1. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #96145 by Mat on December 10, 2007 at 4:07 am

I completely agree with Ms Ali. If Muslims cannot and should not feel compassion in these circumstances, then they are not and cannot be moderate.

And it's worth remembering, that just because some individual Muslims are moderates, doesn't mean that Islam as a whole is or can be moderate.

2. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #93391 by Mat on December 3, 2007 at 4:01 am

I have a tendency to agree with _J_; I will begin work on my book "A Completely Uncritical and Frankly Sycophantic Paen of Praise in Favour of the Mighty Prof Dawkins (May No Radiant Angelic Light Ever Shine Upon Him) and All His Eloquent Utterances" immediately.

Mind you, after just writing the title I'm exhausted. Better have a bit more of a browse among His Most Perfect Words... :)

3. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93388 by Mat on December 3, 2007 at 3:32 am

@etny - I don't think it's utter crap that the Prof is bringing up. And beginning a discussion on a matter isn't necessarily the same thing as endorsing it 100% and believing it to be the cast-iron truth. We can safely leave that kind of certainty to the religious.

To me, it comes down to harm - if I were unfaithful to my wife, she would be very hurt. And vice versa. So for me, no contest - I'm going to be faithful. I've been cheated on and also been the one doing the cheating, and my experience in both situations was that it just wasn't worth the heartache. But that doesn't mean that I will make moral judgements about people who decide to have "open" relationships. If that's what they want, and it hurts no-one, fine. Not my cup of tea, but then I'm not in the business of forcing my cup of tea on everyone.

On another point, I don't believe that I have exclusive ownership over my wife's body. SHE is the one that promised me exclusive sexual access. And I promised the same to her. I don't own anything other than a stake in her promise, and vice versa. So if she were to cheat on me, it would be the impact of the breaking of that trust that would be the most powerful. And of course, there would also be the jealousy and humiliation aspects to deal with too. I'd feel them alright, because I'm only human...

4. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #91329 by Mat on November 28, 2007 at 4:05 am

In a scientific context, wouldn't the phrases "conditional confidence" and "conditional trust" be more appropriate than "faith?"

Assumptions are made - fine. They are assumptions, not "faith-based decisions." These assumptions then turn out to be supported by really massive amounts of data - but nevertheless, the assumptions are still only "conditionally" accepted and trusted. If a scientist COULD disprove one of the Laws, they WOULD. That is not something that most religious zealots would do to their own cherished brand of non-rationality. Can you imagine a right-wing American Evangelical saying "Wow! I just found watertight historical evidence that Jesus was gay! That's just fabulous!!" No, they have to accept the dogma unequivocally.

Scientists don't. Their "faith" is always conditional. If the evidence comes up, they'll change their minds - eventually, and probably with a fair bit of "defending cherished positions". But change they will.

5. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89896 by Mat on November 22, 2007 at 4:43 am

It is also arguable that being anti-Muslim is not the same as being racist. If you are anti-Christian, no-one thinks that you are prejudiced against white people. In the same way, being anti-Muslim should not be taken as meaning that you are prejudiced against people with darker skin. Proponents of a religion are different from and cut across all sorts of racial groups. I am anti-religion-in-general - does that mean that it's safe for anyone to assume that I am prejudiced against people of any and all skin colours? No. Being opposed to irrational religious claims, particularly when they espouse violence, praise discrimination and instil a deeply divisive mentality is NOT the same as being racist.

6. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God

Comment #85798 by Mat on November 7, 2007 at 6:12 am

Cartomancer - "omelletosity" - a fine addition to the English language, made me laugh!

7. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #83228 by Mat on October 29, 2007 at 11:09 am

I live in South Africa at the moment, and can certainly confirm that full-on, no-thought-required, Christian fundamentalism is alive and well. My well-educated South African colleagues (of all skin colours, incidentally...) all subscribe to some form of theistic belief system. The only real question you can ask is not whether they believe in God, but how much they believe in their particular God. I certainly haven't paraded my lack of belief or challenged them in theirs, but it is scary that so many people here (of all skin colours) hew so closely to a philosophy and mindset that actively requires that they do no use critical thinking in any way. And in a way I find it almost personally insulting that South Africa can have some of the most amazing proto-human remains and yet people wilfully ignore this breathtaking, awesome knowledge. SA has a lot of problems at the moment - and I guarantee that they will NOT be solved by theology...

8. How China Got Religion

Comment #78176 by Mat on October 12, 2007 at 3:51 am

Bonzai said "...but "community" is often not as rosy and one may imagine."

I agree 101% with this statement. Communities in Swaziland, for example, espouse traditional behaviour which massively and permanently disempowers women from owning land and operating successful businesses. Men are able to beat and rape their wives with relative impunity from both the "formal" law as well as from "traditional" leaders. A woman whose husband dies can be forcibly removed from "his" land, which gets taken back by his family, leaving the woman homeless, landless and destitute.

This is all traditional, community behaviour. It is happening today, right now, and not just in Swaziland either.

This kind of traditional community systematically and deliberately causes untold suffering to women - and can also affect men that try to oppose it - for no better reason than that they've always done it.

Community is not necessarily a good thing. Swazi women's best chance for progress in reducing the stultifying oppression they face comes from "modernising" the Swazi legal system and changing the most pernicious aspects of community culture.

Preventing or opposing suffering is and has to be a moral absolute. Pretending that suffering isn't happening because "it's always been that way" or that it's an "intrinsic part of a traditional culture" just doesn't cut it. Suffering is suffering. And should be opposed.

9. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71220 by Mat on September 18, 2007 at 4:40 am

Unless I've got this very wrong, the British Humanist Association (http://www.humanism.org.uk - apologies to those who are not from the UK!) already does Humanist celebrations of major (formerly religious) events such as births, marriages, deaths.

To me, this guy is just doing the same thing. Why anyone should be shocked, appalled or annoyed is beyond me. OK, he sounds a bit like a self-promoting egotist, but that comes with the turf of being human.

I support him completely. I got married in a civil ceremony that was shorn of any and all religious frippery, I "confirmed" my children into the world by watching them being born, and fully intend to die and be cremated without anyone once having to kowtow to bearded, sky-dwelling psychopaths. I think that Humanists SHOULD have their own ways of celebrating life's big events. Why should the irrationalists have a monopoly on it?

PS - and Humanist ceremonies dosn't have to be compulsory anyway, unlike (in former times) the religious ones...

10. Real Out-of-Body Experiences

Comment #68407 by Mat on September 7, 2007 at 5:06 am

I had an out-of-body experience recently. I played squash for the first time in quite a long time, and received a comprehensive, no-holds-barred thrashing. This was very unusual - back in my 20s my body had been very good at squash, as had I. It took me quite a while to realise why I'd been so devastatingly humbled - I was in somebody else's body, not my own! So I'd like to send a quick message to the person who's body I was in - you really ought to look after it a bit better, you know. It was crap: no stamina; no speed; aching knees; wheezing lungs; terrible hand-eye coordination. Appalling. I shall be using my own body from now on.

11. Creationism raised as Ont. election issue

Comment #68403 by Mat on September 7, 2007 at 4:54 am

No, no, no, the politicians have got it all wrong AGAIN!

"At the moment, only Roman Catholic schools get tax dollars, while other faith-based schools are left out of the funding loop."

ALL faith-based schools should be cut out of the funding loop, for [insert-deity-of-choice]'s sake!

Anyway, teach religion, by all means. It's interesting stuff. Important stuff, too. It's just that the claims that all religions make can simply not be shown to be "true." So you shouldn't teach it in science classes. Full stop.

12. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62239 by Mat on August 9, 2007 at 3:18 am

Loved this article - such a clear and concise explanation of things I wish I was able to articulate so well!

