201. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #106924 by 82abhilash on January 3, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Steve Zara

I have to disagree with this. There are "religions" which have schools of thought which deny the existence or importance of God, yet investigate transcendent experiences. Buddhism is an example.

Buddhism is more of a philosophy of thought rather than a religion. It is practiced as a religion though. You can Shintoism and Taoism to that list. However neither of them provides rational explanations for their 'transcendent experiences'. So the weakness remains. And none of them come out to be explicitly anti-theistic, though non-theistic they may be.

Not really, as there is no grand tradition of Hubble Images, and the Hubble does not promise everlasting life.

Think about it. If images from the Hubble Telescope created the same experiences, a grand tradition based on those images would have begin and created a new popular movement to challenge traditional views on transcendence. Carl Sagan made the Cosmos, sparked interest in other worlds and then it died out.

Maybe that is the problem with Hubble. It does not sustain one's enthusiasm, unless one is an astronomer. Besides it like you said it does not promise everlasting life. And there we touch upon the failure of science to effectively address the issue of human happiness. Unless that is addressed, science may never gain long-term popular support of the masses.

202. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #106910 by 82abhilash on January 3, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Well walk he begins from a biased stand point. That can distort the effect of any real explanations you might bring up and blind you to the short comings of your ideas.

That is why scientists take elaborate efforts to protect theirs experiments from their own biases. I am not sure Hitchens does that. In fact his biases are quiet evident and so is its influence. He admits it openly.

Hitchens is not a scientist, but I see at as morally superior to protect yourself from your own biases, especially once you are aware what your biases are. That is why these days, I am more keen to hear what the others are saying rather than Hitchens. The other three seems to take more safe guards against their own biases than Hitchens.

203. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #106887 by 82abhilash on January 3, 2008 at 4:29 pm

walk

Hitchens does not want there to be any God - Abrahamic or otherwise. Read it up.

As for the 'transcendent experiences' in the very quote you took from me, I used the term natural explanations.

And yes, lot of atheists do miss out on certain comforting experiences that theists find more easily accessible. That does not mean that they are supernatural, just not well understood. Is that not what Sam Harris keeps trying to address?

If that phenomenon can be successfully addressed this movement will certainly get a shot in the arm.

204. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #106749 by 82abhilash on January 3, 2008 at 11:51 am

Styrer

You must recognize that there is a fundamental difference between Hitchens and the other three. There is a general tendency (mostly among theists) to think of these four people as part of the same bundle, but they have their differences and they disagree on certain issues with each other.

When I said that no one should ever admire them so much that they become deaf to criticism against them, I had Hitchens in mind. But the statement holds true in general for anyone and I will not hesitate using any other name with it.

So what is the difference between Hitchens and the other three? Well the other three seems to be neutral to idea that God exists. They do not think that God exists, but if there is one and they know that for a fact they will be OK with it. They seem to seek truth from facts, first and foremost.

Hitchens on the other hand is an anti-theist. He does not want there to be a God. I think it is a difference that is worth noting. I not saying Hitchens is dogmatic, but I see him move in that direction. The element of insanity I see in him is anti-theism. Such a position has a lot of weaknesses, the most obvious being that you deny yourself the chance to find natural explanations for the 'transcendent experiences' which the religious claim to have monopoly on. While I find the images from the Hubble telescope to be awe-inspiring, I doubt that it is the same experience that theists talk about. If that was the case religion would have melted away as soon as Hubble images became easily available.

My problem is primarily not Hitchens himself, for he is bright enough to manage the weaknesses of the ideology he has chosen to embrace, but such an ideology in itself can be harmful. Among the non-theistic ideologies, I think this one has the most potential to be toxic.

You think I might be confusing passion with dogma when I using CAPs. That is a legitimate concern. The trouble is that the line between dogma and passion is very fine indeed and the anti-theist is more likely that anyone else to cross it. I hope you may see that my concern is not too different from yours.

