After writing the previous article, I found this on the web: a post by Hell’s Handmaiden that contains a video with an interview of a Muslim "scientist". Warning: this may make your head explode.
This guy, Abd Al-Baset Sayyid (about whom I’ve written before) is spouting 100% pure unadulterated nonsense (and from this video it’s clear, as I said in the previous post, that it’s his stuff being talked about in the BBC article). It’s like listening to a little kid explaining a dream he had. The Earth emits infinite short-wave radiation? Centered on Mecca?
The zero-magnetism stuff he says at about 2:00 minutes in is jaw-dropping. Compasses don’t work on the Equator? News to me! He doesn’t understand that the needle in a compass is also a magnet, and will always align itself with the magnetic field lines? He would fail 4th grade science.
According to him, gravity’s lower in Mecca, too. Cool. We should launch rockets from there.
Wow. I’m not sure if I feel better or worse knowing that it’s not just creationists in America that spew out crap like this. It’s a little comforting knowing that it’s not an American trademark, but it’s terrifying to think that even if we could somehow get folks in the US to see things straight, there are still hundreds of millions of other people across the globe who are so woefully uneducated in the ways of reality.
Clearly, Abd Al-Baset Sayyid is a crank. But he seems to get airtime, and that’s what makes me seriously unhappy. He has the right to emit as much nonsense as he wants, but I certainly wish TV shows wouldn’t let him do it to millions of people, just because his nonsense happens to align with their beliefs.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Yup. I still believe that religion –all religion– makes people absolutely and comically insane. And, it would be a lot of fun watching these nuts vie for whatever supremacy they feel they need in order to please their god-thing, but innocent and rational folks wind up getting killed in the crossfire of this war of competing delusions.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
*head a’splodes*
April 24th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
How does a thinking person in the Middle East resolve the inevitable cognitive dissonance when hearing this??
The interview reminds me of whenever Sylvia Browne or John Edward are on Larry King or Oprah and the hosts are utterly drawn in by the drivel.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
And here I thought that the USA was the only country burdened by idiot fundamentalists.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Let’s everyone take a deep breath.
I don’t mind the “rational” and “skeptical” stuff on this site (though I come here more for the astronomy). I know everyone trots out the reasons we should dismiss psychics as frauds. I know that religion has spawned war and genocide (actually, war and genocide are contrary to virtually every religious teaching, and war and genocide happen when people *forget* to practice their religion, but whatever).
But before we go bashing religion too much, let’s remember that religion and faith also have inspired wonderful things, like beautiful art and music. Colliding protons and colliding galaxies are great; so are the medieval cathedrals, Bach’s music (written for the glory of God) and The Pieta. And for every “creationist nutjob” or whatever, religion can create two or three people who are committed to helping the poor and easing suffering. Maybe people shouldn’t need a belief in God to do good things, but some people do and that’s okay.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Note that the guy not wearing a suit and tie appears to be both baffled and amused by the conversation.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
So are you saying there would be no art and music without religion?
April 24th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
“I certainly wish TV shows wouldn’t let him do it to millions of people, just because his nonsense happens to align with their beliefs.”
Care to elaborate on that point? This sounds suspiciously close to censorship at least in terms of broadcast television. Are you prepared to shut down the numerous Christian televangelists who spew similar stupidity over the airwaves every Sunday?
BTW, the ad right next to this article is a joke, right?
“singlemuslim.com … the leading muslim marriage service
join for free, safe and secure, photo gallery, send messages, chat online”
Dang, if they start offering free camels and honor killings 50 percent off I might consider joining.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
This reminds me of the guy that wrote a book in the 1980’s claiming that NASA had found Joshua’s missing day. (The Biblical story of the sun standing still.) The guy claimed to work for NASA and said that as they were computing orbital equations for the Apollo missions, they found Joshua’s missing day. Of course it was BS. Then there was the time scientists in Siberia drilled a hole into hell. One TV Evangelists event went so far as to offer tape recordings of people screaming.
I almost fell off my chair laughing at the ad though: The International Muslim Matrimonial Site. Good God, what next!
April 24th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Kirk and BA
You two need to travel more. This stuff is pretty much a global thing and always has been.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
WTF????
How many lies can you fit into a youtube clip? I don’t know who “they” are but they know dick about reality.
I especially like the health benefits of living in a low gravity environment. I guess they neglected to mention the problems with bone density.
How is this OK? If someone needs the fear of god to keep them on the straight and narrow that is one unstable individual.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
@Tom Marking
If it sounds suspiciously like censorship to you, that’s because you are expanding the conversation to sound that way. I don’t think BA was promoting censorship at all.
But in the same way a news program has an obligation to check its facts before running a story and not broadcast known innaccuracies is not censorship, neither is BA or anyone else calling for rational minded people to CHOOSE not to air commentary that is so clearly contrary to any known fact that it borders on lunacy.
You broadened the brush here, Tom, not BA.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
The link is giving a “This video is no longer available” error.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
The stupid, it burns.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
So, Phil, what you’re essentially saying is that you didn’t know:
-1/5 the world population is Muslim. Islam has majority populations in Asia, Africa, the Mid-East and a surge in the Americas
-46 countries are Muslim with no separation of church/state
-The Muslim religion is fundamental, there aren’t two ways about it, to be a moderate would be against the basic tenets.
To think that this kind of backwards thinking is unique to America is a dangerous position to hold. Central to the Muslim religion is the thrust for world domination; an anti-science world, except for one distinct scientific usage: almost all of these countries are trying to develop offensive nukes.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
It would be really nice if the interview ended with the interviewer pointing out that his guests blathering had no relation to reality. Maybe a similar PSA at the end of TV Evangelisms could be useful, too.
“The statements and views expressed in the preceding program do not necessarily reflect those held by this channel, its owners or employees, or bear any relationship to reality whatsoever. Please be sure to think for yourself. Thank you for watching.”
April 24th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
You’d think that a population of guys like that would be unable to come up with aircraft, working missile systems, etc. just from simple ignorance of physics.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Great, just great. Since this information was probably broadcast via radio waves, what happens x years from now if or when intelligent life decodes this broadcast? Will we be the laughing the laughingstock of the galaxy because of people like this?
Maybe the reason we have seen intelligent life is that they consider us far to stupid for higher level communication.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
They don’t have to come up with Aircraft, working missile systems, etc… oil money can buy all of that technology from any country willing enough to mortgage their soul (excuse the use of the term there, but it fits for this example) for the money… (I’m looking at you, too, US.)
