51. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102227 by stereoroid on December 22, 2007 at 4:47 am

There's a fair amount of Tom Lehrer on YouTube too - try "We will go together when we go", which has such memorable lines as:
"When the Earth becomes Uranious
We will all go simultaneous
Just three billion hunks of well-done steak..."

Eek!

52. Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

Comment #98502 by stereoroid on December 13, 2007 at 7:28 pm

I make a distinction between my purely philosophical position (agnostic, because I don't have knowledge of the whole universe), and my practical position (atheist, because I have a life to live, and "there are no gods" means I have no one to praise or blame but myself). As noted already, these are not mutually exclusive positions. Also, I think theists often confuse our scepticism on two different questions:

Question one is the theoretical possibility of anything supernatural in the universe. Logically, any entity in our universe IS natural - because the universe IS nature. 8)
- If we ever find something god-like, it will still be natural and subject to scientific examination, won't it? See Clarke's Third Law, about advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic.
- If the claim is for something outside the known or knowable universe... how could we ever detect it? If that entity is to interact with us at all, it will have to enter the universe to do so, and will leave evidence in the process.
In other words: if it's in our universe, interacting with us: it's natural, and we'll want to examine the evidence for it. Until then, agnosticism can be a reasonable position.

Question Two is about the claims made by today's organised religions.
- These are not vague claims of "gods somewhere in the universe": they are specific about the gods and our relations to them.
- I am expected to respond to these claims by believing them, and when I don't, I'm damned, apparently.
- The claims are so specific that you'd think they were based on evidence, but on closer examination they all turn out to be based on testimony: things people say, reports of things they think they saw, or others saw... no actual physical evidence that backs up the claims.
- In response to those claims, and what I'm supposed to do about them, I'm willing and happy to call myself an atheist, because I'm not buying them or their implications.

53. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #98498 by stereoroid on December 13, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Tom in comment #2 beat me to it: the ability to ask these questions is a fundamentally human trait. If someone takes away that right, or you voluntarily relinquish it to become a follower of blind faith, you become a little less human than you were before.

54. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96889 by stereoroid on December 11, 2007 at 4:02 am

How can he deny that people killed others in the name of religion, when those doing the killing were more than happy to explain, on the record, exactly why they were killing? The Crusades and the Inquisitions are not some Atheist propaganda, they are part of the accepted history of Western "Civilization".

55. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96324 by stereoroid on December 10, 2007 at 11:00 am

Himes also says that the picture of the Twin Towers is meant to show that without religion, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. A suggestion that has upset Muslims, as well.

"This is an attack," said Houser.

"We ultimately believe that Christians have been persecuted throughout history," said Houser, "so this is nothing new."

56. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96122 by stereoroid on December 10, 2007 at 3:13 am

Then how do you explain the vast number of circumcised men who are not Jewish? I know quite a few circumcised non Jewish men and I can tell you this is utter nonsense.

57. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96090 by stereoroid on December 10, 2007 at 1:05 am

I didn't realize how endemic the practice was in the USA until that Sex & the City episode, in which one character was shocked to find her new boyfriend had a foreskin. She's never had a "Shar Pei" before, and ... couldn't handle it! The guy in question is also shocked by this, and decides to get circumcised then, weeks later, decides he shouldn't "waste" his new penis on just one woman...

So what if it gives you a percent or two lowered risk of STD infection?
- That's a finding based on recent research, but where is that in the Torah or the Bible? Nowhere: it's no justification for the ancient practice.
- However, it plays right in to the hands of the Catholic anti-condom lobby. Condoms also prevent pregnancy, and we can't have that, can we? Be fruitful and multiply, and if you catch a fatal disease in the process, that's less important than procreation, isn't it?
- I can just see the happy parents now, as the Mohel bites down, thinking "when he grows up, unsafe sex will be a tiny bit less unsafe, maybe!" Oy...

