451. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56843 by Rtambree on July 17, 2007 at 1:04 pm

The definition "anti-American" seems like something that can be used two completely opposite meanings. Avi may seem "anti-American" by one definition (e.g. anything criticising anything about any aspect between Canada and Mexico) but there's a sense where it can be perceived as PRO-American. That is, if you want the American people to have the best education & media, effective health service, efficient government, clean environment, and high social indices commensurate with its top GDP, and you criticise government policy that is preventing this from happening (e.g. excessive military spending) then criticism of a White House Administration is actually PRO-American.

This second definition actually makes Bush anti-American because his policies harm Americans. That's why the flag is made into a religion of nationalism - to confuse the two definitions.

452. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #56839 by Rtambree on July 17, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Congratulations.

453. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56836 by Rtambree on July 17, 2007 at 12:45 pm

>We'll see how well he does in each...and then discuss his views with him after that...

Having arbitrary tests like these work both ways. You could stack up all the Christians/Jews bodies killed by Muslims over the last 10 years and all the Muslim bodies killed by Christians/Jews and see which pile is higher? The point is they're BOTH to be condemned for the suffering they inflict on innocent lives. To condemn one is not to excuse the other.

454. Insurance for Sex Abuse: A policy tailor-made for the Catholic church

Comment #56833 by Rtambree on July 17, 2007 at 12:38 pm

How long before we see a 'For Sale' sign in front of St Peters?

455. Convict sues God for broken contract

Comment #56831 by Rtambree on July 17, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Don't you just love The Onion.

456. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56825 by Rtambree on July 17, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Why does it always come back to this binary thinking? It's either ALL Islam's fault or ALL the west's fault. Makes for good TV perhaps, but it doesn't map onto reality very well.

Why can't all Abrahamic faiths be condemned for the violence, misogyny, and bronze age thinking? What Christianity and Judaism lack in barbaric ideology, they make up for with indiscrimate firepower that kills thousands. What Islam lacks in military force, it makes up for with particularly unenlightened doctrines. In terms of actual impact, you can't just single out one faith and blame everything on them.

Having said that, it's good to have an "insider" expose Islam rather than some Fox News Shock Jock - Ali is much more credible.

457. Fears Grow Over 'Mega Mosque'

Comment #56783 by Rtambree on July 17, 2007 at 7:50 am

I don't know on what grounds you could single out this one place of worship when there are hundreds of others.

Hate speech? Perhaps, but you'd have to be consistent and dismantle all Abrahamic places of worship as they overlap in their hate speech. At the very least, you could withdraw government funding, tax exemptions, to Church of England parishes, faith schools, etc.

Architectural aesthetics? Local government planning? Perhaps.

Christian country? Certainly not - that would be hypocritical of atheists to sign a petition in the name of a Christian country.

Evidence of a base of terrorism? Sure, but show us the evidence.

Threat? Not really credible at this stage. Atheists would be a laughing stock if we started quaking in our boots every time the Daily Express or some Murdoch outlet ran some fearmongering piece. It reminds me of that cartoon skit in Bowling for Columbine where the white folk are constantly scared.

The war of ideas to make society irreligious won't be won by top-down draconian goverment interventions. Even Hitchens supports the Voltaire-notion of free speech. Often these actions end up radicalising the enemy further as they feel persecuted.

458. American Taliban on the warpath against evolution

Comment #56526 by Rtambree on July 16, 2007 at 5:45 am

Henri, you're still there? Don't you have a country to invade? Pakistan remember? And then all the other potential threats: Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, etc. There's a lot to do for brave folk like you, so I won't hold you up any longer.

459. American Taliban on the warpath against evolution

Comment #56516 by Rtambree on July 16, 2007 at 5:14 am

So populations have to be deceived and controlled, but the grunts in the military are making free and fair choices whether to go to war? Yeah, that's real consistent thinking.

By all means, notch up all the frequent flier miles you can by invading every "potential" threat on the planet. No objections here. Send us a postcard.

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

Comment #56513 by Rtambree on July 16, 2007 at 5:06 am

83. Comment #56458 by Canuck#1 on

>To sit down and talk on a one-to-one basis t0 the champions of rationalism I would choose the following order:

You forgot Angelina Jolie on your list? She's publically declared her atheism. Where would she rank? Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

461. Before the New Atheists: Confessions of a Lonely Atheist

Comment #56510 by Rtambree on July 16, 2007 at 4:58 am

7. Comment #56496 by jonecc

>I'm sorry, it is indeed a prequel. I would say that made her the theists' Phantom Menace, but there's nothing mediocre about her.

