51. 10 Questions for Heather Mac Donald

Comment #17453 by DavidJMH on January 13, 2007 at 9:40 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Very refreshing to read this piece; it shows one doesn't have to agree with the loony left and all their social engineering psycho-babble to be an atheist. I for one thoroughly applaud Heather MacDonald's outspoken views and her courage to express them publicly.

52. Copy of The God Delusion Purchased for $20,000

Comment #17445 by DavidJMH on January 13, 2007 at 7:18 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I know it is difficult to categorize Humanists, Atheists etc. but how would it be for us to have a universal symbol of unity, something simple and easily recognizable to others. It could be made into a small lapel pin, broach, tie pin etc. I don't mean a badge. The Christians have a cross, Islam a crescent moon although they do not wear it often.
Perhaps Richard Dawkins could come up with an evolutionary idea and promote it on this website. For what it is worth, I humbly propose the Double Helix; what is more universal or symbolic of reason than that.

53. For Human Eyes Only

Comment #17430 by DavidJMH on January 13, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Firstly, men charging into battle are under extreme stress and when people are fearful, their eyes are open very wide. The phrase had been in common use by European armies for centuries, well before the invention of the gun. The eyes are wide to allow the greatest field of view.
The survival advantage of being able to give visual direction to others without moving one's head, improves the chances of not being seen by one's quarry or enemy. All advanced creatures are alert to movement whereas it is very unlikely they would notice an eye movement alone.
These two responses are not necessarily connected.

54. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #17310 by DavidJMH on January 12, 2007 at 9:20 pm

Zoro,
Very much enjoyed your long list of quotations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
LDMILLER has a point and I am a lot older the he. Why is it that whenever the "young" disagree, even with those who may generally share their point of view, they find it necessary to become disagreeable. Sam Schulman is right, many present day athiests are very shallow, unpleasant people indeed and do our cause a great discredit. Richard Dawkins is not, his website is not, and contributors to these post have no precedent to be either.

55. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17299 by DavidJMH on January 12, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Haven't the reporters for the Seattle PI missed the point here. This is not about global warming or evolution, this is about a member of the religious right objecting to a left wing Democrat, Al Gore, presenting a politically sensative issue in the schools. Overwhelming evidence doesn't come into it; the guy simply doesn't want his children asking awkward questions about the family's gas guzzling SUV or pickup truck they go to church in.

56. FiveLive debate on faith and discrimination

Comment #17270 by DavidJMH on January 12, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I wonder whether or not the same "rights" would be supported in the courts for hetersexual couples being turned away from an hotel owned by a homosexual. I think not. This law has nothing to do with descrimination; it is just another example of the decadent west sliding further down the slippery slope to self destruction, through lack of self discipline, courage and naturally decent behavior.
Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.

57. Halting progress

Comment #17199 by DavidJMH on January 11, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
This proposed law has very little to do with homosexual rights. The prime focus for the Blair government is legislation in support of immigrant Muslims, thereby preventing the increasing unease amongst the British public who see their country becoming an Islamic state. Blair and Brown have very cynically hidden the real agenda behind one they know will arouse the liberal left to support them. It seems to be working very well if this line is anything to go by.

58. Richard Dawkins' Report Card

Comment #17192 by DavidJMH on January 11, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Zero
Improvement
Mainly
Because
All
Bloody
Whites
Emigrated

59. Open Letter to Rev. John Auer

Comment #16786 by DavidJMH on January 8, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I wonder whether or not the Murphy family and the other victims and families have come to realize that perhaps their religious beliefs need serious questioning, given how their "God" sought to protect them from not only the molestation, but the whole rotten organization which supports it.

60. Consciousness Without Faith

Comment #16785 by DavidJMH on January 8, 2007 at 6:58 pm

Zoro,
I have read many of your postings and conclude we probably agree more than perhaps you suggest. My posting was about the language of science, not science itself. The reference to the old man and science was precisely the point; a "lay" person who does not necessarily understand the language of science was wise enough to distill the essence of our quest anyway. Why dress up what we do with often obscure technical terms when everyday language can achieve the same result and appeal hopefully to a wider audience?

