201. 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.

202. 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.

203. 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.

204. 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.

205. 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.

206. 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.

207. 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.

208. 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?

209. 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.

210. 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.

211. 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.

212. 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?

213. 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.

214. 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?

215. 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.

216. 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?

217. '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.

218. '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.

219. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86636 by 82abhilash on November 9, 2007 at 7:35 pm

Does this not violate the separation of church and state?

220. Losing faith in Quebec

Comment #86270 by 82abhilash on November 8, 2007 at 10:07 pm

I like this idea. It is very close to Dan Dennet's notion of having a class on world religions in public schools. If kids are being taught Christianity, Judaism, aboriginal spirituality, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism inside the same school, it is higly unlikely that toxic forms of any one of them can talk hold.

It would be even better if every child is taught all of them. Them poor kids will see it all for the crap that it is.

221. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #86268 by 82abhilash on November 8, 2007 at 9:59 pm

12. Comment #86251 by mr harry on November 8, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Why Giuliani? He is the most socially progressive republican candidate, and quite possibly the least religion-friendly republican candidate.

Guys and Gals,
This is not as funny as the article makes it look. Giuliani has promised Pat that he will appoint conservative judges in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Chances are they will be from Regent University.

Remember what Edward Tabash has been stressing on in all his speeches. In the end it will all boil down to who the judges are. And Pat Robertson knows that all too well. Why else would he even consider a pro-abortion candidate with an obviously screwed up personal life?

222. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #85851 by 82abhilash on November 7, 2007 at 10:21 am

Fanusi, Chomsky never condoned the actions of Pol Pot, nor was fond of Stalinism. You may argue that he did not spend enough time criticizing the actions of such regimes and that will be correct. But there are enough people doing that already. His criticism is focused mainly towards the power systems in the US that uses its money power to manufacture consensus (by distorting truth and playing down important issues) and prevents discussions of real issues that affect the general public.

And if they indeed have succeeded, people like you will believe the lies and distortions propagated about him. I got a recommendation for you, listen to one of Chomsky's lengthy speeches or debates, and check whether you can verify what he said with what is in the public record. Then check how much of those facts where reported in the media. The results may interest and surprise you.

223. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #84840 by 82abhilash on November 3, 2007 at 10:16 pm

There has been lot of discussion going on here as to whether organized free-thought is actually free. The simple answer is - no it is not. But people who do not want anyone to think freely have to organize and forces us to organize as a consequence. When we do we sacrifice some of our freedoms, but far less than if we end up being manipulated by them and their organizations.

I found this scary video on Bill Moyer's journal.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/watch2.html

It is not yet time to go under the radar as Sam Harris suggests. It is important right now to stand up and be heard and be counted.

224. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82548 by 82abhilash on October 26, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Oh bother! How willing they are to twist what Dawkins says to their own selfish ends - exaggerate, distort and even lie.

Whatever this sense for the transcendence or mysticism is that Sam Harris talks about, religion is a lousy way to attain in.

225. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82172 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Atticus_of_Amber,

"Mysticism" and the "Supernatural" are terms that have been used for ages to con people into falling for the supernatural.

While I am sure there is a natural explanation to such phenomenon, experience suggests, it to be better to approach such concepts with loads and loads of skepticism.

226. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82168 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Comment #82163 by RainDear on October 25, 2007 at 7:15 pm

I find it a bit worrying how so many people (even inside this RD's forum of all places) seem to have this strange need for a strong, flawless intellectual leader.

Totally agree. I bet a lot of them are new atheists, in the sense they are recent atheists or are recently adjusting to the idea of living as an atheist and still have the old tendency to look for truth from a single flawless source. Like Hitchen's Stalin example. That is damage inflicted by centuries of monotheism and realizing it is the first step to free oneself.

227. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82142 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 6:26 pm

I have a question. Why do you feel an obligation to label yourself? And conform to activities consistent with that label. None of us believe in any supernatural entity and we can get together under various banners, for various reasons, but why this urge to tattoo a label onto your brain, that would never come out wherever you are or whatever you do?

I think I know why. Some of you may scream, if I say, but here goes. It is the impact of the Abrahamic faiths on our civilization. Christians, Muslims and Jews are required to carry the label of their religion always under all circumstances, from birth to death to afterlife.

Most people here have a Judeo-Christian background. If the causes of our actions are determined by the sum total of all our previous experiences, this explanation would make perfect sense.

I have an idea. When in a general crowd, just be yourself and put the burden of labeling you to those people who are interested in it, especially when their objective is to use it against you. And always remind them it is their name for you. You do not have any obligation towards them, to be labeled.

228. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #82034 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 3:07 pm

If by belief, you mean belief without evidence (faith), you are absolutely right. We take pride in the fact that we do not believe in things that cannot be proved rationally.