Mediocre? What's your definition of a bad movie? Mediocre is a compliment for TPM. Has there been a worse movie? :)

462. American Taliban on the warpath against evolution

Comment #56506 by Rtambree on July 16, 2007 at 4:48 am

Henri,

>Afghanistan & Iraq are no longer threats to the west -

What do you mean "no longer". This implies they once were.

Actually, if you examined the news, the west is MORE threatened (from terrorists, not nation states) than ever...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2067081.ece

That's from The Times, hardly a left wing idealist newspaper.

I've no problem with warmongering, so long as the warmongers are the first across the front line. If you're willing to be the first to land on the tarmac in Islamabad, with Hitchens by your side, in your American t-shirts, so we can sleep soundly at night, be our guests.

What I do have a problem with is warmongerers sending other people across the battlefield, on false pretenses, with the intelligence agencies warning that people will be worse off.

463. American Taliban on the warpath against evolution

Comment #56500 by Rtambree on July 16, 2007 at 4:06 am

10. Comment #56497 by Henri Bergson

>Should the allies control Pakistan? – Undoubtedly.

What? Have you been watching the news lately? Do you know any history? Have we learnt nothing?

Even if it were desirable, the combined might of the USA & UK can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the Airport after four years (longer than USA's involvement in WWII), let alone "control" every rogue nuclear state.

Just like the US health care system is grossly inefficient (lots of money spent, poor results), the military is equally useless. Bombing is the easy part, nation-building is more difficult. The primary purpose of "The Military" is to tranfer public funds to defense contractors. Whether the missions succeed or fail is inconsequential. If Americans are safer or more at risk as a result of all these adventures is irrelevant.

464. Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism?

Comment #56483 by Rtambree on July 16, 2007 at 2:23 am

I'm just reading a book on the Enlightenment, and the great Lisbon earthquake of 1755 that killed tens of thousands caused a lot of reflection among theists. Many intellectuals were turned from theists into deists, and some deists became agnostics and the first true atheists appeared about that time e.g. d'Holbach.

I wonder if the 2004 tsunami or Hurricane Katrina caused a similar spike in irreligiosity among the general population.

465. Before the New Atheists: Confessions of a Lonely Atheist

Comment #56481 by Rtambree on July 16, 2007 at 2:03 am

I wonder if the flag and calls for unifying prayer are just to cover up for the divisive policies of successive White House administrations - i.e. drive down tax rates, increase the gap between rich and power, dismantle social programs, turn multimillionaires into billionaires, transfer trillions in tax revenue over to the defense contractors, etc.

Patriotism and religion are useful in hoping no one will notice or care. I wonder if how many of the elites in the White House over the years are actually genuinely religious or patriotic, as their policies are actual unchristian and seek to undermine the country and its people.

466. Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism?

Comment #56426 by Rtambree on July 15, 2007 at 5:45 pm

6. Comment #56423 by GoatBoy36

>I always think, when I hear Hitler being mentioned by Christians, that it poses more of a problem for them than it does for me. Because it brings up the problem of evil - big time!

Yes, I've also found that raising "The Problem of Evil" is the most effective way to instill doubt in a religious person. They have a lot more problem with evil, than with evolution, cosmology, logic, comparative religion, pointing out inconsistencies in the Scriptures, etc.

Even better testers of faith than Hitler are natural disasters, because Hitler can be explained by 'free will' and the 'Fall of Adam' and possession by Satan, etc. But natural disasters like volcanoes and tsunamis killing or maiming innocent children and devout people.

Atheists of course have nothing to explain: shit happens. Naturally, the faith-heads can always squirm out of it, even natural disasters, e.g. God is testing our faith, all will be compensated in heaven, it's punishment for sin, etc, but nevertheless the problem of terrible things befalling innocent people gives them pause.

One could employ another similar approach - that hundreds of evil people have lived long prosperous happy fun-filled lives. This should also violate theists' internal sense of justice.

