51. Texas Leads U.S. in Teen Birth Rate

Comment #59015 by rokort on July 27, 2007 at 1:24 am

So if i get this straight they don't get enough info from their parents and school says don't do it.

Just another example that the religious are affraid to talk about the simple truth. So let's not and keep on wasting lives and kids' futures. Beyond pathetic.

edit:

"A lot of parents want to talk to their child about sex and dating, but they don't know how to start the conversation,"

ever thought about: "your mother/father and i would like to talk to you about dating and sex" ?

*...sheesh...* [rolls eyes]

52. How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Comment #58727 by rokort on July 26, 2007 at 2:08 am

God must have made the best Universe that it is possible to make. The interplay between human freedom, the laws of nature and the love of God is the right mix

The "rules of God" we have here on this planet, in the universe i'm sort of aware of, suppress freedom, ignore laws of nature, and force to love something which isn't there.

Now i know what's happening: though we can see 'em, theists are living in a different universe!

What a load of ..... [fill in favorite expletive]

53. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58498 by rokort on July 25, 2007 at 3:47 am

Part of comment #58360 by the_assayer on July 24, 2007 at 3:43 pm:

But I see a major problem here. Atheists are constantly being suspected of having no moral values or atleast our position seems precarious. To a believer an important reason for belief in God is that it gives a ready-made system of morality which for the most part gaurantees a life of peace and happiness. Assuming an authoritative God makes these rules absolute and uncompromisable.
You see they have figured out a way towards peace and harmony, albeit a pretty close-minded and dogmatic one.

Now this is exactly what Paul Cliteur has done;
http://www.philosophynow.org/issue61/61berg.htm

He's a Dutch Professor (on ethics, law and philosophy, in Leiden, the Netherlands) and he wrote a great book on how to live with "perfectly normal morale" without any fairy as reference.

It's just so sad there isn't an English translation of this yet, as far as i know. Just like with this other masterpiece by Dutch philosopher Herman Philipse, called "Atheist Manifest" (published in 1995). After she read this Ayaan Hirsi Ali gave up Islam...

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

Comment #57352 by rokort on July 19, 2007 at 2:29 am

This is one of the most inspiring articles i've read on this site so far (since April). Thanks for posting.

55. Phony Piety on the Far Right

Comment #57343 by rokort on July 19, 2007 at 1:46 am

The next time someone claims that God is love i'm gonna buy him/her new brains - it's probably only time till we find that the hypocrisy gene is linked to the "i'm a sucker for fairytales" one.

56. Using the 'Beauties of Physics' to Conquer Science Illiteracy

Comment #56981 by rokort on July 18, 2007 at 3:25 am

Have to agree with denoir.

I studied Chemistry in Leiden, in a building attached to the one where Eric Mazur did his Physics. My first year had 100+ students, but 5 years later there were only 25 people in their first year (late 90's). So hardly any new flesh.
A couple of years ago i heard that at the University of Utrecht (also in Holland, not a small one) "Keltic Language" had more students than Biology and Chemistry combined...!
Reasons kids don't do science anymore: boring, difficult, what's the use?

We've got a long way to go informing young people that science is a big determinant of the wealth of society, let alone it's sheer fun to understand life in its smallest forces. If only there would be better career options and pay........next to more support from Government to incorporate a vigorous science colloquium in Highschool. If kids can remember what their favorite superstar wore last month or sing along every song of them or can list all 24 partners he/she had a an affair with for the last 2 years or can easily get to level 16 of some outrageously complex computer game, then this tells me they can remember anything, as long as they want to. And wanting comes from needing, while needing comes from understanding. Or something like that.

Nevertheless, i'm glad Eric does his best.

57. The US map of faith

Comment #56745 by rokort on July 17, 2007 at 5:03 am

Broshiesq,

41% is accurate (as of 2004). Only 20% attend church at least once a month. One in seven of those churchgoers are between 18 and 45 years, while one in three is 65+.

So i think you are right to imply a correlation between secular thought and personal liberty here, though i find a lot of atheists still to be very lenient towards "the" church. Too lenient. Therefore every time i can i advise them to read RD, SH, CH, DD and the likes. If only because our Government is way too religious - you know, economic fear, rise of Islam, etc: a breeding ground for Christianity to play the morally superior card.....
As a consequence, unfortunately, we are having discussions and fresh restrictions on druguse, euthanasia, abortion etc again. Atheists are just too darn tolerant sometimes.

We have to stay awake and sharp, wherever we are!

58. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56714 by rokort on July 17, 2007 at 3:03 am

Religious dogmas adhere easily to illiterate people who don't know what the future will bring. Something that applies to (too) much of Africa. Next to unquestionable belief in a Christian deity or in the words of the Kuran (some years ago i was in a small village in Malawi, amongst the Yao people. Their Imam spread the doctrines of Allah in Arabic while -of course- nobody understood him for the simple reason they speak another language. Nevertheless all were devout followers...) there is still widespread "witchcraft". All this because they aren't learned properly how to put trust in themselves instead of some fairy, and use ratio to get through life.

