101. Just 'Evolution in Action'

Comment #20233 by John Phillips on February 1, 2007 at 7:53 am

Klingy: I am sorry, but did you really say that there is little justification for all the commonly used vaccines. How about orders of magnitude lower infant mortality rates for one. A classic example of what happens when you stop the vaccination is Nigeria where Imams have told their flock not to take the Polio vaccine because it makes you sterile and this is a deliberate plan by the West. The effect, a steady rise in Polio rates compounded by those attending mass muslim religious festivals such as at Mecca and the like passing it on to others. Similarly, when the MMR scare was at its peak in the UK measles rates started to rise and there was fears that the herd immunity would be lost if it continued to fall. Fortunately, due to a number of responsible journalists and action by the BMA over the the conflict of interest by the doctor responsible for the unfounded scare as well as a mass of evidence that finally laid to rest any link between MMR and autism has lead to an increased take up.

102. 'Friends of God' Documentary

Comment #20231 by John Phillips on February 1, 2007 at 7:33 am

scot: When you consider that only some 40% of Americas 'believe' in Evolution and the US is the lowest of all Western countries with only Turkey lower I think it is time to worry.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,555,Unscientific-American-US-Almost-Last-in-Understanding-Evolution,RJ-Eskow-The-Huffington-Post

A 2005 Harris poll found that 54% of the US believed in some form of creationims, up 8% from 1994 and in 2004 nearly 50% believed in an earth that was under 10000 years old, a figure that has increased even more in the last couple of years. Definitely time to worry.

103. 'Friends of God' Documentary

Comment #20229 by John Phillips on February 1, 2007 at 7:08 am

From a scientific point of view I would consider this creationist indoctrination a form of religious pornography except that it would be insulting to pornographers.

104. No exemption from gay rights law

Comment #20203 by John Phillips on February 1, 2007 at 2:51 am

@The Great Teapot:

While I have had quite a few gay friends who have admitted being confused about their sexuality, that confusion is generally more a matter of maturity, or lack of, as well as being brought on from the pressure of what society tends to regard as the norm, even today. I even know older people, born in even less enlightened times than today, who have tried to deny their sexuality, even to themselves, for years due to these societal pressures and have tried to live by the societal norms. Some to the extent of even getting married to someone of the opposite gender, as if that would make them straight. Though it has not been unusual for those in such situations to eventually come out at a later date and admit openely that they are gay. Though this has often been due to the slightly more enlightened times, though I often wonder by how much sometimes, we now live in. Though even then, it can make a great deal of difference, both to where you live, as well as to your situation, as to how easy it is for them to come out even today. Attitudes expressed by the churches over such issues as being discussed here don't help matters of course.

Most who have come out have told me that they usually realised that they were gay, or at least that something was different, at quite an early age, some while still young children. Often, when they realised that the attraction they had for someone of the same gender was more than just hero worship and the like. As hero worship is something common to most at a certain age, irrespective of their gender or their actual sexuality. Or they noticed that those of the opposite gender had no appeal to them at all, sometime to the extent that the thought of someone of the opposite gender seemed somehow wrong. Neither were any of these friends gay because of what had happened to them as children, in or outside the family, as all come from 'good' homes with brothers and sisters who are straight and reported genuinely happy childhoods. At least until maybe the confusion about their sexuality started, though how they coped with that generally depended on the type of family and community they had around to support them.

What they experienced in their attraction to someone of the same gender wasn't a choice, as choice implies equal, or near equal, degrees of attraction to both genders. Something my friends who assert that they are gay strongly deny, though a few tried going out with those of the opposite gender to, as they put it, see if they were just going through a phase. Though those that tried this route always said that it just didn't feel right or that it wasn't them and soon gave up the effort as they realised they were truly gay. Whichever way you look at it, it is hard to explain gayness in circumstances such as outlined above except through genetics.

Of course I also know a few who happily straddle the fence, so to speak, but then they are open about their bi-sexuality and deny they are gay as they are not attracted to one gender in preference over another, but to an individual.

Additionally, I am also not denying that there are the occasional situations, through systematic child abuse by someone of the same gender for instance, where the behaviour is learned rather than natural. For I have worked with quite a few in the past when working in drug rehabilitation facilities and the like who have suffered such. However, the difference with the learned behaviour gay is that with therapy they can sometimes realise their true sexuality, whatever it actually is, sometimes straight and sometimes gay. Though this can depend on the level of abuse suffered. But this is a totally different situation to that outlined in the earlier paragraphs.

Thus in most cases, a person's sexuality is as much a part of them as their skin colour is, with choice having no part in the determination On the other hand, a person's religion could be considered much like the gay who is gay through learned behaviour. Though here the abuse is systematic mental abuse and not sexual abuse, though done with the best intentions by the parents and their immediate society. Unless we are talking about catholic priests of course, in which case and not making light of it, you may get two lots of abuse for the price of one, so to speak. Both of which it is possible to treat the individual for through therapy, though rarely easy.