But about the difference between art and science - i.e. engineering tells you how to make an instrument, but not how to write a symphony - that's taking it too far. You CAN learn how to write a symphony. There are rules / guidelines to music that you can follow to write "better" songs than you could before. Music is not just weird "creativity" that comes out of nowhere - if you study it, you can get better at it. Just like engineers study to become better engineers... And yes, there are some musicians / engineers that are better than others, regardless of study. The scientific method is just as applicable to music as it is to engineering, although may well be dealing with very different types of data.

Anyway, after that pontificating, a plug for my music website - no engineering in site!

www.canecutters.co.uk - go to the RoughCut tab for my tunes, and the other tabs for the other members of the CaneCutters collective.

13. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #61698 by Mat on August 6, 2007 at 11:53 am

@ Dr Benway - please change your avatar, it's just too scary.

:)

14. Tinkering with Humans

Comment #55718 by Mat on July 12, 2007 at 4:09 am

Maybe this is the next Darwinian speciation for humanity. Homo Sapiens Lucratus will take over from Homo Sapiens Sapiens. But for those of us without the lucre - look what happened to the Neanderthals that co-existed with modern humans...

15. Journey Into Islam

Comment #52222 by Mat on June 26, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Scary stuff. Truly scary. But not, I think, entirely surprising.

16. Trio to rock against religion

Comment #52221 by Mat on June 26, 2007 at 2:00 pm

@ Mind Rebel: I've lived and worked in Africa for many years, mainly eastern, but I currently live and work in South Africa. Their religious traditions are not the only thing that is holding them back. I'd certainly agree that the baleful influence of religion (mainly Christian promotion of the idea that black and white should not mix, which was one of the bases of apartheid) in South Africa has been profound, but looking at the continent as a whole, there are many, many problems that are holding them back. Some are self-inflicted, some emphatically aren't. That's not to say I think they shouldn't embrace rationality - it would be wonderful if they did. However, even if they did, there would still be many pressing problems that they would need to combat over many years. Still, I'm glad these rockers are taking up the issue. South Africa is still a very, very religious country, across the board.

17. The courage of their convictions

Comment #51011 by Mat on June 21, 2007 at 4:31 am

This is fantastic stuff, and fantastically courageous of these people. While it may be possible, in America or Europe, to pick and choose your "flavour" of Christianity, or even leave the church completely, Muslims are simply not allowed to do this, on pain of death. This organisation deserves respect, support and, in my view, a standing ovation.

18. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48218 by Mat on June 7, 2007 at 4:33 am

@ Philos: "When was the last time an Atheist organization helped out in the last natural disaster or soup kitchen near you?" My company is an non-God-based organisation. Although we are not an "Athiest" organisation, in the sense of overtly rejecting god/s, the company does not "believe" in god/s. It lets its employees believe in whatever religion they like - but we DO manage development projects around the world. We also put some of our profits into a fund to help out community projects. We helped out with the recent tsunami in the Solomons. We provide support to AIDS projects in South Africa. We help other communities recovering from natural disasters and civil war through assisting with, for example, raising chickens for food and barter. I am an atheist, and I have committed my life and work, every day, to try to help developing countries. I don't do this because there is (or isn't) a god. I do it because I believe it to be the right thing to do.

19. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47617 by Mat on June 5, 2007 at 4:37 am

Regarding Bizarro Dawkins' above post, I must confess that I agree, to an extent, that the problem of religious indoctrination of children by parents is something that governments would find very difficult to do anything about - even if one assumes they "should." However, the article doesn't ask for that. It asks for dialogue, debate, conversation on the matter. Something very different. I, for one, feel that governments are generally incompetent and power-hungry, so giving them more powers is something that should be questioned hard. I'd agree with Bizarro on this, if that was what he was saying. But unfortunately, he was also doing a reflexive strawman argument because the reality (let's talk about this) is more reasonable than what he wants to object to (all religious teaching is bad and the government should do something about it).

