201. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97759 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 3:39 pm

381. Comment #97751 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 3:25 pm

I believe you. It is hard. But if God is real, He will never give up on us.....and perhaps that is why it is so hard to leave it behind.

Here is a bit of sophistry on that score. If we give up on God, as I have done, who's fault is that? Who is to blame, the creator or the created? Free will is all very well, but God created me in full foreknowledge of the outcome of my life. In a sense predestination actually makes some chilling sense, if you accept all the primary assumptions.

.....but I suspect if you have never been part of that, it's difficult to understand what we are talking about.

Amen to that brother ... erm ... former ... brother? :-)

....and certainly I don't want to believe just because I want to believe....that would be ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as you might think. Stripping away the layers of rationalisation to expose genuine motivation is actually very, very hard.

You look at the world. You see almost limitless suffering, cruelty and horror. Some of it not even caused by evil in any traditional sense, just the indifference of a universe that doesn't care, that doesn't even know it doesn't care.

If you find yourself thinking that there just HAS to be a loving God, that a world emerging from the darkness of an unfathomable infinity of time past and whirling out of control into an equally unknown future, just CAN'T be all there is, you may well be in simple denial.

Here is another helpful site : http://www.godisimaginary.com/

Personal question, feel free to ignore. Are you married, if yes, how does your wife feel about your faith, and your struggle to understand God?

202. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97741 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 3:07 pm

363. Comment #97725 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 2:50 pm

I;ve been doing that for some ten to fifteen years.

Well good. I guess:-/

You seem to be wrestling with some heavy stuff, and I don't envy you. My own deconversion took years, perhaps as much as a decade, but things really begin to accelerate in the final years and months. If you've been heavily indoctrinated as a child to believe in Hell, that is a real bitch to get over. Intellectually, I'm well over it, but emotionally .... every so often. *shudder*

About two years ago, my wife and I realised we just didn't believe it anymore, not only that, but we had somehow morphed into anti-theists!! Imagine that:-) Courtesy of GWB and the Iraq war primarily.

We worked for these guys for 4 years :
http://www.covenantplayers.org/

Honest to .... Honestly:-)

I wish I could wave a magic wand, and get you through the worst. Heck, sometimes I wish I could wave a magic wand and get me through the worst!!

Ignorance really is bliss, but it's too late for us:-)

203. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97717 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 2:40 pm

340. Comment #97686 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 2:15 pm

None of us. No man who sets himself up and claims to have the truth is telling the truth.

This is a good answer, but it is a dangerous path you have embarked on. You have begun to acknowledge reality, and are trying to square this with your faith. At the risk of coming across as a condescending prick, let me say the following.

As a christian, I came to this exact conclusion, and it's stood me in good stead, even after leaving my faith behind. Anyone that claims to have the absolute truth, is utterly full of shit. Religious or Secular. Yet this in principle is exactly what every denomination claims, but intelligent christians like yourself (and ahem me) eventually realise it's rubbish. Generally after a few disappointments.

I dare say you've burned through a few churches in your time? Been through a fundamentalist phase, and now you realise that absolute cart loads of christian leadership are chock full of shit to overflowing? Is any of this familiar?

If yes, here is a piece of advice. Just get away from it. For a year. Don't go to church, hang out with secular friends and get some distance. Read some serious church history, and a few books on comparative religions. This is a good start.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/about_the_holy_bible.html

Follow it up with this.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/homer1a.htm#TOC

I have no idea where the universe came from or why, but it seems to me that no one else does either, and all the absolute truth claims I've taken the time to examine are misguided at best, and frequently a determined attempt to hijack your mind at worst. Not terribly comforting, I know, but it'll have to do for now:-)

204. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97693 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 2:20 pm

338. Comment #97684 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 2:08 pm

It's clearly a short letter written to someone who would have known what John was talking about.

EXACTLY. How on earth could we possibly have the faintest clue what half of that rambling, repetitive pap means? It could mean any damn thing!!!

Thus your claim that this John endorses the deity of Jesus? Dude! Wild!! The christians didn't get closure on this until well into the 4th century, and the JW and the Mormons have basically reopened the discussion. Why?

Because the bible is a rambling, contradictory and politically edited hodge podge is why. Either that, or watching people scratch their heads, and each others eyes out over the placement of semi colons, just cracks God up. Why not? We're made in his image after all, and we enjoy Bum Fights, Jerry Springer and American Idol. Makes as much sense as anything else in the Bible.

No I'm not an ex JW. Ex-mainstream christian, sometime fundamentalist and current evangelical atheist. I guess I miss it, you know?:-)

205. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97683 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 2:07 pm

334. Comment #97675 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Even Jesus had discussions with the Jewish religious leaders of his day over interpretation of the OT.

