151. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #104394 by Rtambree on December 28, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Cosmos is a good sequel to the "Ascent of Man" by Jacob Bronowski also made in the 1970s.

There are few rivals today, despite all the HD cameras, high production budgets, and special effects CG on offer, the intellectual content of science documentaries has declined, and not just in the USA, but BBC's Horizon has become lame, Equinox has disappeared, and the Discovery Channel is just fluff.

152. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103079 by Rtambree on December 24, 2007 at 9:38 am

I second Verylee's nomination for the Darwin Awards.

http://www.darwinawards.com/

153. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103078 by Rtambree on December 24, 2007 at 9:36 am

A moment's silence to remember all those who have been tortured or killed in the name of religion or ideology.

154. Taking children for a ride

Comment #102845 by Rtambree on December 23, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Let them built a monument to their idiocy if they want to (provided it's not taxpayer supported). I can't see it being commercially viable in England and it'll be a nice focus to everyone sharpening their comedy skills.

155. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102732 by Rtambree on December 23, 2007 at 1:32 pm

I'm just editing the proof pages to my counter counter counter response, THE DAWKINS DELUSION DELUSION DELUSION DELUSION.

156. Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad

Comment #102644 by Rtambree on December 23, 2007 at 10:56 am

Better hear it first now rather than when he's sitting in the Oval Office when it's too late.

It also passes the buck to the American voters. If the next United States President is another Bible thumper, then it's what the people want. Huckablee's not to blame if he's open and upfront about it. That's democracy.

157. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102431 by Rtambree on December 22, 2007 at 6:23 pm

2. Comment #102427 by CJ22

>Blair only became a catholic because Catholicism grants absolution in a way that Anglicanism does not.

How many "Hail Mary"s do you have to say for lying to parliament, invading a country, and killing thousands of innocent civilians?

158. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102426 by Rtambree on December 22, 2007 at 5:50 pm

It's the Joker from Batman hanging around with a man in a dress in charge of the world's largest pedophile ring.

he had avoided talking about his religious views while in office for about 10 years for fear of being labeled "a nutter."

In the USA, you're a nutter if you don't mention God every other sentence.

159. Bible bashing dying out in Kansas

Comment #102329 by Rtambree on December 22, 2007 at 11:17 am

Opinion polls suggest that younger evangelical Christians are falling out of love with the "big causes" their churches have championed in recent years, in particular with opposing abortion and supporting the Iraq war.

No longer opposing abortion?! Watch God hit them with a fresh barrage of indiscriminately targeted tornadoes next year as punishment.

160. Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin

Comment #102327 by Rtambree on December 22, 2007 at 11:10 am

Shock survey result: 50% of Americans are of below average intelligence.

161. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102224 by Rtambree on December 22, 2007 at 4:22 am

It depends on how strict you are with your definitions of "eradicate" and "credulity".

Humanity has jettisoned much of its superstitious baggage over the millennia and I trust that trend will continue.

So long as religion doesn't play a role in public affairs or is an anchor to progress or causes suffering in any direct or indirect way, then I consider it no longer a problem.

You're right, so long as there remains sufficient diversity within homo sapiens, they'll always be some gullible insecure types frightened of the unknown. But their numbers are reducing in modern scientifically literate cultures. As Carl Sagan's metaphor goes... science as candle in the dark.

162. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102216 by Rtambree on December 22, 2007 at 2:59 am

8. Comment #102185 by ricey

Well I took your advice and typed Norway into the Randi search engine, and all I got was an article about some 'witch' from 2004.

As Sam Harris was trying to say in the FOUR HORSEMEN converstion, not all superstitions are equally dangerous.

Islamic fundamentalism is worse than Anglican moderation. New age mysticism and Buddhism are better than Christian fanaticism.

Take Abrahamic monotheism out of the world, and you've removed the principle source of religion-induced harm. It's a long way back to second place which would be Hinduism, and I don't even know what would be the third-ranked most harmful strain. Any candidates?

If you could fast forward 200 years, and all that was left were flakey self-guide guides, star signs, and crystals, then surely that's a big improvement.

Yeah, we could try to mop up the rest of these minor superstitions, but if they're private, make people happy, and don't cause any harm to others, then it's no big deal. The Christopher Hitchens of the future will still have something to argue about.

163. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102178 by Rtambree on December 22, 2007 at 12:28 am

4. Comment #102154 by yyuryyub

>but there's an astrology guide in almost every newspaper and "The Secret" is a roaring success.

If that's the worst of it, then I'd almost call it "Mission Accomplished".

