Comments by bouwe

Comment #47165 by bouwe on June 3, 2007 at 9:26 am

Ah, it is almost 2:30 a.m. here in Australia. How appropriate that just after posting the above response that I can switch on TV and see Kenneth Copeland's "Believer's Voice of Victory" -- last week, all week, was devoted to telling the faithful how to vote and strategies to get their folks onto all the judiciaries of the land so they can "re-interpret" the constitution. "We must occupy the seat of authority before He returns." They are all dead serious, have heaps of money and influence and herd countless millions of sheep--er, sorry....christian voters.

I only wish what I am seeing really was just my own little delusion world. If that was the case I wouldn't bother making this post. Goodnight.

52. Man to die over insult

Comment #47162 by bouwe on June 3, 2007 at 9:12 am

34. Comment #47151 by JesusH
I don't know what is more pathetic, the content of this story or the fact that the first post on this board has to, as always, spew ridiculous hatred against Christians.

This make come as a shock to your little delusion world of hatred but no, there are NOT many religious people here in the west who would seek death for blasphemy...

Let's take another look at that first comment, shall we?

1. Comment #47040 by MorituriMax
...and some tears are surely shed over here by hardline Christians who wish they had that kind of power under the law.

Now please, please take the time to read this:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/ChristianRight_AmerFascism.html

No, JesusH, there probably aren't many religious people here in the west who would seek death for blasphemy...BUT THERE ARE SOME. MorituriMax's comment is neither delusional nor hateful -- he is just stating an undeniable fact. He didn't say "all Christians," he was probably referring to the Reconstructionists.

The only difference between what we are reading in this article here and what could happen in the west is a little thing called the seperation between church and state. A totalitarian theocratic state run by these, as MorituriMax puts it, "hardline Christians" (read: dominionist/reconstructionist nutcases) would produce the same horrific effect.

I do hope you and others here click that link and read the article. I found the following quote to be one of the most chilling:

"So let's be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." (Christianity and Civilization, Spring, 1982)

There are already two entire universities (Regent and Liberty) churning out robots-for-god with the express end-goal of establishing a "Christian State". This does not mean that any of them (perhaps not even one) currently plans to make blasphemy a capital offence, even if their fantasies came true and they established a Theocracy. However, once this sort of madness is unleashed and institutionalized...further down the track you could easily end up with such a thing...they already don't mind killing doctors who perform abortions. And let us not forget that the machinery of death in the form of capital punishment is already in place.

The idea of the United States becoming a theocratic totalitarian state may seem so far fetched to be impossible or ridiculous. But you can be sure that there are people planning it and willing it, and if you read more about the Dominionist movement you would know that there are "hardline Christians" who would like to see the same thing happen in America. That fact alone demonstrates that the first comment in this thread is not based on a "little delusion world of hatred" for Christians, but rather a concern about the "little delusion world of hatred" of some Christians in the USA who are working to externalize and institutionalize that delusion onto all of us in the real world.

53. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47097 by bouwe on June 3, 2007 at 2:32 am

78. Comment #46955 by james_the_doubter

Thanks James for that story. I can sort of relate to it in the sense that I grew up in a church where that sort of thing happened to someone every other week. Every time I watch Benny Hinn, he just touches the faithful and they fall to the ground. If I asked them what they were feeling, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a similar story. I am sure all the other members of my immediate family experience something like that on a regular basis.

I say I "sort of" relate to it because I never experienced it myself. I went forward for prayer once or twice and they all put their hands on me and prayed. Everyone around me were dropping like flies, but I never experienced anything. There was no "drenched in honey" experience. Nothing.

I remember Richard Dawkins once appeared in a documentary where he submitted himself to a test where this scientist had created an apparatis which (it was claimed) somehow induced a "religious experience" (maybe sort of like the dripping honey experience). RD popped on the helmet and they attached the electrodes to his noggin and - nothing - no religious experience induced. Others submitted to it and claimed that they sensed a "presence" around them and were filled with lovey-dovey god feelings.

If there is a gene which makes one receptive to such experiences, then maybe Richard Dawkins doesn't have it, and it seems that neither do I. Perhaps we are deficient in some way and should be pitied for our inability to "tap in" to the power source known as "god"?

54. U.S. a theocratic state, says former Canadian ambassador

Comment #46949 by bouwe on June 2, 2007 at 10:55 am

9. Comment #46823 by MelM
Expose the freaks. Books: Kingdom Coming and Liars For Jesus

"American Fascists" by Chris Hedges might be another book to look into in regards the theocratic agenda.

55. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46945 by bouwe on June 2, 2007 at 10:35 am

It sounds like the author, and perhaps a few posters, need to read some Russell.

Yes, please just google "Russell's teapot" or "Celestial teapot"....actually, one of them will probably take you to a great cartoon site.

We can't disprove the existence of leprechauns (or the celestial teapot)...it is not up to us to prove that god doesn't exist. You say something exists, then the onus of proof is on you -- you present your arguments and your evidence and one is either convinced by it or not convinced. If one is not convinced, then one doesn't currently believe it.

Agnostic means you don't know. I don't know if there is a celestial teapot, maybe they will build very powerful telescopes one day and we will discover it, but until then, I have no reason to believe it.

If you don't know, why would you assert that it is true in spite of your own ignorance? Atheism, correctly defined, is simply an absence of a belief in a god or gods. Hence if you quite sensibly choose not to believe something that you know that you don't know, then it follows that there is an absence of a belief in that thing, in which case, you're an atheist.

