1. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #188333 by Zappi on June 4, 2008 at 12:40 am

Deuterium + Deuterium generates Helium-3 + 1 neutron. It's all too convenient that these guys do not expect neutrons postulating Helium 4 as a result. They don't say anything about amounts of energy released which seems to me, based on the description, pretty easily generated by physico-chemical effects.

Besides, all fusion will be emitting gamma rays, which should also be detectable. Unfortunately there is no mention to these either.

For those that do not know tabletop fusion is possible, practical, and indeed there are commercial devices that are used to generate neutrons based on this same reaction (D + D -> He3 + n). What has not been achieved is a fusion method that generates more energy that it consumes. See it here

2. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177848 by Zappi on May 9, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Ok, unfortunately I'm not a theologian, so I cannot express any opinion whatsoever related in any way with religion. That's sad. If I only knew, I would have spent years taking Theology in a reputable institution, just to make sure nobody would complain if I say that religion is rubbish.

Regarding the Pope, It's easy to notice that he steps out of his field quite often, tackling human reproduction, morality, and recently even genetic engineering. Not to mention when he starts talking about cosmology or about charity. Oh well. Double standards everywhere.

Regarding the bad name given to atheism by Richard Dawkins, I would rather be associated with it. Strangely Mr Ratzinger did not give his religion a bad name when he defended quite recently the condemnation of Galileo.

3. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93019 by Zappi on December 2, 2007 at 1:49 am

D'Souza is no idiot. His discourse is however designed to fool idiots.

What got D'Souza disturbed in this debate wasn't Dennett's argumentation - against which he would be shielded - but the reaction of the audience.

The cold skeptical reaction destroyed D'Souza because he is used to talk to people that would happily prefer to deny their own intelligence just to be able to absorb religious dogma.

4. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48943 by Zappi on June 9, 2007 at 5:04 pm

I was thinking again about

For the great strength of religion is that it creates communities, and its great weakness is that it divides communities.

It surely creates communities by dumbing down people. Telling them they are the "God's chosen people" and don't letting them turn a light switch in the Shabat doesn't make them smarter but it creates a comforting sense of togetherness, a ridge between the ones that fear god's fury for turning switches and the ones that find this outrageously ridiculous.

When it comes to associate with other people I'd rather choose my own friends, thanks.

It follows then that the great strength of religion is its capacity of dumbing people down. The weaknesses, well, read Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens or any newspaper, if you are still able to think for yourself.

I realize that I am simply unable to respect someone whose job is to fool people. It's against my principles.

5. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48923 by Zappi on June 9, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Atheism is different. It is a form of protest.

I totally disagree. I was always an atheist but did not challenge the faith of my colleagues before Dawkins' book. What the rabbi probably means is "militant atheism".

For the great strength of religion is that it creates communities, and its great weakness is that it divides communities

This is very true. I dispute however the sincerity of his words when he comes to the question

can we love, not hate, the people not like us?

I've seen the extraordinary resistance in Jewish families, even very secular ones, if a son or daughter wants to marry "Goyim" which is the "them" from a Jewish perspective. By defending his own religion he will be always in effect strengthening the us and them divide, turning his call into a mere rhetorical plea.

6. Scientists Draw Link Between Morality And Brain's Wiring

Comment #43260 by Zappi on May 21, 2007 at 3:05 am

I wonder if there is any relationship between this kind of brain damage and Alexithymia. An alexithymic displays normal behaviour but is incapable of expressing his emotions verbally or processing emotions at a conscious level and therefore acts in an emotionally somewhat weird way if judged by a normal person. Alexithymics are unable to express their own internal emotional states, even to themselves. In this sense, they are unaware of their own feelings, mistaking them sometimes with physiological sensations.

7. Christians and atheists start a calmer dialogue

Comment #40316 by Zappi on May 14, 2007 at 5:44 am

This is probably the atheist's version of "selling your soul to the devil"... Being paid to go to church? To help attract non-believers?

It is, to say the least, morally wrong. But I guess there are some mercenary that call themselves atheists out there.

Reading some posts of his "friendly atheist" blog it looks like he defends profound religious knowledge in atheists. This is, to say the least, strange. Since religions had created a horrendous volume of writings through their theologians, whose sole purpose is to confound and make people fall in their semantic traps, I wonder what amount of time and effort would require an atheist to learn this disgusting stuff.

I bet there is something else going on there, and I am not a typical conspirationist.

8. Brazil Greets Pope but Questions His Perspective

Comment #39475 by Zappi on May 10, 2007 at 8:15 pm

Pewkatchoo,

What you say is not true. Curitiba has a population of about 1.5 million and has more than 500 murders per year.

The result is a murder rate of 33 people / 100,000 /yr which is a huge number.

Curitiba is not much better than any other place in Brazil in regards to crime rate.

It is true however that some areas in Rio register murder rates of over 100 per 100,000 per year and there is absolutely no international repercussion, although the murder rates in Brazil are already shifting the male/female ratio in Brazil. Most victims are males.

Since 1980 there were almost 1 million murders in Brazil. Situation is not getting any better. Murder rates have more than doubled in this 25 year period.

