Comments by gcdavis

Comment #33986 by gcdavis on April 23, 2007 at 1:12 am

Resumably the same Simonyi that endowed RD's chair at Oxford

202. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33376 by gcdavis on April 20, 2007 at 1:04 am

This is one of the most heartfelt, timely and profound pieces of rhetoric that I have heard in many years. Mapantsula, your students are very lucky to have you to support them through this appalling period of their lives.

203. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #33368 by gcdavis on April 20, 2007 at 12:54 am

Where were the atheists?

Atheist's are people like everyone else
People of humanity who try to comfort the bereaved
People of wisdom who try to explain why it happened
People of power who to try prevent it happening again

So where were the christians?

They are busy trying to think up an excuse as to why god should let yet another tragedy happen.

204. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #33000 by gcdavis on April 19, 2007 at 1:29 am

This thread is becoming more bizarre by the minute!

QUOTE from TLCTugger website

How to regrow slack shaft skin
:
Skin growth is achieved by gently but persistently tensioning the penile shaft skin. In 1 to 3 years, most restorers have enough skin to fully cover their glans when flaccid. That's a commitment, but 100,000 men today find it well worth the effort.

There are many ways to pull on the skin - some involving messy adhesive tapes - but none is as easy, effective, and comfortable as our Tapeless Conical TLC TUGGER®. Wear it discreetly under slacks during the day, and to bed at night. It stays put even during exercise, but removes in seconds for urination or intimacy.

END QUOTE

205. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32756 by gcdavis on April 18, 2007 at 7:16 am

rabidchihauhau
These are the domain "who is" details

Domain ID: D84215778-LROR
Domain Name: DOCTORSOPPOSINGCIRCUMCISION.ORG
Created On: 05-Mar-2002 20:26:25 UTC
Last Updated On: 15-Jul-2005 07:22:53 UTC
Expiration Date: 05-Mar-2009 20:26:25 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar: Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status: CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID: 19355180-NSI
Registrant Name: Doctors Opposing Circumcision
Registrant Organization: Doctors Opposing Circumcision
Registrant Street1: 45 Robbins Rd
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City: Nordland
Registrant State/Province: WA
Registrant Postal Code: 98358
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.3603851882
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email: gcd@u.washington.edu
Admin ID: 31987818-NSI
Admin Name: George Denniston
Admin Street1: 45 Robbins Rd
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City: Nordla
Admin State/Province: WA
Admin Postal Code: 98358
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.3603851882
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email: gcd@u.washington.edu
Tech ID: 5358805-NSI

206. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32732 by gcdavis on April 18, 2007 at 6:01 am

As you appear to still be online RD, I'm having another crack at asking you the following question.

Morality without God

There has been surprisingly little discussion of morality in this forum and I wonder if you agree that it is an issue that should be at the heart of the atheist agenda.

In a largely religiously apathetic country like the UK there is a cosy assumption, even amongst agnostics and the religiously neutral, that religion will provide at least some moral guidance, especially for the young, so in the absence of any other widely accepted moral framework, it is still tolerated and accepted.

I think a coherent account of the origin and practise of atheist morality is required. This should not be in the form of a philosophical discourse but a practical explanation.

Origins

So where does it come from? In the Selfish Gene you devote much of the book to presenting a biological explanation for altruism. The link between altruism in animals and morality in humans is important, if being "good" is part of a biological process then it exists in the absence of god or religion. As parental altruism is a prerequisite for the survival of human offspring, it is not surprising that as sentient beings we have reflected upon this behaviour and have codified it into good/bad, right/wrong etc, in essence a moral code that can be transferred to the next generation.

Practise

Morality derived from religions doctrine invariably regards the default position of human behaviour as "bad" and needing to be corrected. Religion portrays its own house rules as MORALITY when in fact they are simply rules, often cynically used to maintain control. They offer entry into paradise in return for obedience and subservience. Religion like politics is all about power. In contrast our atheist morality makes no presumptions about the human condition.

If the roots of morality lie within altruism and are biological in origin they are continuously reinforced (and sometimes abused) within family relationships. And as most human families have three generations alive at the same time morality can also be passed down through the generations like cultural traditions.