Atheism is a word that has to do with belief (namely, not having one); agnosticism has to do with knowledge (ditto - no gnosis in the god-deptartment). They are not mutually exclusive. Instead the one informs the other. I am an atheist because I am an agnostic.

I think a part of the problem is that, too often, people choose the words (atheist / agnostic) as a label for themselves (or others) by relying on the common definitions of the words but (and here is the important point) not putting the words into this broader context of logical thinking.

I think agnostics are mostly people who haven't quite come to terms with the fact that they are atheists.

Incidently, this is one of the areas where Alistar McGrath really pisses me off. Amongst his interminable waffle, you will often hear him repeat the mantra that "the only reasonable position to take is agnosticism," to leave the door adjar so he can sneak in his god-gobbledegook.

This is where he is sneaky and dishonest (let's face it, he is an intelligent man who knows what he is doing - so he must be plain dishonest!). Of course, he is technically correct. We are technically agnostic even in regard to the celestial teapot. We have to be, otherwise we have closed off all enquiry and are just believers/non-believers and not thinkers .

We are agnostic about "god," and the corollary by default is that we do not believe until incontrovertible evidence compels us to sing hallelujah. It has to be that way, otherwise we are willing ourselves to believe in something that we know that we don't know (which is what A.McGrath does, apparently).

There wouldn't be such a problem if believers admitted that they didn't know and said that they are going to believe anyway "by faith". (Actually, it is still a big problem, but at least you could have a rational discussion because you know where they are coming from). The problem is that believers don't usually do that (even McGrath doesn't follow his own advice), because it makes them look silly. Instead, they find spurious reasons and logically-flawed arguments to justify their beliefs. What we end up with is sloppy thinking and logically-compromised beliefs.

Hope this helps someone. (I don't mean to bore the regulars with stuff that has been gone through before on this site, but obviously there are new people coming online all the time.)

56. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46848 by bouwe on June 2, 2007 at 12:45 am

Pamela Bone used to write for the Age (Melbourne paper). Now it seems she has jumped over to work for Murdoch (the Australian). I am relieved to see that this has not affected her considerable journalistic credibility. Then again, Murdoch always likes to get a "token lefty" on board (does Phillip Adams still write for the Australian?), so he can point to them and say "See? It is 'fair and balanced'!!"

My only problem with this article is that by choosing the easy path of calling herself agnostic, she contributes to the continued misunderstanding of the meaning of the word atheist. When you choose to set yourself apart and insist on being defined as "agnostic" it immediately gives rise to the misunderstanding that atheism is a 'belief' or that atheists "claim to prove" that god doesn't exist. Atheism is the result of agnosticism. She understands this, of course. I think if people, for whatever reason, feel that they need to separate themselves from atheists and define themselves in this way then that is fine so long as they point out that atheism is not as mentioned above. As a journalist, she ought to make this point extra clear, because most people think that agnosticism is some "more reasonable in-between" position.

However, I think it is their duty to point out that

57. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46684 by bouwe on June 1, 2007 at 4:46 am

Hmmm, so it is okay to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun, just as long as you don't say the Earth isn't the center of the universe?

Very succinctly put, mnmnj.

58. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46676 by bouwe on June 1, 2007 at 4:12 am

I was a bit surprised at his manner, i.e. the courteous, conciliatory approach, as some of his written comments that we've all seen have been very nasty and personal.

Wasn't it McGrath who wrote a letter to one of the British papers calling Dawkins "Britain's grumpiest atheist"? He's all polite and civilized in person because he's a wimp; when he is safe in his study writing letters he starts getting personal. He is willing to paint Dawkins in this unfair light and distract people from learning what RD is talking about.

59. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46445 by bouwe on May 31, 2007 at 8:51 am

If this is right, then resistance to science cannot be simply addressed through more education; something different is needed.

Yeah....and what exactly is it that they need then? Please someone, get us the answer!!!! That is for another research paper, I guess. Other than that, I found this article very helpful....even though Australia doesn't even figure in their survey ;-)

60. Sam Harris Strikes Back

Comment #46352 by bouwe on May 31, 2007 at 2:47 am

29. Comment #46186 by dawgdoc2000

Although it was re-posted for discussion here, you can find the article at:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/jesus_love_bombs_you/

If this article is anything to go by, then I think his new book will be a valuable resource. Just as Hedges says "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" re: "god" (and I couldn't disagree more btw); we shouldn't do the same in regards to what he offers in the fight against fundy fascism.

61. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46308 by bouwe on May 30, 2007 at 10:01 pm

Australia isn't even included in this chart.

62. Sam Harris Strikes Back

Comment #45974 by bouwe on May 29, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Hedges is a simpering, cowardly loon.

I think calling Hedges a "loon" is going way over the top, despite whatever he said at this debate. One of the best articles I ever read that had been posted on this forum (and I've been reading articles and comments posted here all this year) was a report by Hedges on the recruiting methods of fundamentalists. I was brought up in that environment and his observations were not only dead accurate but also very insightful.

Having said that, it only goes to show you what a strong hold the moderate strain of faith can have. It is incredible that someone can have such insight into the workings of the fundamentalist strain of his own faith and be completely blind to pratfalls of his own version of Christianity. Hedges proves that the moderates are delusional as well.

