1. Americans believe in both evolution, creationism: poll

Comment #49355 by Old Coppernose on June 11, 2007 at 3:28 pm

David Dunning explained why he took up this kind of research: "I am interested in why people tend to have overly favourable and objectively indefensible views of their own abilities, talents and moral character. For example, a full 94% of college professors state that they do 'above average' work, although it is statistically impossible for virtually everybody to be above average."

Not true, but the semantics allow a little wiggle room. If there are many low outliers, the large majority of a sample can be above the mean. For example, the lifespan of lightbulbs in a batch with a lot of duds. In such contexts the median is a better measure of "average" - by defininion, it is the midpoint of a sample.

2. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

Comment #28788 by Old Coppernose on March 30, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Religion isnt like sucking a dummy. It's more like sucking a donkey. :)

3. Are You Right Eyed Or Left Eyed?

Comment #28341 by Old Coppernose on March 28, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Left-handed and right-eyed. This swapover seems quite common. Both eyes sense input to both hemispheres, but presumably the motor nerves cross over, which means one might expect handedness and eyedness to be the same.

4. God and His Gays

Comment #28335 by Old Coppernose on March 28, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Comment #27594 by tomjlawson on March 25, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Homosexuality is genetic, as is bi-sexuality.

A considerable overstatement. For a long time I was a member of a professional sexologists' forum, and homosexuality was often discussed. Let us take male homosexuality first. While there is evidence of a genetic component, there is another stronger indicator: older brothers. The more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay. While a psychodynamic process might be involved, more likely it is a result of some kind of acquired immune response by the mother that prevents testosterone from fully masculinizing the brain in utero. Lesbianism has bee less closely researched, but physiological measurement of the ears of lesbians (apparently) suggest hormonal factors in utero may also be responsible. Female sexuality is thought to be more 'plastic' and women more inherently bisexual than men.In contrast, there is a coinsiderable discourse suggesting that male bisexuality is very rare or even non-existent. This is imo driven at least in part by gay activism that likes to characterise men as either "Gay, Straight or Liars" the actual title of a long thread in that forum. I have known a man with many women partners who insisted that he was simply gay and that any man was either gay or straight. Apart from men who are "in denial" it is suggested that there are some very highly sexed men who are really basically gay or staight but are so highly sexed they will seek experiences with either sex - these are called "omnisexuals". I somewhat fit this description myself, but I resent the political correctness of the gay movement that calls bisexual men liars and hence sometimes self-identify as bisexual to smoke out bigot monosexuals of either persuasion (and there are plenty of both). To deny male biseuality is like denying intersex conditions and transexualism - if not homosexuality itself. If I identify as omnisexual no-one knows wtf I am talking about. A friend of mine reports similar hostility to bisexual women from some lesbians.

5. Nigeria teacher dies 'over Koran'

Comment #28322 by Old Coppernose on March 28, 2007 at 6:36 pm

There was a similar incident in 2003, when Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel made some inappropriate remarks in an article about the Miss World contest... "What would Mohammed think? He would probably have chosen a wife from one of them."

Daniel was clearly wrong. He would have wanted to marry all of them, plus the winner of the Little Miss Under 7 Beauty Pageant in Tampa, Florida.

It's only the place where a count of 72 is given where this linguistic ambiguity exists. In the other places where the Islamic texts state that one is rewarded with virgins in heaven, there is no such ambiguity.

Not only that, as I have stated before, they are promised 28 Ghilman, or young boys. Age is unspecified, but it is said that their faces will "shine like the sun". Mulim potentates often used to keep Ghilman for sexual services. One apparently boasted of having two harems - "One of women for show, and one of boys for use."

6. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27754 by Old Coppernose on March 26, 2007 at 2:24 pm

My name is Peter Watts, as I have made public. I chose a nickname solely as I assumed my real name would not be available. I do wonder, however, if there is a possibility I might be risking harassment or worse from those who might be offended by my opinions.

7. Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Comment #24693 by Old Coppernose on March 8, 2007 at 4:35 am

Apparently the book that is most often found in the collections of serial killers is the Xian Bible. The overall message is most definitely not peace and love of course, especially the OT.

I'm not at all surprised at the idea that religious people might be more aggressive. It figures, they are more authoritarian.

8. Senator calls for answer on creation of universe

Comment #24398 by Old Coppernose on March 6, 2007 at 12:04 pm

The philosopher, Mortimer Adler, came up with a lovely proof for the existence of a supreme being. It goes like this: line up all the beings in the universe such that for each pair the greater is standing on the left side; there must, then, be a being on the far left end of the line, and that is the supreme being. QED

This is just a simple expression of Anselm's Ontological Proof of God, referred to in TGD.

When expressed like this, imo it works quite well as a proof of the non-existence of God. What is the Supreme Number? There isnt one. There is no "far left" of the line - to any number one can add one to it. OF course, this version speaks only of "beings" and there might be (and in fact probably is) only a finite number of things that one can call "beings" but then one might find the Supreme Being is the fungus, as you say. Also God is supposed to be infinite - in which case not comparable to finite beings.

9. Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Comment #23024 by Old Coppernose on February 25, 2007 at 11:49 pm

epeeist on February 25, 2007 at 9:33 am

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali hits the nail on the head immediately - why didn't the US go after the Saudis after 9/11? The majority of the perpetrators were Saudi, as was bin Laden. The fundamentalist Wahabbi cult is based in Saudi Arabia. The majority of the "radical" madrasahs are funded by them."

Simple enough - they may have been Saudi in origin, but AFAIK no-one has shown any link to Saudi Arabia itself at all. The Saudis are a US ally, they like selling oil to the West and having their security gauranteed by infidel troops.

In contrast, hijackers have known links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban - Bin Laden was effectively co-president of Afghnaistan and there was a seamless join between the two groups.

Saudi Arabia was not gone afer because there is nothing directly linked to 911 there to go after.

Fwiw, the lady is a stunner and it is appalling she was mutilated along with millions of others. Someone commented that it was disturbing that the mutilator cut the stitches with his teeth - I've read that some Jewish Mohls suck the blood off the infant's penis after circumcision.

10. Faith

Comment #23017 by Old Coppernose on February 25, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Janus on February 25, 2007 at 10:47 pm

"I'd love to see a negative article on Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, or militant atheism in general that doesn't resort to lies, strawmen, and misrepresentations."

You're unlikely to get that because generally what RD writes is true. If TGD is an example of militant atheism, then it does not say "God does not exist" it says "God almost certainhly does not exist". Atheism by its nature is not truly militant imo in that atheists dont usually demand anything that a theist shouldnt also agree with - such as freedom of (And from) religion, separation of church and state, etc.

