1. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168249 by Serious on April 24, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Does anyone have a contact in the Cambridge University divinity school? I very much doubt that site is within the university rules for a site marked "university of Cambridge" only. I even doubt that it would meet the rules for a departmental site (even divinity). Looks like a rogue sysadmin.

2. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132496 by Serious on February 24, 2008 at 9:14 pm

"science" in quotes and "St." capitalized and without quotes. I wonder.

3. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126394 by Serious on February 13, 2008 at 6:25 am

Three men (two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan background) are arrested for planning the murder of a cartoonist (for insulting their prophet and his billion followers apparently). Danish response: all the major newspapers prints or reprints the cartoon done by the threatened man. The officialdom promises to expel the Tunisians and have let the Dane (Moroccan) go "pending further" inquiries. The family of the Tunisians responded with rants about Guantanamo and illegality trying to make sure that the two would-be murderers are not sent home to Tunisia.

Basically, it seems to be that the Danish response was/is (just) to give the finger to the bigots.

4. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123994 by Serious on February 8, 2008 at 6:00 am

I suspect that Dr. Rowan's comments are reflecting the conventional clerical concern to preserve religion's special status: canon law, special protection against insults to the clergy and their concerns, tax freedom for churches, etc. My impression during the danish cartoon incident was that clergymen, such as the pope, was more concerned to further the cause of protection against "blasphemy" than the cause of freedom of speech.

5. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115260 by Serious on January 23, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Rational_G writes:
"This man is a fool. He should have spent more time keeping Bill away from bimbos......."

actually if the bimbos had kept Bill away from fools like this maybe the world would have been a better place.

6. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #110878 by Serious on January 13, 2008 at 6:04 am

So the law didn't pass; not, defeated, just delayed. There is still time for a grand spectacle!

7. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103894 by Serious on December 27, 2007 at 8:53 am

On the topic: What is the most accessible short explanation of evolution for a non-scientist?

8. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #98999 by Serious on December 15, 2007 at 6:32 am

and a Happy Yuletide to you all.

9. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96562 by Serious on December 10, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Every town should have such a display!

10. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91616 by Serious on November 28, 2007 at 4:57 pm

I suspect that an actual ban would do the most good: First of all it would elevate the book to "banned book" status, secondly it would show the enforcers of religious dogma up as unreasonable bigots, and finally because the actual judgment would most likely contain reasoning and wording that could be used to present the bible, the koran, etc. as equally offensive (so that they they should - by the same sick logic - should be banned)

11. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83363 by Serious on October 29, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Hmmm. It would be hard to buy this kind of advanced publicity.

12. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77389 by Serious on October 9, 2007 at 7:31 am

Obviously, the safety of someone living in Holland is the obligation of the Dutch government, but I think it is less clear when someone chooses to live in a foreign country - in this case in the USA. If I understand correctly, she has decided to live in the US permanently. At least outrage against the Dutch government is overreaction.

13. Cartoons from Evolution: a journal of nature 1927-1938

Comment #67418 by Serious on September 3, 2007 at 11:33 am

#67267 by Ole on September 3, 2007 at 1:54 am said:
"Speaking of cartoons... did anyone see this?

++Artist Lars Vilks has made three drawings ridiculing the prophet Mohammed. The prophet is portrayed as a "roundabout dog".++"

Here is one of the drawings: http://jp.dk/udland/europa/article1068158.ece

Not much of a cartoon.

14. Cartoons from Evolution: a journal of nature 1927-1938

Comment #67377 by Serious on September 3, 2007 at 6:42 am

I wish we saw more such cartoons today.

But I guess we have become too polite to lampoon other people's "sacred beliefs".

15. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67373 by Serious on September 3, 2007 at 6:35 am

"rowdy and brash God bashers, obviously, in particular Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, who really are perilously close to losing their flawlessly rational heads as they fulminate like demented fire-and-brimstone preachers. Such men know it all, they don't listen, and presume to judge people they won't ever understand"

Simple slander and character assignation.

That article was merely an appeal to emotion and prejudice. Sadly, that often works.

16. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #66967 by Serious on September 1, 2007 at 6:13 am

My guess is that most people don't see the point of science; the cannot imagine anything beyond the current state of science: Everything needed to be discover has already been discovered! (remember "the end of science" book?) In fact hardly anyone outside the scientific community has a clue what is already known to scientists.

All we need is a bit of "common sense product development" :-(

We really badly need a lot of exceptionally good popularization of science.

17. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #66833 by Serious on August 31, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Caveat: I have only read the summary above and not seen the data itself.

It sounds as if

(1) most people would prefer there not to be a conflict between science and (their) religion.
(2) many religious people will cherry pick what they consider science ("good science") just as they pick what they consider religion ("good religion" as opposed to whatever manifestations of religion that the o not like)

That's unsurprising and certainly not a reason leave woolly-headed thinking unchallenged.

Leaving woolly-headed thinking unchallenged just allows it respectability and room to grow.

Allowing religious people to cherry pick "good science" is extremely dangerous because they (moderates and not) have a major impact on what is funded and taught. What Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. do is most important.

18. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64364 by Serious on August 19, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Religious people *often* make claims along the line of "there is no morality outside religion" or "morals come from God". It is good that Hitchens calls their bluff.

Experts in the field point out that conversions come from emotion, rather than logical argument. Hitchens provide plenty of that - and it's sorely needed. For this reason, I think Dawkins do more good when (on the rare occasion) he looses his cool than when he is his beautifully cool self. The contrast between the usual cool and the occasional heat can be most effective.