As Peter Odoyo shows us, and geckoman confirmes, bigoted religious belief is hardwired in Africa. But just like the Pentecostal movement in parts of South America (where they take over the role of the Catholic Church simply by winning souls through showing concern for the poor in the slums) perhaps showing compassion on an atheist basis might help. I say this because i got (and get) the impression lots of Africans are very sensitive to religion only because this way they are presented a "better" future and excuses for their hardship. Religious organisations are the ones building hopitals and schools for the needy. Unfortunately, decades of such indoctrination leaves a lot of souls thinking therefore religion is a good thing.

59. The US map of faith

Comment #55942 by rokort on July 13, 2007 at 2:01 am

broshiesq, my apologies if my words were too harsh, didn't mean to patronize you or anything. I guess i'm pretty used to dive into defense mode whenever someone lines up our "special liberties" and i'm not sure whether he/she thinks that's good or bad.

And with simplistic i meant that before anybody thinks euthanasia, whoring and smoking pot is all we do here, i would like them to know it's neatly regulated and has its place in the greater scheme of things.

Anyways, i totally agree with your morale and can only hope more folks in the States will follow, leaving the line of thinking based on religious grounds and the atrocious acts following from it. Looking at the red spots on the map, that might make some time though..... Later this year i'll move to San Francisco and will try my utmost best to influence this process by pushing some of the Dutch ethics, okay?

60. The US map of faith

Comment #55694 by rokort on July 12, 2007 at 2:09 am

Living and working in Amsterdam i have to react to what Broshiesq (Comment #55619 on July 11, 2007 at 5:54 pm) said:

Holy shit, bruce, so if you guys legalize prostitution, then Portland will be, like, Amsterdam?

No shit. Look at the Netherlands:
Legal: Euthanasia; Pot; Whoring; Same sex marriage

I'm not sure you think this is a good or bad thing, but let me enlighten you a bit on your simplistic view:

Euthanasia: only when the patient has asked for it, with consent from his/her family and two independent docters.
Pot: only in special designated places (so-called "coffeeshops") or your own home.
Whoring: unfortunately too much still illegal, but lots of it legal paying their taxes (so not as hypocritical as in, let's say.......the US).
Same sex marriage: sure, why not?

All this (except for some prostitution) on a voluntary basis, with no proof of more damage to society when compared to countries where it's illegal. Can't also think of anything that might be inhumane here.

What Amsterdam people dislike most: tourists coming to our city for sex and drugs, acting like they know and own the place. And there's many of those.

61. The new age of ignorance

Comment #53776 by rokort on July 3, 2007 at 5:27 am

Rtambree and Gordon,

first of all, my apologies to butt in, but I seriously enjoy your argumenting and feel tempted to react.

I "know" virtually nothing about art and some about science, but do have a remark/question related to your conversation. Excuses in advance when it sounds silly or when i'm missing either ones' point.

Scientists have found that in certain paintings by Vincent van Gogh and Jackson Pollock the pattern of their brush strokes (Van Gogh; turbulence/chaos) or "dripping" (Pollock; fractals) can be explained with mathematical rigor. This rigor can beconsidered nature's way of ordering energy. Amazingly enough, these complex patterns as chaos or fractals are perceived as beauty in our minds. So Van Gogh and Pollock make beauty – which is "understood" by a wide audience (like how EH Gombrich eloquently explains in his "Story of Art" why some art can be considered universal beauty), and scientists now might have discovered why. What we don't fully understand yet (if I'm correct) is what neurological processes make us think "beauty" when we see "chaos".

My question, I guess: now who knows what beauty is best: someone who makes it, or someone who understands what biochemical processes lead to the cognition of beauty? Rtambree, though an artist might not know why, he/she can make beauty, so does know how. Is this less valuable then when the artist doesn't know what it exactly is in our brain that makes us smile and awe at the sight of it? Is subjective understanding worth less? Isn't art just another language to transmit truth? And I say this as a scientist that doesn't think science necessarily makes truth, but enlightens us about the how.

62. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53540 by rokort on July 2, 2007 at 1:33 am

Isn't it time we put all religious nutters on some Ark and push them towards the edge of their beautifully flat earth?

These amazingly stupid childmolesters known as evangelical soldiers are nothing but another example that "God" is anything but intelligent.

Words fail me to describe how backward this Bishop is.

63. Scientists Transplant Genome of Bacteria

Comment #53374 by rokort on July 1, 2007 at 5:19 am

Venter thinks and acts big. Next to developing a way of sequencing genomes fast and efficient, the so-called "shotgun method", he sailed his private yacht over the oceans and showed that the viral and microbial organsisms living in the sea have a truly spectacular genetic diversity. Understanding and exploiting this might give us unheard opportunities to tackle the environmental issues addresses in the NY times piece above.

