Missing out on the Intelligence Squared debate featuring Richard Dawkins & A C Grayling vs. Richard Harries and Charles Moore? Whether you couldn’t get tickets, couldn’t travel down, or just don’t live in England, you are in for some luck!
In a special partnership with livestation.com, Intelligence Squared are going to be streaming the event live from 18:45 GMT on Sunday 29th November. Not only that, but you can vote online and ask questions to the panel through Twitter!
Anybody, anywhere will be able to view the debate in real time and participate in a live online discussion through their Twitter profile. Just like those actually at the event, the online audience will be able to vote both before and after the debate, and direct questions to the panel. – @intelligence2
If you want to get involved through Twitter, whether through voting, asking a question, or just discussing it with fellow viewers, make sure to hashtag your tweets with #iq2atheism.
The event will be streamed from the following web address: http://www.intelligencesquared.com/live, so bookmark it and join in! I’m hopefully going to be meeting a load of fellow atheist bloggers, tweeters, and members of my atheist forums (look out for our cool t-shirts) at the event, and anyone is welcome to come join us for drinks before and after at The Iron Duke pub. If you need to contact me, my number is: 07828 698967 (or send me a tweet!).
I’ll have my cameras there for photos and video purposes (video mainly for the first “official” atheistforums.org meetup) and I’ll post everything on the blog as soon as I am physically able (i.e. sober).
For anyone living in England, there is a promising debate coming up at Wellington College, Crowthorne, Berkshire on the 29th November. Richard Dawkins and A C Grayling will be debating “Is atheism the new fundamentalism?” with Richard Harries (former Bishop of Oxford) and Charles Moore (former editor of the Daily Telegraph and The Spectator). The debate costs £15 to get into, and starts at 7pm.
I’m going with a few friends and members of AtheistForums.org (one of whom is coming from the Netherlands). We are all meeting at The Iron Duke pub at 5:30pm for drinks, and then there again after the debate for more! If anyone wants to meet there, please do! My contact number for the day is: 07828 698967.
I don’t know what the turnout for the debate will be, but if the online poll is anything to go by, there will be plenty of atheists and secularists present. I’ll be taking photos and blogging about the event for anyone who can’t attend, although I hope to see you there if you can make it.
Yes, it’s time for another YouTube Thursday, highlighting some random videos I thought were pretty cool on YouTube this week. The first is a collection of Christian fundamentalist quotes, read (word for word) by a bunch of guys (I guess from a secular student group). Amazing how some of these people actually think…scary too.
The next is a playlist created by YouTube user lordhathor, documenting the fall of YouTube fraudster and fundamentalist Christian VenomFangX, who conned hundreds of people out of money meant for the sick kids hospital charity. Certainly a good watch for anyone who doesn’t know about the story, but also for anyone who has seen it play out on YouTube and wants to know some more information. Very well presented, and a great effort.
Finally, a short interview with Dawkins on the 5 people he would have to dinner, science, and philosophy. An excellent 5 minute video that you should watch when you have a spare moment!
Carrying on from last week’s YouTube Thursday segment, I have 4 more videos that I’ve seen over the past week which I want to share with readers. Before I do that, you will be pleased to know that NoGodTube is already showing potential! As I reported last week, YouTube removed the anti-gay advert “audition tapes” so I wasn’t able to share them, but some clever person has uploaded them to NoGodTube:
Next up is a video that really isn’t suitable for work, although technically none of these videos really are. But yeah, if you do watch videos at work, you ought to put headphones on for this one! It’s about The Real History of Jesus Christ and will definitely offend believers. I found it quite amusing though, so I’m sure other atheists will.
The next is a video that I personally saw a year ago when it was featured on a load of atheist blogs. However it’s been making rounds again for some reason, and it is a rather funny rap even if it is ambiguous about the position it is taking.
Our penultimate video is from a classic YouTube atheist, The Amazing Atheist, and it is a response to a Christian fundamentalist’s video on “Why Homosexuality Is Against God’s Will”. The response is hilarious, and just really quite surreal. However, it seems that the “fundamentalist” behind the video, Jesusophile, may not be a fundamentalist after all. He may just be a very good example of a Poe, and if he is, his performance is great! Satire or not, The Amazing Atheist does a good job at ripping into his video, and then going off on a complete tangent:
And finally, a video that everyone has probably seen recently. A new “advert” by Answers In Genesis that is rather creepy, and doesn’t really explain itself very well. I honestly have no idea what to make of the message; is it trying to create a link between murderers and atheism? Or is it saying that without God, you aren’t going to be loved by anyone? Make your own decisions about it.