April 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
And to think, before Islam, the Arab world was the center of knowledge and education. Maybe the US can catch up if our own fundamentalists get their way.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
BA–
I applaud you for pointing out the insanity of Muslim fundamentalism (in addition to the Christian variety).
Hopefully they will not issue a fatwa with your name on it–something else that they are famous for doing.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
The ad for single Muslims is really cracking me up, especially since it seems to be associated with this post. If you click on the image it takes you to:
http://us.singlemuslim.com/register.php?gclid=CPPypJrN9JICFRW5GgodQn8j5g
The image shows a guy with a beany standing next to a woman with a headscarf. Where’s the burkha guys? We can see her face which is a big sin in the eyes of Allah. Did BA approve this ad? If so he’s a disgrace to Islam – showing women with their faces uncovered and all.
Also, let me jog my memory. Wasn’t there a certain astronomy/skeptic blogger who not too long ago was complaining about ads for the “Expelled” movie showing up on the Discovery Channel, etc? Or was that my imagination?
April 24th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Chris B.: “(actually, war and genocide are contrary to virtually every religious teaching, and war and genocide happen when people *forget* to practice their religion, but whatever)”
Have you ever sat down and read the Qur’an or the Old Testament? Try it sometime.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Living in the Middle East.You hear a lot of such nonsense.It gives me the creeps sometimes , I simply just laugh it off at others though.It’s frightening nevertheless , lots of people here believe in a Zionist conspiracy to take over the world.NASA saying they never went to the moon , Jews controlling the world.In term of science , they can’t distinguish real science from pseudoscience.Not everything that sounds complicated is science.
Being a skeptic here is incredibly weird.But I’ve so much fun reading these posts I think it’s worth going through 14 hours of superstition everyday for.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Crazy stuff. It’s unfortunate what religion does to people. In particular, Muslims and Jews seem to be in a propaganda war amongst their followers for who is the superior.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Sigh…
Pardon me for trying to promote understanding between people of different beliefs, especially in a land where freedom of thought is written at the top of the page.
In no particular order:
* Regardless of whether someone needs “God” to do good deeds and alleviate suffereing, the world needs the thousands and thousands of people who are acting in the name of the church to help people. They don’t get near enough publicity (or Youtube clips) but they’re out there. Let’s thank them for their contributions instead of branding them as unstable. That doesn’t help anyone.
* No, one needn’t be religious to produce great works of art. But given my examples, it sure didn’t hurt. If you own any Bach, put it in your stereo and turn it up. That’s a man singing to God.
* In reponse to a rather quick-hitting post: I have read the Old Testament. It tells the violent history of the Jewish people and their perceived covenant with God. The Jews are imperfect–it’s kind of the point. Never will you see a people tell their history in such a brutally honest fashion. Yet out of that story comes one of (?) the first monotheistic traditions, a people who mixed faith and scholarship. In the Christian religion, the Old Testament paired with the sunnier New Testament–where Jesus commands his followers to help the poor and refrain from judgment. I have not read the Quran, but have personally met many Muslims who see the book as not only their religious text, but also as a historical tie to a people who founded their faith in a hostile land and a hostile time.
* And before the “science is neato” crowd hee-haws over its superiority too much… seriously, folks. Science has done just as much harm to the world as religion. Science and faith produce imperfect results not because one is better than the other, but because they were created (and adhered to) by imperfect human beings.
This isn’t going to get any better before people open their minds and show a little tolerance. Who wants to be first?
Have we learned nothing?
April 24th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“And to think, before Islam, the Arab world was the center of knowledge and education.”
Correction – the Islamic world (including Arabic and Persian flavors) was a center of learning for hundreds of years after the genesis and spread of Islam. The Baghdad “House of Wisdom” in the early 800s AD was a latter-day Library of Alexandria (and is indeed why we retain any copies of works from the Library of Alexandria – Muslim scholars had made studies and copies of earlier Greek scholarship). During the Crusades, Muslim doctors were thoroughly horrified at what passed for medicine among the Western invaders… I don’t think Muslim scholarship really took the plunge into serious woo-land till the 1200’s at the earliest, maybe as late as the 1400s. One might even blame the Crusaders for igniting a wave of religious-nationalistic fervor in that part of the world. Nothing like “the Enemy is out to get Our Way of Life” to shut down critical thinking.
And hey, let’s not forget that the Islamic scholarship that made its way to Europe via the Crusades and the Byzantine Empire – along with the aforementioned recovered Greek work, with a bit of Indian and Chinese work mixed in – helped ignite the European Renaissance. We owe a lot to the House of Wisdom. Dis the modern-day woo, by all means, but respect the role of Islamic scholarship, historically speaking.
“The Muslim religion is fundamental, there aren’t two ways about it, to be a moderate would be against the basic tenets.”
Bosh, and likewise, tosh. That’s like saying that ANY religion is fundamental and cannot be otherwise – tautology, anyone? There are significant numbers of liberal Muslims; for only one instance, a movement in Turkey has been discussing one of the traditional Islamic pillars – the Hadith – and re-interpreting it to be in line with a more progressive viewpoint.
Honestly, I think some of the religion-bashing around here goes overboard. You may not agree with the concept of religion, but that shouldn’t lead one to blindly denigrate all things associated with religion, particularly in a historical context. Where’s the love for the Irish monks who preserved a literate tradition when Rome fell to the Germanic hordes? For the theological centers in Europe that became the foundation for modern universities? For the House of Wisdom? There are a couple of babies in that there bathwater, folks!
April 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Thank you, Rosa.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I say, let’s forward this issue to christian fundamentalists and have them settle between themselves. Survivors welcome to be enlightened by rationality .
April 24th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I doubt that you will find a lot of tolerance here, either on this blog or among its commenters. They regularly dismember folks like Chris B. and Rosa. And this is supposed to be a group of rational, logical people.
I guess rational thinking doesn’t always include respect and tolerance.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
To Dave D.
Bring.
Them.
On.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
hes telling the truth. i remember checking neil armstrong’s blog after he got back from his mission to mars and all he talked about was infinite short-wave radiation from mecca. he also speculated that mecca must have been where they faked the moon landings because earth’s gravity has less of an effect there.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
“When they reached Mars, they found out [...]“.
Fwoom, there goes my head.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Wow.
Truly awesome.
I like the bit about the Ka’ba being from outside the solar system. That was at least as good as the “zero magnetism zone”.