But like everybody else we share the hope to live in a world that is better than what it is today. We do not believe a super-natural entity has any role in it and that is all.

229. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #81966 by 82abhilash on October 25, 2007 at 1:05 pm

I know we are going off on a tangent here. But fatcitymax's comment on all women carrying a gun, has a very American origin. Actually the founding fathers believed everyone should be able to carry a gun. So it is written into the US consititution. Why?

Here is the logic. Everybody can carry a gun. Everybody who carries a gun can use it. There are more good people in the world than there are bad people. So if everyone has a gun, it is most probable that more good people will have it than bad people. It is also more probable that more bad people will die in gun fights than good people.

These are Thomas Jefferson's words on the issue, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

So there. Modern day Americans are not as blood thirsty as their founding father hoped they would be.

230. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81334 by 82abhilash on October 24, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Ladies and gentlemen, guys and girls, comrades in arms, D'Souza did a little trick. In his blog there was just the poll, for a while. But now there is a whole article 'explaining' how he won the debate; to prime the voter to his point of view.

Maybe the initial disappointing results have something to do with it. We can wait and see how it goes. I wonder if he has any plans to close the polls.

231. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81248 by 82abhilash on October 24, 2007 at 1:39 pm

oxytocin,

I am sure of it. But now the xians has all heard Hitchen's arguments. They cannot be as sure of themselves as they once used to be. Some fence sitters who believe in belief will fall. Others will find their religion to be less magical and curse Hitchens force enforcing clarity.

Besides all that they also know that they must now live in a world where we exist and are watching their every move.

I say that is corrosive.

232. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81244 by 82abhilash on October 24, 2007 at 1:24 pm

It is not unusual to hear lot of clapping for D'Souza in a Christian University. It is his turf. What interested me was that a significant portion of crowd cheered for Hitchens as well.

That is change. Many people must have left that day considering things that they didnot reflect upon before and that will bring about more change.

233. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #81231 by 82abhilash on October 24, 2007 at 1:10 pm

koldito,

Catholic Sainthood cannot ever be revoked. Because as Pietro Siffi rightly pointed out, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.

So that would be admiting papal fallibility, they are better off supressing such evidence.

234. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81018 by 82abhilash on October 23, 2007 at 10:53 pm

thirdchimpanzee,

I have good reason to think that D'Souza is totally embarassed about his Indian origin. He has said that he is fortunate that the Catholics came to Goa and converted is ancestors to Christianity, under threat of death might I add.

There was an inquisition in the Indian state of Goa in established in 1560 and not abolished until 1812.

In India Christianity is a minority faith. And Christians are known for their arrogance, becuase in India being Christian is associated with being modern and western. That is how they brand Christianity in the East. They are known to mock Hindus associating them with being pagan and tribal.

So do not expect D'Souza to speak about the greatness of the Indus Valley Civilization anytime soon. He would rather pretend that a pre-Christian India lived in the dark ages.

235. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81005 by 82abhilash on October 23, 2007 at 10:11 pm

It is that courage to say bold faced lies with a great sense of conviction; that is what sets people like Dinesh D'Souza apart. What is sad is that many people will believe him and suffer because of it.

Maybe they will become the new generation of warriors in this fight against irrationality.

236. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80961 by 82abhilash on October 23, 2007 at 5:30 pm

133. Comment #80933 by dgr8test97 on October 23, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Homeboy is Indian, why the hell is his name D'Souza?

Dinesh D'Souza is from the Indian state of Goa which was a Portuguese colony (the rest of India was run by the British). The Portuguese did an inquisition there and converted his ancestors to Catholicism by forcing them to eat beef and then baptizing them. Of course he is thankful to them. Now you know Stockholm syndrome can transcend generations.

237. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #80929 by 82abhilash on October 23, 2007 at 2:48 pm

We have expert in philosophy, a science, a journalist and Sam Harris on our side. A legal expert has an important role in this campaign.

238. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80722 by 82abhilash on October 22, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Dinesh D'Souza distorts facts and lies through his teeth. Michael Shermer is too polite and does not notice it. Besides he lets Dinesh impose his world view on him so completly.

Christopher Hitchens needs to put D'Souza in his place. Look at the intellectual gymnastics he is playing. Maybe Penn and Teller should do a show. Dinesh D'Souza is Bullshit.

239. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80713 by 82abhilash on October 22, 2007 at 6:41 pm

55. Comment #80527 by catinabox on October 22, 2007 at 4:08 am

This is nauseating. I had not heard of D'Souza before. He is the most dangerous sort of apologist, one who though totally ignorant and lacking understanding of key issues, is still a gifted speaker and skilled disseminator of nonsense.