Sure, astrology columns in city newspapers are an affront to rationality, but in modern society they're largely entertainment value. A few women of courting age have a giggle over them but that's about it. Over horoscopes, there'll be no crusades, witch burning, wars fought over Holy Lands, religious segregation and discrimination, martyrdom of suicide bombs, stonings, circumcision, stunting of science education in schools, or limiting research in laboratories.

164. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102147 by Rtambree on December 21, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Another repacking of his many speeches and interviews.

I disagree with this statement: Look, the whole point about religious faith, in my opinion, is that it's not possible to imagine us ever living without it, or eradicating credulity

Just look at Sweden, Norway and Finland and extrapolate forward one or two generations.

Once religiosity is under 10%, the herd instinct will do the rest, so it'll become as crazy to believe in an Abrahamic God as it is to believe in Zeus. So many crazy ideas of the past have been eradicated in the modern world: slavery, institutionalised gender and race discrimination, animal sacrifices, etc. So it is possible to imagine living without it. Our species is 150,000+ years old, and the big three Abrahamic religions that cause 90% of the trouble have only been around 1,300 - 3,000 years and none of the big three are recruiting new members.

I guess I'm more of an optimist than Hitchens.

165. Good God! A politician who doesn't believe...

Comment #101902 by Rtambree on December 21, 2007 at 6:02 am

>"Blair will have to make the case to his God that the invasion of Iraq was a just war and all that about loving your enemies was so much celestial fluff."

There are times one almost wishes there was a God, just so He could punish the evil done in His name, and by His followers, because warmongers such as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Blair only seem to get rewarded here on Earth.

166. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101852 by Rtambree on December 21, 2007 at 3:08 am

97. Comment #101851 by irate_atheist

In England, there are celebrities such as Russelll Brand and Robbie Williams that claim to go through that many every week, so I don't see what the allure of the Muslim afterlife would hold for them.

167. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101848 by Rtambree on December 21, 2007 at 2:58 am

95. Comment #101830 by Duff

>They became backward because of the direction their religion evolved to take them.

Duff, you've made the same mistake again as in Post #77. Religion is man-made. It's not some independent causal agent that controls men from afar. People caused the people to become backwards. As usual, it's due to a few repressive reactionary tyrants that shut down the schools of philosophy which was having new thoughts and new ideas. Same as in China. Religion is a symptom that reflects innate irrationality and insecurity.

168. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101595 by Rtambree on December 20, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Who knows? One of best analyses of religion I've ever read is by Jared Diamond - who distinguished between pre-agricultural society's religion and organised religion. We take it for granted that religion encompasses both a moral code and an explanatory cosmology, but it wasn't always the case...

http://www.mafhoum.com/press4/116S22.htm

169. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101586 by Rtambree on December 20, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Well I think it's a feedback loop - once invented, religious dogma and religious institutions can then, in turn, amplify and pervert pre-existing biases or grievances or insecurities or irrationalities via the herd instinct.

170. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101581 by Rtambree on December 20, 2007 at 2:29 pm

77. Comment #101560 by Duff

>their religion imposes on them

Religion doesn't impose. Religion is a man-made abstract intangible phenomenon.

If men feel threatened by women, they'll invent some religious dogma to institutionalise this, but the religion itself doesn't have any causal power or agency. Religion is more symptom than cause.

171. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101563 by Rtambree on December 20, 2007 at 2:09 pm

66. Comment #101549 by Inferno

>Good work, Rowan! Now, on what basis have you decided that there were no wise men and no virgin birth. Come on, Rowan you can do it!

I find it amazing that Presidents, Prime Ministers, Monarchs, Oxford Professors, Network show hosts, millionaire celebrities, multinational corporate CEOS, and highly educated intelligent Archbishops can believe all this religious nonsense, and yet the regular Joe Sixpack 'nobodies" on this forum: probably college dropouts, slackers, waiters, pencil pushers, etc, can think more critically and rationally.

Almost makes you want to have another French Revolution!

172. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101355 by Rtambree on December 20, 2007 at 9:15 am

21. Comment #101334 by al-rawandi

>Ok how do you plan to get rid of it?

By looking at how other secular countries voluntarily cast off their religious shackles. Sweden didn't have a top-down atheist revolution. The evidence is that most people will automatically shed their religion if given an adequate standard of living, economic security, and scientifically literate education.

173. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101315 by Rtambree on December 20, 2007 at 8:14 am

I wonder how much Rowan actually believes from all this nonsense. Deep down, he may be agnostic, but is now simply embedded too deep now (and too old) to change careers.

Just like Mother Theresa, we may discover his crisis of faith in his personal diaries after he dies.

174. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101275 by Rtambree on December 20, 2007 at 7:07 am

Keep going, Rowan. You can do it... baby steps.

175. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101271 by Rtambree on December 20, 2007 at 7:02 am

I have a question: What do you hate more? The Great Satan, America? Women? Jews? Israel? Science? Apostates? Alcohol? Life? Gays? Christians? Buddhists? Hindus? Atheists? Anyone having a good time? Any idea later than 1000AD? Or yourselves?

176. This Is Not a Test

Comment #101213 by Rtambree on December 20, 2007 at 5:19 am

59. Comment #101168 by epeeist

>it has been said that all of the UK parties would fit within the Democrats in the States

Even Thatcher didn't try and dismantle the NHS, whereas the Democrats obviously don't believe in universal public health. And you compare military spending, attitude to religion, and commitment to quality broadcasting under the Democrats and Tories, I'd put most of the Tories to the left of the most liberal of the Democrats.

The mainstream US political spectrum is more narrow and skewed well to the right of most other western countries, hence the greater inequality and lower standard of living.

In Australia, the conservative party is called The Liberal Party. You couldn't name any viable party in the USA the "Liberal Party" - instant political suicide.

In New Zealand, they have a female openly-agnostic Prime Minister - once again, unthinkable in the USA.

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

Comment #101199 by Rtambree on December 20, 2007 at 4:58 am

Apparently New Line sold off the international rights, so they don't get much of a return on international sales, ironically where the film is doing alright.

New Line's profit can only really come from domestic box office (where it's tanked big time this week) and DVD sales, TV/cable rights.

Bob Shaye has let his shareholders down, after stubbornly delaying a certain cash-cow, The Hobbit for 7 years.

178. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #100977 by Rtambree on December 19, 2007 at 6:01 pm

This is like watching Tolkien fans debate the motivations of Faramir.

179. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100797 by Rtambree on December 19, 2007 at 10:47 am

I like your avatar, Wombat. They're a underrated animal.

180. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #100786 by Rtambree on December 19, 2007 at 10:30 am

We like our troops docile and unquestioning.

"the placing of religious symbols on military equipment"

What's this mean - a Cross for every A-rab you blow away?

New York Review of Books - Iraq: The Hidden Human Costs
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20906

181. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100784 by Rtambree on December 19, 2007 at 10:28 am

An "atheist but" is till better than a "I believe..."

And how many votes will the Lib Dems get in secular UK? 10%? 15%?

182. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100314 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 1:40 pm

I agree with you Bonzai - we're just stabbing in the dark. But still, as the saying goes, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The fact that culture has accelerated so far ahead of evolution in the last 10,000 years, muddies the waters a lot.

A lot of our dysfunctionalities has to do with a savannah ape living in a post-industrial age.

But some simple evolutionary psychology tenants are uncontroversial - that gender politics is driven by (a) concealed ovulation and therefore uncertain paternity, explaining the emphasis on chastity and faithfulness in women in all cultures, b) differential investment accounting for greater choosiness in women, and (c) an unusually long infantile stage in humans.

Agreed?

183. This Week's Flea

Comment #100297 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Hitch finally gets his own, albeit a third of a flea.

"extremist claims of scientific fundamentalism"

what - that there's simply no evidence for God? Extremist? Fundamentalist?

Obviously publishers know that anything with God in the title is going to sell now. Expect these to keep coming out until the market reaches saturation, and all the fleas (and the fleas' fleas') will end up in the bargain basement bins at the fleamarket.

184. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100294 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 1:17 pm

>share some of your genes or an adopted daughter whom you raise as your own even though she shares no gene with you?

Good point. But raising an adopted child is going to employ some of the same Darwinian circuitry used for normal children. Afterall, millions of men unwittingly raise other men's children. Often even knowingly. And one needs to contrast proximate motives with ultimate motives - such as sexual pleasure and contraception versus desire for procreation.

The infanticide of one's own biological children in India and China ostensibly makes no Darwinian sense either - the prevailing culture trumps nature in that case. Or, specifically, the cost in dowry payments (forced by a patriachal culture) to one's own genes outweighs the benefit of the daughter who has half your genes.

185. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100284 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 1:03 pm

You're right, Vinelectric. Jeremy Paxman, Jon Snow, Melvyn Bragg, etc have a higher degree of intellect, sophistication and education than Solomon.

I think Steve99's point is to do with consequences - what actually will convince the theists out there more? A high level chat where all parties are educated atheists or if the interviewer assumes the guise of (or actually is) a member of the lay church-going congregation.

186. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100271 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Bonzai,

She must be pretty ugly if she needs $100k worth of surgery just to get a mate! There's always the Blind Institute. Most young women can find some sort of mate.