But you are opening the floodgates here! Which one of the 30K+ Christian sects has the "truth"? Most of them claim that they have cracked the "code", and that some (if not all) of the others are going to be [insert euphimisim for eternal torment, or bald faced "you're off to burn forever" here].

206. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #97676 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 2:02 pm

23. Comment #97667 by SilentMike on December 12, 2007 at 1:52 pm

We need to target the crackpots and give the others an out. When they're liberalized then we'll hit them with "your religion's a piece of krap" again and again till they give.

I like it SilentMike, in fact I love it:-)

207. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97673 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 1:57 pm

326. Comment #97659 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 1:43 pm


This statement is made in the context of false teacher who are deliberately trying to mislead people.

There is nothing in MY bible to suggest that, on the contrary, plus the JW use this exact scripture to justify "Disfellowshipping". Maybe they have it right, and you have it wrong? How could you possible know? Either way, it's a nasty piece of outgrouping.

The whole epistle in context (it's a short one)

2 John

1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
1:2 For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
1:4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
1:12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
1:13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.

208. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97666 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Which Christians?

Oh come on. Lets not play silly buggers.

209. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97665 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 1:50 pm

I would have thought these were self-evident. Can you list for me some ways in which they are different for different denominations?

Fred Phelps. Jim Jones. Joseph Smith. Pat Robinson.

Ask each one of these guys what it means, twice and 5 years apart.

I guarantee you eight different answers.

210. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97651 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 1:25 pm

312. Comment #97629 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 12:57 pm


"He has shown you, O man, what is good,
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God."

Contrast that with this, NT quote :

2 John

1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

and they say the Koran is nasty:-)

Your quote comes from the OT, which forms part of the jewish faith, a dogma that christians reject. Many christians think that jews are going to hell, even if they make a good faith attempt to behave as this vacuous piece of fluff suggests. That is a problem for theists.

211. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97626 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 12:45 pm

301. Comment #97609 by krisking on December 12, 2007 at 12:24 pm

God is not like a child playing with her dollies. He wants you to make right choices.

This is fine applied to a finite being (like my Dad), with a limited overview of the future, past and what is currently going on in my head.

However, it is pure nonsense in the context of an infinitley powerful being aware of the influence, position and chain of casuality inherent in every atom, in the entire universe, both backwards and forwards as far as time goes. This is surely self evident?

Epicuris is 'da man. No one has ever said it better.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

212. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #97617 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 12, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Frankly, this is one thing I'm unreservedly in favour of. Although insulting a specific individual is something I would personally reject, we do need muslims to be saturated with general critique and ridicule of the Koran, ala Pat Condell. I'm betting we will see, along with some regretable violence, more of the kind of liberal defence we heard from Zainab al-Touraihi. Bascially the muslim version of "Thats not MY God". Alone what she said in this interview was a great leap forward, plus she is a woman!

She said she supported Wilders' right to make the movie, though she said she was certain it would be skewed and harmful to both Dutch Muslims and the Netherlands as a whole.

"He would like to see that every Muslim woman is in prayers and held at home and that they have no rights, but he's not looking at Muslims these days," she said. "The Koran is a matter of interpretation, just like the Bible and the Torah. You need to interpret, not take it literally."

Al-Touraihi's group has long had a standing invitation to Wilders to speak to its members or take part in a debate. And Wilders has always ignored it, she said.

"If he really believed in these things, he would go out and sit with us and talk about issues, but he's never responded, so it's a one-man show and a one-way show," al-Touraihi said. "As a member of parliament, he can get every camera in front of him and say whatever he wants, but he never goes out for debates because I think he knows that he would lose voters."

That is the jackpot as far as I am concerned, and while she may be right that the guy is a racist dork, he is nonetheless forcing her to take a very public, nuanced and liberal position on Islam as Ideology, not race. Pure ... fucking ... gold.

213. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96993 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2007 at 8:16 am

143. Comment #96980 by AtheistJon on December 11, 2007 at 7:42 am

Haven't you heard the hippy adulation to "Love your Brother Man..."?

OK. I've got a much better idea of where you are coming from. Sure. The "love your fellow man idea" is related to the hippies, but it's primary vehicle for promotion has been christianity. It's an absurd and useless injunction, no one (that isn't mentally ill) loves anyone even as much as themselves that isn't directly related to them by blood. This is just the basic human operating system. So I think we agree on this.

But I draw different conclusions. I consider law, agreed by a majority of those subject to it (or their representatives) as a critical component for societal stability, and that requires protection for minorities, be they racial or religious.

I certainly don't see how laws emerging from a broad consensus can be considered immoral by either of us, as we've agreed that in principle, morality is simply what we collectively say it is, in the context of some agreed system to process and codify those opinions.