MY name is Peter, and I was reading Dawkins on a train and a woman asked me if I was an atheist. I have usually called myself an agnostic, and hesitated before saying "yes". I swear I could hear a cock crowing.

I'm not sure its a good idea for folks to call themselves "militant aheists" as it suggests an extremism that few atheists have.

11. Atheists come in last

Comment #22902 by Old Coppernose on February 24, 2007 at 3:01 am

"I know that Gallup have an excellent reputation for the quality of their polls, sampling techniques etc. But for the lady who situated Irak in place of Teheran, would she have known precisely what she was being asked about when confronted with the choice of voting for an atheist?"

As apparently lots of USAnians cant even place the US on a map of the world, this is a big problem. ( Many Brits are of course equally ignorant.) Im sure many get IRan and Iraq confused - and Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. When presented with the statistic that 33% of USAnians think the Bible is literally true, some moderate theists have suggested that as the word "iterally" is itself used metaphorically so much, people dont take the word itself literally - and hence answer "yes" to this question when they should actually answer no. Skeptical at first, I now think this is probably true.

Even well-conducted polls have serious problems. As well as the privacy issue, One can produce big differences just by the order in which questions are presented. If the categories are presented in the order above, this will tend to inflate the "yes" response as people might be reluctant to appear bigoted after being enlightened toward a previous group. IF presented in the reverse order, it would tend to inflate the "no" response.

To suggest that the poll might indicate almost half the respondents are atheists is extremely optimistic thinking. I am also curious as to how many *women* wouldnt vote for a woman. It might be more than you think - plus of course, since presumably many would, the number of men who wouldnt is likely even larger than 10%.

Regarding the UK constitution, we have a Queen and Bishops as permanent parts of Government, yet the influence of religion and the fairness of representation may well be better here than in the US. The electoral college installed the wrong President, even if the FLorida vote was accurate. Our COnstituency system sometimes installs the wrong government. The disturbing thing is as they take Bishops out they talk about putting Imams in.

12. Atheists come in last

Comment #22888 by Old Coppernose on February 23, 2007 at 8:27 pm

"Comment #22885 by Roscoe Myrick on February 23, 2007 at 8:09 pm

Obama's religiousity is not worth talking about. Unfortunately, this country will not vote for a Black man to be President of the United States, I doubt they will even vote for a woman."

As the poll indicates, the US may be more willing to elect a black man than a woman. However Clinton will likely get the Democrat candidacy.

13. Atheists come in last

Comment #22886 by Old Coppernose on February 23, 2007 at 8:20 pm

"But if all the statements in the Bible are just personal and non-governmental, then certainly our government cannot have been formed from Christianity as is so often claimed by desperate theists. "

I acknowledge the point, but can I ask that posters not refer to the US in a way that suggests that all contributors here are USA? It's a tad rude, espeially as RD himself is a Brit and there may actually more Brits posting here than USA.

'In religion, "supercedes" is just another word for "contradicts".'

NOt true. The NT is considered to be a "New Deal" to overturn the OT "Old Deal". There are many problems with the idea of course, and many genuine conradictions but from the Xian perspective this is not one of them. Jesus appears to state quite clearly he is changing the rules, and there is no contradiction from a Xian point of view, anymore than valuing the US Constitution is udermined by the fact that it has been amended.

" That's the disadvantage of God: God is and always has been perfect, so everything he said in all his words must be true and correct and perfect."

This is true, but there's no reason why God cant change his own rules if he has a mind to.

" The fact that the Bible internally contradicts itself just goes to show that the Bible was not in fact written by the perfect God, but rather by fallible humans."

This is true, but imo OT/NT differences are not imo as a rule good evidence for the point. There is no justification for claiming that a religious view cant legitinmately supercede a previous one. After all, if it were not possible, then there could be no input from Jesus at all. Contradictions within the two bits are much better.

14. Atheists come in last

Comment #22883 by Old Coppernose on February 23, 2007 at 7:17 pm

"Bizzaro is an idiot. The Declaration says, "...endowed by their Creator"! The key word is "their". If they were respecting monotheism, it just would have said "Creator" not "their Creator" Anyone who believes this statement has anything to do with anything other than the god, gods, or lack there of should go take English 101 again."

Actually, grammatically it would have to have said "the" or "a" Creator. Trying to read anything into the use of "their" here is quite ridiculous. Imo plain reading is that the signatories clearly gave their assent implicitly here to the notion that there is a being that can be termed the Creator. OF course it would be silly to read too much into that too, but not *as* silly, imo.

15. Atheists come in last

Comment #22880 by Old Coppernose on February 23, 2007 at 7:05 pm

"@Bizarro
So the old testament has nothing to do with christianity.
Why then is it in the christian Bible?"

Cultural inertia plus Jesus is supposed to fulfill prophecies in t.

16. Atheists come in last

Comment #22878 by Old Coppernose on February 23, 2007 at 6:56 pm

"OK, let's start with the 10 commandments. Commandment 1: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Now onto the US Constitution, the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Bizzaro, explain how these two statements are not contradictory."

NO problem with this at all. The first merely means that the believer themself has to worship that god, it says nothing about how a government should conduct itself.

" A seriously religious Christian president would advocate the death penalty for anyone who works on the Sabbath. Among other barbaric nonsense. Fortunately, none of our presidents have really taken their Christianity seriously."

Total baloney. Jesus(supposedly) healed on the Sabbath, and told the guy to carry his stretcher home (also doing work). He said: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". This is a clear example of the OT superceded by the NT. Letting the side down guys, letting the side down!

17. Atheists come in last

Comment #22877 by Old Coppernose on February 23, 2007 at 6:47 pm

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union"

Right from beginning the usanians ruined the language. A thing is either perfect or it isnt... it is impossible to make something "more perfect".

18. Atheists come in last

Comment #22866 by Old Coppernose on February 23, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Comment #22830 by Planeswalker on February 23, 2007 at 1:40 pm

goldmineguttd: Ah, okay. I just thought I'd heard he was a Muslim... But that must have been someone else who were considering running for president or something.

With that name, rhyming with "Osama" many ppl will assume he is Muslim I am sure. darwin knows how many ppl it will influence. somebody should do a poll!

19. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22760 by Old Coppernose on February 22, 2007 at 12:06 am

With regard to the below, just how bad does it have to be to be worth commenting on?

