Comments by SilentMike
251. Lessons in hate found at leading mosques
Comment #83607 by SilentMike on October 30, 2007 at 3:52 pm
The report said: "On the one hand, the results were reassuring: in only a minority of institutions - approximately 25 per cent – was radical material found.
Reassuring? "Only" 25% had litarature in the advocating murder?
What the bloody hell is wrong with these people?
252. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'
Comment #81778 by SilentMike on October 25, 2007 at 7:00 am
I have to agree with most of what the people above said. The main point here is that science is the study of the real world (wonder where I first read that...), and if religion has anything to say about the nature of that world, then that's an overlap. As I mentioned this has been said by almost everybody.
But if my opponent said that his religiosity is really and truely not like that, and concede that most people's religiosity is, I still would not let up. In such a situation I would say the following: Even in the areas outside of science's magisteria religion is still a poor option. There are more rational attempts at moral philosophy, there are less confusing and mind-fettering attempts at inspiring proze, there are better ways to live your life.
253. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07
Comment #79997 by SilentMike on October 19, 2007 at 1:46 pm
This is going to be a lot of fun.
254. Atheistic Denomination Struggles To Fill Void Left by Founder's Death
Comment #79953 by SilentMike on October 19, 2007 at 8:21 am
I don't care if they light candles at Channuka (Hell. So do I. It's a lot fun).
255. God's honest truth?
Comment #79822 by SilentMike on October 18, 2007 at 4:07 pm
46. Comment #79816 by Sinbad
OK you have a point. But surely you can see the "damned if we do and damned if we don't" dilemma here. How do you fight a monster without becoming one? How do you protect freedom, from both terrorists and fundamentalists from within, without opressing freedom?
Where's your line?
256. God's honest truth?
Comment #79800 by SilentMike on October 18, 2007 at 3:03 pm
This guy
"http://www.alternativescience.com/"
is an idiot. I'm sorry, but he is. He doesn't know what he's talking about. You don't even need to know a lot about evolution (just a little) to notice that he's full of sh... You know.
257. God's honest truth?
Comment #79786 by SilentMike on October 18, 2007 at 2:08 pm
18. Comment #79778 by Nick Good
I understand that Sweden banned the genital mutilation of male infants too.
The swedes are kinda extraordinary generally in that way. But it seems to work for them. I really wish you could get people to stop being self destructive without passing laws like that.
19. Comment #79779 by Quine
Something about teaching religion and showing porn to kids feels like a kind of equivalence to me.
Somehow i doubt porn is as bad for kids as some heavy duty religious preaching. Under a certain age, they would simply be disinterested for the most part (not that I'm advocating trying that. I generally think that we shouldn't fool around with children's minds). No eternal torture talk in porn as far as I know.
258. God's honest truth?
Comment #79783 by SilentMike on October 18, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I could be wrong but I sincerely doubt that Dawkins actually has such a "policy".
Well, You must be wrong. It is, after all, written in explicit pixels that he does, therefore is must no doubt be the case.
(Sheesh)
259. God's honest truth?
Comment #79777 by SilentMike on October 18, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Good luck with that...
260. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!
Comment #79769 by SilentMike on October 18, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Somehow this text really doesn't scare me. Granted I don't live in the US but I don't think that's it. Yes there are a lot of scary christians out there, but are these guys really worth being worried about. Seems to me every christian dollar going to them will be wasted. They're just making noise to capitalize on the atheist noise. I don't think they're going to do anything that'll convince anyone.
89. Comment #79755 by hotshoe
We have forbidden our son to discuss religion in school because we foresee the problems which admitting a lack of faith would cause him among the local fundamentalist majority. (You can imagine the worries we had when we realized the science teacher is christian of the literal-word bible type)
Harsh. I can't emagine what that must be like. I don't think I could live, let alone raise a family, in a place like that. That literal word crap is beyond stupid.
Comment #79346 by SilentMike on October 17, 2007 at 2:29 am
98. Comment #79107 by The author
There are always those with lazy minds who would rather have someone else do all their thinking for them. Personally I try not to repeat people before understanding them and making sure I actually agree. Can't make everyone else do the same.
262. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath
Comment #79229 by SilentMike on October 16, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Just Saw the end (had a bit of truble earlier). Total sell out by McGrath in the closign remark, going back to faith. Paradoxically it may actually strengthen his position among some of the faithful. Too bad Hitchens didn't have the oportunity to challenge that last remark.
263. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath
Comment #79223 by SilentMike on October 16, 2007 at 1:59 pm
38. Comment #79202 by Logicel on October 16, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I agree. This is exactly what I meant.
About McGrath's argument. As I expected he doesn't have one. A series of asseritions and little more. McGrath kept conjouring Jesus out of his sleave, insisting that God makes sense considering the evidence (why? What evidence?), and claiming that atheism is a faith/idiology (oh please...). A whole lot of nothing. Surprise surprise.
Actually I think that we should encourage the McGraths of this world. These ships very easy to sink in battle, and the ordinary religious can actually see this. These are people who figured out that the whole blind faith thing is a weakness, so they decided to change into "non-blind faith". What they do is try to claim that their faith makes sense without referring to scriptural or clerical authority. They find a few ancient scholars and a few verses that seem to suit their agenda and try to set up a persuasive argument.
Problem is they can't. And the bigger problem for the other side is that the faithful can see that they can't. You see the faithful aren't stupid. They believe because they have faith. The same old blind faith that the McGraths of this world are trying to set aside. When McGrath tells them to set aside faith and listen to his argument he actually sounds very unconvincing to many of them (not stupid remember?). Later, when Hitchens or Dawkins blows McGrath out of the water these people can see that. So this is actually good for our side. McGrath would be far more successful with the pious if he did appeal to authority and throw points of blind faith about shamelessly.
I'm not saying we'll get mass deconversions mind you. I am saying however that it's going to be easier to reach those people after they've been instructed to lower their principle defence by the person representing thier own side. This should come as no surprise. It is quite clear that letting go of blind faith will serve truth in the long run. If McGrath ever succeeds in this he will end up all alone on the christian side.
264. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath
Comment #79182 by SilentMike on October 16, 2007 at 11:54 am
You may have a point there.
Way I look at it, on the other hand, I've already given McGrath enough seriousness, so I though I'd have a little fun. But this is a public forum and we are respectable people (Well you are anyway). I'll be good.
265. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath
Comment #79177 by SilentMike on October 16, 2007 at 11:44 am
There's something very comical about the way that this McGrath person moves about as he talks. Don't you find?
266. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath
Comment #79150 by SilentMike on October 16, 2007 at 10:06 am
just out of curiousity before even watching this one. Is there anyone here still taking McGrath seriously?
That guy just strikes me as a very small person that makes a living out of Dawkins' fame. How come he can't seem to manage writing a book that isn't about somebody else's work?
Comment #78975 by SilentMike on October 15, 2007 at 3:18 pm
82. Comment #77940 by The author on October 11, 2007 at 7:28 am
Your reaction is exactly what I was afraid from happening: Dawkins turns into a prophet for some people, his atheism into a kind of religion that is to be defended in the same irrational way as real religion.
Oh please. As I have already said and eplained I actually disagree with Richard Dawkins on a number of subjects (International politics and animal rights if you must know). I freely admit agreeing with his views on evolution. I'm truely sorry (well, not really ) but I think the man's brilliant. Not perfect and inerrable in any way though. It's rather low of you to pounce back with this "you are like the religious" crap because of one sentence after it has been explicitly denied. You're claims has not been based on anythin. As I and others have pointed out Dawkins in fact stands in good company with leading theoreticians such as E.O. Wilson, John Maynard Smith, Robert Trivers etc. He is deffinately NOT alone out there.
268. John Templeton's Universe
Comment #78966 by SilentMike on October 15, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Well it's a waste of money. But I guess there's worse ways to make use of a lot of money than hand it out to a bunch of "out there" academics (He could be giving it to creationists).
Comment #77796 by SilentMike on October 10, 2007 at 3:17 pm
79. Comment #77560 by The author on October 9, 2007 at 5:02 pm
That's not a new term, I didn't invent it. There even is a website of that name:
http...