This nausea originated in India. So I feel embarassed. Sometimes I wish I could take him back, India is famous for its mob justice.

240. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #80193 by 82abhilash on October 20, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Comment #80074 by steveroot on October 19, 2007 at 9:08 pm
No offense, but do we have to study *Hindu* leprechology as well? ;-)
Stev

Well I guess you do not really need to, like Russell Blackford says in 56. Comment #80082 there are other prioritites. Besides there is no form of organized Hindu Movement worth mentioning that is threatening the free world.

But it is another bastion of irrationality, and if you want to enforce some calrity on them, you must understand where they come from.

Richard Dawkins can get by because his attack is mainly directed against scientific claims made in the name of religion . His understanding of Christianity is limited to what was exposed during his Anglican years, and Islam even less.

The other experts though do know more about the history and belief systems of particular religions. The eastern religions fall below everyone's radar mostly all of the time because they are not a pressing concern, not YET anyway.

241. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #80072 by 82abhilash on October 19, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Comment #80058 by Russell Blackford on October 19, 2007 at 7:18 pm
82abhilash, that's a nice description of what we might hope religion could transform itself into. There's another barrier, though, which is just that the moral content is often pretty undesirable, even after you strip away the supernatural elements.

Yes there are I totally agree. But how do you know unless you read it first. I am using this opportunity to encourage a new audience to read Hindu scripture.

Westerns often fall for Indian charlatans in saffron, because Hinduism has never ever come to the intense rational scrutiny that has been afforded to the Bible and now the Quran.

242. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #80032 by 82abhilash on October 19, 2007 at 3:12 pm

oh, it gets better, later in the story the leader of the monkeys, Hanuman, caries the entire Dronagiri mountain (instead of finding a single herb) to heal Ram's brother (magically) after being injured in battle by the 10 headed tyrant Ravana. Interestingly enough Ravana also had the ability to regenerate heads upon them being severed (no magic herbs needed).

However, plenty of magic herbs are necessary to believe any of this.

That would be a problem if modern day Hindus consider it to be literally true. Well it is highly unlikely that the Hindus you may meet actually think all this happened, many hope it is true, most would rather not confront the question. But the truth is it would not matter much if none of this ever happened.

Let us use the 'practical realism' vs 'factual realism' example that Dan Dennett used. If tomorrow it is found beyond the shadow of doubt that Ramayana is a work of fiction, there will be the initial shock and many people will be upset. But then, things will settle down almost exactly where they where.

Why? Because Hinduism is a brilliantly designed religion, by natural selection and by stewards. The practical realism of Hinduism does not depend on the story to be true, nor do we need to be taken in by the supernatural elements in these stories either. They are all just advertisements to get people interested in the story.

What the people who wrote it really focused upon was the 'content of character' of the characters. Each character in the story is a complex personality with their own set of characteristics. Their personality and that of the persons they interact with creates unique circumstances that we can study and relate to.

Depending on the content of our character we come to a judgment on the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the players. Of course the stories themselves are written with more focus on specific characters, but despite their best attempts none of them are flawless.

So in a sense, it is like Aesop fables. We all know animals do not talk, but the story has its morals and we can relate to that. And thus they provide us important clues about how to live in the real world. So Hindu scriptures are primarily tools for character building. Because it is perceived that with the right character, you can play the different roles in life (as a parent, as a spouse, a professional, etc.) successfully. Some of it is outdated, some of it is not.

If you read with an open mind you may get infected by ar faith meme. But if you read it with a 'probing attitude' you may find some interesting ways to relate with your world, that you previously would not have considered.

243. God's honest truth?

Comment #79795 by 82abhilash on October 18, 2007 at 2:46 pm

The problem with this approach is that it has the potential to replace theological dogmas with nationalistic ones. The fact can end up being whatever the government says it is and then we are back to 1984 (the book). What if a radical right-wing party gets elected in Sweden, cashing in on the legitimate fears of Islamic fundamentalism?

The government does have the right to decide what gets taught in schools which are funded with tax payer's money, especially in a pluralistic democracy, but not otherwise. If a faith based school is a self-funded and teaching lie, who is the government to step in, unless they are encouraging and advocating their students to break laws? Telling lies by itself is not illegal, unless you are under oath. And when their students commit crimes, are they not dealt with properly under a secular constitution and law, all be it not always to our liking? Do their schools not come under more scrutiny? Are they not chastised at the very least? In short does their freedom not get compromised when they try to use it to spread fear? And more importantly, do we not use the freedom given by our laws to corrode their faith? We are already doing it now.

Dogmas are defeated in a society that encourages free discourse. When you defeat one dogma by creating a situation where another can exist, you have in effect not solved the fundamental issue, which is the tendency of people to fall for dogmas.