How can an intelligent, (selectively) insightful, professional journalist so easily misrepresent the views of Harris? Does he deliberately mislead or does his delusion cause him to see only what he wants to see?

If it is the latter, then I don't know if one can even label him a "coward". A coward knows the truth but deliberately avoids it. This guy has defined "god" in such a way that he just sees himself as bravely standing up for "the truth" -- the cowardice is occurring in the subconscious. Then again, he is intelligent and "insightful" enough to know what he is doing, so perhaps calling him a coward isn't too harsh.

His insights into the psychology of the fundamentalists are still valid and very useful. Now we need someone of even greater insight to do an expose on the strange psychology of the moderate.

Sam is the man!

63. Christopher Hitchens at Politics and Prose

Comment #45971 by bouwe on May 29, 2007 at 9:57 pm

For those not aware of it already, a few RD and Hitch articles (and a whole lot of other good stuff) at:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/index.htm

I have submitted quite a few articles for discussion here but I usually get no response and it doesn't get posted, so for those wishing for more material, this is a good resource I just discovered (no discussion forum though). Oldies but goodies.

64. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45343 by bouwe on May 27, 2007 at 8:47 am

Comment #45302 by NewSkeptic
I also noticed that the voice-over, at the end of the presentation, said that the book "The Root Of All Evil?" was available from ABC bookshops. Now, if I know RD's published list, I'd guess that the voice-over was meant to be spruiking TGD instead.

Yes, I too was puzzled by that voice-over. It may not have been a mistake however. They often come out with a coffee-table book of a documentary. eg. David Attenborough's "The Trials of Life" came out as a book, seemingly based on the documentary series. Then again...if that is the case I would have thought the book would have been plugged on this website by now!

The reaction to the first episode (aired last week) was, overall, surprisingly positive. (That is based on my non-comprehensive guaging by perusing the major publications for reviews and responses). For example, the comment thread on the Sydney Morning Herald article last week was posititve, at least going by the first few hundred comments.

However, I fear that this week you will find more nutjobs coming out of the woodwork to complain. We have already witnessed Prof. Somerville's (albeit pathetic) opening salvo. I think the nutjobs were in stunned silence....they needed about a week to sharpen their knives (for their wits are naturally blunt). Get ready for the onslaught from the god-botherers. I predict a lot more nutbag letters to appear in the Oz papers this week, and more negative feedback on the comment threads in the online versions of the papers.

Let's hope that those who posted the positive comments last week in the opinion/letters sections back it up by hosing down the inevitable backlash. Most people who watch "Compass" on ABC are, I would have thought, people of faith (of some description or another). Hence a show in that timeslot which posits faith as a "virus" will not go down too well with that crowd, I would have thought -- no matter how valid RD's points.

Personally, I enjoyed it immensely...I wonder how many green shirts he had to buy for continuity's sake? I'm sure David Attenborough would have been willing to lend him his entire wardrobe of identical safarit suits.

65. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45264 by bouwe on May 27, 2007 at 3:08 am

Comment #45253 by Robert Maynard

I'm pretty sure that Teddy's antics were well covered in the press down here, but it wasn't front-page news, obviously. I read a few articles about it in the Age, at least.

Ken Ham....thank god he's not here, lol. Now he's their problem! For someone who denies evolution, he certainly has simian features. And that beard only accentuates the look! Maybe he was teased in school ("Hey monkey boy!!!") and dedicated his life to destroying science to avoid being teased ("I'll show 'em!!" he declares, while beating his chest like gorilla). Might have been easier for him just to shave.

Comment #45251 by Bonzai
She is not even as good as that other over-rated, fuzzy headed Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor(who just became very rich for winning the Templeton prize)

Taylor appeared on The Philosopher's Zone (ABC radio, Aust.) a few weeks back. Got a free ride to bash Dawkins (maybe that's why they gave him the Templeton?) He was somehow trying to lump Dawkins/Harris et al with post-modernism !!! in some strange way. Believe it or not!

66. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45239 by bouwe on May 27, 2007 at 12:49 am

18. Comment #45237 by Kitty

Atleast Rudd

I misread and I thought you said "Atheist Rudd"!!! Wow, I was getting my hopes up for a minute there, but, alas, it was a typo. LOL

Ah the good ol' days...when we had an atheist PM in Hawkey!!!! Rudd's immediate predecessor was probably atheist too...if so, I think his example wouldn't have done us any good in terms of public image!!!

67. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45238 by bouwe on May 27, 2007 at 12:37 am

14. Comment #45232 by Aussie

Yes, Robyn Williams and Philip Adams would both welcome RD to air his views. However, a forum/discussion show like that hosted by Jenny Brockie on SBS would reach a much wider audience. No doubt Ms.Somerville would be invited on as the agitator. They could probably get Philip and Robyn to go on too. They often have guests on satellite, so it would not even be necessary for RD to be there in person, if it happens that he is not coming over here.

On a related matter, I must say I am disappointed that Lateline had Christopher Hitchens on the other week to talk about Wolfowitz, but there was no discussion of his new book. I hold out hope that the Hitch will pop up somewhere soon on Oz TV to discuss "god is not Great"...at least he was on Philip's show the other week. The whole hour -- it was great....unlike "god"!!! (btw, the LNL show is available at this site or the ABC website if anyone missed it and is interested to hear it.)

68. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45229 by bouwe on May 27, 2007 at 12:17 am

11. Comment #45226 by Kitty

Of all the dumb ideas they have ever come up with, this one would have to be one of the dumbest...but what will Rudd do if he gets in power? He is an Xtian, but let us hope those around him prevail in convincing him that this is a very bad idea....I worry that we might have a Oz version of Tony Blair on our hands....perish the thought.

7. Comment #45219 by Richard Dawkins

If you are still on line, Richard, just remember: every country has at least one "Church Lady" -- cue the echo-chamber sound-effects for when she denounces you as ".... SATAN!!!!! "

69. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45225 by bouwe on May 27, 2007 at 12:04 am

I hope you come to Oz soon RD. I have noticed, from reading other posts and between the lines, that there are a large number of Australians contributing to these forums. Makes me proud to be an Aussie.

The current govt. have been doing their best to run down the public education system over here. They even want to put chaplains in public schools (public down here meaning govt. schools of course)...not a good idea, very devisive. But things are worse in Britain, I fear. One must be vigilant.

Hope to hear you on Philip Adams ABC radio show some time. He could organise to get her on the show and you could charm this deluded lady with some reasoned arguments. And we won't even have to turn our heads because it will be on radio.

If people believe what she says, then they would half expect your head to be turning 360 degrees, Linda Blair-style!!!!

70. Teachers rebel over atheism promotion

Comment #45201 by bouwe on May 26, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Comment #45024 by Debbie:

When my son has expressed his lack of belief in god at school, he is always challenged, often ridiculed, and several times has been told by his classmates that he is going to hell (this doesn't frighten him, but given that many of those kids actually believe this, it doesn't feel good).

There is hope for the future, we just need your son to grow up to be President!!! (Not to put any pressure on him, of course. lol). Has he tried this tact: When they give him hell about going to hell, he should tell them that, considering they "know" that he is going to be tortured for an eternity, then the "good Christian thing to do" would be to feel compassion and be extra-nice to him while he is on earth?

As an observer of American culture from the other side of the world, it seems that the summer camp phenomenon is quite endemic (we don't have such a tradition here in Oz). If that is indeed the reality, then this Camp Quest idea is excellent and needs to be supported, because Jesus Camp Inc. ain't going away any time soon.

Anyone who knows the first thing about atheism will know that it is a matter of simply teaching critical thinking skills and a bit of healthy skepticism, so I don't understand anyone worrying that this would be a mirror-opposite ideological indoctrination of Jesus Camp! If schools aren't doing the job of teaching critical thinking skills then, until they do , then someone else will have to offer the service. My metaphorical hat goes off to all those who donate their time to the Camp Quest program.

The fact that some of the teachers are "disgusted" by it and think that it "violates" their religious "rights" shows us how important it is that the next generation of teachers don't turn out as they seem to have: ie, staggeringly ignorant morons living in a logic-free, upside-down universe.

I think before we send any more kids there, first we need to tell these teachers to put their shorts on, pack their pyjammies, tooth brush and favourite teddy bear, and head on out to Camp Quest for some remedial lessons in clear thinking.

71. Atheists: Get off of our country!

Comment #44777 by bouwe on May 25, 2007 at 9:21 am

16. Comment #44649 by blueollie on May 25, 2007 at 6:23 am
Actually, I agree with Ms. Shannon, and I shall help her with her "kick out the atheists" movement.

From now on, everyone who hates atheists will boycott everything that those atheists come up with.

Since all but 7% of the top scientists (and all but 40% of the rank and file) would fit her definition of atheist, she and those who would agree with her will boycott technology, modern medicine and the like until we leave.
:-)

lol. love it! A good way to respond when confronted with this sort of thing. Spread that response-meme.

In this case it was a hoax, but I know for a fact that there are many people who think that way.

As for " ..but atheists make a conscious choice":

Does a theist make a "conscious choice" not to believe in Zeus? What one believes and doesn't believe is, or at least should be, dictated by the degree to which one finds the evidence and arguments convincing or unconvincing. Only an idiot "chooses" to belieive in something. "Beliefs" aren't like a new pair of pyjamas you decide to put on. This whole mentality gives rise to the whole Pascal's Wager nonsense. Anybody proposing that ridiculous gambit immediately outs themselves as shallow and in need of a remedial course in logic.

Tell that idiot to "choose" to believe he/she can fly, and then tell them to start flapping their arms and take a running jump off the nearest cliff.

And that is my contribution to the response-memepool to those who say "but you have made a conscious choice to become an atheist!"

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

Comment #44725 by bouwe on May 25, 2007 at 8:23 am

Comment #44710 by SharrieG

I find that the best way to keep abreast of what millions of fundies are thinking, without having to buy their screeds, is to watch a show like Kenneth Copeland's Believers Voice of Victory. In Australia, it is on at 2:30 am...I have been watching it lately. Here is an update:

Kenneth Copeland (who looks VERY scary, and, ironically, has distinct simian features despite his rejection of evolution), introduces this huge fat texan (John Hagee) who goes, point by point, through the book of Revelation, trying to relate it to current events.

What I gathered is the Israel must be backed to the hilt, China are BAD and their armies feature heavily in his Battle of Armageddon scenario....global warming is prophecied (we all fry after they get raptured to heaven - not now!)

Oh...and apparently, according to the Book of Revelation, after the "Rapture" event, the world will be swarming with GIANT INSECTS the size of HORSES, and their stings will smite the unbelievers, and their stings will sting for SIX MONTHS!! (very specific on how long the sting will last).

