101. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129579 by 82abhilash on February 19, 2008 at 10:36 am

47. Comment #129544 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 9:33 am

Science is a rational enterprise in terms of its methodology, but rationality alone doesn't explain why people do science.

Daniel Dennett has taken a stab at this issue. Here is my understanding of what he says. We are creatures of the natural world and are subject to selection pressure. For selection pressure to be effective it must act upon something that we can do (without any reason). Rational enterprise was something that some humans where capable of engaging in and in some societies they had a distinctive advantage. Eventually their effectiveness contributed to creating societies where their influences where dominant. There is no need to stipulate a rational beginning for beings that are rational. Just like there is no need to stipulate an intelligent being for beings that are intelligent. But once they arrive on the scene they can assign various levels of rationality to the actions of their fellow creatures.

Richard talks of awe and beauty and describes science in a language which is almost poetic. These are all subjective and appeal to the emotion. Passion and aesthetics cannot be reduced to rationality and logic, neither are the creativity and the compulsive obsessiveness that are necessary for great science.

This is a very popular argument. While I agree that a sense for the aesthetics do appeal to emotion, they are not necessarily subjective. There are several aspects of aesthetics that have universal appeal that transcend cultural and sometimes even religious boundaries. Dr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran as proposed certain interesting explanations as to why this maybe the case. He has even come up with a list of aesthetic universals. Who is he? He is currently the Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition, Professor in the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego.

You may want to check out his lecture on Neurology and the Passion for Art

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7067409350096475500

I think civilization would be impossible if we are "cured" of our "irrationality" and all become like DATA in Star-Trek. He is just a glorified information processor.

There is a possibility that we might become like DATA, but why would that make civilization impossible? If we understand our primitive urges we can manage them better. I would say it would make civilization more possible not less. And one could argue that it can make life more meaningful not less.

Here are Dr. Ramachandran's own words:

..if you reduce everything to neurons, like falling in love, or ambition, or pride, or joy, or the self - my God does that mean there's no love? And that's a fallacy because you know explaining something doesn't mean you explain it away. So for example; supposing two people are making love and a crazy scientist comes along and says "look, this is just neurons in the septum and neurons in the hypothalamic nuclei, these are all the neurons that are firing away, that's all there is to it". And then the lover turns to his girlfriend and says "you mean that's it, it's just chemicals, it's neurons firing away, you're not really in love?" She could then argue "no, on the contrary this proves it's all real, that I'm not faking it". "Look, look at the pattern of activity, it shows it's real."

102. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129560 by 82abhilash on February 19, 2008 at 10:01 am

If done correctly this could be an important first step in understanding the natural phenomenon of religion. Whether God exists or not can be treated as separate issue pending further evidence (not sure they will). But given that the Templeton Foundation is sponsoring that study, my expectations are not very high.

103. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129555 by 82abhilash on February 19, 2008 at 9:53 am

92. Comment #129274 by Mitchell Gilks on February 19, 2008 at 12:18 am

If you honestly want to work on not being condescending and patronizing then work on not prescribing what people should do, and instead make a case, and don't assume they can't think for themselves, or need to be reminded not to be close minded and unyielding.

The best thing to do is to not address the person at all, but instead only worry about the case you are making, and responding to the things they say. Merely a suggestion.

That is an excellent suggestion and most likely to work in this crowd I am sure. I will remember that. But I would like to state for the record that, my experience has taught me not all people have the good sense to objectively judge the merit of a case.

104. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129242 by 82abhilash on February 18, 2008 at 10:31 pm

As a man of faith, Bishop Hanson still has a key question for those who don't believe in God.

"Where do you place your trust in times of need? Where do you place your hope in the time of a crisis of confidence?" Hanson said.

Very good question. I place my hope in the common sense of man, believe it or not. Like Abba Eban said, "When everything fails man turns to reason.'

And my source of morality. My competence, my morality is directly proportional to my sense of competence. And my commitment to remain competent.

105. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129236 by 82abhilash on February 18, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Mitchell Gilks, if my tone appears patronizing, I can work on it. If my comment seems like an instruction set on what to do, go ahead and ignore the instructions, just focus on the underlying reasons for the instructions. If you feel they are of merit follow them, otherwise don't. Like you said your self, You can figure it out yourself. But do not let it prevent you from being objective about the message I am trying to convey.