Now of course there is some danger here, because sometimes even large, well informed groups of people do come to dubious conclusions about what is moral. Hence witch trials, or the invasion of Iraq. However, these misfirings of our moral grammer are generally due to faulty inputs (witches are killing the babies), rather than a problem with the basic system.

So I temper the rather absolute view I've outlined here with the idea that morality should flow from the "do unto others" concept, and that specific information, case by case is a crucial ingredient to moral behaviour. It seems to mesh with our moral intuitions and it does a good job of protecting minorities, while slotting into almost any ethical framework, including a society comfortable with cannibalism and smearing themselves in excrement.

This doesn't require you to love them, merely to leave them alone, as long as they leave you alone.

That said, progressive legal systems do seem to be approaching an application of law, which is close to the "do unto others" ideal. The rejection of capital punishment, the prevention of child or spousal abuse and the elimination of debtors prison seem to me all to be informed by that idea, and very, very welcome. The trick will be to get some kind of global application of our most positive norms.

In summary, if we had global binding law as regards basic behaviour, some essential social services, and everyone minded their own damn business, we'd have utopia. Religion with it's built in drive to badger and bother is a real fly in that ointment.

214. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96978 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2007 at 7:39 am

No wait ... I've got it.

LEADERS - liberalism, empiricism, analysis, democracy, evidence, reason, science.

Nahgh :-)?

215. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96977 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2007 at 7:37 am

221. Comment #96976 by Dr Benway on December 11, 2007 at 7:31 am
"ELDERS" smacks of authoritarianism.

How about DEALERS then?
democracy, evidence, analysis, liberalism, empiricism, reason, science.

216. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96962 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2007 at 6:55 am

Is it just me, or does Father Morris come across as rather gay? Anyone know of evidence in that regard, or if he has views on the subject?

Gay of course is fine, but suppressed gay people banging on about how wonderful religion is, when it despises them (ala Ted Haggard) always sickens me. It's a unique brand of self loathing that has to call everything they say into question. I'm suspicious ... anyone know anything?

217. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96929 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2007 at 5:42 am

Well, well ... what do you know.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/12/atheist-killers.html

218. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96919 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2007 at 5:11 am

192. Comment #96903 by naba on December 11, 2007 at 4:26 am

Is it conceivable that someone really could perform immoral actions 'in the name of atheism?' If someone committed mass murder, and claimed that it was 'in the name of atheism' – could he or she justify that claim?


Sure. In fact it's likely now that it's being talked about, that some maladjusted atheist will do exactly that. Not looking forward to that day:-(

However how to justify killing in the name of atheism is much trickier. As you rightly point out, what would be the goals?

I can sort of imagine a movement that claimed religion was evil, and thus all those that embrace religion are evil and must be killed. It is likely that everyone that subscribed to such a twisted belief would be atheist, but their motivation for killing would still not be because of their atheism, but rather because of the danger they perceive religion to be. Actually, extreme islamophobes are already partly fullfilling these criteria, but they are more commonly christian fundamentalists than atheists.

I dunno. Atheism simply means you reject the concept of a supernatural deity, and although it's a set which overlaps with all kinds of philosophical perspectives, I just can't see it as the primary agent of genocide, or motivation to murder in the same way that religion so unquestionably is.

It's an interesting question. Comments?

219. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96853 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2007 at 2:32 am

175. Comment #96841 by jaf on December 11, 2007 at 2:13 am
If Mr. Morris wants to bandy meaningless (and uncorroborated) numbers, he should be aware that, in the bible, god kills over 2.5 million people, whereas the devil only managed 10 individuals.

The 100 million deaths at the hands of insane cult leaders is not far off in fairness. However, it needs some examination.

Lets look at totals and motivations/cause.

6 million jews - Primarily religious.
10 - 30 million ukranians - Misguided economic policy and the embrace of pseudo science in the form of lamarkism.
WWII 50 million (overlaps the 6M jews) - political fallout from misguided policies of WWI, and religion in the form of virulent anti-semitism fused with revived nordic mythology.
30 million Chinese - Misguided economic policy.
3 - 6 million Cambodians - Insane economic/social policy, with a heavy dose of just random killing. People with glasses were particularly targetted, being potential academics.

As you can see, killing explicitly because one is an atheist and another is a theist, features hardly at all. On the contrary, some of the killings being attributed to atheism are in fact explicitly theistic!!!

220. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96838 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2007 at 2:06 am

The fight against religion per se is a valid one because it is based upon false premises. However the fight against doctrine is, in my opinion, more urgent because this is where the real danger lies.

Not only should we take this tack, we should throw the claim that atheism is responsible for deaths directly back in their faces.