The scary thing is that these people believe every word of it. The man professes these beliefs very articulately and with an unshakable conviction...and you can be sure that there are millions of Americans who think the same way.

You get to learn what fundies think, plus it is good comedy as well.

73. Creationist Periodic Table of the Elements

Comment #44683 by bouwe on May 25, 2007 at 7:17 am

Wow. reDiscovery Institute is a great idea and a great site. Congratulations to those who DESIGNED it. Thanks Billy -- or are you really that punk from The Young Ones?

74. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44578 by bouwe on May 25, 2007 at 5:00 am

Okay, sorry. I just skimmed it and assumed .....

If you are right, then I will stop laughing and start feeling a little sick....

75. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44574 by bouwe on May 25, 2007 at 4:56 am

Actually there is an actual astronomer who is actually a genuine geocentrist!!! He is a professor at some U.S third-rate college.

His surname is BOUW .

Bouw....but no relation....

Thank god for the letter ' e '!!!!

76. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44567 by bouwe on May 25, 2007 at 4:43 am

Well of course this is a joke.

But if he is just trying to be "clever" then he needs to get his facts straight before he twists them:

Heliocentrism is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe.

No it is not, you twit. It is just the centre of our solar system. There are billions of suns, and each one is the centre of its own solar system. The universe doesn't have a "centre" and to define heliocentrism as above isn't that much different from being geocentrist!!!

77. Despite what the scholars say, God isn't dead yet

Comment #44249 by bouwe on May 23, 2007 at 9:32 pm

Rachael Kohn presents a weekly religious radio show (documentary/ interviews) on the ABC ...virtually the radio "sister" program to the "Compass" show on ABC TV on which "Root of all Evil?" was just broadcast. This being her job, one would assume she would have read TGD. However, as is per usual for religious apologists, she chooses to ignore RD's arguments. I am surprised she didn't do what other (disingenuous) apologists have done, namely, to ignore the "?" at the end of the title and pretend that RD thinks that religion IS the root of ALL evil, and that religion has NO benefits at all! Richard's main point, I think, is that all delusional thinking, whether secular or religious, should be questioned and open to reason, and not left alone simply because some adherents of the faith/ideology are benign. Religion may turn (some) peoples lives around for the better, inspire great acts of selflessness and charity (etc.), however that is not the point. As Sam Harris said, walking around thinking that you're six feet tall when you are actually not may help your self-esteem, however that does not mean that we should not question it, or even that it makes this delusion necessarily okay or "healthy" in the long-run.

First dangle the red herring:

...but what Dawkins failed to acknowledge in his encounter with Haggard is that the Nazi program of eugenics and extermination was not dictated by an unseen god.

Why on earth should RD have brought up the topic of EUGENICS?? If he had, I think even Ted Haggard himself would have been perplexed. I don't think RD thinks that eugenics was a result of a belief that it was dictated "by an unseen god". The problem was that the insane Nazi policies were dictated by a "god" with a little moustache. It was facilitated by a blind obedience to their "god" -- obedience from, yes, academics as well as the common footsoldiers.

In short, academics of all description willingly devoted their rational, scientific and disciplined minds to support the Nazi cause....

Just like the American academics who crawl out of the woodwork to support Intelligent Design? Lawyers (mostly) and the odd scientist (odd being the operative word) lend their "rational, scientific and disciplined minds" to tear down science education, scientific research (including stem cell research), equal rights for homosexuals, the right of a woman to control her own body, etc. etc. and are working to destroy the separation of church and state in their own constitution, in the service of an insane theocratic political agenda.

The point is not the political ideology, but the readiness of "rational" scientific types to help mad regimes to deliver untold suffering to millions.

I don't think RD would disagree with the second part of this statement. However I think she is missing the point about ideology. It is the willingness of these "rational" types to use their skills in the service of the political ideology or religion in question that is usually the problem. Intelligent people using pure reason isn't the problem, it is intelligent people using "reason" as a tool in service of the ideology, thus corrupting the process of reason.

Then she criticises Onfray for not taking into account that religion:

...provide(s) personal support for millions of people who find meaning and comfort in the love of God or the divine embrace.

What does this have to do with whether it is true or not?

Islam gives "comfort" to Osama bin Laden, it supports his entire worldview. It is a pity that in order for him to feel "comfortable" we all have to have our heads chopped off. This is where allowing people to have their delusions go unquestioned and unchecked can lead us....you eventually lose your head for the sake of not stepping on anyone's toes!

78. The root of all evil?

Comment #43908 by bouwe on May 23, 2007 at 3:52 am

Hi to fellow Aussies at this site (seems to be quite a few of us, which is reassuring).

As far as I remember, the census form (last year?) asked what religion and then there was the option of "Other" ( the place where the wags wrote "Jedi") and then the box to tick "none". I don't think it asked if you were an atheist, our opinions don't even count...we just get counted as those who opt for "No religion".

My memory of the Aust. Census is unclear, but I don't remember being given the option to declare myself an atheist.

It is a typical Aussie "let's take the piss" kind of thing to write "Jedi" as your religion. I wish those atheist/agnostics who did could have restrained themselves and ticked "None of the above", because those who wrote "Jedi" would have unjustifiably inflated the "New Age" numbers.

Religion, he says, is the root of all evil.

