51. Arguing for Atheism

Comment #19243 by Old Coppernose on January 25, 2007 at 6:25 pm

I am not convinced by Dawkins's argument that without religion there would be "no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers,' no Northern Ireland 'troubles'…." In my opinion, many of these events—and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists—were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony.

I agree with Shermer on this. There are non-religious nationalist Palestinians who use suicide bombers. No virgins or Ghilman for them (*). I was also surprised that as a Brit, RD I believe misrepresents the N Ireland troubles. The dispute is about nationalism, far more than religion. Protestants often protest the Catholic "Cult of Mary" but apparently many N Ireland Protestants also revere Mary, and in one community Catholics and Protestants used to celebrate her together in a joint parade (though this may have ceased). The IRA has disbanded, reformed and splintered many times, and moved well away from its original form, which was largely created by the Southern government to fight a guerilla war in the North, and disbanded later to become a peaceful socialist political party. Later versions were generally Marxist (and hence presumably atheist) and no more acknowledged the Dublin government as legitimate than one in Storment or Westminster. After getting the Brits out, they intended to move on to a terror campaign in the SOuth to establish a Marxist government there, and the South co-operated with the Northern authorities to try to eradicate them out of self-interest as well as to maintain peaceful relations.

Using gangsterism to raise funds, they, like the Italian mafia, began to value gangsterism for gangsterism's sake, as did the Loyalist/Unionist/"Protestant" terror groups. Despite being supposedly sworn enemies, terror groups from both sides are known to have met up to negotiate deals over territory for gangster activity like Mafia "families".

Imo religion alone is rarely if ever the sole or even perhaps principle origin of conflict, it just simply adds a great deal of fuel to the fire.

Though apparently a naturalist of the kind that keeps his clothes on ( I thought "naturalist" was an old name for a biologist?) Shermer has publicly stated he is not an atheist. however I havent seen him declare how he describes himself. anybody know?

I myself prefer to call myself as a non-theist, as I have a lithp and reject religiouth nonthence.

(*) Many ppl are unaware that in addition to the 72 virgins, the Muslim martyr is promised 28 Ghilman,or young boys. The Age is unspecified, but apparently the relevant verse says "Their faces will shine like the sun." The keeping of adolescent Ghilman by powerful Muslims is a well-established historical phenomonon, and yes the services they provided included *that* one. An Indian friend told me that one potentate declared that he kept two harems: "One of women for show, and one of boys for use."

52. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19136 by Old Coppernose on January 25, 2007 at 5:48 am

As a good scientist, I am doing a little experiment.

'Every beard is not false, but every [n word] smells.'

This is a quote of a quote that appears in TGD, from Bulldog Drummond. I am presuming that this post will stay up - at least temprarily at any rate.

This is the "control condition". In the "experimental condition" I spelled the "n word" correctly, and the message disappeared instantly, far before any moderator action could take place.

What I am determining for certian is what I was already prety sure of, is that this board is set up with a bot that deletes posts using particular words, regardless of their context.

As I have suggested previously, this is imo an extremely banal form of censorship on a freethinkers' board, and it is hilarious that it actually prevents a member from quoting a part of RD's work which a person might refer to in a perfectly appropriate fashion. It is also useless to keep out offensive posts as a poster can easiy intentionally misspell as I have just done.

I have written to the contact address and referred to this issue on the board directly previously, without reply. IF you read this Richard, can you respond to this? I have already lost imho two perfectly reasoned inoffensive posts for using two provocative words in a nevertheless appropriate context, as you have in your book,without prior waning it would happen or subsequent notification that it had let alone why - the things just disappeared into the ether.

When a person can actually quote your work and get their post zapped like with a bolt from an angry God then the situation must surely be wrong.

Respectfully,

Pete Watts

53. Randi and 800 Other Amazing Skeptics

Comment #19121 by Old Coppernose on January 25, 2007 at 4:10 am

5. Comment #19111 by Richard Dawkins on January 25, 2007 at 3:09 am writes:

"CD, you've picked on the wrong Hitchens. It was indeed Christopher Hitchens who exposed the hypocrisy of Mother Teresa. He is a staunch atheist. But it is his brother Peter who is religious. They don't get on."

