1. The battle of the butterflies and the ants

Comment #108057 by Macho Nachos on January 6, 2008 at 12:17 am

Jeremy Thomas needs to watch what he says in press releases.

"There's a lot of theory on this but there are very few practical examples"

2. The evolution of creationism

Comment #87913 by Macho Nachos on November 13, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Under their theory, it's quite reasonable the Intelligent Designer could be the green men from Mars, or hyper-intelligent slugs from the Planet Zorg.

3. Face to faith

Comment #82834 by Macho Nachos on October 28, 2007 at 1:54 am

"This wonder is different in quality from contemplative wonder, which does not undo but lets be. It involves a conception of science that extends knowledge but admits its limits. Some things are beyond its comprehension and remain intrinsically mysterious. Consciousness, morality and existence itself are obvious candidates - the things that the artistic, religious and moral imagination are so well equipped to ponder."

4. The Out Campaign

Comment #59768 by Macho Nachos on July 30, 2007 at 3:23 pm

ksskidude, good for you! While I'm not a big fan of the term 'bright', that's a really good letter, and writing it to your paper is a courageous move - just the ticket for the OUT campaign.

I'm off to fight the good fight against an IDer trying to preach at Australian universities tonight. I only hope I get the opportunity to make my voice heard, and hope that anyone in the audience who is wavering doesn't buy his tripe.

5. How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Comment #58660 by Macho Nachos on July 25, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Delete the last 4 paragraphs, and you have a decent article.

He doesn't address the problems he poses at the start at all. He just says "well, we don't know, but being faithful is good enough for me".

Job strikes me as an idiot. Why would you follow a God who put you through all that horrible hardship just to test you, then when he reveals himself at the end, says "you wouldn't understand."? At that point I'd put my middle finger square in his metaphorical face and tell him to send me to Hell so I never have to deal with him again.

6. Face to faith

Comment #57770 by Macho Nachos on July 21, 2007 at 1:09 am

Also on this comment: "There are good grounds for arguing, as Steve Bruce has done, that conservative religious groups are generally ineffectual in achieving their aims, whether through peaceful or violent means."

That's because they are generally unreasonable aims: I mean that literally. They are also often bigoted and defy both common sense and logic. It's just as well they don't get their way, because otherwise the whole world would be living under an oppressive theocracy. That may sound like hyperbole, but given the chance, what kind of highly conservative (read: fundamentalist) religious group WOULDN'T like to see everyone else follow their doctrine?

Also, just because they're ineffective in achieving their aims, it doesn't mean they don't make it a pain in the ass for reasonable people to debate, critique, legislate against, campaign, counter or (in violent cases) quell or clean up their efforts to bring the world in line with their fantasies and obsessions. You could say that totalitarian regimes are generally ineffective at taking over the world, but that doesn't mean they're not bad and cause trouble along the way.

7. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57332 by Macho Nachos on July 19, 2007 at 12:55 am

Oooh, this is going to get butchered.

My first thoughts, without much reasoned discussion:

1. Religions don't tend to live and let live. For example, on the Australian current affairs/debate show Insight, a religious person/people are always sitting near the front, butting in, talking over and imposing their religion's views in discourse over major issues such as stem cell research, abortion, gay rights and climate change. Religion imposes itself in the public sphere, which gives 'new atheists' the right to speak out against it.

2. If you don't broach the irrationality of faith and religion, then religious people aren't exposed to alternative, contradictory ideas to their faith and aren't forced to think about it and question it. Clearly if you're just flaming someone on the internet it won't have an effect, but I had a very large role when my cousin lost his religion through (sometimes heated) discussions over the course of several years. Surely, a person close to you earnestly posing questions about why you hold certain beliefs is a strong reason to trigger that all-important self-reflection and internal questioning that leads to loss of illogical faith.

3. Faith enjoys far too much unchallenged tiptoeing in the media and in general society. This is not fair, and is not a good state of affairs. As a scientist, this can have an indirect (or potentially direct) negative effect on the scientific establishment, method and my role in society.

4. Most atheists have lived and let live for a very, very long time. We are now in the 21st century, where scientific literacy is critical to the development of countries, let alone simple understanding of contentious issues. Sure, you can be a liberal religious type and be well informed in science; I'm not arguing that. However, kids brought up in a religious circle of influence (moderate or fundamentalist) aren't given the 'default alternative' - atheism - being religious is forced on them (the very thing that the author is railing against). Direct your rant against religious parents if you want an exercise in forcing beliefs onto others.