Maybe next time we hear the assertion that without belief in god we would all run amok, stealing, raping etc, we may be able to offer an alternative more plausible explanation why this is not inevitable.

If this message gets past the screening process I would be very interested in your comments Richard.

Graham Davis

207. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32559 by gcdavis on April 17, 2007 at 11:49 am

I find the variety of views with regard to ethics and morality within this ostensibly atheist forum disconcerting. There is a great deal of flaky logic, in fact often no logic at all. Many contributors to this particular debate have been sidetracked away from the original issue, i.e. the abuse that is about to be inflicted on a child by one of its parents in the name of religion, into areas of sexual hygiene and sensitivity; it has nothing to do with these.

Since its inception I have tried to persuade the moderators to create a separate heading for Morality in the Forum for the reasons outlined in this post:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11394

And also to discus some of the issues like the one we are debating here and others like:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11396

Most of us can agree that belief in god is just primitive superstition but that is not enough. We have to create an alternative agenda that can capture the minds and hearts of people who presently crave the certainty that religion appears to offer them. At the heart of the debate must be a coherent atheist view of the moral and ethical issues that affect us all.

208. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32505 by gcdavis on April 17, 2007 at 7:47 am

Well this has stirred up a hornets nest!

Comment #32457 by Veronique begins to sound somewhat deranged, she has clearly lost the plot. The issue here is surely a very simple one. No one has the right to mutilate another human being, especially an infant. That this mutilation is condoned by the state because it is done in the name of religion is an outrage.

209. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32428 by gcdavis on April 17, 2007 at 3:45 am

"I was young enough at the birth of both my sons to allow circumcision because it was 'the thing to do'. I don't even recall questioning this act".

You don't appear to question it now Veronique, maybe you should. If you don't have the experience of uncircumcised men yourself what is the origin of your prejudice? You seem to confuse morality with convenience.

210. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32379 by gcdavis on April 17, 2007 at 1:16 am

Spinoza

... I just don't know about infant circumcision though... It's not clear that it's unethical...

I am surprised you are not clear, if your parents had removed part of your ear when you were an infant would that be ethical? Of course not. The only ethical reason for circumcision is medical necessity. And as for the spurious argument that women prefer it; fine wait until you are a sexually active adult and make that decision for yourself...even if it hurts

211. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32376 by gcdavis on April 17, 2007 at 1:06 am

At the risk of appearing flippant with a very serious issue, this is a letter I sent to Tony Blair last year. It seemed appropriate.

Application to establish a new religion

Dear Mr Blair

I know that you are a deeply religious man so I hope you will look favourably at my application to start a new religion. I am sure you will be pleased to hear that like all religions mine has a deity, a prophet, a holy book and a set of guiding principles; they are:

• The right to distribute a deadly disease by denial of the use of contraceptive devices
• The right to mutilate the genitalia of all male offspring
• The right to kill animals for food by letting them bleed to death
• The right to deny our wives and daughters the opportunity to take part in any activities that we deem improper
• The right for us to deal sympathetically with our shamans that have been involved in sexual activities with children
• The right to advance the truth revealed in the holy book that our deity made the earth in a few days and that any so called science that refutes this is blasphemous and cannot be tolerated.
• The right to severely discipline our own believers if they contradict the teaching of our prophet
• The right to encourage the terminally ill and severely disabled to visit any of our conveniently situated shrines in order that they may be miraculously cured. And that our success rates will not need to be published in our annual accounts as this could produce a misleading impression.
• The right to wear our traditional costume even when it contravenes regulations that non-believers are required to obey

Once my application has been approved I understand that my new religion will receive the following advantages:

• The right to nominate our top shamans for automatic entry to the legislative chamber known as the House of Lords, so we may influence policies that may be in conflict with our own belief system.
• The right to exploit all the advantages received when the head of state also becomes head of our religion
• The right to receive tax breaks and charitable status.
• The right to insist on a daily act of worship in all state schools

I know that you will appreciate that if my new religion is ridiculed by non believers that grave offence will have been suffered and that this incitement to religious hatred will be subject to full rigor of the criminal law.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Graham Davis
May 2006

212. God Is on Our Side. Does That Mean War?

Comment #28375 by gcdavis on March 29, 2007 at 2:37 am

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

With God On Our Side
by Bob Dylan
Copyright © 1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music

213. Believers are away with the fairies

Comment #27826 by gcdavis on March 27, 2007 at 1:40 am

Another brilliant description of the problem by Grayling.