I don't think that Hitchens are particularly loose with his facts, but he is in the humanities (not the sciences) where facts are a bit harder to get perfectly hard and solid. He also debate people who appear to have a completely different view of what constitutes a fact.

19. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61498 by Serious on August 5, 2007 at 11:16 am

"I consider mainstream religious conservatives and extremists to be the most important target for attack because of their great political influence, but I'm happy to see RD going after these lesser breeds of irrationalist as well."

Do you go after the hardest targets (in this case, the well-organized and well-financed hard-core fundamentalists") or do you try to whittle at the multitude of soft targets (in this case, "small" superstition, everyday magical thinking, and various forms of repeatedly debunked healing techniques)? I think you must do both.

Most of us can personally do little against the hard targets, but have plenty of opportunities to make the soft targets less respectable where we encounter them. I can do little against the Catholic church's exploitation at Lourdes, but I can make certain social situations uncomfortable (and unprofitable) for a quack just by quoting the Amazing Randi or Dawkins.

20. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56232 by Serious on July 14, 2007 at 2:54 pm

marcdesm: "Maybe Mr. Hitchens' style is better suited for reaching a different segment of the population".

It is, and that's excellent. It is essential that the different "greats" differ dramatically in style and emphasis. Each can reach only a small minority of people.

21. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56201 by Serious on July 14, 2007 at 12:50 pm

mpslg: "I'm not complaining because I love hearing Sam speak, but I think I've heard all of these points in every lecture he gives."

Unfortunately, the opposing positions are repeated from tens of thousands of pulpits every week. I don't think we should complain about repetition. I wish more could presents these key points well and in more ways to get it across to more people.

22. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55608 by Serious on July 11, 2007 at 4:52 pm

I think Hitchen got bored. He let an awful lot of complete drivel pass.

One problem with arguing with prominent faithheads is that they *cannot* get bored or give up. Their livelihood and social position depends on staying in the game and never giving an inch where it matters.

23. For Muslim Extremists, Religion Matters

Comment #54287 by Serious on July 6, 2007 at 9:22 am

Nice article, very, but how do you reform or "moderate" the literal word of god?

I fear that this is a real and practical problem for many and that the alternatives are horrible.

24. At a Theater Near You ...

Comment #53946 by Serious on July 4, 2007 at 10:20 am

but has muslim *religious* leaders (as opposed to "community leaders") in the UK or elsewhere condemned the attacks?

I think not.

25. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39248 by Serious on May 10, 2007 at 8:13 am

Wow! A mainstream US television interview where the interviee actually got to speak in whole paragraphs - and what a lot CH managed to get said in the short time available.

26. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38175 by Serious on May 7, 2007 at 7:12 am

The Guardian seems to be a steady source of some of the worst of this kind of aggressive anti-Atheist articles. How come?

27. Mrs Darwin's diaries go online

Comment #25461 by Serious on March 13, 2007 at 8:59 am

Please don't "randomly" pick Marx and Nietzsche as contemporaries for Darwin. Why pick those when you can pick from every person living at the time? I suspect you are playing into deist propaganda. If I had to mention contemporaries for Darwin, I'd start with Englishmen and Scientists. You will have no problems finding "nice and normal" - and brilliant people.

28. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24034 by Serious on March 4, 2007 at 11:51 am

Scary, but also gratifying.

However, "don't get mad; get even".

"We" don't have to be as nasty or as muddleheaded as the godheads, but we have to be careful not to become so polite and sensitive that they no longer feel the need to throw tantrums. My reading of the situation is that what annoys "them" more than anything is that Prof. Dawkins and others don't allow anyone who screems "Faith" (capitalized) special deference.

29. Biology and Bullshit

Comment #23000 by Serious on February 25, 2007 at 5:02 pm

PsyPro: "You have the wrong root, try `transcendental' with the root-meaning of `transcend'---to go beyond or surpass"

Thanks. Unfortunately, I don't know E.O. Wilson's terminology well enough to be sure I understand that sentence. In "however science and religion wax and wane in the minds of men, there remains the earthborn, yet transcendental, obligation we are both morally bound to share." what is that "earthborn" obligation? and what is it supposed to "go beyond or surpass"?

30. Biology and Bullshit

Comment #22987 by Serious on February 25, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Try to google for "definition of transcendental" (or pick your favorite dead-tree dictionary). I found:

"transcendental
A adjective
1 nonnatural, otherworldly, preternatural, transcendental
existing outside of or not in accordance with nature; "find transcendental motives for sublunary action"-Aldous Huxley

2 transcendental
of or characteristic of a system of philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual about the empirical and material"

I don't think this makes any sense. Mysticism or religion by another name.

31. Church of England still valid as state religion?

Comment #19592 by Serious on January 28, 2007 at 6:19 pm

I think we should be careful not misrepresent history. Henry VIII's sexual activies seem not to have been particularly relevant to the story of the English church. He was a conspicuously "good boy" in most ways ("Defender of the Faith") until the pope (at the urging of his wife's brother, the ("Holy" "Roman") emperor, who had an army a day's march from Rome) didn't do what the clerics usually did when political chaos threathened as the result of a missing heir: he didn't grant Henry a divorce ("annulment"?). Remember the wars of the roses; Henry was very mindful of the likelyhood of civil war.

I think the breakaway of the church of England, was a good thing (compared to the alternative), and its later history quite enlightened (for a church), even if it is an anachronism today.