When USAnians ( I use this term to exclude those elsewhere on the American continents) say things like "Only 25% of Americans call themselves Evangelicals" that to this Brit sounds almost like someone saying "Only 25% of Americans believe in Santa Claus". Also religious people can be very mendacious in how they describe themselves and their beliefs - apparently 33% of USAnians are Biblical literalists, however they may escribe themselves.

Yes the US has great scientists - and it might have a lot more were it not for the fundies - and its science education is under direct threat. Kurt Wise who gave up a brilliant career in geology as a result of his fundamentalism is perhaps just the most notable of examples - the prospects of millions of USAnians having their understanding of the science and the world permanently scrambled.

In addition, millions are "End of Timers" - who believe that the end of the world is imminent, with likely nuclear wars and ecological catastrophe. IF people sincerely believe this, they are clearly less motivated to prevent these disasters (both of which of course, are very real threats) and possibly even motivated to cause them. This is grounds for concern for everyone on the planet.

In relative terms, this problem almost doesnt exist elsewhere in the western world. To the extent that it does in the UK is in part to US influence.

Yes, it IS as bad as people say. Atheists are marginalized in the US - here one tends to assume people are atheists unless they are perhaps recent immigrants. Acknowledging the severity of the problem isnt pessimism, it's necessary to do something about it.

having said that I'm not sure what anyone can do about it. I actually think that promoting atheism is not going to work. Instead imo nontheists should ally with moderate theists against the extremists.

20. Presentation on Atheism

Comment #22757 by Old Coppernose on February 21, 2007 at 11:10 pm

Comment #22740 by MIND_REBEL on February 21, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Poor, rural, America is fertile ground for the atheist movement. Great to see someone step up and break all those lame sterotypes the media tries to reinforce all the time. PS, if anyone wants to understand the poster and where he's coming from read Jim Goad's "redneck manifesto" it'll change the way you look at white poverty in the USA

I'm curious as to why you think this Rebel. Perhaps because they can realize that religion is a means by which people are made to be contented with their lot. However, I dont like the way they may turn nevertheless. My impression is that many remain ultra-conservatives or libertarians and this for me is hardly progress. At least the theists often keep poor boxes or put stuff in it. Atheist conservatives and libertarians may sneer "I pay my taxes" and walk past.

21. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22589 by Old Coppernose on February 19, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Comment #22554 by gimlibengloin on February 19, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Duff (42)

"If you really think Darwinists are embarrassed by Dawkins you are a worse nutjob that even the people on this site think. You are irretrievably moronic. May your God help you. (Trust me, HE won't)."

Ooops, you've made a bit of a boo boo there, haven't you, Duff?
The American Darwinist, atheist, anticreationist, philosopher of science MICHAEL RUSE said this in 2005 concerning your guru Dr Dawkins,

"he is making it very difficult for those of us who care about evolution to put forward a reasonable face to the reasonable portion [of the public]in the middle".

www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/01/evolutionary_war/?page=3

Oh dear oh dear looks like you're wrong, Duff. And thats to say nothing about all the darwinists who subscribe to a theistic worldview as well eg McGrath.

And how embarrasing is the charge from Dr Ruse that Dawkins is failing to be "REASONable", eh?
As I said you really need to be more critical. And objective

Actually Ruse describes himself as an AGNOSTIC, not an atheist. As such therefore his suggestion that his views are comparable to RD's is false, as RD strongly rejects agnosticism, considering it a weak position.

Ruse apears to advocate keeping silent on one's views for expediency, which is verging on hypocrisy. Ppl who reject evolution on religious grounds are by definition not reasonable imo, and hence it is not being "reasonable" by kowtowing to their prejudices.

Also there are many evolutionists who can put the evolutionists case in the US, both to theists and no-theists, and RD has indicated he is aware that in many contexts in the US it is better he does not participate. Why should RD not also pursue something he obviously also believes important, an advocacy of atheism? The more he succeeds the more he will undercut the Creationists and foster an adoption of scientific views in the long run.

22. Atheist Rap: Extian, The Verse from Atheist Nation Pt III

Comment #21815 by Old Coppernose on February 11, 2007 at 6:35 am

As an example of the PC blinkers, from:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=434980&in_page_id=1811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true#StartComments

The report is of a self-styled "Black Jesus":

"Scores of police have been sent to the jungles of remote Papua New Guinea to hunt for a cult leader known as the Black Jesus, who is said to have sacrificed three young women to the devil and eaten their bodies.


In one case reported by villagers, a mother who had fallen under the cult leader's spell led her 14-year-old daughter to his hideout, offered her to him as a virgin then stabbed her to death.

The Black Jesus, 31-year-old Steven Tari, started his cult last year after he was expelled from a Bible college for stealing from fellow students.


He has enticed girls as young as 12 from their homes to be sex slaves, and is thought to have more than 6,000 followers who believe in human sacrifice. "

One of the posted comments, to my dismay from someone of my hometown Manchester UK:

"We're all animals underneath. Everyone does things that impacts on other people. Look at pollution and global warming.

- Stuart, Manchester, England"

23. Benny Hinn Faith Healing Scam - Burton and Tinkler

Comment #21803 by Old Coppernose on February 11, 2007 at 6:14 am

These gus are so off the wall I sometimes wonder if I am hallucinating. Did I really hear one guy say that Hinn had raised someone from the dead, and if anyone had someone in the home who had died recently, to lay the body in front of the TV during the broadast so they might come back to life???

24. Atheist Rap: Extian, The Verse from Atheist Nation Pt III

Comment #21798 by Old Coppernose on February 11, 2007 at 6:08 am

By the way, when we "see who exactly is saying what," we draw different conclusions from those facts. But when we feel as though people are REFUSING to look at a particular characteristic of someone (for you in this instance, it's that he's black), and are moved to actually say something about it, a point about its importance is usually being made. I have a few speculations about what your point is. You can clarify, but I doubt you'd be willing to do that.

I omitted to respond to this most improtant bit. I am not "refusing" to ackowledge his black - I could hardly do that as it is essential to make my point. My point is this - that one should NOT take someone's color into account when assessing a viewpoint any more than one take's a person's color into account when assessing their opinions on science - the views should stand and fall on their merits - yet ppl like you clearly do and think it a virtue, thinking those like me are the ones in error. In reality what you are doing is a form of 'racism lite' pure and simple, even if of the PC variety.

25. The God Delusion

Comment #21758 by Old Coppernose on February 11, 2007 at 1:54 am

Imo the only thing wrong with RD's handling of the Ultimate 747 argument is that it would be funnier to call it the Ultimate Boeing, as this is a para-pun on Ultimate Being. RD appears to do this at first, referring to it as the Ultimate Boeing 747, but imo it would be funnier if he abbreviated it by dropping the 747 rather than 'Boeing'.