5. Atheism is not religion. Please wash your mouth out.

8. For Muslim Extremists, Religion Matters

Comment #54404 by Macho Nachos on July 6, 2007 at 10:35 pm

Well, black and white are only distinguishable because of God. You see, without light, there is no white, only black; you might say that, without God, white is black. Since God let there be light, God let there be the distinction, and if we recognise black and white as different, then we must accept God. Do you think black and white are different?

There, I'm sure that'd be able to convince a 5 year old kid.

9. In the name of the Father

Comment #51480 by Macho Nachos on June 23, 2007 at 5:10 am

"Most seriously of all, it hinders the alliance that should be forming between people of all shades of belief and unbelief in the basic struggle going on in every country for human rights, peace and economic justice against fanatics of all kinds."

Uhuh. And if the moderates don't realise that the fundies/fanatics are actually bad?

"Similarly, the philosophical arguments of Kant or Hume or Aquinas and the aesthetic judgments of Plato or Augustine can and ought to be considered in their own right, irrespective of the limitations of their scientific knowledge."

Haven't we heard this one before?

"The problem lies with us, especially when we are organised in groups with a dominant ideology, whether secular or religious."

YES! How can you write this and NOT realise that Hitchens is writing about the bad things done by people who follow organised group with a dominant religious ideology? It's a straw man to suggest that Hitchens thinks that without religion, there wouldn't be bad people, or that dogma would be a good thing. *sighs*

10. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46287 by Macho Nachos on May 30, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Kaiserkiss: This may be horribly shallow, but I think a lot of people believe what Hawking says even though they don't understand it because he speaks in a robotic voice and doesn't really appear to be emotional or 'fallible'. So, they extrapolate that he's unlikely to be wrong about what he's saying.

Well, that's just a theory (like Evolution...)

On the topic of people being shallow, though, I think image and charisma are major factors. In a world where soundbites make up most of the coverage an average person gets on a given issue, the superficial impression we get of the source of information could easily play a major role in the credibility we assign to that position.

That is to say, people are more likely to believe Dawkins on evolution than a guy wearing a leather jacket, with a shaved head and tatts. Sure that's an extreme example, but there's a continuum there, and I'm confident it has an effect, even if not a concious one.

11. The God question

Comment #43880 by Macho Nachos on May 23, 2007 at 3:21 am

A good, solid review, in my opinion. He summarised important main points correctly, had some mild criticisms, but I feel he represented the book well.

12. Evolution Opponent Is in Line for Schools Post

Comment #43178 by Macho Nachos on May 20, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Poor little blighters, really copping a thrashing from that face cancer right now :(

Back OT, I really am sick of seeing people spout crap about evolution. There was an article in Newscientist last week about people subconciously acting contrarily to something they perceive as having the potential to impinge on their freedom. Well, it isn't subconcious with religion; it's plain to see they want to stop people from thinking outside their cramped little box!

13. Huge rally for Turkish secularism

Comment #35969 by Macho Nachos on April 29, 2007 at 3:38 pm

It's another word for religion.

14. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #31922 by Macho Nachos on April 15, 2007 at 12:32 am

In addition to some of the other criticisms posted above (and I haven't read PZ's reply yet), I thought there was a glaring problem.

How do you convey evolution in a dumbed-down way and still do it justice? Sure, the basic theory is simple, like the basic theory of global warming. That's easy enough to convey. It's also easy for naysayers to pick holes in and misrepresent, which is exactly what happens. It's easy to say we need to rethink our approach and get these concepts across, but if people aren't willing to ante some time and thought to the table, we aren't going to get through to them.

A majority of the population have no interest in learning the theory of evolution in its forms, applications and complexity. Hence, they don't understand just how powerful an explanatory tool it is.

High-quality documentaries are awe-inspiringly beautiful, informative and well made - the Planet Earth series, for example - and yet they don't rate as well as Big Brother. Lots of people don't want to think.

Telling people what to think about certain issues, like global warming, doesn't do science justice. What it may achieve is affirmative action from those people. The danger is that simply believing what an 'authority' tells you is completely against what science aims for, rational, skeptical, objective enquiry. Bah.

15. The God Delusion is one of the Ten Best Audiobooks

Comment #31316 by Macho Nachos on April 12, 2007 at 2:16 am

Not quite as moving as Horrid Henry's Underpants, but close.

16. Dawkins vs Haggard: the Python Edition

Comment #29948 by Macho Nachos on April 5, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Very cleverly cut together. Nice work to the person who made the clip, and thanks for the link :)

If only it wasn't such a ridiculous issue in the first place.

17. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26309 by Macho Nachos on March 18, 2007 at 3:57 pm

I read up to here:

"about the horrific brutalities committed in the name of "scientific atheism" during the 20th century;"

Please tell me about ONE horrific brutality that was commited IN THE NAME OF "scientific atheism". Has anyone ever killed someone "in the name of the absence of god" or "for the pursuit of rational, evidence based truth".

I wish people like this wouldn't waste oxygen breathing.

On a less negative note, what are the tags needed to quote a passage in these comments?

18. 160,000-year-old jawbone redefines origins of the species

Comment #25494 by Macho Nachos on March 13, 2007 at 5:44 pm

I expect they'd start by saying that scientists can't agree, and that we keep getting it wrong and chopping and changing our estimates, and that theirs is the only constant answer, and we should teach the controversy.

Of course, the point of finding out the truth is the willingness to revise estimates based on new evidence. Science: it works, bitches.

19. Darwin's God

Comment #24068 by Macho Nachos on March 4, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Yorker: That was an exceptional call to arms! As an Australian, there's a strange phenomenon that the less educated - the 'yobbos' - are the most vocal against the subversion of Australian culture. There's plenty of apologists writing in to the papers decrying intolerance and advocating multiculturalism, but they get shouted down by people who recognise the potential problem.

ScienceBreath: Nor do I. I also wouldn't hesitate to put my hand in a box.

20. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23811 by Macho Nachos on March 2, 2007 at 10:28 pm

"Of course, there are many good things that he has to say. He does have a rather rough exterior, but having seen the balanced view of him (I go to LU), he's really not as terrible as the media makes him out to be. Yeah, sometimes I find myself cringing in convocation, but there are other times when he can be very inspirational."

OK, I've heard this kind of crap from religious people too many times. They defend lunatic statements of their leaders by claiming that some of their other opinions are more useful/good/valid.

@ the religious: If someone says something completely irresponsible, like Falwell has done here, don't continue to look up to them! Why take so much coal with the diamonds from a role model who is supposed to epitomise understanding and leadership on such issues? If a politician shared a majority of your view but vocally claimed that child molestation was something we should ignore, would you support them?

Gah.

21. Faith

Comment #23025 by Macho Nachos on February 25, 2007 at 11:51 pm

"...detects parallels between dogmatic believers and dogmatic unbelievers such as Hitchens and Dawkins. "It is not just in the rigidity of their unbelief that atheists mimic dogmatic believers. It is in their fixation on belief itself.""

This isn't entirely inaccurate. However, 'militant' atheists like Dawkins are fixated on belief because they feel the rational, moral imperative to point out the problems with faith. An equivalent is like saying Martin Luther King was fixated on racism. Being fixated on people being rational, stopping indoctrination, and promoting logic and questioning is not a BAD thing, as this sentence implies.

I've never heard of a militant atheist killing or harming anyone in the name of Atheism.

22. In praise of Darwin this Sunday ... in hundreds of churches!

Comment #21983 by Macho Nachos on February 12, 2007 at 3:35 am

Kimpatsu; not quite. It's more like 8 inches/20cm per minute, very roughly (assuming Everest is around 11km tall). Of course, that'd have to be uniformly covering the entire Earth at once. An umbrella would be less adequate than a submarine.

I was thinking this article was a joke. The line "As we posted this, over 10,200 clergy had signed this awful letter." doesn't seem... real. However, reading on, it was just sad. This person needs a straightjacket.

23. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21541 by Macho Nachos on February 9, 2007 at 10:19 pm

"They know that they can't prove that God is there, any more than an atheist can prove that there is no God."

Well no, we can't disprove a negative, but you most certainly can prove a positive to a level which is beyond reasonable doubt.

What I'd like to know is why religious people are so obsessed with finding meaning. They begin with the assumption that there is a meaning to their life and deride science because it can't answer an abstract question.

24. Atheists in Jail

Comment #19784 by Macho Nachos on January 29, 2007 at 11:38 pm

Yeah. At heart, I'm as intolerant as the most fundamentalist Christian, but I can't be bothered going to all the effort of prying into other people's lives, tormenting them, working my way into a position of influence to push my agenda, duping money from the gullible, and molesting small children.

Perhaps instead of Brights we should be called Lazys. Too lazy to believe in God, too lazy to try to control the world, too lazy to do all the horrible things our complete lack of morals allows us to do.

25. Deliver us from the god delusion that imperils our humanity

Comment #18137 by Macho Nachos on January 18, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Ha! Collingwood supporters are bastards, the notion that they're better than Carlton supporters is simply ridiculous.

That said, it's good to see some atheist messages showing up in the Australian media. We're a pretty free-thinking and laid-back country, but there has been an increasing amount of religious crap in the media (the stem cell debate just reared its ugly head, fortunately, we won). Bravo, David.

