Comments by philos

1. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #211349 by philos on July 15, 2008 at 9:17 pm

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

Pity he and others just happen to overlook the contrary: "but for bad people to do good things, that takes religion"

2. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78774 by philos on October 14, 2007 at 10:12 pm

Sorry - I cannot get excited about this prize;
a general award for fighting religion by the
anti-religious? Guess I would just be more
impressed by something more specific and scientifically novel, rather than the ancient argument over God. The horse is not only beaten but pulverized. Gentlemen, quit congratulating yourselves and move on.

I have never heard of Deschner nor Bruno, and from their write ups - sounds like nothing
new - thus the market's reason for no English translation, and he's been writing since the 1950's!

Congratulations, nonetheless.

3. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78304 by philos on October 12, 2007 at 11:45 am

Oh, Air America will go bankrupt, again.

Like it did last year.

In other news, the dems try to pull a fast one again. Pathetic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/08/graeme-frost-and-the-perils-of-democrat-poster-child-abuse/

4. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77499 by philos on October 9, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Why sign the petition?

She's "ok" with their decision to pull her protection whilst OUTSIDE of their country.

Ayaan needs to learn to open up her wallet & pull her own weight, esp. being a millionaire author - common tax paying people have better ways to spend government money, like giving it to these fine people for research:

http://www.mrs.umn.edu/academic/science/Biol_faculty_staff.html

5. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77237 by philos on October 8, 2007 at 8:18 pm

PZ - sorry -I changed my wording - just got a bit worked up.

I stand corrected.

6. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77224 by philos on October 8, 2007 at 7:50 pm

And, I'm not even religious and I do have to admit - most religions are good for societies - it's just the extremists that give it a bad name. Whether it's the local religious schools giving some sort of 'life lessons' of behaviour modification into young adulthood (public schools all but ignore these lessons), giving to the needy, helping the elderly, mission trips, money sent abroad or your neighbourhood soup kitchen, most religious people you and I know are truly nice. Don't you agree?

Note this has nothing to do if whether it is true or not.

If America were a truly rich, educated country, atheism may get some leeway as in Scandinavia, but face it, America is wholly uneducated in science and reasoning and the more educated you are the less religious you usually are. Similarly, the less educated you are in science and reasoning, the more religious you are likely to be. Unfortunately, that is alot of America. Take religion away from this majority and no one gives a crap anymore with no surveillance camera in the sky. Religion, although non-sensical, helps bond people together in many good, and some bad, ways.

Unfortunately, independent minded atheists don't band together and would find it difficult to mirror these truly necessary societal organizations for the needy.

As Steven Weinberg forgot to say, "And for bad people to do good things, that takes religion"

I suppose a lesson book of moral philosophy could bootstrap a bad person to do good things, but not likely - a few out of 100, maybe. You'll need power in numbers and brotherhood and societal 'belonging' to get the young on the right track of morality. Again, it will be hard for atheists to get organized and get people to listen, especially when evolution is so conceptually hard for the common man to understand.

7. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77211 by philos on October 8, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Just trying to keep the prof straight.

8. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77209 by philos on October 8, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Mr. Harris has a strong point. Reason and critical thought are good & well enough & will stand a much better chance than affronting oneself as an (angry) atheist - they'll shut their minds the moment you open your mouth, otherwise.

A few years ago Dawkins hardly ever mentioned god or atheism and made it clear - he wouldn't debate creationists as it would be similar to (we've all heard this from him before, many times, yawn) a Reproductive Specialist debating someone defending the Stork Theory of Reproduction. Now since it's a hot market & he's making millions - he's forgotten his own convictions.

Additionally, I think we all agree debate is good & absolutely necessary but there needs to be civilized debate - as you would see in Dawkins' favourite examples rolled out in front of us as to two people debating Keynesian economics, global warming or politics, etc. However, religion is NOT treated the same as Dawkins' Keynesian economics or politics; how often do you see educated, scholarly opinions calling the opposing side, 'ignorant fools'. They'd state their opinion, based on evidence, and that would be that. Much more respectful, don't you think?
The religious will notice this with instant defences ready. Get into their minds, slowly, by reason and evidence and you can't lose.

Professor Dawkins, I am a long time fan & agree with what you say but please tighten up your language and distance yourself a bit from the teuthologist, PZ Myers, is a bit more rough than I'd like.

Gentlemenly discourse, please.

9. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60776 by philos on August 2, 2007 at 8:26 pm

Therefore, all academics who aren't evolutionists and those who don't subscribe to the Darwinian worldview shouldn't be in a University? What about the English Department, who may know nothing, nor care, about evolution, them too? How absurd.