61. Consciousness Without Faith

Comment #16770 by DavidJMH on January 8, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Ladies and Genlemen,
There is a facet of the human genome where the upper echelons of any "in group", very soon start to use terms and language which show how clever they are, at the same time degenerating into meaningless mumbo-jumbo, not only to the "out group" but to many members of the "in group" as well. I think the expression is "Bullshit baffles brains". Sam Harris, as much as I admire his forcefulness and motives, appears to be no less susceptable to this desease than those religiously inclined.
There is the story of the old man who was once asked what he thought about science. "Science" he replied, "is the art of trying to know more and more about less and less, until one eventually knows everything about nothing."
Sam and others, when you are writing articles for the "lay" public which you hope to swing to your way of thinking, please be so kind as to use clear, simple language we can all grasp, not "in" technical terms that only a few other very clever people understand.

62. Consciousness Without Faith

Comment #16591 by DavidJMH on January 7, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I wish to address Sam Harris' last paragraph about what he calls "happiness". Perhaps he is really talking about an inner peace or contentment, a state our percieved inner being can acquire either through deliberate meditation or odd moments when mortal awareness is somehow not realized.
Happiness is surely more conscious, a state of which we are aware in our travels through life. It has been pointed out that happiness is not quantative, not something one can have, but a way of travelling more than a station at which one arrives.

63. Ancient religion may face extinction

Comment #16468 by DavidJMH on January 6, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Boys and Girls,
The crass, infantile remarks which have so far been posted above serve no purpose other than to show your ignorance and complete misunderstanding of the article. This forum is for the adult discussion of subjects in a reasonable, knowledgeable fashion, not for the indulgence of ignorant rhetoric; please save your nonsense for the school lavatory wall.

64. God-less

Comment #16463 by DavidJMH on January 6, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
As one or two of you have correctly stated, morality is a society's construct and evolved over the millenia as a tool for how best to survive in a group. An individual isolated on an otherwise deserted island, neither needs nor would "invent" morality; ironically, he may be more likely to "invent" a companion to help him get through the trials of daily existance.
A documentary piece some years ago showed how different morality is in diverse social groups. The Brazilian government's local representative in a remote part of the Amazon jungle was in a profound dilemma as what to do with a tribal man who had murdered another. It was shown the dead man, who was not of the tribe, had stolen the accused's hunting spear which was the only possession he had, indeed his sole means of staying alive.
In his tribal society, stealing such a crucial tool was instantly punishable by death. The accused literally had no concept of what he did as being wrong, let alone any sense of guilt for his actions. The representative very wisely concluded that there was no case against the accused, the dead man had in ignorance violated a morality from a completely different social group, paying for it with his life.
There is no such thing as absolute morality; the religious would have everyone believe they are the sole arbiters of morals, but social morality was stolen by early society's leaders and put under a superstitious (religious) guise to wield power over the weak; it is easier and longer lasting to control the masses with fear and superstition than by wielding a big stick.

65. The New Atheists

Comment #16397 by DavidJMH on January 6, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Once upon a time and not so long ago, religion, and particularly Christianity would never have even debated about the existance of "God"; it was considered self evident and not a subject to question. Now it would appear the religions are on the run, mainly due to greater scientific understanding of our universe.
What is so disingenuous about most American Christians in particular is now they feel the necessity to defend their beliefs by trying to use pseudo-science to prove "God's" existance. Clearly, they already have doubts otherwise they would not need to pursue this line. Contrary to most of the opinions expressed here, Prof. Cox to my mind, no matter how much one might disagree with his beliefs, at the very least has the honesty, strength of character and belief to plainly say that "God" is outside the realms of the mundane and does not need to be or even could be proven. It matters not that it appears to us as spurious argument or avoidance thereof, he is willing and able to stand up and be counted.

66. Atheists challenge the religious right

Comment #16387 by DavidJMH on January 6, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have posted something in this vein before; I hope it bears repetition.
For no other reason than simple logic, why do we wish to call our movement in terms of religious belief. Certainly theists would call non-believers "atheist" but for us to do so is illogical; a negative term for something which does not exist is the first place is nonsense, and "non-theist" is equally so.

67. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15898 by DavidJMH on January 3, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
It never ceases to amaze me how liberals will spout volumes about the injustice and immorality of the death penalty from the comforts and priviledges of a free society, whilst simultaneously squeeling like stuck pigs because their own authorities and governments, which they voted into office, fail to take a strong stand on crime and punishment.
Punishment should fit the crime; judicious punishment is a priviledge we have fought and sacrificed for in the English speaking world. Many people on this planet do not have that luxury. As stated in my previous posting to this article, the execution of Saddam Hussein was pure revenge by the Bush family, however, if that is what it takes to rid the world of a murderous tyrant, then so be it for we have no moral right regarding those who have suffered at his hand to say otherwise.

68. Executing Saddam Hussein was an Act of Vandalism

Comment #15869 by DavidJMH on January 3, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Dear Richard Dawkins, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The execution of Saddam Hussein was simply and only an act of revenge by the Bush family upon the Hussein family, because Saddam had both duped George senior when he was Director of the CIA and tried to have Bush senior murdered in the early 90's. As we are all now only too well aware, the allegations about Iraq and WMD and El Queda were a fabrication; the Bush administration decided to use 9/11 as an excuse to extract their revenge in the earliest days after the attack on the US, whilst at the same time, hoping to gain control of Iraq's oil.
With all due respect, it is naive to suppose that morality plays any part here on either side of the equation. Saddam Hussein was an amoral thug; there is nothing genetic here and nothing to research; some people are like that in the same way some people are exceedingly humane. No amount of probing in a laboratory would reveal anything else. The Bush family have the power at present to exact whatever they choose and no matter how much they may try to justify their actions, they used their power for personal retribution.
To the victor the spoils and this is an example of pure Darwinism, which in case nobody has noticed, has nothing to do with altruism or moral sensibilities. There is only one reason the Husseins and Bushes of this world seek power, it is to use it however they see fit for their own interests.

69. Beliefwatch: Blasphemy (Challenge)

Comment #15734 by DavidJMH on January 2, 2007 at 11:03 am

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Well done those who rose to the bait. However, it is a pity you were unable to recognize irony when you see it. All the posts were so predictable and infantile, it seemed a little devil's advocating might produce a better discussion, rather than plain declarations to the already converted. Evidently, I was wrong.

70. Do galaxies follow Darwinian evolution?

Comment #15720 by DavidJMH on January 2, 2007 at 9:04 am

"keiths" has hit the nail on the head. The problem being seen more and more these days is the use of "in vogue" terminology to describe entirely unrelated subjects. Is it not this type of sloppy thinking which confuses the lay public? It is very similar to the religious use of improper terms to describe their "truths".

71. Beliefwatch: Blasphemy (Challenge)

Comment #15625 by DavidJMH on January 1, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Are we not ever so brave; unfortunately it sounds like the empty and false bravado of children trying to find their place in the world. The only time when this kind of declaration has any meaning is when one is taking one's last gasp. Until then, we are all leaving the door open to recant, as of course children do when faced with retribution.

72. What are you optimistic about? Why?

Comment #15604 by DavidJMH on January 1, 2007 at 2:47 pm

If a theory cannot be proven by repeatable, independent experimentation it ceases to be science and becomes a philosophical postulate by definition. If, and it is still a big if, we are eventually able, through scientific experiment, to confirm everything there is to know about this universe, we will indeed know the mind of God, thereby relegating the philosophical postulate of divine dieties to the trash heap, once and for all.

73. Let's Hope It's A Lasting Vogue

Comment #15570 by DavidJMH on January 1, 2007 at 11:17 am

Dawkins of Darwinist bent
Causes so much theistic dissent.
They all cry "Enough
Of this blasphemous stuff",
But God remains predictably silent.

74. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15473 by DavidJMH on December 31, 2006 at 4:15 pm

An "atheist" who called himself "Bright"
Questioned this appellation one night.
There was surely a need
For a change he agreed
For "Bright" sounds exceedingly trite.