But perhaps you and I need not be too much concerned. Anti-theism is a crude backlash ideology that is mostly the result of dogmatic actions by the theists. When theism ends so will anti-theism, for the word itself will loose its meaning (interesting also to note: Hitchens does not want theism to end). Certainly we can do better than that and we are doing better than that.

A new inter-disciplinary field of study is emerging, which studies religion as a natural phenomenon and find natural explanation for religious experiences. Daniel Dennett more than anyone else will contribute immensely to this field, in fact he invented it. I see his students having a big impact on how US public policy is shaped in the future and I think we will all be better off because of it.

205. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106355 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 5:51 pm

10. Comment #106352 by ianmkz on January 2, 2008 at 5:49 pm

I can't imagine why anyone would be embarrassed to be a Christian.

The times are changing. I think more and more people agree that religion should be kept out of the public arena. I hope the trend continues.

206. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106354 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 5:49 pm

It is a flea campaign. Like the flea books. Some idiot for Christ is trying to cash in on RD's popularity just like the ones selling the flea books.

207. Changing my Mind

Comment #106257 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 3:09 pm

morgantj you and I know that when the JW or others try to sound scientific, it is just a trick to impress the masses. Their real appeal is emotional. And if we can appeal to their good emotions then we have made significant in roads.

Either their faith will corrode or they will take us for the devil. But their world will never be the same again.

208. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106248 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Religion is on the retreat for now, but the battle against dogma continues.

209. Changing my Mind

Comment #106217 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 1:56 pm

artemisa

It is impossible to have a rational conversation with JW people about their faith. One thing you can do is refuse to divulge any information about your life or your opinions; nothing that they can build on. Use maybe and No a lot in the conversation and do not give precise answers. Usually they will leave. If you ask them to prove what they believe in, they would try to get you hooked and reel you in. Like they tried with your science question.

If however you want to engage in a conversation with them, then you will have to play their game on them. Exploit their weaknesses. Try to find the techniques they use to fish out personal information about you, from you. Use the same techniques on them. Instead of making it about you make it about them. Chances are they will recognize and resent you using their tricks on them, but it will work, after all it is only fair.

Once it becomes about their life rather than yours then you can indicate to them the weaknesses of their belief system and its problems. Try frequenting discussion groups of ex-Jehovah's witnesses to find out more about such issues.

Also, try to frame your conversation along this line – Yes, one has real concerns and real issues, but this is the wrong way of dealing with it. And be honest about why it is wrong. You may be doing them a favor, even if it will pain them at first, so you can try being gentle and effective at the same time.

As you can see confronting them requires much more effort and preparation than shoving them away. You may decide after all that shaking people's faith maybe as mean as telling people they are fat; besides you may have better things to do. So you may want to think about it.

210. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105856 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 1:31 am

So nature is neither caring nor hostile, merely indifferent to our concerns. Carl Sagan noted this a long time ago. So what else is new? I was under no illusions that the earth is like paradise. Live with it the best one can and prepare for the future to the best of one's ability. That will do.

211. Submission, 'Part 1'

Comment #105458 by 82abhilash on December 31, 2007 at 5:02 pm

http://voi.org/books/uith/ch9.htm

212. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104893 by 82abhilash on December 29, 2007 at 10:40 pm

Reading Dennett gives me a head ache. It is pretty intense and demands a lot of attention.

213. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104573 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 8:29 pm

mmurray my friend, why not try to get the spirit of what I am trying to say rather than get too stuck on the literal.

So what did I mean by 'on average'. Well let me try different terms, 'on balance', 'all things considered'. Does that help.

Maybe not. I will try to be more specific. It is easier to live your life on your terms, without worrying about prevailing social or cultural norms in the US than any other parts of the world. It is easier to be a homosexual in Netherlands, but they have a culture accepting of homosexuals. Some countries recognize the right to die, but they have societies which support that norm.

In the US, in theory, you are free without worrying about how it affects your social outlook, at least in the eyes of the state. Social prejudices are much difficult to legalize in the US than other countries, especially today. It takes the concept of independence to a whole new level. That is what makes the US free.

