefore a hard idea to take seriously. The merits of each text and their proper individual interpretation you have thus far failed to demonstrate. I suggest you enlighten us as to why seriousness in considering God actually speaking through texts is necessary to judge the merits of each text. You already do take them seriously. I'm sure that is enough.

This is merely a hypothetical consideration for us atheists. We will imagine God speaking through texts, but will not for a moment take it seriously. Come on!

31. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178669 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Barry Pearson,

I'm not attacking IDiots' strategy. I'm attacking their ideology.

To say that the biological roots of our existence prescribe the manner in which we construct society is a logical fallacy, given the ability of humans to counteract their evolutionary impulses.

For other animals, their actions and their consequences necessarily are directed by Darwinian evolution. They have no other choice. They do not have the technology, nor the intelligence, to do otherwise.

There is no "materialistic worldview" to evolution. Quite plainly, it describes how humans came to exist in our present form. How we proceed, now that we have grasped evolution and live lives far beyond the means of our wild cousins, is up to us. Evolution is a fact, just, as RD described with Lawrence Krauss, a table being a table is a fact, and IDiots' attempt to disprove it because they deem that if it were true, it would have a variety of insane social consequences, is in itself insane. We are conscious, and by that definition we are aware of our darwinian impulses. We are the dominant species on Earth, and we are not subject to evolution by natural selection any longer. We no longer adapt ourselves to environments, and compete for survival, and we have not entertained the "materialistic worldview" for some time. That we would do so upon acknowledging evolutin IS a logical fallacy, and it is this illogicity demonstrated by IDiots to which I was previously referring.

But do keep in mind I am not educated in this subject, and it is best to seek a definitive explanation of biological evolution and its assumed social ramifications elsewhere!

32. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178454 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 1:00 pm

JernJane,

Indeed. A rational person knows there is no need to misinterpret for the sake of truth, other than for the sake of manufactured truths, or for the sake of continuing our personal opposition to something.

God tells us he created the Earth in six days, and then gives all the evidence to the contrary. God is a prick.

We would have to misinterpret, wouldn't we?

I should have credited you with that cut-and-paste. I am sorry. But thank you.

82abhilash:

I understand where you are coming from now. Thanks for clearing that up.

33. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178424 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 11:47 am

"I'm a passionate Darwinian in the academic sense (...), yet I am a passionate Anti-Darwinian when it comes to human social and political affairs."

This is what I see lying, illogical IDiots as attacking the most, in order to portray Dawkins as a hypocrite.

82abhilash:

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

Ths is a confusing statement. The world, filled with wonder, does indeed not need any real magic- nor conjuring tricks. Why would you then say that conjuring tricks are enough?

I hesitate to label a trick as "good." A trick is a deception. The creationist deception we already understand, as a prolonged trick played by humans on humans, valuing dogma and ignorance over truth and curiosity, long past its credibility sell-by date (which for some people, predated Darwin).

What are you getting at in the first two paragraphs of your post? This is not clear.

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

34. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178415 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 11:25 am

DingoDave:

"Wankerism," yes. I thought "wankerness" was wrong but left it because an alternative did not occur to me.

Cheers!

35. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178223 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 12:22 am

DingoDave,

Wanker indeed.

Thank you. Your collection of quotes was a very conflicting mix of entertainment, and infuriation at the same time, which stems from Boteach's wankerness...

My favourites are the perceived "purpose" of evolution as being species propagation (try, none at all...), therefore negating sex what with artificial insemination available, and the claim that Dawkin's "belief" in time is synononymous with belif in God, that it is in fact a belief system...

Beluef in time as a humanism. There's a new one...

36. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178218 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 12:02 am

Evojosh,

Whenever we suggest that something will evoke pride in someone, we never know for sure. We are expressing the opinion that it should make them proud, or that it would not be surprised.

As for wanting Boteach dead... of course Hitler would want that. Boteach is a Jew. Would he keep the Rabbi around for his imitative screeching?

37. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178212 by DalaiDrivel on May 10, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Entlightenme.. ,

My feeling is, that in mentioning that Hitler bombed England, he was suggesting that Dawkins ought to be as disgusted by Hitler as Boteach is, as if he wasn't, and is apparently insinuating that RD is in fact not, or that, dare I say, he may even have some admiration for Hitler.

A disgraceful power play that Boteach is orchestrating against Richard, attempting to shame him into rescinding his comparison out of mutual enmity towards a past figure.