26. Atheist Rap: Extian, The Verse from Atheist Nation Pt III

Comment #21620 by Old Coppernose on February 10, 2007 at 7:31 am

Comment #21249 by Kismettena on February 8, 2007 at 8:29 am

"It is almost invariably liberal white ppl who defend obnoxious ppl like this guy because almost anything said or done by anyone black must be alright, if any contortionism of the mind can render it so."

I can quote the whole thing. Your full comment did not move me to do anything except respond; I had seen the other videos long before reading what you'd written.

You can of course... the point is you didn't.

It is almost invariably (obnoxious) conservative white men who make these sorts of statements:
"Ppl need to stop wearing the PC glasses and see who exactly is saying what as it really is.

You neener neener is wrong: I am a liberal. Also irrelevant, as it is not I but *you* who made a racial point in your agument (that you were 'whitebread'), to which I merely responded that the point wasnt valid - that many white ppl may be as well or more disposed to this kind of guy as those who arent.

Not content with quoting me out of context, you go on to make all kinds of claims thst I said things I didnt: (are you a theist perhaps?)

As if the fact that he's black rips a fucking hole in the space-time contiuum and renders moot our ability to criticize him. I liked him initially because I liked this particular video, and I'm not so sure now because of the gangbanging and self-fellating.

First the strawman.

Although you seem to be pretty capable of self-fellating as well, and you're WHITE...but of course that would be the conclusion I'd jump to, since I'm a PC-glasses-wearin' liberal and therefore hate white people.

...and then coarse ad hominem followed by more strawman. How do you know I'm white? I never said so . Of course it is the conclusion you'd jump to though I never suggested that you or anybody else hate white people. YOu really should advocate Creationism, friend, you write just like the Creationists do, you'd fit in fine.

The point is that it was you who offered the fact that you were white as if that somehow increased the significance of your viewpoint, and my response was just to point out that no it doesnt at all - your response was typical of many white liberals (but not this one, and fwiw many black people may be more critical of ppl like him). My post may not have been the reason you took a further look, but it is interesting that you shot off that rosy support of him without checking out more about him.

Could you perhaps refrain from coarse strawman and ad hominem in any further response please?

27. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #21282 by Old Coppernose on February 8, 2007 at 12:46 pm

"death and resurrection of Jesus is extremely well grounded."


By chance I am discusssing the historicity of Jesus alsewhere, ands apparently a report in the National Geographic said historians were decided. Hmmm.... Professor of "Historical Theology". You mean as opposed to the admitted total BS kind? I wonder how many of theses 'historians' were fo the theological variety... and in truth those without a faith bias doubt hether Jesus was even born, let alone died and resurrected.

28. Sam Harris talks about 'The End of Faith'

Comment #21239 by Old Coppernose on February 8, 2007 at 7:26 am

"Would it be stretching a loose connection too far, to describe Harris as the Malcolm X of atheism?"

Only the late, just prior to asassination Malcolm X. Far more like MArtin Luther King otherwise. he's generally v good - better than RD perhaps - but that Buddhist stuff was both dull and his own pet bit of irrationality imo. When he compared Western and Eastern cultures, I thought he would say Western materialism was superior. After an initially great start in ancient times, while the East was contemplating the sound of one hand clapping, the West was getting its hands dirty building an industrial revolution. Buddhism posits reincarnation and spirit beings - hardly naturalist discourse - and Buddhists historically have been violent - apparently there are now Buddhist fudamentalists in Asia who might be gearing themselves up for it again.

YOu have much to learn, grasshopper.

29. Atheist Rap: Extian, The Verse from Atheist Nation Pt III

Comment #21228 by Old Coppernose on February 8, 2007 at 5:31 am

"almost anything said or done by anyone black must be alright"

Comments like these are much more obnoxious than this guy's music.

If you mean the habit of quoting out of context to the point of actually chopping a sentence in half, then your posting is certainly extremely obnoxious. Ironically my full comment moved you to go back to see just how obnoxious this guy is. just as well I posted it, isnt it? Still want to shake his hand?

There is nothing at all obnoxious about referring to something eminently plausible, that for many reasons white ppl may allow vastly more tolerance toward extremist views from people of colour than other whites. Take the BB fiasco, which, as a result from v mild cultural (rather than racial) jibes there are 40K protests, and astonishing number, possible prosecution of the jibers, Channel 4, and even calls to end BB or even Chanel 4 in its entirety, and in the same week there is the blood curdling Dispatches report on Muslim Imam calling Jews, pigs, apes etc and hardly a blip on the cultural radar.

Ppl need to stop wearing the PC glasses and see who exactly is saying what as it really is.

30. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #21226 by Old Coppernose on February 8, 2007 at 4:52 am

I forgot to mention another serious gaff was the claim by the host that the presence of an atavistic tail was PROOF that the human coccyx (what they were talking about) was a vestigal tail. Completely baloney - evidence, but definitely not proof - like saying that female babies born with enlarged clitorises (As sometimes happens) proves once that women had penises!

As an aside, I must say that I find "jokes" about male rape in prisons, or other places, just as offensive as "jokes" about the rape of women, that most ppl no longer consider acceptable in enlightened company.

31. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #21220 by Old Coppernose on February 8, 2007 at 4:39 am

I was concerned by this because Dr. P was not a v good debater. Through the vast majority of this, to a waverer Mr H was imo winning.

Dr. P's big major mistake was to compare evolution to geological processes. A perfectly valid comparison for a class of intelligent, open-minded individuals, but useless w Mr H as he of course doesnt accept geologic development either. Dr. P has effectively begged the question of the ancientness of the earth. This was compounded by the second biggie, not challenging the "Time is your God" argument. He should have pointed out that even H acknowledges 6000 years of time before he was born which he has not directly experieced and in which he actually claims animals speciated extremely rapidly from different "kinds". We also of course experience the continual flow of time forwards. Hence there is nothing God-like in suggesting theat the earth has been around for a very long time, any more than saying a woman is older than she admits to being. On the other hand, no-one has ever *directly* experienced any kind of spontaneous creation by a spirit entity: belief in that requires imagining something that has never been known to happen. The third one was failing to challenge the "dog does not produce non-dog" argument effectively. He should have emphasised that evolution always posits only very gradual changes from one generatin to another. Hence a parent always appears the same "kind" as their offspring. However, just as H claims that "micro" evolution occurred, all Dr P does is suggest that what the IDiots call "macro" evolution happened in the vastly greater interval of time they believe available - ironically meaning a far slower rate of development. Fourthly, he could have pointed out the humility of biologists of admitting they *dont* know precisely how the first life started, whereas the IDiots claim to know everything.