Yes, this really pissed me off when I first read it. However, I wish RD could have taken a firmer stand on the title (notwithstanding his efforts to get the "?" ). Surely if he had protested and insisted, then they would have agreed to a title less prone to this sort of misrepresentation.

"?" was a lousy compromise. Theists have blind spots, he should have known they'd will the "?" out of existence in order to misrepresent him.

79. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42709 by bouwe on May 19, 2007 at 6:05 am

Sorry for the typo: Dawkin's
I can't edit my posts once they are posted (iMac os9 problem, probably!!)

80. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42708 by bouwe on May 19, 2007 at 6:02 am

Unlike Dawkins, Wolpert has no desire to abolish religion.

This kind of sloppy journalism really pisses me off. Paulson misrepresents Dawkins and plays into the hands of the fundies who want to stir their followers into a fear frenzy by painting Dawkins as the leader of some political movement that wants to abolish religion. And they continue the interview as if, yes, of course, it is well known that the "Atheist Army" wants to "abolish" religion, but he's not "one of those." How absurd.

I am sure Wolport does not want this misunderstanding to take place, but it will if Dawkin's colleagues don't point out the absurdity of the suggestion that he wants to abolish religion, and say "well, that's not quite what he is saying, actually..."

It is easy for Dawkin's position to be misrepresented when these subtle things are let slip into the conversation without correction. It becomes so commonplace that people just accept it, and people like Dawkins are pissing into the wind trying to correct the stereotypes. It did him no favours that his own two-part documenatry series was given the unfortunate title "The Root of All Evil?" He is on record as saying that the title wasn't his idea and he didn't like it, and the best he could do was battle for the question mark to be put at the end of it.

So two misrepresentations persist, even in "liberal" media:

1. That Dawkins thinks that religion is the root of ALL evil (as if he thinks we'd automatically be living in Utopia if we "abolished" it -- how ridiculous!)

and:

2. As above, that Dawkins-brand of atheism is some sort of political movement to ABOLISH religion.

There is a lot of fear-mongering among fundies in misrepresenting Dawkins (and Harris) so as to not have to face their arguments. Hence to avoid slipping into these easy stereotypes/misrepresentations (whether due to having an agenda or simply lazy journalism) would help to get the message through to these people. They are fed lies every sunday from the pulpit and then they read -- even in the LIBERAL MEDIA -- that, aah yes, the Evil Dr. Dawkins wants to "abolish religion"!!

Dawkins and Harris may think that it would be a better world if religion did not exist, but that is all. Fundies will take any little opening at all and have a field day with it. Let us minimize the ammunition with clarity.

81. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42654 by bouwe on May 18, 2007 at 11:52 pm

thanks godlessheathen for the definition.

So the guy can't even spell the word he is trying to impress us with? What a wanker.

82. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42642 by bouwe on May 18, 2007 at 9:07 pm

I just googled "define: freisinning" and got nothing. Ditto for "freisinnig". Went to Freedictionary...got nothing.

Anyone know what the hell it means?
(One should at least learn something from reading crap like this.)

83. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42186 by bouwe on May 17, 2007 at 8:57 pm

We have heard from most of the regulars on this thread, but, strangely, no comment from bicyclerepairman!!

84. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42184 by bouwe on May 17, 2007 at 8:46 pm

Comment #42178 by mandrellian

Yes, I saw it. He certainly got agro didn't he?

They also did a good send-up of "The Secret".

85. Faith-Based Fraud

Comment #42180 by bouwe on May 17, 2007 at 8:28 pm

..the carcass of Jerry Falwell..

In GING he randomly refers to people as mammals. Here he refers to the dead (mammalian) body of Falwell as a "carcass". The tone of this piece might cast Hitch as "the Vulture"!!!???

It is an interesting literary device to shock readers out of their delusion-induced complacency that they aren't a part of the animal kingdom. Of course, everybody knows that they actually are (apart from creationists), however Hitch likes to remind them, just in case the comforts of civilization and the delusional consolations of religion have lulled the odd reader's sensibility away from cold hard reality.

It is brilliant, I love it. However, others will see it as odd. If so, then good , it serves its purpose of giving a reality shock.

However, why keep coming back to pointing out that we are mammals? He should alternate it with a few random "hominid" references. Maybe go further out, too, like point out that they are vertebrates as well!!

86. Hitchens on Falwell

Comment #41867 by bouwe on May 17, 2007 at 8:19 am

1. Comment #41824 willerror:
As I said elsewhere: next up, Billy Graham

I'm with you on that one.

No one has been held in such awe by fundies than Billy Graham. And yet for what? What is his great achievement? Being able to enunciate his delusions with such "eloquence" and unfounded confidence that he has roped millions of simple-minded folks to go along with said delusions? Promoting rabid fundamentalist poison on a mass scale, throughout the world?

Apparently a tallish man with brill-cremed hair and a good speaking voice, wearing a suit and waving a bible about on a stage, spouting nothing but hot air while mass-hypnotizing huge crowds of mindless morons to "give their lives over" to his simplistic beliefs, was, like....the greatest thing, EVER, in the 1950's!!! And doing his schtick ever since.

I'm sure the fundies believe the Lord has preserved him all this time because he's such a great "Man of God" (because he enunciates his inanities with such faultless conviction, and never changes and has the wavy hair 'n' all!!).