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

Comment #56419 by Rtambree on July 15, 2007 at 5:09 pm

76. Comment #56415 by the great teapot

>I have to say I was a little dissappointed with the repetetive nature of Harris, Hitchens (in Hogwarts dining hall) and Dawkins et al

One can't expect them to come up with a novel, brilliant, enlightening, witty and scintillating speech every night, but on the other hand one would hope the ongoing public debate moves the dialogue forward to 'second-order' issues. If the three amigos are still saying the same speeches this time next year, we should be giving them a gentle nudge.

Dawkins has already moved onto Phase 2 with his new intro to the paperback of TGD, while Harris' LTACN is a response to the response to EOF. Hopefully new issues will be discussed in Beyond Belief 2007 that'll generate new articles, books, speeches, etc.

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

Comment #56407 by Rtambree on July 15, 2007 at 4:15 pm

I detect a lot of defeatest talk here about religion being around to stay and impossible to eradicate. Even Hitchens resigns himself to that.

Chin up fellows. Before 1700, there were no atheists in the modern sense. Now there are millions. Scientific education and high standard of living make a big impact in helping our ape brains shed our superstitious past.

Universal atheism won't happen in our lifetimes, alas, but the long term trend is positive. If it's taken 300 years for the world to become, say, 20% atheist, and the pace of change is accelerating, it may only take another 300 years for the rest of humanity to follow suit. I think once we're over about 60-70%, there'll be a critical threshold reached where it'll no longer be respectable to believe in invisible fairies, so theism will rapidly collapse in a non-linear fashion.

The bad news is that WMDs are proliferating, getting cheaper, easier to build and less regulated, so that it's a race: will we get to universal atheism before the religious extremists get hold of the big bad weapons and send us all back to the stone age? We came very close in October 1962.

Western foreign policy over the last few decades hasn't exactly been helping the fight for secularism. Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Shi'ites in Iraq have all gained in power and influence since the USA invasion of Iraq.
Furthermore, the five biggest global weapons exporters are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. They're supposed to be the good guys.

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

Comment #56374 by Rtambree on July 15, 2007 at 11:38 am

Singling out suicide bombings as somehow especially perverse or particularly contemptible reminds me of Captain Cook's disgust at cannibalism in New Zealand. It was alright for civilised Europeans at the time to blow each other up with cannons, burn witches, execute criminals for petty theft, etc, but these savage Maoris - they eat each other! - how primitive! How revolting!

Likewise, death by helicopter gunship is civilised (collateral damage), but death by suicide bomber is just barbarous. How despicable!

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

Comment #56324 by Rtambree on July 15, 2007 at 3:14 am

Summer Seale... I guess the argument can be summarised thus... is radical Islam the consequence or, or the cause of whatever political grievances there are.

You're right about Iraqi on Iraqi violence now, but this didn't begin until after the west interferred in a very violent way. There was no I-on-I violence when the place was crawling with weapons inspectors in late 2002.

Take a map of the entire Muslim world. Highlight all the places where Islam is at its most extreme. Overlay another map where the west/israel has interfered, invaded, overthrown, bombed, undermined, built military bases, armed, etc.

Is there a correlation?

All I'm saying is that we're not going to move forward if finger pointing singles out only the other side. Both sides are to be condemned for the use of violence.

>The Allies killed far more Germans than the Germans killed Allies in WWII

I'm not so sure about this. Millions of Soviets died too. In any case, the Nazis had invaded and occupied foreign lands. So far, the Muslim nutcases haven't raised armies and invaded western lands (I'm sure they would if they could), but your analogy works more against you than for you.

>Sometimes, justice has to come out of the barrel of a gun.

Alas, yes, but it should always be used as a LAST resort. Enlightened secular democratic states should have better standards, and not descend to the levels of the superstitious extremists, but unfortunately, these western states notch up higher body counts than the other way around.

Unfortunately being secular and democratic is no impediment to invading, bombing, torturing, assassinating, undermining democratic governments and secular movements, and supporting and arming despotic, corrupt, repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia.

>If you're going to justify Palestinian terrorism

I didn't justify. I've said repeatedly, I condemn both sides in their use of violence. I condemn violence in proportion to who is doing the killing. Condemning the USA's actions doesn't in any way justify muslim extremist's actions and vice versa. I hope that's clear.

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

Comment #56298 by Rtambree on July 14, 2007 at 8:01 pm

> it is the most violent of the "big three".