Ray Comfort has issued an apology for his banana video in which he described how the banana had certain features that made it appear designed, insinuating the “designer” was the Judeo-Christian God. As you will see when watching the “apology” below, it doesn’t cover Ray coming up with a bad argument; it is more of an excuse, blaming atheists for editing the original video to appear out of context.
The video presents some very bad logic in the first 30 seconds, when it tries to explain the “bananaman” reference:
“Bananaman” is a reference to an illustration presented by Comfort, in which he compared the complex design elements of a coke can to the complex design elements of a banana, in order to demonstrate that thoughtful design by an a designer is required for both examples. (0:20 -- 0:35)
Ray wants us to believe that God made the banana, but even knowing this is untrue (at least in regards to the modern banana) all it does is prove what we know already; that certain things in the world are the result of human intervention. Whilst it is true that the banana is a product of design, the same cannot be said if you replaced the banana with a wild blackberry, which is perfectly edible, very sweet, and not the product of human intervention. Replace the blackberry with something like the pineapple or the coconut, and you immediately have to start questioning the sanity of the “designer” Ray implies on such things. Pineapples and coconuts have to be some of the hardest fruits to get into, not to mention the amount of preparation needed before eating.
When you do not know the process in which certain things are created, you cannot compare them to things of which the creation process is known. It is a logical fallacy. In fact, the creation process of the wild banana is partially known, and we refer to it as the theory of Evolution. This doesn’t explain the entire process of the banana creation, but it certainly gives a mechanism for understanding how it could have possibly come about. This is a far greater explanation than the idea that “God did it” which has no evidence and holds no grounds in proper scientific debate.
Ray presents to us his often-repeated lie that atheists somehow misrepresented his point in the banana video:
However, atheists removed the coke can from the video version, and sent it across the internet, saying that Comfort believed the banana was conclusive proof of God’s existence, missing the point of the illustration completely. (0:42 -- 0:55)
You see this simply contradicts the last point, as Ray admits that the comparison was to show that a designer is needed for both coke can and banana. In the original video (even in the edited version which only shows the banana) Ray mentions God as the creator of the banana, and he also mentions the coke can in comparison. His exact words were:
Now if you go to the top of the banana, you’ll find as with the soda can makers, they placed a tab at the top, so God has placed a tab at the top.
Implying that there must be a designer, and then stating that the designer is God, therefore proving God’s existence seems to be exactly what Comfort had in mind. If Ray had not mentioned God as the designer, then he may actually have a point about not trying to prove God’s existence, but as soon as he said “so God has placed a tab at the top” he left the realm of speculation and entered the realm of certainty.
They also said that the banana had been modified over time by man to fit in the palm of the hand, and not by God (0:55 -- 1:02)
Well yeah, that’s because it has been. This intervention is very well documented.
But in their effort to make him look foolish, atheists gave Ray Comfort and international platform for his message. (1:03 -- 1:09)
Effort? I think you’ll find Ray does enough to make himself look foolish without us there to help. Anyone with a (to quote Ray) “brain that works” can tell his arguments are weak, and his views on science are stuck in the middle ages. The number of times simple scientific concepts have to be explained to him reveals his as the willingly ignorant fool that he is. Now for his “apology”:
Comfort apologized for his mistake about the banana saying “My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. I was not aware that the common banana had been so modified by hybridization, however, the truth remains that God gave man the knowledge and ability to modify it, so that it perfectly fit into his hand.” (1:31 -- 1:50)
So once your original premise is destroyed, you simply move the goalposts back a bit? Nice work Ray, but while this “truth” might be logical to your warped mind, you don’t give any evidence that God exists to give us this knowledge. In fact, since your original reason for using the banana argument was to show that certain things must have a designer, and that the designer of the banana is God, I fail to see how you can simply assert God exists when your argument for him via the banana was so utterly destroyed. I can do the same thing see: My car was designed, and the designer was God, therefore God exists. What’s that? My car was designed by Ford? Well…God gave Ford the knowledge and the materials to design the car in the first place! It isn’t a proof if you have to assume God exists for the proof to work.