Thus the churches wish to discriminate based on a person's natural make up and not on a life style choice as many believers try to claim. As homosexuality is a natural condition and not something that a gay person has any choice over why should the church or its followers have the right to discriminate against them. Especially when the justification is based on a piece of literature based on the stories and mythologies of bronze ages societies. Remember, there was those who used the very same book to justify slavery not so very long ago and something that is now no longer tolerated, not even by those self same churches. What is the difference, except that the church tries to argue that homosexuality is not natural, but then they used similar natural order arguments to justify slavery. Yet to add to what I have posted above, we even know in nature that homosexuality is not unheard of, complete with examples of long term same sex relationships.

All along, it is society that has generally dragged the churches kicking and screaming into the modern age, often against their wishes, rather than the other way round as they like to claim. This is just one more example of the church having to have its barbaric beliefs and practices dragged into the scrutiny of the light of day. How much longer do individuals and society have to suffer at the hands of the irrational.

105. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19413 by John Phillips on January 27, 2007 at 2:04 am

nine9s, sorry but I have to disagree with you. For out of curiosity I have just watched the full episode with Haggard again as I have the complete videos of the Root of All Evil and not just a clip on youtube. If anyone was being arrogant it was Haggard, for after he claimed that some evolutionists believed that the eye happened by chance, RD retorted that no evolutionist he had ever met believed that the eye happened by chance, more in shock and disbelief at the statement than out of any arrogance. If anyone was arrogant it was Haggard with the 'great like me' statement, that Veronique misinterpreted as Haggard referring to himself, but was in fact an attempt at a put down of RD and accusing RD of arrogance for disputing what he said. This to be followed by Haggard telling them to get off his property and threatening the team with the police to take away their film because RD supposedly called his children animals. When in fact all RD had done was talk about evolution and Haggard being a creationist obviously though this a step too far. I am sorry but there is no talking with such people and the claim of arrogance is the same one they throw at us whenever we have the nerve to call them on the protected status they demand for their beliefs.

106. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19409 by John Phillips on January 27, 2007 at 1:26 am

queen1502: How very true, for often the only difference between a moderate and a fundie is the degree of irrationality. But irrationality it is and if the right issue is presented or the right buttons are pressed it is not hard for the moderate to change into a fundie. Much as Sullivan's arguments become more and more irrational as he fails to answers Sam's arguments.

107. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19403 by John Phillips on January 27, 2007 at 12:25 am

Sancus: Without peer review, i.e. falsifiability, it is not science but at best speculation or even day dreaming. It may appear to be a truth to you but we all should be aware of how duplicitous our own minds can be. Hence the true value, or even the magic :), if you will, of the scientific method is that it prevents us fooling ourselves.

As to a common language, often, part of the scientific method, particularly, or more so, in new fields or areas of research, is to actually define the language so that others can understand and replicate or peer review the work.

I would also refute that secularist are 'frightened of being soft on the idea of foregoing peer review for studying these experiences'. What secularists are frightened of, if you wish to use that word, is personal experience being declared as truth without any evidence to support it. Much as Sullivan is doing here, for whatever it might be, truth it is not, at least not by the standards atheists demand.

As to actually studying these experiences, neuroscience, Sam Harris' present field of study, for one, is already paying dividends in this area. And with it, the gaps, for the so called god of the gaps, continue to vanish at an ever increasing rate.

108. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #19127 by John Phillips on January 25, 2007 at 5:05 am

Steptoe or DR: Interesting your response to Dawkins attack on the bible. Though you continuously mention context. Which context would that be, the one were you ignore the bad parts to in favour of the good and imply that only the good should count. Unfortunately you can't have it both ways, either the bible must be read as a whole, good and bad, or it has no relevance whatsoever. If read as a whole it is so full of glaring contradictions that only the schizophrenic could claim it makes sense. To take women as an example like you do, whatever it says in Genesis, which of the two versions by the way, xtianity has used the bible and genesis in particular as justification to subdue and demonise women, the temptress is one of the more gentle put downs derived from it, for most if not all of its existence.

As for Hitler, while he might not have been a xtian when he took over Germany or when he wrote Mein Kampf he replaced xtianity with a pseudo religious ideology of his own, complete with Wagnerian style rituals and pomp and had both a political and ideological aversion to the Jews. The other so called atheists you mention similarly substituted their own form of ideology for religion. The common element between their secular or pseudo religious ideologies and yours, my ideology right or wrong and you better not argue with me. Though admittedly most xtians sects have moved on from fun times like the inquisition or the near genocide of heretical sects.

109. Send The God Delusion to your MP

Comment #19107 by John Phillips on January 25, 2007 at 2:20 am

I wrote to my MP (Kerry MCCarthy) the other day about this issue and got a reply the same day that he was opposed to this move and was actively campaigning with others that this exemption wouldn't happen. However, it is possible because the bill has passed that this will be done administratively by the department responsible for it. It used to be Alan Johnson's department but because he opposed this the PM handed it over to Ruth Kelly's (a supporter of Opus Dei who is more loyal to them than the government and the country) department for administrating it and she may try to bring this in through the back door. So I ask all UK members of this site to contact their MP directly about this issue and get their support for if there is enough antipathy to this from the members of the commons she would not dare bring it in by the back door. The site given above by another poster will supply you with the contact details of your MP or go to www.theyworkforyou.com and you can find your MP from there on the very first page by entering your post code.

110. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19105 by John Phillips on January 25, 2007 at 1:57 am

I am another who finds the use of the word bright almost nonsensical, condescending and self congratulatory. Of course, from much reading it is apparent that the word atheist has negative connotations in the US. However, I would say that rather than coin a new word it is up to us to reclaim the word, irrespective of how certain theists perceive the word.

Though I admit, living in the UK I have never had anyone make the association with amoral whenever I have replied that I am an atheist as the word seems to imply to the god botherers in the US. Generally, the worst I get in the UK is questions about why I don't believe. In the process of discussing it I have got many who were either not sure to seriously question their beliefs and others who where wary of declaring themselves as such to have the confidence to 'come out of the closet' so to speak.

As the saying goes, to paraphrase, often there is nothing to fear but fear itself. If we are confident in our use of the word and live up to our own standards then perhaps we can change how many believers regard us. Though of course that is hoping too much for the extremists. But at least in time we should hope to marginalise them instead of them trying to marginalise us. Especially as most of the atheists I now personally are far more moral, even by believers standards, than the average xtian I know.

111. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #18817 by John Phillips on January 23, 2007 at 4:20 am

I think this is excellent news as in one fell swoop it has not only formally negated all attempts by the Truth in Science to smuggle this into the science classroom but it has also introduced atheism into the RE curriculum for the very first time as a legitimate subject. Of course there will be dishonest teachers and even possibly some schools who will try to twist it to their religious ends, as other posters have mentioned, but if caught they would be in big trouble and could even affect their state funding. Of course, I doubt if Truth (and there is an ironic use of the word truth if I ever saw one) in Science and their ilk will give up that easy. But it is rather satisfying and ironic that it is their very own actions in trying to promote ID as science with their DVD teaching packs and the questions it raised in parliament that has led to their downfall by relegating ID from the science classroom and into the RE classroom. Additionally, think how the creationists in the UK must now be looking at the IDiots actions as being effectively responsible for atheism being introduced in RE classrooms. I know we shouldn't gloat, but in the short or medium term, could it get any better.

112. Unscientific American: US Almost Last in Understanding Evolution

Comment #18739 by John Phillips on January 22, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Asven: Turkey was probably included partly for being the only truly secularly governed muslim country and for straddling Europe and the East as well as having applied to join the EU. However, and this has been mentioned previously on this site, in Turkey the creationists are in control using much the same material that the US creationists/IDiots use. In fact, much of their material is copied piece meal from their US counterparts. There is a group of Turkish educationists and scientist campaigning against the teaching of creationism/ID but it is an uphill struggle.

113. Zeus devotees worship in Athens

Comment #18703 by John Phillips on January 22, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Go Zeus :) Perhaps a few metaphorical lightning bolts aimed at that riciculous orthodox priest and his hyprocriticial and nonsensical statements would not go amiss. Why is this a less credible belief system than xtianity, after all many xtians claim validity for their belief based on the length that xtianity has survived. Well Zeus and his companion gods have a signficantly longer history than xtianity so using their own logic it is a more valid religion than xtianity :)

114. Mr. Deity

Comment #18440 by John Phillips on January 20, 2007 at 8:35 pm

Sheer genius :)

115. Atheist Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion'

Comment #18438 by John Phillips on January 20, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Martha: But most dreaming can be considered a form of schizophrenia, however logically consistent the dream world may appear, in that it is controlled and created by your subconscious. That is one of the reasons that you usually end up with a form of paralysis when dreaming so as to prevent you injuring yourself because you are not conscious of the real world. The difference between dreaming and schizophrenia, however sever, is that in schizophrenia the subconscious can override or overlay the awake conscious mind to varying degrees making it difficult for the sufferer to distinguish between the real world and the world presented by their subconscious. There is a complete range of schizophrenia. from the full blown kind that makes it difficult to exist in the real world, sometimes even with medication, to very mild forms that could be considered more a kind of day dreaming without being aware of it. Anybody who has been drunk, exhausted, drugged, feverish etc, has probably experienced some level of this mild form of schizophrenia sometimes complete with very real appearing hallucinations. The difference is that most will be aware that something is not quite right, those who are not might well attribute it to some kind of religious experience.

116. BeliefWatch: Ivy League

Comment #18395 by John Phillips on January 20, 2007 at 2:47 pm

If I remember the debate when it first surfaced last year the objection wasn't so much the subject but that this was to be made a compulsory part of the curriculum for all rather than an option. Additionally, it appeared that those who were proposing this change chose the name rather disingenuously to appear innocent. In fact, looking into it further it appeared it might be an attempt to blur the line between education and religious indoctrination.