Yep. Billy Graham. There's a dinosaur that should have gone extinct a long time ago...along with his rabid fundamentalist dogma.

His lifetime of indefatigable proselytising has surely set civilization back more than any other individual Christian in the last fifty years. An icon to fundies everywhere. And (appropriately) devoid of any substance.

87. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41283 by bouwe on May 15, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America.
Jerry Falwell

He might have been right on this occassion.

88. Nothing sacred: Journalist and provocateur Christopher Hitchens picks a fight with God

Comment #40952 by bouwe on May 15, 2007 at 8:43 am

I think "How Religion Poisons Everything" would have been better as the actual title of the book.

As for the enlargement and a capital G for "Great" but no big G for "the Big G", as I said in another thread....the mysteries of the publishing industry are almost as incomprehensible as that of religion itself.

89. Why Christopher Hitchens is not Great

Comment #40941 by bouwe on May 15, 2007 at 8:26 am

I wonder what spin "the flies" will put on Hitch's book? A theist somewhere will cash-in (they always do) with one of those books for the faithful, which tell them what is wrong with Hitch's book and why they shouldn't read it.

Um, let's see....they are completely lacking in imagination, so I'll go with the no-brainer:

"Why Hitch is not great"

A no-brainer from a no-brainer. But wait! They've already used that as the title of every negative review already!!

90. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens

Comment #40930 by bouwe on May 15, 2007 at 8:09 am

Good one Philip (6. Comment #40912 by Philip1978)....almost as irrelevant as my previous three posts, but yours was actually worth the effort...we are being naughty and getting off-topic. While we are there, I may as well continue, I am so glad you brought up the topic of penguins.

Wasn't it the height of insanity when "March of the Penguins" came out, and pastors started sermonising about it as some sort of shining example of INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!???

Just think of how mind-numbingly STUPID that is, and I'm sure you'll get another laugh almost as good as from the joke you just related. I mean...penguins = ID...how IDotic can you get? They are birds with wings-for-flight that have ADAPTED to a new environment and evolved into flippers. They USED TO fly - and obviously when they did, they were a DIFFERENT SPECIES -- and now they SWIM.

Somehow they manage to avoid reality and turn penguins into some sort of cause celebre for ID!!!

IDots.

Now that's funny.

(Sorry again, very naughty. Off topic)

91. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens

Comment #40913 by bouwe on May 15, 2007 at 7:44 am

Add to that: the mysteries of submitting posts to this website! The same thing happened to me yesterday, and I am unable to delete or edit my posts after they go on-line.

Oh well, while I'm clogging up this thread, I may as well point out I meant to write:

The mysteries of the publishing industry are almost as incomprehensible...

(Sorry, over and out.) LOL

92. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens

Comment #40909 by bouwe on May 15, 2007 at 7:35 am

Hitchens' book is about to be released here in England, then The God Delusion is out in paperback

I purchased TGD in paperback soon after release here in Australia. I find it surprising that (unless I have misread your post) TGD is still not available in paperback in Britain, despite having been published way before release in Oz.

The mysteries of the publishing industry is almost as incomprehensible as religion itself. (lol).

93. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens

Comment #40907 by bouwe on May 15, 2007 at 7:32 am

Hitchens' book is about to be released here in England, then The God Delusion is out in paperback

94. Christians and atheists start a calmer dialogue

Comment #40838 by bouwe on May 15, 2007 at 4:40 am

they did not invite him to give reasons as to why he doesn't believe

Actually, if I can clarify my own point....technically, of course, he shouldn't have to "give reasons" why he doesn't believe. They should give reasons why they do believe, and he should explain why those alleged reasons are unconvincing. However, I doubt if he could have had the luxury of being so "technical" in an environment such as that.

At the end of the day, despite my cynical misgivings, I admire Ahmet for what he is doing. I also think the efforts of the Christian guy who "bought his soul" are to be commended, as they are at least an attempt to understand, and certainly a step up from the usual hate-filled crap you get from fundies.

95. Christians and atheists start a calmer dialogue

Comment #40827 by bouwe on May 15, 2007 at 4:21 am

These two guys (the eBay Atheist and the guy who "bought his soul") were on one of those fundy faux talk shows on in the wee hours last night in Oz. They sat together on the "James Robison" show (his wife always sits by his side and nods obediently to everything he says, sort of like Paul Schaeffer, sans music and penis). Mehta sat in a room surrounded by believers, on a Christian cable talk show.

Mehta didn't get to say much, just smiled and nodded his head. For the full half hour the Christians talked about how they should have respectful dialogue with atheists. They were critical of how other Christians are not open to listening to the other's point of view. They said they genuinely wanted to know where the other person is coming from, etc. etc.

This is all fine and dandy, but the telling fact is that Mehta was not asked his opinion on the subject at all for the entire half hour. The impression I got was that they were displaying some strange new species for exhibition. I half expected the host to say "Be kind to the monkey...he's got feelings too. He is one of God's creatures, just like us."

In fact, in the middle of all this spouting of faux open-mindedness, Robison turned to the atheist specimen and admitted, point blank, that he had "experienced" Jesus, and it was like "going to the moon" -- he's been there, he knows, and that's it.

Hence, after all this lip service to open-mindedness, it is impossible to have a genuine dialogue if one party is not open to being wrong. It is all one-sided.