Or maybe Boteach simply wants to reinforce the taboo of referencing the ordinary, unremarkable man, a psychopath among many, by the name of Hitler, and that this taboo is especially applicable to Dawkins because, after all, Hitler bombed England.

Yeah, well Germany has Allied scars too, and I'm sure the incendiary bombs over German cities are not forgotten.

38. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178208 by DalaiDrivel on May 10, 2008 at 10:08 pm

SilentMike:

I do know what RD meant to say. He meant to to say that Boteach shrieks like Hitler, and would make Hitler proud in emulating his oratory style. It is you who is interpreting that on subtextual levels.

The case did not demand no Hitler reference either. Schmuley clearly shrieks like Hitler. Dawkins is therefore all the more justified in making it.

It seems to me that you are treating Hitler as a God, or perhaps, as some have in my experience, at least the Devil Incarnate. The truth was, as Phil Rimmer has pointed out, was that he was an ordinary, non-supernatual human being- a very evil one, a psychopathic one, but unequivocally, an ordinary, unremarkable one. There is no jinx to invoking his name. His spirit isn't floating around to murder any more innocent Jews any time you do invoke his name. But your reverence for his memory, and your willingness to be offended on behalf of Jews, or any other persecuted cultures that suffered by his hand and those of his henchman, is remarkably similar to some atheists' willingness to be offended on behalf of theists, when one of us invokes God, by touching a wound kept "quiveringly fresh" as PR put it... I would say that a reference to Hitler in the context of racism, would be warranted in association with a genocidal Arab terrorist. Likewise in the context of rhetoric and delivery, or any other conext, any association, true or false, is not to be barred for reasons of "insensitivity." The truth of the association is the responsibility of the speaker to support.

There is nothing special, nothing forbidding, in Hitler, or in referencing Hitler. Hitler is not the Devil Incarnate.

Schmuley makes himself associable. He has it coming.

Furthermore, to a rational person, this is not class A ammo in the least. Not only is Dawkin's association warranted and explicitly limited, but...

Schmuley titled his response to "An Open Letter to Rabbi Schmuley Boteach" as "My response to Richard Dawkins comparing me to Hitler", which itself referred to one sentence amongst many in Dawkin's letter. This is misleading. It suggests Richard's piece was entirely devoted to comparing Boteach to Hitler. You may call it a hook, or adverising appeal, but above all it is an emotional appeal and by no means a contextual or rational one.

Any thinking person can see through this. Is the fact that some people DON'T think our fault too?

Why didn't Schmuley say, "My response to Richard Dawkins comparing me to Hitler in the context of my oratory style"?

Or,

"My response to Richard Dawkins comparing my oratory style to Hitler's"?

Or maybe just,

"My response to Richard Dawkins comparing me to Hitler in one sentence out of hundreds of others."

So why didn't he then? Because he wants you to evoke all the unwarranted associations for him. He wants you to buy into his false advertising. He wants you to abandon rationality and context and embrace unbridled emotion- that unbridled hatred most of us all have for Hitler, that inevitably causes us to confuse one aspect of this ordinary man's character, pointed out and referenced, with every other aspect of his character.

Orion:

Right, so when a woman is uniquely and evidently associable in some respect(s)to a whore, unlike women in general, she has it coming.

Oh but you're so scared of hurting feelings... oh no, oh dear. Well let's pretend what's obvious, isn't... or maybe if we say she's associable to a "successful, self-managing, high-class escort of repute with many well-heeled clients,", political correctness and feminism will be satisfied, and the luscious excess of something like her lipstick application will of no doubt be of less discomfort to people like you if pointed out.

Euphemisms don't change the point! Only people's minds, which is too bad.

And, don't worry about apologising to me... haha. I think you're wrong!

As would RD I bet. He and I also share the "smear by association" of likely being mutually indifferent to your opinion.

Whether it is in reference to Hitler or Whores, we must be consciously geared towards, as Dan Dennett would say, breaking the spell.

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

Comment #178070 by DalaiDrivel on May 10, 2008 at 12:02 pm

I wonder if I am becoming sycophantic in my reviews of RD. But anyways...

Seeing Richard on the offensive made me conclude that the Rottweiller had finally emerged. Or maybe it's his diminished patience for repetitive radio announcers.

You know, he could set himself up as a psychic, with the startling ability to predict with astonishing accuracy, what a radio answer will ask him...

