701. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42027 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 1:25 pm

2) Whether it is real or not, like the existence of God, is for most people, (or countries) irrelevent. So I am afraid I am not very hopeful Brian. Not at all.

So your rather fatalist position is that the objective reality of AGW is irrelevant? Because no one will ever do anything about it?

702. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42021 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 1:11 pm

I've read the IPPC reports and I already have the link.

Well great then. Are we just pissing each other off for no point? 'Cause I don't want to be doing that. Now:-)

703. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42018 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 1:07 pm

As I am sure you are aware, one cannot prove a negative. Which by asking me to produce evidence against man-made global warming is impossible to do. It is you who are making a positive claim that global warming is man-made, therefore the burden of proof is yours.

Well yes thats fair I suppose, but I think the case is made because all these scientists keep saying it is. I'm just trying to understand why this leaves you cold.

I'm guessing there are specific pieces of evidence that you feel are compelling, but without knowing what they are, all I can do is direct you to the last 15 years worth of IPCC reports (which I confess to only having skimmed myself) for you to review.

There is little point in me posting it all here is there?

704. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42015 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Nothing - is - going - to change.

This is a bit fatalist and I'll take it as poetic licence and not your actual position. Things of course do change. CFC's, Sulphur emissions, the existence of the EU with France and Germany at it's core.

Nations act in their own interest, yes. However that can be utterly selfish and zero sum (Germany invading Poland), or it can be enlightened (25 EU nations pooling sovereignity).

We live in democracies, and we get to have an influence on how this stuff pans out. You're still, forgive me for this remote psycho analysis, not dealing with the central issue though.

Is AGW happening? What we do about it, political realities etc. have nothing to do with that question.

705. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42013 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 12:55 pm

I could of course tit-for-tat post one link to your link and so on, back and forth. But whatever I post, you'll think I'm some part of a conspiracy anyway. Lets just agree to disagree.

Ah no. Thats not fair. Yes you said it was a hint, I'm just agreeing with you and being a bit snide. C'mon, this is actually quite interesting now we are past the shit flinging phase.

The Svensmark thing is a bust because it's only a hint, and the recent newsweek article rebutts it.

I swear to God ... to Dawkins, I'll grovel if you come up with something that genuinely has broad support and serious evidence, and it's been months since I've done this so maybe I've missed something.

706. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42009 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Or, if I am being charitable, screw you third world until we rich developed countries perfect all those nice renewable technologies for you - just hang on in there: we are right on it! Honestly!

But it doesn't have to be that way, and it isn't. The US refused to sign up to Koyoto because they wanted the Indians and the Chinese to sign up to binding agreements immediatly. So rather than being concerned with the developing world, they were concerend about their own short term interests.

Also reduced energy consumption does not translate linearly to reduced economic activity, to take a ludicrous example, the government should simply supply fuel for free if this were in fact the case. There is a balance to be struck here.

707. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42003 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Interesting article, but it's hardly a smoking gun is it? One guy, one small study, no follow up as yet?

The "new" new scientist article deals with the sun and cosmic rays here : http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

It contains a detailed rebuttal of Svensmark. Do we both have enough "faith" in the Scientific method to allow this truth to percolate out? In the meantime, aren't we still bound to take some modest action in the face of the overwhelming evidence the rest of the gang claim we have?

708. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41989 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 12:09 pm

The politics that has corrupted the science is the ignorance of these variables.

Oh GAWWD listen to this. Thousands of elite climatologists, in hundreds of countries, are ignoring critical variables. Why? They just want it to be true? Or something? Is it the money? They are in it for the money?

709. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41986 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 12:07 pm

There ARE legitimate concerns with the SCIENCE of AGW Brian. And you know even if there wasn't so fucking what - YOU tell China and India they have to stay in poverty and they'll tell you to fuck off too.

OK I'm backing off. Sorry about the previous tone.

This is not what any sensible person is suggesting. There are a many technologies, with job generating capacity that can be brought on stream to deal with these issues. Some of them are more mature than others.