To be fair, they did ask him a few questions, but they did not invite him to give reasons as to why he doesn't believe or to explain what atheism is (which, believe it or not, is something that needs to be done, over and over, because at the end of this show I'm pretty sure most in the audience still would have walked away none the wiser, thinking that atheism is a "belief system", as if it were an off-shoot of Paganism!!)

Ahmet says he could be persuaded if he saw evidence for a genuine miracle. I am unclear as to what this means. If he means prayer causing an amputee to spontaneously spout a new limb, then that's fine by me.

However a "miracle" is usually something which cannot be explained by our current understanding of science. "Miracles" of this nature are simply gaps in our knowledge which will be filled by science at a later date (as has been the way in all previous cases), and so shouldn't be very convincing evidence at all.

Even though there cannot really be any genuine dialogue (until the theists actually admit they could be wrong and tell us what it would take for them to change their views), this is nevertheless a step in the right direction. Paying lip-service to open-mindedness is the first step to actual open-mindedness.

Still....I can't help but think they are all working on this guy (after all they've already bought his soul for Christsake!!!) to try to turn him into their "I was a former atheist on eBay" poster-boy. ( Sort of like what they did with Antony Flew?)

Then again, if he wallows too long in the theist treacle, he may go crazy on them, like that BBC guy with the Scientologists!!

96. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #40247 by bouwe on May 14, 2007 at 2:48 am

. Comment #40206 by bouwe

My apologies for double-posting. I don't know why that happened. I just pressed submit, ONCE. I am aware of the delete and edit functions once one has posted, however, for some reason, this site does not allow me to do it on my computer . Must be a mac thing (a very OLD mac, os9!!!)

Now I will press "submit" ( ONCE....like the first time!!)

97. A Bunch of Monkeys

Comment #40225 by bouwe on May 13, 2007 at 11:09 pm

Comment #38880 by paulcaira:

I have my problems with this. I think it's excellent in its way, but part of the problem I find with theists and others is that they say things like 'What you think we're JUST a bunch of monkeys/collection of chemicals/set of replicators' etc, and imply that the reductionism reduces us. I usually reply that the word JUST isn't justified. We're not JUST a bunch of chemicals, we are exactly the kind of bunch of chemicals which went to the moon, wrote Shakespeare's plays, the symphonies of Mozart, and are capable of deep and complex emotions and thoughts.

That's JUST what I say!!! Excellent and very important point, and it is the best way to respond when you encounter this "argument" from theists.

"So, you think we're JUST animals, are we?" the theist asks with indignance.

To reiterate paulcaira's point, everything that a human being is and has done and is capable of can be encompassed within the definition of human animal. Our imaginations, rational thoughts, our consciousness...it is all part of what the human animal is capable of. It is not diminished by simply coming to terms with your own animal heritage.

One could also respond by telling them that there is a gorilla called Koko who has been taught sign-language via symbols on a computer touch-screen. Is Koko "just" an animal? I would ask some fundies to perhaps get in contact with Koko over the internet and ask her a few questions. But then again, Koko has the intelligence-level of a three year old, so her responses might be a bit "over their heads". Koko probably wouldn't know how to respond to their first question: "Have you, Koko, accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour?"

Ditto for dolphins. I mean, can a fundy communicate using sonar? (Oh, sorry...maybe that is how they communicate to GOD!!??)

I hate it when theists talk about "the animals" as if they are not an animal themselves. Geez, what are you then? a PUFF OF SMOKE, perhaps? Just because someone ELSE invented the toilet, they sit on their Thrones and laugh at the idea of how "the animals" just poop on the ground.

As a social experiment, we should drop some fundies in a jungle somewhere, and see them come to terms with their own monkey heritage. I would ask these people to imagine if they had been brought up by a "pack of wolves" (if it were possible!). They wouldn't know what a dunny was and they wouldn't be smart enough to invent one, so they'd be crapping on the jungle floor like a monkey. They would be tearing animals apart and eating them raw, having never been introduced to the idea of cooking, let alone fire.

Unfortunately, I doubt that such "thought experiments" often occur to your average hand-clapping fundy. They think of themselves as demi-gods-on-earth.

98. A Bunch of Monkeys

Comment #40216 by bouwe on May 13, 2007 at 10:24 pm

The mispronounciation of Nietzsche reminds me of how American's pronounce Porsche as "Portia". Here in Oz we say "Por-sh". For the famed German philosopher with that giant ferret under his nose, downunder, we too say "Nee-cha!"

Of course, the monkey / ape thing is, to dreadfully mix my metaphors, another kettle of fish! We are talking a mistake in category, and it is a bit more important to get that right than a mere matter of pronounciation, I would have thought.

Than again, isn't it the case that in the French language they have no word to distinguish between the two?

I stand to be corrected, but that is what I have been told. If you have the same word for monkey and ape, it makes it hard to discuss what is a monkey and what is an ape. It would be like saying "What is the difference between a monkey and a monkey ?" Ditto the question for "ape". Maybe someone who knows a bit of French can clear that one up?

99. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #40206 by bouwe on May 13, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Troy Patterson from Slate I am sick of telling people this but I will tell you "Agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism".

Yes, Zaphod. We get sick of it but it has to be repeated over and over again until people get educated. I hope you posted that message to Troy and all at Slate. This misunderstanding is so pervasive in the community, I think it is one of the major stumbling blocks which prevent the fence-sitters from understanding the issues.

100. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #40204 by bouwe on May 13, 2007 at 8:31 pm