9. Brazil Greets Pope but Questions His Perspective

Comment #39062 by Zappi on May 9, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Murder in Brazil is on the rise. About 65000 (sixty-five THOUSAND) people were reported murdered last year alone. This makes Brazil worse than any zone of war, perhaps excluding African countries.

The level of literacy in Brazil is extremely low. People have two religions, according to latest polls: at least 16% of the population goes to two different and incompatible churches. Many belong to distorted African cults (candomblé) and hold so many superstitions that would make medieval Europe look like a secular place.

Very few people are real catholics, but "just in case" they have their kids baptized an get buried according to catholic traditions.

Literally no one would follow the catholic dogmas about sex and the Pope's visit is more like a fun event than anything else.

I would say Brazil is a last resort hope for the Vatican, since Islam is not represented there at all. However, evangelic cults have a strong presence in the population at large and will almost certainly prevail.

The God Delusion wasn't translated to the Portuguese language. I would suggest that Richard makes this a priority!!! Brazil is a country that badly needs a bit of rationality.

10. Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Comment #34931 by Zappi on April 25, 2007 at 3:39 pm

I don't think science is hard to teach because humans aren't ready for it, or because it arose only through a fluke, or because, by and large, we don't have the brainpower to grepple with it. Instead, the enormous zest for science that I see in first-graders and the lesson from the remnant hunter-gatherers both speak eloquently: A proclivity for science is embedded deeply within us, in all times, places and cultures. It has been the means for our survival. It is our birthright. When, through indifference, inattention, incompetence or fear of skepticism, we discourage children from science, we are disenfranchising them, taking from them the tools needed to manage their future.

Carl Sagan in "The Demon-Haunted World"

A child raised in a religious environment with fear of daemons and despising critical thinking had his/her tools taken already. Behaviour is so important? What about lobotomizing children?

Long live Carl Sagan!

11. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34691 by Zappi on April 25, 2007 at 12:01 am

"His" religion certainly does not treat the disposal of embryos as a heinous crime. He works with IVF - In Vitro Fertilization and he certainly had to destroy thousands of human embryos through his career.

What is his opinion about the religions that view him as a criminal? Is he ok with it?

12. Medicine without Evolution Make Sense?

Comment #32683 by Zappi on April 18, 2007 at 2:40 am

Although Paul O'Higgins thought a comparison of the brachial plexus to the pentadactyl limb was helpful, not all his students agreed—complaints were lodged that he was forcing evolution on them. That lack of support was also reflected in the participation of only three medical students at the York meeting (albeit enthusiastic ones), despite being widely publicized. It is not clear whether this is because medical students are more overburdened than most or because of a more deep-rooted resistance to the subject, reflecting wider political and religious prejudice against evolution.

This is so deeply troubling that deserves further attention. Is there really a significant resistance to the subject among medical students?

13. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31277 by Zappi on April 11, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Science can still be too narrow to explain everything, but we are working quite successfully on it. The problem with the Pope and his god is that they are too wide to explain anything at all.

14. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30441 by Zappi on April 8, 2007 at 3:54 am

You can see how influential atheism has become by noting how the media and academia deal with traditional faith. A recent New York Times Magazine cover story detailed the big debate among academic psychologists: Did God-centered religion evolve in prehistoric man as a useful adaptation or as a surprising byproduct of other evolutionary processes? The possibility that it developed in response to a living God was not considered.

This is so interesting... I had a theory about it as well and did not considered a "living" deity. The idea was that the evolution of religion had as driving force the need to overcome grief to cope efficiently with the loss of loved relatives. Check out here: Topic 1 and here:Topic 2

15. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29480 by Zappi on April 3, 2007 at 4:08 am

one Sunday when I elected to listen to Dawkins on my iPod rather than go to church, I managed to fall into the swimming pool, thus rendering my iPod waterlogged and useless.

Coincidence? Dawkins would say it was just me being clumsy.

I'd say that her clumsiness has deep psychological roots. After a life of religious indoctrination, how come she was skipping Sunday's service to listen to Dawkins, a blasphemous atrocious and scary ATHEIST, and almost being convinced that there is no god? Does that sin carry no guilt? Of course it would...

I'm an optimist, however. I think she might be getting cured. Almost.

16. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #27068 by Zappi on March 23, 2007 at 4:23 am

The ruling by Judge Datz-Winter is unusual because she cites the Koran. I assume that her intention was to raise awareness to what amounts to be an impossible task: embracing "multiculturalism" and preserving human rights at the same time.

17. In Lice, Clues to Human Origin and Attire

Comment #25287 by Zappi on March 11, 2007 at 5:39 pm

I hope the reconstruction takes in consideration the possibility that the gorillas got their lice from humans. I do not think human precursors were having daily showers 3 million years ago.

DNA wouldn't be enough to determine this. Did anybody ever found fossilized lice in a state good enough to be identifiable?

18. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #25047 by Zappi on March 9, 2007 at 10:26 pm

I felt uneasy about this video and for this reason decided to watch it again. After studying it a little, I decided it is a masterpiece of religious methods of indoctrination.

The video begins with a cant in a very interesting tone while the video was showing these lines: "In the Name of Allah the Most Merciful the Most Compassionate". If you speak Arabic, the words would resound in your brain, and if you have been brought up in the Muslim world the effect would be even stronger.