Who will be developing and licensing these complex high tech industries? Us!!! Thats who, the developed world. This does not have to be zero sum game.

For example, China builds some mad number of coal fired power plants every year like 50 (just picked that out of long term memory). Imagine the potential for carbon capture and sequestration? They can't do that on their own. There is plenty more where that came from.

What you are doing here, specifically, is conflating the issue of AGW with what to do about it. Two separate issues. You need to clinically decide if it is happening, based on the summaries of the best available evidence and sources. Once you are there, then only start to think about what needs to be done. Otherwise you spook yourself with economic melt down horror stories, which subverts the reasoning process.

It's a little like thinking there is no God. Because of the penalties of apostacy (Hell) and implications (final, real death) the mind short circuits the reasoning process. What you are doing here is a mild version of the same thing.

Trust me, I am an expert on reason being subverted. I've been there, and I've taken great pains to ensure I'm not there again.

710. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41980 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 11:58 am

something is missing in the computer data that we don't yet know about.

You think? You really think there are "things we don't know about yet"? This just a "GOD OF THE GAPS" argument.

Did you see the newsweek article on this exact subject? Do I have to cut and paste it into the comment box for you? Do you find it at all convincing?

711. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41978 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 11:49 am

I swore I wouldn't do this again, but it's been a few months, and perhaps it's time to refresh my mind on the subject.

Climate myths: Many leading scientists question climate change
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654

The computer modelling comment is such fuckwittery I'm bleeding from the eyes right NOW.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11649


Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646

This is such bullshit, retards wrestling. But you do insist on it. Go on. Cite your objections, and I will spend my evening reaquainting myself with arcane climatology crap.

Maybe something incredible has happened in the last 12 months or so. Some amazing breakthrough, if so lets have it. I'll check your sources and review your charts.

712. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41972 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 11:42 am

Well, yes Brian I agree and so do the scientists. Far to complex to be modelled through computer science. It is the fact that it is so complex that is at the root of the problem.

Well the giggling is mutual. Which is it now, so simple a few chaps on a blog can see the "flaws" in the science, or so complex that no program can ever model it?

713. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41970 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 11:34 am

Guys the difference is I'm a European. I have not been subjected to the wall to wall (although this is breaking up now) negativity and propoganda about the science behind AGW that is so prevalent in the US.

We've been onboard here for years, and the most recent IPCC report was even stronger. I do object to the idea that my insisting that people who are not experts, use the views of experts as a major input to their decision making, is "religious".

The non sequitor "Scientists have been wrong before" is such a creationist staple, I'm embarrased to see you using it. You guys are not aware of it, but you appear to me to be subliminally poisoned with an irrational distrust of science. I think this is actually quite common among americans, do you really think you're completely insulated from the 40% waiting for the rapture environment you are immerressed in? Hmm?

Say what you like, do what you like, to whomever you like, I will not be championing your burning at the stake, but don't expect me to shut up and characterise your position as rational, to respect it. It's bullshit.

Now you know how the god botherers feel when I really get going:-)

714. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41955 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 11:04 am

I'm sorry, but your comments are about as silly as anything I have ever heard. Nobody but "experts" (whatever that means) are capable of understanding the facts. Your definition of science isn't science, it's religion.

No I'm pretty certain you are wrong about this:-( In a religion dissent is suppressed. This does not happen (well not for long) in science, because of the relentless pressure to be first on the evidence train. Thats what we like about it. It works to unfuck the world.

Inexpert sniping from the sideline is what I object to, what creationism amounts to, and exactly what I think you are doing here.

Look, we can all discuss the existence of God with some facility because theology is 95% fluff. Climatology is not. It's hard, detailed and complex stuff, which people spend their lives becoming proficient in. I'm sorry if the implication of this offends.

Neither you nor I are experts on this subject. What I do when I haven't the first clue about an issue is see what the prevailing opinion and advice is and consult some summaries of the primary streamings. From time to time I reaquaint myself with these.

In the case of AGW I see a significant majority are advising us to cut back on energy usage, so as a dutiful and rational global citizen that is what I do, and what you should do too.