But seriously, I guess the trade-off you're suggesting in your example is too much, so the answer is no. But traditionally grandparents are generous to their grandchildren but not to the extent of giving up their own shelter. In Darwinian terms, that's a major impact to a 100% of your genes in exchange for an uncertain probability to help out SOME of your genes. Family assets normally get bequeathed down genetic lines.

187. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100247 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 12:24 pm

84. Comment #100237 by marshall1

>If you want me to give up my belief in God, you're going to have to do much better than that, Mr. Dawkins

Here we go. This will be good for 50 posts.

188. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100241 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 12:16 pm

83. Comment #100234 by walk

>If you came upon an old lady who had fallen in the street, would you help her up?

That's not really altruism - as it's no cost to you (in Darwinian terms) to help her up.

Here's a question for you - if you helped her up and she asked you for $100,000 so she could employ a carer to look after her for a few years, would you help her (assuming $100,000 would materially make you worse off)?

189. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100225 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 11:55 am

Sense of humour 0/10
Analysis 0/10
Honesty 0/10

But at least they're keeping track of what he's saying. My worry is always that each party is insulated in its own cocoon.

190. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100192 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 11:24 am

"Oh no, we Christians are such victims. Look at how mean those nasty atheists are. First Golden Compass, now this. Where will it all end?"

191. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100187 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 11:18 am

67. Comment #100186 by Arcturus

>Couldn't altruism towards strangers be seen as a pre-adaptation?

What altruism towards strangers? 95% of people just step over or ignore the homeless in the streets. There's a billion people on the planet suffering from and dying from preventable diseases, and our Christmas catalogues are full of junk to spend our money on.

I don't see any general altruism trait that demands explanation.

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

Comment #100114 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 8:57 am

As of today, Box Office Mojo is reporting that The Golden Compass has made half its $180 million production budget back - but it looks like it'll still be a flop for New Line. Interestingly today, New Line has now greenlit THE HOBBIT as a two-part addition to Lord of the Rings - and all differences with Peter Jackson have been miraculously resolved. Coincidence?

193. Abstinence Programs Face Rejection

Comment #100099 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 8:37 am

'Bout time

194. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100094 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 8:31 am

Almost nothing this interviewer said was factually correct.

195. This Is Not a Test

Comment #100077 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 8:07 am

26. Comment #99899 by quill

>With all due respect, Kucinich is a lost cause

You're probably right, but it's a pity. The better the candidate, the worse their vote. What a strange system. Obviously the better candidates get less corporate funding and therefore advertise less. Perhaps winning is just a function of how much funding you can get. Plutocracy more than democracy.

42. Comment #100072 by mew

>I still dislike Nader for giving Bush the white house

Nader "gave" Bush the White House? Pardon?
Gore gave Bush the Whitehouse for being a doormat after the debacle in Florida. He didn't contest it - he had a backbone of jelly. Gore couldn't even hold onto his own state of Tennessee - nothing to do with Nader. All Gore had to do was win his own goddamn state.

Nader is good for American politics - he highlights the Two Party Debate duopoly, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the wealthy, the lack of universal public health, excessive military spending, and he doesn't thump any Bibles. Why shouldn't there be a third voice (and fourth, fifth, etc)?

196. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #99885 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Comparing the rate of words per minute between the two is interesting - D'Souza speaks well above the average rate of speech, and consequently makes hundreds of points in the available time, while Dennett speaks at below the average rate, and can either choose to advance some of his own points or address a small subset of D'Souzas.

So, maintaining boblin's soccer analogy above, one debater can play both attack, counter-attack, and defense, while the other can only defend some of the time.

The questions at the end were better and clearer than Dennett's points.

197. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #99882 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 6:21 pm

A commentary track from Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson would be entertaining too.

198. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #99874 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Excuse me.

Why not in 3D then on an IMAX screen?

We also want four commentary tracks on the DVD - director's commentary, cast commentary, technical and production crew commentary, and commentary from Alistair McGrath for those suffering insomnia.

199. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #99871 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 6:02 pm

3. Comment #99869 by Ben Jennings

>Forget audio only, I wanna see more of Hitch's awesome house!

Audio as an option - not exclusive. If you want to drool over Hitchens' bookshelves in 1080i Blue-Ray Hi-Definition, by all means. :)

200. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #99867 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 5:55 pm

I don't think HD matters with four talking heads. If it was powerpoint slides or a documentary, sure, but in this case, I'm almost of the opposite persuasion - why not have a mp3 audio option?

The content wouldn't lose that much if it was just audio - and you could play it in when doing chores, commuting to work, or invading Poland (as atheists do).