Please, look at the Liberal Education link provided above.

I'd love to debate more but gotta go
watch Behe on Colbert...

Sincerely,

- a 6.8 Agnostic

10. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60770 by philos on August 2, 2007 at 8:06 pm

McGrath is an educated, reasonable man - in some ways better than others.

As to his credibility, that depends on what subject of course; Oxford University thinks he's credible in something. After all, they are the ones who brought him aboard.

11. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60754 by philos on August 2, 2007 at 7:42 pm

I don't mind McGrath being Oxford Faculty; since Dawkins spends the time in debate with him in interviews and varied retort, Dawkins obviously respects him in some ways and not in others - and so worthy to throw the bone to on occasion.

That is what a Liberal Education is about.

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE3/LibEd.html

12. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59515 by philos on July 29, 2007 at 10:01 am

Would I spend my money to wear a t-shirt that generally stated the planet Yip-yip didn't exist, that millions of others believe in (and not withstanding all the other people out there that believe in other, separate planets that guide their lives, that also have a high probability of not existing)?

If there wasn't such a hostile A and a self-serving direction to this website, and
funds going towards a non-for-profit organization in the Promotion of General Science & Reason, YES.

*** Otherwise, as the shirt exists & if it were free, I'd wear it mowing the lawn or something. ***

Why invite argument and a punch in the nose arguing with the deluded? Will the RDF pay
my medical bills or will Michael Moore take care
of that, too?

*** YORKER - I just bought 5 blank white t-shirts the other day. Simplistic.

13. A force for evil?

Comment #55580 by philos on July 11, 2007 at 3:14 pm

Bonzai wrote, "for a normal, decent person to commit heinous crimes it requires rationalization to override his moral instinct."

It seems plausible to me that normal, decent people don't commit crimes in the first place.

And how on Earth do rationalization and moral instinct differ & override each other?

I suggest a dictionary.

Heinous crimes may be committed by people who may appear 'normal and decent' to you, but this is just but an act - something is obviously wrong in their mental state to begin with.

I'm not going to define what a 'bad' person is, but let us assume the prison population has generally 'bad' people - this is reasonable. Prisoners are often turned around in their life, not always, by religious groups helping them to get back on track. This is where 'bad' people do 'good' things comes into play. Pity Weinberg left that cliche out.

Please pay attention that it says nothing whatsover on whether religion is true or not. Personally, I don't think religion has a shred of evidence going for it. Yes, there are societal benefits, true or not. I think the benefits heavily outweigh the costs, however, and I don't mind living with so-called delusional people making the community (depending on where you live of course) a better place.

I don't see Atheist-directed organizations at the prisons, counseling people. Where are they?

In regards to Stalin, he may have been kind to his kin, but what about the staggering majority of other people he encountered (20,000,000 killings is a gross underestimate). Pity we can't ask, as they're as dead as your confused argument.

14. A force for good?

Comment #55579 by philos on July 11, 2007 at 3:13 pm

15. A force for good?

Comment #55506 by philos on July 11, 2007 at 10:36 am

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil�that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

Pity for the non-mentionable: for bad people to do good things, that takes religion.

http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/goth/MainPages/Is_there_a_designer_univer%20.pdf

16. A force for evil?

Comment #55504 by philos on July 11, 2007 at 10:34 am

17. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52960 by philos on June 28, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Pardon my affectionate comments on the t-shirt rather than the lecture itself; I haven't had the time to take a look at the video and look forward to his thoughts. Sometimes, it's a material world.

18. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52944 by philos on June 28, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Regarding the t-shirt: love the design, too; place that on the front and the Richard Dawkins Foundation insignia on the back. Sharp!

Also (unrelated): Hitchens was in a live debate today w/Rev. Sharpton on MSNBC Hardball Plaza if anyone can find & post the video feed. Excellent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19420245/

19. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #49412 by philos on June 11, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Yes - good questions in last half.

Here is a link to his mentioning of cultural relativism and Kennewick Man from the old Simonyi site (about a little over half way down):

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-03-24science_and_sensibility.shtml

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

Comment #49091 by philos on June 10, 2007 at 9:21 am

Robert Maynard:

I think we are saying the same thing, with your wording (below) more elegant than my crude example.

"Unless we consistently engage with people, their beliefs about us - and our beliefs about them - will be informed entirely by the beliefs of other people."

Since you mentioned immigration: I have no problem with legal immigration; I do have a problem with illegal immigration (and I do know quite a number of illegals under the radar). Illegal immigrants have to go through the front door, like everyone else. Please note I didn't even use the word Mexican.

