And I added a few new ones here and there.

Official Iranian Government "Presidential Pleasure" Bra: Unlike your country, there are no bosoms in Iran; we don't have any.

Zoroastrian "Dynamic Dual" The white side is designed for maximum uplift and the black side is not.

Hare Krishna  "Midnight Mantra" In beautiful saffron coloured material, our masterpiece channels a special "airport uplift" energy for true bosom consciousness.

Zen Buddhist "Enigma" If a bosom should fall in our bra, is there any refund?

Zen Buddhist "Enigma Deluxe" What is the sound of one breast flapping? Whatever it is, cover it up with our asymetrically custum fit,  harmonically balanced and acoustically insulated Enigma Deluxe, and get the peace and quiet you deserve!

Roman Catholic "Holy Mother Imaculate Contraption" Stain resistant,  for nursing women, our new high tech miracle will hold 'em till you need 'em.

Christian Literalist "Intelligently Designed Divine Image Science Bra".  Our most high-tech line reconciles pure science, human biology, and true faith. It takes the bra to a new level of complete practicality, comfort and ergonomic efficiency and is based on BIBLICAL principles! With three cups, our bra is unashamedly  trinitarian in a world that has sold its soul to "if it feels good,  wear it" godlessness!  

Orthodox Jewish "Red Sea Bra" Excellent lift and separation for 6 days, but of course, no lifting or separating on the Sabbath.

Reform Jewish "Red Sea Freedom Bra". Excellent lift and separation all week long.

Conservative Jewish "Red Sea Consensus Bra" Excellent lift and separation for 6 days, but only if there is a general agreement that it is necessary.

Orthodox Jewish "Talmud Teaser" Rabbi Joshua said, "It is written, 'Do  two walk together without them having met?' so bras should hold the  bosom together." Rabbi Judah said, "The Holy One-blessed by He-separated the waters to reveal the dry land when He created the  universe." Rabbi Hannaniah said in the name of Rabbi Nehemiah, "He separated the waters of the Sea and then divided the River Jordan,  piling the waters up on the right and the left to let the Sons of Israel make their way to the promised land, a land 'flowing with milk and honey', and so bras should lift and separate and give room for the discovery of honey." The sages said, "It is written, 'My tongue cleaves to the roof of my mouth' and therefore cleavage is a good thing," but Rabbi Baruchiah said, "Is the cleaving of the tongue to the roof of the mouth the same as a bosom's cleaving? One is from a dry mouth and the other makes the mouth water." Hillel said, "Women are free from the commandment of binding on Teffilin, so should they not be required to bind their bosoms". Shammai said, "I'm more of a leg-man myself" but Rabbi Herschel said... (goes on for 5 more pages with a long digression into the question of how big a "cup" can be before it is a "basin").

Fundamentalist Christian "Original Sin Bra" "The Fall" came when Eve ate the apple and so there isn't anything to be done about it since bosoms are evil, wicked, satanic, vile, and are against biblical family values, but our bra is richly padded and embroidered with biblical passages to make you look more upright and smug and yet pleasing to the eyes of the men God has sent to bless your life.

Pentecostal Televangelist "Miracle Lift Faith Bra" Don't let the Devil drag you down! Sew a Seed of Faith of only $1000 by ordering our Miracle Lift Faith Bra, and you will reap a harvest! Don't forget the parable of the Faithful Wife in the Book of Egomaniciah who sewed only ONE seed and reaped a great harvest of produce and brought great joy to her poor husband! Yes, your own $1000 Faith Seed will grow as you wear our Miracle Lift Faith Bra-sent to you free of charge out of Christian Love- and you too will be lifted up in the Spirit, and your husband will enjoy a harvest of melons!

Mormon "Nights on Zion" An exact copy of the bra Joseph Smith used to wear on Saturday nights.

Fundamentalist Mormon "Easy-Sorting Polyg-rasier" One size fits every woman in the house, so there's no point to wondering which is whose!

Mennonite Bra. Designed to keep the world from knowing a woman has any need for a bra under the plain dress designed, as much as possible, to look as though a woman doesn't have breasts.

Fundamentalist Islamist "Discrete Desires Bra" Full support head to toe, to give you that appealing lack of feminine shape.

Hindu "Devi Deluxe" Realize your personal goddess; with as many complementary shoulder straps as you think you have arms.

Buddhist "Not Quite Nirvana" Accentuates natural sag, deflation and impermanence.

Hutterite "Bra" Only in black, and handmade of the finest economy-grade canvas. Available at Canadian Tire stores from coast to coast.

Scientology "Spiritual Technology Bra" Available only to the initiated for the low price of $50,000. Athletic-level of support and comfort even when jumping up and down on couches like an idiot. It comes with various books, pamphlets, built in flashing lights, a whistle, and a small propeller on each cup. Great support for the AUTHORIZED wearer from our legal team.

Confucian "Mandate of Heaven Bra" The Master said, "Heaven smiles upon the emperor who justly governs and supports the people so that they are not even aware that they are being ruled. So too, do men smile when they see the bosom that is naturally governed by our invisible underwire and seamless technology."

Taoist "Wooo-weeee!" The bosom that can be tamed is not a real bosom.

Pascal's "Wager Wonder Econo-Bra" For both women and men: in fact anyone who looks at themselves and says "there is no bosom". But what if you find one there one day? At this low price, everyone can afford be prepared!

OK, THAT WAS FUN. NOW, JUST TO SHOW THAT US HEATHENS CAN TAKE A JOKE...

Some new ones.

James Randi "Booby-Prize" Challenge Bra,  Wear it to humor the True Believers™  in the full knowledge that you can have a greater "miracle" via wires and a good bit of padding.

Center for Inquiry "Critical Mass(terpiece)"  Free with a paid membership and personally signed by Justin Trottier, this fashion statement will get everyone around asking difficult questions!

Mythbusters "Pun Intended Bra". RECALLED due to a proclivity to spontaneously explode. 

Richard Dawkins "Goddess Delusion Bra" Bright red, available only in 'A' cup sizes and to be worn on the outside to show the world that you prefer men who appreciate you for your brains and not your ability to make them say "Oh God...".

PZ Myers' "Phar-Angular Provocateur" This mercilessly sharp cone-bra is likely to upset some, and may even get you "expelled" as you drive your points home.

"Ενα τίποτα είναι για μας ο θάνατος" λέει ο Επίκουρος, γιατί "όταν υπάρχουμε εμείς, ο θάνατος είναι απών, και όταν ο θάνατος είναι παρών, δεν υπάρχουμε εμείς". Ο θάνατος είναι πάντοτε άσχετος μ'εμάς αν και προκαλεί μεγάλη στενοχώρια σε πολλούς ανθρώπους για μεγάλο διάστημα της ζωής τους. Η έγνοια του θανάτου καλύπτει σαν πέπλο την εμπειρία της ζωής, είτε γιατί οι άνθρωποι προσβλέπουν σε μετά θάνατο ζωή και τρομοκρατούνται και εξευτελίζονται προκειμένου να κερδίσουν την εύνοια του Θεού, που θα μπορούσε κάλλιστα να τους τιμωρήσει για τις κακές τους πράξεις, είτε γιατί λυπούνται και τρομάζουν με την ιδέα ότι δεν θα υπάρχουν μετά το θάνατό τους.

Όμως δεν υπάρχουν θεοί που να μας απειλούν, μα ακόμα και να υπήρχαν, εμείς δεν θα είμασταν παρόντες για να μας τιμωρήσουν. Η ψυχή μας είναι ένα λεπτό πράγμα που διαλύεται όταν πεθαίνουμε, μα ακόμα κι αν το υλικό της ήταν τέτοιο που να επιβιώνει άθικτο, αυτό για μας πάλι δεν θα σήμαινε τίποτα, γιατί ό,τι έχει σημασία είναι η συνέχεια του βιώματος, η οποία όμως διαρρηγνύεται με τον χωρισμό της ψυχής από το σώμα. Είναι παράλογο να φοβάσαι την μη ύπαρξή σου, τη στιγμή που ήδη ξέρεις πώς είναι το να μην υπάρχεις, σκέψου την εποχή που δεν είχες ακόμα γεννηθεί: ήταν τόσο απαράδεκτη η ανυπαρξία σου; Είναι μεγάλο μπέρδεμα το να στεναχωριέσαι για τη θνητότητά σου, κι είναι αχαριστία να αγανακτάς με τους περιορισμούς της ζωής, σαν άπληστος συνδαιτυμόνας που έχει την απαίτηση να του σερβίρουν πιάτα επ' αόριστον και αρνείται να σηκωθεί από το τραπέζι. (1)