Then there is a pause, absolutely no sound for 23 seconds. During this pause they show a good looking and well groomed fellow. Notice that our brain is still longing for sound, expecting something to be said after being awakened by the Arabic chant. "Thoughts on the Science Delusion", and the good looking fellow starts talking about what is "out there", in contrast with an implicit "in here" which would probably represent the faithful.

Notice that he avoids confrontation with the listeners, he only talks about obvious stuff, always something people would have difficulties in denying straight away.

With a somewhat scornful smile, he starts talking about "One of the things that there is out there right now", and then he shows a hint of disguised hatred when he pronounces the words "God Delusion". All of this is intentional, and very well done. His voice is not nearly as tense when he says "Letter to a Christian Nation", the peak of hatred was reserved for Dawkins book. Notice the ups and downs in anger shown by Mr Yusuf. This rhythmic oscillation appeals very strongly in a subliminal level to people that listen in good faith, waiting to hear something interesting from that guy they saw in the picture a few seconds earlier.

Now he goes on to "destroy" Dawkins book by saying that is all about taking the "best of science" and comparing it with the "worst of religion". To the simple-minded guy this would make a lot of sense, for two reasons. First of all, his audience does not understand anything about science at all and Mr Yusuf knows it perfectly well. To most of his listeners this argument makes perfect sense: for them "science" and "religion" are just incompatible explanations of the world. Since most don't understand science, religion remains as the only available explanation. He uses scarce 20 seconds to do this.

Then he starts with the Mohammad Ali comparison, for 30 seconds. This is just to fix in their listeners mind the "truth" he just said about the unfair comparison brought by Dawkins book.

After that he consolidate his point by "proving" there is bad science talking about some eugenics idea that poor should be sterilized. Guess what, most of his listeners would be poor, and the ones that are not would be really shocked by the idea. He won again, he "proved" that there is bad science. He continues to the Nazi, universally accepted as evil, saying something on the eugenics and "science" behind of the killing of Jews.

Notice that Mr Yusuf always is certain of everything, and all the points he makes are very obvious to casual listeners. Compare that with any scientist speaking, and you will see some pondering, doubt, uncertainty. The listener that is longing for "truth" will naturally prefer someone like Mr Yusuf, and will agree with his arguments.

After he briefly mentioned eugenics, he took on to what I think is another masterpiece: he kidnapped the ecologists into supporting him, by comparing biblical field rotation with the high tech agriculture. Needless to say he neglected to say that modern agriculture is what increased yields 10 fold or more. Then he goes on to the gruesome comparison with the woman that is permanently pregnant. Everyone would agree this is abhorrent!! He spends more than a minute talking about agriculture, mostly lies, but in a way that seems perfectly reasonable to a common man, concerned with the environment.

He never uses any metaphor to show the bad side of religion, but he keeps saying that it exists, to give himself credibility. Very smart indeed.

Then he drops another bomb, he "proves" that all the massacres of the 20th century have nothing to do with religion. He takes about 25 seconds in that argument. Again, when he drops a bomb, then he spends some time afterwards to "consolidate" it by repetition of arguments that are reasonable, but unrelated to the point he made. He spend another amazing 90 seconds repeating obvieties about animal behaviour, and sneaking "daemons" in his discourse.

At the end he concludes, briefly, that religions are good, but "we are failing our religions".

Notice that people tend to accept as true something that is surrounded by truth, and this is the reason he spends so much time saying things like "I have never seen a dog that doesn't behave like a dog" and so on.

I would like to make my own comparisons. If Goebbels was the genius of Nazi propaganda, this Mr Yussef is the genius of Muslim propaganda. We should learn something from his technique to be able to better counter attack.

19. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24972 by Zappi on March 9, 2007 at 2:46 pm

After so many centuries of theologians playing with words, it comes to me as no surprise that somebody comes up with something like this. Notice that he spends more time talking about Mohammad Ali and about rabbits, dogs, donkeys and pigs than getting to the real point.

When he really gets to the point and concludes that "we are failing our religions", there is still a lot of explaining to do, like "how" are we failing our religions and of which religions and sub-sects is this fellow talking about. If "we" are failing the Koran, I question myself how would be the world if we were actually following that book, or any other of the senseless bloody tales that came in the name of faith.

20. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24490 by Zappi on March 6, 2007 at 10:00 pm

I specially liked this passage:

...isn't an orthodox Mormon, but he's a very thoughtful person,...

This explains a lot about the author, doesn't it?

21. Response to Orr

Comment #21966 by Zappi on February 12, 2007 at 2:04 am

What a nice answer!!! I wish I could control my basic instincts the way Dennett does...

By the way, I'm currently reading "Consciousness Explained" and I'm enjoying it immensely.

Thank you Daniel!!

22. The God Delusion

Comment #21755 by Zappi on February 11, 2007 at 1:42 am

What amazes me is that Orr considers himself a thinker but he doesn't even understand the letter from Dennett. His answer is anchored in a mere game of words. Not a single argument from Dennett was rebutted. I suspect his answer and the "microdiscipline of philosophical theology" are based just in rhetorical games.

23. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21576 by Zappi on February 10, 2007 at 1:06 am

Imagine for a moment that you took the wrong path when you were young. Imagine that you decided that there was nothing more sublime than pursuing a career in Theology, for there was, you thought, nothing more interesting than understanding God Himself.

Imagine also that, many years later, it becomes clear to you that God does not exist. That means that all of your career and all your studies have been in vain. You've studied a subject that makes no sense.

Don't you think we should forgive somebody that is caught up in such a desperate situation? Can you put yourself in his shoes? Don't you see how difficult it must be for someone in this state to try to make sense of the world? Poor guy.

I would recommend that funds should be set aside to start an institution to help people that happen to be in such a sad and hopeless situation.

24. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20467 by Zappi on February 2, 2007 at 6:56 pm

The most delightful feature of this video is that it constitutes a proof that religious seem to believe fundamentalism is always somewhere else.

"I believe literally in the Bible"... but I'm not a fundamentalist.

I'll concede that Ms "God is Love" seems to think there is something wrong with fundamentalism...

To the Jewish guy I'd recommend the movie "Kadosh" about fundamentalist Jews. Wait a minute, when he was confronted with the subject, every contortion of his body denounced clearly he knows jewish fundamentalism too well...

25. Benny Hinn examined

Comment #19766 by Zappi on January 29, 2007 at 8:47 pm

What I liked in this video was that it was done by people that were not attacking religion per se but at the same time there were several hints at the unfairness of the tax exemption given to religion. This is a progress...

Any religious organization must undergo all the controls usually applied to a public company. After all, how they spend is not just "God's business". How could we otherwise guarantee that there is no misuse of the money in "charities" that buy weapons, there is no disguise of personal wealth under a religious veil, or that plain money laundering activities are not taking place?

26. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18937 by Zappi on January 23, 2007 at 6:57 pm

This debate was a rather explicit illustration of why religious don't want faith to be questioned.

27. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18805 by Zappi on January 23, 2007 at 3:51 am

Comment #18719 by wallace on January 22, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Zappi

I think you are forgetting that without poor people, there would be no wealth.

It depends what you mean by "poor". If by "poor" you mean miserable, I totally disagree. The poor are outside of the consumer market and they barely produce at all. If you take a review of Economics specifically the concept of comparative advantage, you'll notice that the poor countries profit relatively more from free trade than the rich ones.

The rich would not have any money without workers and consumers. Have you read stuff like "Confessions Of An Economic Hitman", or indeed any recent history of rich nations exploitation of the third world?

Here you seem to be repeating the Marxist belief that wealth cannot be created, only distributed. It is not true. It was shown long ago that it doesn't work like that.

If America is so interested in freedom of association, why did it support Saddam Hussein all through the 80's? Could it be that it was not interested in freedom of association, but simply maximising the wealth of a select few individuals? If you're supplying arms and diplomatic support to a tyrant, it seems to me theres only one answer. America's support of dictators is shameful. Who's interests are they serving? Did the American people want to support Saddam? Maybe, just maybe it was Big Oil that wanted Saddam in power.

I agree with the criticism of American foreign policy. It's really evident what America was trying to do there. However, I cannot agree with Chomsky when he implies something in the lines of: "America is wrong, therefore the alternative is better". This is by no means true and I've seen Chomsky ending up defending the most ignorant and corrupt regimes based on that rational. He's an hero for Hugo Chavez and other corrupt Latin Americans. Does it make sense?

Scientific progress is, in the vast majority of times, funded by the government. Most scientific enquiry has no market value as such and is therefore useless to the business world.

Government can help but there is no way to defend your affirmation that scientific progress is useless for business.

How come the richest nation on earth has the worst infant mortality rate of any western nation? Is universal healthcare something that the majority of people truly do not want? Its almost like, the governments thinking is being influenced by private investors who make billions from healthcare, and not influenced by the millions of uninsured people of America, noit to mention the millions more who want universal healthcare. Who's interests are being served?

If this is true, it's certainly shameful. I am not disputing this fact.

What do you mean at Chomsky's times? He's alive right now. And let me assure you, wealth very much belongs to people. Maybe not in the same sense that gold did, but try telling any billionaire that they dont have any money, or that its actually yours, and see what the reaction is.

I meant that we are way beyong the "gold standard" that was current when Chomsky was young. Wealth now is information, intelligence, speed, enterpreneurship and knowledge. It's no longer "things". Please take time to read "The world is flat" by Friedman to get a sense of what I'm talking about.

28. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18787 by Zappi on January 23, 2007 at 2:23 am

Comment #18658 by AJ Rae on January 22, 2007 at 8:44 am

The Human Development Index of Chile is heavily dependant on GDP. The other factors don't even beat Cuba. In my opinion GDP, especially when the vast majority is going to a small percentage of people, does not help the overall population as much as you imply it does.

You should study the economy and history of Latin America countries. Chile is (currently) the envy of L.A. but everybody wants to flee from Cuba.

Just as an example, mortality of pregnant women in Chile is 1/20th of the mortality in Brazil. The Human Development Index of Chile is high despite the relatively low GDP per capita, in international standards. Chile is a currently a democracy and Cuba is a closed communist regime with no freedom of expression.