I agree, It is not always that way, but for most of the people it is so, for most of the time (in other words on average). And that is why I say, the US is the freest country in the world. And I wish it remains that way. But to keep it that way, we must remain active and vigilant.That is why a forum like this is important.

Of course none of this means the US is the best place to live. That decision is personal and subjective. So you decide.

214. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #104480 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 3:37 pm

al-rawandi

Why indulge in conspiracy theories? Because the guys who hijacked the planes during 9/11 went to bars and strip clubs. So did Osama Bin Laden during his youth.

You are probably an ex-muslim. Tell me, does it not say in the Hadith, that non-Islamic actions are tolerated if it is done in a cause to further Islam?

It is possible to piece together disparate events taking place at the same time and create several innovative stories. Plus we can only be reasonably sure about anything, not absolutely sure. That is why we have Occam's Razor remember?

Is not the simple official explanation remarkable enough for your taste?

215. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #104457 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Styrer

Hitchens has a lot of good ideas. There are good reasons to admire him. However there is an element of insanity in him, which I think if not checked has the potential to be dangerous. Every now and then it leaks out; more so often these days. He is an anti-theist, and this form of non-theism has most the potential to be toxic and irrational.

What I am saying we must be cautious about becoming what we hate. IT IS A REAL DANGER. Stalin replaced the image of God with that of himself. What I am hoping is that people like you while admiring Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Dennett, will not admire them so much that you will stop tolerating any criticism against them, the way Christians don't entertain any criticism against Jesus.

These people are remarkable humans beings, but they are human beings. And all humans have some flaws. In the case of Hitchens, his flaws seem to be having a tendency of showing up at the wrong times and people notice. There are still good reasons to listen to him, but one need not like everything he says.

216. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104435 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 1:32 pm

I would like to know about Fernando Aguilar. He seems like an interesting person. Is there any website or something that can give me more info?

217. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #104424 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 1:19 pm

I got the whole DVD set of the Cosmos some time back. It is a good investment.

218. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104416 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Archbishop of Canterbury is putting a spin on what Richard Dawkins said to remain relevant in the new world. Most members of his old congregation have children with secular outlooks. The new congregation mostly goes to the catholic church.

So what does he do? Puts a spin on what a popular person said and hijacks it for his cause. They have done it before with Einstein and with Stephen Hawking. This is an old trick.

219. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104361 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 11:19 am

This is just filthy atheist propaganda. If you do a little bit of digging you will know that Fernando Aguilar is a work of fiction. Created by Atheists with the help of Neo-Nazis and Neo-Stalinists to bring down the house of Christendom.

How is that for misinformation eh?

220. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104354 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 11:10 am

Mark Smith wants to know why I think the American power system furthers the cause of rationalization. Well effective power systems of the past relied on non-earthly, super-natural authority to legitimize their power.

The US power system was designed to support the cause of commerce and trade. In short, to make rich businessmen even richer. Whether the business men believed in God or not is irrelevant to this power system. It does not depend on any super-natural authority to lend it credence.

So those in charge of it, cannot really believe religious scripture (even if they claim they do) and function effectively. Those challenging it cannot really believe in such things and pose an effective challenge either - even if both might appeal to the faithful.

So there, the most effective power system on the earth today is not theo centric. This means theocracy had been undermined a long time back. So it provides us freedom from religion and a chance to be rational. But what it takes away from a lot of us is economic freedom, but that was true before as well. I guess you can't have them all.

221. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104311 by 82abhilash on December 28, 2007 at 10:04 am

dlitt When I say the US is the most freest country in the world, I do not mean to boast. It is a fact. Assisted suicide, gay marriage, and smoking a fatty may be OK in other countries; but there are other fundamental freedoms that you take for granted here but cannot be enjoyed there.

In France for instance there are laws restricting businesses from using foreign languages, so the government tells you how to speak. The whole city of London is under video surveillance, I am not sure I would like that. There is lot of things possible there that are not possible in the US, but on an average the US is the freest country.