117. Can Jews and Evangelicals Get Along?

Comment #18394 by John Phillips on January 20, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Robert post #11. While that is admittedly true of the average Iranian it is not true of their rather dangerous idiot president or the religious establishment that manipulated their electoral system to remove any genuine opposition so as to ensure his election as president. This is the same president who only recently hosted a government supported holocaust denial conference in Iran that outraged even many Iranians. Many saw this as another step to demonise Israel and justify any actions taken against it. There were even some interesting characters from the US far right in attendance and giving their support. Is it a genuinely credible threat? In the short term no, in the medium to long term, if he and his ilk stay in power, very definitely. You forget, whatever their thoughts for the Palestinians originally, though not genuinely much even then if history is any indication, the rest of the muslim world, whether Arab or not, simply see the Palestinians as something to whip the Israelis with. If a few million Palestinians die at the same time that Israel is wiped off the face of the earth many extremists consider it a price worth paying, whatever they may say in public.

118. Lil' Markie live, part 2

Comment #17705 by John Phillips on January 15, 2007 at 3:21 pm

My brain couldn't quite decide if I should vomit or laugh. So I switched it off before it could decide. After all, I didn't fancy runing my new laptop.

119. Creationism special

Comment #17702 by John Phillips on January 15, 2007 at 3:03 pm

JohnC: There have been a number of recent statements by the appropriate education ministers from both houses of parliament to the effect that ID was not science and hence could not be taught in the science classroom. If it was discussed anywhere it should only be in religious or philosophy classes as another aspect of religious belief as a form of creationism, for instance. I am paraphrasing as I haven't the related articles to hand but that is a fairly accurate précis as I get e-mailed with every debate or issue to do with ID raised in either house of the UK Parliament. One question was raised by a supporter of ID in the house of lords but he was shot down in flames. The others where the result of questions by opponents of ID ensuring that it couldn't sneak into the science classrom through the back door, so to speak, using garbage such as the 'ID science resource pack and DVD' by highlighting the IDiots attempt to do that very thing.

120. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #17333 by John Phillips on January 13, 2007 at 1:00 am

gimlibengloin wrote: "ID doesn't have an apriori postulation of a designer. ID acknowledges design in nature and draws the logical conclusion.

If acknowledging design isn't an a priori assumption of a designer what is. Sorry it is you who will have to do better to not deserve the sobriquet you dislike. As others have said, all you have to do is show us the evidence. So far, every time you try, it is refuted by peer reviewed research and observation so you look for another gap that we haven't yet explained. Then when we explain that one you look for another gap, ad infinitum. Yet nowhere do you produce any genuine peer reviewed research of your own, simply dismissing or even refusing to read any that refutes your theories. Such as Behe being forced to admit in court that not only had he not read the wealth of peer reviewed research that refuted the arguments he put forward but that he refused to read them on the basis they were meaningless.



gimlibengloin wrote: "IDiots"?? Your going to have to do better than that"

And you really think we have to do better than that on our experience of the IDiots so far, get real for it is you who have to do better than that. Much much better, for again, all we ask, is show us the evidence. If it stands up to genuine peer review, however much we might not like it on a personal level, we are rational people and will accept the evidence and would take it on from there. Unlike IDiots, who not only refute peer reviewed research without foundation but won't even read it in some cases. In other cases they try to refute their very own fields, such as the Leeds thermodynamics professor who claims that the second law is broken, without apparently understanding that the system he refers to is not a closed system as would be required for his claim to have any possible validity. Either that or he is deluded or lying, and we can't deny not to have seen that tactic before from IDiots, such as was proven more than once in open court in the Dover case. Sorry, but on the practise and experience of IDiots to date, the term is more than apposite. I only wish I could claim authorship of it, but I will happily use it, after all, why reinvent the wheel, so to speak.

121. You come up here and say that, Dawkins!

Comment #17325 by John Phillips on January 12, 2007 at 11:10 pm

God has glasses, oh well there goes the IDiots arguments about him designing the eye if even their god needs glasses :) Sorry, cheap shot I know, but I couldn't resist :) Hey, we're allowed to be mean and twist the truth to our ends as well, aren't we. Ooops, sorry, silly me, I forgot, that is a prerogative the religites only allow for themselves.

122. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17322 by John Phillips on January 12, 2007 at 10:58 pm

Let's get real here, with regard to theology that is. It takes the a priori assumption that god exist without any objective evidence for it. It then twists itself into philosophical knots rationalising the irrational. But sophisticated irrationality is still irrationality only it may have a seeming gloss. Need one know any more than that. Or to put it in another more simplistic, or Walt Disneyish way, as one poster put it, I can only argue how many angels fit on a pin if I start from the premise that angels exist. If I don't, after all there is again no objective evidence for angels either, then what point the argument.

123. FiveLive debate on faith and discrimination

Comment #17315 by John Phillips on January 12, 2007 at 10:10 pm

DavidJMH: Actually this law would stop, or at least allow for legal action, in the very example you give as it is discrimination based on sexuality, whether that is a homosexual hotel owner discriminating against a heterosexual on the basis of their sexuality or the other way round. Though, in fact, while everyone quotes the example of the hotel owner, this is simply another red herring put about up by those opposing the bill and trying to get the failed amendment passed. One of the real reasons they wanted the failed amendment was that it would have allowed them to continue claiming state funding for providing social services meant for all in lieu of the state, i.e. irrespective of race, gender or sexuality, while being able to deny those very state funded social services to gays on the basis of their beliefs. If you want state funding to supply social services meant for all then you have to supply it to all, otherwise it is not a social services for all, but a religious service and shouldn't get any of the funding meant to apply to provide social services for all. I.e. use your own money and you can provide your service to whoever you want even though it makes a mockery of xtians so called loving religion.