________________________________________

Όλοι μας θα πεθάνουμε κι αυτό μας κάνει πολύ τυχερούς. Οι περισσότεροι άνθρωποι δεν θα πεθάνουν ποτέ, διότι δεν πρόκειται ποτέ να γεννηθούν. Ο αριθμός των ανθρώπων που θα μπορούσαν δυνητικά να βρίσκονται στη θέση μου, αλλά που στην πραγματικότητα δεν θα δουν ποτέ το φως της μέρας, είναι μεγαλύτερος από τον αριθμό των κόκκων της άμμου της Αραβίας. Προφανώς σ'αυτές τις αγέννητες ψυχές συγκαταλέγονται ποιητές μεγαλύτεροι από τον Κιτς και επιστήμονες σημαντικότεροι από το Νεύτωνα. Αυτό το γνωρίζουμε διότι ο συνδυασμός πιθανών ανθρώπων, των οποίων την ύπαρξη επιτρέπει το DNA μας, υπερβαίνει μαζικά τον αριθμό των πραγματικών ανθρώπων. Εσείς κι εγώ βρισκόμαστε εδώ ως κοινοί θνητοί στα δόντια τέτοιων εκπληκτικών αριθμών.
Η κλωστή των ιστορικών γεγονότων από τα οποία κρέμεται η ύπαρξή μας είναι απίστευτα λεπτή.

"Αν συγκριθεί με την άγνωστη σε μας χρονική διάρκεια, ω Βασιλιά, η τωρινή ζωή των ανθρώπων στη γη μοιάζει με το πέταγμα ενός σπουργιτιού μέσα στην αίθουσα όπου κάθεστε το χειμώνα με τους λοχαγούς και τους υπουργούς σας. Μπαίνοντας από μια πόρτα και βγαίνοντας από μια άλλη προστατεύεται από τη χειμωνιάτικη θύελλα όσο βρίσκεται εντός. Αλλά αυτό το σύντομο διάστημα ηρεμίας τελειώνει σε μια στιγμή και το σπουργίτι επιστρέφει στο χειμώνα απ'όπου ήρθε, και χάνεται απ' τα μάτια σας. η ζωή του ανθρώπου είναι παρόμοια, το τί έπεται ή το τί προηγήθηκε, δεν το γνωρίζουμε καθόλου.." (The Venerable Bede, A History of the English Church and People)

Μετά από ύπνο εκατομμυρίων αιώνων ανοίξαμε τα μάτια μας σε ένα λαμπρό πλανήτη με λαμπερά χρώματα, που σφύζει από ζωή. Μέσα σε λίγες δεκαετίες πρέπει να κλείσουμε τα μάτια μας και πάλι. Δεν είναι άραγε ευγενής και φωτισμένος τρόπος να περνάμε το λίγο χρόνο μας κάτω από τον ήλιο στο να εργαζόμαστε για την κατανόηση του σύμπαντος και του πώς έτυχε να ξυπνήσουμε μέσα του;Αυτή είναι η απάντησή μου όταν με ρωτούν-πράγμα που συμβαίνει εκπληκτικά συχνά- γιατί κάνω τον κόπο να ξυπνήσω το πρωί. Ας το θέσω διαφορετικά: δεν είναι λυπηρό να καταλήξεις στον τάφο σου χωρίς ποτέ να αναρωτηθείς γιατί γεννήθηκες; Σ' αυτή τη σκέψη ποιός δεν θα πεταγόταν απ' το κρεβάτι πρόθυμος να συνεχίσει την ανακάλυψη του κόσμου και χαρούμενος που αποτελεί μέρος του;
Η Κάθλιν Ρέιν ποιήτρια και καθηγήτρια φυσικών επιστημών στο Κέμπριτζ, ειδικευμένη στη Βιολογία βρήκε σχετική παρηγοριά σαν νέα γυναίκα δυστυχισμένη στον έρωτα και ψάχνοντας απεγνωσμένα για ανακούφιση από τη λύπη:

Τότε ο ουρανός μου μίλησε με καθαρή λαλιά,
γνώριμη στην καρδιά, σαν την αγάπη κοντινά.
Ο ουρανός είπε στην ψυχή μου: "Έχεις εκείνο που ποθείς!"

--------
Να ξέρεις πως γεννήθηκες μαζί,
με σύννεφα ανέμους, άστρα και αεικίνητες θάλασσες,
και κατοίκους των δασών. Η φύση σου είναι αυτή...

---------
Ύψωσε την καρδιά σου άφοβη ξανά,
κοιμήσου στον τάφο ή ανάπνευσε το ζωντανό αέρα,
μοιράζεσαι τον κόσμο αυτόν με το άνθος και την τίγρη.."
Passion (1943)

__________________________________________________

(1) Επίκουρος - Κείμενα πηγές της επικούρειας φιλοσοφίας και τέχνης του ζην

(2) Richard Dawkins - Υφαίνοντας το Ουράνιο Τόξο

"YouTube is a platform for expression of all kinds. Our Community Guidelines prohibit speech that promotes or encourages hatred or violence towards certain groups or individuals, and the video was flagged by our community on that basis. Upon further review of the context of Pat Condell's comments, we've reinstated it."

Richard Dawkins welcomed the decision:

I congratulate YouTube on an excellent decision. Pat Condell is hard-hitting, but always quietly reasonable in tone. That some people say they are 'offended' by something is never a good reason for censoring it. Incitement to violence is. Pat Condell never incites violence against anybody. He always signs off with "Peace" and he means it.

Freedom of speech can not be limited based solely on people saying they are offended. There is a huge difference between not respecting ideas and inciting hatred and violence towards people. That distinction needs to be kept in mind and free citizens need to be vigilant against that distinction being eroded at the cost of all  our civil liberties.

Here is the video:

Sign the Petition: Stop Islamic Sharia Law being used in Great Britain

10 Downing Street Petition Stop Sharia Law

[N.B. Only British Citizens can sign these petitions - the first one runs out today; the second one 1 January 2009 - thanks to Stephen Gash for comment]

OTHER BLOGS:

Archbishop up holds Sharia Law in England - a critique of what he said

The circular argument - the con artist (features Pat Condell video on atheism at bottom)

(nota ai lettori di Universi Paralleli: questo commento e' stato li' censurato. Spero che qualcuno sara' gentile al punto di farmi sapere quando l'autore di UP si svegliera' dal sonno della ragione e decidera' di rispondere. grazie)

Intanto bisognerebbe trovare un cristiano e un musulmano a cui fare davvero quelle domande, invece di inventarsene due cosi' tanto per dire.

Secondo il cristiano e il musulmano, a meno che non siano incredibilmente ignoranti o con il prosciutto sugli occhi, dovranno riconoscere che il Dio in cui pregano e' uno solo, quello di Abramo: per cui non avrebbero senso che si dessero dell'"ateo" l'un l'altro.

Magari un cristiano dira' che un musulmano e' una specie di eretico, e vice-versa: ma l'eresia non e' certo l'ateismo.

La faccenda e' molto piu' complessa di quanto le cretinate di Dawkins lascino pensare. Per esempio quante volte e' stato detto che islamismo e induismo sono assolutamente incompatibili? E poi si va invece a scoprire che c'e' almeno una popolazione indiana che pratica sostanzialmente entrambi (per non parlare dei Sikh, che hanno elementi islamici e induisti nel loro Credo).

Anche se non nutro alcuna speranza che quanto ho appena scritto aiutera' nessuno a chiarirsi le idee, mi permetto un piccolo suggerimento: non parlate di cose che per definizione non conoscete.

Se non avete una fede religiosa, parlando di fede religiosa non potrete infatti che dire sciocchezze: a meno che non riusciate a immedesimarvi con coloro che a quanto pare disprezzate.

HT: Ray Comfort

I'm sick and school is being a pain, so between increments of taking cold medicine and sleeping, I headed over to Atheist Central only to find this video posted. I might differ with half of what Ray Comfort says, but I will give credit where credit is due --that and the fact that this video is rather hilarious.

I had one great last post all ready to urge people to reject the teachings of Frank Viola and George Barna.  I had commentary on their use of proof-texting to defend their entire book.  I even had given them a clever "celebrity couple" name.  And I was chomping at the bit to finish, polish and send it.

Then God the Holy Spirit convicted me.  That post will never be sent.

In the face of the onslaught of what I am calling the "New Stalinism": attacks from the ridiculously far left (Bill Maher, Hitchens, Pullman, Dawkins and the like), I had to take a good, long look at my way of dealing with extremism within the Body of Christ.  Is it right for me to respond to divisive comments with (possibly more divisive) counter-attacks?

I had to conclude: nope.