People nowadays spend more time on the internet than the TV. That is something Susan Jacoby did not consider, but the spirit of her argument still remains intact, we need to take more initiative about things that matter for us. In fact it is the nature of the internet helps us exchange more ideas openly than had ever been possible, including of course seeing the interview with Susan Jacoby.

Otherwise what we see and think about will be decided by a media tycoon sitting in a corporate office watching the bottom line. But they are planning to choke the internet as well just in case you did not already know. Check the link below for more info:

http://savetheinternet.com/=faq

106. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129175 by 82abhilash on February 18, 2008 at 8:19 pm

83. Comment #129172 by Mitchell Gilks on February 18, 2008 at 7:44 pm
82abhilash, I am well aware of emotive language.

If you are aware of the emotive power of language surely you must appreciate the need to use it skillfully when important issues are at stake. Otherwise people's emotions will get misplaced and they won't be able to effectively contribute to the functioning of their society. That is what I gathered was the point that Susan Jacoby was trying to make.

Now you use some on me. It is my "job" to know? How so? My job is to animate 3D characters. Which doesn't involve knowing any of that. You may think that it is important, or prudent that I know, but it is hardly my job.

That is precisely what I think it is about - Prudence. That is your greatest asset. And unlike other assets, it cannot be stolen, taxed or in any way separated from you, except by maybe the dulling of sense that comes with old age.

You can bitch all you want against people who are not doing their job. You can give them a real hard time, which I am sure they deserve, if indeed they are being sloppy.

But still hold on to prudence and your sense of reason. Hold on to them for dear life. For at the end of the day what counts is that your concerns got effectively addressed, not who addressed them. And for that you must take the initiative. Even while using the services of 'experts' - self-proclaimed or otherwise, remember that they are in it because they think it is in their interest to do so, just like you are in it because you think it is in your interest to do so. There is the quid pro quo. The more you understand why they say what they say and why they do what they do, the better you will be to leverage their interests for your benefit. Again the initiative rests on you.

107. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129169 by 82abhilash on February 18, 2008 at 7:13 pm

3. Comment #128980 by Mitchell Gilks on February 18, 2008 at 12:03 pm

I found many of her objections, particularly about language use to be pedantic, and unimportant.

It is harder to appreciate the importance that the subtleties of language play on the mind of the general public, unless you are a linguist. Think of the confusion that can be caused in the mind of a casual viewer of the daily news if the words 'Jewish neighborhood' is used instead of 'Jewish settlement' by the news anchor in a news story about a conflict in , say the West Bank. One implies that the civilians are living in occupied territory, the other makes no such claim and yet is not really dishonest. Yet without that information different emotions are invoked and that can distort your world view.

Now consider an instructor in a medical school explaining the functioning of the excretory system using the word sh**t instead of excrement. Once again the meaning is not very different but invokes different emotions and consequently impacts your opinion of the instructor.

Which brings us to Susan Jacoby's example. Using 'folks' instead of 'citizens'. One words invokes a sense of informality that lacks urgency almost unimportance. The other invokes a sense of pride and responsibility. It impacts the world view and consequently have a bearing on the outcomes you hope to attain from the general public.

I found her criticisms of the ignorance of the general public, and people of america to be superficial, and largely ignorant in themselves.

Not really. You just proved to me that you where ignorant of the power words. This is not a criticism. Most people are ignorant about something or the other. It only becomes irresponsible when people choose to willfully remain ignorant about matter of importance.

Also just cookie cutter criticisms are are constantly forwarded at the average person by acedemics. Without ever realising that it takes a lot of time to learn what you know, it is their job to know what they know. The average person that works, and has a family has very little free time, and simply doesn't have the time to educate themselves on every issue. I find nothing wrong with the general public trusting the opinions and decisions of people whose jobs it is to know. I don't know the details of many sciences, and many many fields that I trust the word of the expects, because they have either proven to be reliable, or the majority of relevent experts in the field agree with them. I find it unfair to criticism the general public for not knowing as much about important issues as those whose jobs it is to know.

It maybe their job to know what they know, but it is our job to find out about what they know, especially with those issues that can directly impact your life. The criticisms maybe cookie cutter but they are still valid. And I can tell you why it is so.