If they were advising me to sacrifice my first born, well I'd have to give that some extra thought.

It is maddening for me to see rationalists reaching for all the tools of the irrational to justify their position on this issue, and engaging in the identitical projection of creationists.

The true scientists are being demonised.
AGW is a religion.
It's a conspiracy amongst the government and science.
The UN or EU is out to get American industry.

I'm sorry, but this is complete cock.

However, if you can get the next IPCC report to include some serious doubts, then I'll look at it again.

715. The Colbert Report: The Intolerant

Comment #41939 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 10:42 am

Hah!! This is exact comment I made with regard to Falwell.

716. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41931 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 10:10 am

It is people like you that actually puts people like me off the whole subject. Your arguments are not substantial, they are subjective.

Well I think thats an inherently irrational position to take. A personal dislike of my "style", poor reasoning or whatever, is neither here nor there.

Let me try and pithly summarise my position.

I don't think it's productive or helpful for non-experts to debate the detail of these issues. Or evolution, quantum physics, or any seriously complex subject. For fun, sure. But lets not pretend that what you or I think about a particular piece of evidence is remotley relevant.

This is a diseased mindset flowing from the creation versus evolution debate, and it is primarly american. It pisses my off, I have to say. There is nothing fundamentalist about insisting people align themselves with the summaries of complex issues that experts provide. Where does this inexpert 2nd guessing stop?

If there is an issue with significant play in the argument, like ethanol, that is an interesting one to bat around.

Fuck I always seem to be typing an essay.

Look, 9 out of 10 scientists might be wrong, but in the meantime I'm sticking with their advice, until it becomes 7.5, or 6 and then I'll be happy to re-evaluate. I don't see that someone who respects the scientific method has an alternative rational choice, but you are of course free to do whatever you like.

717. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41918 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 9:49 am

Even as a young child, I never bought into religion and saw through it as a man-made hoax. Perhaps, because my parents were atheists... But they never forced their view on me.

Well, you've got that on me:-) I clocked up about 40 years before realising .... WTF? Still I'm making up for lost time now:-) Especially now that I realise how precious time is.

718. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41914 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 9:44 am

Just look at the inovation of the Light Tower (in Spain or Portugal). That really is a fantastic achievement.

Indeed. Last year we got a super efficient wood stove in, knocked 7000 kwh off our annual electricty bill, and will pay for itself in another 3 years or so. Then it's just gravy on top, and I'm growing the wood out back myself:-)

There are many things that can be done without restructuring the global economy, prevaricate now and that is exactly what we might find ourselves doing in 30 years. Pennywise, pound foolish. Here in Sweden a department that advises municipalities on energy conservation has clocked up consumption reductions of 70% in some council offices. Simple and ingenous.

If you want to make noises about bad ideas look into ethanol ... that one has me worried, and I used to be a fan.

719. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41906 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 9:36 am

Not quite sure what you mean by that.... I try not have my views formed by anyone. I try to weigh up the evidence from both sides (or however many sides there happen to be) and then I think for myself based on that evidence... And I am certainly not influenced by Bush fundies.

Fundamentalists Christians hate the idea of doing anything about global warming, ostensibly because they don't "believe it", but also because maybe it's real and part of the coming "end times" tribulation. I am not making this shit up.

Although, I should note that, even in this benightened community there have been some recent noises in the right direction.

Yes we have to weigh the evidence, or summaries provided by experts. Summarising the majority view of the experts is how I, and I suspect you, and all rational humans form our opinions with regard to complex subjects from the electrical wiring in my house to evolution.

Short of knowing everything about everything, how on earth could we otherwise form an opinion about anything??!!

720. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41884 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 9:04 am

You say "how do I justify taking a position, supported by only a fraction of the relevant experts" ? ...Now in that statement, you have said a very telling thing. Are you saying that the minority scientific opinion cannot be justified?

The minority will go at it within the relevant community and convince them of their case, if they have a case.

