51. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #283320 by MRA on November 13, 2008 at 12:11 pm

"Prudent"......why exactly?

52. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281018 by MRA on November 9, 2008 at 10:08 am

Peacebeuponme: classic - I wonder which side 'God' was on?

53. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280692 by MRA on November 8, 2008 at 4:07 am

OK - that is nice to know.

54. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280685 by MRA on November 8, 2008 at 3:54 am

It is important to read the whole article, not just the bits quoted above. Seems like it is 'community' that makes people happy - not religion or a 'God type thing' - religion so often attaches itself to a 'community' as it creates a common identity. I wonder how many lonely theists describe themselves as 'happy'?

Also, do sites like this one create 'communities' and dispense with the need to actually meet?

55. Surprise: Scientists for Obama

Comment #276540 by MRA on November 2, 2008 at 1:21 am

The problem with scientists is that they are not sufficiently organised to deal with politicians.

When bad things happen to science funding they just moan to newspapers (and usually rely on 'big names' to do this for them).

Funding will get tighter, and scientists will have to compete more than ever before with all the other parts of society that want their share of limited public funds.

I know that they will hate this (most scientists I know just want to get on with their work), but if they want their share of the cake they are going to have to shout a bit louder.

56. Religion: Bound to believe?

Comment #276020 by MRA on November 1, 2008 at 4:28 am

I liked the article - good to see the psychology angle on religion.

57. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #271574 by MRA on October 26, 2008 at 2:12 am

Someone on a different site did say "Although he did say a "serious case" could be made for a Deistic God, Dawkins categorically stated that he "would not be convinced" by such a case" - it would be good if the debate could be posted.

58. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #271568 by MRA on October 26, 2008 at 1:30 am

mmurray - I agree.

59. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #271559 by MRA on October 26, 2008 at 12:31 am

Philips appears to be reporting that RD said "A serious case could be made for a deistic God". I don't know whether he said that, but if he did a 'serious case' can be made, but it does not mean that the serious case has been answered! Lots of people bring serious cases to Court, but they don't necessarily win them. It would offend scientific principles to assume at this stage that there is no god-type-thing; it is still an open question - but currently there is no EVIDENCE.

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

Comment #271550 by MRA on October 26, 2008 at 12:03 am

jabber- I don't think this is some kind of contractual dispute, or an investment gone wrong. As with all movements (save for ones that scare people into action) all they will do is 'support' people and hope for a favorable outcome. I am sure Edwards is grateful for all the support that they gave him.

61. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #271202 by MRA on October 25, 2008 at 11:52 am

Well, if she abolishes the research in the US, maybe the scientists can be accommodated here in Europe or elsewhere.

If ever I suffer from low blood pressure, I will watch this video!

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

Comment #270907 by MRA on October 24, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Respect to Jonathan Edwards - for balance I hope that he is becomes equally 'evangelical' about telling people about his new way of thinking.

63. The Retirement of Richard Dawkins: Reflections on a Stewardship

Comment #266141 by MRA on October 18, 2008 at 4:14 am

Hats off to RD - who has done a fantasitic job of promoting the "public understanding of science".

It would have been so easy for him just to write a few papers or an obscure book, give a few talks and have an easy life in Oxford. But he didn't, he wrote a bestselling book, made excellent TV prgrammes, started the RDF in both the US and the UK, appeared on talk shows and most of all explained the scientific method to non-scientists (like me) at every turn.

It is not often that I would admit to having the name of an academic stuck on the back of my car, but I am proud to have a RichardDawkins.net bumper sticker. The other things that must be noted are his bravery in using the chair to take on religious thinking (when virtually every Oxford college has a church attached to it) and being so clear and direct in publicly challenging poor quality thinking (I will never forget watching him have his DNA topped up to Atlantis levels - classic); he says so well the things that we are all thinking.

RD - please keep up the good work.

64. Religion vs science: can the divide between God and rationality be reconciled?

Comment #263619 by MRA on October 12, 2008 at 3:12 am

To reason-first: I agree with all that you say in post 263616. But it would appear that the need to reconcile does not just exist amognst religious people - it seems to me that it extends to all parts of society, even some who are atheist and/or have huge respect for science. I suppose that people believe all sorts of things to get rid of cognitive dissonance!