I will add as an aside that I know that this is not the stance of all xtians, or even many other religious, groups as I know plenty who supply social services happily to all, irrespective of the race, creed, gender or sexuality of the recipient. In fact, the way they explained it to me, and yes even us atheist have religious friends :), when I discussed the protest for support of this bogoted amendment, their response without fail was that this amendment was actually a very unxtian stance. Which I will admit amused me no end.

124. Judge: Men can seek damages from church

Comment #17208 by John Phillips on January 12, 2007 at 12:27 am

It seems that the more we hear about these various religite cults the less their claims about seeking the truth of anything actually stands up to even the most cursory scrutiny.

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

Comment #17207 by John Phillips on January 12, 2007 at 12:16 am

mandrill: The legislation didn't fall flat it passed. What failed was an attempted amendment that would have allowed discrimination of gays on religious grounds. The reason that the failure of this wrecking amendment was important is that many religious groups now get government funding to run certain social services in lieu of the state which are supposed to be available to all people irrespective of their race, creed, gender or sexuality. These religites wanted to still be able to get state funding while also being allowed to refuse those state funded services to gays by using a belief based get out clause.

126. Reason, Unfettered by Faith

Comment #17200 by John Phillips on January 11, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Jeepyjay: If the theologians worked on the premise that what they were 'theologising' about was a hypothetical god there would be no problem. The problem is that theology takes the a priori premise that god exists and then tries to rationalise or reason that premise in light of what science tells us about the real world. Even worse, believers then take this a priori premise of the existence of their god a stage further in using it to build a world view they wish imposed on all.

127. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #17197 by John Phillips on January 11, 2007 at 4:43 pm

@Gimlibengloin: There are many things in nature that have the appearance of being designed, crystals being just one particularly beautiful example that springs to mind. (Sorry JR, only saw your post after posting mine). Yet we now know, thanks to the scientific method, that they are not designed but come about through perfectly understood physical and chemical mechanisms. Thus just because something has the outward appearance of design doesn't mean it has been designed simply that we may not yet know the exact mechanism for any particular example you may choose.

To me, arguments for ID and similar are just lazy and unimaginative and actually demean us as a whole. The difference between evolutionary theory and ID, apart from the fact that ID has no actual science behind it, is that evolutionary theory doesn't start from a preconceived answer but has come about through the observable evidence and predictions that work. ID on the other hand a priori postulates a designer and then tries to either twist any evidence it can to fit and where it can't do that it simply tries to denigrate evolutionary theory in any areas of evolutionary theory that we don't yet have answers for, i.e. the god of the gaps, without putting forth any evidence of their own to support their positions.

All IDiots have to do to disprove the theory of evolution is to put forward one single piece of evidence to support their stance. Unfortunately, every time they have tried it, their often quoted and disproved flagellum example comes to mind, has proven a failure either through out and out bad science, an ignorance of how to do real science or ignoring any science findings that are inconvenient to their stance. Such as Behe in the Dover trial admitting that he hadn't even bothered reading a wealth of peer reviewed research findings because he knew it refuted every statement that he had made to date with regards to ID's irreducible complexity argument. Though he tried to wriggle off the hook by saying that it was irrelevant to his theories. In fact, his performance in court was a large factor in the judge stating that the IDiots stance was dishonest and simply a means to introduce creationsims into the science classrom. Thus, after the evidence from the Dover trial I think that lying propaganda more accurately conveys the IDiots core tactic to promote their creationist religious views as science.

128. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16718 by John Phillips on January 8, 2007 at 9:48 am

I can well see what Sam says about torture when comparing it to collateral damage, what a strange euphemism for killing innocents. However, in the situation where the torture works, i.e. the information is gained and acted on in time, the odds are that the person being tortured is still alive afterwards, however injured, while those innocents dead as a result of collateral damage are not.

Note, like Sam, I am not advocating torture but it does put it into perspective. I also think, like others have posted, that a lot of the abhorrence of torture comes down to both the very personal and deliberate nature of the act. Whereas there is nobody sitting in front of you screaming when dropping a bomb from 15,000 feet or a cruise missile from a 1,000 or more kilometres away.

129. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16379 by John Phillips on January 6, 2007 at 11:11 am

HI Zoro, perhaps I was playing a bit fast and loose but I was basing it on a probabilistic atheist definition rather than asserting a certainty as wouldn't do for a rationalist :), much as Dawkins explains it with his 7 degrees or steps. However, for all practical purposes I am an atheist in the sense that I see P(G) as so close to zero as not to matter in any real sense. However, being a rationalists and not being able to prove a negative I cannot assert with total certainty that there is no god however improbable the evidence makes it. Thus, as I explained in my last post, I am happy to simply call myself an atheist and only bother to expand it when a believer tries to claim that atheists have as much faith in non belief as to be a religion by contrasting my stance on the production of suitable evidence for the existence with the believers stance in the opposite situation. For I have yet to meet a believer who would accept any evidence for the non existence.