It probably would like to be. If it had the weapons, it definitely would be. But if you take the violence inflicted, countries invaded, and innocent lives killed, I think you'll find that Christian USA has been more violent than Islam since WWII. Afterall it outspends the rest of the world on weapons and is one of the top two or three weapons exporters (Russia being another one).

Hitler wasn't "democractically" elected - this has been discussed here before. The Nazis beat up many of the left wing parties during the campaign period. It was hardly a fair election.

>It's not perfect, but it is calculated, reasoned, and planned

Legally, this is usually considered worse, than a spontanteous killing i.e. premediated versus manslaughter. It is a forseeable consequence that when you fire Hellfire missiles into civilian houses and vehicles, you WILL kill innocent people. And if you examined bodycounts, Israel has killed many more Palestinians than the other way around. Milder Ideology x Superior firepower > Worse Ideology x Primitive firepower.

>You're justifying cold blooded murder of people who have absolutely nothing to do with the fighting, all under the guise of your dogmatic leftist line of thinking.

Reading your post, you're doing precisely the same thing in reverse on the other side, justifying the "calculated, reasoned, and planned" murders of one side and only condemning the other.

All violence is to condemned from all parties. We've had decades of empircial evidence that it's not working. Ireland's bombing terrorism wasn't solved by ratchetting up the violence but by negotiation. If one round of negotiation doesn't work, try again, and again, and again. That's what a human genuinely concerned with the slaughter of innocents would do. Support secular, democratic movements. Withdraw from occupied lands. Dismantled the military bases. Support the overthrow of the House of Saud by its own internal secular movements. Let the resources of a country be used to build up the standard of living so people won't have need for ancient superstitions. With the wealth of the Middle East they should be more like Scandinavia and not a third world country. Poverty, repression and invasion only radicalises religion. The Stern Gang were bombing the British in Palestine when they didn't have a homeland before 1947. Violence is not the monopoly of any one religion.

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

Comment #56287 by Rtambree on July 14, 2007 at 7:09 pm

I'm also puzzled as to why suicide bombings are singled out for special mention when the body counts are far less that those innocents killed by western high-tech weapons such as cluster bombs, etc.

While all three Abrahamic faiths deserve to be condemned for their violence, misogyny, superstition, and irrationality, it is still possible to distill grievances pertaining to nationalism out of all the Middle East turmoil. Having your lands invaded, occupied, bombed, etc will take their toll on attitudes. So will having repressive dictators suppported, armed, financed by the west. So will having democratically elected governments and movements overthrown and undermined by the west. So will having your family and friends killed as collateral damage. And the list goes on: torture, exploitation, betrayal, lies, etc.

Obviously having a bronze age religion mixed in with all this makes matters even worse and no doubt theology, ethnic affiliation, and national-identification ratchet each other up to create the extremists we see.

The west's policies have been counter-productive. If they really cared about radical Islam, they wouldn't pursue policies that clearly increase the recruiting power of the clerics. This has been going on for decades. The west wouldn't support the repressive theocracy of the House of Saud. They'd be more impartial in regards to the West Bank. They would not have got mixed in with assisting Al Qaeda and Hamas in their infancies. The blowback of having all those military bases throughout the region actually makes things less safe. The history of the Middle East shows that oil has been a higher priority than secularism.

One thing we do know - blaming one side only isn't going to help. Such narrow-mindedness just ensures the cycle of violence perpetuates.

473. American Taliban on the warpath against evolution

Comment #56221 by Rtambree on July 14, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Sometimes I wish religion was true so the Rapture would finally come and whisk them all away so they can leave us alone.

We atheists are happy to switch off the lights, tidy up, and burn any remaining copies of Home Alone 4.

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

Comment #56177 by Rtambree on July 14, 2007 at 9:31 am

>All I'm trying to say is that the emotional impact, for many people, is likely maximized when in-person

Yes, I agree. All things being equal, in person is preferable. But if it's a choice between being a video participant in, say, the Beyond Belief Conference, and being up the back in a crowded lecture hall where a small figure in the distance moves onto the stage, does his spiel, and then disappears again, I think I'd find the former more satisfying.