It's a treat to see him speak as well. He's pushing borders. An entrepreneur we cannot afford to ignore.

64. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52740 by rokort on June 28, 2007 at 1:12 am

Vardu,

good to mention Frans de Waal (not Vaal, sorry). What he shows us a bout our ancestral kin is simply humbling. To my opinion it should shut up everybody that thinks humans are truly different from other animals.

Anyways, nice piece by Cornelia Dean, and hopefully this kind of news will seep through to mainstream media, but there's one thing that bugs me:

For scientists who are people of faith, like Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University, asking about the science of the soul is pointless, in a way, because it is not a subject science can address. "It is not physical and investigateable in the world of science," he said.

If it were up to me i'd ask him to give back/up his PhD. As a scientist you should be extremely critical but nevertheless open-minded to alternative explanations. He's neither since he doesn't question what he "cannot" prove. People with these religious-based double standards are an insult to science.

65. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52391 by rokort on June 27, 2007 at 12:33 am

Next week on Faux News: The War on Atheism!

"Since getting Osama out of his cave is just a matter of time and we made Iraq into a well-oiled democracy, now is your chance to be a true patriot: keep on shooting!"

Killing reason is serious business. Some call it politics. Just one way to keep fools in check.

This video was not a pleasant start of the day.

66. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51794 by rokort on June 25, 2007 at 1:27 am

To JesusH

So one mistake in -for instance- a book is proof for you the rest must be rubbish too? What a sad world you live in.

Get real.

67. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51688 by rokort on June 24, 2007 at 5:31 am

Chilling to the bone.

I have sent this link to as many friends i could think of. If this pro-secular (or anti-theocratic) 30 minute gem by Edward Tabash doesn't get you thinking then what does?

68. Bush Vetoes Measure on Stem Cell Research

Comment #51047 by rokort on June 21, 2007 at 9:22 am

Next step from fundies: bring you to justice on the account of not taking good care of your blastula if you've had a miscarriage.

Or is that collateral damage and therefore acceptable?

69. The courage of their convictions

Comment #51026 by rokort on June 21, 2007 at 7:31 am

Excellent initiative.

In the Netherlands there is a guy doing the same. Interestingly (and sadly) enough, from the beginnning onwards he's getting headwind by his fellow Socialists - who are part of the ruling Coalition in Parliament - instead of support! They say he's too harsh when speaking about the stupidity of Muslim belief. Unfortunately they don't understand how insane this sounds and keep arguing that dialogue and not polemic will lead to better understanding amongst Muslims that apostasy isn't all that bad. Yeah, right.

70. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50625 by rokort on June 19, 2007 at 6:12 am

Okay, fides_et_ratio, fair enough, point well taken. Let me focus on what you have to say about the article then. Which is:

As usual, why let facts get in the way of atheist rhetoric. I teach in a Catholic school and have taught in three others. Creationism or Intelligent Design has not been taught in any of them, and is not taught in any of them.

Evolution is taught in all schools because it's on the National Curriculum so it has to be taught.

Just a little fact to be getting on with. As you were.

plus

I have read the above. I was talking specifically about the fact that creationsim isn't taught in the schools mentioned in the above article by an atheist, and that in all Catholic and CofE schools in this country evolution is taught. These facts are contrary to the claims of the article.

So Adam Rutherford seems to use his experience as having been in one school as evidence for pushing ID into science and religion class. You use the absence of such in 4 schools as evidence that he exaggerates or is overstating (i guess).

Neither his nor your experience makes it statistically significant to say something about Evolution and/or Creationism being taught in other places, strictly speaking.
However, what he might have meant by addressing that there are schools that teach Creationsm/ID that such is already bad enough, for the simple reason it doesn't belong in Science class.

Furthermore, we know this whole ID-thing and Creationism is a recently pushed idea, so i could argue that perhaps at the schools you've taught this wasn't incorporated into the curriculum yet.

And Evolutiuon is not only taught because it has to, but because it's a perfectly logic and so far the best scientific way to explain life on our planet. And when we want our kids to learn how to deal with life, they at least need to know what it is and how it came about. Which has nothing to do with how it all started by the way. So Evolution and Creationism are not really comparable, and even far from having to be considered equal.

71. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50606 by rokort on June 19, 2007 at 4:24 am

Comment #50601 by fides_et_ratio on June 19, 2007 at 4:09 am
If you want to presume that you reside in the high point of pure reason as many athiests do, then you must adhere to facts with, dare I say it, a religious fervour. The trouble with athiests when they discuss religion, is that they are seemingly unable to do this.

Have you ever read CH, RD, SH, etc, i wonder? What do you think they discuss, Asian cuisine?

Or do you mean that when an atheist discusses religion and doesn't accept without thinking that religion is based on something there's no real discussion? You are either "with us or against us" rethoric - is that what you prefer?