Perhaps in some ways it would help if we had a different term that recognised the difference between the certainty understood by believers when they hear the word atheist and the rational position of many if not all atheists, as agnostic is definitely not suitable. Then again, apart from possibly adding further confusion, they would only find some other way to abjure us so why bother.

130. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16366 by John Phillips on January 6, 2007 at 9:23 am

Homo incredulous: Probably not in those words :) but you could say you that in your opinion on the evidence the probability of there being a god approaches zero and that is the basis for your atheism. You could also use the term rational atheist, as any truly rational person will look at the evidence and because it is not possible to prove a negative a rational atheist will always allow that there is a possibility, however small, that one day someone might produce suitable evidence. Hence my reason for saying that while for me P(G) is not equal to 0, on the evidence so far the possibility is so small that P(G) approaches 0.

Unfortunately, there is no one simple word that describes that position in a way that a believer will probably understand so one might as well stick with atheist. Though some I know use the term non-theist in an attempt to avoid the stigma often associated with the word atheist. Though personally I am happy with atheist and will only expand on it and add rational or probabilistic if someone tries to claim that atheism is as much a belief as any religion. Then I will ask them if I could present evidence to disprove the existence of god would they then stop believing, very few true believers will answer yes. While I can say in all honesty that in the face of suitable evidence I would accept the existence of god. Though there might be a few things I would like to say to him over his record so far :)

131. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16349 by John Phillips on January 6, 2007 at 7:40 am

Homo Incredulous: In probabilistic terms where P(G) is the probability of a god then the slightest belief in god would mean a probability of P(G)>0.5 with p(G) approaching closer and closer to 1(one) the more sure you are there is a god, a fundamentalist would have P(G)=1. An agnostic who is not sure either way would have a P(G) = 0.5 and similarly a P(NG) (Probability of No God) = 0.5. An atheist would have P(G) of less than 0.5 to zero dependent on how sure he is to the non existence.

Unlike a fundamentalist believer a rational atheist should not have P(G)=0 as the existence of a god can't be actually disproved but without evidence P(G) will approach 0. Personally for instance, I consider myself a probabilistic atheist though I wouldn't or couldn't actually put an exact value on P(G) except to say that the possibility of god, based on the evidence or rather lack of evidence presented to me so far, is so small that it can be ignored. So that in my case P(G) approaches zero, at least until someone produces acceptable evidence, and it would have to be a doozy.

132. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16337 by John Phillips on January 6, 2007 at 7:03 am

kmccardle: I do whenever possible as I don't believe in giving them a free ride at our expense as I did to this article. Though responding to the same old, same old, does grow a tad tedious after a while. Though it is surprising how few actually print critical replies, or perhaps not. I posted basically what you did at the beginning of your post. I.e. why change the argument if they remain valid and we are not the only ones using old arguments going by the diatribe against the morality of atheists. I will call back later to see if they actually printed it.

133. Atheists challenge the religious right

Comment #16334 by John Phillips on January 6, 2007 at 6:25 am

Wow, a day late but better late than never, that Wafa Sultan is some lady, as another poster put it, you go girl.

134. What are you optimistic about? Why?

Comment #15759 by John Phillips on January 2, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Sancus: I would assume he is using it in the sense that children who haven't been taught yet about a subject make up their own theories of how things work that makes sense to them at the time. Though when they later learn the actual facts about something they generally throw their old ideas away. He considers religion as this type of juvenile idea, i.e. before we knew better and needed answers to life the universe and everything we made up theories about how the world worked and it included gods as we didn't know a better mechanism. Unfortunately, what we already know is still not enough for many adults to throw away these juvenile ideas but he is optimistic that we will find a TOE and that with that, at least the majority, will grow up and dismiss this childish or juvenile theory.

135. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15535 by John Phillips on January 1, 2007 at 6:07 am

Binx Bolling said "The leap of faith does not concern the origins of our altruism. That clearly derives from our selfish genes. The leap of faith I referred to was the jump RD and others make from describing the origins of our altruism to assigning some kind of binding duty to that altruism, using such judgmental language as "right," "wrong," "good," and "evil.""

But RD doesn't, at least not in that sense, all he does is to explain why cooperative altruism evolved, it is our moral judgement based on our ability for abstract thought and a need to explain our world and our actions that attributes good, bad etc. to them. However, from an evolutionary sense one could say that a certain trait or behaviour is good or bad from the standpoint that 'good' behaviour promotes the survival of the species while the 'bad' doesn't, with no need to invoke morality at all.

Though the fact that what may be considered both morally good and evolutionary good is largely the same should not be considered too much of a coincidence for the simple reason that if cooperative altruism is of benefit for the survival of the species then it would be obvious through natural selection for the behaviour to be both self selecting and self reinforcing. If you then link that with humans ability for abstract thought and a need for answers to everything it is not much of a stretch to see us rationalising the evolutionary good behaviour as morally good behaviour and so for bad behaviour.