Phew, thankyou Richard - I was worried there for a second, and prayed (metaphorically) that this was what had happened.

54. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #19097 by Old Coppernose on January 24, 2007 at 10:07 pm

26. Comment #19001 by Sancus on January 24, 2007 at 8:45 am writes

"Old Coppernose, you seem to be one of those unbelievers who forgets that all children are born unbelievers."

Of course I'm not. Are there any? On the contrary I'm just very much aware that they are tabula rasa, with the result their religious families and subcultures can scrawl any old cr4p on them.


" Since they already have this open disposition, there is no need to force them to learn about some groups of people with crazy ideas."

Nonsense. Many of them are going to be forcibly exposed to the crazy ideas of their religious parents, and their "open disposition" welded shut by it.

" On the contrary, what is necessary is to protect them from being forced to learn these ideas."

Again impossible, unless you advocate the forcible removal of children from religious parents.

" The best way to protect them is to nurture their natural unbelieving predisposition and empower them with independence, which the religious take away from them through deception and force."

Precisely - but without specifically advocating atheism, the only way to do this is to expose them to the full panoply of religion and make them realize how silly and arbitrary their house-religion is. Also to a large extent this is how one *does* advocate atheism, in practice. Also even atheists need to learn about the religious views of ppl and their history, to better undersrtand the world and the ppl in it.

"Dennett thinks he can solve this problem with the state acting as a force majeure, or overwhelming force. It is patently clear that that is an impractical, unreasonable, and remarkably religious position.
It also happens to be immoral."

You are using the religionist tactic of "Tue Qoque". There is nothing religious in this proposition. It may well be impractical, but not necessarily unreasonable or immoral. And to talk about it as if he were advocating a fascist dictatorship is ridiculous.Dasically the idea is no disimilar than simply requiring children are given sex education - a very similar issue in some ways.

I note you give no practical method as to how you would "nurture their natural unbelieving predisposition and empower them with independence". I challenge you to propose something more practical and moral than what Dennett proposes. The "force Majeure" sounds suitably intellectual and threatening a term, but we are talking about nothing more here than society insisting that parents allow their children to be educated.

It is in fact education that delivers exactly what you advocate. All Western societies have decided that a general edcation is a human right that no parents can deny their children. Home schooling is permissible but must be genuine home schooling in key areas. IIRC Dennett actually accepted his ideas being incorporated in home schooling - merely ensuring that this is done. If his idea is impractical the most impractical part is ensuring the homeschoolers will oblige, it's hard enough to get them to teach their kids to read and write sometimes, let alone ensure they have access to the resources of a well-funded school.

It has been reasonably suggested that religious indoctrination is a kind of (fairly) mild child abuse, and society intervenes when child abuse happens. School is about the only place where we can be certain that the wider society even gets to find out how well ppl are treating their children - even regarding severe child abuse.

We do not allow parents to keep their children ignorant of literacy and numeracy and (in
theory) other key areas needed to function in society. Dennett is merely advocating that those subjects it is considered a requirement for a child's education is a non-advocating knowledge of Comparative Religion and its history. The only ppl who will object to that will be the religionists and those with a similarly paranoid obsession about bogeyman "Govermint".

OC

55. Former exec in Irvine says he was fired over religion

Comment #19072 by Old Coppernose on January 24, 2007 at 4:24 pm

8. Comment #19002 by USA_Limey on January 24, 2007 at 9:42 am wites

"I believe in the free market so from my perspective just let the free market decide. A company that consistently passes over people because they are not, (in this case), practicing Xians in favor of the lesser qualified who are will over time loose out to it's competitors and hopefully go out of business. I only see a problem where such market forces and competition cannot function; in other words in government which is why it's so important to keep it out of those institutions. But in the world of private companies and free enterprise... nothing decides better than the market! (IMO) "

The above comment suggests you are a USAnian living in Britain rather than the other way round - it is very rare to hear such view from native Brits, though unfortunately it is becoming more common. Perhaps you are a Brit attracted to the US for thi reason and/or have become influenced by its zeitgeist.