And what are the "facts" religious fervour? That there's a book of fairytales anyone could have written?

72. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50595 by rokort on June 19, 2007 at 2:58 am

monkey2 Comment #50568 on June 18, 2007 at 7:42 pm

What can we do?

How about an atheist candidate in the UK Parliamentary elections. It's not that expensive and it has, over the long term, been a successful tactic for the greens. Politicians nowadays all want to be 'greenier than thou'.

Even then it's tough. A former renowned scientist in molecular biology, Ronald Plasterk, became Minister of Education here in Holland, and he made this transition sort of out of the blue. When he's in the news -especially when he just started-, he's addressed as "the atheist Minister" andsoforth by reporters. Annoingly, they say "atheist" in a way as if he's a nutter, like "we know he has brains, therefore it's so shocking he's an atheist!" or "how can we run a government if we have this atheist amongst us!". As if he is going to be the one that for sure will cause problems. They even asked prime-minister Balkenende whether it was such a good idea to have an "outspoken" (whatever that means) non-believer in Parliament. This is how mainstream media deals with atheists in Parliament here.

And this in a Parliament which is run by conservative Christians who are more and more pushing their religious agenda. I guess we still have a long way to go.....*sigh*

73. In the know

Comment #50257 by rokort on June 16, 2007 at 4:19 am

Bonzai (Comment #50223 on June 15, 2007 at 8:07 pm),

couldn't agree more. I think the biggest challenge is to make people aware how science works and somehow show the immense amount of knowledge we've gained about the world through the scientific discourse.

One of the things that gets you through life is dealing with reality. Are we at school properly/extensively/deeply enough taught how to interpret wat we experience i sometimes wonder - especially when i hear that science classes are degrading and at school it's considered "more important" that kids express themselves the way they like and learn about "necessary" things as how to use a computer to look up the latest on Britney Spears.....

Pardon me for generalizing here, but i think that if we don't learn how our natural world is built up and how we came to know, how can we expect people to understand and accept life? They'll turn to dogma's that substitute their insecurities for false comfort, instead of moving towards science, where dealing with how things are gives no immediate or obvious consolation. When you understand science at least a bit or have learned how to be rational it's all the more easy to see how empty and dangerous the world of religion is and to accept why things are the way they are.

I don't say you need science in school to understand how incongruous religion is, but critical thinking and getting to know nature - of which we are nothing but a part - sure helps build a world where ignorance is not considered normal.

74. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50090 by rokort on June 15, 2007 at 2:20 am

Allmost all superlatives for the immeasurably ignorant statement by this cardinal have been used here, and rightly so. Any sane person would condemn the aggressor, not the victim. But then again, this club of emptyheads called Church knows best how to rape and get away with it, showing for the umpteenth time they don't care anything about women or kids.

I think it's time the UN charges the Vatican for obstructing peace. How many more lives we tolerate to be wasted by these child molesters?

75. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #49053 by rokort on June 10, 2007 at 5:38 am

I think it's time to sue the church for obstructing atheists to read about non-existing deities. They should understand how logic this sounds.

76. We of little faith

Comment #49047 by rokort on June 10, 2007 at 4:55 am

Rtambree, comment #48993, wrote:

I agree with the sentiments expressed here that outspoken atheists like Harris and Blackmore being sympathetic to eastern mysticism is an inconsistent application of rationality. It's definitely their Achilles Heel and leaves them vulnerable to attack from the religious who say "you have your superstitions, and I have mine".

Sure, these eastern "religions" (or philosophies, etc) may be more scientifically compatible and less harmful, but it's a round-about way - why not just embrace science directly.

My personal "spiritual master", or Lama, (in Vayrajana) goes to the University of Chicago once a while, gets all kinds of plugs on his head and starts meditating. Within 4 seconds his brain activity resembles an epileptic attack. While the scientists measure a temporary yet very unfavorable condition my Lama feels sheer joy. So now what are we looking at: abnormal brain activity, or happiness?

Other research shows that women that orgasm have close to zero activity in a part of the brain that deals with happiness, the same center one could expect to be overflowing with activity since an orgasm can be quite an electrifying and full filling experience. This same area in the brain is "used" for the experience of happiness by trained practitioners of meditation. Maximum feeling equals no activity.

Methinks why not look at it from this perspective:
To cope with the hardships of reality "Buddhism" came up with some ground rules. They implied meditating and reflecting on your ego and all that matters. As science now shows, being/becoming happy is likely simply a mental state. No surprise there. How this is achieved is not fully understood though. I think science will inevitably understand what brain- (and perhaps "energy"-) processes lie at the heart of what we conceive as truth and happiness. This is something that Buddhists don't understand at the molecular level either but -though Buddhism as I get it doesn't claim it has divine truth- they do seem to have an idea how to get there. Why not use the knowledge of these well-trained introspectives to fast-forward the emergence of scientific facts through reasoning?