We'll see where this webcasting takes us - it's in its embryonic stage.... perhaps a 3D version of Second Life were you attend a talk as an avatar. Perhaps televisions will be become holograms like in Minority Report with content chosen by you, not some network programmer. Perhaps it'll be a direct feed into your optic nerve so it'll be like seeing it with your own eyes. Perhaps they'll broadcast themselves into your dreams at night for maximum time efficiency. :)

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

Comment #56175 by Rtambree on July 14, 2007 at 8:56 am

Oxytocin,

One has to distinguish between interpersonal relationships and lecture-audience relationships.
Of course technology will never substitute for friendships, only augment them.

But having been to many talks by the pantheon of public intellectuals such as Dawkins, etc, there's not a lot of interaction between a member of the crowd and the speaker other than a 10 second question and 20 second answer if you are brave and lucky.

Yes, a screen can adequately convey non-verbal communication - perhaps more so as it can be zoomed in closer than what an audience would see sitting further back.

Added to that, a speaker can access larger crowds at more events with more in-depth Q&A all with less of a burden on the speakers and the environment. The advantages of technology far outweigh the disadvantages.

Do we need to touch them to ensure they're real? Or do we need them to talk to us to ensure that we're real? Atheists should be the last people to insist upon "essentialism" like this.

There are select events where rich people can pay for one-on-one time with the pantheon - e.g. The Amazing Meeting Private Dinners and the Galapagos Cruises, but generally at a book tour talk, there's litte, if any, individual interaction. The speaker will be jetlagged, eager to get it over with, and is whisked in surrounded by his entourage and whisked out again like a rock star. Notice how they always say "just one more question" even if there's a sea of hands. A webcast followed by a live video interactive Q&A will be largely indistinguishable from a normal event, and may even be better if more time can be allocated to Q&A and the speaker will have more stamina.

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

Comment #56171 by Rtambree on July 14, 2007 at 8:03 am

You could still have formal writer's festivals, debates, lectures and book tours in halls, theatres, auditoriums, etc but the speaker would be on a screen. That way you could access MORE people as you could have multiple sessions.

The organisers could play the 1 hour speech (which as we know is usually the same) and then the author appears for a live feedback. He's have more stamina for a longer Q&A because he'd be fresh. He'd be willing to do more such sessions because he wouldn't have to spend so much time in planes, airports and hotels.

About the need to see someone live... We've had 100+ years of movies, 50 years of TV and the young are happy texting each other on mobile phones. How innate can the need for "in the flesh" be?

We'll get used to it as the technology improves - HD screens, HD cameras, less time-delay with the hook-up, more interactivity with the audience, being able to run video/audio clips of interviews & quotes, etc.

And Mr Sam would have the time to finally become Dr Sam.

477. Bush, the ethicist-in-chief

Comment #56169 by Rtambree on July 14, 2007 at 7:52 am

9. Comment #56150 by Duff

>This president does NOT think. His thinking is done for him.

I've heard an argument that Dubya would not be competent enough to stand trial in an international war crimes court. The people behind him in the Administration perhaps...

Stem cells: all it'll take is a major breakthrough in research (so far it's all been about potential) to occur somewhere else (South Korea? Europe?) and the USA will jump on the bandwagon so Big Pharma doesn't miss out on profits.

478. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #56164 by Rtambree on July 14, 2007 at 7:33 am

Richard Feynman recounts being asked by orthodox Jews whether electricity was fire or not. They didn't know if they were allowed to push the elevator buttons on the Sabbath.

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

Comment #56163 by Rtambree on July 14, 2007 at 7:24 am

I wasn't complaining about the repetitiveness, just asking why an author has to trot around on a book tour from city to city saying the same thing where a webcast or telecast can do the same thing at a fraction of the hassle.

"Open file and press play."

Then the author can still appear live at the end via a videolink to answer questions. Saves cost, saves time, saves carbon, saves jetlag, etc etc. Surely it must be boring for them - they usually sound eager to leave by the end. It's already happening now for Sydney, because few authors want to travel for 50 hours (return), but I think it'll increasingly occur for shorter routes as well. This webcasting is only the beginning. The full potential is ahead of us.

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

Comment #56102 by Rtambree on July 13, 2007 at 6:45 pm

6. Comment #56098 by rmercad2

>Damn it!!! I could've been the first one to write a comment on this page but I wasted that opportunity by watching Harris' talk.

Once you're a regular here, you'll know what Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, etc have to say without watching the whole video (e.g. This is the part where he makes the joke about the birth canal, etc). Then you can post-before-you-watch.