Let us take your very valid claim:

The average person that works, and has a family has very little free time, and simply doesn't have the time to educate themselves on every issue.

This simple statement covers two very important aspects of your life that you feel responsible for - your work and your family. Now the word of the experts, the people who are supposed to know are used by you to facilitate your well being in both these spheres. But whose job is to verify what the expert's are telling you - the not-for-profit watch dogs? the government? Maybe. But all that are merely checks and balances used to help keep the experts under each other's scrutiny. The final arbitrator of their claim is you, the positive or negative impact that comes from following the expert opinion falls on you. So for you own sake, you owe it to yourself to be responsible. You should be able to trust yourself. You are the best defense you have against misinformation.

Now about not having time because of work and family..if getting proper information will help you be effective in both these areas then the time to educate yourself is part of your work and family time, not separate from it. So maybe this means you are now spending more time than before for your work and family and have less leisure time. Is that worth it? You decide.

108. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128158 by 82abhilash on February 16, 2008 at 11:27 am

That was beautifully written. I do not fully agree with everything, but I agree with most of it, and it the important thing is, it was beautifully written, perfect prelude to the joyous occasion that is on its way.

Plus I am highly optimistic for them. RichardDawkins.net has a way of making its regulars more level headed and wholesome the longer they frequent it.

An atheist wedding!! This is going to be great. Maybe Richard Dawkins should marry them. Maybe they can post pictures on flickr. I could go on and on. I am too excited.

109. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128015 by 82abhilash on February 15, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Americans are more smarter than the mainstream media gives them credit for. This movie will do well in its niche markets - the fundies, the crazies and their kids who they force to go with them. But I doubt it will make any real impact in the main stream. Few people will care enough to watch and those that do will not care enough to do anything about it.

On the other hand if there are too many bad reviews it might actually make people think there is something worth watching, some may then buy into Ben's crazy conspiracy theories.

"Why so many bad reviews?" "It is as if they did not want us to watch it." Well we now know why." And so on.

110. Virus immunity 'created in lab'

Comment #128004 by 82abhilash on February 15, 2008 at 9:20 pm

Me wonder. If repressors where a bad thing, it would have been selected out by natural selection would it not? Maybe they are a good thing because most viruses are useful? Maybe we tend to notice only the few that make most of us sick.

111. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127495 by 82abhilash on February 15, 2008 at 10:46 am

Thomas Jefferson once said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.�

I am hoping things would be even better. Maybe the tree of liberty can be refreshed with the blood of traitors who are killing each other - fundamentalist Christians against fundamentalist Muslims.

112. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127071 by 82abhilash on February 14, 2008 at 10:23 pm

kintaro_crab

Totally agree. That is the face of moderate religion. In perfect continuum with extremism. They would do anything to keep us addressing the real issue. It is either globalization, war, famine, hunger, disease, poor infrastructure, improper healthcare something or the other. Would they even consider the possibility that where religion is prevalent, it could be actually aggravating real problems? Of course not. Moderate faith is part of the problem. They create the climate that makes fundamentalism possible. Far be it for them to admit they are the problem, why not blame the weather instead? or Richard Dawkins even.

113. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127065 by 82abhilash on February 14, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Loopey.... loopey?! .... LOOPEY?!! I think Richard Dawkins brought out the Loopiness in Madeline Bunting. Trying to dodge a perfectly reasonable question on virgin birth. Purposely clouding the issue by bringing in emotions and feelings, as if feeling good is the most important thing in the world. I mean I agree it is one of the most important things in the world, but not the most important thing in the world.

I got a slogan for RD, when appealing to moderates. Richard Dawkins - "Bringing out the loopiness from within you."

114. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127062 by 82abhilash on February 14, 2008 at 9:37 pm

Sam Harris said these words - "The kind of apologetics you evoke stands on a continuum with religious extremism..this argument that you can't take away people's hope, you can stand at the Neuremberg rally and admonish me, Sam you can't take away people's hope." He was arguing with Mel Konner.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WVQZeWoWVng

So relevant here.

115. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #124056 by 82abhilash on February 8, 2008 at 8:56 am

I am wondering what point RD is trying to make by putting this article on his site.

