h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

(or 'sceptic' as I call 'em )

You may be interested in my thread here: A4497492. Have a browse and see what you think. I don't advertise it widely. I don't want it to degenerate into yet another venue for the religious to feel righteously aggrieved.

Hi Edward, thanks for the invite; I've subscribed to the thread. Have to say I've never thought of myself as an atheist, per se, but it's something I've tried to define for myself for something like half a century...

I didn't know much about Sam Harris previous to the lecture for the Skeptic's Society I went to on the 8th. It was a panel discussion between Dr. Richard Sloan, (Director, Behavioral Medicine Program, Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, author of Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine), Dr. Owen Gingerich, (Professor of Astronomy and History of Science, Harvard University, author of God’s Universe), and of course the aforementioned Sam Harris, UCLA, author of The End of Faith and A Letter to a Christian Nation.

The one thing he said that stuck me was that an atheist would never be elected to the Presidency -- something I had never considered before, but too true.

He also had said that no atheist straps on an explosive vest in order to get 72 virgins in a heaven he doesn't believe in.

Harris and Gingerich got the most questions in the after panel discussion. I'll see if I can dig up the link to the podcast, if you're interested. The videographer didn't show up that night, so it was the inauguration of their new podcasts.

SC

Ta. On the Atheist Fundamentalist thread, azahar recommends a YouTube video of Harris.

Yes...the presidency...we UKians find it discomforting how ruadily USAnians (politicians and normal people) invoke the Christian god. However...we have a god-botherer in charge of the country ouselves at the moment, and the influence is becoming pernicious. See here: http://bonoboworld.blogspot.com/2006/10/never-return-to-god-once-lit.html

THis podcast is worth a listen. Very entertaining.:http://www.hayfestival.com/archive/2006/05/blasphemy-debate.aspx

Let's see if we can't convert you to full-blown atheism.

Edward, I'll warn you ahead of time, I resist proselytizing of *any* stripe. I tend to see it more as a subconscious attempt to reinforce for the proselytizer the correctness of *their* chosen path, if only they can convince someone else to follow it -- not so much a concern for the proselytee.

Also a lousy way to run a society. Religion doesn't belong in politics, but neither has it seemed that strict laws against it seeping in to politics and education have done any good. If nothing else, it provides a rallying point for the Religious Reich. Prayer in congress or schools -- no. After school, if the kids want to do it on *their own time*, so what -- as long as the taxpayers don't have to pay for it, and the schools don't officially sanction it. Lawsuits over the pledge of allegience are to no point, I think this is what has given them the feeling that they're being persecuted. This, in turn, has them doing exactly what I *don't* want -- collaborating, to push their religion down our throats.

I'm actually rather an agnostic -- there *might* be something out there, but it's unprovable and unknowable, and praying to *whatever* makes no sense. What is, is -- and we have no way of proving what "it" is, anyway. Therefore, irrelevant.

SC

Maybe I was too deadpan there. I welcome sincere comment from Theists. Obviously, though, the therad does take Atheism as a starting point, with no need for justification...just as you wouldn't expect to see atheist viewpoints on a Christian thread.

So, in your estimation, this is a polemic argument? The answer, either way, is unknowable. It can only be decided on by belief/faith.

They can't prove there's a God and you can't prove there isn't.

Bit of an impasse. The answer in that case makes both points irrelevant.

SC

I should have added, "But, the squabbles can be fun."

Well, indeed. And we could squabble for days about the idiocy of the whole notion of 'belief/faith'

Hi Edward -- don't know if you read Scott Adams' (cartoonist of Dilbert) blog, but he covered a topic you might find interesting:
"Atheists: the New Gays?" *I* found it interesting, anyway.

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/11/atheists_the_ne.html

PS -- not what it sounds like -- he's proposing that an atheist might be able to run for president and win.

Also, you might want to give a listen here: http://www.thislife.org/
and the show titled "Heretics", from November 17th.

It's about what happened when an extremely popular preacher stopped believing in hell.

Ta.

I can't get thislife from my work machine. I'll try from home.

The Dilbert article...one little dig I have to make...hasn't Scott Adams considered that a bearded Muslim may or may not be able to set up a wireless network?

There have been a few editorials recently from embattled believers - like this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1951881,00.html

I broadly agree with her about the burqa...but it seems to me she (a leading Catholic writer) is wallowing in "voluntary victimhood".

The actual name of the radio program is "This American Life"; don't know if that helps. It's one of my favorites, dealing with the silly, the sacred, the profane and the profound, sometimes all in the same hour.

"Heretics" was really interesting: Here's a very popular preacher, with thousands of worshipers packing into his church every week, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars a month for his congregation; then he changes his views -- maybe it doesn't matter if you believe or not, there is no hell.

As I listened to it, I thought of that part of the HHGG, where just before the Vogons blow up the earth, a woman finds the solution to it all, "and no one has to get nailed to anything."

SC

I thought you might be interested in the opening comment by Sam Harris on the Edge... http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/harris06/harris06_index.html

Gotta be the most cogent statement on the difference between faith and science I've read in a while.

Hi NotEd, I just listened to a debate between Sam Harris, Deeprak Chopra, Michael Shermer and Jean Huston, on The Future of God, or will science remove the need to believe in God. It was broadcast in part tonight in the US, but the entirety is here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/
I'd like to know what you think. (Michael Shermer is the founder of tht Skeptics group I belong to, BTW. )