An unfettered free market produces fettered people, i.e. SLAVES. Forcing ppl to work for you is a lot more cost effective than having to pay them. SLavery was only ended by rule of law, and imdeed still survives where the rule of law is not enforced. Democratic government has a great deal of competition - they're called ELECTIONS, by which ppl can decide who passes the laws that determine what is considered acceptable treatment of our fellow human beings. Secondly, free competition only operates where there is suficient diversity. If bigotry is almost universal, no bigoted enterprise is at a disadvantage. In a deeply Xian locality, a company that employs a non-Xian may be shunned by Xian customers. If there were any truth to your argument, no discrimination would ever have become established and no need to fight it. The effecdtive fight against bigotry has always required the rule of law. The USAnian obsession with government as the root of all evil is as quaint and as ludicrous as their religious obsession,and it is noteworthy that religious extremists harbor extreme hostility to democratic government and the rule of law just as much as atheist libertarians do. Democratic consensus as to community standards is part of the evolution of the zeitgeist to a progressively more enlightened and humane society, and long may it progress. A supposedly free market of ideas has produced the religion-ridden United States.

OC

56. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #18989 by Old Coppernose on January 24, 2007 at 7:26 am

21 Sancus writes:

"Apparently competition serves Dennett's purposes when he can use the state to force people to entertain competing religions, but it does not serve his purposes when the state leaves education alone and allows schools to compete with each other."

There is no contradiction in his position. Without State schools and a predominance of religious ones, parents will simply send their children to the school that pushes their own religion and there will be no competition of ideas.

Only by a compulsory curriculum of Comparative Religion and philosophy will the memes have true capability to compete. I must say however he is naive if he thinks home-schooling will ever be reasonable in this regard.

I disliked Dennett on reading his "Consciousness Explained" and found him much more likeable and reasonable in the interview.

I wonder however he can be so sure that music preceded religion? Before a culture developed literature, how can we know what their beliefs were?

Dennett and perhaps Dawkins seem naive as to the future of freethinking imo. If Dennett seruiously thinks there is a forseeable end to religion and war then he sounds like a fundie expecting Jesus back in 50 years.

57. Former exec in Irvine says he was fired over religion

Comment #18972 by Old Coppernose on January 24, 2007 at 5:18 am

2. Comment #18962 by padster1976 on January 24, 2007 at 3:11 am

"the old adage - two sides to every story! And its always somewhere in the middle."

The old BS you mean. The fallacy that the truth always lies between two opposing extremes is dealt with by RD in TGD, not that anyone should need him to point it out. There is no reason at all why one position cannot be completely true and the other completely false. However with one exception, these accounts are not mutually contradictory. It was possible the guy was a bad worker as well as being harassed for not being Xian. I would be surprised if false allegations would include so many details, and hence imo they are probably true - they are certainly credible.

As for 'corporate culture' - the fact that bad things are common doesnt make them right, and they should be fought.

OC

58. Dispatches: Undercover Mosque

Comment #18609 by Old Coppernose on January 22, 2007 at 2:43 am

37. Comment #18525 by mjwemdee on January 21, 2007 at 2:06 pm

"You are so right, robives. I found the Dispatches programme very unnerving. And then to see all that endless, fatuous crap about Jade Goody... what is happening in the UK? where is our sense of proportion?"

Absolutely. 40,000 complaints abt minor slights motivated by just one individual's general unpleasantness rather than racism, effigies burned in India and quastions asked of the Deputy PM, Trevor Phillips calling for C4 to *have its license revoked* and yet this appalling violent racist preaching hardly produces a blip. Out of sight! Maybe Phillips wants C4 closed down because of Dispatches...

59. Dispatches: Undercover Mosque

Comment #18603 by Old Coppernose on January 22, 2007 at 2:37 am

4. Comment #18215 by Homo economicus on January 19, 2007 at 3:05 am
"
'We are doing brainwashing because the [unbelivers] are doing braindefiling' (A lot of cults say this when you lay that charge at their door)."