I am not sure that means people in the US are the most happiest. We can always conceive of situations better than the one we are in. That is what fuels progress. But if you get exposed to wide range of life-styles in different countries and societies, you will have a better sense of the benefits and disadvantages of your own.

222. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104093 by 82abhilash on December 27, 2007 at 9:51 pm

ignored_ethos2 I am so with you here. Whether they intended it or not this legal unity has done more to further the cause of free and rational societies than any other force on earth.

The fundamentalists want to hijack it precisely because it is so powerful. And mind you they want to hijack it only long enough to destroy it.

223. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104082 by 82abhilash on December 27, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Radesq It is only natural that the fundamentalists will try to hijack the most powerful institution in the country. There is still some hope. Wait till the presidential election ends.

224. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104072 by 82abhilash on December 27, 2007 at 7:10 pm

10. Comment #104062 by BAEOZ on December 27, 2007 at 6:01 pm

I think one must distinguish between simple democracy and secular democracy.

Good point. But in such a case a non-democratic entity should enforce secularism against the will of the people, if need be. And they will become the most powerful. In the US, it is the supreme court.

225. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104044 by 82abhilash on December 27, 2007 at 5:12 pm

I kind of agree with gkkalai. I do not believe that the US is found on the highest ideals of democracy, yet it is the freest country in the world today.

Strong democracies are not perfectly free. The majority subjugates the minority, which in itself was seen as a kind of tyranny by the founding fathers.

Besides, democratic societies need not be the most rational societies in the world either. Just because lots of people agree on one thing at any time does not mean the decision is rational. So maybe democracy is not the highest ideal a nation should strive for.

So how was the US designed? Not a democracy, not a dictatorship but concentrates power on to a few wealthy, intelligent people, usually white and more or less sociopath, selfish and mostly rational. What 'cracy' is that? I do not know.

Yet this power system forces people challenging it to act in a very rational way.
Power systems do that. The Church of England mass produced agnostics and atheists, did it not. The US trade globalization will mass produce rational people. I am all for a world where I can reason with people. My only concern is the price tag it comes with.

226. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103724 by 82abhilash on December 26, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Alkal brought a good point about the Carvaka school of thought - the Hindu atheists ( which is an appropriate term if the term Hindu is a geographic indicator rather than a religious one).

They used to do to the Brahmins (Hindu priests) what our 4 horsemen are doing to the evangelists, today.

Some interesting questions they asked where
1. If animals that where sacrificed go straight to heaven, why do you not sacrifice your father?

2. If your departed loved ones are in heaven, how come they are not in a hurry to get back to you?

3. They also used to call the Brahmins buffoons and accused them of inventing rituals to secure a fraudulent means of livelihood.

Carvaka philosophers and their followers however did not have the power base that the theocrats did. Most of what we know about them today are through the writings of those who attempted to discredit them. So we know in their time, they did have an impact.

A parallel would be a historian 1000 years from now, reading the flea books to piece together what the arguments in 'The God Delusion' or the 'End of faith' would have been, because they are lost or have been destroyed. I hope that does not happen this time.

227. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #103639 by 82abhilash on December 26, 2007 at 11:15 am

342. Comment #103501 by Madhav on December 26, 2007 at 12:31 am

I wish that they had not got that crazy fascist Hitchens on board. Most of the time the idiot blabbers nonsense.

I agree, Hitchens seems to be becoming more and more dogmatic about his unbelief - he is not a cure for dogma, just a new form of it. He is useful in the war against theocracy, but a liability in the war against dogma.

But I think he should stay, if only to warn us what we must gaurd against, eternally, if need be.

228. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103202 by 82abhilash on December 24, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Comment #103125 by Barbara on December 24, 2007 at 10:37 am

Thanks for the info 82abhilash. Hinduism sounds like an anything-goes-depending-on-how-you-feel-today kind of religion.

You are close. This is how it goes usually - you are highly learned person - you decide to write scriptutre --- anything-goes-depending-on-what-you-understand today. But once it is written, then it cannot be changed.