The radical atheist movement, which would like to see the Body of Christ disappear from the face of the earth, are too unified in their one, simple piece of religious dogma - "God is not" - for us to afford to be divided.  And, when my efforts to counter division in the Church become ugly attacks on the very sources of division, the New Stalinists become even more powerful.

Fact is, Christ has one Bride, the Church.  She is a conflicted gal, to be sure.  She is simultaneously convinced of the efficacy and sufficiency of the Cross and the need for meritorious works; the surety of God's sovereign choice and the freedom of the individual; the priesthood of all believers and the importance of the clergy; embracing at times Rome and at times the Reformation; holding icons in one hand and casting them away with the other...

Some of us speak of salvation as "when you die and go to heaven" while others think of the "living in the hope of the resurrection" - two very different aspects of the same hope.  We wrestle with incompatible thoughts, such as definitions of the Church and views of the "end times".  The Bride is one, yet she often doesn't know it.

What good is it, then, for me to respond to division with more contentious argument?  That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss, or even argue.  But I feel that one must watch the tone of such interactions.

I am at fault.  When Frank and George argued there was no place in the Church for pastors, choirs, orderly worship and the like, I responded with the attitude that there was no room in the Church for such opinions.  Of course there is!  I may think they are wrong, but their thoughts are welcome.

Radical Atheist (a)theology is so simple that even the most diametrically opposed atheists are unified in their basic belief that God and religion taint everything and have no value.  We can't be the blazing light that will burn up such ignorant darkness if we are distracted by infighting.

So, as a penance, I am willing not to be contentious any longer.  When I disagree, I will - with God's help - disagree in the most, well... agreeable of ways, welcoming my brothers and sisters into dialogue with, as one of the Epistles says, "gentleness and respect".

These words from Battlestar Galactica, are quite fitting:

So say we all.

Having worked on a reasonable sized science campus I am aware that such places have the same sorts of scandals, sex and violence, as any other place. (Yes we even had at least one murder). I'm sure such a drama or soap opera could be made that would succeed in ratings. But it would also help to overcome the misunderstanding of science that seems to be rife in the popular culture.

This problem is discussed by the Karl W. Giberson in No Science, Please where he reviews The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing edited by Richard Dawkins. Here is an extract from his thoughtful review:

Literature—plays, essays, screenplays for movies, novels, nonfiction—has to be about something. "Literature" has no natural content any more than sentences have natural meaning. So why isn't there more "science" in literature? Science transforms both our world and our worldview, and yet a solid work of literature is more likely to be about an alcoholic than a scientist. Why are movies with science themes—movies like Contact and Lorenzo's Oil—so rare? Yes, of course, there are plenty of thrillers that incorporate science in the vein of Jurassic Park, often with dire warnings about the dangers of scientific hubris. At the other extreme are those pious biopics of yore: Paul Muni in The Story of Louis Pasteur (1936), for example. But why so few meaty films with first-rate talent devoted to the "insatiable hunger" E. O. Wilson invokes?

Imagine, for example, Robert de Niro as Galileo—arrogant, brilliant, bewitched by his emerging place in history—being summoned by the Inquisition to appear in Rome. Picture Galileo's enemies—small, slimy characters that look like Steve Buscemi— convincing the Pope that he had been lampooned in Galileo's play about the motion of the heavens. Imagine the Pope—Al Pacino—finally agreeing after much agonizing to put his old friend on trial.

Picture Darwin, played by Anthony Hopkins. Here is a proper and subdued Victorian, who considered becoming a priest, wrestling with an emerging conviction that the traditional idea of creation must be abandoned. His wife Emma—played by any of those beautiful but not sexy British actresses, some of whom are even named Emma—is distraught, as her beloved Charles slowly loses his Christian convictions. She is haunted by visions of spending eternity without her husband. When their daughter Annie dies at age ten, Charles finally abandons his now-shaky childhood faith, the denouement of what is surely one of the most symbolic religious struggles in Western history. PBS dramatized Darwin's deconversion in a series on evolution and, although it was just a vignette in a documentary and lacked Anthony Hopkins, it was riveting.

James A. Connor's Kepler's Witch is a biography of the great astronomer set against the backdrop of Europe's witch-hunting craze and the Thirty Years' War. It is another extraordinary tale begging to be told. Picture Johnny Depp in the role of the clumsy, inarticulate, but brilliant astronomer, demolishing trumped-up accusations of witchcraft made against his mother while slowly coming to believe that the planetary orbits were very different from what had been taught for centuries.

Why is it that Hollywood can bring to life historical characters like John Adams, Queen Elizabeth, Howard Hughes, and even Truman Capote, while equally fascinating figures from science get, at most, low-budget PBS treatments? Richard Feynman's contribution to Oxford anthology suggests one answer: "It is odd" he writes, "but on the infrequent occasions when I have been called upon in a formal place to play the bongo drums, the introducer never seems to find it necessary to mention that I also do theoretical physics. I believe that is probably because we respect the arts more than the sciences." The context—missing in the anthology excerpt—is that when he was lecturing to general audiences about physics, introducers would often note that Feynman—alongside his scientific pursuits—loved to play the bongo drums. Whether that contrast suggests, as Feynman himself thought, that "we respect the arts more than the sciences" is open to question. Indeed, it might well be that introducers of Feynman the physicist regarded him with something approaching awe and hoped to "humanize" him in the eyes of the audience. But even an exaggerated respect can result in the partitioning off of science from the common conversation of the culture.

Similar articles

"As soon as I heard these words I sat down and wept and mourned for days, and I continued fasting and praying before the God of heaven.  And I said, 'O Lord God of Heaven, the great and awesome God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, let your ear be attentive and your eyes open, to hear the prayer of your servant that I now pray before you day and night for the people of Israel your servants, confessing the sins of the people of Israel, which we have sinned against you.   Even I and my father's house have sinned.  We have acted very corruptly against you and have not kept the commandments, the statutes, and the rules that you commanded your servant Moses."

The first chapter of Nehemiah contains the words and the spirit by which we in America need to cry out to God, for Jerusalem's walls could be a metaphor for the ruin of this country.  Nehemiah's response should be our response:  weeping, fasting, and prayer.  Is there anyone who cannnot say "Even I and my father's house have sinned"?

We are a nation lost.  Our descent over the past two centuries has been incremental, but we can point to  occasions that have accelerated our decline, such as the 1962 Supreme Court decision (Engel v. Vitale)  which, redefining one word, removed prayer from schools.  The First Ammendment states:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  From 1791, when the First Ammendment was adopted, until 1962, when this decision was handed down, the word "establishment" meant the creation of a national denomination, as they had in Great Britain.  The 1962 decision reinterpreted the word to mean any religious activity in public.  This was a landmark decision, allowing for the subsequent removal of the Bible, the Ten Commandments, and religious symbols from the public arena---essentially clearing the way for the challenge of anything religious in public.  This sweeping clean of our civic landscape---even history class---of any reference to a religious heritage, continues.  The climate we observe today is one in which criticism of the church is not even in the realm of argument or debate.  Rather, it is generally condescending, dismissive mockery and ridicule. 

I used to run down a country road, along which lived two dogs.  Day after day, I noticed that the little dog was harmless unless he was in the company of his friend, the big dog about four times his size.  With the big dog providing courage, the little dog not only barked, but bit too.  Critics of the church are similarly more aggressive and hostile in this current climate, in which religion has been officially removed from the public arena.  Denunciations of Christianity have the sanction of the big dogs---government and media---and so the attacks of little dogs like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, and countless others, are more and more hostile.  I wouldn't call them courageous.  They are what we would expect, given that the cultural pendulum, aided by our courts, has swung away from Christianity, toward secularism and new age paganism. 

For most of our country's history, government and Christianity were linked together, sharing sway in our culture.  Murals on state buildings,  biographies and writings of founding fathers, and state and federal laws attest to the fact that ours was a Christian nation.  While that was the case, implied was that we were blessed---because we were Americans.  We must now concede that if we are blessed, it is in spite of it.

Which brings us back to Nehemiah.  Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem to organize the rebuilding of the city wall in a hostile climate.  While some worked on construction, others carried weapons.  Each worker kept a weapon at his right hand.  If we are to seriously undertake a rebuilding campaign in this country, we will find that our decline has created an internal opposition more hostile than anything external, and it is upon the internal opposition that we must train our weapons.   We are a population that derives morality from feelings, does not believe in objective truth, and rejects notions of right and wrong.  Almost no difference in behavior (divorce, premarital sex, abortion) exists between evangelicals and the rest of the population.  The wall we must first construct, therefore, is one around the church, purging it and protecting it from attitudes and biases of a culture that mocks God.