Ray also leaps on the chance to misquote Richard Dawkins in the film “Expelled”, claiming he thinks aliens seeded life on this planet.
In “Expelled No Intelligence Allowed”, when Ben Stein asked Richard Dawkins, ‘What do think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?’ he answered,
‘at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet … and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.’ (2:17 -- 3:22)
The beginning of this quote is left out, and the full thing reveals some vital clues to Dawkins’ explanation, specifically the words “It could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time somewhere…”. This clearly shows that Dawkins is speaking hypothetically, in response to the question by Stein. Dawkins is a scientist, and as such he isn’t going to close his mind to the possibility of intelligent design. However, if he is going to explain it, he is going to do it rationally and scientifically, not by mentioning some sort of supernatural deity.
Dawkins again says in the middle that such ideas are a “possibility”, that they are “intriguing”, and that you might find evidence if you looked at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology. However he never stated that he believes such things, nor that any evidence has been found to suggest it. He goes on to say that such intelligence would have had to come about by some kind of natural (and possibly Darwinian) means. Things don’t just magically appear out of nowhere, at least not in the realms of science.
So Professor Dawkins believes that highly intelligent aliens from somewhere else in the universe may have created us. (3:46 -- 3:54)
No Ray! No. Commenting on an idea, or even trying to explain some form of natural intelligent design does not automatically mean you believe it. As I said before, Dawkins is well aware that there is no evidence for such views, and he didn’t attempt to present evidence in the film. He was commenting on a hypothetical basis for intelligent design in the universe. Stein may have had ulterior motives for asking the question, but Dawkins answer was accurate. Aliens seeding life on Earth is at least one possibility of intelligent design that doesn’t invoke the supernatural.
Will there be a debate between Comfort and Dawkins? I doubt it, but one can dream. I’d personally love to see both Dawkins and Hitchens take on Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron for a double smackdown of logic.
I’ve been invited to a discussion of the book “The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths” on the Premier Christian Media’s radio show “Unbelievable?“. The discussion will be between lil’ old me and the author of the book, David Robertson and will focus on 3 – 4 of the apparent “atheist myths” he outlines in his book:
The myth of Higher Consciousness
The myth of Godless beauty
The myth of atheist rationality and tolerance
The myth of the cruel old testament god
The myth of the science/religion conflict
The myth of the created god and the uncreated universe
The myth of the inherent evil of religion
The myth of godless morality
The myth of the immoral bible
The myth of religious child abuse.
Of course having not read the book I’m unsure of what the arguments for all those are, but I’m being sent a copy to read before the discussion, and I’m told I’ll be able to influence the decision over which ones we talk about, which is always good. After all, just by reading the topics I’m not sure I would argue against some of them; the “inherent evil of religion” for example; I don’t think all religions are “inherently” evil, I just think most of them do more evil than good. The “science / religion” conflict I could speak reams on however.
It’s not a live show though, so that at least gives me less to worry about and more time to concentrate on having a good discussion, raising all the important points.
The people organising the discussion say it will probably air on Saturday 28th March at 2:30pm, and will be available digitally in London on DAB radio, or 1305, 1332, 1413 MW. You can also listen throughout the UK on Sky Digital 0123, Virgin Media 968, and Freeview 725. Those of you who are lucky enough not to live in the UK can listen to it live online at http://www.premier.org.uk/, or they can get the podcast form http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable.
Right now I’m slightly nervous, mainly because I’ve never actually been on radio before, let alone been invited to a one-on-one discussion/debate! It’s really quite exciting when I sit down to think about it for a bit, I just hope David Robertson’s book is an interesting read and not just repeated arguments. I want a challenge for once!
Well just look at that, the young earth creationists, fundamentalist Christians, and general ignorant conservatives over at the vile mess of misinformation “Conservapedia” have selected their article on Richard Dawkins as the article of the month for February! To add insult to injury, the article of the year just happens to be on Evolution, a piece of horrendous propaganda that has no science in it whatsoever, and tries to link the theory of Evolution to Nazism and general racism. How a scientific theory (which is after all an inanimate concept) can be held as the cause of the holocaust is rather beyond me.