@ Michael Lonergan – there is nothing wrong with a Muslim matchmaker site – I actually have a friend who runs one. There are Christian matchmaker sites, as well as Scientist matchmaker sites, and just about any other kind of religion or group you can think of. So why not?
April 24th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
@Chris:
You assume that WITHOUT religion, we would not have morality. I donate to charity, I have never murdered or stolen, but I adhere to these principals because I am HUMAN and have respect for FELLOW HUMANS. I do not do it because someone told me “follow these rules or an invisible man will send you to a magical fire to burn forever.”
Also, it was the protestant push AGAINST religious idols (statues/depictions of jesus, saints, mary etc, i.e. “art”) that led to an EXPLOSION in art, music, and self-expression.
Man does not need God for self-expression, in fact, self-expression is the dominant need of mankind (it’s why we become so frustrated when we feel someone is not listening, and it’s why cave men painted on walls)
(My apologies if you do not believe in cave men, I mean no offense.)
@Dave “I guess rational thinking doesn’t always include respect and tolerance.”
If you mean rational thinking doesn’t tolerate irrational thinking, then in a sense you are correct. However I do not see many “beheadings” within the scientific community…
Will I lose respect for someone if they tell me the sun revolves around the earth… most definitely.
The Last Supper is a beautiful painting, but so is Mona Lisa, and I’m sorry to say it, but both were painted by a man, not a god.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
* Regardless of whether someone needs “God” to do good deeds and alleviate suffereing, the world needs the thousands and thousands of people who are acting in the name of the church to help people. They don’t get near enough publicity (or Youtube clips) but they’re out there. Let’s thank them for their contributions instead of branding them as unstable. That doesn’t help anyone.
This is an interesting item and this topic is the very theme of the book “A Clockwork Orange”. Is a man good when he is forced to be good? Is a Christian good because he does good works out of fear of eternal punishment?
When I need help, I like to think that the people who render assistance do so because they think it is the right thing to do. It bothers me when people help out of a sense of obligation, or worse, to score points to avoid some punishment.
Almost all help by the church has a dark side. Sure the church feeds Africans, for example, but they also oppose the distribution of birth control – thereby prolonging the problem, so they’ll have more people to feed. So is the church’s work in Africa good? I’m not sure. On the balance, maybe? maybe not?
* And before the “science is neato” crowd hee-haws over its superiority too much… seriously, folks. Science has done just as much harm to the world as religion. Science and faith produce imperfect results not because one is better than the other, but because they were created (and adhered to) by imperfect human beings.
yes, science has done harm… but science continues to evolve. It throws away its bad ideas and supplants them with new ones. Faith never does this.
Scientists once thought atoms were sort of like a chocolate chip cookie with protons and electrons all mushed together. But later, they found evidence that pointed in a different direction. And when that evidence was confirmed, the cookie model was discarded.
Religion once though that the Earth was created 6000 years ago. But later, mountains of evidence to the contrary was found that pointed in a different direction. And when that evidence was confirmed, … er, well lots of people still believe that the Earth was created 6000 years ago.
This isn’t going to get any better before people open their minds and show a little tolerance. Who wants to be first?
Not me.
Tolerance is what has allowed religion to persist this long. It certainly was not the tolerance of the religious that advanced science. Galileo was only pardoned by Pope JP2 in the 80’s. I guess they weren’t big on tolerance for 300+ years.
It’s interesting that when someone is cutting down atheism even in modern times, the religious don’t scream for tolerance, but take a shot at religion and the waggly finger of tolerance comes out.
As intelligent beings, we should not tolerate farcical ideas. They lessen us in every way. Religion should be subject to the same skepticism, the same inquiry, the same analysis, and the same rejection to which scientific ideas are subjected. If there is truth to religion, such a treatment would only serve to make religion stronger. Religion fears this treatment, and cries out for tolerance because, religion knows it cannot stand up to critical inquiry.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Also, not to create an argument or anger, but since it is the scientific community supposedly being intolerant, I would like to quote a couple good books:
(The ellipses below are to spare comment space and reader trouble, they do not change the message)
“Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. [...] you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. [...] Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
“They [unbelievers] should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides.” (Koran 5:33)
Tolerant and respectful, indeed.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
This is about all I have time for today, but I will respond to this:
>>yes, science has done harm… but science continues to evolve. It throws away its bad ideas and supplants them with new ones. Faith never does this.
Yes, and you will recall the sheep sacrifice at your corner synagogue yesterday.
Few religious people take their faith’s teachings 100 percent literally anymore. Mainstream religious people evolve with society (albeit more than they might admit). The ones who don’t live in cabins in Idaho or wherever and distance themselves from more than just elementary biology textbooks.
For the record, I’m not religious, I’m a science and math teacher, and I believe in evolution. Creationism has no place in a school outside of a well-taught theology class. The religious “right” drives me nuts. I just think a lot of you self-professed “lovers of knowledge” need to check your tone a bit. And besides: Most of my students who don’t know an atom from a molecule aren’t religious, either. They’re just part of a materialistic, sedentary, info-tainment society that doesn’t value learning or intellectual pursuits. The Foursquare Gospel church doesn’t help, but it’s not their fault. I value the contributions of my religious brothers and sisters, who are just trying to make sense out of this cold, lonely universe, just as you are.
And yes, “Evolving” Squid, it’s bad that the church didn’t pardon Galileo for 300+ years. But they did pardon him–long after most Catholics had done it in their minds, anyway.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Here I am looking over this website thinking it is concerned about logic, science, astronomy and informing people who wish to know the real truth about disinformation and myths.
I had no idea it was about bigoted people slandering and belittling the belief systems of over %50 of the people on Earth. This is not much better than the bedevil Christian church dogma. Nor is it any better than the current dogma of the Muslim religion.
I end with this, teach people who want to learn and keep your nose out of other peoples lives. Also, keep your religious beliefs or non beliefs to your self as this helps keeping people from thinking this site is run by a Nazi or a Stalinist.
I’m sorry, I thought I had found a website that was a promising source of proper scientific information and debunker of silly myths. Instead I found a bunch of people that are foaming at the mouth with hate.
Don’t bother flaming me as I will not be around to read your sophisticated musings about how dumb, stupid… you think I am.
“The Bad Astronomer” – the place to hate everyone.