Never mind, I'd hate to go up against these nutcases. They frustrate, depress and frighten me and frankly make me feel sick!

The thing was far too long of course, which was a pity, as having probably won by many lights, H chose his closing argument to score a fantastic series of own goals, highlighting, even more clearly, what a total lunatic he is, and the total religious motivation of his views which have got nothing to do with claiming to keep religion out of state schools. A bit like the US after ousting Saddam Hussein, deciding to nuke NYC!

32. Sextuplet parents take B.C. to court over baby seizures

Comment #20725 by Old Coppernose on February 6, 2007 at 6:41 am

Comment #20571 by PrimeNumbers on February 4, 2007 at 11:16 am

I don't see the government having much choice here - either they attempt to save the childrens' lives with whatever medial means necessary, or they allow the parents' to let the children die due to refusing appropriate medial treatment. At that point, the parents get arrested, tried and convicted of death by neglect and spend a long time in jail. Not much fun either way, but I'd think the first alternative is the better one.

Actually this would not happen, in the UK at least. Doctors actually have the right and duty to proceed with essential treatment in defiance of parental consent in the case of children. If they did not do so, *they* would be the ones to be prosecuted.

Ppl like Ohnhai see a "slippery slope" in a government requiring that everybody drive on the same side of the road. Parents do *not* have the right to let their children die unnecessarily, whatever their motives.

33. Atheist Rap: Extian, The Verse from Atheist Nation Pt III

Comment #20715 by Old Coppernose on February 6, 2007 at 6:06 am

Comment #20676 by jefferson on February 5, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Great to see him promoting/expressing atheism in his own creative way.

17. Comment #20678 by Duff on February 5, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Too cool!! This is one guy I would like to meet. And I'm a white bread, white anglo saxon non-protestant, who would like to shake this young man's hand.

Well of course you are Duff. It is almost invariably liberalwhite ppl who defend obnoxious ppl like this guy because almost anything said or done by anyone black must be alright, if any contortionism of the mind can render it so. When it demonstrably isnt, such as the case of Shiia lacerating young boys heads, then reporting is deemed sensationalist and emotive and should be suppressed on that basis, or, well "xian fundamentalists are just as bad" when they arent - very bad, yes, but not as bad.

If you know where the Islamists "are coming from" then you can understand why they have their views too. I'm not interested in where ppl come from whe assessing their views, I'm interested in where they are and where they'd like to take us. Fundies promote/express their views in their own creative ways too, and it is appalling, not great, to see it. Gangsterism is an appalling "culture" - a form of murderous patriarchy perhaps even more revolting than Islamism. What a wonderful person for the critics of atheism to hold up as an example of it. I dont want to shake this guys hand - I'm not sure I would want to be in the same room with him, and certainly dont consider him any kind of philosophical ally. I feel far more kinship with decent Baptist Xians!

34. Taking the fight to Islam

Comment #20707 by Old Coppernose on February 6, 2007 at 4:14 am

Something I forgot to mention is however tolerant Westerners might be to immigrant cultures, there is as well the problem of their not being tolerant to each others. IIRC Mounted Police were first deployed at Speakers Corner to control fights between Sunni and Shiia Muslims. Ancient conflicts from all over the world get imported into the West creating mayhem. Sikh demonstrators close down a play written by a woman of Sikh origin. Finally we have the likes of Rushdie, who attack our society continually, until offending their culture of origin - Islam in his case, and then need our society to protect them - before finally wussing out by converting back to it.

35. Taking the fight to Islam

Comment #20704 by Old Coppernose on February 6, 2007 at 3:59 am

#20631 by nine9s on February 5, 2007 at 9:01 am

I went to the VVD article on Wikipedia and it didn't seem to be all that unusual. Could you elaborate on the VVD and what makes it objectionable? Do they totally oppose immigration, or do they support limits on certain countries? I'd like to learn more about it, and by extension, more about the Dutch and their political views.

Yeah if the worst thing you can say about the VVD is that they oppose immigration, they are the perfect party, imo. Huge numbers of would-be immigrants are Muslims who would like nothing more than to Islamicise Europe and the world. Gay activists who oppose immigration on that basis arent making excuses for xenophobia - they have a legitimate desire to preserve thir hard won freedoms. Even if Muslim immigrants are mostly moderate (and as we see over and over again, supposedly moderate Muslims are often appallingly extreme by liberal standards) then they provide a fertile soil for the extremists to seed their fascism.

America is not ruled by the "Xian Taliban" - they are a faction, albeit a major one, and look likely to lose a lot of ground in coming elections, not least the Presidency. Nor are they in fact as fascistic as the Islamists. Say "Islam is a violent religion" and they may respond by killing you. So long as I dont perform abortions, from the Xtaliban I am safe.

36. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20298 by Old Coppernose on February 1, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Comment #20169 by cheshirecat on January 31, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Well then I don't think darwin should get all the credit when his grandfather first formulated some of the ideas of natural selection in 'zoonomia' and the 'temple of nature'. He added the motto 'E conchis omnia' (everything from shells) to his family crest. This was in the 1760s so no one can say these ideas werent floating around

You are absolutely right. As well as the basic idea also being independently discovered by Wallace. No need to play "neener neener" with me cat - not only am I fully aware of the facts, but as a Rationalist I am far more interested in ideas than the people who happen to come up with them (which are nearly always joint efforts in any case). There were Communist political theorists before Marx threw in his lot with them, but it was Marx who wrote Das Kapital and enerally fathered Marxism and the Junior Darwin who wrote Origin of species and fathered Darwinism. Though as I said, it doesnt matter at all, it's still a great and dangerous idea and would be even if he had ripped it off from the guy who used to trim his beard at the barbers.

Religious apologists often try to claim science has its roots in religion (I'm not saying you do)and it is far more accurate to say that science grows in spite of religion rather than because of it. The greatest mathematical invention ever was a symbol for zero, first used in India, as it allows a place-system for magnitude which allows nunbers of any size to be manipulated easily. Apparently the Xian church decided use of anything but Roman numerals was blasphemous and you could be excommunicated for using decimals. Throughout history religion has been a ball and chain holding back the advance and acceptance of scientific discoveries. Perhaps the only service religion has provided is creating cadres of clerics with time on their hands which gave them times to experiment with peas and such, but more often they decided to spend their time mortifying their flesh and engaging in ludicrous absurdities like Ontological Proofs of the existence of God.

37. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20166 by Old Coppernose on January 31, 2007 at 5:10 pm

I would just like to add that a Catholic upbringing never stopped Mendel doing the first genetic experiments with peas and he was a monk at the time (later abbot of his monastery) at the same time Darwin was writing his great work. He's one of the forgotten heroes of the movement often referred to as the 'father of genetics' though the importance of his paper was only discovered later.

Mendel is hardly forgotten - as you say, he's often referred to as the 'father of genetics' and iiirc 'Mendelian' is a term in genetics.

A Catholic upbringing may not have prevented Mendel doing his experiments, but they easily might have done only a few years later. Darwin's Origin of Species was put on the Papal Index of books Catholics were forbidden to read - and it was only because Mendel was part of the heirarchy as a Monk that he was permitted to read it, presumably because his faith was considered good enough not to be taken in by it. Since Mendel had not published while Darwin wrote OoS he couldnt incorporate his findings in it, and in fact was obliged to embrace Lamarckianism early on as the only method by which his theory could work in the absence of knowledge of genes. If Mendel's experiments had been done earlier by an evolutionist and he had never risen to being a Monk, as a Catholic he might have been forbidden to read about, let alone do, the very kind of experiments he himself performed. The Index was only abandoned because it go so long it was unworkable.

Another curious fact is that many of his results are almost certainly fraudulent. SOme of the kinds of hybrisation he reports do not actually show the complete dichotomy of phenotype that was his important discovery - intermediate forms occur. Even when they did, it is extremely unlikely that he would get results so close to the famous 3:1 ratio he reports as regularly as he did. It has been suggested these anomalies were the result of the use of increasingly bored underlings who, on noticing the usual 3:1 ratio emerging simply made up the final result and went off and had some hot gay sex, er, I mean went off to pray and self-flagellate. I guess it would be a bit much to point out they were all pious Catholics yet still somebody was a liar, since of course fraud unfortunately has played a large role in the history of science, including evolutionary biology.

38. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20047 by Old Coppernose on January 31, 2007 at 6:39 am

Comment #20033 by cheshirecat on January 31, 2007 at 5:56 am

I once heard that a far greater proportion of church goers and christians were female. I wondered if anyone could back this up/had heard it before? I certainly know that anyone professing religious belief at my school was thought slightly effeminate. I wonder if this has something to do with it.

Certainly I think this is a stereotype, and I think it may well be true. It is very non PC to say it, but I think there may be an evolutionary basis to it.

In TGD RD suggests that religion may result from a human tendency to personalize natural phenomona - thunder is the anger of the gods, etc.

This is being drawn in very broad strokes, so please bear with me. Religions tend to be patriarchal with a male leadership and so might perhaps appeal more to males. However, as females were obliged to be the ones to nurture infants and usually the older ones as well, whereas males were free to pursue hunting, which even when co-operative, are hardly as socially close as mother:child relationships - females psychology has evolved to be expert at social interactions whereas male has a relative greater concern with understanding natural, impersonal phenomoma. Autistic spectrum disorders such as Asperger's Syndrome are far more common in males, characterised by poor social skills, difficulty understanding another's point of view or even that they have one, but often a fascination with, and conspicuous talent for, impersonal, even abstract things, such as mechanical devices, chess-like games and mathematics. Asperger suggested that the syndome merely represented the extreme of normal male psychology, which any woman who wishes to talk to her partner while he wont stop tinkering with the car must surely agree with.

I expect the London Skeptics-in-the-Pub meeting is typical of such groups in being overwhelmingly male. Females are more likely to interpret events in a personalised way - as an act of some kind of god perhaps - than males who are more equipped and likely to view events in a naturalistic way.

Again I'm drawing broad strokes here, so please folks dont hammer me for that, I'm aware of how complex these phenomona are. Unfortunately I have lost some text regarding homosexuality in priests - the point is that there is plenty of evidence for widespread homosexuality in priests, including those publicly married. It is thought that male homosexuality may result from the brain for some reason failing to 'masculinize' in utero, and while physiologically male, as well as becomng gay, it is possible that gay men have other feminine characteristics, such as being more predisposed to personalization of their world view and belief in god.

39. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20036 by Old Coppernose on January 31, 2007 at 6:01 am

Comment #20019 by cheshirecat on January 31, 2007 at 5:05 am

On the contrary, I think you are naive to take Dawkins at his word when he makes such gross generalisations. The study of religion in modern society is a social science. Give me some evidence that a conventional religious upbringing does children any damage. Has anyone written a paper on this or do they consider it too absurd to even bother testing it?

I hope I get time to reply to this at length, since there is quite a lot of evidence for this. In the UK it has been known for years that the Roman Catholic minority is over-represented among criminals, prostitutes and the mentally ill. Recent evidence (which I will try to dig up) indicates that religious generally are over-represented in the UK criminal population, including those New Agey Buddhists.

However the point you miss is, if making someone believe nonsense for their entire life is doing damage (as it surely is, at least a little) then teaching kids belief in possible Eternal Damnation (or Bliss) after their death is doing children damage per se, not including all the other nonsense that gets taught along with it. Believing in a "Divine Plan" - especially if you think you know what it is - is a recipe for disaster.

Religion is so varied that it is arguable what is "conventional" but one does not have to look beyond mainstream Abrahamic denominations to see all kind of horrors inflicted on millions.

Basic religious beliefs may often be fairly harmless, but often produce tragic consequences - including frightened, neurotic people, people whose ability to learn and participate in science (do you know the Kurt Wise story?) is crippled, gay people who suffer agonies of guilt and/or damage to their ability to enjoy fulfilling sex lives - the list just goes on and on, I'm hardly scratching the surface.

I'm still suffering the effects of my Roman Catholic upbringing and I'll probably never shake it off - a point that Catholics gleefully celebrate themselves. "Give me the child till seven, and I will give you the [sexually abused - OC] Man" as the Jesuits say - we will nobble his critical thinking forever.

Long before the current "Blasphemy challenge" as a teen I took it for myself, under my breath, in an RE class. I deliberately blasphemed the Holy Spirit in order to cut myself off from Xianity forever - and on bad days I've often regretted it. Like most viruses, once infected with the god meme you may never get rid of it, and at moments of weakness it flares up again. When suffering depression, and under religious influence, I used to go into panics that by doing that I had condemned myself to Eternal Damnation.