20. The Atheism FAQ with Richard Dawkins

Comment #47093 by Mat on June 3, 2007 at 2:15 am

@JAF: LOL! Just love that God FAQ. Short, sharp, to the point.

On the other aspects of this thread, I think that an amalgamation of various answers to religious-ites "questions" - or rather, dogmatic statements - about atheists generally and the validity of their own beliefs would be great. Sam Harris summarises some of his views on his webpage (can't find exact link at the moment, but it's www.samharris.org). I also enjoyed "http://www.godisimaginary.com/" although think that it's somewhat repetitive and maybe not entirely well-thought-out all the time. Made me laugh though. And "http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm" is just fantastic for people, like me, who haven't read the actual bible since they were kids.

And, when it comes to it, I reckon this entire site, with all its forum posts, is probably one of the best places around to gather answers to FAQs. The standard of knowledge and piercing logic is exceptionally high.

21. Diary of a Deserter

Comment #46377 by Mat on May 31, 2007 at 4:15 am

Comment for Brian, because I also couldn't comment on his blog, not having a Google account: you are not alone; you are doing the right thing; however painful, getting rid of the irrational beliefs you were unfairly indoctrinated with will give you the opportunity to be a rational, thoughtful, compassionate and decent human being who does it because that's the right thing to do, not because some Uber-Bearded-ParentInTheSky tells you to (through a bunch of men...). Good luck, my thoughts are with you.

22. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #44689 by Mat on May 25, 2007 at 7:23 am

What about a course for atheist sports workers?

23. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #44678 by Mat on May 25, 2007 at 7:08 am

Again and again the same "canards." Atheists do not hate God. They simply don't think that he/she/it exists. They don't think that religions are a healthy mental model with which to approach life - i.e. the unquestioning acceptance of certain stories handed down by "authorities" with no proof. Where's the hatred in that?

24. Importing a slave class

Comment #44625 by Mat on May 25, 2007 at 5:45 am

Just don't know where to begin with this stuff, I really don't...

25. Prayer - A Neurological Inquiry

Comment #44616 by Mat on May 25, 2007 at 5:40 am

Fantastic article. A christian would just witter on about the mystery of God and how we can never know these kinds of things blah blah. But these kinds of studies are the nails in the coffin of irrational ideas... there's got to be a showdown at some point...

26. Creationist Periodic Table of the Elements

Comment #44596 by Mat on May 25, 2007 at 5:16 am

I love the Kansas State motto on the flag: "As dumb as you think." Just fantastic.

27. The Blairs' Witch Project

Comment #44590 by Mat on May 25, 2007 at 5:12 am

Crystal energy, faith healing, what a load of old cobblers. Preying on the gullibility of benighted, ill-educated, credulous fools. Good job the people who get taken in by con-men like this don't have any real influence or power, hey? Oh, wait...

28. Atheists: Get off of our country!

Comment #44584 by Mat on May 25, 2007 at 5:06 am

Just amazing. Conflating "freedom of religion" with "forced belief in religion" - exactly the opposite of what the intention was! This stuff is brilliant because it shows exactly how small-minded, nasty, vituperative and anti-freedom some Christians can be. Unfortunately, I suspect that many people would nod and agree with her if you read this to them...

29. Educated, Inspired Conservative Christians

Comment #41390 by Mat on May 16, 2007 at 4:20 am

Hmm, no mention in here of his disgraceful assertions about pagans, gays, lesbians et al helping 9/11 to happen. Good job Alan Wolfe at Salon.com has also been referenced on this site to balance the score, even if his article is somewhat overbalanced the other way...

30. The Greatest Act of Human Hubris

Comment #40830 by Mat on May 15, 2007 at 4:27 am

Fabulous stuff. Better get on with some "real" work though...