You and I though as non experts, should have our views formed by the majority position in the relevant community, not some hysterical outlier supported by the Bush Administration and fundamentalists. Especially where that majority is overwhelming.

An excellent question, or it would have been if I hadn't explicitly made this point in the vid.

The meme you are falling prey to is the creationist meme, that any opinion is equal to any other, it is empatically not.

Your attitude is also a US problem, occuring generally among republican Americans. I attribute this to the corrosive influence that religion has had on that party, and cognition generally. There is simply nothing remotely similar here in Europe, the argument is almost utterly devoid of the hysteria and rancour, because people accept the science. Whats left to discuss?

If a majority opinion emerges, I'll be onboard with that, but it is deeply irresponsible to sit irresolute, doing nothing in the meantime, and worse still spreading this minority position among other non experts. It's empiricist treason:-)

If you want a real debate to sink your teeth into, try ethanol. There is a genuine "the jury is still out" discussion. Not AGW.

For further reading try this : http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

721. Hitchens on Falwell

Comment #41876 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 8:43 am

Hannity was "owned" as the americans say. Beautiful.

722. Hitchens on Falwell

Comment #41844 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 7:21 am

Damn. Just watched that video again. Can you credit something like that on primetime american television?

And these bastards thought Dawkins was the "bad cop":-)

723. Hitchens on Falwell

Comment #41833 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 6:48 am

I read Hitchens book over the weekend and it administered a monumental shit kicking to faith. It leaves religion for dead, and the reader spattered with gore (no brain matter though).

It is good stuff, get it.

724. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41826 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 6:30 am

Most of these scientists, who are standing up against AGW, don't even know each other and have come to their conclusions independently. Their stance against AGW is purely scientific

I'm not disputing that. Some of these guys are the real deal, but the faction they represent is a minority. A minority top heavy with known industry shills.

As I've noted several times, I take my lead from the majority of relevant experts and this is indisputably behind AGW. Scale and scope is up for debate, no argument. This is not the same thing as "It's got nothing to do with humans".

I'm a modestly intelligent person, and you don't seem to be vastly more intelligent than me. How do you justify taking a position, supported by only a fraction of the relevant experts, on an incredibly complex subject?

It doesn't make any sense, which means something is short circuiting your judgement. Reflect on that for a bit. Regardless of how compelling some, or even several, isolated pieces of evidence appear, you are missing something the experts are not.

I reacte so energetically to this subject, because delay is dangerous in the long term, and there are a zillion simple low cost things we could do if people would get going. Every post like yours is negative drag on that process, and in my view, an exponentially unjustifiable view for an empiricist to take.

725. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41652 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 1:38 pm

I do know this….. what happened to the Rev will happen to you too. The only difference is that the "blogisphere" will be deafeningly silent when it's your turn.

No doubt. Though why being loathed should be preferable to being ignored does explain your intermittent attention seeking sojourns into the realms of reason. Yet another shaft of light to pierce the dank dungeon that passes for your personality.

You are a sad, bitter little nihilist wierdo, even for a longterm, disillusioned theist. Priest probably. Now that is a wasted life.

726. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41621 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 12:02 pm

I'm sorry briancoughlanworldcitizen, I am not going to respond to flaming.

Fine by me.

727. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41610 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 11:48 am

Nothing in this article, as far as I can see is damning of Baliunas reputation, it just gives a list of references of her achievments and who she is and what she does.

Your still not doing your own research, and I'm buggered if I'm doing it for you:-( Your Oregon group comes up in Source Watch too.

I don't think anyone has mentioned it being a conspiracy theory?

Your assumption is that thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries, over several decades are colluding (other than some heroic outliers) in a massive scam. A conspiracy theory is the kindest thing one can say about this position.

The occasional alternative, to assert that a majority of relevant experts do not agree on the broad thrust of AGW is simply false. It has been reaffirmed in report after report, the most recent IPCC being only one example, with hundreds of headline scientists involved,running thousands of others involved in gathering data and conducting experiments.

Even the Bush administration has finally begun to concede this argument. The whole approach of the AGW denial camp is identical to the creationist one.

