1. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224557 by Neal on August 5, 2008 at 5:31 am

I don't want to seem like a kill-joy but I agree with scoobie (#62) and was a little disappointed with this first show :o( Let me try and explain.

I think that Richard was trying to demonstrate two things in this show:

1. Demonstrate the level of ignorance of evolution and how religion compounds this
2. Present the main evidence for evolution, namely: fossils and DNA.

With respect to the first item, this was adequately demonstrated using the school children. With respect to the second item, however, I didn't think that this point was adequately made. I think that more time should have been spent on geology and the fossil record and DNA. For example, after the show my 12 yr old son asked me how DNA can be used to prove evolution. I explained it to him (as best as I could) but I feel that some diagrams or an animation at that point in the show would have conveyed the point far more effectively, i.e. place the ball firmly in the creationist's court, in the eye of every viewer, to explain why they think the earth is only 6000 years old.

Maybe (hopefully) these topics will be covered in more detail later in the series.

2. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #215569 by Neal on July 22, 2008 at 6:20 am

With respect to debating D'Souza (or any of the other prominent theists), I don't think that the debate format is very conducive. Instead, we should have 30 minutes of, say, Dawkins questioning D'Souza about his beliefs followed by 30 minutes of D'Souza questioning Dawkin's reasoning. Personally, I'd really like to understand why obviously intelligent people like D'Souza suspend their critical faculties when it comes to their faith - emotional intertia probably

3. Evolutionarily Preserved Signature Found In The Primate Brain

Comment #198878 by Neal on June 24, 2008 at 3:38 pm

From Comment #198589 by TeraBrat on June 24, 2008 at 9:24 am

"Homosexuality is natural occurence. It occurs in the animal kingdom and there's nothing to "fix". In fact I think it's a good thing. There's a reason for it or it wouldn't exist."

Is it possible that homosexuality is caused by a mis-firing of some other evolutionary trait?

4. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191459 by Neal on June 11, 2008 at 2:39 am

I have a question for the biologists out there.

Often, speech is touted as a measure of sentience. As other animals do not seem to have as large a vocabulary as humankind their intelligence is thought to be limited.

However, there is a difference between generating sounds and hearing them. Therefore, is it possible that some animals actually understand far more than they can communicate?

5. Altruism in social insects is a family affair

Comment #186243 by Neal on May 30, 2008 at 2:34 am

With respect to E.O. Wilson's challenge, I once read in a management text book somewhere that, under controlled conditions, when a devil's advocate (somebody who challenged the group norms) was deliberately inserted into a team, that those teams out performed those without a devil's advocate in them.

The really interesting thing was, however, that when each team was asked to select a team member to remove, all but one of the teams selected the devil's advocate.

(Sorry, I can't remember which book it was)

6. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #158782 by Neal on April 11, 2008 at 3:23 am

In part 3 RD talks about pseudo genes (or junk DNA) and I have read that there is a lot of junk DNA (more in humans than most species). I have a question that may be related to this and I wondered if anybody could point me in the right direction. My question is ...

Instincts must be pre-programmed into our brains. Therefore, they must be inherited through DNA, i.e. our brains not only have a basic input output system (BIOS) but a 'bootstrap' program as well to make us drink when we are thirsty, attract us to members of the opposite sex in order to reproduce, etc. Therefore, I would like to know whether we have identified which (if any) DNA constitutes this bootstrap program, i.e. instincts.

I ask this because it occurs to me that what may be percieved as common junk DNA between the species may be, in fact, common instincts, e.g. drink when thirsty, etc.

Thank you in advance

7. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #158772 by Neal on April 11, 2008 at 3:06 am

In part 4 RD gives his favourite example of the size of the error that new earth creationists make when they claim that the world is only 6000 years old ...

"that's equivalent to believing that the width of North America, from New York to San Fransisco, is 7.8 yards"

I like to think, and RD (or anybody else) is free to use it instead, that a better example would be ...

"that's equivalent to believing that the world ends 58 yards (53 metres) beyond the edge of the town or village they live in"

which sort of re-inforces their very limited world view.

8. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149074 by Neal on March 25, 2008 at 4:48 am

I may not agree with McGrath's beliefs, but he seemed very opposed to violence and intolerance in the world in any guise.

Therefore, as it is the fundies/extremists that seriously threaten our future, not moderate Anglicans, I think that we should enlist the help of people like McGrath (religeous apologists) in order to actively expose and expel extremism from religeon.