Later on someone else comes along re-writes, re-interperts, retranslates, what you did, add and subtract and then that can never be changed.

But between every writing there are gaps in which people live and die and some of them build societies based on what was written. So they have one social dogma.

Some others form a society on what was written later, they have similar philosophy, but a slightly different dogma. So India is populated with dogmas and philosophies. Several societies, several dogmas, several philosophies.

But on the plus side, there have also been lots of great scholars. If you can separate the news from the noise (which is not easy) you can learn interesting things.

229. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103179 by 82abhilash on December 24, 2007 at 12:10 pm

26. Comment #103133 by al-rawandi on December 24, 2007 at 10:56 am

Actually in historical view, the Arabs referred to India as al-Hind. And they refer to American Indians as al-Hind al-Amriki (or pl. Hunud). It only became "Hindustan" lately. The suffixed portion "stan" is not even Arabic.

"stan" is not Arabic (it means place), however Hind is and Hindustan is derived from this. In Pakistan, India is still refered to as Hindustan and Arabs still refer to India Al-Hindia.

What became Hinduism was a result of the same Caucasian development of religion that led to Zoroastrianism.

By Caucasian development, you mean European influence that is correct. 'Hindu' which started out as a geographic indicator for Arabs, Persians and Turks, became a religious indicator for the Europeans.

The Hindus also seem convinced of the 2nd class status of women.

It was not always that way, but is certainly the major trend today. Does the presence of Islamic and Christian ideas help influence such beliefs or is it an independent idea? Makes a good academic discussion. Having no single book, the scriptures have not been consistent on this.

But historically women have been treated differently. Does that mean they where treated badly, sometimes they where, other times not.

There also exists a doctrine that the earth (flat of course) rests atop an elephant named Maha-Pumbra, who in turn stands on a turtle named Chukwa, and this turtle swims in the primordial sea of milk.

I have not heard of this one. Perhaps it is not popular for obvious reasons. I guess they said it as they saw it.

Hindu nationalism has been an extremely violent phenomenon in India. And although not motivated by religion, the Tigers of Tamil Eelam are Hindu (ostensibly) with a smattering of Christians.

Hindu nationalism as a force became a cause for concern in the 1980s. Their presence is a testament of the Indian government's failure in helping people rationally contribute to their well being. In fact when the government doesnot address real concerns of citizens, the theocrats hijack those causes.

Same thing in Sri-Lanka, where the government tried to sideline the Tamil minority. Their struggle is not overtly religious. However, it must be noted that they have the full support and co-operation of Christian groups in the area.

Hinduism is as bad as the next religion. It tends to get the "Buddhism" free pass, as people imagine Hindus sit (like Buddhists) fingering their talismans and smiling at all who pass.

It is as irrational as the next religion, but on a scale of things it is the least violent. And those that are smiling at you do ot really know as much as they would like you to think they know.

But the point that people view it in different ways is superfluous. That is true of every religion. (Although I liked the post, an interesting take on motivations.)

Agreed, but in Hinduism it takes a different twist. The other major religions rely on a single text, Hinduism has many texts. No one ever gets the final word, that way.

Does Hinduism actually have a penis god?

None that I am aware of. However given that there is no final word, there is always room for interpretation and re-interpretation of old ambiguous texts. You may hear once in a while - an indologist, a historian or a philosopher claim that yes it is so. But it tells more about them that about the religion.

230. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103121 by 82abhilash on December 24, 2007 at 10:31 am

4. Comment #103063 by Barbara on December 24, 2007 at 9:18 am

I'm not familiar with Hindu beliefs. How do the Hindus view suicide? Was this a forgivable sin? Will this fellow now be reincarnated as a flea or something?

It may interest you to know that among the major religions of the world, Hinduism has the least consistent sets of belief and the most variety when it comes to belief systems. What it means to be a Hindu can be a function of the language you speak, the place you are brought up in, who brought you up and several other local factors. Hindu communities can range from the most bigoted to the most inclusive. In fact the word 'Hindu' refers to people living in a geographic location. The Arabs called India 'Hindustan' - so anyone living in Hindustan is technically a Hindu, although that is not how the word is used nowadays.