Good day.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Oh, and I’d like to be on record as saying the people in this clip sound ridiculous.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Evolving Squid:
Technically, according to Christian doctrine, not even we Christians are good. If doing wrong things is like alcoholism, then Christians are like AA members. And, according to Christian doctrine, if anyone were to do no wrong, they would only be doing what they should have been doing to begin with.
While the motivation of Christians to do good varies, the correct reason (when it comes to aid) is to show the compassion of Christ.
We should also keep in mind that not all Christian denominations oppose birth control. And while the Roman Catholics have opposed birth control, they have also tried to provide a means of aiding the unwanted. A friend who was in a supply base for the “Burma Hump” in WWII had a photo of an orphanage for girls. Seems the area practiced infanticide of girls, and the Roman Catholics offered to take in the unwanted.
Shrug. Ben Franklin, who wasn’t a Christian, thought the good outweighed the bad.
Also be aware that science is a neutral tool. What we do with what we learn is up to us. New discoveries aren’t going to change that.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Chris B. -
While I have not read every comment in this particular thread, I want to note that most of the posters here talk about fundamentalists and maybe part of the religious elite (”The Church”, or Catholicism, or Judaism), those who run the religions. You are quite correct – there are many people in the world doing good and great things because of their religious beliefs. These people are usually silent, because they believe in modesty.
The noisy ones (the ones mentioned in my first sentence) are those that are derided in this blog (not just this thread). The noisier they are, the more likely they are to speak drivel, most of which comes from a profoundly warped sense of their own religion combined with their need for power and/or recognition (like the guy spouting his “science” in the interview – it’s hard to understand how he made up so much garbage).
I guess what I’m saying here is, although you are trying to be the voice of propriety and maybe focus, I think most people writing here already understand what you are trying to tell them.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Technically, according to Christian doctrine, not even we Christians are good. If doing wrong things is like alcoholism, then Christians are like AA members. And, according to Christian doctrine, if anyone were to do no wrong, they would only be doing what they should have been doing to begin with.
An interesting analogy!
Following that analogy, your AA also says that if you don’t go to AA, you’ll always be an alcoholic and eventually be punished eternally without hope of salvation from your inevitable fate.
Despite this pronouncement, AA offers no evidence, let alone proof, of eternal punishment, or that being an alcoholic is the result of anything but a choice. Your AA disavows knowledge of anyone who has ever stopped being an alcoholic without AA. Different chapters of AA offer evasive answers to questions like “how can a child be an alcoholic from birth?”
Belief in a sky being who loves you is not substantially different than believing in a tooth-fairy, or a portly elf who breaks into people’s houses mid-winter and leaves toys. Sure, the sky-being thing has more mystique around it, but that doesn’t make it BETTER or somehow more worthy of respect. It is a belief that may give you comfort, but that fact doesn’t elevate it beyond reproach.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Coincidentally, the success rate for kicking a drinking habit is * exactly * the same for those who are in AA as those who are not.
The only real difference is whether you want to admit you’re powerless and appeal to a higher power to do it to you.
Which sounds a lot like S&M. Which is okay, if that’s what you’re into.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
People get very upset when there cherished beliefs are challenged (even when there is no evidence for them). Religion seems to be the thing that upsets people most. Yes, even within a religion that is supposed to follow the teachings of one person, it isn’t hard to find a set of people who violently disagree as to what the religion teaches (that applies to Christianity and Islam), never mind someone who says that there is no evidence for a God !
I describe myself as an agnostic, because although I can find no evidence of a God, that does not mean that there is not something that could be called a God. Scientific belief can be challenged, but according to some religious types their beliefs cannot be challenged, even if there is no evidence for them. Yes, I don’t mind religious people who accept that they may be wrong; there beliefs may well help them to be better human beings. However, those who say their beliefs are valid, and cannot be challenged, can be a danger to society.
Like Phil, I do not wish to mock religious belief, but reserve the right to point out where it is irrational and (at times) dangerous.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
“Compasses don’t work on the Equator? News to me!”
Huh? In defence of the crank, he doesn’t say that. He says imagine you are at the north pole, in the middle there’s what is called the magnetic equilibrium zone. If you place a compass there, the needle won’t move.
Well … he probably means the needle won’t move to align itself to point in a specific direction. 4th grade science was a long time ago for me, but I suspect that’s about right.
He does confuse the set up by saying “imagine that you are the north pole and I am the south pole” (sic), and then referring to “in the middle” .. and while it’s true that the equator is in the middle between those two points, I believe that’s not what he meant – he was referring to the middle of the north pole, and the middle of the south pole .. which would also make sense in the larger context where he is talking about the middle of mecca (and not a mid point between mecca and some other place). The north/south poles are presented as (two) metaphors to mecca.
As a skeptic, I try to be aware of the mistakes in reasoning and comprehension of everyone .. even of my fellow skeptics
You’ve made a mistake here, paradoxically by not being skeptical enough. You heard something odd, and latched onto the first nonsensical explanation that occurred to you .. just because he’s a crank doesn’t mean you should suspend your instinct to question.
To explain by allusion to a metaphor: imagine you are in Arabia, and you hear hoof beats … would you think it’s a zebra?
April 24th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Watching that, I couldn’t help but be reminded of Fry and Laurie’s spoon bender skit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUxWdIQVT_c)
April 24th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
All respondants to BA’s blog are rable-rousers, trouble makers, and clamoring to spout their individual beliefs and phooy on all the rest. There is no tolerence amoung us. We hold to our personal beliefs (call it a religion if you are brave enough) and delude ourselves that we are solely correct and all others are wrong. By way of proof, if we are as rational and correct as we have espoused here and in other bolgs from BA’s site, we would never answer or feel the need to argue with each other. Rational people accept that others may be less rational and thus misunderstanding whatever concept or topic BA writes about. Then too, BA most certainly writes with intent to stir the less than rational senses we all have. Please note that I’ve included myself in this (prima-facie; that I’ve written this drivel) cluster of suckers. I say, “Shame and fie on you BA.” “And, shame and fie on us all.” The only rational thing to do is for BA to stop writing this blog and stay strictly with astronomy, and for the rest of us to run, unhendered through the Internet looking at funny pictures, “YouTube,” and persons in little, or no clothing. That’s all we are suited for.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Quick footnote: I tried to use the word PandOandRandN (read only the Caps), but the site choked on it. I made no references to anything OandBandSandCandEandNandE (again, read only the caps) and was suprised. We all are adults, aren’t we? Is that word so vile that it can’t be used? Are we suffering censorship? Am I speaking to myself? Will cabage grow on Mars in the Terraforming phase? Well, whatever (tone of imaginary voice of teen upset with parent)! And now it approaches the bewitching hour and I’m off to my repose.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Two things:
1 – Always charming to see absurd prejudiced comments completely ignorant the Islamic religion, real classy (Not directed at you BA, just some of the comments).