A book/lecture tour in 2007 seems like an increasingly outdated concept. With webcasting allowing one to bypass mainstream media and with the enormous carbon footprint and hassle of flying (security, jetlag, etc), the redundancy of saying the same thing over again in different cities will eventually be unnecessary.

Already authors appear via satellite link to the Sydney Writers Festival - people can ask questions, get answers, all via telecommunications. That's what the technology is there for.

With webcasts, the people get to see more big names, the big names don't have to do an impersonation of a broken record, and everyone's happy.

Interaction might be a little more limited, but after having been to some of these events, I've found you can't really engage in a dialogue anyway - the host always reprimands each questioner to "keep it short" and after 15 minutes of questions the speaker gets too tired, or the venue needs to be cleared out for the next event, etc.

Having these events online would mean the fans miss out on a booksigning, but if the fans really respected the speaker, would they insist that he sit on a plane and in airport terminals for 20 hours just so they can say "Make it out to Fred"?

Half the time, the authors don't have the time, willpower, or hand stamina to personalise autographs anyway.

481. Christians disrupt Hindu Prayer at Senate Invocation

Comment #56091 by Rtambree on July 13, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Martians would be laughing their heads off watching this. Two nuclear-powers praying to their invisible friends in the highest office.

The Martians would be laying bets - how long will these stupid apes last?

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

Comment #56090 by Rtambree on July 13, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Harris needs to clone himself a doppelganger so he can finish his PhD thesis. Perhaps Ben Stiller could fill in?

483. Small, Yes, but Mighty: The Molecule Called Water

Comment #55501 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 10:20 am

>Therefore to say that a universe that supports intelligent life is extremely unlikely is not very well supported.

There's many more ways an egg can be disassembled than assembled.

Look at own universe - even in this one example, life took 10 billion years to start and almost got knocked out several times in mass extinctions. It only exists on a thin film several kilometres thick on one planet around one star in one galaxy. We can find no evidence of it anywhere else. Intelligence only arose in the last blink of a geological eye and is precarious at that.

It's not conclusive, but it's safe to assume that universes conducive to life would be a lot rarer than universes not conducive. But you're right, we'll probably never know either way.

484. The Panel

Comment #55490 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 9:25 am

39. Comment #55488 by robert s

>A solid answer to that question will win you a Nobel Prize and make you a celebrity

Not really - most particle physicists assume there's a graviton in the standard model right now. I'm just asking why the necessity. It doesn't need any new physics or research, just an explanation of the existing situation as it is now.

485. A force for evil?

Comment #55486 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 9:06 am

35. Comment #55451 by Lord Asriel

Excellent pointers from Orwell. Hemingway would have approved. Rutherford once said something similar... "a theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good"

486. Police plea on genital mutilation

Comment #55472 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 8:02 am

Good post, Bonzai, especially about the cherry-picking of the best of cultures. It's a good way of describing it, as opposed to polarised opposites. In a sense, there's a experiment being run by 180+ countries (mutation and selection) to see who can make their population the happiest. Which country does the best education? Choose that. Which country does the best health care? Choose that. Which country does the best science research? The best media? The best transport? The best environmental policies?

Perhaps the authoritarian - libertarian axis makes more sense in this debate than the left - right axis (which is remnant of the 20th century). And there's a third axis we shouldn't forget for all 21st century issues, the ideological - empirical axis.

487. Police plea on genital mutilation

Comment #55449 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 5:56 am

Fair enough Pewkatchoo, I just wish this intangible abstract movement called "the left" is not blamed for defending genital mutilation. I want the accusors to name names. Who are the prominent lefties defending genital mutilation, burqas, and the denial of education to women, or rights to homosexuals?

In the USA, religious-motivated discrimination (e.g. denial of gay marriage) is normally a right-wing position (and there I can name names), and yet the left are often saddled with the blame of similar abuses (but names are conspicuously absent). Doesn't make sense.

The way it seems to me is:

"Support our foreign policy in the Middle East (oil, war-profiteering, invasions, bombings, occupations, etc) which may as a byproduct help some minorities, and if you don't support us, you're a lefty that defends genital mutilation".

488. Praying to a milk jug

Comment #55446 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 5:40 am

>Pity that "their" "awesome God" cant heal amputees eh?