75. Big Woman with a Distant Past: Stone Age gal embodies humanity's cold shifts

Comment #15380 by DavidJMH on December 30, 2006 at 9:04 pm

The evangelist preachers are bold
When they claim we're just 6K years old.
The derision this brings
When the fat lady sings
She was born before God was first told.

76. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15354 by DavidJMH on December 30, 2006 at 4:47 pm

The President of the U.S of A.,
Claims divine right of action today.
As expected, the Great Gorge
Pays no heed to George
And continues to meander it's way.

77. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15351 by DavidJMH on December 30, 2006 at 3:49 pm

A pseudo-scientist named Deborah Blum
Prefered the para-normal of some.
When faced with the truth
Of scientific proof,
She claimed she would rather remain dumb.

78. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15210 by DavidJMH on December 29, 2006 at 2:33 pm

Anat and Luthien,
I have no prior claim upon my quote, I really don't mind to whom it is attributed. It is the sentiment which I tried to convey which is I hope apt. I had not read the poem by Blake and am grateful for Luthien for presenting it here.

79. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15208 by DavidJMH on December 29, 2006 at 2:22 pm

As SH and RD repeatedly state, it is the brainwashing of children which should be discouraged. Adults, who have so much time, emotion, effort, social dependency and above all money invested in religion are a very difficult nut to crack. Deep inside, many may see the ridiculousness of their beliefs, but are almost powerless to divorce themselves easily from them.

80. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15178 by DavidJMH on December 29, 2006 at 10:10 am

The problem about using the word "atheist" is it is theist terminology in the first place. Although accurate from a theist point of view and historically used in a predominantly religious world, the advance of empirical knowledge should now lead us to describe truth by another term. Some may fault my logic, but to describe ourselves in negative terms of something that clearly does not exist, makes no sense.

81. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15173 by DavidJMH on December 29, 2006 at 9:29 am

What could one possibly expect from a religion with a history of bigoted violence against anyone over the eons who did not recognise them as "God's Chosen People". The Jews started all this nonsense in the first place and I for one am utterly fed up with the idea that the rest of the World, should some how feel apologetic for the trials and tribulations they have inevitably brought upon their own heads by such arrogance. It is hardly surprising that Christianity and Islam are as equally bigotted since they are fruit from the poisoned tree.

82. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #15064 by DavidJMH on December 28, 2006 at 3:56 pm

Robin Allott writes:

"I see no impossibility to "God". Neither do I think "He" requires us to make out "His" nature clearly to our understandings, indeed "Christ" has told us we cannot and I am content with that.

It is precisely this type of belief in unsubstantiated and unthinking dogma that RD and the whole athiest cause are trying to illuminate. Simply because you are content to believe without question does not a "God", "He", "Him", or "Christ" make.

83. Oh, we Brits of little faith

Comment #14811 by DavidJMH on December 25, 2006 at 12:08 pm

John C,
The problem with Brits or anyone else for that matter associating Xmas more with kindness than Christianity, depends upon one's definition of kindness. Unfortunately and particularly in the US, kindness is more and more equated with showering people with stuff, which for the most part, they neither need nor even want. I would agree with you if the word charity were substituted for kindness. Kindness is one of those words like nice; it really doesn't mean anything in particular and is shallow.
I am British and remember 50 years ago when Christmas was still primarily a religious festival and a special occasion. Now it is for the most part simply a break from the daily routine with tinsel. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating a return of deeply religious festivals; "kindness" is a way of travelling in a general sense, not a station to arrive at once a year for no particular reason.

84. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14741 by DavidJMH on December 24, 2006 at 9:19 pm

Is it really worth spending any time at all, trying to get through to those who are either unable or unwilling to open their minds from blind faith and bigotry. They cannot conceive of an open mind that is free to explore and learn, so any reasonable attempt to educate, let alone convince is time wasted. Far better to totally ignore them and spend one's energy exploring the universe. If, as they seem so sure, there must be a "God", then let them prove it beyond reasonable scientific doubt.

85. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14693 by DavidJMH on December 24, 2006 at 11:33 am

The audacity to claim that "secularists simply expropriate them (virtues) from religion". Virtues have always been society based by any group from the stoneage on. The reverse is the case; religion usurped virtue to give itself some street cred.