That's not a real site. It's just a gateway to something else (which has little to do with the subject and as far as I can tell less than little to do with Richard Dawkins).
Your friend sounds a bit like a creationist. The dishonesty and the smear campaign ring very farmiliar. It is true that most of Dawkins books are popular books, and I don't know how The Extended Phenotype ranks among professionals but that's no reason to ignore his published papers that have earned him some degree of respect in the community (regardless of whether that's "a lot" or "just some").
Comment #77438 by SilentMike on October 9, 2007 at 9:58 am
On the contrary. I disagree with Dawkins on quite a fair number of points/subjects. I just think that in the dispute against Gould he was in the right. I'm sure those people I mensioned didn't agree with prof. Dawkins on all subjects (in fact I know that to be so). The point is that the disagreement that Gould had with Dawkins Dennett and later Pinker he also had with them, because Gould tried to be the "outsider" and at the end of the day his views didn't triumph.
Comment #77425 by SilentMike on October 9, 2007 at 9:06 am
Reply to multiple comments by The author
"The author". I really can't escape the feeling that your mounting a straw Dawkins here to be burned (Probably not the best place to try and pull that one off).
Selective quoting and exaggerations can make a caricature out of anyone's views. In my impression, reading both Dawkins and Gould I have to say that a lot of their views were similar, but that the former usally said it first and best. Where they differed in the way one should look at things in evolution I usually found Dawkins' way clearer and -where applicable- truer. While Gould consistantly ignored Dawkins in his books Dawkins addressed Gould and PE in "The Blind Watchmaker" in a fashion I found to be very fair.
As far as I can see the situation you're describing of Dawkins and Dennet as two lone ultradarwinian mariners sailing Goulds endless ocean of evolutionary concensus is far from accurate. Firstly because -as Janus and others have already stated- they were not ultradarwinists, And secondly because they were far from alone in any sense of the word.
While Gould represented mostly himself and occasionally also Lewontin or Eldrige, Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene as a spokesperson for the williams revolution. E.O. Wilson, Jhon Maynard Smith, W.D. Hamiltod, Robert Trivers were just a few of the names that stood on the same side of this debate as Dawkins since the 70s. The fact is as romantic as it might have sounded, Dawkins never wrote from the trenches, one man agains the world. The Selfish Gene was not a cry for rebelion but an attempt to present the emerging Gene's eye view -coupled with some of Dawkins' own views and insights- to professionals and lay persons alike. In this it was highly sucsessful. The Blind Watchmaker, published a decade later, continued to educate the public about neo-darwinian theory and to this day is considered an important book in the development and presentation of evolutionary thought. It is, in other words, at the heart of neo-darwinism.
Gould on the other hand, was never in that place. It is clear that many other evolutionary biologists saw him as a bit "out there" when it came to some of his theories. It also seems to me that as time went by he floated further away from the research community, Finally becoming somewhat irrelevant in the last years of his life (None of this of course cancels his part in devepolping PE). What Gould did have all along the years was public access. In his last book, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (TSET), he attempts to revise history in his favor by ignoring not just dawkins but many leading scientists and trying to present his views as winners over what he sees as traditional darwinism. It was not so, and still isn't. See also this review:
http://www.human-nature.com/nibbs/02/gould.html
272. CBC Atheism and Humanism Documentary
Comment #77395 by SilentMike on October 9, 2007 at 7:47 am
It's not a bad documentary, all in all. That theologian was a waste of time but I guess you have to put someone on. All the better for our side if he doesn't have anything extremely intelligent or convincing to say.
Comment #76997 by SilentMike on October 8, 2007 at 5:44 am
Another writer I would recommend it Steven Pinker
How the Mind Works
The Blank Slate
Nooooo!
I think everyone who says we always agree on everything should get a link to this page. I don't know what your credentials are on this subject. It is quite possible that they are better than mine (I'm a computer scientist. This is not really my field). I however found "The blank slate" to be a very good popular science book. If anything I think it is too heavy and "sciencey" (Dawkins' books read much better). I think Pinker basically Eviscerates the blank slate approach. He does it thoroughly, making sure not to miss a citation or a subject.