But what about the solution? Of the 150,000 posts to this forum only 10,000 are related to politics and civil action. We are still just a talking shop.

I have never been an activist and loath the idea of joining anything! I guess this attitude is part of the problem, we atheists are too proud of our individualism to band together.

If we fail to make our collective voice heard we are sleepwalking into a dangerous era, as Grayling says appeasement only emboldens it never satisfies.

214. Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Comment #26876 by gcdavis on March 22, 2007 at 5:26 am

The reason the link between altruism in animals and morality in humans is important is that it demonstrates being "good" is part of a biological process; it exists without the need for god or religion. If altruism is essential to our survival as a species then it is inevitable that as sentient beings we are aware of it and attempt to codify it into good/bad, right/wrong, in essence a moral code. As for morality being about wrongdoing and punishment as some contributors have stated, this is true of morality derived from religion. The default position of most religions is that we are essentially "bad" and need to be brought into line, they portray their house rules as MORALITY. To maintain control they offer entry into paradise in return for obedience. Religion like politics is all about power.

215. Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Comment #26714 by gcdavis on March 21, 2007 at 9:09 am

Only monkeys believe in god glittergulch!

216. Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Comment #26713 by gcdavis on March 21, 2007 at 9:08 am

Parental altruism is a prerequisite of offspring survival in a human family; it is therefore not surprising that human beings have developed a system of do's and don'ts that is the origin of morality. Do feed your children even at the expense of your own hunger, don't allow a stronger sibling to hit a smaller one. The biological origin of this "moral" behaviour makes it likely that it is shared with other animals albeit without them being aware of it. No need for god, just evolution!

217. Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Comment #26663 by gcdavis on March 21, 2007 at 2:59 am

Why should anyone be surprised? Morality is of course driven by evolution. Many animals exhibit altruistic behaviour (albeit genetically programmed) you only have to watch a bird feeding its young. For animals that nuture their young over an extended period like primates it is no surprise that this altruism has developed into a morality in humans. After all morality is just altruism that has been codified. The relationships within the human family are all that are needed for morality to take root.

218. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #20978 by gcdavis on February 7, 2007 at 7:24 am

McGrath is another throw back, a "Scientist" unable or unwilling to subject his belief to rigorous scrutiny.

When I enjoy a good drama I temporarily suspend disbelief, the characters and situation have become "real", the emotions felt and understood and when it is over I may discuss the writing, acting and directing and if it is has been a good play, perhaps the light it shed on the human condition, but afterwards I resume my disbelief and re-enter the real world.

People like McGrath live in a state of permanent suspension of disbelief, an infantile world of fantasy with a sentimental attachment to the trappings of faith, the rituals, the art, the buildings, the smells, they are lazy and complacent or perhaps just scared.

For the bold among us like Dawkins the time has come to confront the indoctrination of people by religion before we slip back into another dark age.

219. In defense of atheism

Comment #19263 by gcdavis on January 26, 2007 at 1:39 am

Quote: What the "agnostic" is really signifying by his label is deference to the social dominance of religion.

When the fence sitters can be persuaded to leave the comfort zone is when we will make progress in deposing religion and dismantling all its privileges.

220. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #18956 by gcdavis on January 24, 2007 at 1:39 am

18923 by Veronique

I suppose because my suggestion has a zero percent chance of being adopted, I rather side-stepped the issue you raise.

In an ideal world I would like to change the priorities within education so that a child learns to appreciate the interdependency of individuals within the family, the society and the world in which they live and the importance of personal moral responsibility.
This ethos would underpin all academic instruction and would result in an education system that would produce a well rounded individual as well as enabling them to develop their interests and natural talents.