Not all of us can make an objective judgment for or against this invention. The article has a neutral tone to it. I can comfortably say most people here are skeptical.

Perhaps he wants to encourage critical thinking amongst his core audience.

116. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #124001 by 82abhilash on February 8, 2008 at 6:29 am

I do not know. Is this science or pseudo-science? There are some typical ingredients to make one skeptical, a lone inventor, a perpetual-motion machine.

Anyway I found some videos explaining his concepts. Make up your own minds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogLeKTlLy5E

117. Help Build The Reason Project Archive!

Comment #123857 by 82abhilash on February 7, 2008 at 6:46 pm

sarah95,

I agree with you. Some pointless quarreling is going on here and that disappoints me too. Emotional management is the key word here.

118. Scientists Say Mummies' Lice Show Pre-Columbian Origins

Comment #123580 by 82abhilash on February 7, 2008 at 11:17 am

There is some sense of historic injustice if this is true. The Europeans brought several diseases (including smallpox and measles) to the old world, but the natives returned only typhus?

EDIT: Bad joke?

119. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123574 by 82abhilash on February 7, 2008 at 11:09 am

Dr Rowan Williams is being idiotic. This move will only create two parallel societies which are highly polarized.

And the problem with Sharia law is that once it is introduced, no Muslim can refuse to follow it, even if it is only optional. They risk being labeled apostates and even killed.

Besides this will open the door to all sorts of claims from people of all sorts of religious backgrounds - Hindus, Sikhs, Catholics, etc.,

Given that this man is the Archbishop of Canterbury, we now have one more reason now to dismantle the antiquated theocratic institutions of Great Britain.

120. Help Build The Reason Project Archive!

Comment #123552 by 82abhilash on February 7, 2008 at 10:42 am

Looks like righton is some sort of Sam Harris fanatic.

121. Help Build The Reason Project Archive!

Comment #123543 by 82abhilash on February 7, 2008 at 10:26 am

Seems like there are too many sites doing similar works already. What unique contributions does this site bring to for the cause of reason?

EDIT: Perhaps that is OK. If the cyberspace is proliferated with reason, easily accessible, it will be more difficult for theocrats to enforce ignorance.

122. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123126 by 82abhilash on February 6, 2008 at 1:30 pm

I found the same video with comments enabled

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWn_dNtjVU4

123. Apologetic billboard replaces atheistic sign

Comment #122985 by 82abhilash on February 6, 2008 at 10:21 am

A reputation for deception damages our cause. It portrays us as who we hate. Why not instead target specific issues where the religious leaders are on the wrong side of public opinion? That would weaken their credibility and shake the confidence that people have in them, while at the same time corroding institutions that promotes dogma.

Using deceptive means to put up bill-boards seems like busy work, that in the long run is damaging.

124. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #121905 by 82abhilash on February 4, 2008 at 10:17 am

I found this from Darwin's Descent of man


As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.

I can no longer consider the possibility that Darwin was racist in good faith.

125. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121407 by 82abhilash on February 3, 2008 at 11:12 am

I think they are trying to disrupt or destroy the British Public Institutions. That would be a very Islamic thing to do.

126. U.S.: 'Demonic' militants sent women to bomb markets in Iraq

Comment #120685 by 82abhilash on February 2, 2008 at 10:17 am

16. Comment #120612 by agn on February 2, 2008 at 5:59 am
Who will win the debate?
The one who confines himself to peaceful "re-interpretations" of the Quran, or the Islamist willing to murder that interpreter?

Or more precisely:
Who will be left alive?

Who will win the debate?
There is no need for debate. Someone will just come out and declare that it is so, on national TV. That this is un Islamic. Someone with a beard a black robe and a turban hopefully.

Will he live?
Maybe. If he is living in the green zone. Protected by armed guards. Is probably under US Govt. payroll. Of course the people listening to him will not know that. Maybe they will help him start an 'Islamic' school, which spreads his relatively non-toxic virus, rather than the virulent one we are familiar with.

Who will believe him?
Well educated and sensible Iraqis who are afraid to speak out because they could be labeled apostates, infidels or atheists. And that is good, the influence of educated people in a society is always disproportionately high relative to their numbers.