I think I've heard RD reference this guy before. He was right to demand that Humphry's take all guests to task equally, politician or priest. I thought John's interview with O'Connor was suitably aggressive (although I wish he had the pressure maintained on him for a litle longer), and wouldn't be surprised if Dawkins was to thank for this.

Some heavy breathing on the clergyman's part while he was being interviewed. Not surprisingly, what with his likely doublethinking...

"I'm going to lie or try to evade providing a non-circular answer."

Swiftly covered up with,

"Look, I'm telling the absolute truth."

Anyways- the "Atheist's Straw Man" argument is SUCH a pain, as we are only using the beloved God of the holy texts, long abandoned by the faithful in favour of personal preference.

"That's not the God I believe in!" Well you aren't Christian then, are you?

Secondly, how the Cardinal can conclude that faith can still be reasonable once you've gone beyond reason... I'l leave it there.

Nonetheless, I think it comes down to the religious' certainty of the truth of their faith. That they conclude what is true simply for the reason that the wish it is precisely the problem. To declare truth (which no one knows absolutely) itself as reasonable is reasonable.

If you have faith in the truth (not that you need faith in truth at all, but nevermind) then your faith must be reasonable as well, even if it has moved beyond reason!

40. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177788 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 5:36 pm

And Boteach doesn't wear lipstick (I presume).

One possible response to the charge of "Your wife wears lipstick like a whore" would therefore be:

"What about the whores who don't wear lipstick?"

:)

41. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177782 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Phil Rimmer,

That was put a lot more eloquently than I achieved in my last post, and I wish I had said the same. Thank you very much.

Good point about Hitler's ordinariness, and the "inverted reverence."

I too worry about keeping wounds freshs, and skins thin.

And about the women-and-lipstick issue- such a situation would be difficult to handle delicately in any case (put mildly), but something along the lines of "you wouldn't want people to have the wrong impression" I suppose would be best. Right on. I admit I haven't had this occur yet... it makes me laugh to contemplate it though. It would be sticky, for sure...

42. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177768 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Tosser,

He is certainly not immune from being critised. Right now, you are criticising him. This is the beautiful, practical thing about freedom of opinion and expression. Please, continue! I'm simply obliging in the same manner towards you.

Most women don't wear lipstick like whores. They're trying to avoid the association. By the way- is colour the best point of association? That Schmuley doesn't attempt to avoid an association with Hitler and is shocked, as are many people, when someone does make that correlation, is mystifying to me.

You see? We are shocked about different things.

Again Dawkins is under no obligation to take responsibility for other people's allusions. He was very clear what the only point of correlation was and took pains to negate the connotations. Why can't you just be reasonable and accept that?

Saying "You're wife wears lipstick like a whore, but she's not one" (which was not in your original example) is surely better from an accuracy point of view than excluding the second phrase. Now go ahead and quote that in future posts...

People's primary concern is the implication that she IS a whore, right? Not just childish, irrational fear of an association (that happens to be true).

I think the "..."'s in your examples are meant to indicate an equality between the entities being compared.

Lipstick-wearing women=whores

Evolutionists=Nazis

These are, of course, egregiously dishonest, and demonstrate a critical difference that separates Dawkins from your examples.

In fact, Ben Stein giving his example is self-contradictory: that is the only thing he could be implying- That evolutionists are Nazis (some of them were I suppose- nonetheless a gross generalisation and false association) or that evolution at the very least is responsible for Nazism. It wasn't.

Ben Stein is a liar and an idiot.

Anyways, furthermore, if Dawkins does apologise, which he shouldn't, it will surely have the unfortunate effect of encouraging stupid people to wrongly conclude that freeing Schmuley from the association with Hitler frees him from the criticism of his inane ideas while ranting like Hitler, which of course is the reason he resorts to ranting in said fashion to begin with.

Make any comparison you like. Dawkins has made his, but Boteach will always, if we are doomed to be unlucky, fail to make sense, and use his present style of oration to cover it.

43. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177763 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 4:15 pm

SilentMike,

I'm simply saying our aim should not be to make people comfortable at the expense of truth. That is certainly in common between telling people God is not likely to exist, nor is heaven, and the fact that Boteach shrieks like Hitler.

And as for smearing by association- so what? The only thing being associated IS oratory style. You're making, as is everybody desperate to make a dent in Dawkin's armour, a mountaintain out of the molehill of irrelevance that is the rest of Hitler's character. So give it a rest, will you? It's irrelevant!

The best way to avoid "smearing by association" is to avoid being associable. Duh! Schmuley's a crybaby.