So can you ever expect Hindus to have a consistent viewpoint on suicide? In some situations it is honorable, in some it is understandable, in some it acceptable, in come cases it is cowardice, in some cases it is selfishness and in some stupidity. All depends on what it was about and whom you ask.

231. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #102058 by 82abhilash on December 21, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Daniel Dennet says, the truth is not enough justification to say something. I have to disagree with him this time, that truth is not enough justification for saying something. It is. If it is hurtful then work on timing and method. But truth revealed exposes us to the real issues facing us and by breaking us free from our illusions, forces us to find ways to deal with them rather than indulge in fantasies. The bible is right on this one; the truth will set you free.

232. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #102055 by 82abhilash on December 21, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Richard Dawkins - evolutionary biologist
Daniel Dennet - philosopher
Sam Harris - pursuing a doctorate in neuroscience
Christopher Hitchens - political journalist

Among the four Hitchens is the only one whose contributions can be widely acknowledged in today's mainstream. The other three can and does make valuable contributions but they will be better recognized and appreciated in a world where people are more rational.

Hitchens however may have a limited role to play in such a world because, things that Hitchens considers when making his decisions now will by then become common knowledge. He will be like a doctor who invented a cure to irradiate a disease, so now there is no disease, his cure is outdated.

So he needs religion to confront it. He needs it to remain relevant and he admitted as much.

233. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100568 by 82abhilash on December 18, 2007 at 11:22 pm

I suspect some thoughtful Christian employee must have started this with the hope of saving a few atheists. If so this is a terrible backfire.

234. Jesus ad angers church groups

Comment #100565 by 82abhilash on December 18, 2007 at 11:19 pm

The corners on thoses boxes were way too sharp and dangerous to put in any baby's cot.

Agreed. Diapers, baby powder and a pacifier would have been more appropriate, not to mention useful.

235. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98207 by 82abhilash on December 13, 2007 at 9:06 am

One counter intuitive proposal. Let the US have a state church, just like England.

Seems as though that wherever Christianity is the state religion, atheism is mass-produced. But in secular states, you get theocratic freaks.

236. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96286 by 82abhilash on December 10, 2007 at 9:49 am

Holy crap!! No signs, No Christmas tree, no nothing. Just plain and simple public spaces, please.

237. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #95188 by 82abhilash on December 7, 2007 at 2:27 pm

I have met a couple of moderate Muslims and they are the most unusual group of Muslims. They do not like to discuss their religion and they do not practice it seriously. Hardly any of them, prayed five times a day.

They try to explain away some of the more uncivilized aspects of their religion as part of an old custom, rather than actual tenants of their religion. But they do feel a sense of guilt and inferiority and try to make up for that by justifying the actions of their more fundamentalist peers. The most you can ever expect of them, if they agree with you on such issues is their silence.

238. Secret Swami - About Sai Baba

Comment #95181 by 82abhilash on December 7, 2007 at 2:14 pm

mint_tea,

It is not too difficult to explain. Religions are founded by people who are on the lunatic fringe of society to begin with. They set up institutions which will give the power and help them live their way of life forcing the rest of us into submission.

239. Secret Swami - About Sai Baba

Comment #95123 by 82abhilash on December 7, 2007 at 11:52 am

The aim here is not social welfare, but power. To gain power over the masses, you must make them dependent on you. When you make schools, hospitals and make clean water available, and you own and control the resources, what does it matter if they believe in you or not? They are dependent on you. They will let you get away with quiet a lot.

The only way to undermine such people, if the masses are able to play a direct rational role in ensuring their own welfare. Words like direct democracy, participatory democracy and local self-governance come to mind.

240. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95074 by 82abhilash on December 7, 2007 at 9:55 am

This speech is a disappointment. He has completly side-stepped the issue of his membership in an organization that was officially racist until 1963 which barred black members from higher office until 1978.