What do we get?
A non-toxic Islam. Of course it will make no more sense that the toxic Islam, but it is easier to handle. We do not yet have fully reasonable people at such a stage but atleast things will begin to move in the right direction.

But all this is a lot of work. Why not just flatten Mecca and Medina, Jerusalem and all their other holy sites and prepare for the mayhem that will make us forget Iraq? I am just proposing a practical solution.

127. U.S.: 'Demonic' militants sent women to bomb markets in Iraq

Comment #120376 by 82abhilash on February 1, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Think out loud here. I know it can be argued very successfully that the actions of actions of whoever did this are very Islamic in character. Any action can be theologically justified.

My question is can it also not be argued that this action is very unIslamic in the same spirit? The Quran is the Islamic holy book, but the Hadith makes the context in which the Quran is revealed to the Prophet. Most Muslims do not differentiate the two.

And I have been told that the Hadith is unreliable and inconsistent so can it not be used to aid the cause of freedom of freedom and liberty? If anything can be theologically justified, why not use it to end violence in Iraq? Tactfully drive theology into suicide.

128. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120200 by 82abhilash on February 1, 2008 at 10:31 am

It seems like a very catholic thing to say. I mean we might reason that the potential suffering of an embryo with 20 cells and no pain receptors can take a lesser priority than the real suffering of an actual sick human being.

But allow me to put a catholic spin and turn the issue backwards. The soul comes into the world at conception. My destroying the embryo you kill the soul. That is murder. What about the sick person suffering and dying you might ask? Well that person is very special. Their suffering is a reflection of Christ's love for them. And just like Christ suffered and died and absolved the world of sin, so will their suffering in this life absolve them of sin and bring them closer to God. That is a privilege that few can have.


So there, a fancy way of saying, a sick person dying because no one helped him or her is a good thing (indeed divine!!). While destroying an embryo the size of a pin head, with no conception of life or pain is very bad indeed. Bad argument, but I must admit I too will feel much better if embryos could be left out of stem-cell research.



Here is where we can find common ground though, non-embryonic stem cell research can side-step the issue completely. (Interesting to note though is it not that progress in that sphere has come from countries which do not have belief systems that inhibit embryonic stem-cell research?)



In the meanwhile let the Pope speak his heart out. Let him express himself completely and without ambiguity, so that people all over the world knows what the Catholic church is all about.

129. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117840 by 82abhilash on January 29, 2008 at 7:07 pm

I too liked the Hindu guy. He made a reasonable, sensible point without playing in the faith card.

130. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117818 by 82abhilash on January 29, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Lord Carey was sitting there shamelessly and deliberately trying to confuse education with indoctrination. I was hoping he would be a man I can respect, but I guess being mild mannered and being honest is not the same thing. I will remember that.

And Ann Widdecombe was most irritating, reminds me of an old English school mistress who has a particular fondness for the cane.

131. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117805 by 82abhilash on January 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm

I noticed RD claiming that he could find no Arabic publisher to print his book. Irshad Manji had the same problem with her book "The trouble with Islam" and she solved the problem by putting an Arabic, Persian and Urdu translations of her book freely available on her website.

If RD can do that with his book, people who have been living in forced ignorance for so long will get a chance to understand new ideas. PDF files are easy to read and attract less attention, especially in those parts of the world where you can get killed for reading the wrong book.

Notice it won't affect book sales. But what if it gets him killed?

132. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116348 by 82abhilash on January 26, 2008 at 9:33 am

The happiness of those who want to be popular depends on others; the happiness of those who seek pleasure fluctuates with moods outside their control; but the happiness of the wise grows out of their own free acts. —Marcus Aurelius

As you move to the third category, I think loneliness or the lack there of will become irrelevant to happiness.

133. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116178 by 82abhilash on January 25, 2008 at 5:53 pm

If this article is correct, then my life story is exceptional. I started creeping into irreligion when I started spending time with myself. Thinking in solitude about the important things in life.

I mean if you are born into a religion and people around you all act as if its core doctrines are absolutely true, would it even occur for you to question it? On the other hand if you got some time for yourself and could seriously scrutinize these concepts…

I see how a lonely person could invent a God to keep company, but there is another side to this story that has not been addressed in this article.

134. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115830 by 82abhilash on January 24, 2008 at 10:21 pm

They are desperate. This looks more like a video to scare Christian children into evangelizing than anything else.

135. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115239 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 7:21 pm

So, why can't I as a (jesusfuck it hurts to say this) Christian demand the same from "Darwinists?" If you are going to take the theory from the person who developed it, why should I not force you take take all his ideas? Why are you allowed to cherry-pick and I am not?

GSP, it is a generally monotheistic notion to believe that you need a single book that is the mother of all books. The Origin of Species in not a replacement for the Bible, although it does nullify the Biblical account of creation and thus the Christian claim that it is the word of God.

What a forum like this can hopefully do is allow the 'New Atheists' to appreciate the new process where new ideas are formed, old ideas examined in light of new evidence and improved upon or tossed out if necessary. In other words 'the scientific method', which at its core is dependent on intellectual honesty.

The final argument from science stems from examining the natural world. It is possible for one scientist to develop two theories one of which is proved wrong and the other stand the test of time. Since the final argument rests on evidence observed through experimentation and not the authority of the scientist, we can cherry pick and improve upon what he got right. That is the strength of science.

Can't do that in religion because everything in the Bible is the infallible word of God and it is blasphemy to alter it. The final argument rests on his authority, even if it is proved wrong during experimentation. That is the weakness of religion.

136. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115170 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 5:33 pm

MPhil Hitler was Austrian by the way, not German. Just FYI.

137. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115165 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Now in case some of you may be wondering whether it was a coincidence that Western societies where and have remained technologically and scientifically the most progressive society in the world. And in case some of you maybe thinking whether there is something special in the genes that can explain that. Well there is not. Dr. James D. Watson, who should have known better, made a remark to that extent and was rightly reprimanded.

But by far the most rational explanation so far has been proposed by Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs and Steel along with a PBS documentary by the same name. I found it very enlightening:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4008293090480628280

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6846344734969027300

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3449100874735282191

138. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115150 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Darwin was not advocating genocide. Merely predicting ways in which "more fit" varieties within a species would displace other varieties.

But yes Darwinism has within it the potential to create toxic racist cults based on pseudoscience, when devoid of objectivity and intellectual honesty.

However keep in mind that teaching nuclear physics has within it the potential to create mad scientists who will develop a bomb to destroy the world as we know it. Yet no one is using that excuse to prevent the teaching of good physics.

I would like to hear Richard Dawkins comment on this article.

139. Banned From Church

Comment #115124 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Deepthought if you are talking about Francis Collins, I think I can explain. Collins was a default atheist. He decided to become a scientist, and serious scientists where atheists, so he decided to be one.

He did not struggle with deep questions that most normal people struggle with before they realize that religion does not give good answers. And such people are more gullible for religious thinking. They have not been vaccinated against this virus.

Once you take the plunge, it is difficult to change without loosing credibility. What most people do then, is to quietly refuse to put themselves in any situation that would require them to reconcile their religious views with reality.

25. Comment #115101 by Deepthought on January 23, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Out of curiosity how would you approach an atheist who has converted to christianity?

Now for the last question, you cannot generalize on your approach for the same reason that you cannot generalize on atheist morals.

Atheism is a term without content. No atheist needs to be intellectually honest, moral or sincere. Like Christopher Hitchens says Irreligion is a necesarry not a sufficient condition for a just society. So unless you have some insight into their nature, their thoughts, their tastes, etc., you cannot approach them effectively.

140. Lewis Black - The Devil's Handiwork

Comment #115116 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Lewis Black got confused, the fossils do not disprove that the earth was created in seven days. It disproves that the earth is 6000 years old and that man lived with dinosaurs.

141. Death Sentence for Afghan Student

Comment #115111 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 3:20 pm

What exactly was the insulting article? I would like to read it.

142. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115109 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 3:15 pm

This is a lot of Bullshit. I was raised in the UAE for the first ten years of my life and I have seen cartoons there on Government owned TV, dubbed in Arabic that featured pigs case main characters!! In the UAE!!

Perhaps the problem is that there is too much freedom in the West and the muslims are not used to it and do not want to be used to it. I mean what can they do in the UAE, petition for religious freedom in the courts? Take to the streets? They can do nothing there. It is not a democracy. Perhaps that is where they need to be. They will be happy submissive to a theocracy. Where someone else makes all the decisions for them. No need to think for yourself about the most important questions in your life.

143. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #115096 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Experiencing something and coming up with a good explanation for the experience are not the same thing.

144. How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #115093 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Earth is not perfectly suited for life. Indeed 99% of all species that have ever been on this planet are extinct. Life forms have been continually adapting themselves to become more fit to earth's changing conditions. And from that view point, religion is a step in the reverse direction.

145. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #115091 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Free will to me means an opportunity to continually improve my understanding of the real world; and act optimally based on that understanding. In short the essence of free will is not about the variety in my behavioral choices, but the level of intelligence that goes into my opinions, decisions and actions.

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

Comment #115086 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Co-relation does not equal causality my friend. Today it is known that several members of the Catholic clergy where pedophiles yet no one claims that they where pedophiles because they where Catholics. Speaking of Catholics, by the way, Hitler was Roman Catholic not an atheist.

147. Atheists only promote divisiveness, as any other separatist movement.

Comment #115083 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Being divisive is not the same a being dogmatic. Other movements are dogmatic and consequently divisive. Our movement is divisive precisely because we question are not ashamed to question dogmas, even amongst each other. If the price of consensus is intellectual dishonesty, then it is of no value to us.

148. What does atheism say about the purpose (or the meaning) of life?

Comment #114988 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 11:35 am

Like Sam Harris keeps emphasizing atheism is a term without content. It is not a world view, so there cannot be a single atheist view on the meaning of life. Most atheists live under the assumption that life is worth living. But I personally feel that what adds value to a life is the level of intellectual honesty one practices in every day living and the consequences it has on the questions we ask and the answers we receive. It is this process driven by intellectual honest that makes life meaningful and purposeful.

149. Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

Comment #114985 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 11:25 am

I can speak more about Hinduism and a bit about Buddhism. Since I was raised a Hindu. Generally speaking Hinduism is less structured than Buddhism. There is no single dogma, no single creed. Hindu sects exist in an ocean of other mostly Hindu sects and everyone has a general understanding that they can believe whatever they want as long as their beliefs are compatible with us believing whatever we want. Even Muslims and Christians in India tend to have a tacit appreciation of this consensus. This of course creates an environment where criticizing dogma is the only taboo, which is very true of India today.

Buddhism though originating in India has had long ceased being part of Indian culture until recently where it has made a come back with low-caste and untouchable Hindus who find it an easy way to obtain upward mobility without abandoning their traditions, something which is very difficult if one embraces Islam or Christianity.

It is absolutely correct that, "Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews." Indeed most Hindus and Buddhists are sophisticated thinkers, especially those Hindus and Buddhists who are in the habit of thinking a lot. And unlike Muslims or Christians, they try to accommodate new ideas and concepts into their world view. This makes them highly receptive not only to Christian and Islamic world views but to Communist and even Scientific worldviews.

However they suffer from the same weakness of other religions in that they do not have a rigorous and objective means to validate their world views through scientific experimentation. This lack of objectivity means that any attempts for validation tends to gravitate into some form of pseudoscience. Sophisticated worldviews and objective worldviews are not the same thing.

But like I said before Hindus and Buddhists are receptive to ideas outside their worldview. Hence in today's world there are extremely good at adapting and incorporating ideas from the scientific world into their living system. If you look at the world map for the most technologically adaptive countries, most of them are in Asia. But if you look at the most technologically innovative countries most of them are in the West (except Japan). And I claim this is no accident. The answer lies in the weakness of Eastern philosophies – while they are adaptive to change, they lack within them the potential to seize the initiative and be active in changing the world. Like the Abrahamic dogmas, they like to maintain existing power structures and the status quo that comes with it, so more time is wasted playing verbal gymnastics.

150. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #113768 by 82abhilash on January 20, 2008 at 1:30 pm

You know what I think. I think the founding fathers valued independence above all. Some of them did believe in some form of deity but even they felt that the decision to worship must be made by person of his/her own free will, not compromised in any way.

That is why they worked so hard to maintain neutrality in religion. In fact their notion of independence included economic independence as well. Something which is lacking the US today, is it any wonder that the religious right are trying to hijack the economic machinery?