Now if I can just get Zara to learn the *scroll* part.

189. Comment #486148 by phil rimmer on May 3, 2010 at 5:23 pm

I'm just as eager as you are, to see Bill Maher move toward more sensible views on medicine. I just have trouble believing this forum will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. It wouldn't even surprise me if Maher himself browsed RD.net once in a while. He's obviously intelligent enough to understand your arguments, and has replied in forums like Huffington Post with his own version of events.

1) Are you actually trying to dissuade Bill Maher from his views?

2) Are you trying to dissuade Richard from his recent and very clearly stated views? (This thread, in fact.)

3) Are you trying to get in a few snotty digs at either Dawkins and/or Maher?

4) Are you trying to bore us all to tears?

5) Are you practicing for the big upcoming debate?

I believe we all are completely up-to-date on this matter. Further discussion will erode the increased solidarity sure to be arriving with the new website changes. The very last thing I want to hear on the new website, and please rest assured I understand this is a big fat opinion and that everyone knows what we're supposed to do with them, is more griping about Maher's vaccination views the very first time one of his images pops up.

Thank you very much.

185. Comment #486137 by Bonzai on May 3, 2010 at 4:57 pm

In the U.K where Steve is I am sure it is free.

Curse you Bonzai, you found the gaping hole in my argument.

;-P

183. Comment #486132 by Steve Zara on May 3, 2010 at 4:38 pm

He would be a very powerful ally.

Would be? I think you're a bit late in this assessment. Mr. Maher IS a powerful ally. Perhaps you think he could be more powerful if he would adopt your views on vaccination. Fine. You've made a most cogent argument, that is now becoming an argument ad nauseum.

Have you considered for one moment, that perhaps Bill Maher's current "power" is based on his talent as a comedian, and his unique ability to attract viewers to his television show?

Now stay with me... what kind of people comprise a Bill Maher audience? I'll venture a guess: a diverse, liberal audience, including those with religious views, and "anti-big-medicine" views which run counter to science and reason.

So, should Bill Maher simply jettison a large part of his audience wholesale, by performing a 180-degree turn in public on the issue of vaccinations? This would not make him more powerful -- it may make him less powerful.

I think it is a bit presumptuous to think we understand the vagaries of Hollywood. Bill Maher answers to powerful people, too, and these people may have quirky views themselves.

What if your own boss (assuming you had one) had views like Bill Maher's? Would you constantly harrass him about changing them for the good of science and reason? You may find yourself in the absence of a PAYCHECK, which certainly won't help you purchase any vaccination medicine.

My point is that there are constraints that you are not accounting for in your argument. To dismiss these constraints out of hand is ignorant and unproductive.

178. Comment #486119 by Steve Zara on May 3, 2010 at 3:47 pm

179. Comment #486121 by phil rimmer on May 3, 2010 at 4:00 pm

With respect to Bill Maher, I have two questions for both of you gentlemen:

1) Have you achieved ridicule?
2) What concrete steps are you advocating for the RDF in this matter? What are your actual recommendations? Do you have any?

26. Comment #485988 by Richard Dawkins on May 3, 2010 at 7:44 am

I therefore maintain that, far from being irrelevant, ridicule is a precisely targeted weapon.

30. Comment #485998 by Craigmcg on May 3, 2010 at 8:24 am

Ridicule and scoffing at their beliefs is a potent weapon at the grass roots... Keep laughing at them and they will get the message.

And let's not forget one last key factor in this argument:

Ridiculing is FUN! Why are we so ashamed to admit it?

Taking time to write carefully selected words online, in repeated efforts to reach otherwise good people and disabuse them of their centuries-old religious indoctrination is HARD WORK, and the results are never guaranteed. (Sometimes, in fact, ridicule is never even "achieved", according to our best internal source on these matters.)

If nothing else, we might as well take these opportunities to LAUGH uproariously, and relieve some of the stresses of everyday life. Life is too short, as the saying goes.

How do you think Spiderman was born?