Hitlerism, and Stalinism were religions, with the particular individual in each cult, the focus of worship and adulation. The deaths caused by these freaks, also belong on religions tab. If the followers of these monsters had not credulously accepted the claims, and religiously followed the injunctions of their respective Gods, the millions of deaths, for which they are responsible would never have happened.

Critical thinking about everything, including religion is the antidote to religions of every kind. Stalin, Hitler and Jim Jones, the faces change but the bullshit doesn't. Are we wising up yet?

Henceforth I shall refer to the cult of hitler, stalin etc.

221. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96810 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 11, 2007 at 12:30 am

140. Comment #96672 by AtheistJon on December 10, 2007 at 8:15 pm

Jon, you seem somehow to have unconsciously embraced the bizarre theistic idea, that morality has to emenate from the transcendent, when really it's just an outgrowth of the interplay of our consciousness and neurology, with a heavy helping of culture.

The bottom line? We make stuff up that we think will provide a stable society, people agree (or don't), we argue, laws get passed. Thats the reason morality is so incredibly diverse, but nonetheless does have a clearly hardwired component. It's also why humans are generally quite conflicted, research using MRI scans shows these neurological modules "duking it out" until one or the other triumphs, and a decision is reached.

Other than the baseline hardwired components, nicely summed up in "do unto others as you would have them do unto you.", morality is just made up stuff. Nothing illustrates this more dramatically than the fact that sometimes "doing unto others" means eating grandma, because that is what she'd really want:-)

In your later post, the use of the world "love" is ill-advised. People are never going to love one another, this is just a christian conceit which you appear to have absorbed without critique. An impossible goal, the primary function of which is to furnish a stick to beat the believer into even more abject submission for their "failure".

The best society can expect to acheive is that people respect, tolerate and where this is not possible, generally ignore each other. Relationships that have problems not amenable to amicable solutions are simply governed by agreed laws. If we just had that on a global level, we'd be laughing.

222. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96795 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 10, 2007 at 11:27 pm

My wife, daughter and I saw it and loved it. it seems odd to consider a movie that in it's first weekend grossed $81M worldwide, and was considered the number 1 release as a "flop".

Then there is the issue of placing such a comment in context. How are other movies doing, are general expections being met, or is their a broader malaise?

Still, I suppose they are about $100M+ short of covering their investment, but with a whole cinema run to complete, and DVD release, wouldn't that add up to massive money? Any studio directors in the building?

223. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96305 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 10, 2007 at 10:32 am

Sorry to disagree, Brian, but I think it is a useful comment, as it is wrong in an interesting way.

Well I'll conceed there must be more to it then. I don't get it though. If humans can be observed, and God cannot, how does the "unlikelyness" of humans existing, help the theist?

224. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96300 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 10, 2007 at 10:17 am

126. Comment #96271 by jimsimmonds on December 10, 2007 at 9:03 am

I think it would be a wise idea to drop the argument that the probability of god existing is very low because an opponent could counter with the observation that the probability of humans existing is also very low, and yet we do, indeed, exist.

Huh? That was a strange comment! If I were to say, "there is no evidence for unicorns, thus the probability of them existing is very low", and someone responded "ah, but the probability of humans existing is also very low. You see?", I'd merely think they'd misunderstood me, or were a bit odd. I certainly don't consider it a killer argument. It's meaningless.

Besides, demonstrating that God is unlikely is almost the entire point surely? Otherwise we'd be in the peculiar situation of trying to prove religion bad, while leaving it's core absurdity untouched. It's like claiming you are occupying France, without a single soldier in Paris.

225. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96186 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 10, 2007 at 6:11 am

106. Comment #96178 by krisking on December 10, 2007 at 5:57 am

It's clear that religions all round the world have not made much progress, as indicated by stories of God being written letters and failing to answer and then being called to court (and presumably not turning up) and huge international religious hierarchies which seem to behave more like political organisations seeking power and influence in the world.

My exclusivley christian background biases my answer to this, but I'll have a go.

I would at a minimum expect the Bible to be :
a) Internally coherent.
b) Have unquestionable supernatural origins.
c) Be filled with useful injunctions, information and health hints that could not have come from anywhere but a God or the future. PI to a million decimal places would have been pretty convincing for example, and even something as simple as "tiny invisible creatures are a primary cause of contagious disease, wash your hands after going to the toilet." would have been pretty damn impressive.

A single religion emerging and become the primary global religion very quickly, i.e. in the lifetime of the humans present at it's emergence, and resulting in vastly improved quality of life for all of humanity would also have given me pause for thought.

What else. Regular and personal appearences by Jesus, would help, although that might mean I've just gone nuts:-)

Alas the bible is a hodge podge product of incompetent political editing, full of mutually contradictory trash and a few nuggets of vague, obvious good sense. As is the Koran, although muslims will squeal insistently that this is not the case.