65. Religion vs science: can the divide between God and rationality be reconciled?

Comment #263613 by MRA on October 12, 2008 at 2:03 am

To Steve Zara:

"I believe it is due to a mis-applied sense of fairness. I think there is a belief that all views should be welcomed in public discussions, so as to give all those who want to participate a sense of being listened to. This actually results in unfairness, as it lessens the requirement for argument from those who label themselves as religious. They can simply say "this is our tradition", and there is no comeback from atheists."

I agree with what you say. There is a view that if you don't listen to another's argument and try to understand it, you are being closed minded. That is true if you don't in fact listen or try to understand - but what happens too often is that people who have listened and understood but reject the other person's argument get labelled as being closed minded when they are not. There are some arguments where there is only one correct answer, but people find this hard to accept. A lot of people feel very unfomfortable telling someone else that they think they are wrong for fear of losing friends or not being part of an in-group or being rude, but they should get over themselves and have the confidence to assert their view provided it is backed up by good, tested, evidence.

Also, it is often seen as un-academic to rule out a particular argument no matter how rubbish (which it is not of course, if the argument can be proven to be wrong). In my view too many rubbish arguments continue to be put forward time and time again when there is very good evidence that the argument is settled - a good example is the argument in philosphy/psychology about whether a 'mind' can be separate from the brain/body - neuroscientists have pretty much proven that "no brain = no mind" - yet the concept of the 'mind' still pops up all over the place.

66. Religion vs science: can the divide between God and rationality be reconciled?

Comment #263608 by MRA on October 12, 2008 at 12:58 am

Why the constant need to reconcile something that cannot be reconciled?

I feel that the real reason for this concern is that policy makers are scared that the religious will do something silly if they feel "threatened" or "not respected" by secularism/atheism requesting reasonable checks and balances on religious encroachment into public life.

I am happy to live in a world where the issue of god and rationality are polarised - provided it does not become violent.

If religious people wish to spend their spare time doing whatever it is they do, fine, but don't inflict it on others via the state and legislation - and don't get in the way of science - which is something that most people want.

67. Atheist group sues Bush over national prayer day

Comment #260276 by MRA on October 5, 2008 at 4:30 am

Sure - I should have been clearer - what kind of action would you propose?

On your second point - is does not logically lead to schools having prayer sessions, but it makes it much easier for a religious teacher to have a prayer session if he/she felt like it - who could object to a prayer session on National Prayer Day. No doubt, many teachers would take the opportunity.

68. Atheist group sues Bush over national prayer day

Comment #260273 by MRA on October 5, 2008 at 4:16 am

To Christopher Davis - which battles would you pick?

If Bush introduces National Prayer Day, and that sticks, what is next?

It seems to me that this is a first step towards bringing religion into the machinery of government in the USA. I can imagine state schools all over the USA suggesting children pray on National Prayer Day or that government offices and Courts allocate time for prayer on National Prayer Day.

Here in the UK (apologies if you are from the UK and know this), religious organisations have way too much influence (Bishops in the House of Lords, faith Schools, a monarch/head of state who is 'defender of the faith', ecclesiastical law etc. etc.). One of the reasons why I admire the USA is because they have the constitutional separation. While it might or might not be a breach of the constitution, I feel that it is important that these public interest cases are brought and it is very rare for individuals alone to bring such cases.

69. Frog Jesus

Comment #260259 by MRA on October 5, 2008 at 3:16 am

I couldn't watch it - crap internet connection - but it sounds 'toadily disgusting'

70. Atheist group sues Bush over national prayer day

Comment #260257 by MRA on October 5, 2008 at 3:12 am

I support the lawsuit - in the US they have the separation of Church and State (wish we had that here in the UK), and that should be respected. Laws are worthless unless enforced. If the people bringing this action don't try and enforce the law then who will? Also, lawsuits make the news, especially if you sue the President of the US!

As far a national day, I would propose "National Rational Day" - sounds good.

71. Does faith have a place in medicine?

Comment #250756 by MRA on September 20, 2008 at 9:16 am

Does faith has a place in medicine? In my view, No.

I'd like to ask what a faith-based doctor, who objected to a certain procedure, would do in an emergency when such procedure might conflict with their faith? Would they not carry out the procedure if it offended their faith or would their religious objections have to be put on hold in emergencies?