Claim the "true" scientists are being suppressed.
Appeal to the public.
Get some vested interest funding.
Use it to appeal to the public some more.
Promote the "true" scientists as victims of the elite and entrenched "establishment".

You'd have to be willfully blind not to see this stuff. I'm not an expert, but I know enough to see that the denial camp is heavily seeded with oil industry funded non entities. That every significant international report that comes out says basically the same thing, and has done so for 15 years. Until you, and people like you, convince at least a sizeable miniority of the relevant experts, I'd be mad to pay any attention. Just as I'd be mad to waste my time listening to Behe and Co.

If you want to have an argument about the detail, find an AGW site and hope on the buzz saw, they'll sort you out quick enough. But don't come with creationist class tripe about the "debate", anyone with a modicum of sense can see that day is past.

728. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41570 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 10:13 am

Guys all of this stuff has been comprehensivley refuted, and the sources you quote are known to be tainted.

Can I suggest you do your homework first with source watch, here is a primer for you, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sallie_L._Baliunas.

Before cluttering the board with conspiracy theory nonsense. Thanks. The issue is real, sticking your head in the sand is doing none of us any favours, and it's embarrasing, not to mention unseemly to see fellow rationalists debase themselves in this way:-(

729. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41554 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 9:44 am

When you talk like that, you people are no better that Falwell.

Well we are souless amoral atheists, what was his excuse?

730. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41532 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 8:40 am

I am not defending Falwell. I am just opposing the way the board is using the same methods he did in spreading his hate and venom.

Well it's a laudable impulse, you could be doing worse things with your time. Still although, there have been some nasty things said, I don't thing Rachel is stepping over the line.

Anyway, probably enough said, he spread enough dissent and upset in his life, without us facilitating him reaching out from beyond the grave:-)

731. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41517 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 8:21 am

Oh, I see. To oppose hate-mongering, to oppose irrationality, to demand valid arguments and evidence is to be self-righteous.

Silly me.

Oh c'mon chill out. No is calling for the practice and preaching of Christianity, in even it's most odious forms to be punishable by stoning. Which is the fate this wannabe Herman Goering had in mind for plenty of his fellow humans. We didn't kill him, we're just genuinely pleased a deeply unpleasant and dangerous man is dead.

Nothing wrong with that, would you have been weeping at the bedside of Jim Jones? Falwell has inflicted far more suffering and misery than Jimmy could have dreamed of. Probably because Jimmy was sincerely insane, Falwell was a cardboard cutout fraud.

732. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41510 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 8:07 am

195. Comment #41507 by Dower on May 16, 2007 at 7:58 am

Yeah, and meanwhile, let's go on stirring up hatred on this board.

How irrational.

There is nothing irrational about resisting intolerance. There will be no tolerance for anyone if we allow bigots and religious zealots to dictate to us what to do. Thats the real insanity, to suggest that we be tolerant of the intolerant. Those days appear to be over, thank goodness.

Damn Hitchens didn't pull any punches. Good on him.

733. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41504 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 7:54 am

189. Comment #41479 by Dower on May 16, 2007 at 7:10 am

I have it on very reliable evidence that Falwell admitted as he was dying that he knew there was not god.


So, show us the evidence.

Is it not written? Oh ye who have eyes to see and ears to hear ... ahh ... well done. Even as we speak the message is being populated to the holy servers, those whose service will be rewarded in the cyber life to come.

734. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41456 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 6:28 am

I've been following the discussion this morning with interest, and I have to say, that there is a distasteful hypocrisy about wishing people to show "respect" for a creature like Falwell. Dead or not, from Iraq to Africa, this odious little mammal (now I'm starting to mimic Hitchens ...) was, and continues to be, responsible for countless deaths and untold misery.

Yes there has been some unseemly rejoicing, but it is Wizard of Ozesque "Ding, Dong the witch is dead" kind of rejoicing. Perfectly understandable.

As for paying heed to anything that self righteous prig Bizarro has to say .... sorry man, I'm not up for that.