All religions are very, very local, and generally spread by violence and intriuge. Islams arrival on the scene seems to have improved peoples quality of life, temprorarily at least. However the effect is strictly local in time and space, and the Chinese acheive similar and much more long lived, widespread effects through embracing confucianism. Besides, secular democracy beats the pants of everything as regards precipitous quality of life improvement.

226. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96170 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 10, 2007 at 5:20 am

100. Comment #96163 by krisking on December 10, 2007 at 5:11 am


..but that's why I don't understand why Dawkins even bothers to talk about God in terms of probabilities....

Ah but this is quite different. All this talk of probability vis a vis the universe is moot, because here it is!!!

However, the existence of God cannot be directly observed. Thus it must be inferred and have probability assigned. It's a bit like extra solar planetary discovery.

These planets cannot (yet!!) be directly imaged, thus their existence must be inferred by other factors. For example, unexplained wobble in the parent star, or the x-ray signature of material being siphoned off by the gravitional attraction of an unseen orbiting body.

It's sort of similar with a rational approach to the existence of God. Problem is the evidence is pretty sparse, thus although one should never say never, we can say it seems pretty damn unlikely.

227. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96159 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 10, 2007 at 5:04 am

96. Comment #96155 by krisking on December 10, 2007 at 4:49 am


So are you saying that there were lots of goes at getting worlds started and because of the huge number of attempts, one of them (at least) succeeded?

Steve addressed this very clearly in post #96126. Let me have another go. When you roll a set of dice, or lets say 20, 20 sided dice, the result you get is extremely unlikely, yet there it is!!! How can this be, when the odds of it occurring are so unlikely?

The reason we are not particularly surprised by any given outcome, is because we did not predict it, the result is a fait accompli. Just like the existence of the universe. If we were to predict an outcome, then roll the dice, and get the predicted result, that would certainly be amazing, and this is what is at the root of your incredulity. However, this is not what is happening.

You are in the position of an observer looking back at a dice throw, and expressing amazement that all 20 dices turned up the same number. This is certainly unlikely, but what the observer is missing, is that this outcome is no more unlikely than any other combination. Thus it is with evolution, the universe, and life. It is unlikely, but no less unlikely than a myriad of other possible outcomes. We are here to marvel at it, because we are:-)

228. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96060 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 10:46 pm

In short: authoritarianism verses corroborationism. When people can independently check the claims of their leaders, egalitarianism becomes possible.

That is a pithy summary, and I completely agree.

229. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96059 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 10:43 pm

44. Comment #95955 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 2:32 pm
It depends on how broad your definition of religion is. The greatest enemy of religion in 1st century Palestine was Christ himself. But it's a bit o a stretch to blame Stalin's and Hitler's atrocities on the Christian milieu and/or background.

Hardly a stretch, you barely need to lift a finger. You have a deity/saviour construct, whose very word is law, and whom to defy is death. You have holy writ, heretics and an inqusition. Only the most determined, and sustained effort could miss that religion and totalitarianism are exactly the same thing, particularly once it's been pointed out:-)

And I had such high hopes for you!

230. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95948 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 2:18 pm

The Confessing Lutheran church fell foul of the regime (unlike the Protestant establishment it has to be said). Dietrich Bonhöffer and several other key Christians dared to stand up to him. Sadly the rest of German Christianity allowed itself to be persuaded by his religiouis rhetoric.

This is exactly the point, the vast majority of Germans fell for Hitlers rethoric hook, line and sinker. Prepped by millenia of Christian credulity. The exact same reason that a personality cult sprung up so quickly around the "raised by jesuits" Stalin. Both Hitler and Stalin behaved like the God of the old testament, they expected the worship accorded to Gods and crushed all competitors, including the adherents of other religions.

Hitler and Stalin's death toll doesn't go on atheisms tab, it goes on religions tab, as does the actions of every totalitarian lunatic who convinces a credulous populace to hand over the reigns of power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmsis-motuY

231. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95944 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Guys ... please .. just walk away. It's better for everyone. Really.

No one, is to post anything, until I blow this whistle .... and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they DO say Jehovah.

232. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95940 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Why a disappointment? Because you thought I was edging towards skepticism?

Well yes. However, are you suggesting you're not skeptical about anything? Or just not skeptical about whatever religious claims you've grown up with, and isn't that a wierd kind of compartmentalisation?

Sorry to disappoint. I have no problem with Evolution by the way. But positting a materialistic origin for the universe and for life is also clearly unsubstatiated.

You seem to be blurring evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology here. Let me take issue with your comment about evolution though. If you think creationism, or ID have any validity whatever (and your posts on this thread, at least point in this direction), then I'm afraid you do have a problem with evolution. The kind of problem that those musing how "alchemists might have a point, and need a fair hearing", have with chemistry.