2 – This guy is obviously a nut, but I should note that he is on a rather cheesy talk show on a religious network. It would be akin to seeing some creationist talking on the Christian channels in the US. Still crazy, but at least he’s not really being given legitimate air-time.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Quick note to start with: this is in response to Eric’s comments. And yes, I’m going to be using old-style e-mail quotes.
> Huh? In defence of the crank, he doesn’t say that. He says imagine
> you are at the north pole, in the middle there’s what is called the
> magnetic equilibrium zone. If you place a compass there, the needle
> won’t move.”
>
> Well … he probably means the needle won’t move to align itself to
> point in a specific direction. 4th grade science was a long time ago for
> me, but I suspect that’s about right.
Sadly, it isn’t. You would be perfectly correct if the Earth had two north poles (or two south poles), but there *isn’t* any equilibrium between a north and a south pole. The magnetic field flows away from the north pole and towards the south pole, and *anywhere* on the Earth’s surface (except directly above one of the poles) it’s easy to point both away from the north pole and towards the south pole.
I’m going to make an analogy here to electric charges (because most people are more familiar with them, especially if they’ve taken any physics), but magnetic fields can be seen as working exactly the same way (exception: you can have an isolated positive (or negative) charge, but you can’t have an isolated north or south pole).
Electric fields (by convention) point away from positive charges and towards negative charges (even if the charges are by themselves). To put it another way, positive charges are “sources” and negative charges are “sinks” for the electric field. Therefore, two like charges *will* have a zone of equilibrium between them, but two different charges will not.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
So far, not a single theist has been put to death by atheists for the crime of simply having belief.
No, the communists in China and the Soviet Union did not care about belief, only about the existence of a power structure not under their control.
Until someone is imprisoned or executed by a squad of atheists only because of belief as opposed to disbelief, the atheists hold the entire tolerance deck.
Pointing out stupidity is not the grand inquisition you seem to equate it to.
Quit your whimpering and grow up.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:41 am
wow the dude says armstrong said the earth is a hanging sphere who hung it?
haha. sure he may have said that if we had gotten to space a few hundred years ago but surely one would think that an astronaught of armstrongs caliber would be well versed in the concept of gravity.
i wonder where this guy gets his science from.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:29 am
OMG. My woowoowoo compensators are overloaded. I will need to recalibrate once I make it back to Fleet Sector HQ. I think an entire refit may be needed.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Boy, I just can’t WAIT to get back to the “RATIONAL” U.S. of A!
Tom E.
Dubai, UAE
April 25th, 2008 at 6:36 am
This comment is a joke…right? A blog in 1969? To Mars?
# bsizzleon 24 Apr 2008 at 4:38 pm
hes telling the truth. i remember checking neil armstrong’s blog after he got back from his mission to mars and ………..”
April 25th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Has anyone been keeping count of how many “centers of the earth” there are so far?
April 25th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I weep for future of humanity.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I weep for missing definite articles.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:21 am
“Honestly, I think some of the religion-bashing around here goes overboard.”
The religion bashing going on here at Phil’s site is tame in comparison to what P.Z. Meyers does routinely on Pharyngula. Check out some of these posts if you want to see some real religion bashing:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/morbid_freaks.php
“Christianity is a creepy death cult…”
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/it_must_have_been_an_act_of_go.php
In this post P.Z. laughs at a Brazilian priest who disappeared while ballooning. Mr. Meyers finds the episode hilarious.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/sanctimonious_monsters.php
This is a complete rant concerning the Pope’s recent visit to the United States in which Mr. Meyers calls the Pope “an obscenely wealthy old man heading an organization that protects child abusers and advocates horrendous and ignorant social practices that harm the poor all around the world”.
Probably nothing you ever read here either by BA or any other poster will reach the level of vitriol concerning religion which Mr. Meyers displays on a daily basis. So check out http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula if you want to develop a real religious persecution complex.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:48 am
“Religion should be subject to the same skepticism, the same inquiry, the same analysis, and the same rejection to which scientific ideas are subjected. If there is truth to religion, such a treatment would only serve to make religion stronger. Religion fears this treatment, and cries out for tolerance because, religion knows it cannot stand up to critical inquiry.”
It is important to note that not all atheists and not all scientists subscribe to this viewpoint. This is essentially saying that science is the sole arbiter of truth in matters of religion, which is the viewpoint espoused by Richard Dawkins in “The God Delusion”. Of course, the hidden agenda of such atheists and scientists is that they don’t believe religion can hold up to such scrutiny so the final result would be the elimination of religion.
The late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould espoused a different vision in one of the last books he wrote before he died: Rocks of Ages – Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (published in 1999).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocks_of_Ages_(book)
In this alternative viewpoint science and religion constitute separate magisteria or NOMA (NonOverlapping MAgisteria). Science deals with natural phenomena and Religion deals with morals.
I’m an atheist and in my opinion Gould was right and Dawkins is wrong. Science should do its thing and religion should do its thing, and never the twain shall meet. Once you have religion intruding into science (i.e., creationism, ID) all sorts of problems ensue. But the opposite is equally true. Once science starts intruding into religion no good can come of it. Keep the magisteria separate like they should be.
April 25th, 2008 at 11:56 am
@Tom Marking, nice misrepresentation of PZ’s post, which was largely about the stupidity of his actions not cheering at his death allied with a statement that he wished all priests also disappeared not being needed any more. But then, we are used to that, and yes I agree, PZ is no angel when it comes to criticising the stupidity of belief without evidence, then again, so am I.
If the religious just got on with their life and kept their belief as a personal thing, fine, we would just let them enjoy their delusion. However, it is because the religious, especially the fundies, are trying to interfere in the lives of all, claiming their beliefs as justification, that we can no longer ignore it. That is true whether it is fundie xians or muslims.
The difference between us and the fundies is that however deluded we think they are we don’t want to stop them having their belief nor do we atheists shoot abortion doctors, bomb abortion clinics or fly planes into buildings in the name of atheism. They, however do want to force their rules on us as can be seen in both the West and the East.