In Chapters 8 and 9, Nehemiah gives us a picture of a people worshiping God, giving thanks, and confessing sins.  This is the image we as a church need to model.  The wall we must build  around the Church, keeping the culture out, must coincide with putting the picture presented by Nehemiah---of a people worshiping God, revering His word, giving thanks, and confessing sin---in.

A día de hoy, la máquina molecular es cardinal en biología celular; los nanotecnólogos son sabuesos en busca de la precisa ingeniería que muestra la naturaleza. El consenso entre ellos es que resulta inconcebible que este sistema tan perfectamente integrado de piezas mecánicas, pudiese surgir por pequeñas etapas intermedias, cada una como ventaja evolutiva, ayudando a la supervivencia de todo el organismo, según postula la selección natural.

Ningún darwinista aborda el tema del origen de las instrucciones genéticas para construir estas máquinas. Jamás es confrontado por los oponentes del argumento de la complejidad irreducible; quizás porque no hay otra opción: hay complejidad irreducible desde la 'a' a la 'z'. Una evidencia de que las lucubraciones evolucionistas son inversamente proporcionales a la cantidad de datos dispuestos por la Ciencia para su análisis.

La foto izquierda es una reconstrucción promediada del sistema del flagelo bacteriano; corresponde a micrografías sobre imágenes reales, en vivo y en directo, mientras rotaban, usando la técnica de barrido electrónico. Las 'piezas del motor' aparecen a la derecha.

Los defensores de Darwin propugnan que pese a su grandeza, el universo y todos los seres vivos indican solo un 'aspecto de designio', y que en realidad no hubo propósito ni planificación deliberada en su creación. Pero, ¿qué respuestas da su teoría? ¿Puede acaso un proceso sin programa, dirección, metas ni cálculos, producir realmente los portentos que vemos alrededor nuestro y en nuestro interior?

¿Es que acaso algún evolucionista tiene alguna prueba, de mecanismos de ingeniería, máquinas moleculares ensambladas por decenas de componentes, que surjan al azar? ¿Para qué entonces se estudian 5 años de carrera, con una asignatura de cálculo muy nutrida, y luego algunos más en doctorados? Yo se los diré: 'Porque ningún servosistema, biológico o mecánico, logra que sus módulos respondan en función de un objetivo común, si no hay programa.'

Richard Dawkins, en su libro 'Escalando el Monte Improbable', dice que aunque pueda parecer quimérico que la montaña de complejidad que surge hoy, a la luz de los nuevos conocimientos impuestos por la genética, haya brotado gracias a un azar ciego, la evolución no es un proceso de cambio puramente al azar. Según él, se emplea azar para crear pequeños pasos: buenos, malos, o neutros, con respecto a la capacidad reproductiva global del organismo.

Intenta convencer que la Naturaleza, mediante su 'selección natural' o supervivencia de los más aptos, da una capacidad de reproducción mayor a aquellos organismos que adquieren cambios positivos, restando capacidad reproductiva a aquellas criaturas que sufren cambios perjudiciales. Asegura que la siguiente generación quedará más poblada por aquellos organismos con los cambios más beneficiosos, acumulándolos con el paso del tiempo en cada generación. Según él, así se asciende a esta montaña de enorme complejidad, por pequeños pasos, uno a uno.

Pero esos pequeños pasos al azar, designados por la evolución, son como el juego infantil de 'la gallinita ciega', en que el amiguete que le tocó quedar ciego, trapo a los ojos, sale dando tumbos en todas direcciones. Ese es el concepto 'científico evolucionista'; así, según ellos, a saltos, sin brújula ni azimut coordinador, se logró formar el preciso orden de la vida. No importa que ellos mismos vean una inscripción en el genoma, a manera de programa en código [que ya en sí mismo es evidencia de inteligencia], instruyendo sobre cada uno de los millones de operaciones que se precisan para la vida, ellos insisten: La gallinita ciega fue efectiva y científica; así están las cosas y así hay que tragarlas.

Pero tales deducciones no permiten subir la montaña que Dawkins reconoce; solo es un camino hacia ninguna parte. Los motores moleculares que estamos describiendo [como todo el resto de la biología del planeta] son construidos en base a proteínas, y ya hemos visto en este blog, que los aminoácidos que constituyen la cadena de síntesis de proteínas, a veces millones de ellos, tienen un período de vida ínfimo, en ocasiones de solo 2 minutos. ¿De qué sirve en este caso el argumento evolucionista del proceso 'pasito a pasito', durante miles de millones de años, para construir vida, si un aminoácido determinado, solo tiene dos minutos de tiempo para asociarse con los otros dos que corresponden a su triplete en una secuencia proteica determinada?

No se puede decir que un mecanismo complejo puede surgir por casualidad, si cada una de las partes implicadas en él resulta de procesos que no tienen respuesta en el azar. El enigma de lograr una secuencia cronológica y consecutiva, con codones específicos que dan lugar a cada una de las muchas proteínas involucradas en la vida biológica del flagelo bacteriano, y la constitución del motor que le permite sobrevivir en su medio, es imposible descifrarlo a la luz de la casuística; ese pensamiento no es científico, sino FANÁTICO. Lo racional, lo que se corresponde con la realidad y el empirismo científico, es que surge solo porque existe un programa que lo controla.

Por eso he insistido siempre, y seguiré insistiendo, en la vida media de los aminoácidos; resulta crucial para anular el concepto evolutivo de los eones de tiempo en los que se parapetan, intentando resolver los enigmas que la ignorancia no puede desentrañar. Ya vimos que hay veinte horas de vida para metionina, serina, alanina, treonina, valina y lisina; pero si en la secuencia proteica intervienen isoleucina o glutamato, entonces solo hay 30 minutos. Más efímeras son aun la glutamina y tirosina: 10 minutos... y si están involucrados arginina, fenil, alanina, leucina o aspartato, ¡entonces sí hay que poner el turbo! ¡Dos minutos! Solo disponen de ese tiempo para su ensamblaje; tan solo que la 'casualidad' les haga ponerse en contacto unos segundos tarde, es suficiente para que el sistema falle.

Y para contrariar más aun al postulado del neodarwinismo, incluso considerando que la casualidad jugó su papel, que fue generosa y proveyó que en un sitio 'X' específico, 'cayeran del cielo' todos los aminoácidos necesarios, y que la racha de buena suerte continuara, ensamblando cada uno con su complementario, en los tripletes correspondientes, aun quedaría otro obstáculo: LOS AMINOÁCIDOS SE MUEREN. Entre dos y 30 minutos, más de la mitad de los aminoácidos 'aparecidos' caerían por el precipicio de su final biológico.

Luego, ante esta situación, ciñéndonos al caso de una bacteria, teóricamente inmortal, debe existir por necesidad un 'programa' que regule la forzosa y constante reconstrucción de aminoácidos, garantizando que existan sustitutos en todo momento, para que no se detenga esa vida proteica en su célula. La cantaleta de los miles de millones de años sin control ni dirección de ningún tipo no constituye, por tanto, una respuesta congruente... ni mucho menos, científica.

Las bacterias locomocionan mediante una energía causada por flujo de iones o protones, [según la especie], a través de sus membranas celulares externas. Verdaderos motores biológicos, de estructura extremadamente compleja. Y aproximadamente doscientas cuarenta proteínas distintas se unen para construir el flagelo, cada una de ellas cuidadosamente situada. La investigación concluyó que conducen señales para encender o apagar el motor, se articulan a nivel atómico para facilitar los movimientos, y activan a su vez otras proteínas, que conectan el flagelo a la membrana celular. Es obvia la naturaleza complicada del sistema.

Los evolucionistas se sienten desconcertados ante este motor fuera borda, presente en una de las formas inferidas como 'más simples de vida', pero insisten en que evolucionaron de algún modo. Es tanta la confusión, que algunos han intentado señalar en la dirección de una evolución a partir de la 'estructura en aguja': una contradicción, pues esta estructura pertenece a los organismos eucariotas... evolutivamente posteriores, no anteriores a la bacteria. Y aunque la evolución es muy poderosa, aquí no puede hacer nada; salvo en un contexto cinematográfico tipo 'Regreso al futuro', pues sabemos que le va la ciencia ficción.

El sistema del motor en el flagelo bacteriano, compuesto de varias piezas interactuantes, conforma un todo con funciones básicas, donde la exclusión de cualquiera de sus partes le inutiliza por completo. Constituye otra evidencia del fracaso del darwinismo; es la espada de Damocles de nueva tecnología, carga neutrónica y temporizador adicionado, sobre los postulados de Darwin, los neodarwinistas, los excavadores de tumbas, escaladores de montes improbables, y todo aquel que intente desbaratar la Verdad que aparece bajo los potentísimos microscopios actuales.