Yes, there some parts that are longer than others, and yes this is more speculative than some other popular science books. But it rather has to be, as it deals with a subject touching on the social sciences. All in all I think what Steven Pinker is doing in evolutionary psychology is helpful.
Comment #76992 by SilentMike on October 8, 2007 at 4:48 am
Regardless of his personallity, I think that the late Steven Jay Gould was a fantastic hitorian of science. Some of his essays on the subject are very interesting and informing. Also, he wrote quite a few intiguing evolutionary stories about different creatures in our world.
However. I find his personal philosophy to be confused and confusing. When looking for the right angle to look at evolution as a whole I strongly reccomend Dawkins. Dawkins writes it clearer in the points where the two agree, and in my opinion more representative of the current state of evolutionary theory on the points where they don't.
That said, I wouldn't reccomend denying oneself of reading some of Gould's essay books. Especially the later ones.
Comment #76893 by SilentMike on October 7, 2007 at 4:05 pm
31. Comment #76883 by Janus
Janus. I do belive that you firsy link contains the exact same inforemation as my first link.
Good idea linking to John Maynard Smith's review. I remember liking that one.
Comment #76880 by SilentMike on October 7, 2007 at 2:49 pm
23. Comment #76851 by The author on October 7, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I'm especially anxious to hear your arguments against Gould's review.
I havn't read the aforementioned book as I'm very lazy about reading books in english. This lazyness, luckily, does not extend to articles. I have read the article in question before, as well as another one like it where Gould charged at Dennett with the same basic glee. I've also read the responces of Dennett and Steven Pinker to said articles. My impression was that this was all a bit of a mud-fight and not much more. The late Stephen Gould loved this stuff. As you already sent us off site I won't hesitate to do the same. Better you read Dennett's own reply to gould
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/dennett_exchange.html
as well as Pinker's reply to the article you linked to.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1070
Have fun.
Comment #76826 by SilentMike on October 7, 2007 at 11:44 am
From listening to many of his lectures and interviews, I know that Daniel Dennett is indeed a great explainer. From reading articles by him I have been impressed by the sreangth and validity of his arguments. Dennett almost single handedly saves philisophy as a whole from a having a very bad image in the eyes of many scientists and rational minded people. Deffinately a deserving recipiant for such an award.
278. Interview with Richard Dawkins
Comment #76589 by SilentMike on October 6, 2007 at 11:36 am
...if anyone feels like converting this to mp3 it would be fantastic. Thanks
Yeah. an mp3 would be good. Not all of us have RealPlayer. It's a rather problematic program and my system is sensative.
279. Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'
Comment #76368 by SilentMike on October 5, 2007 at 3:56 pm
It seems that islam is becoming a bigger problem all the time. not just from the terrorist angle but also on internal policy issues. In europe especially. There should seriously be some sort of war waged on this crazyness (not the kind where you use cannons obviously). Put the pressure on them till they crack down the middle and begin reforming themselves into oblivion.
280. Hirsi Ali Returns to the Netherlands after Losing Body Guards
Comment #76011 by SilentMike on October 4, 2007 at 9:58 am
Don't be so naive. The war was an extreme success for them - Halliburton et al. are cashing billions, and Bush was re-elected and keeps passing laws - with help from the Congress - to protect the criminals.
Who cares what the public thinks or how it will affect normal people as long as money is rolling in and it's not possible to punish them
There's more to the neo-cons than that. Leaving greedy polititians aside, the neo-con agenda is about more than serving the oil barons (It's about serving the gun barons).
But seriously. There are serious people there with more than just greed on their mind. They really thought this would work well for americans and people all over the world. The current administration fucked it up (if it was ever going to wrok in the first place, which I don't know for sure). It seems that pretty much everything from "mission accomplished" on was downhill.
Regardless, I'd give the American Enterprise Institute a big thumbs up in this specific case for helping Hirsi Ali out in delivering her message to the american public.
281. Hirsi Ali Returns to the Netherlands after Losing Body Guards
Comment #75908 by SilentMike on October 4, 2007 at 3:33 am
But they do pander to that community. Also, they're not so keen on basing their policies on reason and evidence either, given their distain for the 'reality based community'.