Oops, sounds a bit like a faith school, without the faith!

I know that PSHE (Personal, social and health education) attempts to cover this ground but as an add-on.

So to answer your question I guess there would be no need for RE as a discreet subject.

221. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #18785 by gcdavis on January 23, 2007 at 2:16 am

How about this for an RE lesson plan?

Question 1
Examine why it is that so many human beings believe in the existence of god.

Consider primitive belief systems and the social context in which they develop; worship of the sun or ancestors for example'

Consider ritual sacrifice or prayer and the idea that god's actions could be influenced by it.

Why did the monotheistic religions come to replace most of belief systems that preceded them?

Question 2
Examine morality

Consider the conflict between religions and their competing claims for the truth.

Is morality god given or can moral principles be established without it?

Consider a world without religion, would society be worse or better.

Should religious belief be given special rights, privileges and exemptions from laws that apply to society as a whole, like the circumcision of infants or the ritual killing of animals?

Question 3
Examine the effect that the enlightenment and growth of science has had on religious belief.

Consider the contradiction between scientific explanation and religious texts, can they be resolved?

Consider the effect of religious belief on political leaders and legislators and the political system.

In the UK the vast majority of 15-16 year olds probably haven't given a moment's thought to religion and belief; when they examine the issues in the hopefully neutral environment of a classroom, I reckon most will come to the same conclusion that we have. There's no god, so what!

222. A deadly certitude

Comment #18021 by gcdavis on January 18, 2007 at 2:05 am

This is stirring stuff, a beautiful piece of writing. Each time I hear another eloquent voice speak out I get just a tad more optimistic.

I am reminded of these lines from a poem by Auden that I studied for my English O-Level exam back in the 60's and that I have admired ever since.

Defenceless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:

The poem is available here:
http://www.esrnational.org/september1_1939annotated.htm

223. Christian Shrine Needs Two Exits, Israel Says

Comment #17875 by gcdavis on January 17, 2007 at 6:24 am

Yeah and while you're at it, lets re-point the wailing wall, and lick of paint wouldn't go amiss!

224. Sam Harris's Faith in Eastern Spirituality and Muslim Torture

Comment #16535 by gcdavis on January 7, 2007 at 6:47 am

Sam asked for comments to be sent to Alternet, these are mine:

The totally dishonest fabrication of an interview by John Gorenfeld with Sam Harris is nothing short of disgraceful. Your claim of "commitment to fairness, equity and global stewardship, and making connections across generational, ethnic and issue lines. AlterNet serves as a reliable filter..." has proved to be thoroughly bogus.

Unless you publish an apology/retraction I for one will not be visiting your site again.

I anticipate that you will not have the guts to publish the content of this email!

225. Letter From America: Atheists throw down the gauntlet

Comment #15953 by gcdavis on January 4, 2007 at 1:21 am

"...the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the United States, which has coincided with the very violent rise of fundamentalist Islam in the Middle East, one product of which was the attacks of Sept. 11. The two movements are almost entirely dissimilar, of course..."

Strange that he hasn't noticed the connection. The parallel rise in Christian and Islamic fundamentalism during the last 20 years is not a coincidence, both feed off a fear of the other. The murder of Israeli hostages at the 1972 Olympics by Palestinian terrorists demonstrates how things have changed. This act was motivated by a political grievance; Islam was nowhere to be seen then, whereas a similar act nowadays would be portrayed as a victory for Islam against the infidels!

226. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15682 by gcdavis on January 2, 2007 at 2:32 am

If this thread is representative the description "BRIGHT" was a fundamental mistake. Communism is not a better system if you call it People Power nor is Capitalism if it becomes the Survival of the Fittest.

Atheism requires a fundamental change in mindset; it is not a lifestyle choice, it cannot be re-branded by "clever" marketing. I am afraid even a towering figure like Dennett has been seduced by the idea that we can sell atheism to a sales resistant public, we cant.