El investigador japonés, Keiichi Namba, logró secuenciar el proceso de construcción del flagelo bacteriano. Las imágenes definen perfectamente su correspondencia con la de cualquier otra secuencia proteica... siguiendo las instrucciones inscritas en el genoma:

El Dr. Howard Berg [Univ.Harvard], el mayor conocedor de la dinámica del flagelo, dijo:

'Es «un motor eléctrico giratorio extraordinariamente pequeño» con un eje motor, rotor, estator, cojinetes, junta cardán, placa de montaje y conjunto de conmutación. Funciona con energía motora de protones o de iones de sodio que atraviesan la membrana celular por canales especializados. Responde a gradientes químicos con una mayor rotación. «A cargas elevadas están activos ocho o más elementos generadores de fuerza, generando cada uno de ellos el mismo par.» Unas 20 piezas proteínicas constituyen la base del motor, pero muchas otras piezas adicionales están involucradas durante su montaje. El motor se construye de dentro a afuera, con piezas que se añaden siguiendo una secuencia estricta...'

El profesor Berg realizó un pequeño cálculo para saber cuánta potencia genera el motor: Si se ampliase a nuestra escala, dice, sería de alrededor de 11 caballos-fuerza/Kg., aproximadamente la generada por un motor turbohélice de aviación». Pero a diferencia de este, el flagelo no se calienta: «Este motor está enfriado por agua y la difusión térmica es muy eficiente a pequeñas distancias, de modo que permanece muy cercano a la temperatura ambiente».

Es decir, él mismo reconoce que constituye un servosistema único, donde identificó la presencia de 20 proteínas configurando sus piezas... construido de dentro hacia afuera, siguiendo un programa, como la única forma posible de hacerlo.

No voy a poner aquí todo lo que descubrió dentro del flagelo, pues el artículo se alargaría demasiado, pero sí quiero apuntar que incluyó un factor parecido a los anticuerpos, que bloquea la expresión de genes posteriores encargados de 'codificar' las secuencias de la proteína filamental FliC, las proteínas Mot A y B, y los diversos componentes de la ruta quimiotáctica... ¡Al fin decidió un defensor evolutivo entrar en genética!

Lo que el Dr. Berg manifestó, ni más ni menos, es que ese motor se construye siguiendo las instrucciones genéticas que aparecen inscritas y codificadas en el ADN de la bacteria. Y llegamos al pez que se muerde la cola: si hay una información codificada, no se puede decir que surgió gracias a la evolución, puesto que por poderosa que quieran hacerla, la selección natural solo es algo virtual que vive en ciertos conceptos, sin ninguna manifestación física probable... incapaz de codificar instrucciones. Un código demanda el agente codificador externo, pues indica deducción e inteligencia... y azar es el antónimo de ella.

Lo que el Dr. Berg manifestó, es que el motor existe porque hay un programa regulador de genes que permite su construcción. Y si hay un programa, hay que buscar en una dirección distinta a la de la selección natural, pues esta podrá tener todas las atribuciones que se quiera, pero aun no se le ha otorgado el don de programar. Por tanto, no provee tampoco la inteligencia necesaria, capaz de secuenciar milimétricamente, cada una de las actividades metabólicas de la bacteria. El programa que consiguió que ese motor pudiera ser confeccionado, demanda al agente inteligente que fue capaz de programarlo... y ni el azar ni ningún concepto evolutivo, es capaz de proporcionarlo.

Y por último, lo que el Dr. Berg manifestó, es que ese flagelo resulta funcional porque existe la instrucción que permite que los ARNm, los ARNt, los ARNr, y el resto de implicados, sean capaces de elaborar las proteínas que darán lugar al motor final, siguiendo las instrucciones que aparecen reguladas por los datos codificados en el ADN. Y esas 'Instrucciones', demandan al agente Instructor capaz de instruir, debido a que ni el azar ni ningún concepto evolutivo, están en condiciones de proporcionarlo.

La 'complejidad irreductible' del Dr. Behe; creacionista, y gran profesional; con un brillante cerebro imbuído del espíritu de Cristo, ha proveído al mundo evolutivo, del 'coco' que Darwin mencionó en su libro... luego devenido en un tratado de ateísmo bíblico. Es una lástima que haya sido postmorten; ahora la papeleta ha pasado a la estela de discípulos que, como gallina en campo de espinos, no saben dónde poner el huevo.

En 'El Origen de las Especies', Darwin declaró: 'Si pudiera demostrarse que ha existido un órgano complejo que no pudo haber sido formado por numerosas y ligeras modificaciones sucesivas, mi teoría fracasaría por completo.'

Pues bien Darwin: definitivamente, ahí tienes lo que pedías para jubilar tu tesis: el motor que permite la movilidad al flagelo bacteriano... que no será la única evidencia. Seguirán apareciendo artículos que martillen tu teoría Anticristo, y cada uno será encabezado con ese 'yuyu' manifiesto por ti, intuyendo el futuro del descrédito que tanto temiste. Donde quiera que estés: ¡Mira la que has liado!

**********

Unul dintre motivele pentru care cred în Dumnezeu este argumentul cosmologic. Acesta este de fapt unul dintre puţinele argumente clasice la care subscriu. Este şi unul dintre argumente care apare cel mai des într-o discuţie ateu-teist, deci mă simt nevoit să discut puţin despre el.

Sunt o groază de forme ale acestui argument (Aristotel, Anselm, Alfarabi, Avicenna, Toma Aquino, Scotus, Wolff, Taylor etc.).

O formă modernă a argumentului sună cam aşa:

1. Orice lucru finit şi contingent are o cauză.
2. Niciun lucru finit şi contingent nu se poate cauza pe sine însuşi.
3. O regresie infinită de cauze este imposibilă.
4. Deci există o cauză primă necauzată.
5. Cum universul a început să existe, este finit şi contingent, el are nevoie de o cauză.

Nu cred că are cineva probleme cu a înţelege raţionamentul, dar problemele rezidă cel

mai mult în premizele sale. O să formulez obiecţii ale argumentului şi o să încerc să le explic.

Obiecţia 1: Dacă orice lucru are nevoie de o cauză, de ce trebuie ca Dumnezeu să fie excepţia?

Răspuns: Acesta este un straw-man. Argumentul nu spune că absolut orice are nevoie de o cauză, ci doar ceea ce începe a exista are o cauză. Dumnezeu nu a început să existe, El există dintotdeauna.

Obiecţia 2: De ce nu poate atunci universul să fi existat dintotdeauna?

Răspuns: Asta era una din obiecţiile de bază până la teoria Bing Bang-ului, dar acum nu cred că mai constituie vreo problemă. Ştim sigur că universul a început să existe acum circa 14,7 miliarde de ani, cu tot cu spaţiu şi timp. Să întrebi ce l-a cauzat pe Dumnezeu este să pui o întrebare care nu are sens deoarece cauzaţia implică existenţa timpului.

Obiecţia 3: O serie infinită de cauze este posibilă.

Răspuns: Pentru ca acest lucru să fie adevărat, ar trebui ca prima cauză să îşi cauzeze propria existenţă, dar acest lucru este contradictoriu. Deci trebuie să existe o cauză primă care să fie necauzată. Plus că, aplicat universului, ştim că în cadrul lui s-a început procesul de cauzalitate la momentul Bing Bang-ului.

Obiecţia 4: Argumentul cosmologic ne duce de la un efect finit la o cauză infinită. Dar nu este nevoie de o cauză infinită pentru a explica un efect finit.

Răspuns: Dacă cauza primă ar fi limitată, atunci ea ar avea nevoie de o cauză care să îi explice existenţa limitată. Orice lucru finit este cauzat. Deci aşa cum prima cauza este necauzată, la fel prima cauză este infinită. Tot ce se înţelege prin infinit aici este ne-finit.

Obiecţia 5: Termeni precum “cauză necauzată” sau “fiinţă necesară” sunt fără sens, deoarece nu corespund cu nimic din experianţa noastră.

Răspuns: Să spui că “fiinţă necesară nu are sens” este o afirmaţie care se auto-distruge. Asta deoarece chiar şi afirmaţia de mai sus nu are sens dacă termenul “fiinţă necesară” nu are înţeles.

Obiecţia 6: Chiar dacă o astfel de cauză primă există nu poate fi numită Dumnezeu.

