101. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63873 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Darwin2 -

I see you replied to my earlier post (criticising your reasoning that the complexities of observed life prove the existence of a god/creator - your comment #2 above) by declaring that you "believe" in evolution.

You may indeed "believe" it, but you don't seem to understand it. If you understood it and had basic powers of reason, you would not claim that complexity proves the existence of your "God, The Supreme Designer and Creator of All that exists."

EDIT: and you would not write as you did above: "I do claim that order and purpose can't come without a designer."

Evolution explains it far better. Far better.

EDIT: As I stated earlier, read the selfish gene - and this time try to understand it.

And anyway, what explains your supreme being anyway? Hint: If you say he is a super evolved alien, you may still be dealing with realistic possibilities. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html) If you say he just is and you know it, well... never mind...

102. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #63867 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Duff: The sadder diffeence is that by the time they get the news about santa, its apparently too late - especially as you point out, that is when religion begins to become even more coercive.

A simpler lesson: "real is real, magic is deception. With sufficient examination, "magic" can be shown to be deception or a delusion" would go a long way.

103. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #63866 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 1:10 pm

dunk-uk - did you turn off italics???
I just did for you...

104. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #63830 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 10:42 am

heathen2 - thanks for the compliment and for seconding my motion.

I remember a disagreement with a client of mine, way back when my kids were very young, at a bar after work where I said that I didn't tell my kids that santa, the easter bunny, tooth fairy, etc were real because I taught them that they must be truthful. Obviously to me, it would be lying on my part to tell them otherwise about santa. He was appalled - arguing that it was not lying, but fostering their imaginations. I cautiously and quietly thought he was wrong then, and 15 years later, I am convinced.

Makes me want to write a book in my spare time.

105. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63824 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 10:23 am

"Spirituality" is what cretins have in place of imagination. If you've ever described yourself as "quite spiritual", do civilisation a favour and punch yourself in the throat until you're incapable of speaking aloud ever again. "
ok - I just laughed out loud and woke up the kids. This article rocks. Grade it excellent!

106. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #63823 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 10:16 am

To take it a step further - Perhaps the fostering of "make-believe" nonsense as real to gullible children learning how the world works explains why they are so susceptible to it as adults. It is not just the direct indoctrination about the local god that leads to believing in the local god - It is a lesson to believe unbelievable things in general and why RD has to make a documentary to address the problem... …

107. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #63821 by sane1 on August 16, 2007 at 10:08 am

Here's the thing:

In so many area's we expect and demand extraordinary accuracy and verifiable truth before we grant someone our credence and accept their ideas or follow their advice: medicine, politics, which college to attend, which car to buy, which insurance to buy, which route to take on the highways.

BUT, we accept fantastically incredible claims to truth and accuracy in "mystical" areas (with a profound impact on who we are and how we live our lives, and how we spen our time and money) like astrology, mediums, and religion. To do this, we disregard the abundant evidence of fallibility. WTF??? Someone needs to study this bizarre "credibility" paradox.

I watched a Darren Brown special last night (on [EDIT: Scifi Channel] - in the states). People are so easily fooled into believing absolutely incredible things. My conjecture is that it has something to do with cultivating magical thinking in youth, and the more it is promoted, the more it persists into adulthood .

Tell your kids enough about the existence of Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and God enough, and they'll be gullible as the day is long as adults... teach them to question information and authority, and you get a much less gullible kid and adult. (RD's letter to his daughter comes to mind…)

I never filled my kids with magical notions, their lives were no less enriched and wonderful than the lied to kids. I read to them, fostered their imaginations, etc. around ideas and information I knew to be true. And when we read a fantasy book, I didn't have to explain often, that no, such and such are not "real." Despite their mom's deep religious faith and attempts at indoctrination, they are free thinkers, and don't believe in magic (religious or otherwise) as mature teenagers. Perhaps this is a component to the problem…

108. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63676 by sane1 on August 15, 2007 at 10:13 am

This totalitarian fascist intolerance must, at a minimum exposed. Better still it must be criticised - loudly and often.

Hitchens speech (currently number 8 on top ten on home page) on freedom of speech gets to the heart of it.

109. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris: The Unholy Trinity ... Thank God.