Not only do these articles simply rely on lies and misconstruing scientific research (and often just making stuff up), they are full of logical fallacies. For instance, in the main page excerpt for the “article of the year”, Conservapedia writes:
In 2006, the prestigious science journal Science reported concerning the United States: “The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year.”
As if this is proof of anything other than the American society’s general lack of science education or outright ignorance or refusal to do proper research into the area! On the actual article page, a critical analysis is given of the statistics within the scientific community, with possible explanations as to why so many scientists accept the theory (think “Expelled”). Here are a few section headings from the article:
Evolutionary Theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation (No idea what hoaxes and frauds have to do with the theory…if anything they prove science works)
Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms (Of course they forget to define what the word “clear” entails. Perhaps they want a fossil of the crocoduck)
Age of the Earth and Universe and the Theory of Evolution (Let’s just combine physics and biology fora moment…)
Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates (No such thing as a creation scientist, nor has any creationist actually won a debate on points. Style maybe, but points? No.)
Theory of Evolution and Liberalism (Just to throw some liberal bashing into the mix as well)
The Richard Dawkins article spreads the lie that Dawkins was “stumped” by a creationist question, and that he has failed to answer this question ever since. For those who are interested, a detailed analysis of the video and the facts behind it can be found here.
The plan was to travel up to London by catching the 8:23am train, a feat that was made immediately impossible for me, as I slept through three alarms and woke up at 8:40. Literally running the 2 miles from my house to the train station, I arrived only to find that all the self-service ticket machines had gone faulty (even the cash ones). Finally on the train, I mused over the frequent saying that when something goes wrong, everything else seems to go wrong as well, but eventually resorted to shoving this highly irrational thought to the back of my mind to get beaten into a pulp by psychological projections of Daniel Dennett. Instead, I concentrated on trying not to throw up as the train hurtled along to London (being England, there were of course no seats available).
Arriving in London, I met up with the only other member of our group who had bothered to turn up (or perhaps he was the only one who woke up on time), Jack. We were already running late, but I was assured by a quick phone call to the President of the AHS, Norman Ralph, that everyone was just mingling for the first hour. We arrived at Conway Hall, the “headquarters” of the South Place Ethical Society, the oldest surviving freethought organisation in the world, and were met by the Norman Ralph and introduced to a few members of the organisation.
The hall was filled with students, and organisations like the National Secular Society (NSS) and the British Humanist Association (BHA) had set up tables packed with information. I took the opportunity to join the BHA for half-price (we’re in a recession y’know), and to talk to members of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, who are planning to protest Sharia Law courts in the UK on March 7th.
At that moment, Richard Dawkins walked into the room. While officials went to greet him, Jack and I were reduced to giggling schoolgirls, whispering “That’s Richard Dawkins…3 feet away from me” to each other. We eventually regained our manly composure, and I decided I’d go talk to the professor, something which Jack decided was “too much”. Richard Dawkins was standing on his own, a banana in his hand, when I snuck up on him and introduced myself, saying how I was a fan of his work, and how it was just amazing to meet him. He said he liked my t-shirt (“There’s probably no god…”) and that he’d been seeing the colour scheme being used in various places. I finally told him that my friends would kill me if I didn’t get a picture taken with him, and he happily obliged.
Richard Dawkins shows he is not afraid of the atheist's nightmare.
In his speech, which was preceded with talks by Polly Toynbee and Professor A C Grayling, Dawkins pledged to support any student group that wanted to start up, and to write to his charity (The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science) if we ever needed money to organise events. The audience rightly applauded the pledge, and Dawkins ended his speech with a few highly amusing anecdotes.
So the Royal Holloway Secular Students will be joining the ranks of the AHS, and hopefully be running numerous events throughout the next year, especially with the support the AHS, SSA, and RDF!
A few photos I took of the event are available in my photos section.
Now that “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” has come out on DVD, it seemed only right that I watched it to see what all the fuss was about. For those who are unaware, Expelled is a science fiction thriller that revolves around a post-Nazi, communist Darwinian world, ruled by tyrants, where anyone who simply mentions “God” is quietly removed from academic positions.