Răspuns: Asta mi se pare cea mai interesantă obiecţie. Totuşi, chiar dacă nu se poate trage concluzia unui Dumnezeu teist, se pot face anumite observaţii extrem de folositoare:

#1: Argumentul nu scapă ateul de griji, pentru că, cauza necauzată nu poate fi tot una cu universul material. Pentru ca aceasta să fie adevărată, cauza necauzată ar trebui să împlinească anumite condiţii ca restul lumii materiale: să fie finită precum universul, să fie subiectul unor legi fizice. Prima cauză nu este finită (obiecţia 4), iar spaţiul şi timpul implică limitaţie şi cauzalitate, despre ceea ce nu poate fi vorba. De aici se poate conclude că prima cauză nu poate fi naturală, materială.

#2: Cauza primă nu poate fi reprezentată de mai mulţi zei (politeism). Să pornim de la premiza că există mai mulţi zei. Pentru ca aceştia să fie într-adevăr mai mulţi, ei trebuie să difere prin ceva, pentru a putea fi deosebiţi. Pentru aceasta, unei fiinţe trebuie să-i lipsească anumite caracteristici speficice primei cauze. Nu poate fi finită pentru că atunci are nevoie de o cauză infinită, şi nu poate fi cauzată, pentru că atunci are nevoie de o cauză necauzată. Deci, singura posibilitate este ca, cauzele să nu difere prin nimic, dar asta ar însemna că sunt identice.

#3: Nu poate fi vorba despre un Dumnezeu panteist. Pentru ca să admiţi acest lucru, trebuie să negi realitatea fiinţelor finite şi limitate. Asta pentru că, dacă Dumnezeu este universul, trebuie să nege faptul că în cadrul universului există lucruri schimbătoare pentru că altfel Dumnezeu însuşi ar fi subiect schimbării.

E greu să se ajungă la Dumnezeul teist, dar el rămâne una din puţinele variante ce pot fi acceptate pentru o primă cauză. Am văzut că nu poate fi vorba de poilteism, de panteism, şi cel mai important nu susţine o concepţie atee asupra primei cauze. Totuşi, multe din atributele Dumnezeului teist pot fi concluzionate: trebuie să fie unu, necauzat, neschimbător (pentru că nu se supune timpului, el creează timpul), infinit şi necesar.

Obiecţia 7: Nu trebuie Dumnezeu să fie mai complex decât creaţia sa? Acest argument este făcut faimos de Dawkins în “The God Delusion”, unde, el îl numeşte “the ultimate 747 Boeing”. Ideea este că orice Dumnezeu trebuie să fie cel puţin la fel de complex ca şi creaţia sa, deci fiind complex necesită o explicaţie mai grozavă decât universul. Cum nu se poate ajunge la aşa ceva decât prin metode precum evoluţia, Dumnezeu nu există.

Răspuns: Argumentul presupune un lucru foarte important şi anume că acela care a creat universul este complex în acelaşi mod cu creaţia. Dar asta nu este adevărat. Oamenii înţeleg complexitatea deoarece o atribuie lucrurilor naturale: “celula asta este complexă pentru că are 50 de părţi care fac 14 operaţii”. Dar după cum am văzut mai sus, Dumnezeu nu este natural. El nu este format din vreun lucru prezent în univers căruia să-i putem calcula cumva complexitatea. Dumnezeu este ne-natural, deci oricât de complex ni s-ar putea părea, gândul respectiv este iluzoriu. Ne putem folosi de acesta, însă doar pur intuitiv.

Din câte am mai citit şi eu, scepticii răspund de obicei cu obiecţia 1. Este crucial de înţeles faptul că atributele gen “etern” nu sunt puse acolo din convenienţă, ci din necesitate. Aici mi se pare că este marea problemă. Mulţi mă acuză că pun acolo atribute de dragul de a le pune, când la fel de bine le-aş putea atribui universului. Nu este aşa, le pun acolo din necesitate. Adică consider că Dumnezeu sau prima cauză este necesară, spre deosebire de orice altceva. Universul nu este necesar pentru că la fel de bine ar putea să nu fi existat deloc. Dar existenţa sa depinde de ceva necesar, şi nu poţi întreba de ce o fiinţă necesară trebuie să existe pentru că este ca şi cum ai întreba de ce un cerc este rotund.

Aceste atribute, pe lângă faptul că sunt necesare din punct de vedere logic, sunt şi rodul unui raţionament de forma "nu ştiu ce este Dumnezeu dar ştiu ceea ce NU este". Dumnezeu nu poate fi finit, pentru că orice fiinţă finită are nevoie de o cauză, Dumnezeu nu poate fi ne-etern pentru că altfel ar fi în timp şi ar necesita la rândul lui o cauză etc.

As a follow up to my previous entry on viral marketing, I have been looking for natural examples of the viral effect in society. It turns out that many of these have already been identified and are called “memes”.

A meme consists of any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that gets transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. Memes propagate themselves and can move through a culture just like a viral campaign. The more beneficial a meme is to society the more it spreads, the less beneficial the more quickly it dies out.

Dances, cultural traditions, catch-phrases and even well-known theories are all examples of memes. Some memes were very useful (e.g. wearing animal skins) whilst others served no purpose at all, but were copied anyway (e.g. putting feathers in one’s hair).

But perhaps the most consistently successful type of meme is religion (or perhaps religion itself is just a collection of memes…) Religion can unify your society, it can make your armies fight harder, it may reduce the chance of civil unrest (how many rulers have been ordained by God?), it can lower the chances of spreading disease (e.g. no sex before marriage), it can reduce crime, it can provide a basic code of laws and so on. Little wonder more successful cultures had religion!

So next time you want to make a viral that works, take a look back through history. Viral marketing is as old as we are. For now the tip seems to be “make your viral as beneficial as possible”, but this has also shown me that humans have evolved to copy and pass on information. We have literally evolved to be susceptible to viral marketing!

Susan Blackmore on Memes:

In 'Nation' we witness the ancient struggle between belief and reality: If the gods (or god) exists, why is there so much  wrong with this world? Is the proof for supernatural belief a loads of of old twaddle? These age old questions are set on an idyllic island in an alternative reality Pacific Ocean that has just hit by an enormous tsunami, wiping out it's population. Only a 13 year old inhabitant and an English girl (that was stranded with the schooner she was travelling on) are left on the tropical paradise that is slowly but surely filling up with refugees. In between making beer, defending the island from cannibals and negotiating with the British Crown these two have to come to terms (no, not with their sexuality. This is not Blue Lagoon) with their inner and cultural daemons. While I was looking forward to another Discworld and some Shenanigans of Vimes and his posse, this book is very welcome in a time when the secular western world is under attack from the Sarah Palins of our time.

'Nation' is tender, humane, a delight to read, very moving, and has maybe the best ending of all of Pratchett's books.

I'll now read it again.

Richard Dawkins wrote about the nature of our knowledge and compared scientific and religious beliefs in a letter to his daughter, Juliet. She was 10 years old at the time. The article is very relevant to our discussions.

As expected from Dawkins the explanation in this article is very clear and enthusiastic. You can find the full text here (A prayer for my daughter) or download it as a pdf file.

It's taken from his book  A Devil’s Chaplain - Chapter 7. Here are a few relevant extracts.

Evidence

The subject is "something that is important to me. Have you ever wondered how we know the things that we know?" How do we know, for instance, that the stars, which look like tiny pinpricks in the sky, are really huge balls of fire like the Sun and very far away? And how do we know that the Earth is a smaller ball whirling round one of those stars, the Sun?

The answer to these questions is 'evidence'."

Dawkins declares that scientists are " the specialists in discovering what is true about the world and the universe." And "The way scientists use evidence to learn about the world is much cleverer and more complicated than I can say in a short letter. But now I want to move on from evidence, which is a good reason for believing something, and warn you against three bad reasons for believing anything. They are called 'tradition', 'authority' and 'revelation'."

Tradition

Referring to people who base their beliefs on traditioon he says: "Their beliefs turned out to have no connection with evidence. They just trotted out the beliefs of their parents and grandparents, which, in turn, were not based upon evidence either. They said things like, 'We Hindus believe so and so.' 'We Muslims believe such and such.' 'We Christians believe something else.'"

Authority

Moving on to authority he describes it "as a reason for believing something, ... because you are told to believe it by somebody important." . . .

"Of course, even in science sometimes we haven't seen the evidence ourselves and we have to take somebody else's word for it.

This looks like 'authority'. But actually it is much better than authority because the people who wrote the books have seen the evidence and anyone is free to look carefully at the evidence whenever they want. That is very comforting."

Revelation

In discussion 'revelation' he says: "When religious people just have a feeling inside themselves that something must be true, even though there is no evidence that it is true, they call their feeling 'revelation'. It isn't only popes who claim to have revelations. Lots of religious people do. It is one of their main reasons for believing the things that they do believe. But is it a good reason?"

Describing revelations as 'inside feelings' he points out that they "must be backed up by evidence, otherwise you just can't trust them."