As pewkatchoo mentioned earlier: why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

77. Americans believe in both evolution, creationism: poll

Comment #49027 by rokort on June 10, 2007 at 3:24 am

I watched Heaven and Earth as well (by accident, was just flipping through some channels, didn't know it existed), and what astounded me most during the article on the Creation Museum was the effort to get "Bible-facts" through as scientific facts. A young Astrophycisist said -without blinking an eye- that his science is compatible with the Bible. I seriously think somebody ought to revoke his PhD.

Everything we know from the history of our planet is thanks to science, and now this is hyjacked by an army of nutcases that does as if the Bible long gone figured it out.
Minor mistake here by these folks if you ask me: without science we wouldn't know anything that they display in the Museum, so why these creationists are so sure (with hindsight they didn't have till the facts came up) it was just "a matter of time" till somebody would dig up the proof of God's power, of how he shaped the world and Universe as we know it in just 6 days, is at least mildly fascinating.

Could doublethink be a mental condition, inflicted by relentless torturing with a belief?

78. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48461 by rokort on June 8, 2007 at 3:21 am

Nothing new but nevertheless very disturbing. To put it bluntly: what good are Arabic men and their "values" for this part of the world? It's all based on an extremely obvious and very childish game of power via torture. It's sickening, and "economic" ties with the West keep this in place. So to some extent we could all be held responsible...

I wouldn't be surprised if the women that seem to have accepted their "faith" share a condition akin the Stockholm Syndrome btw.

79. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48198 by rokort on June 7, 2007 at 2:58 am

I never knew one could write an article where every sentence is just wrong, false, untrue, and bollocks. Poor guy.

80. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48195 by rokort on June 7, 2007 at 2:40 am

Bizarro,

Most likely you're not a jerk (most of the time) and i wouldn't mind drinking a beer with you having fun and slapping each others' back, but you sound like one since many of your arguments and statements seem to be based on presumptions, vague reasoning, ignorance, and simple denial of alternative explanations.

In your world/truth virtually everything can be related back to what "god wrote in the bible". Reasoning like this you have no argument why any other view that follows some script or brainwave might not also be "true". Nevertheless you stick to the bible, and when heaps of folks (here on this forum and quite some other places too, you know) have seriously debunked the bible and other (fairy)tales regarding their representation of truth and values, it's gonna be hard to sound like somebody that does use his brains. Sorry buddy.

And btw, if morality becomes an arbitrary concept without god, can you then explain to me why the most religion-less countries are the ones which are the most prosperous and free/democratic, harboring the most happy people (like some countries in europe for example).

81. 6 Billion Bits of Data About Me, Me, Me!

Comment #47650 by rokort on June 5, 2007 at 6:33 am

On the risk of sounding pedantic i would like to add a note here: It can take thousands of manhours to have only a faint idea of the function or regulation of just one (1) protein or gene. So "deciphering" a genome is not exactly describing what happens how, when and where in an organism. It's like deciphering what letters make up a very very heavy and big book, but having absolutely no idea what language it's written in, how to combine letters into words, which words are to be put where, or what they mean by themselves or when written up in a sentence.

Thought deciphering a genome for a couple of bucks and in no-time is a tremendous feat, it's gonna take some more time and effort before we can translate this towards understanding genetic abnormalities in detail, let alone treat them.

But well, you know, Rome wasn't built in one day either...

82. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47580 by rokort on June 5, 2007 at 2:48 am

Bizarro Dawkins wrote:

I know you all think we Americans are ignorant logic haters, what with mottos like "In God We Trust" on our money, but I will be so bold as to suggest that this may be the manifestation of just a bit of jealousy. I know America is very, very far from perfect, but here people are free. I can shoot my civilianized AK (or, if you're Canadian/British, my 9mm handgun) in my backyard without having to worry about being arrested for owning a gun. I can tell people about my perfectly rational faith in the God who gives me hope without being fined for spreading my beliefs. I can even curse my own country without a care in the world. God forbid that any government ever tells me what to teach my own children.

I think you need to find yourself a dictionary and look up what "free" means. I will be so bold as to suggest that the US is a totalitarian system where (too many) people are so afraid of each other that communication goes via court, have a screwed up idea of reality, are a political and environmental menace to the rest of the world, and push forward archaic views about "freedom" by planting bombs and soldiers around the world. Thank you for exemplifying this by saying that gun(ab)use and brainwashing your kid in the name of some mystical deity is a right. Have you ever been abroad? I think (and hope) that if you would see how things work in (many) other countries you would be deeply embarrassed about what you wrote/think.

