Non believers who love Brokeback Mountain

[oilgun]

Richard Dawkins on Australian TV show called Q&A.  It's in 6 parts on youtube but well worth watching. All I can say is that Dawkins seems like the only rational one there, lol!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtVZ23GfmDo&feature=related

[oilgun]

What would Jesus NOT do?

This is a funny video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOfjkl-3SNE

[tfferg]

Here's a report of last weekend's Global Atheist Convention held in Melbourne. The author, who was one of the presenters, is Ian Robinson, the president of the Rationalist Society of Australia


http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10184&page=0

Mainstream media seem to be publishing only opinion pieces on the convention by religious people

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/blogs/the-religious-write/atheists-ridicule-wont-win-friends-and-influence-people/20100315-q9wj.html

The Age does publish a weekly blog by atheist Dick Gross. I'll be interested to see what he has to say.

[tfferg]

 Here's an article which gives an account of some of the ideas and content discussed at the Global Atheist Convention

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10185&page=0

[desertrat]

i find the content of the article interesting - if i had the time i would have googled a "serious" report from the convention. i think it shows a lot of maturity to talk about tolerance towards other philosophies, gender equality etc.

what i didn't like is a) the assumption that god would be against atheists. it would be a sorry god who depends on everybody following him....some religious fundamentalists may think so but the broad mass of believers will not.

and b) what always makes me cramp is that unfortunate "paper" (sorry, i can't even adress it as a real scientific piece of work) that states that atheists are more intelligent than believers. sorry, but that is a just crap. one can definitely argue that an average atheist will be more intelligent than a fundamentalist christian. in the same way, an average christian will be more intelligent than a fundamentalist atheist. it is a known fact that less intelligent people are more likely to fall for fundamentalist ideas and "strong leaders". but that does not apply for the average believer or average non-believer. therefore, i can only strongly reject this piece of work because if offends a big group of good people and will lead to fa urther broadening of the awful rift between believers and non-believers.

therefore - i think that the convention is very interesting and definitely deserves more media coverage  but that article is not what i would like to see in the media because i can not see it as something that will give religious people a positive view of this convention - and that would be rather sad.

[Doug2017]

Richard Dawkins on Australian TV show called Q&A.  It's in 6 parts on youtube but well worth watching. All I can say is that Dawkins seems like the only rational one there, lol!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtVZ23GfmDo&feature=related

I just love Richard!  He is just brilliant!

[tfferg]

A badge of courage
By Jane Caro - Thursday, 18 March 2010   

Until Richard Dawkins exploded onto the scene, I had never heard a man described as strident. It was a put-down reserved exclusively for women with both strong opinions and the nerve and cheek to express them without being the least deferential. Along with the word “militant”, strident had become the automatic descriptor for anyone who publicly proclaimed her feminism.
Germaine Greer is often described as strident and so was Hillary Clinton - particularly in her run to become the first female President of the US. Since she has become the mouthpiece of US foreign policy, however, I notice the epithet is no longer so regularly applied.

(snip)

 And it is an unattractive word, creating an impression of someone who is shrill, aggressive and unreasonable. A strident person, we imagine, is someone who is so opinionated and argumentative that they are almost fanatical, and will shout you down if you try to put an opposing point of view. Combined with the word militant you create the impression of someone who is both obnoxious and deeply intimidating.

Attach such insults to the word feminist often enough and the desired effect is achieved - no one can hear the word feminist without also picturing a shrieking, narrow-minded harridan, and good-hearted people who might otherwise sympathise with feminist ideas turn away.

I thought the word strident, therefore, was also sexist - a word only ever applied to opinionated and threatening women. But it seems I was wrong, it seems the word strident is not gender specific at all, but can also be applied to men who argue vigorously that there is no god.

At last weekend’s “The Rise of Atheism Conference” I heard a great deal of vigorous discussion about gods and religion, both on the stage and off it.

(snip)


Yes, there was plenty of humour at religion’s expense, plenty of teasing and plenty of robust criticism of the excesses and unwarranted privileges of organised religion. Things like exemption from tax - not just for actual charitable work but also for religious proselytising; exemption from the anti-discrimination act; the lack of any real separation between church and state in Australia; and the refusal by any government or private company to sponsor the conference despite the millions in taxpayer’s money handed over to World Youth Day and other religious gatherings. An example perhaps, of how intimidated all sorts of organisations are about doing anything that might offend the church.


But I also heard Richard Dawkins hush some restive members of the audience when a questioner bravely declared herself a Christian before asking him about DNA. Despite the fact that this is apparently a favourite gotcha question from believers to atheists, Dawkins answered her thoroughly and respectfully, as he should.

(snip)



So what’s with the use of the word strident?

I am beginning to believe that someone is only called strident (and militant) when they express opinions and ideas that deeply disturb and threaten the powerful and the privileged (“militant unionist” anyone?). Strident is not gender specific - it is a word reserved for silencing those impudent enough to forget their place and dare to challenge the status quo.