As regards a "materialistic origin" for the universe, I suppose you've got me there. Although given that this wasn't the topic at hand, congratulations are hardly in order:-) Seriously though, no one has a clue where the universe came from, but the hypothesis "created by an invisible, all powerful, eternal super being" (how would you know) is no more compelling than "the result of random quantum fluctuations".

Plus "random quantum fluctuations" is neater, don't you think? It doesn't require the explanation of winged horses, battles in heaven, virgin births, resurrections, how any of this can be reliably known or why every successful religion steals the best bits from predecessors, and co-opts their holidays:-)

Oh ... and no dietary demands, nothwithstanding all that talk about mans inhumanity to meat on the other thread.

233. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95899 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 12:36 pm

it is turning out to be rather different from what Darwin envisaged.

The "difference", such as it is, is that we are filling in the details. Darwin knew nothing about microbiology, DNA or chromosomes, yet these discoveries all support evolution as outlined by Darwin. Consider the incredible intricacy, complexity and frequent imperfection of these detailed biological interlocking systems. If the basic premise had of been wrong, our deepening understanding of biology would have blown Darwin out of the water. Instead we see the polar opposite. Endless mountains of supporting evidence.

The filling in of the blanks continues to prove Darwin correct, and there has been nothing, despite the best efforts of the Discovery Institute and similar pretenders, to contradict the primary principles.

The resistance to evolution is pure and unadulterated religion, nothing else, and it is deeply disingenous of you to represent it as honest enquiry. Frankly it's a great disappointment. Well, perhaps you have deluded yourself in your obvious ignorance of the overwhelming certainty of the principle (if not the detail), that this is the case. That is the kindest characterisation I can find for your position.

234. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95868 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 11:30 am

That means that the morality that the resulting behaviour is consistent with already existed before the first members of our species found themselves grappling with these issues.

Why does this follow?

235. The art of the soluble

Comment #95813 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 9:05 am

The anti-science crowd threatens our very survival. Everyone here has a moral duty to shit on ADH's head until he shuts up or catches on.

I can certainly endorse the spirit, and ah ... thrust of your comment:-)

Here is the thing ADH. People used to think God did everything directly and personally, or at a minimum through spiritual agents (like angels or demons), Muslims actually still do. Or at least that is the standard theology, an unfortunate development that may have completely undercut a nascent industrial revolution taking place in the muslim world in the 13th or 14th century. Imagine if the industrial revolution had started 300 years ahead of schedule, would be living on fricking mars already!! But I digress.

The point is, suggesting that stuff we don't know is proof of God, is not just annoying for us, but very short term thinking for the theist. For example in a recent thread you pointed out that no animals to your knowledge had passed the mirror test, only to be immediately shot down. This is just more of the same pointless drawing of lines in the sand, butteresed by your own incredulity, albeit happening a good bit more slowly.

It seems to me the incredible, exponential pace of discovery in the last 300 years would give the arrogance of theists pause for thought. Yet they keep coming. Thats faith I suppose:-)

Here is a suggestion. Write down the gaps you think "prove" or that you consider "evidence" for god. Keep careful track of the relevant literature and note as each theological firewall is breached. If nothing else, it should make interesting reading for any future self that has grown sufficently to divest themselves of childhood myths. ADH, I think you are already realising its tosh, and giving it your last, best shot. Good on you, and all the best, honest enquiry and ruthless self analysis will get you there.

236. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95807 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 8:45 am

ADH, can I refer you to : http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1974,Richard-Dawkins---Science-and-the-New-Atheism,Point-of-Inquiry,page4#95747, which although brief goes some way to addressing your point.

The Dawkins quote is more theist silliness. Nothing he says there contradicts the idea that our consciousness, coupled with detailed scientific knowledge, allows us to transcend our genes.

I still have drives to procreate, kill "threats" and jump around wildly if a bee lands on me. So in a clear sense I do still "dance to the music of DNA.", it says nothing about me slipping on a johnny as required. This is just quote mining, indeed, such ham fisted quote mining, that I don't even need to see the context to know your "straightforward reading" is, at a minimum, rather peculiar.

The larger issue of consciousness, and free will is what is actually bothering you here, and it is certainly more interesting. These are complex systems that science has made some progress in understanding, but there is a long way to go. Given the last 300 years of breathtaking discovery, I have confidence that we will eventually get there, but this is tough stuff, and we may never fully grasp it. Stephen Pinker has some very interesting stuff to say on the subject, check him out.

This is something that those who argue that justice and morality are functions of natural selection have not addressed satisfactorily.