As to those talking about the ‘goodness’ of the catholic church, not only are the church preaching against contraception in countries like Africa, which increases the problems vis a vis birth rate. They are actually telling lies about condoms stating openly that the AIDS virus can pass through a condom so there is no point using them. Sorry, but whatever ‘goodness’ the catholic church might have been responsible for, and that is debatable however you look at it, it is more than balanced out by this act that I can only consider evil.
As to great art coming from artists associated with the church. This is a moot point as at the time the church was one of the main organisations with the money to commission artists. The average artist, then and now, will work for the person or organisation with the money to commission their work. Thus the main reason so much of the art was religious in nature was that it was largely directly or indirectly commissioned by the church. Not that debases the beauty of the art, but it does put its religious nature into context.
As to the poster who mentioned that so many people believe, since when has popularity had anything to do with truth and when has criticism of belief without evidence constituted bigotry or persecution, however many times the religious try to claim it is.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
“So far, not a single theist has been put to death by atheists for the crime of simply having belief.”
This reminds me of statements by true believers whether it be in the area of politics or religion. The viewpoint seems to be that my political party can do no wrong, my religion can do no wrong, etc., etc. Sadly, it has now spread to atheism.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,45271,00.html
“China Accused of Torture, Killings in Crackdown on Unregistered Christians Monday, February 11, 2002
BEIJING — Chinese authorities have killed 129 people and arrested nearly 24,000 in a crackdown on Christian churches that operate outside government control, a group of Chinese religious activists said Monday.
In a report released in New York, the Committee for Investigation on Persecution of Religion in China published what it said were official documents outlining a campaign that includes torture to stamp out independent worship.
The report accused senior Chinese leaders of approving the violence.”
As recently as 2002 more than a hundred Christians were killed by the People’s Republic of China. If you are going to claim that it was not for the crime of having belief, then the shoe can always fit on the other foot — Not one atheist has ever been killed by a religion for the crime of being an atheist – not Giordano Bruno, not any of the others burnt at the stake. Their crime was heresy, not atheism specifically.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
@Tom, no he just wants them all gone, as in nobody needing priests anymore and them not having the power they have, the rest was just hyperbole for effect. The difference is that PoxDay probably would be willing to actually shoot us atheists down, if some of the stuff on his blog is any guide, PZ jokingly dreams about it. But hey, you have your mind made up so don’t let me dissuade you that PZ is a potential murderer of priests.
As for China, they are not persecuting them because they are xians but because they are unauthorised and are seen as threat to their power base. I suppose I better say out loud that I don’t agree with it in any way, whatever their reason, before you accuse me of wanting the murder of xians. But the Chinese treat all potential perceived threats, whether buddhist, xian, muslin, atheist or even other Chinese communists, the same way. Much the same way that the Stalin et al in Russia did, i.e. not because they were xians but because they were perceived as a potential threat because of the perceived organisational abilities of the church. If China doesn’t see you as threat, whatever your beliefs or lack of, they leave you alone, i.e. it is not belief that is the perceived possible problem but a possible political threat. And again, in case you take an explanation for what is really happening as my supporting the Chinese, I don’t.
By the way, what is the difference between a heretic and an atheist when at the end of the day, anything that disagreed with church doctrine was considered effectiveley heretical. I.e. I doubt the church in those days would have treated me any differently if I had told them that I was an ex-xian atheist rather than someone who disagreed with the churches exact interpretation of doctrine
April 25th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Every religion, EVERY one save none, believes it is the ONE TRUE religion with a direct line to its god, and for its adherents, a seal of approval as the chosen ones from that same god. The world’s big three religions mandate dire consequences for those who disagree with the tenets as stated by their gods, whether or not the dissenters are “of the faith.” (Sort of a catch 22: if you aren’t a member of the chosen faith, your toast; if you are a member but choose to disbelieve, you’re also toast.) There is NO way out of these consequences; there is no less-restrictive interpretation of the word as spoken by the deity; there is no moderate path, there is no selection of tenets to which one may adhere. You either accept the word or you’re doomed. The most fundamentalist believers among the big three are actually the only TRUE believers and faithful adherents of their religions. They are the folks who take the words of their gods in the fullest sense, unleavened by “reason,” “rationality,” “modern interpretations” or the like, and it is they who will ensure that the consequences for the unbelievers are meted out as the deity commands. It is these folks with whom the rest of us unbelievers will be forever in opposition, and with whom we will be eternally at war, until one or the other of us is eliminated. That is the single, fundamental truth about these religions.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
This is essentially saying that science is the sole arbiter of truth in matters of religion
NO. That is absolutely incorrect.
It is saying that logic and reason are the arbiters of truth, and that fantasy and fiction will not stand the test of evidence. That is the scientific method, but is not “science” in the sense that most people refer to science.
Of course, the hidden agenda of such atheists and scientists is that they don’t believe religion can hold up to such scrutiny so the final result would be the elimination of religion.
I don’t think that agendum (daily pedantry: one item is an agendum, many on a list are agenda) is hidden at all.
I don’t agree with Gould. Religion has to do with population control. The promulgation of morals is one of the tools religion uses to control people, but you need not have religion to behave in a moral way.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
“But hey, you have your mind made up so don’t let me dissuade you that PZ is a potential murderer of priests.”
I wouldn’t go that far, but I would say that PZ is a blogger who posts material specifically designed to be inflammatory and to piss off the opposition. In that area he and Vox Day both excel. Thankfully I see relatively little of that coming from BA.
“As for China, they are not persecuting them because they are xians but because they are unauthorised and are seen as threat to their power base.”
You can rationalize away the burnings at the stake performed by the Christians in much the same way. It had nothing to do with belief. It had to do with publicly proclaimed heresy which undermined the authority of the Church. Thus, folks like Giordano Bruno had to be eliminated since they were a threat to the power base of the Catholic Church. So you can rationalize away murder anyway you want. It’s still murder as are the numerous murders done by the People’s Republic of China against Christians.
“It is these folks with whom the rest of us unbelievers will be forever in opposition, and with whom we will be eternally at war, until one or the other of us is eliminated. That is the single, fundamental truth about these religions.”
