Comments by mdowe

Comment #15839 by mdowe on January 3, 2007 at 9:47 am

The innuendo in this article strikes me as a touch 'over-the-top'. It has the ring of a paranoid conspiracy theory. There may be reason for concern amongst Americans, but not alarm. The 'plot' here hinges on the military, and even if the American military is led by highly religious men, they are still highly professional soldiers. I expect that the vast majority, however imperfect, are still honourable men -- men that follow the orders of their government-du-jour. I'm much more concerned that they are receiving very bad orders as of late.

The American population is now so religious, that it seems much more plausible for the religious right to come to power in America simply using the machine of legitimate democracy.

152. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15649 by mdowe on January 1, 2007 at 8:52 pm

Bloody hell! All that storm in a teacup for nothing! ..... No wonder lawyers and diplomats need special training. I'm out of my depth here.

I have to say this made me giggle. At least 75% of the time I feel absolutely blessed that nobody really takes notice of what I say or do.

153. Let's Hope It's A Lasting Vogue

Comment #15547 by mdowe on January 1, 2007 at 8:11 am

It is good to see Professor Dawkins is being published in American newspapers (even those generally perceived to be left-wing). Such strong religious influence in the most powerful nation the Earth has seen to date is a worry to everybody. Is is also heartening that he is being so well received.

One point though -- I would hesitate to claim there are many members of congress that are atheists. Not because I don't believe the statement is true. I just have a sneaky feeling that the religious-right will quickly counter that the it is these closet atheists that are responsible for all the perceived corruption in the American government. Begin witch hunt ...

154. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15471 by mdowe on December 31, 2006 at 4:03 pm

I'm lukewarm on the term 'bright', just because in terms of personal values, it isn't very evocative as of yet. But perhaps it time the association with a particular outlook on life, the universe, and everything will become entwined with the word.

I too have always been somewhat fond of "humanist". When I announce I'm a secular humanist, I'm almost always greeted by blank stares. Usually the 'religion taboo' keeps people from inquiring further, making it a great conversation stopper.

155. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15320 by mdowe on December 30, 2006 at 10:51 am

It is astonishing that so many people can progress through the ranks of higher education, obtain a Ph.D. (more than I can ever hope for), and yet still remain gullible, irrational, half-wits at heart.

One of the their favourite means to to make a point: 1) Find a person in history that once did something significant. 2) Show they also did/believed something that the evidence accumulated since shows was absurd, and 3) conclude that we should suspect the evidence (however firm) rather conclude the person was a just fallible human and not some kind of omniscient sage.

156. 7 monks injured in clash over monastery

Comment #14229 by mdowe on December 21, 2006 at 2:51 pm

Comment #14076 by Richard Dawkins

... fear they would offer ...

Professor Dawkins' statement vaguely implies it is a proactive ban. Call me a cynic, but somehow I sincerely doubt such a thing could be thought up proactively ...

157. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #13565 by mdowe on December 18, 2006 at 12:16 pm

From time to time, I've noticed other articles and podcast segments that I thought might be of interest to those frequenting this forum. However, I haven't wished to contribute what could become an overwhelming flood of well-meaning but annoying suggestions finding their way into Josh's email. I'm wondering, Josh, do you have some preferred way to deal with story suggestions? (I'm thinking something scalable and non-intrusive -- perhaps a dedicated phpBB forum?)

158. Kim Hill interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #13461 by mdowe on December 17, 2006 at 9:38 pm

"And KILL them where ever you find them..." Quran 2:191

http://answeringprophetofdoom.net/Islam_in_Ac...

159. Lunch with the FT: Richard Dawkins

Comment #13422 by mdowe on December 17, 2006 at 3:00 pm

RE: Comment #13405

I find it particularly interesting that there is such a striking difference between the USA and Canada. On the surface the two countries seem very similar. The influence of Canada on the USA is probably negligible, but Canada is awash in a sea of American cultural influence (probably more than any other country in the world). Yet on numerous subjects, the attitudes of the average American vs the average Canadian are rather different, and the nationwide influence of the religious verses the secular is almost reversed when you step across the border. In the USA, being an atheist is a political show-stopper, while Canadians are generally suspicious of overtly religious politicians. Perhaps it is all due to differences in the average temperature ... I just don't know.

