1. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175669 by sane1 on May 5, 2008 at 8:30 pm

This interviewer is a dolt. She has trouble asking questions at all sometimes. Weird. Is she actually often on TV somewhere? RD, as usual, was eloquent and interesting and gracious. Very nice of him to finish her goofy stuttering questions for her.

2. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #174115 by sane1 on May 1, 2008 at 4:44 pm

In reply to Desclin -

244. Comment #173690 by John Desclin on May 1, 2008 at 6:00 am.

3. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173331 by sane1 on April 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm

RD's answer to this question is very good on the Bill Goode Radio program posted by Josh today. Also, RD's explanation in his letter replying to the dope who wrote to Schermer was excellent.

4. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173303 by sane1 on April 30, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Couldn't get the link to work - Is it just me?

And if you go to the radio station site and find their audio vault, they say they had technical difficulties for the period of time that the RD interview took place...

EDIT: THANKS _ Comment #173245 by Zzyx1170 on April 30, 2008 at 2:37 pm

I placed an mp3 of this without advertisements on RapidShare at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/111602137/Richard-Dawkins_Bill-Good-Show.mp3

5. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #172446 by sane1 on April 29, 2008 at 3:02 pm

And as to this silly argument that religion answers WHY questions, but science doesn't, thereby somehow making it legitimate. Just because an area of thought can ask and answer the question "why are we here" doesn't make its answer right or even worthwhile. Besides, science and rational thought can answer those questions anyway. The answer just isn't anything about god. Why are we here? We are here to live, and procreate, and die. There - an answer to a WHY question NOT based on religion.

6. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #172436 by sane1 on April 29, 2008 at 2:55 pm

The question is odd, indeed.

What science actually does vis-à-vis religion and god, is make belief in god (as in "god" controls any aspect of our lives or of our future) as wrong-headed as belief that sea monsters exist and may eat us, or that witches exist and may cast spells on us, or that rain dances work and may increase the chance of rain. All demonstrably wrong but widely believed in the past.

Or to quote from Neil deGrasee Tyson's rant of other demonstrably wrong notions that are widely held despite the evidence: what goes up must come down, or the sun is a yellow star, or on a dark night you can see millions of stars with the unaided eye, the North Star is the brightest star in the nighttime sky, in space there is no gravity, total solar eclipses are rare. These are all demonstrably wrong, but still widely believed in spite of the evidence. (See Death by Black Hole, Neil deGrasee Tyson, p293)

7. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171474 by sane1 on April 28, 2008 at 2:04 pm

I'm pretty sure my dog thinks of me as a god.

8. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #171462 by sane1 on April 28, 2008 at 1:56 pm

oh no - clearmind has been here too. Of all the IDiot silliness that has been found on this site, clearmind's is surely the most IDiotic, as much for its inarticulate expression, as for its plain uninformed stupidity.

9. Science leads to killing people

Comment #171438 by sane1 on April 28, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard. fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard. fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard. fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard. fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard, fucktard!

Tearing down universities, courts, sanity. Building up stupidity. What a fucktard! Divine sprirt of the universe, my ass.

Sorry - couldn't help myself.

10. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171392 by sane1 on April 28, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Imagination indeed!

11. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #169094 by sane1 on April 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Love to hear Dan Dennett any time anywhere. Who are the other bozos?

12. The Atheist Next Door

Comment #158194 by sane1 on April 10, 2008 at 7:38 am

Lance Armstrong! That made my day!

13. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157853 by sane1 on April 9, 2008 at 3:56 pm

The "hallucinating" comment at the end was priceless! Absolutely Priceless!

14. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #157754 by sane1 on April 9, 2008 at 1:58 pm

"YOUR PETITIONERS ARE ATHEISTS and they define their life-style as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellowman instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now â€" here on earth â€" for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellowman can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellowman rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god, nor channel action into prayer, nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."


~ Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), preamble to Murray v. Curlett, U.S. Supreme Court, April 27, 1961

15. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157735 by sane1 on April 9, 2008 at 1:36 pm

I clicked on "Dawkins Talk", and seem to be waiting for the biggest slowest download ever. is the link actually working?

I can't wait any longer!!!

EDIT - NEVERMIND - Went to Pironiro youtube site and got right into it...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGDTtsh0KTM&feature=PlayList&p=5A51158D152B0E3E&index=0

16. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157616 by sane1 on April 9, 2008 at 10:41 am

There is so much stupidity on this show, and so little of RD, I can't take it!!!!!!!!!!

17. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148685 by sane1 on March 23, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Thanks for the writeup Richard. Thanks for clearly pointing out what a sad situation this dishonest film really is.

18. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111632 by sane1 on January 15, 2008 at 8:05 am

Artful: You believe it, because you are afraid "we are sunk if it is not true." First, we are not sunk if it is not true. We are sunk if folks continue to believe superstitious and religious (contra the evidence) ideas. Read: How The Mind Works, S. Pinker. Regardless, and this is the second point, your fears about what might happen if something is true, do not in the slightest attest to their truth or falsity. Free inquiry leads to truth, not fear based reasoning and concern about the consequences of ideas.

19. Monkey, Business

Comment #105429 by sane1 on December 31, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Solarium Said:

"This entire argument is strange to me. Economics and evolution are separate subjects, and I don't see why any sort of biological law must determine our markets."

You are behind the curve,and missing the point. Any human social or political activity is tied to how we are, and how we are is a product of evolution. Read the book. Or read Pinker's How the Mind Works.

20. Even Stephven: Islam vs. Christianity

Comment #104736 by sane1 on December 29, 2007 at 9:48 am

Here it is:

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/islam-christianity-p1.php

21. Highway to hysteria

Comment #94704 by sane1 on December 6, 2007 at 9:53 am

HOLY F**KING SH*T!

22. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92399 by sane1 on November 30, 2007 at 12:32 pm

RD:

Jealosy would be better banished, sure. And your point about public knowledge and interference with personal sexual matters is a solid one, BUT you just went way too far. Too political. Too supportive of "open marriage" without any dicussion of loyalty, devotion and honesty being central to many a good lifelong marriage, or why that may be a better approach from any number of perspectives.

Reel it in, man, reel it in!

23. Ayaan on Anderson Cooper Tonight

Comment #91817 by sane1 on November 29, 2007 at 11:28 am

wait -

send it to design@richarddawkins.net or to articles@richarddawkins.net ???

24. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91653 by sane1 on November 28, 2007 at 8:53 pm

Ludacrispat26:

"...from the website given"?

Could you clarify again?

and: More power to you. Congrats on your work in making this debate happen!

25. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90780 by sane1 on November 26, 2007 at 10:20 am

Davies assumes the universe follows natural laws, and that there is no supernatural force intervening in human affairs... He seems to have a Einsteinian sense of the majesty of nature, and asks interesting questions. Just because they might have some consistency with religious nonesense, doesn't make the endeavor insane.

Anyhow, at bottom, equating scientific assumptions based on evidence (the sun will rise tomorrow) with belief in miracles is like equating shit with shinola because they both begin with the sound "SH".

26. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90724 by sane1 on November 26, 2007 at 8:03 am

check out davies at session 5 at Beyond Belief:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/

27. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87885 by sane1 on November 13, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Spinoza: penultimate=next to last.

28. Onward Science Soldiers

Comment #87884 by sane1 on November 13, 2007 at 1:39 pm

I downloaded from a post somewhere on this site an excellent extended interview with Stenger. Stenger is truly a great contributor to the conversation.

EDIT: found it: http://media.libsyn.com/media/infidelguy/02-28-2007_Vic_Stenger-God_The_Failed_Hypothesis.mp3

29. Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

Comment #87882 by sane1 on November 13, 2007 at 1:35 pm

The complete introduction, from which the above was exerpted, is brilliant. The book is almost worth the price just for the complete introduction. The references above to bacilli are to other missing paragraphs dealing with Camus' the Plague.

The rest of the book is indespensible reading, Hume, John Stuart Mill, Einstein, etc. The thinking and writing is spectacular. Rational thinkers had the fallaciousness of religion clearly doped out ever since the advent of the stupidity.

Todays "new atheists" actually truly do have little original to say.

30. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #87817 by sane1 on November 13, 2007 at 8:30 am

Wait - the MORE theology you know, the stupider and more implausible it all is. The "faith seeking understanding" paragraph brought tears to my eyes:

"The theologian does not approach the basic tenets of Christian faith as possible truths to be tested for logical consistency; he or she instead begins with the conclusion that a series of internally incoherent, pre-scientific, and fantastic 'beliefs' derived from 'faith' are true, and then attempts to dress these beliefs up in the clothes of intellectual credibility. Theology is not in this sense a proper academic pursuit, but is instead the attempt to mask superstition in a fog of pseudo-intellectual verbiage."

Brilliant. Pass the tissues.

31. Bill Moyers interviews Jonathan Miller

Comment #87477 by sane1 on November 12, 2007 at 8:30 am

phasmagigas: I seem to live in that world you live in - full of surprising and delightful moments relating to the wonders of the ordinary, and the bland stupidity of the suposedly miraculous. One way to reduce the frustration, is to turn off the TV.

32. Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

Comment #87472 by sane1 on November 12, 2007 at 8:00 am

I now have plans for the lunch hour! Barnes and Noble, then reading hour.

33. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87460 by sane1 on November 12, 2007 at 7:35 am

Hey Spinoza: If Dawkins is the penultimate, who is the ultimate?

And have you read "Betraying Spinoiza" by Goldstein? Great book.

34. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #86171 by sane1 on November 8, 2007 at 2:01 pm

I was so sad to have missed the conference...now I can watch it from my desk...yah, science!

35. A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation

Comment #77795 by sane1 on October 10, 2007 at 2:56 pm

great and important article - especially coming from the very religious Meacham.

36. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #76569 by sane1 on October 6, 2007 at 10:04 am

Nerver heard of this Lionel guy. But Air America at least is fighting the good fight against the "conservatve machine." Horrendous voice though.


Why the sudden fadeout and ending at 6:01?

37. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #76362 by sane1 on October 5, 2007 at 3:49 pm

holy meatballs! The story missed the irony totally. lame lame lame. Like most news stories.

38. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76039 by sane1 on October 4, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Why is downloading the file so painfully slow...10/kb/sec?

39. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75021 by sane1 on October 1, 2007 at 11:32 am

Having been completely confused by the use of the term "school-leavers," I appreciate Dr. Benway's attempts at understanding and those of you who tried to help.

"School-leavers" means something like a high school graduate going on to graduate school, to us Americans(?).

Anyhow, the study of the god-head, is not fit for anyone, except maybe the unfotunately idle, such as morons, and maybe celebrities like Madonna and Spears, with nothing else to do, too much time and not enough brain power to get the joke.

40. Scientific Literacy and the Habit of Discourse

Comment #73795 by sane1 on September 26, 2007 at 7:53 am

Giskard:
I agree with the point you deny (i.e., that Einstien was rebuffed). Read Einstein, The Life and Times, by Clark.

41. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71693 by sane1 on September 19, 2007 at 1:24 pm

OMG!!!

THE BLOND BOZO IS BARKING MAD!!!

THERE IS NO GOD. I "BELIEVE" THESE LADIES ARE FLAT OUT LOONEY.

IS THE WORLD FLAT? - "NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT." OK THAT CHICK IS USELESS. SAVE ME/US FROM THIS INSANITY!!!


Sorry for the shouting...

42. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71689 by sane1 on September 19, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Kinda stupid and non-scientific really. I voted anyway.

43. In Depth: Christopher Hitchens

Comment #71363 by sane1 on September 18, 2007 at 2:30 pm

same one i think. But that was 17 or so separate short YouTube videos...this seems to be one segment taken from the original.

44. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70396 by sane1 on September 15, 2007 at 10:09 am

Dreamer: You say the NYT etc is in favor of:

complete abdication of our national sovereignty

45. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #70017 by sane1 on September 13, 2007 at 4:48 pm

found this excellent response in Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter 83, at skeptic.com.

Francis Collins and C. S. Lewis


Francis Collins, the scientist and god-believing head of the human genome project, revealed the basis of his religious convictions in an interview with DJ Grothe (Point of Inquiry, August 31, 2007). One of the turning points in his conversion from atheism to belief was reading Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis's attempt at a philosophical defense of theism. Some critics think Dawkins was out of his element when reviewing philosophical arguments for the existence of god but Dawkins looks like Kant compared to C. S. Lewis. Particularly weak is his presentation of "the moral argument," i.e., the argument that holds that moral rules require a moral rule-giver. I don't see why moral rules require a rule-giver any more than the rules of carpentry require a Master Carpenter handing down rules for building houses that don't collapse. If they do require a rule-giver, humans can make up rules and claim they are universal and eternal just as easily as god can.


When I taught courses in the introduction to philosophy, I used an anthology that had excerpts from Lewis's Mere Christianity, including the moral argument and another howler based on the fact that we desire immortality. That desire, according to Lewis, can be taken as evidence of the existence of something that would satisfy it. Right. And what about those of us who don't desire immortality? Is that evidence in support of the view that there is no afterlife? I admit that I used Lewis as a punching bag. It wasn't really a fair fight. All the other authors in the anthology had far superior arguments to those offered by Lewis.


Collins considers it "arrogant" to claim there is nothing "outside of nature." Maybe. But it's worse than arrogant to talk as if you understand what the expression "outside of nature" means. It looks like a meaningful expression, but so does "purplish side of rectangular." "Outside of nature" seems to be a marker for "unknowable." I don't know of anyone who says there can't be things that are unknowable. How could you know such a thing? In other words, the expression "outside of nature" is just another in a long list of negative expressions theologians have created for their godtalk. God is outside of space and time and the physical, etc.