Ever heard one of the Democratic candidates go on and on about faith? We're talking about america. EVERYONE indulges the religious.
The neo-cons thought invading Iraq would be a good idea. That didn't work out very well, and their not handling that successfully. People sometimes have problems with reality when it doesn't go their way.
282. Hirsi Ali Returns to the Netherlands after Losing Body Guards
Comment #75801 by SilentMike on October 3, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I understand that most people here aren't big fans of US president Bush's foreign policy.
I hope you can still bring yourselves to acknowledge that there are worse things in this world to be than a neo-con. The neo-cons may be wrong but at least they make an attempt to base their policy descisions on something other than "Jesus/Muhammad told me so". Also, they deserve praise on the occasions in which they do right. Supporting Hirsi Ali is such an occasion.
283. Hirsi Ali Returns to the Netherlands after Losing Body Guards
Comment #75775 by SilentMike on October 3, 2007 at 3:44 pm
It is kind of rude of her to get protection and then not go to the place where an attempt on her life would be likely to occure. Is she trying to waste the hard earned duch taxpayer's money?
I hope my intention in the above paragraph is clear.
Comment #75656 by SilentMike on October 3, 2007 at 8:16 am
75. Comment #75645 by Shrunk
What I believe he is saying in the second half is that there is reason to treat "spiritual" experiences (for lack of a better world) as a legitimate phenomenon worthy of study and understanding.
Yes OK. But Harris' suggeted way of studying them is problematic. He's basically saying "Lets all go to a bunch of lonely caves and stay there till the lonelyness turns us all gaga". OK that's a bit harsh, but how does he know that jump-starting your brain's "spiritual parts" like that leads to truth and not to delusion? What evidence does he offer?
The method of inquiry Harris suggests is by definition unscientific since the "spiritual experience" is very personal (strange route for a neuroscientist to propose). He's basically inviting us to play with the wiring in our own brains and then believe the outcome, as long as it doesn't clash with the facts of material existence. I must respectfully decline the offer and insist that my brain should stay the way it is for now. No drugs, No religion, and no sensory deprevation induced crazyness thank you very much.
If mystical expirience is part of reality (which it is) then the way to examine it is through science, and not through independent introspection and mucking around with the wiring. Maybe the results will not be as exciting and quick to come, but at least we'll know they have something to do with reality.
Comment #75642 by SilentMike on October 3, 2007 at 7:43 am
Yorker. I don't know you and have never conversed with you. I have to say that I agree with the beginning of your message:
We label Intelligent Design supporters as Creationists with a new name. Religites will say:
"Those people (insert name here) are just atheists with a new name".
They will do so rightly, but only if your new name becomes well enough known to be talked about. The chances of that I estimate, are close to zero.
Agreed (pretty much).
After that you begin to lose me.
Not a fight huh? Do you think religion will be ousted from political influence by reason or nice words? Of course it's a fucking fight, that's how we humans ultimately settle our differences! Look around you!
Ok that's sorta true as far as I can see. I'd even go as far as saying, yes, it is a fight. Although in this paragraph it isn't clear exactly what kind of fight you mean. The rset of your message seems to somewhat clarify that (I won't quote that. I'll just react).
I think it is important to note that the tendancy to avoid a physically violent resolution to a conflict of interests -more than the tendancy towards violence- is a leading human trait. If people were so fist happy, there would be no civilization. The fact is that people usually prefere finding ways to resolve dispoted other than a fist fight/dual to the death/thermonuclear war. Violence is a tool one should be prepared to use so that in the end one won't have to. Lets not be gun happy. If you have to fight then do it, like in the case of handling the Bin-Ladens of this world. But violence against the religious establishments in free democratic societies, what's that going to accomplish? Who exactly would you attack? And how?
Comment #75633 by SilentMike on October 3, 2007 at 7:08 am
64. Comment #75627 by phasmagigas
If your point is that I'm stating the obvious then you may well be right. Sometimes some people tend to forget the obvious though, so it worth mentioning.
I agree with you about the evolutionary cause of this.