I don't beleive that war is ever a good idea, or that violence is a solution for anything. Yet, I am genuinely glad at the natural passing of such a running sore on the body politic of the US, as I'd be pleased if that freakshow in North Korea died, or for that matter Osama Bin Laden, George Bush or Dick Cheney (now those are good odds). There is no denying it, I'm not a christian anymore and obligiated to supress and conceal my perfectly normal impulses and reactions. Yay for that.

In fact we might as well take what little comfort we can from the passing of this repellent fraudster, because even as we speak some clone is stepping up to fill his shoes:-(

735. Bill Maher interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #41039 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 11:36 am

I'd like to give you a tip about your video's; not the content, a technicality. Text over images is almost always difficult to read unless it's outlined in some way by either a cutout or a drop shadow. I don't know what software you have but most can do this kind of text effect, probably you've noticed that professional video makers use this technique.

Hey thanks for that. I feel like an idiot for not seeing it sooner. Great tip, appreciate the input:-)

736. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #40992 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 9:47 am

My son remains a hard-core fundamentalist (thanks to my indoctrination of him as a child), but my daughter is a skeptic. She will not brainwash her own daughter the way I brainwashed my children.

Wow, tough break. Well good to see more of us around the place, hope your son recovers soon.

737. Dogma

Comment #40984 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 9:28 am

Hey Goodbar, thanks for the comments. All my videos are in youtube here : http://www.youtube.com/TheModestAgnostic

There is a thriving but wildly disorganised atheist community there, you'll find all sorts of brilliant stuff once you start looking.

You could start by having a sift through the people I have subscribed to, or my favourites ... here is a little taster:-) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

738. Dogma

Comment #40965 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 9:06 am

Steve99, it's not exactly material for a younger audience, more material for an "unsophisticated audience" and I'm not sure how to put that without sounding totally condescending.

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people have never entertained the idea, for example, that religion and communism are simply variations on a theme. This is earth shattering stuff for many minds.

Or that Hell is intrinsically unjust and unjustifiable. Having youth see it is one thing, but I'm 42, and I've only just come to many of these conclusions in the last 3 - 5 years. There are probably a billion people like me out there, and billions more that simply have not given the idea of ditching faith any serious thought. All they need is a gentle push.

Anyway, as you can see my little videos have come and gone over the space of 12 hours or so, in another 12 they'll be off the front screen and out of ... ahem ... site. No permanent harm done to Dawkins, and some modest benefit to my hobby effort:-) The vids will still be on youtube, and that bit higher up the rankings with a few extra subscribers to add that extra boost to whatever else I do.

Finally this "battle" will not be won by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens. They are critical as a catalyst, to formulate and promote new ideas and "talking points", but the real fight is in the millions and millions of one on one interactions that occur between normal people, especially in the US. Short pithy videos on youtube, and even here, act to bring people into discussion about these issues.

There is a global conversation going on, about everything right now, on a scale, in both sheer numbers and percentages never before seen in the history of our species. We need to make damn sure our voice is heard as widely as possible.

As trite, basic and possibly puerile as these vids sometimes seem, the do have an effect. It is the cumulative effect of all such efforts which will tell in the longterm.

Every little bit helps:-)

739. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #40950 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 8:38 am

Hi Dower, when did you bail yourself out of the celestial prison? A fellow "minister" of the gospel here, albeit from quite some time ago. There do seem to be a few of us knocking around these days:-)

When I was a christian, I had moments of fervour when I beleived more than ever, and moments when I totally doubted the whole thing. Everyone seems to experience that, and the only way to overcome it is to grit your teeth and ignore it, until the facts go away.

That is what faith is. Gritting your teeth and ignoring contradictory evidence.

Could anything be more barren and dishonest?

Is it any wonder then, that Fox news journalists, arguably the most dishonest, disingenous and manipulative creatures ever to besmirch journalism, embrace some variation of this death cult and everything it represents? Hardly.

740. Bill Maher interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #40846 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 4:58 am

For those of us allergic to quicktime : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqNKD_nmXqM

Cool interview:-) Great even. Hitchens is great.