I never mentioned it to anyone and for years assumed it was my own private neurosis. I was very surprised a few years ago when I saw a post on the web from a guy who suffered in exactly the same way. Not only that, a Xian priest referred him to a website that had a page entirely devoted to sufferers of this problem and why, theologically, they need not be worried about it. It included another personal story, and it seems that priests encounter a steady trickle of people damaged in this way, and how many never speak about it to anyone, and cant get over it even if they do? I'm beginning to feel creepy myself again just thinking about it. There could be thousands of victims. For this reason, I'm a bit uneasy about the Blasphemy Challenge - it might be creating more of them. Of course this is entirely the fault of the theists, but if you cant extract a bullet without killing the victim, then you have to leave the bullet there. I'm not saying we should not encourage young people to renounce theism - not at all. However,I do think this may be a bad approach. Simply a public declaration of Non-theism/Atheism/whatever and a commitment to the use of evidence-based reasoning in an approach to life is quite sufficient. Imo it is quite likely young people who opt for the provocative blasphemy technique may in fact be those who have become, deep down, almost chronically infected and vulnerable to the "blasphemy neurosis". It is interesting that I only recovered from it myself as a result of using a religious resource which used a theological argument that I had not in fact blasphemed at all - no amount of atheist, rationalist approach ever shifted it.

40. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20018 by Old Coppernose on January 31, 2007 at 5:03 am

Thank you Richard Dawkins. His book is the first thing I see when I walk into the science section in our bookstore. Just thought I would give you all some good news.

Yep I must thank RD for proving to me the existence of God. I havent read a book in years, and a few weeks ago some Guiding Hand (perhaps that of Our Lady of Krapima) led me to wander into a bookstore, and of all the marvellous books I would like to read, guided me to pick up TGD, which I am reading for a second time immediately after finishing it. This is far too remarkable a coincidence to have occurred by chance. It must be part of some Divine Plan. Thankyou Richard!

On that note, I may have been overly harsh on Germaine Greer and other commentators on TGD shown in a video on this site when I accused her of lying and having not read the book. The book is long and very detailed and I am surprised at how much I had forgotten in only a couple of weeks. As an existing non-theist with familiarity with and acceptance of evolution it is probably worth me reading it three times, and for a fundie repeatedly until the penny finally drops. Way to go RD.

41. CNN Sylvia Browne Fraud

Comment #19956 by Old Coppernose on January 30, 2007 at 9:31 pm

Note in her statement this lady indicates no *apology* for the effects of her mistakes on the parents of these kids - she is solely interested in justifying herself.

I said of Benny Hinn, "we must stop this nonsense" and one could say that of this - but how exactly? Banning any form of monetary solicitation for this kind of stuff maybe. Heck, if Hinn says it's religion, then the Lord will provide!

42. Benny Hinn examined

Comment #19946 by Old Coppernose on January 30, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Imagine if someone founded a medical company that claimed to have not only cured terminal illnesses but actually raised peope from the dead, paid no taxes, did not have to disclose its accounts, or subject its treatments to scientific verification? Yet call it a "Ministry" and you can do what you like.

There is a German version of Hinn called, appropriately, Bonkes. Bonkes does his thing in Africa. Apparently people have died in crowd crushes at his rallies. One was a nine year old girl. Her father placed her body on Bonkes' Mercedes, hoping it would bring her back to life. USAnian Xianity no longer (usually) involves claims of smiting down evildoers, but African Xianity sometimes does, and Bonkes at his rallies has claimed that those who have opposed him have been struck down by a heart attack on at least one occasion.

Regarding the "wheelchair scam" apparently folks who get up out of chairs often didnt arrive in them - walking disabled may be offered them to create the illusion that they normally require one.

Of course, the placebo effect may make people apparently gain abilities they dont have. The technique of toppling someone backwards is a long-established stage hypnotist's trick of inducing rapid trance states. In a UK TV report Hinn or one of his ilk called for people to get up out of their wheelchairs, and while some on stage did, one woman repeatedly tried to get out of her chair for 40 minutes without success.

As well as the psychological damage of such experiences, in some case people my injure themselves even more seriously as a result of stressing their bodies beyond that which they are capable, and of course, as for refusing transplants or other treatments!!! Again, imagine if a secular medical company did this kind of thing?

L R Hubbard made Scientology a church in an act of brilliance, which simultaneously gained massive advantages in taxation, accountability, and legal rights. We must stop this nonsense!

43. Atheists in Jail

Comment #19830 by Old Coppernose on January 30, 2007 at 5:51 am

Comment #19797 by roach on January 30, 2007 at 1:06 am

The term "agnostic" doesn't really make much sense in the context of God/religious faith given that it deals with belief and not knowledge. It's true that no one, from a devout believer to a positive atheist, can technically be anything other than an agnostic

English is not a precise language, and probably most atheists and almost all devout blievers would deny being even technically agnostics. It's a question of emphasis. The athest wishes to emphasize the absence of belief, the agnostic the lack of knowledge.

44. Atheists in Jail

Comment #19796 by Old Coppernose on January 30, 2007 at 12:54 am

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.

Works for me. However, I prefer to talk of Rationalists rather than Atheists, as this includes Agnostics (of which I, like Darwin, am one). This could be abbreviated to Rats - we declare ourselves "I'm a Rat." or "I'm Ratty". This is amusing, and self-effacing, unlike Bright, and is only three letters, like Gay.

However at present any such term is quite superfluous in Europe,where Rats are probably the majority. So let the USAnians make their own minds up. In 50 years we're going to be publicly persecuted as 'Kuffaar Pigs' by majority Islamist fuckaars, and then we can start calling ourselves "Pigs" and "Piggy" to defy them as they destroy our freedom, our lives, and return Europe to the Dark Age.

45. Grief Without God

Comment #19526 by Old Coppernose on January 27, 2007 at 10:12 pm

I don't know your particular situation. However if you still have significant depression I suggest you try some different antidepressants. Also I know (including my own experience) that some antidepressants stop working for some people after time.

Yes I almost said this myself. Also they can take months to take effect - some need to be given six months trial before they can be discounted as ineffective. Also new ones, with different mechanisms of action are being developed all the time. One of my griefs about the shrinks is that through my own research I know far more about the drugs than they do. For example, drugs in the "Prozac" family (SSRIs) generally have such low toxicity they can actually be taken in much higher doses than the normal maximum. While there have been a handful of fatal overdoses, despite millions of prescriptions written every year, fatal overdoses are almost non-existent, removing the objection that they might represent a suicide risk completely (never a good objection, but I wont go into that). Prozac is about as toxic as table salt - swallow too much of that and you just might kill yourself with that too. Despite this, I've had to fight to drag almost every single pill out of their ignorant hands. They know nothing.