58. The art of the soluble

Comment #95732 by stereoroid on December 9, 2007 at 4:06 am

Yet Atkins, as a professor of science, must be aware of Sir Peter Medawar's famous adage, adapted from Bismarck, "Science is the art of the soluble". Scientists study only those aspects of the universe that it is within their gift to study: what is observable; what is measurable and amenable to statistical analysis; and, indeed, what they can afford to study within the means and time available. Science thus emerges as a giant tautology, a "closed system". It can present us with robust answers only because its practitioners take very great care to tailor the questions.

59. Of Dickens and Darwin

Comment #95579 by stereoroid on December 8, 2007 at 4:06 pm

I'll stop at "Modern", thanks. Don DeLillo's "Underworld" is the only novel I've ever thrown out a window. I guess I was too old, in my twenties, to give up such concepts as "Coherency" and "Narrative".

60. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #92891 by stereoroid on December 1, 2007 at 5:07 pm

You think that's weird? Something I did a few years ago was take copies of large EXE files, import them into an audio editor, and play with them. EXE files are not tightly compressed, so there are gaps and patterns in them that can make them sound interesting. Subjec them to effects such as reverb or pitch-shifting and it gets even weirder.

61. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #91834 by stereoroid on November 29, 2007 at 12:25 pm

"gospel of atheism" ... again, describing the non-religious in religious vernacular. "Oooh, look how edgy I am!" Sure, it might be robust and "informed"... doesn't say what it's "informed" with, but I can guess.

62. In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim's tale

Comment #91778 by stereoroid on November 29, 2007 at 8:25 am

I've come to the conclusion that Islam (and other authoritarian religions) are partly premised on the idea that people are animals who need to be strictly controlled. On this evidence, you might ask "do they have a point?", but if so, why is rape not endemic to the UK or USA?

Well, if you treat a man like a beast, unable to control himself in the company of a woman, he will become one. We know why being a boy around girls is not the same as being a young man around young women - puberty! - but hiding the women won't make the hormones go away, will it? Prohibition doesn't work, it just leads to more lawbreaking - whether with alcohol, drugs, or women. But hey, what would I know, I'm only a man...

63. Monotheism was a con from the beginning

Comment #91015 by stereoroid on November 27, 2007 at 1:31 am

Christianity as we know it was basically assembled by committee: the Councils of Nicaea set out what Christians believe, starting with just what Jesus was (Christology)! Well, I suppose some good came out of it: the First Council had the balls to pass a law against self-castration...

64. How condescension benefits terrorism

Comment #90412 by stereoroid on November 25, 2007 at 4:09 am

I have to cringe when I see the word "liberal" used in this way, as a generic insult. And as for "liberal secularist"... is there any other kind? If you support freedom from theocratic authority, "liberal" is the right adjective for you, regardless of your position on the standard left/right political spectrum.

65. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90408 by stereoroid on November 25, 2007 at 3:59 am

Prof. Dawkins may have a chance to ask Prof. Davies about this, since he's scheduled to speak at the Beyond Institute on March 6 next year. Prof. Davies seems to be one of the good guys, which makes this a slightly odd article, then. It seem to confuse "not understanding something" with "inability to understand anything". If you don't have an answer to a question, and are happy to say "I don't know", where's the "faith" in that? We think the universe is ordered because it is seen to be behaving in an ordered way, at least at the macroscopic level - again, no "faith "required. If we're wrong about that... we'll handle that too.

66. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90397 by stereoroid on November 25, 2007 at 2:14 am

I'd summarize the article as an elliptical exposition of the Ostrich Manoeuvre, with added Snark for anyone who is concerned about the future. Is he unaware, for example, that there was an attempt to impose Shariah law in Ontario a few years ago - on the pretext that "Muslim communities should have Muslim law"? It didn't go anywhere, thank goodness.

Commenters on the Grauniad site are going at it hammer-and-tongs, as expected.

67. Getting Overheated

Comment #90320 by stereoroid on November 24, 2007 at 10:00 am

Dunno if I believe in Global Warming in the simplistic sense Al Gore wants us to, but you know what? I don't have to, to be careful about what I do and how I do it. Global warming is not the only result of pollution, nor is it the only reason to reduce my consumption of energy. I just need to look at where that energy comes from, and the costs of getting it to us, to think twice.

68. Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

Comment #87407 by stereoroid on November 12, 2007 at 3:36 am

George Eliot: check. Joseph Conrad: check. James Joyce..? What on earth do his drug-addled ramblings have to say about morality? OK, so I've never actually managed to finish any Joyce, out of fear for my sanity, but I haven't seen anything to justify his inclusion in the list of morally astute writers. (What about Dickens, Tolstoy... and Pratchett?)

69. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87235 by stereoroid on November 11, 2007 at 2:47 pm

"We never called the IRA Catholic terrorists."

It was never just about religion. Religion is just an "enabler" there.

Had the IRA "won", would the Irish government be forcibly converting people to Catholicism? This Scottish Atheist has lived in Ireland for 8 years now, and it hasn't been tried yet. I don't like the Catholic school system, but I don't get preached at, beyond the occasional street loonie.

So what are they fighting about, then? Why was Belfast Balkanized, then, if both the British and Irish governments support freedom of religion (and freedom from religion)? Your guess is as good as mine, but as long as I have that freedom, I hardly think nationality is worth killing people over.

70. Losing faith in Quebec

Comment #86343 by stereoroid on November 9, 2007 at 2:43 am

Swapping out the Morals, and replacing them with Ethics: sounds like a good start to me.

71. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #85892 by stereoroid on November 7, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Oops... just had a "slip of the mouse", and got a pop-up thanking me for reporting someone's comment. If it was yours - sorry, I didn't mean it!

72. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84982 by stereoroid on November 4, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Oh, smashing! Another blurb that uses religious terminology to describe the non-religious: "acolytes", "high priests", evangelism. Each hack thinks they're the first to do this, and "oh! look how smart I am! With my careful choice of words, I've turned their arguments back on them! That'll sort them..."

73. You big, fat pile of bacteria

Comment #84751 by stereoroid on November 3, 2007 at 12:36 pm

And you wonder why there's such a rise in childhood asthma cases? I'm still amazed that we're seeing so many kids with severe allergies, such as intolerance of nuts. Have they always been around, but didn't live long enough to tell the tale? Some must have made it, surviving long enough to pass this deficiency on to their children... it's a puzzle. Recessive traits? I know: God did it!

74. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84398 by stereoroid on November 2, 2007 at 1:50 am

Why can't atheists see sacred texts as sacred to believers and behave respectfully when not provoked? It is simply not true, in a normal, etiquette-infused vision of life, that we think truth must be stated at every time and in every context. We lie to people in small ways every day to make interactions gentler and less tense, and to be kind to others.

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

75. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84005 by stereoroid on November 1, 2007 at 1:46 am

Van der Toorn's analysis of the data leads him to conclude that "the modern concept of books is unsuited to describe the written production from the ancient Near East ... To define the Bible as a collection of books, as implied in the Greek designation biblia, is an anachronism. The Bible is a repository of tradition." It is, he says, "the result of a series of scribal interventions".

76. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #81375 by stereoroid on October 24, 2007 at 4:25 pm

I suppose science and religion could, in theory, be NOMA, but only if religion withdrew entirely from the universe we all live in. In its current form, its practitioners can't avoid making statements about the universe: there goes the "non-overlapping" part, out the window.

77. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81369 by stereoroid on October 24, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Many of these questions have already been asked on http://www.asktheatheists.com/ - with some useful answers too.

78. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #81365 by stereoroid on October 24, 2007 at 4:16 pm

There is strong evidence of Stalin's deluded state of mind, in the "Secret Speech"* given by Nikita Khrushchev after Stalin's death. Atheist, maybe: rationalist or humanist, no.

After Stalin's death, the Central Committee began to implement a policy of explaining concisely and consistently that it is impermissible and foreign to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism to elevate one person, to transform him into a superman possessing supernatural characteristics, akin to those of a god. Such a man supposedly knows everything, sees everything, thinks for everyone, can do anything, is infallible in his behavior. Such a belief about a man, and specifically about Stalin, was cultivated among us for many years.

79. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #81298 by stereoroid on October 24, 2007 at 2:49 pm

I kept hearing about this Padre Pio when I was growing up, thanks to my Catholic mother. No explanation of who he was of what he did, just that he was nearly a saint. Is that it?

As for "Catholic Sainthood cannot ever be revoked"... what happened to St. Christopher? De-canonized in 1969, not that it stops millions of drivers having stick-on St. Christophers in their car: he was called the patron saint of travel, after all.

80. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79445 by stereoroid on October 17, 2007 at 9:19 am

Did this article just advocate drowning to those who teach their children something other than xtainanity?

81. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78673 by stereoroid on October 14, 2007 at 8:42 am

"When believers pick up Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, we may feel as we turn the pages: 'This is not it. Whatever the religion being attacked here, it's not actually what I believe in,'" the archbishop said.

82. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77546 by stereoroid on October 9, 2007 at 3:34 pm

But I'm afraid the actions of this small group of Muslim medics are playing right into the hands of those who want to see Islam as a fundamentally life-hating, reality-hating theocracy.

83. A Table for One

Comment #70795 by stereoroid on September 16, 2007 at 11:47 pm

"Again, I would say 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' on this one."
"Well, you did ask a Jesuit on the show..."

84. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70444 by stereoroid on September 15, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Two statements:
1) "I believe there are no gods"
2) "I do not believe there are gods."

I'm still amazed at the number of people who can't spot the difference between those two statements, never mind identify which of those corresponds to what Prof. Dawkins and others are actually saying.

85. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68907 by stereoroid on September 9, 2007 at 4:19 am

I don't quite get why we should give a hoot about anything said on WorldNetDaily. Their regular columnists include the likes of Ann Coulter, and they recently carried her screed* on the "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" film. Say no more.

* http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57351

86. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67490 by stereoroid on September 3, 2007 at 3:24 pm

See http://www.krusch.com/real2.html: this page confirms that Krusch is the author of this new iPod series, and points to another e-book of his, Would the Real First Amendment Please Stand up?

In the section "Why I Wrote This book, Krusch says:

Would the Real First Amendment Please Stand up? attempts to blast into smithereens the following syllogism:

1) Every amendment to the Constitution not itself formally amended has legal force and effect.
2) The 1791 First Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution which has not been formally amended, therefore
3) The 1791 First Amendment has legal force and effect.

87. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67051 by stereoroid on September 1, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Religion as disease, and more pertinently, the religiously inclined as disease-carriers, this is dangerous talk. Dawkins might try substituting "Jews" or "blacks" for "religiously inclined" and he would see why.

88. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66465 by stereoroid on August 30, 2007 at 3:51 am

One more thing: did anyone notice the following CH statement?

I tend to believe that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

89. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66462 by stereoroid on August 30, 2007 at 3:41 am

If I try to analyse the abortion issue objectively, it seems to me that we are obliged to force binary decisions on what is a naturally analogue process - the gestation of an embryo in to a child over 40 weeks.
- for or against,
- feels pain, or does not feel pain
- abort or carry to term
- foetus or child
- a human or an animal
- 1 or 0

When you draw an arbitrary line somewhere - 0 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, etc., and say "from this point, the foetus is a child and abortion is wrong", it's a compromise that is never going to please everyone. So I don't begrudge CH his opinion at all: being pre-Choice means you're don't believe one set of opinions should be forced on others, but it does not mean that you have to like the reality of abortion. In my view, this is a canonical case of "prevention is better than cure".

90. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66455 by stereoroid on August 30, 2007 at 3:18 am

Was that a "Six Feet Under" reference in the title? In that show, "Charlotte, Light and Dark" was a (fictional) book written about one of the characters (Brenda). She was a child prodigy who fell under the scrutiny of psychiatrists, including her own parents, and her life was published in extreme detail. Even though the authors changed her name, she was always reminded that she was not normal - a self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one. And you thought Philip Larkin had it bad?