Could Richard have picked a better example? Perhaps. Hindsight is always 20/20. I feel the same way about a lot of my ex-girlfriends.

Orion:

I'm glad we agree. Instead of crying out loud and censoring ourselves from referencing people like Hitler, monster as he was, whenever we feel uncomfortable in the face of truth, why don't we wait for context, as in the context of "Schmuley shrieks like Hitler." Not to do so is irrational. Think about it. There's no reason to censor.

So... Schmuley shrieks like Hitler. Yeah? It's true- and it's not objectionable if you aren't making further superfluous, unwarranted associations. Dawkin's is a very simple, very literal, and limited statement. In no way is Dawkins associating any other aspects of the two men. Dawkins has used Hitler as his example, so use another if you want. Stop whining that he didn't, and stop making unconscious associations, or associations automatically, that aren't warranted!

We're supposed to be rational here!

Ooooh, I haven't stirred controversy here in a while!

44. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177695 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Tosser,

I didn't want to change my post now, but I meant to say the "possibility OF sobriety and sense" in your quote. Grrr! I hate gramatical and spelling errors on my part!

Anyways Richard is under no obligation to apologise. He is exercising his freedom of speech, and the act of demanding an apology is often an act of callous and condescending one-upmanship, which I think it is from Schmuley, and you as well, if you mean it.

He is also under no obligation to take responsibility for the allusions people infer from the reference to Hitler in addition to the stated one. In referencing him, Dawkins is clearly alluding to his oratory style. That people reflect upon gas chambers, the SS and other grotesqueries of Nazism upon hearing the word "Hitler" is no fault of his. So do we censor the word? Get real. It is simply wrong to blame Richard for people's further allusions. We all possess intellectual freedom, and take responsibility for this. Richard has been very clear and strict in outlining his single allusion, and consumers of the information have taken to corrupting by unnecessarily expanding it.

It's a poor way to receive and critique information.

45. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177686 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Ruggles,

There is a rather thick line separating passion and hysteria.

The tradition of the strong oratory style used by preachers predates the eminence of men like Boteach, King, and Hitler, as does the Church itself. Forceful delivery in itself could not be traced to Hitler's use of it. Hitler is not responsible for the strong style of speech and we would not refer to him for this reason.

One can delivery a speech as a preacher and retain your sobriety and sense. This is what King did.

Hitler is probably precedented in his delusion, and in fact insanity, athough the myth-based and pagan idiocy of Nazism would naturally have required delusion to believe.

Richard's remark is pejorative not because he evokes Hitler, but because I think it's obvious he dislikes how Schmuley communicates himself and his general comportment. Richard has made it clear that he believes that Schmuley has sensible things to say. They can be said calmly. Leave out the nonsense, concealed by the ranting and shrieking.

Why evoke Hitler? I will address your alternatives.

To suggest Schmuley's style is dicatorial is a mistake for two reasons. The first is that it leaves Richard exposed to being asked, "Well, would you say my style is akin, to say, Hitler?" in an attempt to utilise political correctness to scare Dawkins into answering no. Hitler is the most famous, feared, and villifed dictator in history, and whenever one thinks of the word, one think of him. He is the obvious strategic choice for a challenge. The second reason is that a dictatorial style does not denote by default raving and shrieking. If you're Stalin, just say what you want as you're not really an orator anyway, and shoot anyone who dissents. In fact, to indicate a dictatorial style is to imply a Hitlerian style- one is presumably indicating a predilection for fanaticism and lunacy. It's just people don't like to use the word "Hitler" or its derivatives. They don't really like to use the word "dictator" or its derivates either frankly.

To say Boteach's style is demagogic is to invite the possibility of sobriety and sense, as well as retaining the notion of passion- a la King.

A Hitlerian style is both dictatorial and demagogic, yet excludes the possibility and sobriety and sense. It is the best adjective to describe Schmuley's delivery.

Damn the fact that it makes people squeamish. It makes people squeamish to say God doesn't exist, and that they aren't going to paradise, unless the long odds are in their favour.

46. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177627 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 11:43 am

Ruggles,

Racial exclusivity, repulsive militant nationalism and agrarian romanticism are the content of Hitler's speeches. They are WHAT he said. They are the values Hitler publically and politically espoused.

Richard is strictly addressing HOW Hitler espoused them, and how Schmuley unwittingly draws the obvious comparison.

47. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177621 by DalaiDrivel on May 9, 2008 at 11:26 am

Re: Comment 64, by Adonais.