741. Furor over author Ayaan Hirsi Ali's visit stirs debate on religious freedom

Comment #40836 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 4:38 am

30. Comment #40808 by Luthien on May 15, 2007 at 3:07 am

To all of you who seem to have a problem with AEI (yes, that old chestnut gets trawled out every time she gets a mention on this site) let me assure you that you have nothing to worry about.

After some concerns, I came to the exact same conclusion. She will tear these guys a new one if they try it. Anyone who endures what she has had to suffer, and comes out of it as articulate, balanced and sane, is well able for the neo-con spin brigade.

In fact I HOPE they try it just so she slaps them silly.

742. The Greatest Act of Human Hubris

Comment #40829 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 4:27 am

I feel a new video coming on .... something titled. "It's true, we admit it, Atheism IS a religion".

Then go into the doctrines of Atheism versus the doctrines of all the rest. Concluding by noting we are the majority religion, and must band together against all the infidels. Or something.

It's a work in progress:-)

743. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #40819 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 3:48 am

Evolution is a fact only because it turned out to be that way.

Evolution is a more coherent theory than AGW, we can agree on that. However, AGW is now very strongly supported, and my representation of a scientific theory as functionally factual is intellectually honest, and what we consistently say to creationists about evolution.

At what point do a cluster of hypothesis become a theory? I'm not sure, but that point is well past for AGW, other than a band of conspiracy theorists like yourself, and a tiny, fraction of the relevant experts, broad agreement is in place. As with all theories, new data is constantly arriving, and so far, the theory has done a good job of integrating them. Certainly there are robust disagreements about scope and pace, but this is par for the course. Creationists constantly allude to such discussion within evolution, and we all know that it's a cheap trick.

There are many websites that rebut all the issues you've raised. None of them are new, and at some point I've read up on them myself. I'd recommend you address your question to the relevant experts, see if you and others can get a majority onboard.

In the meantime, I have to insist that I will stick with the majority view of the relevant experts, in any given field where I am a mere dabbler. Frankly, it is dishonest and inconsistent of those who claim to respect the empirical process, not to do the same.

I don't know how you do it, but it is very similar to the process of compartmentalisation and projection that is part and parcel of the religious experience. However it is ideological rather than religious, see my Dogma video for further info:P

Summarising the majority view of the experts is how I, and I suspect you, and all rational humans form our opinions with regard to complex subjects from the electrical wiring in my house to evolution.

Short of knowing everything about everything, how on earth could we otherwise form an opinion about anything??!!

744. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40789 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 2:01 am

38. Comment #40787 by Rtambree on May 15, 2007 at 1:39 am

34. Comment #40778 by The Wee Flea

>I don't suppose you would blame science for nuclear weapons, global warming or biological weapons?

This is a legitimate point. In a sense technology although neutral, has facilitated all of the above. Once again, as with the many legitimate points these commentators bring up, this is never the whole story. The unspoken implication is that religion could have offered something better.

Without science, we'd still be a few tens of millions of hunter gathers, scraping a miserable living together. Expiring on average at the age 30 or perhaps 40, and waiting for the next asteriod impact, black hole or local supernova to snuff us out.

Yes science, like religion is a human institution and has facilitated some pretty appalling stuff. However, it has given us a fighting chance to triumph over the worst of our evolutionary baggage (religion simply provides a conduit to focus the worst, and very occasionally the best of our impulses), and explode the limitations imposed on us by the "eggs in one basket" scenario of inhabiting a single planet.

We might make it, and we might not, but religion a threadbare and barren fiction from start to finish, would never even have given us the chance.

745. The Ethics of Hell

Comment #40752 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 14, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Been reading/listening to Sam Harris have we? ;)

Yes:-) I especially like the term "Genocidal Stupidity".


Do we really have the power to be who we want to be? Can we really do what we want to do?

Within limited scope yes. Can you be an astronaut, or noble prize winning scientist? Well I don't know you so I can't say, but I'm pretty certain those goals would be beyond my grasp.