91. Only secular schools will overcome sectarianism

Comment #65789 by stereoroid on August 26, 2007 at 3:12 pm

That Bovril joke was told by Billy Connolly - I remember it well, and guess what? It's on YouTube

92. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64518 by stereoroid on August 20, 2007 at 11:27 am

I live in Ireland, and when I saw this headline pop up in Bloglines, I thought this would be an Irish case. It's more expected in a country where the Catholics run 98% of all schools (I read somewhere). For this to happen in England is doubly enervating...

93. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #61085 by stereoroid on August 3, 2007 at 2:40 pm

There actually is a Religion For Dummies book. Authors: Rabbi Marc Gellman, Monsignor Thomas Hartman - how objective!

94. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #52555 by stereoroid on June 27, 2007 at 9:14 am

"His boyish face, cropped with sparkling, silver-grey strands" ...

Oooh.... that's gotta hurt...

Great article, though!

95. His word

Comment #51486 by stereoroid on June 23, 2007 at 5:31 am

I thought Baddiel was simply referring to the evolution of religion in historical terms, much as RD did in the book. I didn't think he was saying that he thinks religion is essential today, rather that he was being sarcastic...

96. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #50635 by stereoroid on June 19, 2007 at 6:59 am

So circumcision reduces your chances of HIV infection through unprotected heterosexual sex by 60%. Considering how many times people have sex with their partners, is this enough reason to start circumcising adult males? Condoms are vastly more effective, but the Church does not like them, so...

97. The New Atheists

Comment #49431 by stereoroid on June 12, 2007 at 12:35 am

Excellent article: I particularly appreciate the emphasis on the connection between "existential insecurity" (poverty, violence) and the prevalence of religion. This was the sentiment expressed by Robert Burns in poems such as The Fall Of The Leaf - though it's not certain that Burns really felt that way.

Life is not worth having with all it can give-
For something beyond it poor man sure must live.

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

Comment #44148 by stereoroid on May 23, 2007 at 12:57 pm

What are they putting in the water, Dunnunda? They're even exporting them to Merica. I bet Ken Ham would be a nicer guy if he sank a few tinnies every day. 8)

re #43: exactly. The author of the article clearly missed the opening of the series, the part where RD states that the title wasn't his idea, and he had to fight to get the question mark inserted.

re #40: yes, scientists are people too. Every time I read about someone like Gerald Bull, I see the story as a cautionary tale for the rest of us. Just don't mention the Manhattan Project as an example, without first reading "The Making Of The Atomic Bomb" (R. Rhodes): that describes the moral dilemma the scientists and politicians found themselves in, after the defeat of Hitler.

re Eugenics: I'm all for elimination of harmful hereditary diseases, but if someone talks about an "ideal", I defy them to objectively justify their choice. I have multiple sclerosis, and if that has a genetic component (TBD), out with it - there is no "unseen benefit" a la sickle cell anaemia. But, does that trait make me inferior? Untermensch, mein arsch. 8)

99. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41356 by stereoroid on May 16, 2007 at 1:47 am

If Billy Graham was the servant of Satan, as Falwell alleged, then I think it fair to describe Falwell as the servant of Mammon.

Mammon. (n.d.):
1. Bible Riches, avarice, and worldly gain personified as a false god in the New Testament.
2. often mammon Material wealth regarded as having an evil influence.
-- Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mammon (accessed: May 16, 2007).

100. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41164 by stereoroid on May 15, 2007 at 3:03 pm

What a loss... to the world of Baseball. And hey, he's not going to experience the Rapture he so looked forward to:

You'll be riding along in an automobile. You'll be the driver perhaps. You're a Christian. There'll be several people in the automobile with you, maybe someone who is not a Christian. When the trumpet sounds you and the other born-again believers in that automobile will be instantly caught away -- you will disappear, leaving behind only your clothes and physical things that cannot inherit eternal life. That unsaved person or persons in the automobile will suddenly be startled to find the car suddenly somewhere crashes.... Other cars on the highway driven by believers will suddenly be out of control and stark pandemonium will occur on ... every highway in the world where Christians are caught away from the drivers wheel.
-- Rev Jerry Falwell, in his pamphlet, "Nuclear War and the Second Coming of Christ".