"Inside feelings are valuable in science too, but only for giving you ideas that you later test by looking for evidence. A scientist can have a ‘hunch’ about an idea that just 'feels' right. In itself, this is not a good reason for believing something. But it can be a good reason for spending some time doing a particular experiment, or looking in a particular way for evidence. Scientists use inside feelings all the time to get ideas. But they are not worth anything until they are supported by evidence."

Ask for evidence

Concluding his letter Dawkins advises his daughter: "Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: 'Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?' And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: 'What kind of evidence is there for that?' And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say."

Similar articles

„Stimmen haben mir befohlen, einen Priester zu töten“, sagte der Mann nach der Messerattacke. Der „Da Vinci-Code“-Fan bezeichnete sich als „Antichrist“. „Ein Mann hat in einer Kirche in Rom einen Priester niedergestochen. Das meldet oe24.at am Mittwoch mit Berufung auf italienische Medien. Der Täter ist in Haft, der Priester im Krankenhaus schwebt in Lebensgefahr. Der 25-jährige Student drang in die Kirche ein und bezeichnete sich während des Angriffs auf den Geistlichen selbst als „Antichrist“. Gegenüber der Polizei berief er sich danach auf den Film „Da Vinci-Code“ und meinte: „Stimmen haben mir befohlen, einen Priester zu töten." In seiner Wohnung wurden einschlägige Schriften gefunden.“
Quelle: Kath.net; Rom: Priester in der Kirche niedergestochen

Nachdem die atheistische "Dawkins-Mafia" jeden gläubigen Christen Gotteswahn unterstellt, sollte man vielleicht nunmehr alle Atheisten auf ihren Geisteszustand überprüfen lassen. Zumindest die, die auffällig viel Dawkins, Deschner oder Dan Bron Literatur konsumieren. Denn das Beispiel zeigt erneut, dass atheistischer Fundamentalismus und pathologischer Hass auf Religion, zum Ausbruch schwerer Geisteskrankheiten führen kann.

Zumindest dann, wenn man in der Lage ist, die Dawkins-Argumentation ironisch gegen ihre Urheber zu wenden.

If there is no God or no Deity then there is no absolute moral law giver, if there is no moral law giver there is no moral law if there is no moral law there is no absolute way to differentiate between good/evil, thus absolute good and absolute evil do not exist... it is only based upon our perceptions and thus should never be imposed on someone else who has different perceptions.

I don't know too many people who follow that line of reasoning. I have many friends who are atheists and I am pretty sure from the ways I see them live that there lives do not follow that mentality, I think that atheism ultimately boils down to the rejection of absolute morals and the acceptation of relative/temporary morals. Which would force one too NEVER in good conscience impose ones morals on anyone else from a different culture/society.

Atheists hate it when people say that they are not moral creatures. I say that the very FACT that they are moral creatures are a proof for the existance of God [Rom 2:14-15]

To quote the insightful Richard Dawkins O.o

If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies . . . are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention . . . . The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference

Just a thought...

Anyone disagree? please speak up...

Evolution does not underpin my reasons for being an atheist. That it explains the development of life on earth without having to resort to supernatural explanations, and has evidence for it rather than circular reasoning that says all other opinions are from the devil. As a scientific theory new discoveries and ideas play a part in building up what we know about the process of evolution, once they are verified. They will be obtained by pursuing science, and not fearing where the truth will take us.

Those reasons would be Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not A Christian and becoming aware that philosophy allowed serious discussion of life on earth without needing the assumption of god to work. That you really do have a credible choice in not believing in a higher power that needs worship or else.

Anyway here is the press release:

Dated 15th September 2008 21.00 hrs

Professor Richard Dawkins is to receive an apology from the prayer and lobby group Christian Voice, despite being spiritually dead for over sixty years. The move follows a posthumous apology to Charles Darwin which the Church of England issued today.

The apology will read:

'Professor Dawkins, 67 years (give or take a month or two) from your birth, Christian Voice owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. (We are not sure that is good English, but please forgive us for that as well.)

'In the past Christian Voice has ridiculed you for your irrational belief in evolution and for failing to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

'We said, in a press release dated 10th October 2007, that you were 'daffy' in encouraging children on your website to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. We said your failure to understand what blaspheming the Holy Spirit actually was stemmed from ignorance and implied that you were barking mad to get people to try to blaspheme a God in whom you did not even believe.

'We described you as an "evangelical atheist" who looked "malicious, loony, ill-informed and stupid in equal measure". We pondered your "peculiar combination of wickedness and madness" and asked, "Has the evolutionary biologist lost the plot?"

'Yesterday, outside London Zoo, while witnessing against the Zoo's ridiculous "Gay Sunday", we gave out leaflets mocking the theory of evolution, for which you are such a prominent advocate.

'We imagined in the leaflet a conversation between two prototype swallows, desperately trying to work out how to stick mud together and watching all their eggs smash on the ground. We had the male swallow saying "I'm sorry about the eggs, darling, it takes time to evolve this nest-building lark."

'We ridiculed the idea that the tail of the peacock and the tuft on the head of the tufted duck are there to attract a mate, observing that starlings and sparrows manage to reproduce without over-the-top tails and redundant tufts.

'In so doing, we characterised you as irrational, illogical and a total loser. We implied you were ill-educated if not a complete plank to think that the incredible interdependence and design in creation could just "happen" over time and did not need a divine designer.

'People, and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and Churches are no exception. When a big new idea, like Jesus Christ being King of kings and Lord of lords, emerges that changes the way people look at the world, it's easy for Roman Empire pagans and modern secularists, both Christian and Atheist, to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is under attack and then to do battle against the new insights.

'So we recognise now that your dependence on evolution is not science, or even bad science, but an irrational excuse to deny Almighty God. We see that your attempts to poor scorn on Christianity and Jesus Christ are the result of a sort of 'virus of the mind', put there by the father of lies.

'We acknowledge that your hatred of intelligent design - and the Intelligent Designer - is merely a faith-based position, as is the use of your gifts to obscure and even deny the truth of the Gospel.

'Above all, we now realise, that contrary to your being a complete waste of space and a descendant of apes, you are actually made in the image of God. We realise that although you are still stupid, that is simply because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and that your eyes are blinded and your ears will not hear any contrary view. In short, we now see you are a sinner in need of the saving, life-transforming grace of God in Jesus Christ.

'It is a start for you, that you realise there is a deep incompatibility between the pseudo-scientific theories you have adopted and developed from Darwin and Christian teaching. But that is not quite enough.

'So we apologise if we have failed to say, that rather than continue as a militant, proselytising sinner, you need to recognise your failings right now and seek the forgiveness of the incarnate, crucified, risen, ascended, glorified Lord Jesus Christ.

'The struggle for your spirit is not over yet, and we pray that you will cast away the dead faith of Darwinism for a living faith in the living Saviour.'

OTHER BLOGS:

Being born a Lesbian

]]> http://amazingapostate.wordpress.com/?p=58 Sun, 21 Sep 2008 19:46:31 +0000 amazingapostate http://amazingapostate.pl.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/sarah-palin-john-mccain-us-president-sam-harris-republican-atheist-elitism-richard-dawkins/ I am amazed that for a blog so new as this that I am receiving approx. 1000 views per day now! :) This is awesome! Feel free to comment, and I will be having some book give-aways going on very soon.

Anyway: Sam Harris' dissing of Sarah Palin (I think diss, dissed, dissing, are actually quite good words, but I won't use them too often, I promise); it's a long article, but well worth the read. Also, Richard Dawkins' website has been banned in Turkey! Poor people.

You can also read my less eloquent critique of Palin here. I take cheap shots, I'm afraid, but they are kinda true.

When Atheists Attack
A noted provocateur rips Sarah Palin—and defends elitism.

Let me confess that I was genuinely unnerved by Sarah Palin's performance at the Republican convention. Given her audience and the needs of the moment, I believe Governor Palin's speech was the most effective political communication I have ever witnessed. Here, finally, was a performer who—being maternal, wounded, righteous and sexy—could stride past the frontal cortex of every American and plant a three-inch heel directly on that limbic circuit that ceaselessly intones "God and country." If anyone could make Christian theocracy smell like apple pie, Sarah Palin could.

Then came Palin's first television interview with Charles Gibson. I was relieved to discover, as many were, that Palin's luster can be much diminished by the absence of a teleprompter. Still, the problem she poses to our political process is now much bigger than she is. Her fans seem inclined to forgive her any indiscretion short of cannibalism. However badly she may stumble during the remaining weeks of this campaign, her supporters will focus their outrage upon the journalist who caused her to break stride, upon the camera operator who happened to capture her fall, upon the television network that broadcast the good lady's misfortune—and, above all, upon the "liberal elites" with their highfalutin assumption that, in the 21st century, only a reasonably well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal.