Is anyone arguing that they are products? I don't think so, byproducts perhaps. Our desire for Justice and morality do however appear to be products of the process of consciousness, layered on a biological substrate of neurological modules competing for attention. Recent research using MRI scans show this incredibly clearly. A case can be made for morality, altruism and love based purely on the observable universe. How is this less sensible or coherent than appealing to an invisible, unknowable (and this by admission!!!??), creator of the universe?

237. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95747 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 5:17 am

No, no, no, no, no! There is NOTHING deterministic about evolution. Evolution simply explains how we have reached our present stage of complexity. It just so happens that we have evolved to SUCH a degree of complexity that we have the freedom to choose how to USE that complexity.

This is a the classic theist confusion, evolutionary theory as binding law like the Bible. We don't "worship" evolution, we just think it explains our origins more coherently than the 6000 year old creation myth of bedouin nomads.

We are not bound by the "laws" of evolution, like christians are (ostensibly) bound by the laws of the bible, or Muslims by the ravings of the Koran. We can do what we like, and we do.

238. The art of the soluble

Comment #95736 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 4:16 am

More specifically, Dawkins famously showed that it is possible to build a computer model that could generate huge complexity - analogous in an arm-waving way to the complexity of nature - just by applying an all-purpose rule, an algorithm, that simulated natural selection. Indeed, says Lennox. But the algorithm works only because it has been very carefully designed - by Dawkins.

Is this not the most breathtakingly inane comment? How else would Dawkins or anyone conduct experiments? The very nature of experiment is design, every single naturally occurring process we have determined with certainty as "natural" was determined by "designed" experiments.

This commentary implies that every incident of weather, lightening, earthquakes etc., etc. are "designed" too, when we know that this is nonsense.

It's just the same infinite regress as usual. Am I missing something here?

239. The art of the soluble

Comment #95727 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 3:52 am

7. Comment #95695 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 1:37 am
Excellent review, excellent book. I wonder when Lennox and Dawkins will cross swords again on British soil. Keep me posted if you get wind of anything.

You liked the review? I found it simply to be more of the same. I must confess to never having read the book, but based on the review I can't say I'm particularly motivated to.

What about this review impressed you? Perhaps you can help me to see what I'm missing:-)

240. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95565 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 3:38 pm

136. Comment #95558 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 3:22 pm

I swear, I'm not plagarising your posts!!!

241. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95562 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 3:30 pm

126. Comment #95547 by krisking on December 8, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly sure that he has said that children taught by religious parents about their religion are in fact abused and should be taken away from their parents. I think that is a fair indication that he means religion to be eradicated.

Happy to oblige. I am almost certain, that he has never called for children to be removed from their parents. What he has said, is that some forms of religious upbringing are a form of mental child abuse, and people should be made aware of this perspective. This is hardly controversial, is it? You're surely not going to dispute that, for example, telling teenagers they will burn in hell if they have sex, is a form of violent physcological abuse?

Parents used to do all kinds of awful and stupid things to their children, which only recently have become illegal. I submit that it is possible that religious indoctrination of children may become a crime in the future, and I don't personally see an inconsistency there.

That said, in all abuse situations one must weigh up the relative benefits of removal, versus say, counselling for the parents.

Of course, what consenting adults do in private should remain a purely personal matter, but I think you'll agree that society has a responsibility to protect chidren from being, groomed, recruited or taken advantage of, by anyone.

242. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95546 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Brian, have you heard Hitchens on the war on terror? Which is the rational view: his or that of those of us who oppose the war in Iraq?

This is exactly the point. I disagree completely with Hitchens on the Iraq war, and with many of my fellow atheists on their extreme positions vis a vis the islamic world.

Here is the critical difference though, they can't simply claim some random book as justification for their positions. They are obliged to explain them, in rational terms, in a context that is at least superficially coherent. Thus the argument can continue, and sometimes I learn things. Sometimes, I hope, they learn things. This is the nature of the process.

With the theist alas, it all eventually, once the prevarication is stripped away, comes down to faith. This is a key difference.

243. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95538 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 2:44 pm

113. Comment #95529 by krisking on December 8, 2007 at 2:21 pm

You'd think that Dawkins would give them out free, if he wants to eradicate religion from the world.

I don't believe he's ever said that he wants to "eradicate religion", but I'm open to correction. His position I suspect, is like that of many of us, he just wants religion back in it's box. A legitimate but personal activity, engaged in by consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes, temples or meeting halls.

Were it does show up in public, it needs to be subject to the same rigourous critique that all public views are subject to. No special priviledges.

244. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95535 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 2:38 pm

But I wanted to pin down the concept of "speciesism", as it was mentioned by Dawkins in his talk, and as it seems to be fairly common currency amongst atheists. I actually beg to differ about you not having common positions except with regard to the non-existence of God. It seems to me that common positions are emerging over a range of issues.