31. One side can be wrong

Comment #40823 by Mat on May 15, 2007 at 4:11 am

As usual, "Devolved" (maybe should change name to "Unevolved?") has got the wrong end of the stick. Random genetic changes are indeed random. But natural selection doesn't have a lot to do with luck. "Descent with modification" means that those random changes that improve, in some way, an individual's or species' survival prospects become more dominant over time. That's not LUCK. It is natural selection. Die-hard Christians just can't seem to grasp the idea that natural selection is anything but luck-based, just like they persistently refuse to recognise what a "scientific theory" is. It is NOT just an invention, a hunch, a guess, something a scientist made up after a long night on the beer. Taken from Jerry Coyne's brilliant article "The faith that dare not speak its name": "...the Oxford English Dictionary defines a scientific theory as "a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts." In science, a theory is a convincing explanation for a diversity of data from nature." Come on Christians, get with it, there's only so much to be gained out of deliberately misunderstanding or simply being unwilling to face the facts.

32. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39140 by Mat on May 10, 2007 at 4:41 am

Wilson does the old "without God you don't have to care about doing bad things" straw man. What RUBBISH. Causing suffering is wrong, full stop. Brutal murder and genocide are wrong, full stop. Why do we need a God to tell us that? Our morality has advanced (away from Old Testament norms) because many generations of people, intelligent people, began to realise that, e.g. it wasn't a good idea to let totalitarianism go unchecked. total power corrupts totally, to paraphrase. You don't need to wrap that up in religious blither about God's sovereignty. Whether or not there is a God, the consensus grew that human societies are better off being governed in a way that allows more than one person's view, or an elite's view, to be the deciding factor.

33. Londonistan Calling

Comment #39135 by Mat on May 10, 2007 at 4:21 am

To HunterZolomon #39104 "cross our heart, hope to detonate in a large crowd..." Made me laugh out loud, and now all my colleagues are looking at me... Hilarious.

Muslim clerics should be prosecuted for the kind of comments they make - advocating violence against women, Jews, homosexuals, Indians - it's a disgrace. Doesn't matter what religion you are, incitements to violence should not be allowed. Spineless government doesn't want to "offend" Muslims though. This modern preoccupation with "offence" is just mad, it really is.

34. Orr vs. Dennett/Dawkins

Comment #27485 by Mat on March 25, 2007 at 12:05 am

The whole debate about creationism is an interesting one - I think it should be discussed in science classes, but NOT necessarily investigating the actual claims that creationists make. It is hard to see a better example of non-science parading around in a scientist's garb than creationism. Maybe a lecture series entitled "If You Start Doing This Kind of Thing and Trying to Pretend It Is Science, You Should Be Extremely Worried." I think creationism would fit nicely into a science class in that context.

35. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27484 by Mat on March 24, 2007 at 11:50 pm

I agree with many of the comments here - a standard technique to flim-flam an argument is to misrepresent it, then flame the misrepresentation. Clarkson flames the concentric circles idea based on a misrepresentation. He then flames Harris for being all talk and no evidence - providing no evidence himself. Ho hum. But I fundamentally disagree that the fight against the bad fairy believers REQUIRES a marriage between the no-fairy believers and the good fairy believers. I'm with Harris and Dawkins on this - from an intellectual perspective, they're all as bad as each other. Although I do sometimes wonder if, in the real and imperfect world of politics and power, the bad fairy believers do need a concerted push from everyone who disagrees with their theocratic agenda. Even if they did, however, it wouldn't take away from the fundamental point that there simply ARE NO FAIRIES and that the good fairy believers just don't have a leg to stand on.

36. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7983 by Mat on November 20, 2006 at 3:59 am

So, God exists entirely outside the universe, huh? But He/She/It MUST have some kind of link to this universe, because He/She/It must be able to tap into the communication that is being "beamed" by prayer. And must also be able to tap into more "normal" physical information, because He/She/It knows what people are doing (and thinking). So the argument falls down. God CANNOT be "entirely" outside the universe. Unless humanity has some kind of existence OUTSIDE the universe too, so that God can pick up on all the info He/She/It needs? But if that is the case, surely science should be investigating it as a matter of urgency? How does it all work? That is definitely a scientific question...