Attitudes in the States can only be altered by individual atheists explaining themselves and their values to those who are religious. Did you see the Morgan Spurloch 30 days documentary where an atheist Mom stayed with an evangelical family for a month, for a Brit (not a Bright!) it was a real eye opener? The host family were expecting a fire breathing dragon that they could tame and then convert. The reality was a shy, serious woman who argued her case against considerable numerical odds, at prayer meetings and bible classes as well as at home. At about day 23 the rest of atheists family turned up, and guess what they turned out to be the quintessential loving US family, just like the evangelicals.

The shock to the evangelical family was palpable, they really could not comprehend that they could share the common family values of love, self sacrifice, commitment and honesty with a family that had no need of religion.

To the evangelical mom this was a revelation, even the dad who had been strident in his views acknowledged that his opinion of atheists had changed as a result of the encounter. Of course they will not suddenly become atheists but at least they might understand why we are.

The stronger the belief, the stronger is the fear of life without it. Most human beings crave certainty, we atheists have learned to live without it, and many of us feel liberated by the prospect of personal moral responsibility rather than a set of god-given rules. To those believers' who cannot kick the habit the best we can do is for each one of us can explain our values, to reassure rather than convert and maybe in time US society will see us as just plain folks.

227. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15443 by gcdavis on December 31, 2006 at 11:22 am

Being an atheist in the UK is no big deal, I have been one for 45 years and never suffered any discrimination. There are a few atheist MP's and there nothing like the taboo found in the US. Our problem is the potential threat to freedom of speech posed by Islamic (and other) fundies and the creeping insinuation of religion into secular institutions. Plus we have some unfinished business disestablishing the church of England plus removing bishops from and then dismantling the House of Lords.

228. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15442 by gcdavis on December 31, 2006 at 11:05 am

This is the only time I have disagreed with you Daniel, Bright is a conceited self-description guaranteed to antagonize; it would make some sense if it had been derived from the Life of Brian theme tune "Look on the BRIGHT side of life"

229. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15327 by gcdavis on December 30, 2006 at 11:46 am

The NPS.gov website FAQs are in no doubt..

Quote
How old is the Canyon?

That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young.
End quote

230. A Mission to Convert

Comment #14819 by gcdavis on December 25, 2006 at 1:21 pm

In any case, it's hard to believe that Stalin's wholesale torture and murder of priests and nuns (including crucifixions) and Mao's persecution of Catholics and extermination of nearly every remnant of Buddhism were unconnected to their atheism. Neither the institutions of Christianity nor those of communism are, of course, innocent. But Dawkins's inability to see the difference in the severity of their sins - one of orders of magnitude - suggests an ideological commitment of the sort that usually reflects devotion to a creed.

The first task for the totalitarian leader is to crush internal opposition to their regime, so it is not surprising that religious groups should be targeted as they have an organisation and an infrastructure that is a potential conduit for opposition. Atheism isn't an issue.

[5] Even when comparing believers and nonbelievers, Dawkins is curiously silent on one of the best-known differences. Believers give far more to charities - even nonreligious charities - than do secularists. See, for instance, the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey

The nub here is whether believers are "genuinely" altruistic or whether they give more generously than atheists in order to secure their place in heaven.

231. The problem with secularism

Comment #14369 by gcdavis on December 22, 2006 at 6:42 am

Quote from Simon Conway Morris
". . . nevertheless, as I never tire of pointing out to my students in Cambridge, chimpanzees do not play the piano, drink dry martinis, or erect temples to glorify the Creator".

Lets hear it for the chimps!

232. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13889 by gcdavis on December 20, 2006 at 1:24 am

Wrong again Rod

Your evidence is flawed.

Atheism is the absence of belief, not a belief. It is the neutral state
Imagine a canvas before the first brush stroke.

Science is not a belief, it is not even a seeker after truth, it is simply a way of understanding the universe based on evidence, when the evidence changes so does the theory.

Origin of Species is not our "holy" book.
It is simply the most plausible explanation to date.

Eugenics uses Darwin's theories to advance its cause, yes.
Food is not to blame because it is the causes of obesity.

Morality cannot be universal if derived from atheism.
Morality is learned like language firstly from within the family and then from relationships with other people.

A scientist who believes in god isn't stupid.
He just hasn't stopped sucking his thumb yet.