A good bit of consciousness raising there. Atheists DO get equated to Hitler incessantly, on the basis of our "faith" (*cough* sorry, something bitter in my mouth there...) which is surely as offensive as being compared to Hitler on the basis of oratory style.

And I will simply say that not referencing Hitler in describing Schmuley due to political correctness and the hurt-feelings card they play is distasteful to put it mildly to me, and a deliberately nod to inaccuracy. Hitler is the obvious comparison. Schmuley is a reknown shrieker. Hitler was an extraordinarily reknown shrieker. And hey, if Schmuley wants to shriek, then we ought to offer him the very best (and intrisically distasteful to him) example.

I think it's a weapon we shouldn't pass up. Make him play by our oratory rules by pitting his own contempt for Hitlerism against him.

With regards to my own person, I am tall, blond-haired, and blue-eyed. I'd have been Hitler's poster boy, and I've admitted it myself in the past. It seems to me by being both an atheist and western European in heritage, there is no hurt-feelings card I could play even if I chose to sink to such despicable depths. I'd spit in the face of the offer of representing Nazism, but such a comparison to Nazi ideology, and Nazi ideals, will not compel me to seek reconstuctive surgery.

Richard is advocating for Schmuley something far less painful:

Stop shrieking like Hitler, and you have an outside chance of having to say something more sensible than him as well.

48. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #177225 by DalaiDrivel on May 8, 2008 at 7:30 pm

I didn't know he was a born again.... God those people are unbearable.

And just to think- if he kept on drinking it might have disqualified him from holding political office...

But if he's not drinking, you might say he's had a few too many sermons, and the effect is the same.

It's futile to speculate. But one can still reflect warmly on the possibilities if things had been different.

49. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177197 by DalaiDrivel on May 8, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Dawkins is searing and succinct to a T. Schmuley does need to be more educated.

Remember his shrieking in the Hitchens debate, arms outstretched in theatrical disbelief: "Where are the transitional fossils?!! Where are they?!!"

Of course, they are buried (a few), or permanently deteriorated and recycled by Earth's systems. They are not with Schmuley's head, buried up his ass, which must be his point of reference.

The understated delivery of this "friendly piece of advice" is a work of good comedy in itself, more satisfying for the reader than brash, forceful comedy, the sort which Schmuley would serve up, which would be best described as overcooked.

The intelligent among us would watch an exchange between Richard and Schmuley, and observe a vacuum in effect, created by polarities in delivery. On one side you experience a measured economy of both words and volume leaving ample space to comprehend or respond, and dense explosions of irrating inanity on the other. And we would surely all be waiting on Dawkins in equal fascination and desperation, our attention drawn to the vacuum, until Schmuley self-destructs or someone with controlled calm (or not) says, "Excuse me, but could you please just shut up now?" We are seeking equilibrium, I think, because I honestly doubt that Schmuley is leaving any space to absorb what others might be telling him, and there needs to be calm and concise delivery from all commentators if they wish to sincerely participate.

We need more intelligent people to address Schmuley and others like him on their stupidity. Stupid people may hopefully be able to recognise after a proper demonstration that Schmuley is merely as stupid as they are, be able to break their own spell if we haven't, and see that in fact other people truly worth listening to exist.

Henceforth, the blustering rantings of uneducated commentators will diffuse, and the vacuum derived from the disparity between the statements of the intelligent and the stupid will do the same.

50. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #176744 by DalaiDrivel on May 7, 2008 at 11:45 pm

I must say, when Lawrence touched on quantum mechanics and the "Many Worlds" interpretation, investigating observation as a factor in determining event outcomes, and the infinite branches representing series of events in infinite other coexisting universes, I automatically developed a grin on my face.

How fascinating is this! Soon after watching and listening to that I was speaking, still spell-bound, to a friend, describing this exchange, and I was saying "This is what is so awesome and extraordinary about science! It's the stuff of dreams, the stuff of fantasy!"

And yet, critically, not. Things like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the electron passing between two slits simultaneously put our evolved brains in a blender! Such notions that are beyond our imagination and our ability to encapsulate are nonetheless real and hugely compelling to those in the pursuit of a fundamental understanding of the universe.

The universe is indeed stranger than we can suppose. How beautiful, how stupendous, how magnificent it is that we still come up with these serious yet sober ideas and investigate them rigorously.

I found this discussion stimulating, and the format effective. It was a meeting of two intelligent men with such evident mutual respect and amiability.