26. 10 Questions for Heather Mac Donald

Comment #17450 by Macho Nachos on January 13, 2007 at 9:16 pm

Interesting - I've never seen a piece by a non-religious conservative (well, openly, about some religious issues at least), and it's informed me about some of the view of yet another group out there.

It's strange, hearing the same arguments for atheism in such a different article - I found myself heartily agreeing in some areas, disagreeing in others, and completely ignorant of many of the personal references :p

27. For Human Eyes Only

Comment #17432 by Macho Nachos on January 13, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Cool! I enjoyed reading this article; it raises some interesting points. I think it's good to see some non-religious articles here; a breath of fresh air among the cloying stupidity often seen in the articles here!

WildCat raises an interesting point that it's possible that increased specificity of eye contact could in itself be a reproductive advantage. That wouldn't explain the initial development of an eye with whites, however.

28. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17111 by Macho Nachos on January 10, 2007 at 11:23 pm

I think the idea of torture is abhorrent. I agree with JohnC about the line in the sand.

If evaluated on a case-by-case basis on the need for torture, then in extreme scenarios, it can be seen as justified. However, the objectivity of the party doing the torturing is the problem. While you or I might perceive the prospect of a million people being killed as worth the sacrifice of one (or ten) people to torture, there are others who would consider much less, or very different, goals equally acceptable.

It's not something that should be in question. Deliberately inflicting severe pain on another human being is wrong. While in individual cases, people may take a step out of this boundary (in the same way a bystander might shoot someone on a killing spree), it should never be sanctioned.

29. Richard Dawkins' Report Card

Comment #17005 by Macho Nachos on January 10, 2007 at 4:10 am

Ha. That was funnier than the report cards. Nice work, mummymonkey.

30. Richard Dawkins' Report Card

Comment #17003 by Macho Nachos on January 10, 2007 at 4:09 am

I never knew that teachers have ever, ever put "He must learn that ink is for writing, not washing" onto a child's report card.

I'm sure the parents would have been delighted to be informed of this instead of their child's academic progress.

I wonder if they've been able to get a hold of GWB's reports...

31. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #16969 by Macho Nachos on January 9, 2007 at 10:52 pm

"But, according to Randerson, ID is not a science because "there is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID". Remind me, what is claimed of Darwinism? If, as an explanation for organised complexity, Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on ID."

I think this sums up his whole mindset, basically. Point out a criticism of ID. Then, level the same criticism at Evolution, without having refuted it for ID in the slightest, or any justification for why it works for evolution.

If we found a compelling case of a spontaneously designed organism, or an organism arising out of a completely different organism, then evolution would have some serious re-thinking to keep afloat. We haven't.

32. The New Atheists

Comment #16274 by Macho Nachos on January 5, 2007 at 7:18 pm

Logicel, I agree, Cox seems to be a little more reasonable than others who have spoken out against Atheism. He appears to be concerned about the current stance of the religious right (like we are!). However, he's fallen into the theologian intellectual chasm; distancing himself from the outcomes of practiced religion (whatever that may be; political, social etc), and attempting to defend religion itself as an abstract entity. It's not he religious he's defending, it's religion, which is a thankless and illogical pursuit if there ever was one.

Great to see a bit of coverage for the movement. It's certainly overdue.

33. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16271 by Macho Nachos on January 5, 2007 at 7:05 pm

"Anyone who has actually taught young people and listened to them knows that it is often the students who come from a trained sectarian background--Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, Mormon--who are best at grasping different systems of belief and unbelief."

Hrm. So his point is that if you're brought up religious, you are more likely to understand religion? Give the man a gold star. By this reasoning, students who come from a trained rationalist background would be best at grasping concepts such as logic, reason and evidence! Who'd a thunk it?

34. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16245 by Macho Nachos on January 5, 2007 at 5:18 pm

[quote]The faith that the new atheists describe is a simple-minded parody.[/quote]
Uh, no it isn't. It's the faith that a majority of 'believers' hold.

The vast majority of believers are NOT theologians. Atheists aren't trying to reach those deeply mired in a sea of insipid arguments (theologians), they're trying to appeal to people who haven't given their religion enough thought to dismiss it yet.

35. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #15937 by Macho Nachos on January 3, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Isn't it frustrating that the prevailing media environment is so keen for viewers or readers or controversy that they let nutballs like Pat Robertson up onto a public soapbox?

The guy's a fruitcake. If an omniscient being is telling him things, then it clearly should be 100% accurate.