And maybe the idea that the government tells you what to teach your kids sickens you, but if you teach your kids something which damages society, how arrogant do you have to be to say that you in particular should be excluded from comment on your behavior or what you teach? You don't decide what society is or does all by yourself. There's rules to make everybody get along in a certain sense. That's called democracy, which as you might know is under attack in the US because of those widely *cough* tolerant *cough* "leaders", who –surprise, surprise- rather have gun-loving god-fearing brainwashed slaves walking around than somebody not supporting their push for wealth and power.

83. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46382 by rokort on May 31, 2007 at 4:31 am

to follow up on Nails and scottishgeologist:

you both are right i think, how scientists are portrayed is not something to underestimate.

Here in our lab we (a bunch of 20 to 30 years-young that are either still in school, just left it, or on their way to a career) discuss this a lot amongst ourselves: How can we attract more students, how can we get through to people (and kids in particular) that science is not for geeks? How do we show that science is not difficult?

It's complicated but we think at least the following might contribute:
1. science should be as important in a schools' curriculum as language or math. Science is not complicated, aparently kids get smarter every generation ,so there's no excuse there. Showing the students the wonders of life might be tough with all the distractions out there, but not insurmountable.
2. there should be more contact between scientist and schools (there are projects here in Holland where PhD students go to highschools to tell what their life is about and that actually they are really normal people that also party and dress "hip" - this sounds too sad for words but unfortunately this is necessary.
3. science teachers should be highly engaged in the world of their students (i mean not be some grey person delivering handouts or repeating what's in a study book), be able to translate the fundamentals of science in a way that students are triggered to join the thinking process, and be able to clarify to students that studying science means a life and career that actually you can pretty much control yourself (and not some manager somewhere else in the building) – if only a student is not afraid of working hard and not always satisfactory pay of course...
4. science journalists should be (made) aware that their portraying of scientific achievement is about work in progress and it should always partly be about what we don't know yet and how important a finding is in the light of what it means to "mankind".
This can be done properly. For example, last year i had published something which got coverage in a national newspaper and although the editing took quite some back and forth with the reporter, in the end it was a very informative and honest piece. He was able to translate the findings in such clear manner that even my granmother understood it.
5. it's a profession of fun and adventure (despite "drawbacks" like funding, pay, and working hours), and it offers immense opportunities to discover the world - think of working abroad or in a international or interdisciplinary environment.

I know the above also accounts for some other careers and perhaps some of the ideas come across as unpolished or maybe even hogwash, but the main thing i think is showing the next generation and the layman that science and scientists are not out of this world - ergo, that science is one of the driving forces of an economy. For this only there should be more consideration and support from government, but that's another discussion.

84. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #45992 by rokort on May 30, 2007 at 1:35 am

pewkatchoo wrote:

I have to agree with you Jimbob. But we should not make to many enemies to early. We are still a seeming minority, even in secular Britain. One battle at a time. The extreme left, even more so than the extreme right, don't like their dogma being held up to questioning in any way.

A bit of care needs to be taken with this tack

I agree. Here in the Netherlands in 2002 we had a guy destined to become the new president: Pim Fortuijn. He rocketed himself into the political light and found a lot of support amongst the Dutch by saying things like "Islam is a retarded faith". Taking a stance against the agenda and the amount of Muslims in Holland gave him overwhelming support and, "of course", resulted in many enemies and death-threats as well.

Only 9 days before the elections he was shot to death. Point blank in the head, 5 times. A ruthless assassination. Everybody expected a muslim to be the killer, but it turned out to be a leftwing animal-rights activist - according to this killer because Fortuijn didn't want to shut down Mink farms when he would become president...

Now i don't want to make things sound worse than they might be, but there's just too many looneys on this planet for comfort.

85. God help us all - The No. 2 book on Amazon right now is a

Comment #45078 by rokort on May 26, 2007 at 6:57 am

Good point freeurmind.

And don't forget that Ahmadinejad is not the sole leader, and he doesn't have full support when it comes to his ideas about wanting to clash with Israel.

It also worries me that too often Iran is presented as some concept or just a piece of land that "can be wiped off the map", instead of realizing it's a country full of people like you and me but that, unfortunately, they are troubled with oppressive leaders that are indoctrinating and terrorizing their own citizens.

When Christians do this to their kids we scream "such brainwashing has to stop!" but in the case of Iran now suddenly it's "their own fault", so screw them all?

86. Dental healer finds share of faithful believers

Comment #44275 by rokort on May 24, 2007 at 2:42 am

I couldn't help but feel really stupid i actually read the whole thing just now...

87. Liberty U student plotted to set off explosives, police say

Comment #44255 by rokort on May 23, 2007 at 9:51 pm

From one of MD Uhl's blogs comes:
(CLICK HERE)

America, we have been given a chance to live the perfect life here. People have fought and died so we may have this opportunity. Go; take what you have been given. Receive what you have been offered. We are the biggest super power in the world not because of what we have done but because of what has been done for us and what we must do for future Americans, for our children.