Yep - often heard in Alcoholics Anonymous ond other 12-step groups - "My brain needs a good wash."

5. Comment #18218 by aleprechaunist on January 19, 2007 at 3:47 am

"Nasty virus... I don't think I'll ever feel safe in a dental clinic again... "

Funnily enough, my dentist's name is "Islam". As a woman however I doubt she subscribes to the idea that women are inferior to men - but perhaps I ought to pay her bill to stay safe. It hurt but she saved a tooth without extraction or root canal. The filling came out a week later but that was my fault for chewing toffee.

I believe that it is a mistake to attack moderate religion for fostering extremism. Moderate religion may actually inoculate against the extreme form imo. We need to keep the moderates onside against the fundies imo. Perhaps we should infiltrate the moderates ourselves. )

60. Mr. Deity

Comment #18442 by Old Coppernose on January 20, 2007 at 10:24 pm

I almost didnt bother with these as I usually dont find these kind of things funny but these were good. Interestingly, Mr Deity's disappointment at not getting souvenirs from Larry makes an interesting hint as to their relationship which might surprise the fundies....

61. Atheist Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion'

Comment #18341 by Old Coppernose on January 19, 2007 at 10:42 pm

Thankyou guys below for the video and the stats.

It's amazing how, not content with claiming that life is designed, the IDiots use the findings of science to suggest that the earth and moon and perhaps the whole solar system are, e.g. for life you need a large moon to stabilize the planet.

Ok, if our tiny corner is designed, what the hell is all the rest of it there for? Even if there is life elsewhere in the universe, by far the most of it, if there is anything but empty space there at all, is completely unsuited to it. God must be the most wasteful designer imaginable. Why create the infinitessimally small but astonishing earth inside such larely empty and otherwise often interesting but stone dead detritus?

Rather than designed, all the evidence suggests that the extremely improbable earth has simply come about because there was enough stuff in the universe (and time available) to make the right conditions come about at least once. IT may be there are billions of planets with life on them - but still ours is the only one in our galaxy. If might be that there are millions of them in our galaxy, but most of them have nothing but bacteria on them, or nothing intelligent enough to ever communicate with us. It could be there are thousands of intelligent lifeforms in our galaxy, but none of them do the radio thing or anything else we can pick up for long enough that we will ever detect them. Perhaps, if we are lucky, we might detect evidence of one or tens of intelligent civilizations that have existed in our galaxy, but if they are still around, they are still at such a vast distance that no individual on either side lives long enough to experience both a transmission and a response in either direction, let alone actually physically meet up....

....but finding anything would be marvellous.

13. Comment #18320 by USA_Limey on January 19, 2007 at 5:30 pm

So you think there is a god that created the whole universe but still takes an active interest in your life?

Please see this:

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-3974466981713172831&q=uk

Still think so?

What Idiots those religious narcissists are.

18. Comment #18331 by Cameron on January 19, 2007 at 8:53 pm

On the cosmological scale, there isn't really that much stuff. I mean, assuming for the moment that God exists, he loves dark energy much more than he loves us.

Dark energy: 73% of the observable universe
Dark matter: 23%
Atoms: 4% (a mere footnote)

62. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #18160 by Old Coppernose on January 18, 2007 at 4:38 pm

I must admit I am a little embarassed that some Freethinkers didnt spot that it was parody. However, the views of the fundiesare so astonishing almost anything is possible. Before I saw it was from the Onion, I wondered if it was a real parody movement created to ridicule the Creationists, which would be quite a good idea. I thought the equation was great too.

Now regarding the below, are THESE real or even more elaborate parodies??? If they are real, then the fundies have no right laughing at those who mistook the Onion piece, as they show that it really could have been real!


13. Comment #18001 by MelM on January 17, 2007 at 10:16 pm

Well, ho ho ho out of this madness if you can. Note the mentality!