I'll make some predictions for 2007; The conflict in Iraq will continue with occasional bouts of more severe fighting and no solid resolution in sight; Bush will veto a Democrat bill; I will receive a small stack of junk mail on June the 7th.

36. America's Holy Warriors

Comment #15773 by Macho Nachos on January 2, 2007 at 9:19 pm

And in other news, Cartman is now posting at the RD website.

Does the article smack to anyone else of a V for Vendetta scenario? I think it's an interesting perspective, but I also think that such an overthrow would be likely to plunge the country into civil war.

I'm unsure what to make of it. What do other people think? Radical conspiracy-theorist, or concerned citizen?

37. What are you optimistic about? Why?

Comment #15609 by Macho Nachos on January 1, 2007 at 3:07 pm

I'm afraid I don't share Dawkins' optimism. I'd like to think that it could happen, but such a task will surely require dozens of generations of study from where we are now, and it'll be fighting religion, wars, climate change, pollution etc. every step of the way.

38. Beliefwatch: Blasphemy (Challenge)

Comment #15607 by Macho Nachos on January 1, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Chayanov: But you didn't deny the Holy Spirit! I'm sure that if you let your statement stand as is, a theologian would come along and tell you that the Holy Spirit isn't supernatural, or a God. It's clearly an extranatural entity, so you haven't denied it properly.

39. Let's Hope It's A Lasting Vogue

Comment #15605 by Macho Nachos on January 1, 2007 at 2:59 pm

marinemammal, I think he is just being modest. It's some combination of the 2 factors (something that needed to be said, and the way it was said) that made the books so successful.

40. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13148 by Macho Nachos on December 15, 2006 at 10:29 pm

While I understand concerns about appearing crass and 'cheap', I think this is a useful tool. I'm a teenage male, and while I've already graduated from a Science degree and try to argue from an intellectual standpoint on religious issues, this looks to be a bit of fun.

It raises publicity, it gives out DVDs that might reach a new audience, and it hits a demographic that may not (generally) be exposed to atheism in any meaningful way (South Park really handled the whole affair with 'we don't want to take a stance' hands, IMO).

41. Comets hold life chemistry clues

Comment #13145 by Macho Nachos on December 15, 2006 at 8:46 pm

Well on our way to chasing the God of the Gaps out of another part of the universe, I see! Excellent work by the scientists, very interesting results. Anything that might help to explain the origin of life is fascinating.

42. Faith's Last Gasp

Comment #12609 by Macho Nachos on December 12, 2006 at 9:06 pm

I agree with the above comments. It's optimistic, and it might not come to pass, but we can bloody well hope so :) I think in many ways atheism is one of the 'minority groups getting coverage', which is a good thing, because it promotes an alternative to _all_ the other minority (and majority!) groups - you don't have to be/do anything to be atheist! Do what you want! Don't pigeonhole yourself! It's a liberating prospect.

43. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12577 by Macho Nachos on December 12, 2006 at 3:48 pm

A troll is someone who posts a deliberately controversial or offensive (or downright stupid) viewpoint simply to provoke a response.

They generally aim to tread on the toes of the site's core audience, or failing that, as many people as possible.

I think the feature is great! Thanks Josh.

44. Book answers the atheists' prayers

Comment #11985 by Macho Nachos on December 9, 2006 at 12:58 am

It's a glowing review all right, and about time. However, I don't agree that TGD was as powerful as the reviewer portrays it. (Hyperbole perhaps in paragraph 5?)

I think it's more of a personal thing tbough; the book did a very good job at attacking/debunking religion, and I take nothing away from that, but I didn't feel the 'wonder' of some of Dawkins' other works. I suppose it's because it's predominantly a negative book, where others are more constructive.

It's good to see a review so positive, because it might inspire even more people to read it. Also, it serves to balance the rabidly illogical critiques.

45. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #11984 by Macho Nachos on December 9, 2006 at 12:45 am

David A Robertson, I'm really disappointed in you. See, my name is David Robertson. (I registered the account, but my verification email didn't arrive so it's inactive, which is probably why you've included the 'a'). Between you, and the Irish pastor (unless you're the same person), you're giving 'David Robertsons' a bad name.

Go back to your fundie hole. It was a joke. It is funny. It mocks the widely held irrationality that many people cherish. If it chafes because it hits too close to home, don't whinge here. In case you haven't visited the forum, or other threads around here, there is far more intelligent discussion on this website than on the vast majority of other internet sites (as far as I've seen, including religious ones. If you can correct me, feel free).

The religious, anti-evolution equivalent of this video is in Borat. People who have seen the movie will know what I mean.