Also, in my view, patients have a right not to feel that they are being judged by medical professionals. If a doctor refused a procedure on religious grounds, it could cause distress and/or tension for the patient.

72. Back from the grave

Comment #250751 by MRA on September 20, 2008 at 8:50 am

To Chris Davis:

"...illusion leads to the nonsense of NDE, by people who won't accept that their senses are not direct, inviolable channels to objective reality..."

Yes - because when you think about it, so much affects our perception. The brain has its own special forms of bias and also difficulty interpreting certain things, that can result in utter nonsense being believed.

73. Back from the grave

Comment #250585 by MRA on September 20, 2008 at 12:33 am

Is it worth doing the research? Yes, it is. It will hopefully draw a line under the whole issue and show that out of body experiences are just created by the brain.

Such experiences are most common in relation to operating tables; my guess is that the person usually knows in advance that they will be on an operating table, so the brain takes memories of operations and it might also receive input from the operation itself, it then uses its amazing ability to create images and false memories. Chances are that lots of things 'remembered' will match most operation rooms, so people believe that what their brain made up was true and hence start believing in a 'soul'.

It was an operation that caused me to start being an atheist. I always thought that I could resist my loss of consciousness in an operation. When I discovered that doctors could effectively switch me off and on again, and I had no concept of time during that experience, I began to realise that something similar would probably happen if I died - it was my first step towards atheist thinking.

I look forward to the results.

74. Robert Winston criticises dangerous 'science delusion'

Comment #247460 by MRA on September 14, 2008 at 1:06 pm

"Far too many scientists including my good friend Richard Dawkins present science as the truth and present it as factually correct. And actually of course that clearly isn't true."

Winston is correct: not all science is the truth and factually correct; but for a lot of science there is so much evidence to support it that you would be deluded if you didn't believe it.

Apply the scientific method to the question 'does god exist' and you come out with no significant evidence. Therefore, god does not exist until proven otherwise.

Is there any other way to consider this that I am missing?

75. Our scientists must nail the creationists

Comment #247141 by MRA on September 14, 2008 at 2:56 am

Maybe the Royal Society can demand some Atheist church leaders in return? (Joke)

The RS can also help to improve their image by ditching the word "Royal" in their title and any links to British royalty. Why do the RS want to link themselves to an institution that apparently produces the god chosen head of the church of England.

Too many scientists agree take honours from the royals "Sir", "OBE" and "MBE" etc.

76. Bolus of nonsense

Comment #246415 by MRA on September 12, 2008 at 9:42 am

I like A.C Grayling's example in relation to being biased in favour of science.

It reminds me of a different issue: so many people are prepared to accept the benefits of science but then turn around and criticise it and/or its methods; such people make me puke!

77. Knowledge regained

Comment #246275 by MRA on September 12, 2008 at 4:27 am

The burden of proof must be on the person making the assertion. So I really do wish that those who say things like "science can neither prove nor disprove god" would just accept that until there is evidence to support the existence of god, the default postition must be that there is no god for all intents and purposes.

Whether 'god' (in the sense of an omnipotent being etc.) exists is still an open question - for me I am 99.9% sure that this is a case hence why I am an atheist. If I were not preprared to change my mind however I would be as unscientific as the religious. But I am not going to believe in god unless there is evidence - and currently there is no evidence.

78. Imagine No Religion' signs to go up around town

Comment #236766 by MRA on August 25, 2008 at 9:50 am

Excellent! More consciousness raising!

79. Study: Conservatives Grow Wary Of Mixing Religion, Politics

Comment #235914 by MRA on August 23, 2008 at 11:13 pm

I hope that things are changing, but the amount of people who consider god relevant to their politics is still way too high! Atheists in the US need to lobby politicians as religious groups do, then the politicians will start to listen.

80. No credit for creationism

Comment #232557 by MRA on August 18, 2008 at 10:55 am

Well done UC!

81. To learn biology, just pick up the console

Comment #231495 by MRA on August 16, 2008 at 12:57 pm

The game sounds like fun - but it can't be a natural selection simulator because life in the game would just start and then you would just watch evolution happen!

82. Poll: Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?

Comment #230163 by MRA on August 14, 2008 at 11:39 am

Yes.

How did it get there in the first place?

83. God's Warriors

Comment #230160 by MRA on August 14, 2008 at 11:31 am

Will this be shown in the UK at all? Do CNN have an online service?

84. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228791 by MRA on August 12, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Well said Sciros (point 76)

85. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228761 by MRA on August 12, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Ok then 'thewhitepearl", I won't watch BBC's Horizon, or Open University Programmes or good quality comedy, I'll just hang out in the Astrology and Crystal Healing section of my local bookstore - at least then I'll be experiencing more brain activity...?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that there should be no books or that I don't enjoy books - I was merely pointing out that there are lots of crap ones in response to a comments that TV was mainly crap.

By the way, why do you assume I eat Cheetoes?

86. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228751 by MRA on August 12, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Bonzai

Sure - books do have some advantages (as you state) but TV also has its own advantages. TV can show non-verbal communication for example. It can also be interactive, respond more quickly to events (e.g. election shows and interviews) and is more visual. Think of all the wonderful wildlife programmes - imagine if they were only described in words and still pictures.

87. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228740 by MRA on August 12, 2008 at 1:27 pm

thewhitepearl wrote: "You obviously don't read much. That is the biggest line of bullshit I think I have heard all week. Sorry ass excuse. There are way to many crap books out there so instead of taking the chance and reading one, or trying to find a good one, its much easier to plop my lazy ass in front of the t.v. and watch Wheel of Fortune? Or just watch someone else talk about it? "

There are lots of good books, but also lots of crap ones too - go to your book store and see the reams of crap that gets published. Likewise there is good TV and loads of crap TV.

88. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228733 by MRA on August 12, 2008 at 1:16 pm

The argument re TV was that it was, in the main, crap - it lacked information (by which I read quality information). I was merely pointing out that books were as crap as TV too. I went off on a tangent re books influencing people; of course that is not the only test of a good book.

89. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228701 by MRA on August 12, 2008 at 12:32 pm

There are also way too many crap books too. Save for the God Delusion, I cannot think of a recent non-fiction book that has genuinely changed people's thinking on a large scale.

90. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228695 by MRA on August 12, 2008 at 12:15 pm

TV is great. People are way to snobbish about books. Good information is good information, no matter what form it takes.

91. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224733 by MRA on August 5, 2008 at 1:06 pm

gabbygabbygobbley wrote:

"science might prove that people are more subsceptible to religious views etc.. but i truely dont believe that you have religious genes as such, and cant see that ever being proven"

I agree that all indications at the moment point to religiosity being psychological, but I understand that neuroscientists are increasingly looking into possible organic causes. It would be surprising if it were genetic, but it could be developmental - who knows? Certainly worth further study.

92. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #224223 by MRA on August 4, 2008 at 10:36 am

tybowen said "The difference between racial and sexual discrimination versus religious discrimination is that a person chooses their religion not their race. Thats why its wrong to discriminate on race, because the person had no choice in the matter..." - I agree with this.

But what if science shows that being religious is organic and it cannot be helped?

93. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #223642 by MRA on August 3, 2008 at 2:43 am

Gnomish - you could try writing to BBC America - they broadcast Channel 4 shows in the US from time to time.

94. A set of previews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #223395 by MRA on August 2, 2008 at 7:20 am

Granted, many TV channels show atheist content, but rarely in the name of atheism.

The sad fact is that, psychologically, religions do all the right things in order to keep their unproven 'messages' alive (and raise money). They have churces, radio, TV channels etc. They drip feed the public with their message and after a while it sinks in - even if it is ridiculous.

If people saw Atheist TV, set up as a proper registered television channel, I believe that it would in many people's eyes legitimise atheism - instead of it being seen as an irreverent pop at the establishment. The God Delusion has certainly done this already to a great extent, but we need to keep up the momentum and books alone are not enough.

95. A set of previews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #223371 by MRA on August 2, 2008 at 5:22 am

We need an Atheist TV channel - there are enough religious ones already. Surely us Atheists can muster enough cash for that!

96. Atheism on the buses

Comment #206514 by MRA on July 8, 2008 at 12:35 pm

It is a good idea. A message needs to be repeated over and over again before it really starts to sink in. Religions do this through ceremony, schools, television stations and radio stations - us atheists do not - and it is time we did. It would be great to start with an atheist radio channel.

97. Atheism on the buses

Comment #206504 by MRA on July 8, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Fantastic idea. It really is time for Atheists to start getting media savvy and actually donating to their cause.