Galileo Was Wrong
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/

Official Geocentricity Website
http://www.geocentricity.com/

The Earth is not Moving:the granddaddy of all conspiracies
http://www.fixedearth.com/

The Geocentric Bible. Note the chapter titles
http://www.geocentricbible.com/
(contains link to "Galileo Was Wrong")

This is certainly on the advanced edge of Bible Science but who knows? Maybe soon we'll hear: "Heliocentrism is just a theory."

63. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #18110 by Old Coppernose on January 18, 2007 at 11:34 am

'Germaine,... isn't "shrill" an adjective often used to silence people who are making a good point that you're too lazy to listen to? Coming from a feminist, this is pretty fucking disappointing.'

Germaine apparently can tell the pitch of text, and also that the pitch an opinion is expressed at is relevant to its veracity. RD's reasoned arguments are anything but shrill. It is also worth noting, that if the feminist Greer thought about it, it is quite likely that since " shrill" refers to high pitch, it's origin as a derisory adjective might be as a putdown of women orators, which it would be an even greater irony as RD refers to the consciousness-raising of feminists and portrays some of his views as being analagous to their contribution. It is possible that its origin is to hint at the physical immaturity or effiminacy of a male speaker, hardly any more politically correct.

Greer refers to 'my kind of atheism'. Atheism is simply the opinion there is no god, and hence there is only kind of atheism - every difference of opinion atheists have is actually about something else, no matter how directly related to atheism, such as opinions on the value of religion. Again, this was simply a vehicle for Greer to talk about herself.

64. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #18005 by Old Coppernose on January 17, 2007 at 10:24 pm

Good grief.

Some of these ppl did not read the book - they refer to things supposedly in it that arent there, and specifically claimed things werent in it that are. Greer is the most incredible pompous narcissistic liar who just wanted to talk about herself and her silly experiences and views and not the book! I know she is a CLimate Change Denier, and like CCDs generally (including herself when she has spoken on it) she makes the most fatuous of objections that she would know were nonsense and fully answered by those she attacks if she made any attempt to learn anything about the thing she is diagreeing with. If she had read the book she would know that RD specifically addresses the possibility of evolutionary advantages to religion, but emphasises that that possibility is a completely separate question to the queston of whether God exists, the major theme of the book. In addition a previously advantageous phenomonon can now be disadvantageous, and one that makes groups more succesful by making them more effective warriors is a prime candidate, and of coure if she had read the book and knew about evolution she would know that what she referred to is a Group Selection Theory that, as RD points out, is NOT a very good mechanism for gene selection, as she claimed. It is absolutely incredible the banality of the comments that ppl make on science revealing their ignorance, and she doesnt realize that with these false claims she has exposed herself as ignoramus and liar to anyone on the planet who reads the book.

65. Atheist Outreach: Group Coaxes Unbelievers Into the Open

Comment #17825 by Old Coppernose on January 16, 2007 at 8:18 pm

'I find the Catholic priest's comments a bit odd. - Does he think that athiests don't believe that "you are part of the universe" or that "you are not god".

This is either a weird definition of atheism or of religion, and i can't work out which - maybe both?'

Theists are always coming out with this rubbish. Yes, they seriously do believe (or claim to believe) that atheists think they live in a vacuum and/or they think they are God.

They claim that one has to believe in a God in order to realize that one isnt God oneself.

Champions of this view are members of the quintessentially religious Alcoholics Anonymous and similar 12-step groups. Religionists nearly always deny that their belief is religious (especially AA members), while sometimes calling Atheism and Darwinism religions. IF you come across one who say they have a religion, you will probably have encountered either a v old and honest Anglican or a Scientologist.

These guys use Doublethink that would make Orwell gape.

66. Creationism special

Comment #17753 by Old Coppernose on January 15, 2007 at 11:22 pm

Regarding Wolpert,

As a depression sufferer myself if he has helped public understanding of the illness then I am grateful to him, but I think he did make serious blunders, the worst being the "children cant understand evolution" one. He made no reference to age, and there is absolutely no reason why the level of explanation used cannot be tailored to the level of comprehension of a child.