In 1963 he was 16, which means for most of his childhood he was indoctrinated into the then official dcotrine which included racism. In 1978 he was 31, blacks where still not equal in the eyes of his church. What was he thinking then, what is he thinking now? Does he think for himself or change his mind whenever his church changes its policy?

241. Riding with Rocinante: 'It's me or the crucifix'

Comment #94783 by 82abhilash on December 6, 2007 at 2:19 pm

"It's me or the crucifix," he says.

Actually it is more like me on the crucifix. They are trying to make sure that he slowly bleeds to death (metaphorically) while dragging their feet on this case.

242. Chimps beat humans in memory test

Comment #93668 by 82abhilash on December 3, 2007 at 9:48 pm

That is it. Chimps will take over the world while religious bigots drive human kind to extinction.

243. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92030 by 82abhilash on November 29, 2007 at 6:07 pm

114. Comment #92025 by MorituriMax on November 29, 2007 at 5:58 pm
82abhilash wrote "We are put on earth to rise above nature..."

... I don't think we are "put on earth" to do anything, we are born, we live, we die. That sounded too much like "put on earth.. by our creator" etc.

I was merely quoting words from this article. Dawkin's precise words where

Sexual jealousy may in some Darwinian sense accord with nature, but "Nature, Mr. Allnutt, is what we are put in this world to rise above."

Looks like you are with me on this one, atleast partly. I would appreciate a feedback from you, once you read my full comment.

244. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92018 by 82abhilash on November 29, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Dawkins has outdone himself here, not for the better I am afraid. It is one thing to mock pseudo-scientists who try to encroach on your territory; it is something else to pass opinions on a subject that is not directly related to your field of expertise. If you do that some people may mistake your opinions for your science. I know Dawkins is not deliberately trying to mislead anyone, but the potential exists and can be exploited by his opponents, who would distort what he says.

For my part I will try to argue here that there are natural, non-supernatural reasons why human-beings should leave sexually disciplined lives, just as there are natural and obvious reasons we do not want to. Feel free to point to any logical inconsistencies in my arguments. So my argument as two premises:

1. There are natural, non-supernatural reasons why human-beings should leave sexually disciplined lives.
2. There are natural reasons we do not want to.

Point No.2 needs no explanation; it is too obvious to anyone, even though the Darwinian reasons for it are not.

Point No.1 is also obvious in a way. Sexual jealousy seems to be universal and ubiquitous and there are several good Darwinian explanations for that, better left for experts to explain. But that it is universal is something we can all agree on – polyandrous and polyamorous relationships are seen as exception rather than the norm and statistics seems to confirm as much.

Dawkins claim sexual jealousy is universal and natural, I agree. Then he asserts we must rise above this universal nature of ours. Here is what I have a problem with in this article. Dawkins is contradicting himself even though it is not obvious. He says sexual jealousy is natural, and then he asserts that our nature is what exactly we must rise above. There are two problems that.

Firstly, if natural selection is the reason we are here then that jealousy may have been necessary to our survival, is it still the case? Maybe not but that is something to be seriously addressed, before endorsing promiscuity which is clearly the spirit of this article although the lettering is forthright. Demographic indicators seem to suggest that in the modern world, societies that have liberal sexual attitudes tend to show sharp downward trends in population. Is that something that the rest of the world should emulate?

Second and this is most important is his suggested remedy to the situation. It is natural to be sexually jealous. We are put on earth to rise above nature, so we must do what comes naturally to us and indulge our promiscuous tendencies, which is what we naturally have a tendency to do to begin with. That is not jumping from the frying pan into the fire; it is more like jumping from one frying pan to another!

Why not say something like make the most rational and sensible decision you can think of within the context of your lifestyle - the relationships you would like to foster within your society and the bonds you would like to develop with certain people? Besides why is the whole aspect of sexual discipline as a means to develop trusting relationships totally ignored? That is not a theological argument, just a simple observable fact. There are real issues and real concerns that people on both sides of this debate seem to side-step when they view the world in this bipolar way.