1. That's not God's will.
2. It's not part of His divine plan.
3. He's testing your faith.
4. He has other rewards for you.
5. You will be compensated in the next life.
6. Don't worry about the limb, count your blessings instead.
7. Thank God that He didn't take BOTH limbs.
8. God can't be pushed around. You are but a mote in His eye, and your demands for a replacement limb are inconsequential. Don't trouble Him with your petty problems.
9. Look on the positive side of the amputation - now you get to empathesise with other amputees.
10. More time to read His Word. Praise His sweet name.

489. Police plea on genital mutilation

Comment #55442 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 5:27 am

The left is often criticised for defending these perverse cultural practises in the name of multiculturalism, but I'd like to know who these mysterious lefties are? Their names are never cited. All the lefties I know (Chomsky, Pilger, Fisk, Monbiot, etc) condemn these practises. Secular Enlightenment liberal values that promote human rights are the foundation of the left.

AC Grayling recently called the denial of education to woman a human rights abuse. Supporting repressive undemocratic theocratic regimes such as the House of Saud is a right-wing position.

490. Praying to a milk jug

Comment #55437 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 5:01 am

It's a fascinating cognitive phenomenon that most humans throughout history can't distinguish between gods/ancestors/spirits/ghosts that may or may not answer you, and there being nothing there at all.

It seems so obvious, but the ability of the brain to reconcile external reality to internal fantasy is limitless.

491. Tinkering with Humans

Comment #55410 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 3:30 am

Gordon & Bonzai,

>Unless we close the distance between rich and poor before this happens, the gap will get wider exponentially

The way that we look back today at slavery, racism, and genocide with disgust, is how I think future generations will look back at our time and ask "How can humans living in 2007 think it was right that some people are so obscenely wealthy while millions die from preventable diseases".

During the time of slavery before 200 years ago, it was perceived as perfectly normal, the natural social order, and justified by most intellectuals of the day.

Just like today, the massive gap between rich and poor is thought of as normal and justified by the mainstream press and many conservative and liberal intellectuals.

The crossover of the chromosones during meosis creates the initial inequality, but capitalism and inheritance amplifies whatever initial starting conditions there are between genomes. We share over 99% of our DNA, and yet some have billions and many have zilch.

Just like we have a sugar & fat preference from the African savannah that's now dysfunctional, we have a status-craving and wealth accumulation that's completely incompatible with 21st century society. Environmental concerns only excerbate this.

Every budget, tax rates for the rich come down, and each year paintings and real estate reach new record prices. Last week the Independent ran ads for 24-carat gold bins. Handbags in Mayfair sell for thousands of pounds. Entire areas of Chelsea, Kensington, etc are full of luxury saloons and sports cars. All the evidence suggests that there's no long term satisfaction to accumulating lots of shiny stuff, and yet we do it as we don't know what else do to. Prisoners of our genes.

492. Small, Yes, but Mighty: The Molecule Called Water

Comment #55406 by Rtambree on July 11, 2007 at 3:13 am

Ridelo,

Maybe the goldilocks/anthropic principle is the same analogy to use when thinking about both the life-friendly laws of our Hubble Bubble within the multiverse, and the convenient location of Earth from the sun, etc.

An eternal multiverse solves both the questions of creation ex nihilo and the fine-tuning problem.

There's no evidence for this of course, but it has the best "answers : more questions ratio" compared to other theories.

The eternal multiverse also carries on the tradition of the principle of mediocrity - i.e. we are not a special species, and we live in no special place, in no special time, and in no special universe.

493. Small, Yes, but Mighty: The Molecule Called Water

Comment #55339 by Rtambree on July 10, 2007 at 5:00 pm

16. Comment #55313 by ridelo

>Always that anthropic principle gets in the way of god!

And what if there were only two physical dimensions?

And what if the Earth was smaller or larger or more distant or closer to the Sun or didn't have a large moon to stabilise it?

What if the Earth didn't rotate to equalise temperature or have a molten iron core to generate a magnetic field to block from harmful radiation?

What if there wasn't a Jupiter to guard against asteroids. What if comets hadn't delivered water after the formation of the Earth?

What if the sun was too short lived or had a binary or passed through a galactic turbulent zone?

What if the dinosaurs had survived the K/T impact? What if the climate hadn't momentarily stabilised to allow agriculture? What if the carbon cycle that stabilises temperature didn't occur because there was no continental drift?