136. Left Behind: Eternal Forces on The Daily Show

Comment #15529 by John Phillips on January 1, 2007 at 4:22 am

Nicki, and of course they come pre-lobotomised so as to preclude the possibility of being polluted by us atheists and our rational thinking dogma :)

137. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15527 by John Phillips on January 1, 2007 at 4:08 am

"If you believe, he said, that a deity is a naturalistic, non-supernatural phenomenon, then there's nothing to stop you signing up as a Bright."

If this is truly the stance of the brights then I am definitely not, nor could I ever consider myself a bright, as the the very phrase is an oxymoron with regard to rational thought, i.e. not very bright. Perhaps it was coined in an attempt to be less antagonistic to believers with enough wriggle room, with the inclusion of phrases like above, for even loose or weak believers to embrace. Either way, I will stick with atheist and believe all we need do is to fight our corner consistently with rationality and honesty so that those who try to use it pejoratively are shown up for the irrational hypocrites so many are.

138. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15332 by John Phillips on December 30, 2006 at 1:04 pm

Binx Bolling: "In your readings, just watch out for the sleight of hand these guys use when discussing a biological basis for morality. They love to present lots of plausible theories about how altruism emerged from evolution. Then they wave their hands and magically produce statements that depend upon a leap of faith. None of them squarely faces the moral abyss that beckons them."

No sleight of hand or leap of faith is necessary as cooperative altruism, i.e. the selfish gene, has been observed in other primates and even in other species, especially but not exclusively social animals. Thus it appears that the evolutionary impetus to what humans might regard as the source of our morality, i.e. The Selfish Gene again, is not limited to only humans and is a survival strategy that has value to many species. If such behaviour is observed in other species, what price morality from religion, as I doubt if there is a church of the bonobo, the gorilla pope or the monkeyhamed to give them their moral compass.

139. The problem with secularism

Comment #15270 by John Phillips on December 30, 2006 at 5:13 am

Joadist, an excellent point :) and you are probably correct, as off hand I couldn't think of any exceptions. At least none where a religion was supported by a sizable percentage of the population and/or its leaders had direct ties with the rulers. At the very least in such countries, those in government have invariably had to make allowances to the religious believers sensibilities in ways that would not be accorded other groups. However, just because I couldn't think of one nor be bothered researching the issue I could not be dogmatic about it and so left the possibility open with the word often rather than a more dogmatic word such as always for instance. After all, that is both the correct scientific and atheistic stance when all the evidence hasn't been examined irrespective of any hypothesis based on the evidence we have personally experienced or witnessed in the world to date :)

140. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #14992 by John Phillips on December 28, 2006 at 12:51 am

Binx Bolling: However intellectual the article may appear to you, BS is still BS, irrespective of how the author's intellectual abilities allows him to dress it up.

As to the use of the phrase intellectual hubris, it is not RD that is pretending to speak with the voice of a god for which there is no evidence. Apart for from authority that is, the very crime you accuse us of.

By the way, unlike religions, RD doesn't ask you to believe in him or his book he simply asks you to think and judge on the evidence or lack of for yourself and presents the arguments in TGD as a possible start point to the process of thinking not the end point of the process.

141. The Only One in Step

Comment #14852 by John Phillips on December 26, 2006 at 1:55 am

Bermane: If these two IDiots posing as scientist stuck to their comfort zone and stayed there in all their comfort, fine. Unfortunately, they are using their positions of academic authority to corrupt the very science they are supposed to know and passing on that corruption to others less knowledgeable. Using that perceived academic authority to espouse a view that is contrary to the facts and the evidence without presenting any evidence of their own. In fact, one of them, McIntosh, either doesn't actually know the subject he is paid to teach or is lying about it to support his belief in ID. For the argument, note not evidence, that he presents to support his view is a false one, for he claims that what is an open system is a closed one and if he admitted that it was an open system with one stroke he would refute his own argument and thus he is either a fool or a liar. When you then consider he is a professor responsible for that very subject at a reputable UK university you can see it is not so simple a matter as letting him rot in his complacency as he is in a position to do great damage to the education of his students. Additionally, he is also part of an organisation trying to get ID taught as science in our schools and part of his role is to try and use his academic authority to infleunce government ministers to allow ID into the science class as well as fool the less knowledgeable with his apparent scientific authority. Thus there are times with regards to such characters when doing nothing is not an option, either intellectually or more importantly, for the good of the future science education of our children.

142. A Mission to Convert

Comment #14835 by John Phillips on December 25, 2006 at 6:37 pm

JohnC: Excellently written and any literate and honest theist reading it should listen, though hell will likely freeze over first :). However, I would take exception with your last pargaraph, inasumuch as it is not the atheist who argues that the killing fields of the 29th. century were or were not he result of relgion or lack of. That is a canard reserved for the supporters of religions who rotuinely throw it in our face, purpotedly as a warning of the dangers of an atheistic society. However, when the theist insists on raising this canard, we do then make the point that the reason for these killing fields did have one commonality with religion. That being a dogmatic belief by the ruler or rulers that theirs way was the only way to salvation and thus it was only right that all opposition be eliminated. I.e. As you point out so well, whether the instigators of the killing fields were or were not atheists had no bearing on the reasons for the killing fields though their dodmatic belief in the rightness of their cause did, sounds like religion by any other name to me.