If I am right, then strident is a badge of honour to be worn with pride by those who refuse to be frightened or insulted into silence. And I am pleased to welcome all 2,500 atheists (they could have sold each seat three times over, by the way) at last weekend’s conference to our ranks. Let us all, strident atheists and feminists together, march forward in freedom, rationality and great good humour.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10199

[oilgun]

COMPLEXITY EXPLAINED: 16. Evolution of Intelligence and Consciousness
Written by Vinod K. Wadhawan , Posted on 19 March 2010

The human brain is a physical organ, governed by the laws of physics. The mind is ‘brain power,’ or the capacity of the brain to feel, think, and 1reason. The brain carries the mind, as well as what we often call consciousness (although we cannot tell where exactly in the brain is the so-called consciousness located). Our intelligence may be no different from ’swarm intelligence,’ the swarm here being that of neurons. There is a belief that the transition from intelligence to consciousness needs the acquisition of a human language. The ’society of mind’ (comprising of ‘communities’ of large numbers of interacting neurons) emerged as a hierarchical structure, so typical of any complex adaptive system. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon.

Continues: http://nirmukta.com/2010/03/19/complexity-explained-16-evolution-of-intelligence-and-consciousness/

[Jer009]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Great couple of posts above...thanks!

[Jer009]

Large Hadron Collider breaks energy record
The Large Hadron Collider has broken its own record for high energy particle streams.

(snip)

The extra energy in Geneva is expected to reveal even more about the unanswered questions of particle physics, such as the existence of dark energy and matter. Scientists hope also to approach on a tiny scale what happened in the first split seconds after the Big Bang, which they theorise was the creation of the universe some 14 billion years ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/7480815/Large-Hadron-Collider-breaks-energy-record.html

[Jer009]

The New Commandments
The Ten Commandments were set in stone, but it may be time for a re-chisel. With all due humility, the author takes on the job, pruning the ethically dubious, challenging the impossible, and rectifying some serious omissions.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/04/hitchens-201004

[tfferg]

Another comment on the Global Atheist Conventionlast wekend

re media reportong

What is observable is that three days of proceedings have been reduced to a handful of very unfortunate comments from high-profile speakers. In particular, world's best atheist Richard Dawkins describing former pontiff Pius XII as ''Pope Nazi'' and current senator Steve Fielding as an ''earthworm''.

This sort of thing, according to one commentator, showed that atheists were hate-filled monsters and what stood between society and barbarism was the Christian faith. The same faith, incidentally, that prompted a local pastor to say last year that the Black Saturday bushfires were God's judgment on Victoria's abortion laws. No one has a monopoly on hate.

Atheist Foundation of Australia president David Nicholls thinks the criticism has been driven by alarm that atheism is finding its voice - that unbelievers are, finally, out and proud. He predicts, too, that ''lifting the lid'' on atheism will inevitably lead to a more rational and tolerant society. Not a terribly frightening prediction, unless you have a vested interest in an irrational and intolerant society. (Traditionally, the people who want that sort of a world are the ones who see themselves in charge of it.)


http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/atheism-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-20100320-qn86.html

[tfferg]

Article arguing that cults that harm people are protected by Australian politicians, police and courts

Cults should be given nowhere to hide
MICHAEL BACHELARD
March 21, 2010
Despite criminal investigations, these groups continue unfettered.

mbachelard@theage.com.au.

[tfferg]

Summary of Richard Dawkins' talk

...His talk was twofold: the gratitude for evolution and the evolution of gratitude. The first part dealt with fine-tuning, why we are here, how improbable it may have been for us to be here and the anthropic principle... The next section was the converse: a new speculative theory on the origins of religion meant to be an alternative to the one he proposed in the God Delusion. The theory is that humans are extremely social animals such that social relations form the very core of our cognitive apparatus. Therefore, concepts like fairness and gratitude (which are indispensable to our functioning) are very deeply ingrained, for instance when a child laments at the world that “it’s not fair!” that it rains on her birthday. So, these same sentiments fire in our brains even where there is no agent causing them, for instance gratitude for our existence (hence the positing of creators) and notions of universal fairness (hence the positing of divine lawgivers)... His conclusion brings further irony about caricature Dawkins vs real Dawkins. The caricature aims only to demean and “reduce” things to “mere” trivialities. The real Dawkins speculated on religious sentiments coming from very profound, admirable and human dispositions — a misapplication of an otherwise-noble brain apparatus.

http://anadder.com/global-atheist-convention-sunday-wrapup

[tfferg]

An opinion piece in today's press

Extremism slumbers in the body of faith

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/contributors/extremism-slumbers-in-the-body-of-faith-20100323-qtmy.html

Some f te reader commens are intersting too.