Comment #75614 by SilentMike on October 3, 2007 at 6:22 am
52. Comment #75607 by Matt7895
To clarify, I think we are not necessarily born racist, with a racist gene inside of us. I think that somewhere along the way, as we grow up, we are exposed to prejudice, hatred, lies and tribalism and some, not thankfully all, but some of us begin to follow racist views. The rest of us may think prejudicial things time to time (I think its unavoidable) but mostly we don't think other ethnicities are inferior to our own.
I think we actually agree to a degree. I didn't mean every racist behavior is encoded in our genes, or that there's a "Racist gene" as such. I meant there's a basic mechanism for "us and them" devisions in our minds. I think that the root of racist tendencies is in something like that. Clearly society has an effect. I don't we can make the little bigot inside disappear, but we can probably turn his volume knob down quite a bit.
Comment #75596 by SilentMike on October 3, 2007 at 5:33 am
44. Comment #75592 by Matt7895
Children are not born racist, it is not inherent to our species.
I think it kinda is. You grow up around a certain kind of people, who look a certain way -and act a certain way- and at some point you build yourself a mental decree: "These are my people who I should trust more than others".
Where I grew up there are all kinds of people with all kinds of appearances and attitudes. I notice that it's tougher for me to tell myself that I shouldn't take special notice of the few types of people that I wasn't exposed to growing up. I believe that there's a litte racist guy/gal in all of us, and it's our responsibility to make the little sh*t wish that he/she was never born.
Comment #75591 by SilentMike on October 3, 2007 at 5:20 am
I don't think I'll stop referring to myself as an atheist an a rationalist if Sam Harris doesn't mind too much. I don't think ceasing to call a spade a spade (or even a non-pick) will do much good. It won't stop the pious from calling us that or from raising those ridiculous claims that Harris mentioned. Guess we're stuck answering those over and over again anyway, so we'd better not waste too much time trying to evade the facts of the matter. We are atheists. And though I don't get to say this much: Yes, I do strive to be a non-racist, hopefully with some success. I share Harris' hope that some day theistic faith (and racism) will both be a thing of the past. In that future it would be unnecessary to use the word atheist unless one is referring to the dark patches in the history of our species, when religion reigned supreme. But till then, I will not deny being a godless non-pick.
As for Harris' experiences with spirituality. Whatever rocks his boat. Personally, I can't see that stuff as a anything but a waste of my time.
290. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers
Comment #75440 by SilentMike on October 2, 2007 at 4:17 pm
You do know that by "here" I meant israel right?
291. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds
Comment #75399 by SilentMike on October 2, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Good to see RD, after outlining the Taliban/9-11/7-7 atrocities, NOT then throwing in the obligatory PC swipe to Christo/ Judao/ Hindu etc fundies. Its time to admit that not all religions are equally bad and that Islam is winning the "religions behaving badly" sweepstakes by a wide margin.
That is true. One cannot escape reality. Not that it makes them OK mind you. Just not nearly as bad as muslims at present.
292. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers
Comment #75395 by SilentMike on October 2, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I don't for a moment think that Richard Dawkins is an antisemite. Wouldn't be here if I did. I do think he's asking for truble with this comparison. Especially when he pushes it too far, to the point where the he makes, or quotes, a claim that is simply untrue.
293. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds
Comment #75389 by SilentMike on October 2, 2007 at 1:48 pm
40. Comment #75371 by Eric Blair
what about those by Jews (besides in biblical times, which may not be true anyway)?
I don't think that what extreme jewish settlers do can be seperated from the fact that most of them are jewish fundamentalists.
Not to mention the fact that the jews wrote the old testiment. This is, literally, a god awful book we're talking about. It justifies atrocities left and right.
Of course jews are responsible for less horrid stuff then Christians and Muslims. There are, after all, a lot less of us than there are of them. And even if you found a sect that was up till now blameless, so what? They still believe in lies, and who's to say where these lies will lead them tommorrow?