160. Lunch with the FT: Richard Dawkins

Comment #13340 by mdowe on December 17, 2006 at 6:16 am

I quite liked this article. The ever-so-common attack articles do get tiresome, so the neutral and positive ones are a nice break. It is hard to believe Prof. Dawkins is so close to retirement (he really does come across as much younger). I do hope he does not intend to leave the public spotlight entirely. Of the many thousands of academics across the globe, there are very few indeed willing to openly confront what has to be the biggest hot-button issue in existence.

On an entirely different subject, I have to say a really wish we received Channel 4 on this side of the Atlantic. They seem to be backing many thoughtful documentaries -- even on subjects the North American media won't dare touch.

161. Response to Richard Dawkins' Criticisms in The God Delusion

Comment #13260 by mdowe on December 16, 2006 at 1:24 pm

Comment #13249 by Niels Thorsen

Hmm .. yes .. guilty as charged. It is easy to underestimate the power of indoctrination, and thus slip into feeling smug and superior. Those of us that were not subjected to religious indoctrination (or only subjected to an extent we could later shake off) are rather fortunate. "There but for the Grace of God go I." (John Bradford c1550)

162. Response to Richard Dawkins' Criticisms in The God Delusion

Comment #13248 by mdowe on December 16, 2006 at 11:42 am

Comment #13238 by Yorker

Yorker,

Agreed. If I thought I was going to be exposed to something new and thought provoking (and based on solid reason and evidence) then I might carefully read the article. And then carefully read all the necessary books and articles to which it refers. However, because of what he is defending we already know it will eventually boil down to paper-thin nonsense. Judging from my cursory look at the article, Prof. Swinburne seems to be a polite and well-written, and probably well-meaning man ... but I have real work to do =)

163. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12136 by mdowe on December 10, 2006 at 6:00 pm

Comment #12132 by Jack Rawlinson

Jack,

I agree completely.

164. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12129 by mdowe on December 10, 2006 at 5:42 pm

Comment #12128 by Jack Rawlinson

Jack,

I agree it is a disturbing and embarrassing fact. I was just stating that (IMHO) Dr. Dawkins would have done better to trash this fellow's credibility (under these particular circumstances) strictly by trashing his ridiculous arguments.

165. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12123 by mdowe on December 10, 2006 at 5:07 pm

I really think these programs just give a great deal of air-time to creationist nutters. Allowing them to air their views in opposition to a legitimate scientific person just falsely implies they have a credibility where none exists. They belong on a show with flat-earth people and alien abductees ... not on a show opposite legitimate scientists.

That said, I think Dr. Dawkins dropped the ball a bit when he emphasised his distaste and dismay for the sad fact that the Leeds-nutball (Andy McIntosh was it?) somehow still has a professorship rather than just dismissing the crap that he was spouting. Everyone trips up once in a while I suppose =)

Debates and live questions forums are not especially amenable to honest inquiry. Creationists always try to score points by showing that the scientific perspective is 'imperfect', and so is just an alternative (and on equal footing) to their own. The professor from Leads was dishonestly trying to get the audience to call a point a draw, which would be perceived as a default victory for him. He was doing this by putting forwarding an argument the vast majority of listening audience could not judge, and was hoping perhaps to draw Dr. Dawkins out of his field so he would sound ignorant.

As to DNA stability and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument, it was nonsense of course. The second law just says entropy in a system always increases. It doesn't say organisation (such as DNA structure) can never occur in a local system. Energy is being used to maintain the organised long chains of DNA over time, and thus entropy is held off in this local system. That energy comes from the Sun, and thus in the larger system entropy is indeed increasing, and the second law is (what a surprise) not being violated. You can't tell me Prof. McIntosh was not fully aware of this fact. Pure dishonesty ...

166. A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

Comment #11513 by mdowe on December 5, 2006 at 6:37 am

David Mathews,

It is true that atheists are just as fallible as everyone else, and the majority of us are not super-exceptionally intelligent. But in the end the fallibility of individuals doesn't change the balance of the arguments .. it is a complete red herring. Judged from the criteria of logic and evidence, atheistic arguments have never seen any serious opposition from any theist, no-matter how intelligent he or she happens to be. Any argument you will make for theism can be countered from the perspective of logic and evidence. The whole issue has has been rehashed ad nauseam. I doubt there are any new arguments left to be made. The only question is can you be honest with yourself and judge impartially?

167. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11511 by mdowe on December 5, 2006 at 6:05 am

David Mathews,

Myself and probably many others strongly disagree with virtually all your points, but I challenge you to re-examine the one I find most interesting. You mentioned that some of Richard Dawkins ideas would "interfere with parents' rights to raise their kids as they see fit". I doubt you really believe this right is absolute. There must be a balance between the rights of the parents *and* the rights of the child -- a child isn't chattel. Society aims to protect children from many kinds of physical abuse from parents that step over the line. We generally acknowledge education another basic right of children and I believe it is explicitly mentioned in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Is it really such a stretch to maintain that such an education should also be be based on fact and reality (i.e. free from blatant falsehoods) as we can best present them? In many countries, children receive no education, but even rich western countries religious indoctrination is increasingly being passed off as education, merely because it happens to teach children to read as a side-effect. It is certainly not a preposterous suggestion to maintain this a form of abuse.

168. Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special

Comment #11435 by mdowe on December 4, 2006 at 3:08 pm

Goff,

You state: "The 'God' debate is irrelevant to our planets survival". Unfortunately, that isn't really true. I will state one example to illustrate why the statement is flawed. Many Christians believe that the rapture and the end of the world is not far off. Thus Christianity does not promote a long term world-view. What is the point of being a good sheppard of the planet if Jesus is coming back soon to take all the worthy people to heaven? This kind of attitude will inevitably lead to environmental disaster, but it is a tough task to persuade people of the need to change their choices and behaviour if you don't address their underlying assumptions.

169. Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special

Comment #11317 by mdowe on December 4, 2006 at 6:41 am

Josh,

Perhaps you should create a captcha that poses random introductory-level questions in evolutionary biology =)

170. Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special

Comment #11315 by mdowe on December 4, 2006 at 6:23 am

I quite like how Prof. Dawkins actually outlines his perspective on the Iraq and Afghanistan issues. You certainly could never call the man a coward when it comes to expressing a point of view!

Regarding abuse of this forum, it is going to be particularly difficult to come up with a system to control those intent on causing mayhem as this site gets broader exposure. You can use a 'captcha' to control automated spammers, but separating genuine posters (who happen to be taking a perspective that reflects their religious beliefs) from those that just want to be disruptive is going to be a rough job. And then there is the inevitable development of 'hackers for God' and DDoS attacks. Josh, you have your work cut out for you bud!

P.S. It looks like the new comment system will certainly raise the bar.

171. Let us test Darwin, teacher says

Comment #10290 by mdowe on November 27, 2006 at 6:19 pm

I think it is past time to make this a criminal matter. Actively trying to subvert the public education system to further a religious agenda should have hard time associated with it. Without consequences, this reason and evidence oblivious zombie will just keep coming back.

I grant that with truely urgent matters like climate change barely able to get even feeble political action, I don't seriously expect we'll be able to put the zombie-blasting intellectual shotgun away anytime soon.

172. Leaders back faith in public life

Comment #9560 by mdowe on November 25, 2006 at 5:39 am

"people who campaign against religion... have an intolerant faith position."

Perhaps I am reading too much into the statement, but it sounds to me like the very ambiguous term "faith position" was very carefully chosen. It is a loaded term which can be interpreted as 'position on faith', but will usually be interpreted as a 'position in faith' (i.e. a position based on faith). Atheism is a position based on reason, and attacking the concept of 'faith as good' using reason, evidence, and persuasion is miles away from being religiously intolerant. You can't tell me the Archbishop does not know the difference. I think he is trying to sneak in a fundamentally dishonest argument.

173. John Safran vs. The Mormons

Comment #8243 by mdowe on November 20, 2006 at 5:41 pm

Apparently John Safran did a whole series of eight shows titled "John Safran vs God". There is a nice outline on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Safran_vs_God

And you can buy the DVD here:

http://www.madman.com.au/actions/catalogue.do?releaseId=4522&method=view