Let the faith-based schools continue to exist if they can pay for themselves. Let free discourse, argument and debate continue unhindered. The rational ideas will win out. The will become part of the way we do commerce, influence the way we build our industry, the way we practice medicine and further research. When society becomes dependent on facts, the faithful will be forced to shed their dogmas. The self-funded faith based will close, or they will change, because their system of education can no longer produce individuals who can become members of the society they live in.

244. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #79258 by 82abhilash on October 16, 2007 at 3:30 pm

There is a 'land bridge' between India and Sri Lanka. It is old and according to legend created by monkeys. Whoever created it, it is an object of wonder.

Why not study it properly? Why not bring some transparency to the whole issue? Why the hurry to destroy it? What environmental impact can that create? Why is anyone not open about it? Even if it is not a monument, it still has historic significance in a religious sense.

If it is artificial, it has tremendous historic significance comparable to the Great Wall of China. If it is natural, it has environmental significance like the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. In any case why does the Indian Government not see at as the National treasure that it is?

More interestingly in a country with a Hindu majority, why is a democratically elected Government jeopardizing its relationship with its majority voters by hurting their sentiments? Is it not political suicide? A sort of foolishness?

Furthermore it was never a base for religious extremism like the Madrassas in Pakistan, nor was it a magnet for violence or social unrest until the government threatened to destroy it?

Something stinks and this time, I think it is the current secular government of India that smells fishy.

245. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says

Comment #77615 by 82abhilash on October 9, 2007 at 10:03 pm

Ban it all, ban it all - laicite is the hope for the free french everywhere.

246. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76410 by 82abhilash on October 5, 2007 at 6:29 pm

I hate to burst the bubble here for a lot of people. But Andy's ideas have several shortcomings. And they came up again and again during the Q&A session. That is not to say all of what he said was trash. But it needs improvement.

One point I noticed markedly was his honesty. He didnot try to make things up. When asked a question related to his fieldand he didnot know the answer, he said "I do not know."

Maybe now he has new factors to consider when he fine tunes his ideas.

247. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76306 by 82abhilash on October 5, 2007 at 12:15 pm

I think gitmo is the product of a failed strategy on an incompetent administration. It might as well be that the people in gitmo are radicalized muslims standing on the edge of the proverbial cliff. So was Sayed Qutub.

But locking them only pushes them over the edge and when they fall, it is most likely that they will pull down a lot of innocent people with them. That is what Dennett meant by telling the prisons help create such people. It acts like a spark to ignite their gun powder.

But what can be done? Can we just let them freely preach their radical ideas? Indoctrinate millions with their poison? If they ever come out they are more likely than they where before they got in, to perform acts of terror. In fact those among them who where mistakenly put there may also get convinced that the US is some sort of satan.

I have an unsettling thought. What choice do they have except death? Die as a suicide bomber, or die in a futile raid, or get killed in gitmo itself. Do you think they will have any desire to try and live a normal life, after this? What are the chances?

248. Christianity's Image Problem

Comment #76075 by 82abhilash on October 4, 2007 at 3:35 pm

kaiserkriss, it will take even lesser time. Christianity cannot survive unless it is able to perpetuate itself, through its existing followers. The way things are, I think they are losing more followers than they are gaining. That is the model of a failed business.

249. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76071 by 82abhilash on October 4, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I got a beautiful quote that explains this phenomenon very well.

"It is very easy to wake someone who is asleep, but very difficult to wake someone who is pretending to sleep."

250. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75517 by 82abhilash on October 2, 2007 at 10:51 pm

You know people there are a lot of good ideas expressed here by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and the like. The arguments are themselves extremely sound, even though they may not give one the sense of transcendental bliss that most ordinary people seek. Although I must add that Richard Dawkins did well with his book 'Unweaving the rainbow' and Carl Sagan's documentary 'Cosmos' is brilliant.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is, these are new arguments, plus some old arguments repackaged for a new generation. They are not going away, especially since religion is showing its ugly face too often these days. And while projects like the 'Blasphemy Challenge' can make important people take notice of the changing times, it is reason that makes the change endure regardless of any label or lack there of - atheist, new atheist, anti-theist, non-theist, skeptic, skepchick, agnostics, secular humanist, 'no label at all', naturalist, darwinian,, etc.,. So to that extent I agree with Sam Harris.

But I understand the need of the label in bringing people together. But as a member of the mainstream society, I prefer not to use my label, unless pressed upon. I would rather use reason at every turn whenever and wherever I confront irrationality.

It is something about the way the human brain works - forever handicapped by the sequence in which you feed in the information. If you bring forth a sound argument, people may listen to you, even accept your reasoning and most may not care too much if they later find you to be a 'new atheist'. However if they find that out first, then they will lock out of anything you have to say immediately.