Christians, we have been given life after death and we should help others receive it and not sit here in our big buildings and sing to ourselves so we can go home and feel good about ourselves.

Christians, fear of death, fear of death. The fear of death shows you don't believe. The bible says in Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." If you truly believe and you have given your life to God you know "You cannot die."

America, where are our leaders. Christians, where are our leaders. Uncle Sam needs soldiers to fight so our children may live free. God needs soldiers to fight so his children may live free.

It makes the -totally expected- comment by Bizarro:

Of course I believe it would be very intellectually shallow to attribue this kid's actions to religion (especially Christianity). The Bible says to love and even pray for your enemies. I think this obviously rules out a Christianity based motivation

...pretty intellectually shallow, i guess.


edit: not to mention the statement in this guys' blog that "we are the super power in the world" and the fact that he -just like quite some of his fellow students, actually- so desperately wants to join the army.

Gee, what an enlightning environment, this "University" he's at!

88. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43281 by rokort on May 21, 2007 at 3:52 am

But when we observe the horror of religiously motivated violence or hatred, maybe the correct question is, Without religion would it be even worse?

Yeah, let's focus on the bad and leave out the good. Again this stupid idea that morals come from religion. Because "it's the best thing we've got" he says. No, the best thing he can come up with by deliberately staying away from reason and critique. Perfect example of his mindset: blame anything instead of reflecting on your own belief.

89. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #42996 by rokort on May 20, 2007 at 8:49 am

Still searching what about Buddhism suits me best, you supply me with yet another point of view (no, hadn't heard about him). Time to leave the lab now and go do some reading and thinking i guess.

Thanks again BaronOchs!

ps: sorry for this off-topic rambling, but if someone shows me Goodness without Godliness i need to thank.

90. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #42979 by rokort on May 20, 2007 at 7:49 am

Thanks BaronOchs,

as Sam Harris keeps showing us, he has a keen eye and he eloquently puts things into perspective. I'd say i also have to agree with what he writes. Thanks again for that link!

91. Goodness without Godliness

Comment #42966 by rokort on May 20, 2007 at 6:42 am

The assumption is that because Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad or L. Ron Hubbard provide fulfillment to some, those without a God must by definition be vacant vessels.

What a saddening display of ignorance to put Buddha between these utterly abhorrent persons from the past, which might have evolved from not really knowing what Buddhism is about. RD also places Buddhism on a par with Muslim faith for example, something i fail to understand.

If anybody can tell me why Buddhism is a religion - like whether in the name of Buddha people have been killed systematically, who the God of Buddhists is, or that Buddhism has been enforced on anybody - let me know.

Otherwise, not a bad and concise roundup of present-day arguments flying around between theists and atheists.

Though some (actually quite some, to my surprise) people at this forum have been expressing that philosophy isn't really worth anything, i would like to add that -regarding morals- the basic principles of Stoics and/or Epicurians might enlighten some folks here. In philosophy you can easily find groundrules for good moral behaviour without supervision or control by any God, so what's the stance against philosophy good for?

92. God grief

Comment #41874 by rokort on May 17, 2007 at 8:27 am

Furthermore, Hitchens seems to think that, for any sensible modern person, reason must inevitably usurp the place religion once held at the center of life. Such a position assumes that simply because we understand what is going on during an earthquake or when a person is dying of cancer, these events cease to be terrifying. The quality of terror is different, certainly, for we no longer see the destruction of a city or the death of a friend as the work of supernatural disgruntlement -- or if we do, we understand, at least, the precedence of scientific explanation. But fear and helplessness in the face of nature, the torture and indignity of continuing to feel love for an object that has disappeared from the world -- "That nothing cures," to quote Philip Larkin. Man cannot live on reason alone, and for those who are unable to find in literature the sustenance for mind and soul of which Hitchens speaks, religion will continue to give existence purpose and meaning

Yes we can. Easily. Just accept that things are the way they are. Reason tells you -for example through the theory of evolution- that there is no meaning. Things happen. We're only a clump of molecules that used to be mountain, stardust, or dinosaur, and will become water, worm, or rainforrest. It's that simple.

Unfortunately ego's make up things like there has to be meaning, that we are more important than other beings, that we should fear, or that we should hang on to love we can no longer keep around. The honesty (or, as some people claim, cruelty) of animals other than homo sapiens shows that's all relative.

So enjoy the ride and every moment of it to the fullest, instead of worrying it might end soon. Because it will one day, and there's nothing you can do about that. Why waste energy on fear when there's love?

ps: i'm aware it might sound a bit corny near the end, but hey, who cares?

93. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41804 by rokort on May 17, 2007 at 5:00 am

Cheguevarra1970: I disagree w/ the 1st group of bloggers. The author is merely stating that religion TRIES to explain the myteries of life., and

Steve99: I feel many people here are too quick to dismiss the first few sentences. Religion is so successful because for so many people it does at least seem to explain the mysteries of life, and does help overcome life's difficulties.,

Pardon me for quoting only parts of your posts, but if he means it like you both think he does, why doesn't he write it up like that then?