Comment #63517 by sane1 on August 14, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Salvatore: Do you think Robert is a "she?"

Anyhow, I'm pretty certain, the percentage of "my closest friends" who are POF is far higher than 10%.

110. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris: The Unholy Trinity ... Thank God.

Comment #63515 by sane1 on August 14, 2007 at 4:14 pm

POF - pissed off faithless, I guess. Its used in the article just before the first use of the TLA...

111. Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris: The Unholy Trinity ... Thank God.

Comment #63506 by sane1 on August 14, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Nice article. I don't know whether the places his articles appear are mainstream, but I can only hope.

Allies in print are worthwhile. More power to him. It can't be too easy in Wisconsin.

And, I may travel to Wisconsin just to hear Hitch talk.

112. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63218 by sane1 on August 13, 2007 at 2:27 pm

DARWIN2: Your reasoning that "because it is complex, it is designed" does not hold water. Once you grasp evolution, you'll find it silly. read the Selfish gene, or any number of other books explaining evolution.

Others: I missed it above, and suspect some others may as well - Richard's interview runs from around 1:34:00 to 1:41:00.

113. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62309 by sane1 on August 9, 2007 at 8:33 am

USA Limey - "you just felt it?!"

Please do not use that argument ever ever ever again!

114. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62281 by sane1 on August 9, 2007 at 7:29 am

Russell Blackford: Do you need to reconsider your statement above? Much of the stuff on that site is farcical, but is it a farce???

115. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62280 by sane1 on August 9, 2007 at 7:27 am

go participate in the comments at that site! Hilarious!

116. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62271 by sane1 on August 9, 2007 at 7:22 am

why do you think it is a joke? It looks perfectly real to me on first glance, and i have no trouble believing it could be real. Am i too gullible? Do I need to look more closely? Have I been fooled by appearances?

117. Eight-million-year-old bug is alive and growing

Comment #62105 by sane1 on August 8, 2007 at 7:11 am

Those of you looking for more science/evolution articles, and less Hitchens debates, I recommend you try sites like the new york times which had a special section on evolution a few weeks ago, and every Tuesday has more articles of general scientific interest.

118. A Designer Universe?

Comment #61937 by sane1 on August 7, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Thanks Josh for this article, and thanks to Dr. Benway for the link to Boyers' Nobel.org biography in hispost:

26. Comment #61702 by Dr Benway on August 6, 2007 at 12:17 pm

119. Alan Colmes Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #60531 by sane1 on August 2, 2007 at 6:46 am

Just found this interview. Beautiful. Beautiful. Beautiful.

"How do you explain the perfection of the human body?!" said the moron.

"You can't disprove god so he exists," said the other.

"I'd rape and kill if there was no god to define right and wrong" said the third.

Holy Smokes! The Fox News Radio has some very entertaining listeners!

120. Alan Colmes Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #60529 by sane1 on August 2, 2007 at 6:33 am

"The creator is boundless; you can't prove he does not exist." --Priceless.

121. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59759 by sane1 on July 30, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Pretty boring and maybe ugly shirt, and the big red A won't even mean anything to anyone (unless they think you are an adulterer).

I bought one anyway.

122. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58850 by sane1 on July 26, 2007 at 11:55 am

The question is not whether God exists. The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence.

123. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58383 by sane1 on July 24, 2007 at 5:07 pm

This interviewer is a putz. Needs to be slapped.
"...atheism, your belief system..." "You are an apologist for religion." just inflamatory, nothing more. Must look up to O'Rielly.

124. The Ethics of Hell

Comment #56859 by sane1 on July 17, 2007 at 2:20 pm

15. Comment #53501 by cmacblue42 on July 1, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Wow, I am gonna check when he posted htis to see if i can slap him with a lawsuit. he literally took the words right outta some of my responses online and debates with other people.

125. Even Stephven: Islam vs. Christianity

Comment #56854 by sane1 on July 17, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Found it!!!!!!!!!! It was reposted july 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOdAmGexeZ4

126. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56841 by sane1 on July 17, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Avi seemed a bit over the top anti-american to me. "stolen election," "broken democracy" Come on. In a very close election, teh rule of law and the courts resolved the dispute amicably and peacfully. Sure, money influences politics to a significant degree. but broken? nope.

127. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #56835 by sane1 on July 17, 2007 at 12:44 pm

I win.

128. Messiah

Comment #56802 by sane1 on July 17, 2007 at 9:51 am

OK - Derren is quite convincing. Why doesn't he explain how he does the illusions, since his point seems to be that people are gullible. Just showing that "experts" are gullible, isn't satisfying enough. He should also show how the charlatans fool folks.

Did he read up on the ufo lady? Did he use the power of suggstion?

WTF?!?!?!

129. Before the New Atheists: Confessions of a Lonely Atheist

Comment #56539 by sane1 on July 16, 2007 at 7:55 am

Natalie's 2004 review of Harris' the End of Faith was a watershed moment in this movement:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DE7D9113EF936A3575AC0A9629C8B63

130. My God Problem

Comment #56538 by sane1 on July 16, 2007 at 7:53 am

Natalie's review of Harris "the End of Faith" in 2004 was an influential watershed for this movement:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DE7D9113EF936A3575AC0A9629C8B63

131. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56113 by sane1 on July 13, 2007 at 8:14 pm

yea, this is similar to other talks by Sam, but this one is the best I have heard yet. There are some new angles and arguments, and some new clever flouruishes. Listen to it, and send it to everyone you know.

132. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56100 by sane1 on July 13, 2007 at 6:41 pm

This is quirte excellent. My favorite exchange:

Q: All right, here it is: the fact that all these totalitarian regimes keep popping up, with or without religion, just shows that people have a tendency toward hero worship, and leaders have a tendency to corrupt that power. Religion might be a tool that leaders can use. But it's awfully tricky to find religious motives behind every anti-religious dictatorship.

A: You're quite right. Atheism is a necessary condition for emancipation of the mind, but it's not a sufficient one. You can free yourself from superstition and still end up a nihilist or a hedonist or a Stalinist. What's innate in our species isn't the fault of religion. But the bad things that are innate in our species are strengthened by religion and sanctified by it. The fact is, we are a mammalian species one half-chromosome away from chimpanzees, and it shows. Curing ourselves of religion is only a small step along the road. Fortunately, our brains seem to be evolving.

133. Praying to a milk jug

Comment #55797 by sane1 on July 12, 2007 at 10:41 am

Wow - tough crowd. The voice is perfectly acceptable to me. The clip is clever, and brings to light the nonsense of praying and expecting anything to come of it. I like it.

134. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55550 by sane1 on July 11, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Rock on, Richard! Your books are excellent, you are 99% right, and you are personally responsible for stoking the fires of my atheism. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

135. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55549 by sane1 on July 11, 2007 at 1:40 pm

This is a very entertaining "debate" and you have to give Wilson credit. He stays in the game and is clever and entertaining. His main thrust, about the "warrant" for morality, really means something to christians. They fear a "valueless void" would exist without religion. Sure that is nonsense to someone who has been brought up without the distorted lens of the fear of hellfire and the power of the devil if you waver from the godly way, but to someone in that fog - the nonsense makes sense.

I just had lunch with someone who told me he wouldn't have extramarital affair (though he is presently tempted) because he is a believer and believes he'd "probably" end up in hell. He conceded as an afterthought that it might be wrong also.

Its how they think, and Wilson does a good job of explaining it in a way that is not nearly as offensive as many of his co-religionists.

p.s. His temptress is someone from his church, who has 1 kid from her first marriage, 1 out of wedlock, and is currently married to her second husband.

136. Christopher Hitchens - God Is Not Great

Comment #55480 by sane1 on July 11, 2007 at 8:36 am

"Comment #55140 by LeeC on July 10, 2007 at 5:16 am"

LeeC: Where does Hitchens get his facts wrong? Please share.

And I found this gem online:

"Wednesday, 6 June 2007
God still pondering response in Hitchens debate


There was frustration in religious circles this week as God failed to respond to provocative claims made by writer Christopher Hitchens. In his book God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything, Hitchens writes that Religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry," but so far God has declined to answer the charges, to the bewilderment of some of His followers. "The same thing happened with Dawkins," said one London churchgoer yesterday. "Why doesn't He strike these people down instead of all this maintaining a dignified silence bullshit?" God was last night unavailable for comment."

137. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53806 by sane1 on July 3, 2007 at 9:53 am

Bizarro...

Read the Science Times from last Tuesday, which contained numerous azrticles on evolution and genetic changes. You'll realize that you are just plain wrong.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/evolution/index.html

138. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51409 by sane1 on June 22, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Brother? Brother?? Brother???

139. Richard Dawkins: Atheist

Comment #51408 by sane1 on June 22, 2007 at 5:13 pm

28. Comment #51345 by BY CHANCE on June 22, 2007 at 12:14 pm

You weren't listening carefully enough before the war, or to the interview: Plenty of people doubted the WMD argument when it ws first made, and plenty of people, apparently RD included, thought the war was a mistake, before it was launched.

140. Richard Dawkins: Atheist

Comment #51407 by sane1 on June 22, 2007 at 5:11 pm

25. Comment #51056 by JesusH on June 21, 2007 at 10:00 am ...

1. Bush is obviously stupid for more reasons than his Iraq War. Or can't you see it?

2. If arrogance bothers you, how exactly can you prefer Hitchens?

141. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #51392 by sane1 on June 22, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Michael Ruse seesm to be quite the putz! Look RD wrote a book making an argument. If he wants to write a different one, let him have at it...

142. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #47469 by sane1 on June 4, 2007 at 3:57 pm

This addresses probably the most important misconceptiona about atheists, and the one that is most responsible for the low regard in which atheists and atheism are held. The more it is read the better!

143. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47121 by sane1 on June 3, 2007 at 4:04 am

50. Comment #46732 by Rtambree on June 1, 2007 at 10:04 am

You raise some very important points.

Hey, the head cocked sideways thing is really odd, almost as odd as McGrath's bizarre mind bending self-contradicting. How the hell does this kind of thinking persuade anybody?!

144. I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

Comment #46367 by sane1 on May 31, 2007 at 3:37 am

The "god of the gaps" silliness taken up a notch. The Onion is typically much funnier than this one, but at least it is on point.

145. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46085 by sane1 on May 30, 2007 at 7:01 am

Prager talked over Hitch to an annoying degree. Hitchens is excellent, and spoke on many subjects that I had not heard him expound upon before.

146. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45679 by sane1 on May 28, 2007 at 11:52 pm

Winston seems a fool in this one. Only really has to say:
"I object to the tone in which he argues."

Then, he makes RD's point about the hyper-sensitivity of religion's defenders with his idiotic example of the "vehement" argument about epigenetic inheritance.

Poof!

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

Comment #44080 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 9:33 am

It is true that horrors are committed in the name of religious as well as nationalistic, tribal, economic and other reasons.

Getting rid of religion will not end all in-group/out-group wars and violence. It does seem, though, that getting rid of some of it would be a good idea. Irrationality sucks in all its forms. The basic problem being, by definition, you can't reason with it or make peace, so violence is the only means of persuasion.

And, I'm not sure that a crusading army shouting "praise Jesus" as it killed its enemies (be they Moors or Incans), is meaningfully different to those being killed than one screaming "Hiel Hitler".

148. Ice Age blast 'ravaged America'

Comment #44076 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 9:18 am

epeeist - I got your point, and perhaps konquererz did too.

This is an interesting theory. If the explosion did occur, I look forward to the sciences explaining it better and weaving it's effects into the tapestry of information obtained by examining the world as it is, and leaving fairy tales and wishful thinking about origins aside. We'll have to keep an open mind.

149. The Debate: Can We Live by Reason Alone?

Comment #44075 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 9:04 am

Jordan Peterson, the psychologist, is a horse's ass. Utterly misunderstood or misrepresented most of what TGD and RD say. And he clearly was afraid of what people would do without religion to keep them in line. Sometimes I worry too.

Loved the 84% - 16% web poll at the end on whether the world would be better off without religion.

150. 'Einstein - His Life and Universe'

Comment #44072 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 8:53 am

Isacson's book is getting great reviews, but he is all too eager to say Einstien believed in "god." And then he may describe the "god" as the mystery of nature.