I've spoken to several chileans that lived in Chile during Pinochet's regime, some of them very opposed to him, and most concede that his economical policies were not that bad.

29. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #18773 by Zappi on January 22, 2007 at 11:34 pm

Comment #by k1mgy

He uses the term "deluded" and even evoked the same experience with young persons as does Dr. Dawkins: "they come up to me and thank me", Dennett says.

Is he riding in the furrows already scribed by the hard-charging RD? Perhaps so.

Quite the opposite. This interview was made well before The God Delusion. The date of the google video is March 4, 2006 and Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" was released much earlier (February 2, 2006) than TGD.

30. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18723 by Zappi on January 22, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Well, Andrew, it's time for you to give up. You don't even begin to answer Sam's points.

If you came back in to say that fundamentalism is OK, you're out of control, mate. Either you know better than this or you're a disguised one yourself. Oops... I think the word "lying" applies to this one.

31. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #18709 by Zappi on January 22, 2007 at 2:55 pm

If Dawkins is excellent to take atheists out of the closet, Dennett works wonders to attract moderate religious to the rational side. Two different "market segments" but a single goal.

Excellent interview, it's the first time I got to see Dennett doing his magic, or, as he likes to say, "doing his tricks".

32. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18584 by Zappi on January 21, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Comment #18569 by wallace
Zappi

Pinochet hardly brought about the freedom of association you claim.

I never claimed that. Pinochet cancelled the freedom of association from the beginning of his rule. He was a dictator. I know he murdered thousands and I think this is a crime. However the malnutricion was there before Pinochet and the economy in Chile improved during his rule. Any economist will corroborate that. Currently Chile is a civilized democracy. If you take a look at history (and talk to a few Chileans) you will notice that situation under Allende was far from nice. Corruption was at staggering levels and different groups, some Cuban inspired, were trying to use democracy to undermine it. Terror attacks were blamed at the ultra-rights and leftist guerrillas. Economy was stagnant. In such a mess, it is really difficult how a weak government could fix things. Allende was extremely weak and surrounded by incompetent aides.

Not to mention the fact that during the worst times the Chilean government was supported by the copper mines, which were still governemnt owned. Do you applaud Hitler for turning Germany's economy around and fighting off communism?

No. However I'm not being revisionist of Chile, if that is what you want to imply by mentioning Hitler. Again, I believe Pinochet was a criminal and he was not properly tried for his crimes. However, the situation in Chile was far from good at all. Economically and politically, the country is in order now. Situation could be much worse for Chileans at this moment.

Canada is higher up than America on the standards of living league. While America's average wages, adjusted for inflation, sit round about the level they were at in the 1950's, the ammount of million and billionaires America has produced just grows and grows. The only reason America's average wages look as high as they do is because the numbers are dragged up by the number of billionaires. Clearly the American economy is being run to benefit a select few people.

I don't believe that. It is easy to blame rich people for the poverty in the world. What people tend to forget is that all investment comes from rich people, all employment, wealth generation, scientific progress. If we equate everybody at, say, Cuban levels of income (around 3,000 US/year) I would safely guess that economic and technological progress are pretty impossible. Don't blame the rich. Thank them for investing. A world with no rich people would be... poor. Very poor indeed.

America, and by extension the rich countries of the world either need a poor third world for cheap labour, or they need cheap labour from their own countries. Seeing as some "awful" labour laws are still in place in America, then the third world is where America will have to go. Every nation cant be rich. Or if they are, then there has to be a majority of people living in poverty in order for free markets to be able to maximise profits. Corporations just wouldnt be able to function without either a)cheap labour and b)governemnt handouts.

Its funny you mention the air we breathe. Do you also think global warming is a scam invented by liberal scientists? Or is it the result of destructive corporations acting as they please?

I'm all for societies being more free and open, but if thousands of people need to die to create any changes then something is wrong.

I think every nation can be rich. Wealth is a different concept now than it was at Chomsky's times. Wealth now is not like gold in the sense that it belongs to someone. However, it is necessary to achieve a certain level of education for wealth generation to be consistent among nations. There is a lot of work to be done for it to become a reality.

33. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18562 by Zappi on January 21, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Comment by AJ Rae

I seriously doubt that, with cuts to healthcare, and other social services, and a decline of income for the lower classes wages. The top 20% recieving 85% of the GDP growth. Foreign debt rising by 300%. The course Pinochet took would not be considered positive to many.

Today, very few Chileans enjoy that highest per capita income, because the distribution of wealth is behind all but Brazil in South America. Chile has voted in a Socialist, and it's no wonder.

I think your data is skewed. Chile is close to Argentina in Human Development Index (UN 2006) and is steadily going up. I believe Chile is going to surpass Argentina in a couple of years. Chile's economy is agile and friendly to investment and I have no doubts that during Pinochet time there was a huge improvement in this area.

The current president is socialist, but in the civilized sense. I have absolutely nothing against her and I think some social sensibility is needed to help lift the ones that live in the poorest end.

It is sad that Pinochet was a dictator but Chile is enjoying prosperity because he took out of the picture the chaos and widespread corruption coming from the different sects of communists fighting to get the grip of power. I believe that in a couple of years from now it will become clear what the communist oriented policies will achieve in countries like Brazil, for example.

34. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18552 by Zappi on January 21, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Comment by Luthien
With regard to private property, many people in Latin America, Africa, and even in the USA are so poor they do not actually have "private property". I see nothing wrong with them organising themselves into what you would probably call a "socialist" co-operative to protect their interests. They quite literally have nothing to lose.

Clearly we need a sensible balance between protecting the vulnerable and allowing capitalism free reign, because so many countries are not playing fair.

I agree with you. However the way people are organizing themselves in South America to invade farms and even receiving government money for that purpose is not the same as freely organizing to make a 'social' co-operative. They also take activities to indoctrinate their members and invade and destroy public buildings and banks to make their point clear. Because they are considered a 'social' movement, law is not enforced upon their crimes. Don't you see any resemblance to the special status religions get? It is really similar.

Again, I believe many countries don't play a fair market game, and this should be fought. That being said, South American countries biggest liability lies in the interest locals politicians and religious leaders have in preserving people's ignorance and indoctrination. With such ground rules, no country would be able to compete even if everyone else was playing fair.

35. Skyway to Heaven

Comment #18544 by Zappi on January 21, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Although the legend of not pairing Christians might seem absurd, I would personally prefer to fly in a plane where at least one pilot wouldn't mistakenly take a cabin depressurization event as a sign of imminent rapture.

36. Zeus devotees worship in Athens

Comment #18539 by Zappi on January 21, 2007 at 4:25 pm

It's interesting to see how degenerated Father Efstathios reacted. These Hellenistic have got potential, it seems.

It seems to be difficult to get rid of religion and people's eagerness to have more religions makes the problem clearer. On the other hand, setting up more cults couldn't help our cause? Isn't this a version of Aesop's "divide and conquer"?

http://www.mythfolklore.net/aesopica/oxford/493.htm

37. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18530 by Zappi on January 21, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Comment #18526 by wallace on January 21, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Zappi

Yes. Pinochet was a great defender of liberty and freedom of expression. Do you really want me to list every South and Central American dictator with blood on their hands who supported "free market" ploicies?

You are totally right about Pinochet being a tyrant. He killed and tortured tens of thousands. However he countered the communist mentality prevalent in Allende's time and today Chile is the most prosperous country in South America. Highest per capita income, best standard of living of whole South America. Many Chileans will easily concede that although Pinochet was a dictator, he corrected the course of Chile so people can enjoy the benefits today.

And no, you may not call it natural market forces. America makes billions every year from arms sales, and who pays for the parts, the labour, the research, etc? The American taxpayer. Do they see any of the profit? Not a bit.

This is not true. A good part of the labor force in America is directly or indirectly related to the military industry. Americans profit from it by having one of the highest average incomes in the whole world. It is true that arms sales profit from unstable countries, and it's probably true that American policies would give a little help to such countries to become even less stable, just because this is on their interest. But again, America is not the cause of all evil in the world.

The internet was created by the American military on the taxpayers dollar. Taxpayers dollars went into "research" that helped American computer systems stay ahead of other countries. Without the taxpayer, Microsoft would not have able to exist. The American government handed out the technology and research about the internet to private companies who then proceeded to charge the American public.

I'm in Australia right now. I could have been in Kuwait or Kazakhstan and it would make no difference. We are communicating and we are enjoying the benefits of this technology that, according to you, was paid by the American taxpayers. If it is true, I'm pretty sure the American taxpayers won back many times over just by enjoying the benefits of such marvelous technologies. I still remember when an international phone call was charged at rates of several dollars per minute and we had to prebook the call with an operator (yes I'm that old...). It is easy to oversee the benefits that everyone is enjoying now, transparently and seamlessly, so much so as not to notice it, just in the way we don't notice the air our respiration depends on.

The American Airline business is protected from the free market by the American government. They hand out billions to keep them afloat. Corporate American farms can grow what they like, knowing that anything they dont sell will be bought by the American government. No free market there. If the free market is so "right" and "natural", how come it wouldnt survive without taxpayers money?

I don't think the free market is "right". I believe it's "natural" in the sense of self-adjustment and reduction of inequalities. There are several diversions from free market that probably make it unfair, but on average it is pretty much free. If you look at the markets in South America, everything is being controlled by the State and unions that are aligned with federal government. In Brazil more than 40% of the GDP is already in the hands of the state and this percentage is growing. It's becoming even difficult to imagine how to survive without having a government job of some sort, and this is the way the communist mentality works. At the same time overall economy shrinks. From your perspective, it might be all related to US foreign policy, but in fact the amount of stupidity and misery generated by bad economic decisions, corruption, concentration of power and, why not say it, religion in Latin American countries is overwhelming.

Everybody looks at Iraq and Israel. Nobody looks at South America. Did you know that there are 50 thousand murders by fire weapons per year in Brazil alone, and that unsafe abortions, caused by the abortion laws supported by the catholic church make that country a champion in woman's mortality rate? Every two years more people are murdered in Brazil than all the dead in the Iraq war, and nobody cares.

Going back to the first point of this post, Chomsky is extremely fast to point out the distortions of American foreign policies, but the solutions he seems to suggest are, at the very least, totally flawed.

38. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18523 by Zappi on January 21, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Comment #18494 by Luthien

"Chomsky never mentions they are anti-market communist groups that happen to use this version of the 'Catholic Church' as a way to reach as many people as they can. Chomsky is much too intelligent not to notice what he's doing, I wonder what his real political motivations are."

Yikes!

The so called free market only works if everyone has a fair and equal start. Forcing poorer countries to open up to imports only results in the market being flooded with cheap (and in the case of American produce, subsidised) goods that local farmers can't compete with. If farmers can't sell their goods they can't put money by when times are hard, and subsistence farmers therefore starve if their crops fail.

...and no, I'm not a bloody communist, it's just common sense to protect the vulnerable from the "free" market, in the same way that it was common sense for our ancestors to band together into tribes for survival!

Again, you're looking at everything from an American perspective. Many Asian countries (South Korea) went very well after a difficult start by embracing the market forces (may I say natural market forces?). Latin America is going down the Marxist path. If you believe that Marxism is good for Latin America but not good for other countries, feel free to express your opinion. I just don't understand how could it be good. I'm not talking about opening up imports. I'm talking about abolishing private property and restricting freedom of expression and liberty.

39. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18520 by Zappi on January 21, 2007 at 1:06 pm

by Riley
"Chomsky never mentions they are anti-market communist groups that happen to use this version of the 'Catholic Church' as a way to reach as many people as they can. Chomsky is much too intelligent not to notice what he's doing, I wonder what his real political motivations are."

Why is it that so many people seem willing to sacrifice the open market of ideas in order to make way for an open market of commercial products?

If people want socialism in their country, that's their right; Denmark, Sweden and France do well enough if not better than most for their people - so who are we to judge, much less to be mettling in the politics of other soverign and democratic nations who might want to follow such socialist models? Markets are great tools of democracy, but just as evolution is a process blind to the future and our genes indifferent to human happiness and suffering, "free" markets are similarly blind to the future and indifferent to human happiness and suffering; markets need to be regulated to a greater or lesser degree to ensure they are broadly serving human needs and happiness.

Chomsky is right to point out the hypocracy of U.S. politicians who claim to be supporting one ideal, while they undermine it in support of another.

The same dynamic is occuring now as politicians proclaim to be working to eradicate terrorism and to spread democracy, but readily employ terrorism and sacrifice democracy in order to achieve the forceable "freeing" of markets. Why is that? Judging such people on their actions, we'd have to conclude that they don't really care as much about democracy and terrorism as they do about opening up markets to the business interests they represent.

A prime and latest example of this hypocritical behavior is the Bush administration and Venzuela. Bush supported a terrorists-lead coup which temporarily overthrew the democratically elected government of Venezuela (Hugo Chavez). Iraq/Afghanistan is another perfect example - the actions by the Bush administration show that they were far more concerned about the privatization of the Iraqi oil industry and securing the Afghanistan oil pipeline, than they were in creating institutions of democracy and dismantling the terrorist organizaitons in those countries.

I agree on the hypocritical behavior of the American foreign policy. I don't agree when you compare what governments are trying to do in Latin America with Denmark, Sweden and France.

Their goal is to abolish private property, they are getting deep in the soviet mentality and they risk to lose all they might gain if they stimulated some other things: education, rule of law, free market, private property. Cuba is their role model.

Nobody wants to invest in these countries because of these stupid policies, brains flee from the area to the civilized world exactly when they are most needed to help to get out of their misery. The catholic church promotes all kinds of abuses in the region. Abortion is forbidden, in some Latin countries even at the risk of death of the woman. Cults are everywhere. Science is not taught and Marxist ideology is forced into everyone.

This is the usual myopia of anybody that want to see everything from the US foreign policy perspective. The US are not the cause of all evil.

40. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18456 by Zappi on January 21, 2007 at 2:15 am

I noticed he mentioned the "Catholic Church" in Central America was being fought by the United States. He failed however to mention that the groups he seems to be defending were at the marxist end of the spectrum and had the objective of turning all of Latin America into a Cuban style regime. These people really love Chomsky because they believe he's an ally within the US. Chomsky never mentions they are anti-market communist groups that happen to use this version of the "Catholic Church" as a way to reach as many people as they can. Chomsky is much too intelligent not to notice what he's doing, I wonder what his real political motivations are.

41. Radical cleric sparks fury in Australia

Comment #18191 by Zappi on January 18, 2007 at 11:38 pm

In one video, the cleric said many parents were stopping their children from attending Islamic lessons for fear that they "might create a place in their hearts, the love, just a bit of love, of sacrificing their lives for Allah."

It is quite ironic that such a freak is unwittingly preventing parents from enrolling their children in "faith schools". He ends up achieving what we could not...

42. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #17981 by Zappi on January 17, 2007 at 8:29 pm

I thought that these people were, in a very mean way, trying to play down the book, all of them. The "Atheist" was not really atheist, the "Agnostic" was the most hypocritical character I've ever seen and the Religious did not read the book at all but pretended they read it and nothing happened to their faiths, keeping in their faces a somewhat wicked smile. This discussion was designed to play down the book, I have no doubts about it. The most sincere one was the panelist, but for obvious reasons she wouldn't force her ideas openly, her role was more of a mediator.