Collins agrees that evolutionary psychology can explain reciprocal altruism but he denies it can explain why people admire and consider people like Mother Teresa to be morally good. He uses Mother Teresa as a model of someone whose altruism has no ulterior motive and, for that reason, is universally admired as morally good. Collins seems to think that evolution (i.e., natural selection) would be unlikely to produce beings who were capable of completely unselfish acts, or, if evolution produced such people, evolution would not produce people who would universally admire them as good. Why? Because he seems to think that evolution aims at producing only behaviors and values that favor passing on one's genes.


I don't think it is obvious, however, that a species would not survive if every member had a tendency to unselfishness that disregarded one's own well-being in favor of anyone else, kin or not. A species couldn't survive if every member had a tendency to, say, commit suicide or whose sexual behavior was exclusively homosexual, unless reproduction could be accomplished without sex or heterosexual sex. But there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason for claiming that our species couldn't survive quite well even if a good percentage of our members are suicidal or homosexual. Collins seems to be perpetuating the myth that evolution works by individuals choosing only those behaviors that favor their chances of passing on their genes. It is my understanding that all that is necessary for a species to survive is that many individuals reproduce, that many of their offspring survive and live to reproduce, that their environment provide sufficient nourishment; that they not evolve behaviors like universal suicide; and that they not be wiped out by some environmental catastrophe. The human species is rather new and will probably go extinct like most other species have. But I doubt if non-reciprocal altruism is going to lead to the downfall of our species. So, I see no reason why one has to bring in god to account for altruism.


Collins's point that non-reciprocal altruism is universally considered morally good is easily dismissed because it is false. He should read Nietzsche or Ayn Rand, though they are not the only ones who think this way. Not everybody considers altruism intrinsically good, socially beneficial, or morally admirable.


I don't understand why Collins thinks god is a better explanation than evolutionary psychology, cultural transmission of values, or personal preference for why self-sacrificing people emerge and why most people admire them.


He also contradicts himself in the interview. On the one hand, he criticizes Dawkins for making the existence of god a scientific issue, yet he claims that what he learned as a scientist investigating the natural world provided support for his belief in god. Dawkins doesn't claim that science can prove god doesn't exist. Like Collins, though, he thinks science can inform the debate. However, for Dawkins the evidence makes it overwhelmingly probable that a being like the one portrayed in the Hebrew scriptures is extremely improbable.

46. Scientists' Good News: Earth May Survive Sun's Demise in 5 Billion Years

Comment #69947 by sane1 on September 13, 2007 at 9:38 am

"Stellar evolution can be a wild ride for a planet that is trying to survive, especially inner planets like Earth."

47. Enemies of Reason

Comment #68555 by sane1 on September 7, 2007 at 3:21 pm

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/index.html

Volume 13, number 2

48. Bible Belter

Comment #68545 by sane1 on September 7, 2007 at 2:36 pm

a bit of a boring review, but the section:

Peter Hitchens begins his negative review in the Daily Mail quite well ("Am I my brother's reviewer?"), but the substance of his complaint seems to be that Christopher is as confident in his disbelief as any fundamentalist is confident in his belief. The answer to the familiar accusation of atheist fundamentalism is plain enough. The onus is not on the atheist to demonstrate the non-existence of the invisible unicorn in the room, and we cannot be accused of undue confidence in our disbelief. The devout churchgoer recites the Nicene Creed weekly, enumerating a detailed and precise list of things he positively believes, with no more evidence than supports the unicorn. Now that's overconfidence. By contrast, the atheist says the humble thing: of all the millions of possible entities that one might imagine, I believe only in those for which there is evidence – trombones, pelicans and electrons, say, but not unicorns or leprechauns, not Thor with his hammer, not Ganesh the elephant god, not the Holy Ghost.

49. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66285 by sane1 on August 29, 2007 at 3:29 pm

How frickin credulous do you need to be to consider this Teresa story as more evidence of the existence of jesus, etc???

I feel sory for the flock, and it looks like hitchens has discovered a tender spot for M Teresa too.

50. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65504 by sane1 on August 24, 2007 at 1:51 pm

oxytocin: If she hadn't been such a hypocrite, and had actually helped people with modern ideas instead of celebrating their sufferin with stone age dogma and theological torture, maybe I'd feel sad.....or maybe not. There are way worse things in the world than being showed as a hypocrite after you are dead.