Well yes, but there are also very diverse views. That said, I agree that it is likely that being an atheist, increases the probability of other positions being held or correlates with them. However this is probably nothing to do with the atheism per se, but related to another factor influencing both the atheism, and the high probablity position.

This factor is the capacity (or tendency) to evaluate information in a strictly rational, and empirical way. This process leads to atheism, but it also leads to rational positions with regard to "The war on terror", "stem cell research" and the level of trust to assign tele-evangelists.

So the positions that atheist hold will at least have to be justified rationally, and that process will frequently weed out the really wacky stuff.

245. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95532 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 2:29 pm

112. Comment #95525 by krisking on December 8, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Surely if you follow Dawkins on evolution, then we eat what we eat....and that is partly how we survive, because we can get the others before they get us.

This is a common misconception. Evolution is not "holy writ". It merely explains how we got from simple to complex animals.

How humans construct their societies is a completely distinct question. Our consciousness frees us from the evolutionary imperative. We are conscious and reasoning, and can thus decide that rape, war and cannibalism (for example) are bad choices for a complex society. Being "true" to some ideal outcome for our evolutionary heritage is neither here nor there. My genes can bite me, I'm still going to use a condom:-)

246. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95530 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 2:22 pm

102. Comment #95508 by coretemprising on December 8, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Brian, I am at a loss to understand why becoming an atheist brought about this change in your thoughts.

You know, I consider it odd myself. Of course I was very fond of them and played with them, prior to my "deconversion".

However, as I realised how blurred the lines are between humans and other animals (the many discussions I had on the subject left me fairly informed), I began to see them as like me, conscious in the NOW, capable of fun, happiness, sadness the whole spectrum of emotions. The more I did that, the more evidence my interactions with them provided that this was so.

For example, I can now lie in the sunshine with our 9 year old male cat, Moses, and get him to "play". If I roll over and expose my "underbelly", and he is in the mood, he often does the same thing. Then we "play". It's a communication I would never have considered before, because I unconciously considered animals so distinct. My atheism changed that.

247. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95507 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Granny stew from a humanely and locally reared Granny that was killed

Ahh .. but this is not equivalent at all. Bring Grannies in, and you have got have the consent of the ... ah .... menu item.

Killing and eating people that objected to being treated this way is clearly wrong by conventional morality. It's killing and eating those that consent that make the moral waters murkier.

248. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95504 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 1:15 pm

91. Comment #95487 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Can someone tell me whether the atheist position on "speciesism" rules out slaughtering animals for food?

You've been rightly chastised for this question, it is silly in the context of atheism. However, I'll be happy to give you my personal view if that helps?

Since becoming an atheist, I've become acutely conscious of our cats. I really see them in a completely new light, and interact with them as partners, rather than toys. I now see them as biological entities in their own right, with drives, needs and motivations broadly similar to my own.

I will be truly devastated when they die. This has got me thinking vegatarian (and counter intuitivley, cannibalistic) thougths .... but I like meat. I really do. So we buy meat that has been produced as "humanely" as possible, and if it could be grown in the lab without the involvement of any brain at all, I'd be that much happier.

The unavoidable reality is that we (humans generally, and moi in particular) have a footprint, and that footprint causes pain, displacement and frequently, death. And not just to non human animals. I am becoming about trying to minimise that pain, without going nuts myself.

What about you? Do you feel you get explicit direction from the bible in this regard?

Bonzai, thanks for the link:-)

249. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95402 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 9:30 am

But I do see vegetarianism as the preferable option, for the reasons I gave before. Even if most of us just made a point of eating less meat and avoiding buying the factory-farmed stuff, there'd be a big reduction in animal suffering and extravagant use of resources.

Sigh. I thought giving up that religion stuff would allow me to live exactly as I pleased with no regrets. So this morality business is independent of religion. Who knew?

Maybe when we can grow meat in the lab ... we'll finally be in the clear. In the meantime, eating mammals strikes me as a kind of cannibalism, but I still do it because :

a) I like meat.
b) I have yet to have explained to me why eating humans (who have consented to it) is "wrong". The only coherent case that can be made against it is based on health issues, rather than morality.

Let me quickly add, I don't actually want to eat humans :-), I simply find cannibalism a fascinating context to discuss morality and ethics in.

250. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95396 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 9:16 am

23. Comment #95389 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 8:49 am

If it is "self" awareness, then that is a big difference indeed. Have any animals (the higher primates for example) bee shown to be self aware? How do they react when they look at themselves in a mirror? Dogs and cats show no sign of such awareness.

ADH ... several animals have passed the test you mention.

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

Ready to join the atheist legions now;-)? If not, why not?