And just in passing, what a wonderful media forum Professor Dawkins and crew created with the simultaneous publication of The God Delusion, last autumn. Just think of all the global personalities and sentiments you have been in contact with. Publishing houses may very well be changed forever.

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

Comment #48914 by philos on June 9, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Robert Maynard said " ... there's a blurry distinction between drawing attention to yourself for being a good person, and being a good person to draw attention to yourself. We should be good people because it feels good ... "

Fair point - however I would change it to "We should be moral for the sake of being moral", with moral being defined by the Zeitgeist of the day. "Because it feels good" is dependent on the person feeling it and so may be unreliable in a statement such as this; one particular person may be a sociopath, and their feeling good is definitely different than the accountant down the street.

However, as an example, let's say you were wrongly convicted of murder (you are truly innocent but no one believes you no matter how much you explain yourself - after all, you are right, the whole court system is wrong). You have served your time and now live in a nice suburban neighbourhood. You are seen in the eyes of your neighbours as malicious, evil and untrustworthy. Flyers go out about you and how dangerous you are. To gain their confidence and trust, would you go out of your way to make them see you are an 'ok' person (help out, be friendly to them, help to organize community events/charities, etc.) or would you mind your own business, a friendly nod every so often, give monetary donations to secular charities by mail (unfortunately no one knows about them) and wait for them to figure out you are a decent human being on your offish, perceived selfish, actions alone. Because, after all, you are innocent and right in your thought of mind - why bother with what they think?

No, of course not.

You'd be overly friendly and helpful and all the things that go along with acceptance of the previously unaccepted. Atheists have been compared in levels of trust to child sex offenders.

Think about it.

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

Comment #48892 by philos on June 9, 2007 at 11:29 am

Deja Vu:

I agree with your criticisms - however, I think if there were more altruistic endeavers from moralistic athelists (as we tout ourselves to be) in the name of Atheism, the public would not be so wary and to not think of atheists as evil-doers with cloven-hooves.

This is difficult, but at the same time most important, in societies where atheism is not-accepted.

I'm not quite sure about the square-dancing, however.

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

Comment #48852 by philos on June 9, 2007 at 7:38 am

The author poses an interesting point, claiming that religion creates a sense of community yet there are transparent walls between beliefs at the same time.

I have heard of countries (most in the European Union) where atheism is accepted and forms the majority of the population. How is life there? However, I am worried about atheism and public relations elsewhere, where acceptance is obscenely low.

In a related thread, Luthien, in comment #48532, says: "I am just wondering if you expect atheists to do their good deeds in "the name of atheism"? Do you realise how stupid that is? How can you do something in the "name" of a non-belief?"

Luthien, if you call yourself an atheist, you already DO label yourself, as I do, but atheism does have PR problems. Atheists needs to Lead by Example. I can suggest several authors with the financial resources and time to form such worthy causes.

Again, does anyone know an Atheist run organization for the needy? (those organizations mentioned in response to my query do not qualify - those listed are secular - 'secular' is not the same as 'atheist', thus, two different words)

I wish to be an atheist, but wish to be proud at the same time. Due to atheism critical thinking, I am already satisfied in the intellectual sense, but make me 'feel good' about atheism in other's eyes who don't accept atheism.

I see atheists have the cabability to run conventions in the name of Atheism, what about the street people around the corner to the hotel?

"Athiest Alliance International will be hosting their convention in Washington DC. Guest speakers include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. The convention officially starts on Friday, September 28 but a special session will be held on Thursday, September 27 with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens and the great-great grandson of Charles Darwin, Matthew Chapman.

For more information about this event, please go to:
http://www.atheistalliance.org/conventions/2007/index.php"

24. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48845 by philos on June 9, 2007 at 7:21 am

Luthien, in comment #48532, says: "I am just wondering if you expect atheists to do their good deeds in "the name of atheism"? Do you realise how stupid that is? How can you do something in the "name" of a non-belief?"

Luthien, if you call yourself an atheist, you already DO label yourself, as I do, but atheism does have PR problems. Atheists needs to Lead by Example. I can suggest several authors with the financial resources and time to do so.

Again, does anyone know an Atheist run organization for the needy? (those organizations mentioned in response to my query do not qualify - those listed are secular - 'secular' is not the same as 'atheist', thus, two different words) I see atheists have the cabability to run conventions in the name of Atheism, what about the street people around the corner to the hotel?

"Athiest Alliance International will be hosting their convention in Washington DC. Guest speakers include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. The convention officially starts on Friday, September 28 but a special session will be held on Thursday, September 27 with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens and the great-great grandson of Charles Darwin, Matthew Chapman.