Merry yuletide.

143. Oh, we Brits of little faith

Comment #14711 by John Phillips on December 24, 2006 at 4:55 pm

And yet all the ills of reverting to the charlatan, whether a religious one or a pure quack, that he claims of the British is even more prevalent in the US with its supposed more active religiosity. The adage about people in glass houses throwing stones comes to mind, not that I absolve those in the UK stupid or ignorant enough to fall for such chicanery. Read James Randi's weekly Swift e-column to see which is the worst in this respect. The real sadness is that such ignorance continues unabated worldwide even in the 21st. century.

144. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #14707 by John Phillips on December 24, 2006 at 4:41 pm

Another christian who claims to know the mind of god, and they call us atheists arrogant, yawn. However, even assuming that any atheist, RD included, know nothing about theology, why is it necessary to know anything about it to dismiss the existence of a god based purely on the evidence, or rather lack of, presented so far. After all theology presents no evidence for god simply studying the nature of god and the relationship of the human and the divine with the a priori assumption that a god exists.

Not so much a thunderbolt so much as another fizzing squib with the same unproven and misguided assertions with the odd ad hominem thrown in for good measure, i.e. the old same old, same old.

145. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14652 by John Phillips on December 23, 2006 at 11:47 pm

jbannon: "He also posed us atheists the same dilemma: is the act moral because we approve of it or do we approve of it because it is good?"

What dilemma, I try to live by a 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' credo because it is logical to do so, simple as that. If you like, the selfish gene in action, as cooperative altruism has proven more conducive to survival than conflict. Define it how you will as I don't really care about the definition only the result of the behaviour. Though if you define the behaviour following on from my personal credo as moral fine, I simply call it logical captain, live long and prosper.

146. What I found out about God

Comment #14636 by John Phillips on December 23, 2006 at 9:33 pm

"teleological causation"

It depends on context as there are many subjects or fields relevant to this site where I could apply the word. For instance, in a theological sense a teleological argument could be used as a basis for the IDiot brigade's belief in an intelligent designer. Or as some have argued from an evolutionary sense where the form follow function, a simple example might be I have eyes because I need to see. As an atheist and largely a Darwinian you will not be surprised that I reject both.

147. The problem with secularism

Comment #14629 by John Phillips on December 23, 2006 at 7:22 pm

Joad: The problem so often is that they are never content with simply managing their own believers but will insist on trying to control the lives of the rest of us as well.

148. The Only One in Step

Comment #14626 by John Phillips on December 23, 2006 at 7:01 pm

Martha: While what you say has a certain truth, the problem with IDiots like these is that their academic standing is used by them and their supporters to give the appearance of authority to their pronouncements, as was implied by some on the NI show. This particular IDiot is part, if not the actual leader, of the UK wing of the US Discovery organisation that recently sent a DVD promoting ID as science to all English and Welsh schools as a teaching resource for science teachers. Fortunately, to date only some 50 schools have admitted using it in that capacity. Though it appears that even some of them are now backtracking after the resulting publicity and the questions raised in parliament about its use in the school science curriculum. Especially as it has been confirmed a number of times by the appropriate government ministers that it has no place in the science curriculum. In fact I have a letter on my desk from the very minister responsible that this must not be used in science classes and that the department responsible for the curriculum is to tighten the criteria with regards to what and may not be used in the science curriculum. However, unless we, and that includes Richard, continue to highlight both the tactics and non science, that what on the surface may appear to be reputable academics, espouse they will simply try again under a different guise. As I believe is happening now in the US where some in the ID movement are again changing the terms used but not the core message of teaching creationism as science.

149. It is possible to respect the believers but not the belief

Comment #14609 by John Phillips on December 23, 2006 at 4:23 pm

It is self evident to me that we have the western civilisation we do in spite of xtianity and not because of it. As religion, particularly the catholic church in Europe, strove to block and censor every scientific discovery that threatened their control of their flock by refuting their world view. Ever since they have been trying to rationalise their world view with the one presented through the discoveries of the scientific principle to at least appear to the less scientifically literate layman as rational.

Additionally, his argument would be fine if the religious afforded those of different or no belief the respect they demand for their beliefs. Unfortunately, they generally not only insist that their belief be pre-eminent but that their belief be the arbiter of all things moral.

150. The problem with secularism

Comment #14599 by John Phillips on December 23, 2006 at 3:48 pm

"such that the beings that come about are a product of their own integral insistence."

So if I insist I am superman I will become superman, damn, though not. Or did my insistence on existence, before even conception mind, impel my parents to get it together at just the right time for the particular pattern of genes that produced me to come into existence.

Is it me or does the whole article make less and less logical sense the more I read it. Oh my brain hurts, even ignoring the complete lack of logic compounded by outright falsehoods throughout this article, trying to understand this drivel makes quantum mechanics and even the maths behind the multiverses theory a walk in the park.

I don't think that the two people credited with writing this actually exist and that this is in reality the output from the old experiment of giving thousands of monkeys typewriters and publishing any output that uses words found in dictionaries with no spelling or obvious grammatical errors. For I find it hard to believe that two human writers would want to take credit for it.