I know some of you have been chomping at the bit for another of my golf videos. Since my last lesson a few months back, I've made some real progress, and you can see the results here:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd5u3y_final-saint-stephen-swing_sport

Due to the exciting new changes ahead on RD.net, I'm afraid I won't be posting another one, so enjoy it while you can!

P.S. The swing just got a whole lot better today, too. Oh boy is golf going to be fun from now on.

10. Comment #485333 by Quetzalcoatl on May 1, 2010 at 2:00 pm

2001: A Space Odyssey?

Yes! Thank-you Quetz.

How could I possibly have forgotten.

Rendevouz With Rama was a great book, but I'm DEFINITELY thinking of that other one... what was its name?

A movie was made about it... some strange, eccentric English director... Evolution was one of the main themes...

Happy Saturday Richard! May Day 2010!

P.S. Didn't Clarke write some kind of deism-riddled book about space travel?

Give me a minute... the name will come to me.

;-P

In the Norton paperback edition of Richard's masterpiece, (my favorite of his books, with The Ancestor's Tale a close second, and The Blind Watchmaker in third place), at the top of Page 8 in Figure 1.3c is an absolutely mind-jarring illustration of a termite-mimicking beetle that will stay forever etched in my mind. I will remember the moment always, because it demonstrated to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was living on a world I didn't really know anything about. An alien world, in which humans were only one more evolved feature.

The strange feeling of incapacitated awe that it inspired in me over a year ago, as I sat there at Harry's Hofbrau with a forkful of mashed potatoes dropping from my open mouth, was something I'd never felt before. I realized the master had taken off his gloves, and had decided to gain my undivided attention with perhaps the single most interesting fact that I'd ever read -- about anything. "The answer can be seen in Figure 1.3c, which is one of the most astonishing spectacles in all natural history," says Professor Dawkins, "And now that I have you, let's climb this mountain together." (My words.)

IMO Climbing Mount Improbable is easily the most "beautiful" of Richard's works. The illustrations succeed wildly, in embellishing the always brilliant writing.

Truly magnificent. I hope my nephews Daniel and Michael both read it, and can enjoy it as much as I did. I sincerely hope it changes them as people.

51. Comment #484992 by Sleeper on April 30, 2010 at 9:22 am

I don't consider myself to be an atheist, agnostic or a believer, which probably means I am in some kind of confusing denial...

Not denial perhaps, just confusion. The three words you used define the entire range of possibilities in matters of faith. Richard likes to use a seven-point scale, with 1 being a believer, and 7 being an atheist.

Everybody else -- including you, falls somewhere in between, meaning they are agnostic.

62. Comment #484980 by meadevil on April 30, 2010 at 8:35 am

You can talk about doing these good things (and I'm glad atheists do help others), but in the absence of God the definition of such things is arbitrary - especially without absolute truth.

But God isn't absent in your worldview, so you just contradicted yourself. Don't you believe in free will?

In other words, you're glad atheists do good things. Isn't your God also happy about atheists doing good things? Or would "He" rather see them use their free will to do bad things?

Will your God dress these atheists down at the Pearly Gates, after watching them spend their lives doing good deeds?

What the hell kind of God is that?

256. Comment #484909 by Saint Cecilia on April 30, 2010 at 3:34 am

Not much can be concluded from those evasive answers.

Can you describe your faith in more detail -- in your own words? Be as specific as possible.

Just in case people are wondering who (or what) lswanson is, here is one of his (her?) recent statements:

"But just to clarify one point, I believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis, which means I believe in a young earth."

Yes, folks, a YEC in the flesh. Be nice. LOL.

lswanson: Do you believe in radiometric dating? Why or why not? How about counting tree rings? Is that something you could endorse as a way of determining the age of trees?

6. Comment #484905 by Peter Clemerson on April 30, 2010 at 2:20 am

Putting the point in your terms, they choose ignorance rather than ‘beauty and complexity’. Sad but true, I’m afraid.

And there is another category of people, of which my own mother is a perfect example, who (ostensibly) accept and even revel in the "beauty and complexity" of the universe, but still find a way to shoehorn God, Jesus, and the Bible into the picture.