Sexual discipline as a human means of developing healthy personal relationships is an easily observable fact that ordinary people have no problem accepting, though how it got that way is not obvious (did religion sanction existing social tendencies or was our tendencies the result of religion?). Why not work towards facilitating an environment where people can develop healthy relationships based on the concept of reciprocity, form cohesive societies and rationally participate in improving the quality of their lives rather than impose by fiat, any extreme position from either end on this subject?

245. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90918 by 82abhilash on November 26, 2007 at 4:51 pm

"Rick," Harris jokes, "may yet convince me that Christians are more moral and socially engaged than atheists."

Christian organizations have deeper pockets, so Sam is probably trying to flatter them. He may also be pissing us off into giving big donations and doing it loudly at that. Sam is a clever guy, with surprises all over the place.

I have nothing personally against that quote. It is possible to like Christians and hate Christianity (same with Muslims). It is all about content of character anyway. Although I would not say that on their face, for they are taught not to distinguish criticism of an idea from personal criticism.

But yes eXcommunicate is right, what he said can be a shot in the arm for the Christian right who claim atheists are inherently immoral. So I hope Sam does not end up being too clever for his own good.

246. Man-sized sea scorpion claw found

Comment #89678 by 82abhilash on November 21, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Now imagine a man sized mosquito, that can suck up all your blood during one meal and leave a shriveled and dry carcass.

Or a man sized spider that spins its web on high ways intersections to make a meal out of un-suspecting travelers.

What other possibilities can change in size can bring?

247. Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion

Comment #89427 by 82abhilash on November 20, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Genetically modified crops are grown in China, India and elsewhere.

Actually the article is misleading. At least in India, I know everyone is being very cautious with GM crops, not for religious reasons, but its impact on the food chain. Indian farmers already have bad experiences with chemical pesticides that destroy natural eco-systems.

To the best of my knowledge, only GM cotton was introduced to India and that too in a legal questionable manner. The yields where poor.

Whatever your religious views are, the impact of disrupting the eco-system for commercial ends is something we should all be widely concerned about.

248. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88691 by 82abhilash on November 18, 2007 at 2:27 pm

I am just wondering. What if Sam Harris is not able to raise enough money? What would he do with that which is already contributed? He has said what he would do if there is an excess, but what if it is deficient?

249. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88359 by 82abhilash on November 16, 2007 at 7:04 am

Comment #88306 by clearthinker on November 15, 2007 at 11:15 pm

I think the movie has a point. There is a narrow atheistic fundamentalism which seeks to stifle debate, remove religion from public life (education, politics, the media) and which squashes any dissenters from within its own ranks - not by force of argument but by shouting, rhetoric and just plain simple bullying. Sadly this website illustrates clearly how narrow the New Atheism has become. It is very disappointing.

I suspect you to be a religious lurker, the kind that hates Pat Robertson, but some one in good faith trying to 'save' the 'poor' atheists.

Ben Stein does not have a point, but if he makes you think, he could have one, he has succeeded.

Think about it, math teachers who do not know addition regularly loose their jobs, the courts, the media, the public opinion are all in on it. Yet no one makes a film on that.

Holocaust deniers who come out openly cannot expect to live a normal life, even with all their civil liberties intact they cannot expect to be a tenured professor.

Registered sex offenders have a hard time living like the rest of us, their freedoms get limited, no matter which university they went to and what degress they possess.

ID proponents have been voted out in school boards all across the country and risk losing an otherwise illustrious career.

So what is the point? The point is society keeps finding ways to penalize those amongst them who try to cheat and mislead the majority that is not a conspiracy. Reality is not a political issue.

When an idea that has been thoroughly discredited is being put up again and again as though it where facts, when people insist that they brain wash children in public schools with tax payers money, they can, must and should expect to get hurt.

250. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88295 by 82abhilash on November 15, 2007 at 8:51 pm

I am optimistic. I think this film will only be popular among small private gatherings if at all.