So it’s a war to death then, is it? And exactly how do you expect this war to end given that 90+ percent of the United States population are theists and only a paltry percentage are atheists? This is dangerous nonsense you’re spouting and if carried to its logical conclusion it’s liable to get us atheists killed in large numbers. We want peaceful coexistence between atheism and religion, not some religious war that we can’t win.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
See. I explain how the Chinese authorities see it and state that I am only explaining why it happened and that I didn’t agree with whatever their reason and now I am rationalising it away. You really are a sad piece of work Tom, goodbye.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Stuttering sounds funny in arabic. I like it when he said, “Ul ul ul ul ul ul …”
Did he say that there is an equilibrium at the equator? Is he just making this stuff up as he goes along? Or is he quoting a book authored by someone just making it all up? A short wave-length beam emmanting from the kabaa? Is this beam maybe communicating with Allah or something? I think he said that when Neil Armstrong was on Mars that he saw that the beam went farther out into space. Thin air must have alot of mass because he sure is pulling a truck load of crap out of it.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“It is saying that logic and reason are the arbiters of truth, and that fantasy and fiction will not stand the test of evidence. That is the scientific method, but is not “science” in the sense that most people refer to science.”
Logic and reason as defined by whom? The religionists think that their beliefs are entirely logical and reasonable by their own definitions. Scientific method but not science? Not following you there. In any case, Dawkins disagrees with you:
The God Delusion, p 72
“I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other”
“I don’t think that agendum…”
Oh Jeez, don’t go all Latin on me like that. Who do you think you are, Vox Dei? In any case, it may be Dawkins’ agendum or your agendum but it was not Gould’s agendum and it is not my agendum.
“The promulgation of morals is one of the tools religion uses to control people, but you need not have religion to behave in a moral way.”
Translation: Other non-religious institutions also use morality as a way to control people.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
@Tom Marking
“Logic and reason as defined by whom? The religionists think that their beliefs are entirely logical and reasonable by their own definitions.”
I believe in this case I prefer “logic” and “reason” as defined by the English language, as in “a decision based on demonstration,” rather than any other definitions which would have to include “a decision based on an invented story with no demonstrable or observable implications on matter or energy.”
Since every observed phenomenon so far (from stars forming to feathers falling) has been governed by unchanging physical laws, there is no “logical” reason to support a God hypothesis, since said God has yet to move, effect, or change anything in this universe… I wonder what he IS doing with his time?
In any event, if a hypothesis includes a being in an undetectable dimension which has never once effected THIS dimension, then it is logically and reasonably irrelevant. In fact, there are INFINITE “entities” if the definition includes being undetectable and having no effect on physical laws or properties.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
The God Delusion, p 72
“I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other”
Fair enough. Let’s run with that. You can put all the evidence for the existence of God right on the next line:
Done. Now, what does the scientific method say about an hypothesis for which there is no evidence?
It’s incredibly easy to overcome that hurdle. One need only provide evidence. And yet, for thousands of years, nobody has been able to provide such evidence. Nobody. The scientific method suggest that it is possible, however unlikely, that is merely a coincidence. That’s as strong as the argument for God can get without evidence.
Translation: Other non-religious institutions also use morality as a way to control people.
I wouldn’t disagree with that, but it is irrelevant. You can devise your own moral code to control your own behaviour without religion or an institution. You can bet, however, that when someone imposes a moral code on you, they are trying to control you.
Whether or not that control is a good thing for the individual or for humans as a whole is another thing.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
*sorry that should be “affected” not effected in my third paragraph, next time I’ll proofread
April 25th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Really sorry to keep this thread going, (as it is already way too long), but I would like to point out how virtually all of the “religious” points made so far are logical fallacies…
@Tom Marking
“In any case, Dawkins disagrees with you:”
Argumentum ad verecundiam, appeal to authority. Appealing to the opinion of Dawkins, or Gould, or anyone else, has no effect on the truth of the matter, and only demonstrates a lack of logical arguments.
“Other non-religious institutions also use morality as a way to control people.”
Tu quoque. “you’ve done it too!” is not a reasonable justification.
@ Kryoclasmon
“I had no idea it was about bigoted people slandering and belittling the belief systems of over %50 of the people on Earth” (this same argument of “lots of people are religious” has appeared 3 or so times in this thread
Argumentum ad numerum, Argumentum ad populum, sorry, but appealing to popular opinion as evidence is not and never will be a logical argument.
@Chris B
“the world needs the thousands and thousands of people who are acting in the name of the church to help people”
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, people being religious and doing good deeds does NOT mean good deeds are a RESULT of people being religious. WITH does not mean THEREFORE. This also refutes the “Bach” and artist argumentation. Religion does not demonstrably make one a better artist, so the connection between religion and art is irrelevant. (Of course, my earlier point about religious icons refutes this as well).
Logic 101 for the win!
Cheers!
April 25th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Did anyone notice the ad on this post! The International Muslim Matrimonial Site! How dare they post a picture with a womans bare face on it! Now I must burn my eyeballs out lest it make be lustful!
April 25th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
“The God Delusion, p 72
I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other
Fair enough. Let’s run with that.”
That’s the point that’s in dispute. Why should we trust science to probe a hypothetical supernatural entity when science has been designed specifically to interrogate the natural world? What other subjects “beyond nature” has science successfully investigated?
Now, you might respond by saying there is nothing beyond nature, but can science itself tell you that? I think not. It can only be assumed as a postulate of empirical philosophy. This goes back to what Barton Levenson and I had to say about empiricism which is – you cannot use empirical evidence itself to validate the assumptions lying behind empiricism.
And on a more practical note. Let’s say you are right – there is no God. But you are one of only 5 percent of the population who know the truth about this. The other 95 percent of the population are suffering from delusions and believe in such a God. They are so attached to their incorrect belief that they might even react with violence if you attempt to persuade them differently. Given these facts, which of the following strategies makes sense for you as a rational thinker to pursue and which strategy will preserve your bodily health:
Strategy A (P.Z. Meyers strategy):
Say to the believers something like this: You’re all a bunch of morons for believing in God. I spit on your God and your pathetic deluded beliefs. I hope you all fly away into the stratosphere on balloons never to be heard from again.
Strategy B:
Say to the believers something like this: I disagree with your beliefs concerning God but I would like to work with you on issues which are vital to the survival of us all (e.g., global warming, nuclear war, etc.). We can agree to disagree on the theological issues but we can work together to make a better planet for all of us.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Two can play at this game.
“Religion does not demonstrably make one a better artist, so the connection between religion and art is irrelevant.”
Non Sequitor (False Cause) – The causality between religion not making one a better artist and the irrelevancy of religion and art is asserted with no evidence
“The most fundamentalist believers among the big three are actually the only TRUE believers and faithful adherents of their religions.”