My explanation: Religious believers will pose their fiction as universal truth whenever they can. If not by force then through lies.

94. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41789 by rokort on May 17, 2007 at 3:17 am

Shuggy,

sometimes Buddhist behaviour makes me think they are the most promiscuous clan on earth, so i'm not sure they take a dim view on onanistic exertions. Might be because it's not a religion by the way.

95. Among the Disbelievers

Comment #40875 by rokort on May 15, 2007 at 6:34 am

@Jesse:

Yeah, just like other religious organizations are subsidized as well - interestingly enough, when it's a Muslim organization that gets money christian parties object the most...
We now have a very religious Government so separation between church and state is troubled again.

Only one guy (Pechtold, from "Democrats '66", an -unfortunately- marginalized central-left liberal party) dared to ask questions in Parliament, something which wasn't big national news. Just like SH, CH and RD find out over and over again he was ridiculed for it. Not for his arguments, but personally. Again, anything to avoid a real debate.

Since the killing of the outspoken filmmaker Theo van Gogh and the excommunication of Ayaan Hirsi Ali it's back to avoiding the issue here - the issue of religion being a quaint and archaic misbelief. Too much tolerance can lead to indifference i guess.

96. Among the Disbelievers

Comment #40773 by rokort on May 15, 2007 at 12:08 am

If one does not believe in God, what should one believe in instead?

Even my president and vice-president (here in The Netherlands), who are both from christian parties, have been caught on tape saying that "they wouldn't know what would have become of them without God".........

*sigh*

Speak for yourself is what i always think when i hear a statement like the one quoted above. It says more about the unstable and childish minds of believers than of those who don't need fairytales to lead a perfectly full filling life.

(off topic: the vice-president also acknowledges that as a student when playing records in reverse he "heard" satanic voices saying he should join the dark side, which made him even more convinced nothing but God is worth living for...........and he now also is Minister of "Youth and Family". Of course another sneaky way to claim and spread the unsubstantiated religious moralistic superiority (aaargh!, i'm so ashamed sometimes)).

97. Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins

Comment #40264 by rokort on May 14, 2007 at 4:01 am

Dawkins is not the only world-famous apologist of secularist extremism

How extreme is it to follow the laws of nature we're all subject to and not believe in something of which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever?

In secular Britain, faith-bashing carries far more resonance and risks causing far greater damage. In this country, belief is a minority practice and believers a persecuted lot. The rabid attacks by Dawkins and his camp-followers spur even the most mild-mannered Christian, Muslim or Jew into a hard-line position.

Somewhat in line with mmurray's comment : why is having another opinion "bashing" or a "rabid attack" and does that lead to "hard line" christians or "damage"? Why -in line with neoconservative speach- is another opinion a danger and should it be labeled as such, and only as such?

I guess because then the debate will not be about the real issue, but -also perfectly in line with american life pushed forward by folks only interested in money and power- it can stay superficial. Creating fear is top priority on a theist's agenda - the only thing they understand since their entire life is based on it. How shallow. How sad.

98. Apocalypse Of The Honeybees

Comment #39229 by rokort on May 10, 2007 at 7:52 am

Regarding http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3646170288558814724#0h03m19s:

When introducing the "news"readers there's mentioning of: "From the Award winning team........"

The only prize this utter nonsense deserves is the Darwin Award.

99. Gene mutation linked to cognition is found only in humans

Comment #39161 by rokort on May 10, 2007 at 5:36 am

Though interesting, it's tough to prove that this actually means something. To take this beyond the descriptive, one has to find persons that don't mind swapping their version of type II neuropsin with the one from old-world monkeys, something which is rather challenging technically (to put it mildly) - besides the ethics surrounding such experiment. Phenotypic differences between men and old world monkeys are obvious, but to directly link this to a suspected genetic counterpart (or vice versa) is tough.

That i better trust in God (see chadvader123) over science to get answers in this lifetime is of course the best proof religious folks want to keep everybody stupid. If you can't kill or otherwise shut up reason you can always argue it's a waste of time and energy. Yeah, right! If everybody would have listened to such arguments we would still be living in caves.

On that note: if believing in God beats science why don't religous people all go live like we did when we were monkeys then - before science gave them the comfort, ease and freedom they role around in every day. Must be because belief correlates extremely thight with hypocrisy. Perhaps a hypocrisy-gene or slice variant thereof is more abundant in religious populations? Wouldn't surprise me.

100. Atheist offers to send letters post-Rapture

Comment #38800 by rokort on May 9, 2007 at 8:05 am

So this guy offers comfort for the loved ones left behind -to my humble opinion a good thing- and gets hate-mail by folks normaly advocating that God equals love..................?

Religious belief is dangerous. Q.E.D.