That's not saying their all exactly the same. Clearly different rligions have different potentials for harm, and different sects within each religion have differing degrees of stability. But they do all have something in common. They have a skewed view of the world. It's very hard to trust someone to get the right ideas when his base is flawed. The bast way to do that (be both a person of faith and a decent person) is to have a sense of decency that overrides ones religious beliefs. In other words the way to be both religious and good is to be unfaithful to your faith.
294. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers
Comment #75359 by SilentMike on October 2, 2007 at 11:54 am
41. Comment #75335 by Nick Good
I don't think there are as many handgun owners here as in the US (No. Not even relatively). All the cool criminals have hand held rocket launcher though.
Other than that I think that you (and Elli) are right. The NRA is a much better example. And if you do use the jews you should try not to push it too far. It just gets ridiculous after a certain point.
295. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds
Comment #75332 by SilentMike on October 2, 2007 at 11:06 am
Though shalt not have fun with anything made of plastic
I Don't remember exactly which gospel that's from.
296. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds
Comment #75320 by SilentMike on October 2, 2007 at 10:14 am
All too true. If you believe in falsehoods a world of truble is almost certainly already heading you way.
297. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers
Comment #75308 by SilentMike on October 2, 2007 at 9:38 am
I have to agree, at least in part, with Nick Good.
As compelling as the jewish example is, it may be a good idea for Dawkins to drop it. This talk of the jews and their power always has the effect of someone scratching at the blackborad, but this time it has gone beond that. To imply that jews "more or less monopolise American foreign policy" is over the line and simply not true (it helps very little that he added "as far as some people can see" because if he's not one of those people why would he say that?). I live in Israel and I happen to know that american presidents and state department officials often try to force the hand of the local leadership, regardless of what the jewish lobby may think about it. This kind of talk also plays to the hands of those who say that the attack on Iraq was in order to serve Israely interests. That is not true. Believe it or not, a christian leader can actually make bad decisions without a neferious jew around to trick him into it.
I whole heartedly agree with Nick Good on another matter as well. The jews and Israel are getting way too much world attention for such a small nation. They (we) are also held up to higher standards by many. This is no doubt because of christianity's history with judaism. Rational atheists may want to rid themselves of some of that baggage.
There's no reason for atheists to lock swords with jews anywhere other than israel where the religious jews are a real problem for secular people. This is especially true in the US where I would guess the jews are about the only part of the population that doesn't have it in for atheists since american jews are usually liberal, secular or both.
298. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?
Comment #75296 by SilentMike on October 2, 2007 at 8:59 am
This is silly. Nobody in fundyland gets excited about some nutty professor -be he Richard Dawkins or Bertrand Russell- has to say. They don't care about that stuff. They care about women like Armstrong daring to talk and have opinions, opinions that disagree with thier one true faith no less. Not to mention the fact that she's doing it without hiding her face. Shame!
Seriously, what a short memory. The 2001 attacks happened before the "new atheist awakening". This crazyness has nothing to do with intelectual atheism. It has everything to do with fundementalist being unable to tolerate free people doing their thing or not so free people obeying someone else's ideas about what's right.
299. Religion as a Force for Good
Comment #74603 by SilentMike on September 29, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Leaving aside for a moment that, as mentioned above, all these example fail the Hitchens test, there's an even more important point.
This article, like many in the past, in fact ignores the main point of the rationalists. It's all about whether or not religion can lead to good. Well of course it can, but that's not the point. The point, first and formost, is that religion is false. Only after astablishing that do rationalists go on to say "Oh, and it causes all these problems too". Religion is a lie. People who believe in a lie will, by definition, have a view of reality that is askew. This is a disaster waiting to happen because when you start with wrong premises you get to wrong conclusions. If you don't know how the world works in the most basic sense, then you don't really know anything about anything. And this is of course where we have all those examples of the religious gone mad to choose from. On the other side of that equasion, of course the truth can also cause problems. But at least these problems should be visible to our reasoning because our brains are working properly. To accept faith in your life is basically to walk around with your eyes closed. I would not recommend it. No matter how scary the real world seems, it is better to see where you are and where you're going.
300. A problem for Israel's farmers: The seven-year hitch
Comment #73793 by SilentMike on September 26, 2007 at 7:50 am
This is SO embarrassing.
More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