Inversion of the No True Scotsman fallacy
“Since every observed phenomenon so far (from stars forming to feathers falling) has been governed by unchanging physical laws, there is no “logical” reason to support a God hypothesis”
Fallacy of Accident (dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)
April 26th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Haha, me and you are probably the only ones still reading this thread, Chris, but for the fun of a good debate I think I’ll keep going…
>>”Since every observed phenomenon so far (from stars forming to
>>feathers falling) has been governed by unchanging physical laws,
>>there is no “logical” reason to support a God hypothesis”
>Fallacy of Accident (dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)
If this is a Fallacy of Accident, then so is the Law of Gravity, since it fails to take into account the “unobserved” times when gravity stopped working or changed strength/direction. Of course, then, all science is a fallacy of accident, since they fail to take into account the “exceptions” which have not been observed.
I’m curious as to exactly what your argument/point is, though. You are a self-proclaimed atheist, but believe those deluded by religion are not to be disagreed with? Does this hold true for Ahmadinejad who has called for the (nuclear) destruction of Israel to bring about the second coming (12th Imam)? Sects who force 14-year olds into sexual relations with 50-year olds? etc…
(Yes, of course “athiests” do bad things too, my point is, in what way are we “wrong” for disagreeing with (or even disparaging) those who use one ancient text as “evidence” to disregard all science has discovered, and to justify their (sometimes heinous) actions?)
Let’s be clear here, no scientist is petitioning to have evolution taught in churches, and no senators are floating around an “outlaw faith” bill. So is your problem merely the “tone” of atheist arguments? (Pity is also a logical fallacy, but we’ve beaten the fallacy horse to death)
As a community based on reason (badastronomy.com) do we not have the obligation to refute statements about “infinite” radiation from Mecca, the “end of times” as a positive event, criminalization of contraceptives, giant magical floods… or any other such magic-based “reasoning”?
April 26th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Sorry I called you “Chris,” Tom, I honestly don’t know why I did that… I assure you it was a mistake somewhere between my brain my fingers, I can only guess because of Chris B from earlier, but I fully intended to type Tom… please don’t take it as disrespect.
April 26th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
“I’m curious as to exactly what your argument/point is, though. You are a self-proclaimed atheist, but believe those deluded by religion are not to be disagreed with?”
There are two points I’d like to make.
1.) There is a group of atheists to which I belong who do not seek the elimination of religion. This could be represented by strategy B in my previous post. There is another group of atheists (Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers, and several posters on this blog) who do seek the elimination of religion and seem to promote conflict between religion and atheism at every turn. This could be represented by strategy A in my previous post. In my opinion strategy B is much better than strategy A for a variety of practical and philosophical reasons.
2.) In regards to science versus religion I support Gould’s concept of NOMA (NonOverlapping MAgisteria). Thus, when Abd Al-Baset Sayyid makes claims about infinite energy coming from Mecca and says Neil Armstrong said things that he didn’t, I have absolutely no objection to scientists shooting down his concepts. What has happened is that religion in this case has stepped out of its magisterium and is commenting in the science magisterium. It is legitimate to rein it in.
“Let’s be clear here, no scientist is petitioning to have evolution taught in churches, and no senators are floating around an “outlaw faith” bill.”
Let’s for the sake of argument assume that science was pushing for evolution to be taught in Sunday School and for religious faith to be outlawed. That would constitute a meddling of science in the other magisterium and it would be just as legimate to rein in science. So almost like the checks and balances in the United States federal government among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches the religious magisterium and the science magisterium serve to check each other’s power. When one side gets too powerful the other is there to curb its excesses.
That, in a nutshell, is what I am arguing.
April 27th, 2008 at 9:34 am
We who realize that the Aqua satellite ersult means that there’s no positive feedback from water vapor and thus are skeptics already knew this about Mecca!
Why don’t you underline this fact!? We also think that this muslim is wrong abpute photos on the earth. The erath is flat we believe! Am I exaggerate something ironically? No, I just don’t dare to confront Gore.
April 27th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Sorry the spelling errors: result, about and earth.
April 27th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Well this muslim scientist is after all a bit like James Hansen or IPCC? Well, I may put my bottle of wine in the refrigerator now…
April 30th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
# Willon 26 Apr 2008 at 4:31 am
“Haha, me and you are probably the only ones still reading this thread, Chris, but for the fun of a good debate I think I’ll keep going…
”
No I’ve read through it all & days later at that too!
Yegods there are some ignorant arrogant Islamophobic people here – albiet mostly earlier in this thread.
Frankly, I pity the Sheik for his apparent mental illness .. & can only really note what a mountain has been raised from this molehill.
As has been noted before, a good quote which sums everything up superbly in this context comes from Galileo which went something like (in Italian though naturally .. or maybe Latin, a-n-y-w-a-y) :
“Science tells us how the heavens go, not how to go to heaven.”
In finest distillate :
Want an ethical code on how to live your life well?
Well then, in that case, the Bible’s or Qu’rans fine but a geology/biology/astronomy text is totally inapplicable & unhelpful.
Want to know the facts about the age of the Earth or how Humans came to be?
Well then, in that case, a geology/biology/astronomy text is fine but the Bible or Qu’ran is totally inapplicable & unhelpful.
Seems simple & clear enough if you look at things that way doesn’t it?
Can’t both religion & science get along with that?
As for atheism not being a religion, well strictly speaking neither
is Buddhism either. Perhaps both more broadly belong under the
philosophy not religion classification however both areforms of belief about religion. Buddhists are passionate believers in Buddha’s path to
enlightenment, atheists are passionately & sometimes stridently convinced that : “There is no God but NO God!”
… & then agnostics like me shrug our shoulders and say well .. heck .. we’re not sure & like Socrates we know what we don’t know .. and thus keep open minds.
———————–
To end on a lighter note, here’s an old joke or two :
What do you get if you cross a Mormon with an atheist?
Answer : Someone who knocks on your door for nothing!
What do you get if you cross a Jehovah’s Witness with a Hells Angel?
Answer : Someone who knocks on your door & tells you to @*^%%^^% off!
& finally :
Moses comes down from the Mountain & lays it all out to Aaron . Aaron is seems pretty shocked & gets him to repeat it again and again .. finally he syas : Okay my brother, let me get this down right one last time – so the Arabs get all the oil & we hafta cut the ends off our … WHAT!
June 5th, 2008 at 8:51 am
i think the reason why west hates muslims is that muslims are not ready to suffer like redindians or south african blacks.