Can I be an engaged global citizen, discussing with fellow citizens around the world how we make things better? Well that I can do:-)

We each need to find our niche.

746. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #40749 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 14, 2007 at 10:30 pm

It has also led to a corruption of science. The science has become politicized and few scientists dare speak out, without fear of being ridiculed. Or indeed, if scientists dare to put forward potential research, that goes against the current Anthropogenic Global Warming mantra (Sun spots for example), then they are likely to be denied a research grant... That's not science, it's dogma.

Frankly, I think this is largely nonsense, with a major dollop of projection. The republican party have done the damage, and you have the gall to criticise the Democrats for doing what any self respecting political party would do.

Picking up the club their opponent has kindly handed them, and beating the shit out of them with it. This is not "politicizing the issue", it's just politics. The republicans have dropped this ball, hypnotised it seems by their own rethoric, and personally, I hope they pay big time. It's been quite a while since such a disingenous tide of scum has washed up on the shores of global discourse.

As regards funding, if you have the evidence, or at least a compelling case, you will get the funding. Also the lie to this position is given by the funding of skeptics which largely(although not exclusivley) comes through big Oil/Coal/Gas channels.

The money is there, they just don't have a case.

Rational atheists do not have a choice in this matter, not because of dogma, but because of the evidence. If you accept an empirical world view, but are a republican with an agenda, you are in serious trouble. Have the honesty to own up.

747. The Greatest Act of Human Hubris

Comment #40522 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 14, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Wow. Great article, with an unspoken implication. We are the majority kids. Everyone who believes in a God is a minority of one (1).

We on the other hand can easily articulate or position, which hundreds of millions of us hold in common. We don't believe in any of them.

Now that is nifty:-)

748. Dogma

Comment #40412 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 14, 2007 at 9:07 am

Henri the criticism is fair. I started doing these a few months ago, primarily for the youtube audience, which has a much younger demographic and is often (but not always) a good bit less sophisticated then the people that frequent the Dawkins site.

You'd be amazed at how utterly radical and earth shattering some of the idea and concepts we take for granted are to those that are hearing them for the first time.

Whenever I make a new video, I let Josh know and most of the time he puts them up. In a very real sense they are a "community" product, because I frequently include pithy and clever comments from people that post here.

I mentioned in my last note that I had several videos which had not been put up on the site, and Josh (or someone) obviously decided to do them all at once. All I can say is YAY!

Although not the target audience, the click throughs from this site are invaluable for pushing the videos up the various ratings, and ensuring that the ideal audience do see them.

It's all part of pushing that zeitgeist in the right direction, every little bit helps. I hope this didn't sound too defensive:-)

749. In God, Distrust

Comment #40364 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 14, 2007 at 7:20 am

I listened to the whole thing over the weekend, and it blew me away. It is relentless and merciless, continuing to kick, punch and bludgeon long after any semblance of resistance was left.

Thats his style I guess, and frankly, I enjoyed being spattered with the gore. How could I have been such a credulous moron, and for so long?

People need to hear this stuff. Isolation from the disease from birth to the age of 12 or so, coupled with inoculation as early as possible and we should be able to kill this parasite dead.

750. Christopher Hitchens on Religion

Comment #40055 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 12, 2007 at 10:07 pm

Listening to Hitchens book and it is excellent. His uncompromising stance on the Iraq war, may be an incredible plus (in the limited context of the atheism discussion) because people who simply won't touch Dawkins or Dennett, are going to gobble up Hitchens.

It's good, it's really good, and even the case for the Iraq war is presented so cogently, that I've been weaned off blaming Bush for ongoing (I still consider him a monstrous moron for starting the damn thing in the first place) hostilities to place it squarely on the religious authorities in Iraq. The horror these bastards have inflicted on an innocent populace, beggars beleif.

I'd recommend that everyone get it, and Americans give it to your redneck friends, they will find all their prejudices about Iraq supported, but infused with a massive dose of "God is Crap", it may not destroy their faith, but it has the potential to infect it with the deadly wasting disease of doubt. Start them on the right track!!!