I was taught evolution at 11 and had no difficulty understanding it at the level it was described - iirc, precise details about heritability were left out - but the basic idea of gradual change through natural selection can be understood much younger. That was a gift to the 'IDiots' imo.

Secondly, his failure to challenge robustly the imo false claim that was made that Falsifiability is not thought nowadays central to science. Falsifiability most definitely is important to a scientific hypothesis. As RD reports in TGD, to the question "What would falsify evolution?" there is an answer: "Fossilised rabbits in the PreCambrian" (or genuine human footprints).

Until the IDiots provide a criterion for falsifiability, they are dead in the water with their claim to scientific authenticity. Another important point lost.

Of course, an obvious criterion is examples of apparently *poor design*, and it is easy enough to show that. How many ppl have to have molars or other teeth extracted because they have grown awkwardly?

I had the good fortune to see Seve Jones lecture on 'Why evolution is clever and intelligent design is stupid' and he pointed out that rather than like well-designed buildings, organisms are more like a shanty dwelling, where bits and pieces lying around that happen to be handy are cobbled together to make the whole.

67. Creationism special

Comment #17749 by Old Coppernose on January 15, 2007 at 10:53 pm

"Edited for tone and taste"????

Is this a Moderator comment?

There are some who believe that posts ought not be edited in such a way withou consulting the author, though as it happens I believe it is possible to edit in this fashion while preserving the integrity of inoffensive aspects of a person's post. What is more mystifying is, if the moderators avail themselves of this method, I appear to have had a whole post deleted on a previous thread. The only reason I can think off is that, as an example of a bigoted hotel sign that would be illegal under new UK legislation, I gave one saying "F... off fags".

I censor myself here only in case I fall foul of a bot or the moderator still fails to get the point - that stating an offensive comment as an illustration is not the same as making one oneself, a very elementary distinction that I would hope a moderator of an RD board would be capable of making. Apparently RD is not averse to cuss words himself (though it would still not refute my argument if he were).

The other possibility is my use of the word 'fag'. Note again, by my previous argument, as I am referring to the kind of statements made by others, an intelligent person should understand that I am not being offensive myself.

In the article "Gentle Rottweiler" RD himself is quoted using the word "fag" in precisely the same kind of context as I did - but not only that, in a way where, for someone not too bright, it might be much more easily misunderstood as a term he favors himself - in that the text does not make it clear that he is simply repeating the language of the bigots he decries.

I suggest that before deleting or editing a post a moderator might look on it as if it might have been posted by his mentor RD himself to ensure he has understood it correctly.

68. For Human Eyes Only

Comment #17386 by Old Coppernose on January 13, 2007 at 7:40 am

Yep,

one of the gr8 things abt reading sites like this one is that one finds out things one already wonders abt. I've often wondered why human eyes are so white - now I know!

69. Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Comment #17154 by Old Coppernose on January 11, 2007 at 9:51 am

A comment I wrote on this thread seems to have been deleted. I presume this is because it wasnt thought "clean" by the guidelines. Two possible reasons - I used the "f word" but only as a possible example of an offensive sign that might be in a hotel window outlawed by the new laws, and that I ironically suggested that someone could demonstrate their homosexduality to a court by providing a video of themselves having gay sex.

Are the guidelines so tight that any reference to the f word is forbidden even when not used in anger by the writer? Or that simply joking about videoing sex gets it pulled?

If so I am saddened that freethinkers' expression is so heavily restricted, and also I think the guidelines should be more explicit about what is not acceptable, rather than just saying posts should be "clean". Also if a post made in likely good faith is pulled I believe a moderator should be courteous enough to provide an explanation to the writer - not least so they know which aspect of it should be avoided in future.

70. The Nodder

Comment #17035 by Old Coppernose on January 10, 2007 at 8:58 am

Apparently in at least one school of Islam the pious thing to do when praying is to bang one's head on the floor repeatedly creating a bruise which is a public symbol of one's devotion and hence, righteouness. I am told General Zia of Pakistan did this. Of course some others deliberately lacerate the head and march along striking it to cause pain. They will even do it to small children. Yuk!