43. Open Letter to Rev. John Auer

Comment #16794 by Zappi on January 8, 2007 at 8:10 pm

I was recently observing some religious people and noticed something interesting in their behavior: it was not truthful.

It could be related to the fact they have to fool themselves into believing a idiotic story, and then this makes them at ease with lying to other people as well.

No wonder the truth hurts them so deeply.

44. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16639 by Zappi on January 7, 2007 at 7:43 pm

Dear jburdoo,

Don't forget to place in your list the fantastic movie "Kadosh" by Amos Gitai. It depicts the judaism most Jews want to ignore.

45. General Synod's Life of Christ

Comment #16529 by Zappi on January 7, 2007 at 5:55 am

lt_zyppy2,

I found part of the original discussion you mentioned in this documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJvJ-dIC3pE

It's quite good!

46. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16226 by Zappi on January 5, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Modern atheists have no new arguments, and they lack their forebears' charm.

If religious don't take logical arguments, what's the point of getting more? About charm, I imagine that the author believes current religions are very charming indeed.

When the very first population of atheists roamed the earth in the Victorian age--brought to life by Lyell's "Principles of Geology," Darwin's "Origin of Species" and other blows to religious certainty--it was the personal dimension of atheism that others found distressing. How could an atheist's oath of allegiance to the queen be trusted? It couldn't--so an atheist was not allowed to take a seat in Parliament. How could an atheist, unconstrained by a fear of eternal punishment, be held accountable to social norms of behavior? Worse than heretical, atheism was not respectable.

This is soooo untrue. The amount of ignorance this fellow is expressing is overwhelming. There were always atheists, notwithstanding the fact that religious had this strange tendency to kill them or burn them alive.

There is no such sympathy among the new apostles of atheism--to find it, one has to look to believers. 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. Such students know, at least, what it feels like to have such a system, and can understand those who have very different ones. The new atheists remind me of other students from more "open-minded" homes--rigid, indifferent, puzzled by thought and incapable of sympathy.

Here the author repeats over and over again how nasty and loveless are people that are able to think. Supposedly thinking is not good. This guy is trying his best to be disgusting. I like when they say that one must learn religion to counter... religion. To that effect hundreds of thousands of volumes have been written, but none was able even to begin to answer the simple question: "Who made god, then?"

The new atheists fail too often simply for want of charm or skill. Twenty-first century atheism hasn't found its H.G. Wells or its George Bernard Shaw, men who flattered their audiences, excited them and persuaded them by making them feel intelligent. Here is Sam Harris, for instance, addressing those who wonder if destroying human embryos in the process of stem cell research might be morally dicey: "Your qualms . . . are obscene."

Didn't cross his mind that some religious claims amount to mass murder... and are obscene. He probably wants it worded in a softer way. It has been tried before, but nothing seems to get across delusional minds. Let's use pure logic, then, with no diplomacy.

The atheists say that they are addressing believers. Rationalists all, can they believe that believers would be swayed by such contumely and condescension? They seem instead to be preaching to people exactly like themselves--a remarkably incurious elite.

I wonder how many "believers" remain "believers" when you stop repeating biblical nonsense in their ears for a while. Now the "incurious" claim is so ridiculous... What could be more incurious than a religious mind, immersed in a set of beliefs tailor made to calm their inquisitive needs?

47. Hybrid embryo work 'under threat'

Comment #16220 by Zappi on January 5, 2007 at 3:56 pm

These people make me yawn. Is it possible that there is such a huge distance between religious ignorance and science? Is the gap getting wider and wider?

48. Do galaxies follow Darwinian evolution?

Comment #15643 by Zappi on January 1, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Although it may be interesting to use different ideas from other science fields to gain insights, talking about galaxies and labeling its "evolution" as "Darwinian" is a huge stretch.

Before it's shown that galaxies reproduce, either sexually or not, mentioning of the word "Darwinian" in this context is simply the result of a profound misunderstanding of what Darwin's theory of evolution was all about.

49. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15500 by Zappi on December 31, 2006 at 9:49 pm

Incidentally, I found another advantage in the label "Clear".

A not-so-bright voter could mistakenly vote for a clear politician just because he liked his stand, not noticing what clear really means. We would know, though.

In this sense, voting for a "bright" politician would make him feel uneasy, because of the fear of being fooled by such a "bright" fellow.

Any term used can be kidnapped by other groups. A clear would know, though. And a normal politician wouldn't dare to use it for fear of being confused with clear people. Remember that they will usually be targeting the unclear voter.

50. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15496 by Zappi on December 31, 2006 at 9:18 pm

Enlightened is not good because the word is widely used by religion, and because it is equivalent to "obfuscated"... you know, too much light...

Clear people can use dark glasses when there is a light that is too bright.

To make evolutionary biologists happy, the word should be italicized when used to describe people like us.

In this sense we can take a step further: agnostics are slightly unclear but it is hard to fight their position if they want to take an "open" stand on the issue.

Clearly, anybody that takes on a theory that has murky origins gives us no choice: they must be labeled UnClear