It is argued that the moderates legitimise the fundies/extremists views, that is why I think that exposing these beliefs from within may achive more positive results.

9. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93030 by Neal on December 2, 2007 at 3:00 am

Part 14: As I understand it, in answer to a question, DDS says that our whole experience is a product of, and limited, by our 5 senses and we should not deny the existence of god because we cannot sense him.

However, if he cannot be detected or sensed then doesn't this mean that he must be an invention of the human mind!

Maybe i'm just missing something simple here ...

10. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81873 by Neal on October 25, 2007 at 10:29 am

FWIW I think that there seems to be one very important debating point missing and that is:

"Was religion beneficial to the development of society. Is this the case now?

We have the arguments against the fundementalists, but to a certain extent it doesn't matter because they do not want to believe differently.

Therefore, I contend that we should be looking to enter a discourse with the moderates and apologists who create/believe in god in any way that they can so that they can feel that they belong to community in which they feel loved and valued.

If we can show these people how the reported sayings of the prophet(s) have been manipulated for personal gain and, objectively, of the value of religion to society today, we will start to remove the blanket from under which the fundamentalists hide and expose them for the sadly deluded people that they are.

Neal

11. Messiah

Comment #53189 by Neal on June 30, 2007 at 3:04 am

79. CargoShip359
I agree, if Derren is using actors/stooges then the whole premise of the program, be wary of any supernatural claims, is compromised. However, the fact that these people/organisations really do seem to exist (see post 41 from Insomicman) make me think this is not the case especially as some of these websites are pretty big and 8 or 9 years old (i.e. unlikely to have been set up to propogate the hoax).

But even if Derren was using actors then consider this; it is the target audience of this program who are being encouraged to suspend their critical faculties, not the actors in the program, in order to re-inforce their own beliefs, or lack of as the case may be. Either way the program amply demonstrates that it is relatively easy to promote ones own beliefs (theism/atheism) through trickery.

12. Messiah

Comment #53043 by Neal on June 29, 2007 at 4:32 am

Comment 76, AntonAAK.
Exactly, This is not meant to be a discussion of how Derren Brown's achieves his illusions, if that's the best way of describing them, but an extremely delightful expose of how many respected believers suspend their critical faculties when presented with something they would prefer to believe in.

Showing how easy this is to achieve may be a better way of breaking down a believer's barriers (e.g. Darwin's Badgers wife in post 52 above) rather than trying to argue science vs supernatural with believers ultimately taking refuge behind the NOMA argument.

13. Messiah

Comment #52870 by Neal on June 28, 2007 at 10:02 am

The important thing here is not how he does it, but just how easy people can be led to believe in, or to re-inforce their beliefs in, the supernatural.

14. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5873 by Neal on November 11, 2006 at 1:19 pm

Ah come on. You need bible-thumpers to post here so you can call them stupid. None of them are going to come up with anything worth debating that hasn't been raised by people like them and destroyed by rational minds already. Anyway, such people aren't looking for debate - they're looking to affirm their own beliefs.

15. Why there is no God

Comment #5221 by Neal on November 8, 2006 at 5:28 am

Surely you just turn the design argument on its head. Things that look like they were designed must have been designed and therefore had a designer. No. Things that have been designed look like they have evolved. And they have...

16. Atheists should be louder and prouder

Comment #5039 by Neal on November 7, 2006 at 8:48 am

Call it a non-belief system. The dictionary definition of 'belief' is something accepted as true especially without positive proof. Theists believe, they have faith -- it saves them the trouble of having to use their brains.

17. Atheist firebrand

Comment #5016 by Neal on November 7, 2006 at 8:04 am

The census forms probably had tick boxes on them beside a selection of religions and no tick box for 'atheist'. Being good little form fillers people probably felt they HAD to tick at least one box.

18. The New Unbelievers

Comment #5010 by Neal on November 7, 2006 at 7:20 am

It's funny to note, with all the talk of morality (i.e. how can you be moral without religion), that the little disclaimers you get in articles like the above are the product of moral cowardice. People like Dawkins are morally brave enough to say, without being mealy-mouthed, "Your beliefs are absolute tripe, and here's why..."

19. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #5004 by Neal on November 7, 2006 at 7:03 am

Manfred, I think you're missing a major point here. Truthseeker is stupid and should be told so loudly, possibly with the words punctuated by hitting him on the head with a bible or similar nonsense tome.