For more information about this event, please go to:
http://www.atheistalliance.org/conventions/2007/index.php"

25. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48375 by philos on June 7, 2007 at 3:51 pm

I still haven't gotten a hint of one Atheist designated organization that has helped out society for a natural disaster or aiding the poor/homeless in a big way. If Atheists want to be regarded as moralistic, then you have to step up. How about instead of some authors reaping the awards and claiming some proceeds will go towards educating our young, why not also start an Atheist foundation for helping others in need to SHOW THE WORLD Atheists are helpful, good people, too. LEAD BY EXAMPLE. Someone listed the Red Cross - that's about as useful as listing Wal-Mart.

26. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48101 by philos on June 6, 2007 at 3:29 pm

I have to agree somewhat with the author. I used to respect Dawkins but not so much anymore - although I do agree with him. There's a way to get your point across but lately and no doubt to get attention for book sales, Dawkins and Hitchens come off as rude condescending asses, frankly.
It's worse that they prostitute their minds and skills in elegant language but in such a low way - why not the high road? I'd rather have a Christian as a neighbour, much more likely to be friendly and helpful although a bit looney. Dawkins and Hitchens need to conduct discourse like gentlemen and with class to emulate the Victorian elite they wish to be compared to - same argument - different times - enough shock talk - yawn.

Although I am not religious, I don't mind religion being around as it makes people happy, binds communities and helps others. There are negatives too but I surely wouldn't want to live in a community of atheists - how depressing. Besides, religion will be impossible to eradicate, as it will always be easier not to think and shrug your shoulders and just say there is a higher power that created the world around us. Kind of like there will always be fat people. Or people that are uneducated. Or people that are in debt. Always, always - so enlighten Yourself, but otherwise, don't hold your breath - you are wasting your time.

In addition, atheists really have to work on PR. When was the last time an Atheist organization helped out in the last natural disaster or soup kitchen near you? I guessed right.

27. Dental healer finds share of faithful believers

Comment #44228 by philos on May 23, 2007 at 7:24 pm

steveroot: are old and young Stroner still there?
Last I heard Dr. Rice was still there, too.

cheers ;)

28. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #35893 by philos on April 29, 2007 at 7:59 am

Oh get over yourselves, atheists.

It's not all about you and getting 'attacked'.

I support Dawkins' writings, but Paris Hilton 'entertainment' like this puts a bad taste in any reasonable person's mind.

The audience walked out because of the harsh language and graphic content; that's it.

Maybe they knew it would have been adult content, or maybe they didn't or maybe they didn't think it would be that bad. Do you have the flyer?

If I was a teacher and being a 6.8 level agnostic, I would take my students out of there without giving it a second thought.

Garbage is garbage and why waste time on this 'entertainer'.

I would have walked out too, with The God Delusion under my arm.

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

Comment #35057 by philos on April 26, 2007 at 5:20 am

Link to lecture at Univeristy of Dundee:

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/externalrelations/events/lectures.html

30. Brian Lehrer interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34586 by philos on April 24, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Lewis Thomas prize info:

http://www.rockefeller.edu/events/lewis_thomas/2006/

31. Medicine without Evolution Make Sense?

Comment #32957 by philos on April 18, 2007 at 8:31 pm

Dawkins gave a lecture, "Should Doctors be Darwinian?" several years back - I have never seen it. Anyone have a copy? Thanks. - philos

32. U.N. Draft Cites Humans in Recent Climate Shifts

Comment #30367 by philos on April 7, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Cassdenata:

Oh dear. I didn't hear about the alien :). That sounds alot more tame than the glowing raccoon he encountered in the mountains of California (both encounters, I am assuming, were due to drugs)

Here is Freeman Dyson's take on Global Warming:

Dyson has questioned the predictive value of current computational models of climate change, urging instead more extensive use of local observations. He considers this view to be "heretical", along with his views on the PhD system.

"The good news is that we are at last putting serious effort and money into local observations. Local observations are laborious and slow, but they are essential if we are ever to have an accurate picture of climate. The bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is expended are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather than physics to represent important things like evaporation and convection, clouds and rainfall. Besides the general prevalence of fudge-factors, the latest and biggest climate models have other defects that make them unreliable. With one exception, they do not predict the existence of El Ni�o. Since El Ni�o is a major feature of the observed climate, any model that fails to predict it is clearly deficient. The bad news does not mean that climate models are worthless. They are, as Manabe said thirty years ago, essential tools for understanding climate. They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate."[14]

While he acknowledges climate change may be in part due to anthropogenic causes, such as the burning of fossil fuels, he regards the term "global warming" as a misnomer:

"As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. � The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger."[15]

Regarding political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change, Dyson argues that other global problems should take priority.

"I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being GROSSLY exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans."[16]