What if early hominids didn't develop language? What if a supernova exploded nearby anytime in the last 3 billion years? What if there wasn't any metal in the crust?

All this points to just one possible conclusion - only the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have designed it that way, and if you don't renounce your gluttony and accept his meatball sauce, you're all going to be tortured forever by being forcefed brocolli and spinach. Amen.

494. Small, Yes, but Mighty: The Molecule Called Water

Comment #55228 by Rtambree on July 10, 2007 at 9:48 am

Thanks Greg - that's a concise clear explanation that would have taken Alistair McGrath 14 unabridged volumes to totally obfuscate.

495. Small, Yes, but Mighty: The Molecule Called Water

Comment #55221 by Rtambree on July 10, 2007 at 9:21 am

5. Comment #55216 by DC_Runner

>please clarify what an atheist is to do when someone sneezes

The German says "Gesundheit" i.e. "Health"

Seinfeld says "You're so good looking"

The atheist says... "This is your life and it's ending one sneeze at a time"

496. A force for good?

Comment #55211 by Rtambree on July 10, 2007 at 9:01 am

>But it can say almost nothing, as Freud acknowledged, about the mysterious workings of love.

Citing Freud as an authority is fraught with danger. Almost everything Freud said was a load of garbage - e.g. he made up a narrative to suit the observations.

> Religion seeks spiritual truth, not scientific or historical fact.

What is that supposed to mean? Relativism gone wild. I thought theists abhor relativism as it denies moral absolutes.

>It allows us to cope with ambiguity and uncertainty, with the ultimate mystery of human existence.

How do you get from "Prime Mover" that started the Big Bang to a particular 'al a carte' subset of Christian beliefs? In any case (1) allowing us to cope doesn't mean it's true, and (2) religion inflicts guilt, fear of Hell, and causes arbitrary in/out group divisions that fracture society, causing massive bloodshed.

What really helps people to cope is a good egalitarian standard of living, scientific literacy, education, economic security, access to universal health care, as evidenced by the very high indices of Scandinavian countries, which have the highest levels of atheism in the world.

497. Christopher Hitchens - God Is Not Great

Comment #55207 by Rtambree on July 10, 2007 at 8:52 am

13. Comment #55150 by OZE2

>Hitchen mentioned that his book is banned in Malaysia, probably the first Muslim country to have done so.

When does it get translated into Arabic and go on sale in the Middle East, followed by a Hitchens book tour featuring debates with Imans, Mullahs, Rabbis and other Abrahamic clerics?

498. Small, Yes, but Mighty: The Molecule Called Water

Comment #55206 by Rtambree on July 10, 2007 at 8:46 am

Question:

Does anyone know why the transition points between the three states of water are commonly given as 0 degrees Celsius (solid to liquid) and 100 degrees Celsius (liquid to gas), when water evaporates to a gas on quite mild days? Leave a bowl of water out on a cool cloudy day, and it's soon gone, even though the temperature is nowhere near 100 degrees Celsius. Clouds form over the the ocean and the ocean is quite cool. Most textbooks don't clarify why water changes to a gas well below boiling point.

499. Christopher Hitchens - God Is Not Great

Comment #55023 by Rtambree on July 9, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Hitchens was a bit misinformed in this interview in respect to Wallace. Almost all evolutionists accept that Darwin did a lot more work, writing, thinking, research, and anticipating counter-arguments on natural selection, than Wallace did.

I've noticed that about Hitchens - as soon as he strays into the realm of science, his regular confidence and dazzling intellectual start to work against him. Getting things wrong is going to open him up to criticism from all sides. He either needs to do some more reading or admit he doesn't know.

Also, I don't think the humanities can do a better job of arguing against theism than science. Poems, plays, literature, paintings and music, can be interpreted any way you want - and they share with religion an inherent anthropocentrism, and Hitchens normally decries solipsism.

Yes, bring Alistair McGrath within firing range of Hitchens - that'll be interesting. The trouble is McGrath's beliefs are so vague and his statements so vacuous, it will be a challenge for Hitchens to score points.

500. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54950 by Rtambree on July 9, 2007 at 12:19 pm

42. Comment #54949 by gordon

>sell them like Damien Hirst

Only if they were promoted by Saatchi