The film starts out by highlighting the relationship the story has with oppression and Communism; images of the separation of East Germany from West Germany and the building of the Berlin Wall is shown as the opening credits are edited onto signs in the archive footage (an applaudable effort by the visual effects team). A ball is accidentally kicked over the wall by a group of young boys playing football in the streets, and this foreshadows the people who are “expelled” later in the film. They too are “kicked” over the wall of oppression and their freedoms taken from them.
Ben Stein, the narrator and hero of the film, is introduced in a lecture set in the present day, where he is planning to tell his amazing story to a group of eager listeners. As Ben walks down the long corridor to present his talk, the faces and voices of the villains of the movie are seen and heard, each one arguing their position as the absolute truth, and therefore absolute law.
Ben Stein stars as the film's hero, locked in a war with SCIENCE.
Our hero talks about how freedom made America great, but how he has seen those freedoms torn down by the neo-Nazi organisation known collectively as “SCIENCE”. Over the course of the film, Ben meets in secret, the people who were kicked out of the organisation for questioning the methods used in controlling the people. Those who questioned the doctrine of Darwinism and the Dawkinsian Act (enforced to crush opponents of SCIENCE) were branded as “Intellectual Terrorists”, and forced to live in hiding from the brutal regime, their lives in ruins.
Ben’s view of the SCIENCE organisation begins to crumble, and he realises the corruption that has been hidden from the public view. Confused and scared, he visits his close friend Michael Shermer, a propaganda writer for SCIENCE, who attempts to explain the actions of SCIENCE in a purely positive way. Ben’s realisation that Shermer is just as corrupt as the leaders of SCIENCE leads to some dramatic scenes between the two friends, and ends with Shermer betraying Ben to the authorities.
Now on the run from the SCIENCE police (led by Richard Dawkins himself), Ben seeks out the resistance movement in the confusing back-alleys of Seattle. He seeks refuge with the anti-SCIENCE organisation “The Discovery Institute”, and from there sets out on his missions to bring down the evil leaders of SCIENCE.
The finale of the film comes in the confrontational encounter with the ruthless SCIENCE leader, Richard Dawkins. Ben is captured and interrogated by Dawkins, although Ben gets the upper hand in the process and forces Dawkins into a intellectual trap. The film ends with Ben escaping the clutches of SCIENCE, and pledging to tell the world about the corruption in the organisation.
This was an exciting movie, very well written, with plot twists that even M. Night Shyamalan would have trouble coming up with. It is so amazingly well done that at points I was actually convinced that this could happen in the real world, which is yet another credit to the realism the writers managed to convey in the film.
Both Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins gave fantastic performances in their roles as hero and villain respectively. I suspect an Oscar nomination might be just around the corner for such talented people; they certainly deserved one!
Due to the overwhelming success of the “Atheist Bus” campaign, the British Humanist Association (BHA) have started a new campaign against faith schools in the UK. They are asking for only £30,000, and judging by the response of the last campaign, they will probably get a lot more! The money will be used to hire more staff for campaigning, as well as support movements through parliament.
The BHA released a newsletter thanking those who donated to the original campaign:
We have been overwhelmed with the support given to this campaign, and so the first thing to say is thanks to all of you! Many of you have been emailing or calling us, or leaving comments on the Just Giving site to say that you want a way to continue supporting our efforts and so we are emailing now with two suggestions: joining the BHA and donating to the campaign against faith schools.
The British Humanist Association is the national charity supporting and representing non-religious people. We promote humanism, and campaign for a secular state with an end to religious privilege and discrimination. Our campaigns include promoting an inclusive education system with no religious discrimination in admissions, balanced beliefs and values education, and an end to faith schools; removing Bishops from the House of Lords; opposing the contracting out of public services to religious organisations.
We realise many of you have already donated an extraordinary amount, but judging from your comments to us so far, many of you are keen to donate to the campaign against faith schools in particular (which is in fact one of our biggest campaigns) – and we certainly need the funding! Even if everyone who has given to the Atheist Bus Campaign so far gave only £10 to the campaign against faith schools, it would boost our campaign in the coming year to an incredible extent. At the moment our faith schools campaigner is only on a short term contract and we would love to raise the £30,000 needed to keep the post for another year!
So next year we can expect two things; buses and trains across the country with atheist slogans, and fewer faith schools (we hope).