I forward selected articles and tidbits to my parents -- devout Catholics both -- from either RD.net, WEIT, or even Pharyngula, almost on a daily basis. I've taken to calling myself their "internet tour guide", because they are quite reluctant to surf around themselves. (But not because they're afraid of seeing things... they just don't know the internet ropes.)

It doesn't matter. Off to church they go every Sunday anyway. Mother, in particular, accepts the truth of evolution and even the big bang, but still prays to Jesus and believes he was resurrected for our sins. She also has no difficulty whatsoever with other religions, including the ones with wildly different "platforms", by invoking the "many paths to enlightenment" style argument.

Perhaps most interestingly, she has no real problem with Richard Dawkins or my atheism, either. I haven't posed the question to her (yet), but I'm quite certain that if I did ask her if Richard and I were destined for an eternity in Hell due to our disbelief in God, she would say "No, of course not."

Some questions I have asked her:

Does she believe in Hell? "No."
Is she hoping for a reward in Heaven? "No."
Does she know Leviticus 20:13? "Heard of it."
Does she agree with it? "Of course not!"

A beautiful delusion Mum hath wrought, completely immune from attack. In all other respects she is a lovely, modest, and charitable woman.

(EDIT: I bet Mum thinks Professor Myers is going to Hell. ;-P)

24. Comment #484816 by Lucas on April 29, 2010 at 7:26 pm

Saint and Quetz - Panspermia it is!

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while...

;-P

428. Comment #484738 by blitz442 on April 29, 2010 at 4:34 pm

You might as well try to explain theological difficulties by saying that it all makes sense because God is a infinite pancake.

Ha!

Infinite pancake. That's a crêpe-y thought.

He's undoubtedly a master of deception.

It makes no logical sense, but I look in Obama's face, and see a basically thoughtful, good-hearted man. This could also be a reaction to eight years of looking at a face that constantly enraged me (Bush Jr.).

I really think Obama, given a healthy dose of luck, could be one of the great ones; to the extent that it is possible anyway, for a modern president of a religious, bitterly divided nation.

(Your handle is a classic, btw.)

Agreed, Suh.

Struggling in the early morning hours to make sense... must... get... sleep...

(Star Trek reference on last 3 words, for you limeys)

Okay, panspermia gets the nod.

Atheists: rejoice.

Deists: look up infinite regression after you finish your General Relativity homework.

Theists: GFY(s).

103. Comment #484633 by Jos Gibbons on April 29, 2010 at 7:45 am

Mord is a Northern California boy.

But I'll let him give you the specific GPS coordinates. I'm sure he's sawing off some Z's right now. It's 2:00am, and I think he's got a job...

I've already weighed in on Pharyngula, but I would bet a six-pack of Lone Star longnecks that this woman was HUNG OVER. Nothing more. (Hell, I could have given that speech, complete with whiny, gravelly voice and convulsions, after a crazy night at the Yellow Rose in Austin, for example...)

This is a GRADUATION ceremony, people. I don't know what anybody else did the night before graduation, but I was fully three sheets to the wind before 9pm.

I'm going to surmise that this woman got drunk with her mates on cheap Korbel champagne, danced her ass off to Jars of Clay music, did the bone-dance with that cute pre-med she lusted after all quarter, and then had a fitful night praying to the porcelain goddess at 3am.

Ten hours later, she was all ready to testify for the Lord Jebus, complete with nausea and weeping.

It's called method acting, FFS.

EDIT: Other factors include the unknown feedback from her fellow students in the audience, who could very well have been "silently" mocking her in a variety of ways, including feigning sleeping, standing up and facing backwards, or holding up signs. Her crying could just have been the result of being frustrated with some of her fellows. She damn near said as much when she asked Jebus to strike them dead. Okay, she didn't say that but she did ask Jebus to come down into the ceremony and kick some heathen ass. Something like that. ;-P

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but does anybody else see this glass as half-full? Or maybe I'm reading Obama completely wrong on his religious stance. But hear me out.