I found out the truth at a site called Dr. Ivan's Depression Central, which I recommend. He will answer queries but obviously has to be brief.

Curiously Wichita has an unusual place in antidep history. A few years ago there was controversy that a clinical psychologist's entire patient population was on Prozac or another SSRI - as well as himself - and, not an MD, he did not have prescription priveleges. He wrote a recomendation to their doctors who prescribed it. He was called the "High Priest of Prozac". Last I heard he was being investigated for competence, but I dont know the outcome. It is possible there might have been some kind of backlash in Wichita.

Anyone suffering out there don't despair, check out the site, and fight for the help you need.

P

46. Grief Without God

Comment #19520 by Old Coppernose on January 27, 2007 at 8:42 pm

Hello Carol,

If you see this I am very sorry to hear of your terrible tragedy and I wish you the very best in overcoming your grief. Sometimes the insensitivity of religious people is astonishing. I expect you were to distressed to consider suing that respiratory therapist, but that in my opinion is appalling malpractice, and that person should be pevented from hurting anyone in such a fashion again. Astonishingly, Richard reports a case in "God Delusion" of a woman suing a doctor because he did *not* pray for her husband! I cringed reading some of the phrases, not just in recognition of your pain, but in remembrance of how often I have heard them before - including said to me when I have been in distress.

A depession sufferer, I have found psychiatrists to have hurt more than helped many times myself - to the point where I am now very wary of them. I am saddened however that you should choose to dimiss antidepressants as "little Happy pills". I am sorry they did not work for you, as they sometimes do not for many reasons - but that term is a dismissive one that in my humble opinion is not appropriate as it represents a parody of their actual nature and value.

One of my own tragedies is the loss of a severely depressed brother to suicide three years ago almost to the day. Drug treatment was unable to save his life - though it gave him a fighting chance - and I wonder if the reason might have been that, discharged from hospital, he stopped taking them.

There are of course controveries over antidepressants, but the evidence for their effectivness is quite overwhelming. They may have saved the lives of thousands and improved the quality of life of millions. They (apparently) failed to save one brother's life, but they might have saved the other one's - and mine. Certainly they have made my life much more bearable and rewarding.

I am very glad that you have found some comfort in helping others - it would be sad if you misguidedly influenced someone negatively by perpetuating a stereotype of a scientifically demonstrated effective treatment.

My very best wishes to you

Peter

47. Grief Without God

Comment #19519 by Old Coppernose on January 27, 2007 at 8:39 pm

They actually did a test on this 'shit' apparently not the slightest difference in recovery between someone who's prayed for and someone who's not.

Interesting the 's word' seems to make it past the botcensor.

They've tested this more than once, and it may actually be worse than this. I think this is in TGD - in one test when people knew they were being prayed for, they actually did worse - perhaps becasue knowing they were being prayed for alarmed them.

In another test, studying the outcomes of a form of brain cancer, by an astonishing coincidence, one of the religious researchers developed precisely that brain cancer while the research was being done, and despite being fervently prayed for by her co-religionists, died of it.

It is tragi-comic the naivety of these people, that they dont realize that if it were demonstrably true that prayer helped, that it would have been demontrated decades or even centuries ago. If there are gods, they shun the spotlight.

48. Grief Without God

Comment #19518 by Old Coppernose on January 27, 2007 at 8:34 pm

They actually did a test on this 'shit' apparently not the slightest difference in recovery between someone who's prayed for and someone who's not.

Interesting the 's word' seems to make it past the botcensor.

They've tested this more than once, and it may actually be worse than this. I think this is in TGD - in one test when people knew they were being prayed for, they actually did worse - perhaps becasue knowing they were being prayed for alarmed them.

In another test, studying the outcomes of a form of brain cancer, by an astonishing coincidence, one of the religious researchers developed precisely that brain cancer while the research was being done, and despite being fervently prayed for by her co-religionists, died of it.

It is tragi-comic the naivety of these people, that they dont realize that if it were demonstrably true that prayer helped, that it would have been demontrated decades or even centuries ago. If there are gods, they shun the spotlight.

49. Grief Without God

Comment #19517 by Old Coppernose on January 27, 2007 at 8:09 pm

Ms Anonymous,

If you see this I am very sorry to hear of your terrible tragedy and I wish you the very best in overcoming your grief. Sometimes the insensitivity of religious people is astonishing. I expect you were too distressed to consider suing that respiratory therapist, but that in my opinion is appalling malpractice, and that person should be pevented from hurting anyone in such a fashion again. Astonishingly, Richard reports a case in "God Delusion" of a woman suing a doctor because he did *not* pray for her husband! I cringed reading some of the phrases, not just in recognition of your pain, but in remembrance of how often I have heard them before - including said to me when I have been in distress.

A depression sufferer, I have found psychiatrists to have hurt more than helped many times myself - to the point where I am now very wary of them. I am saddened however that you should choose to dimiss antidepressants as "little Happy pills". I am sorry they did not work for you, as they sometimes do not for many reasons - but that term is a dismissive one that in my humble opinion is not appropriate as it represents a parody of their actual nature and value.

One of my own tragedies is the loss of a severely depressed brother to suicide three years ago almost to the day. Drug treatment was unable to save his life - though it gave him a fighting chance - and I wonder if the reason might have been that, discharged from hospital, he stopped taking them.

There are of course some controveries over antidepressants in some contexts, but in general the evidence for their effectivness is quite overwhelming. They may have saved the lives of thousands and improved the quality of life of millions. They (apparently) failed to save one brother's life, but they might well have saved the other one's - and mine. Certainly they have made my life much more bearable and rewarding.

I am very glad that you have found some comfort in helping others - it would be sad if you misguidedly influenced someone negatively by perpetuating a stereotype of a scientifically demonstrated effective treatment.

My very best wishes to you

Peter

50. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debate blasphemy

Comment #19514 by Old Coppernose on January 27, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Yep interesting. I too will listen again when more awake. I liked Hitchens' point that "religious hatred" actually mean hatred *by* rather than *of* reigious ppl, or hatred resulting from the hater's religion, not that of the hated. In a similar way, the critic of Harris that said Harris condoned "Muslim torture" showed similar sloppy grammar. "Muslim torture" actually means torture *by* rather than *of* Muslims, or torture using some kind of Muslim technique.