Obama's staff would certainly have tracked this court case from the start, I would think, in an effort to prepare their response well ahead of the eventual ruling. Since the outcome was that the National Day of Prayer was ruled unconstitutional, Obama's response was essentially a no-brainer: have the Justice Department appeal the ruling. Why is this politically brilliant? Because it keeps all the religious voters on Obama's side, liberal and conservative. The President scored big political points, in other words, in preparation for the midterm elections in November.

In fact, if the schedule for this appeal is under a measure of control by the White House, and I would have to think it is because Eric Holder, the Attorney General, seems to be well-aligned with Obama, then I'm going to bet dollars to donuts that we'll see this case tried a month or two ahead of the November 2010 midterm elections.

I'll even predict the outcome: the appeal will succeed. Happy religious voters turn out in droves for the Democrats. And there is still a chance the appeal could be challenged and overturned in 2011, I would think, because after all, the National Day of Prayer IS unconstitutional. (Where's the American version of hungarianelephant when you need him? lol)

It would have been even more interesting if the original verdict went against the FFRF. Obama would have likely just remained quiet, or perhaps he would have had someone on his staff praise the ruling -- but then he risked alienating a percentage of his (non-believer) base.

Judge Barbara Crabb, interestingly enough, was recommended by former Democratic Senator Wiliam Proxmire, and nominated by President Jimmy Carter, so the original ruling may never have really been in doubt.

I know... I'm a conspiracy theory nut. (i.e. I still think there's something very fishy about the way 9-11 went down...)

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703876404575200441140766602.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Barbara_Crabb

Well done, Thunderfoot!

I like the way Thunderfoot enunciates his words carefully, and I also like the tone and inflections of his voice. I look forward to many more great clips from this man.

If I had one suggestion, and this is purely my opinion, I would change the font style, and perhaps size, of his subtitles. They are "too loud and blocky" compared to his voice, if that makes any sense. They were a bit distracting for me, particularly when the excellent video snippets, his narration, and the large subtitles all converged at certain moments. I'm going to guess that Thunderfoot's familiarity with the material -- after the long hours spent composing the video -- blinded him somewhat to this effect.

As far as the message itself? Dead on target. Religion is definitely dying... I just wish it would hurry the hell up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih9C2Pn0zwQ

114. Comment #484039 by hanktheman on April 27, 2010 at 5:19 am

To battle religion on those terms would take the transformation of this movement into a political force, and at this stage there appears no will to do that.

No plans?

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,5170,Our-Secular-Coalition-visit-to-the-White-House-,Herb-Silverman---The-Washington-Post,page1#465615

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5494

Big, BIG plans. This plane hasn't even extended the flaps, yet. But it's definitely moving down the political runway.

Well that was certainly entertaining. A virtuoso performance from JD, by any standard.

114. Comment #484034 by J Davis on April 27, 2010 at 3:33 am

Thanks Guys…Well, accept for the ape ;-) JK.

Shiver me timbers -- why am I the only ape? I thought you believed in the Big Bang and therefore Evolution. That would mean we're ALL apes, including you, to... Er, too.

I guess I'm just too damn interesting to ignore. Vaya con Jebus, JDavis. Here's a farewell message in tongues for you:

"Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga."

(Carl Spackler, Caddyshack)

80. Comment #483976 by J Davis on April 26, 2010 at 10:30 pm

I am sorry if I offended you...

Oh please, Sir, or Ma'am, whoever you are, let's not disingenuously turn this whole thing around. You are a source of amusement for me. Nothing more, and nothing less. I'm not offended in the least by your presence here. I sincerely hope you learn a few things, because you're clearly deluded.

Pointing out your grammatical mistakes with "too" was merely an attempt to make it easier for everybody to enjoy your ignorant prattle.

76. Comment #483971 by J Davis on April 26, 2010 at 10:14 pm

I don’t know how too have my quotes show like yours because I am new here.

And no one is perfect…So please do not use my mistakes in an attempt to discredit me.

Badda bing.

I think you've just helped me "achieve ridicule", my theist friend!