The point to be lamented is not that Sarah Palin comes from outside Washington, or that she has glimpsed so little of the earth's surface (she didn't have a passport until last year), or that she's never met a foreign head of state. The point is that she comes to us, seeking the second most important job in the world, without any intellectual training relevant to the challenges and responsibilities that await her. There is nothing to suggest that she even sees a role for careful analysis or a deep understanding of world events when it comes to deciding the fate of a nation. In her interview with Gibson, Palin managed to turn a joke about seeing Russia from her window into a straight-faced claim that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia gave her some essential foreign-policy experience. Palin may be a perfectly wonderful person, a loving mother and a great American success story—but she is a beauty queen/sports reporter who stumbled into small-town politics, and who is now on the verge of stumbling into, or upon, world history.

The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. "They think they're better than you!" is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. "Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!" Yes, all too ordinary.

We have all now witnessed apparently sentient human beings, once provoked by a reporter's microphone, saying things like, "I'm voting for Sarah because she's a mom. She knows what it's like to be a mom." Such sentiments suggest an uncanny (and, one fears, especially American) detachment from the real problems of today. The next administration must immediately confront issues like nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a convulsing economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, emerging epidemics, Islamism on a hundred fronts, a defunct United Nations, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security … the list is long, and Sarah Palin does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them.

Palin's most conspicuous gaffe in her interview with Gibson has been widely discussed. The truth is, I didn't much care that she did not know the meaning of the phrase "Bush doctrine." And I am quite sure that her supporters didn't care, either. Most people view such an ambush as a journalistic gimmick. What I do care about are all the other things Palin is guaranteed not to know—or will be glossing only under the frenzied tutelage of John McCain's advisers. What doesn't she know about financial markets, Islam, the history of the Middle East, the cold war, modern weapons systems, medical research, environmental science or emerging technology? Her relative ignorance is guaranteed on these fronts and most others, not because she was put on the spot, or got nervous, or just happened to miss the newspaper on any given morning. Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.

I care even more about the many things Palin thinks she knows but doesn't: like her conviction that the Biblical God consciously directs world events. Needless to say, she shares this belief with mil-lions of Americans—but we shouldn't be eager to give these people our nuclear codes, either. There is no question that if President McCain chokes on a spare rib and Palin becomes the first woman president, she and her supporters will believe that God, in all his majesty and wisdom, has brought it to pass. Why would God give Sarah Palin a job she isn't ready for? He wouldn't. Everything happens for a reason. Palin seems perfectly willing to stake the welfare of our country—even the welfare of our species—as collateral in her own personal journey of faith. Of course, McCain has made the same unconscionable wager on his personal journey to the White House.

In speaking before her church about her son going to war in Iraq, Palin urged the congregation to pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God; that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan." When asked about these remarks in her interview with Gibson, Palin successfully dodged the issue of her religious beliefs by claiming that she had been merely echoing the words of Abraham Lincoln. The New York Times later dubbed her response "absurd." It was worse than absurd; it was a lie calculated to conceal the true character of her religious infatuations. Every detail that has emerged about Palin's life in Alaska suggests that she is as devout and literal-minded in her Christian dogmatism as any man or woman in the land. Given her long affiliation with the Assemblies of God church, Palin very likely believes that Biblical prophecy is an infallible guide to future events and that we are living in the "end times." Which is to say she very likely thinks that human history will soon unravel in a foreordained cataclysm of war and bad weather. Undoubtedly Palin believes that this will be a good thing—as all true Christians will be lifted bodily into the sky to make merry with Jesus, while all nonbelievers, Jews, Methodists and other rabble will be punished for eternity in a lake of fire. Like many Pentecostals, Palin may even imagine that she and her fellow parishioners enjoy the power of prophecy themselves. Otherwise, what could she have meant when declaring to her congregation that "God's going to tell you what is going on, and what is going to go on, and you guys are going to have that within you"?

You can learn something about a person by the company she keeps. In the churches where Palin has worshiped for decades, parishioners enjoy "baptism in the Holy Spirit," "miraculous healings" and "the gift of tongues." Invariably, they offer astonishingly irrational accounts of this behavior and of its significance for the entire cosmos. Palin's spiritual colleagues describe themselves as part of "the final generation," engaged in "spiritual warfare" to purge the earth of "demonic strongholds." Palin has spent her entire adult life immersed in this apocalyptic hysteria. Ask yourself: Is it a good idea to place the most powerful military on earth at her disposal? Do we actually want our leaders thinking about the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy when it comes time to say to the Iranians, or to the North Koreans, or to the Pakistanis, or to the Russians or to the Chinese: "All options remain on the table"?

It is easy to see what many people, women especially, admire about Sarah Palin. Here is a mother of five who can see the bright side of having a child with Down syndrome and still find the time and energy to govern the state of Alaska. But we cannot ignore the fact that Palin's impressive family further testifies to her dogmatic religious beliefs. Many writers have noted the many shades of conservative hypocrisy on view here: when Jamie Lynn Spears gets pregnant, it is considered a symptom of liberal decadence and the breakdown of family values; in the case of one of Palin's daughters, however, teen pregnancy gets reinterpreted as a sign of immaculate, small-town fecundity. And just imagine if, instead of the Palins, the Obama family had a pregnant, underage daughter on display at their convention, flanked by her black boyfriend who "intends" to marry her. Who among conservatives would have resisted the temptation to speak of "the dysfunction in the black community"?

Teen pregnancy is a misfortune, plain and simple. At best, it represents bad luck (both for the mother and for the child); at worst, as in the Palins' case, it is a symptom of religious dogmatism. Governor Palin opposes sex education in schools on religious grounds. She has also fought vigorously for a "parental consent law" in the state of Alaska, seeking full parental dominion over the reproductive decisions of minors. We know, therefore, that Palin believes that she should be the one to decide whether her daughter carries her baby to term. Based on her stated position, we know that she would deny her daughter an abortion even if she had been raped. One can be forgiven for doubting whether Bristol Palin had all the advantages of 21st-century family planning—or, indeed, of the 21st century.

We have endured eight years of an administration that seemed touched by religious ideology. Bush's claim to Bob Woodward that he consulted a "higher Father" before going to war in Iraq got many of us sitting upright, before our attention wandered again to less ethereal signs of his incompetence. For all my concern about Bush's religious beliefs, and about his merely average grasp of terrestrial reality, I have never once thought that he was an over-the-brink, Rapture-ready extremist. Palin seems as though she might be the real McCoy. With the McCain team leading her around like a pet pony between now and Election Day, she can be expected to conceal her religious extremism until it is too late to do anything about it. Her supporters know that while she cannot afford to "talk the talk" between now and Nov. 4, if elected, she can be trusted to "walk the walk" until the Day of Judgment.

What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. Watching her deny to Gibson that she had ever harbored the slightest doubt about her readiness to take command of the world's only superpower, one got the feeling that Palin would gladly assume any responsibility on earth:

"Governor Palin, are you ready at this moment to perform surgery on this child's brain?"

"Of course, Charlie. I have several boys of my own, and I'm an avid hunter."

"But governor, this is neurosurgery, and you have no training as a surgeon of any kind."

"That's just the point, Charlie. The American people want change in how we make medical decisions in this country. And when faced with a challenge, you cannot blink."

The prospects of a Palin administration are far more frightening, in fact, than those of a Palin Institute for Pediatric Neurosurgery. Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

I believe that with the nomination of Sarah Palin for the vice presidency, the silliness of our politics has finally put our nation at risk. The world is growing more complex—and dangerous—with each passing hour, and our position within it growing more precarious. Should she become president, Palin seems capable of enacting policies so detached from the common interests of humanity, and from empirical reality, as to unite the entire world against us. When asked why she is qualified to shoulder more responsibility than any person has held in human history, Palin cites her refusal to hesitate. "You can't blink," she told Gibson repeatedly, as though this were a primordial truth of wise governance. Let us hope that a President Palin would blink, again and again, while more thoughtful people decide the fate of civilization.

I hope that was worth the read :) I certainly enjoyed it. I should have a copy of some of Sam Harris' work to give away very soon! Along with Dawkins' The God Delusion!

Kthxbye.

1. Şeicul Muhammad Munajid spune despre Mickey Mouse că este "un soldat al Satanei". Potrivit Shariei, legii islamice, Mickey Mouse trebuie să moară. Incriminarea adusă: "După legea islamică, şoarecele este o creatură impură." Acelaşi individ a numit Olimpiada de la Beijing "the bikini Olympics", datorită felului în care sunt îmbrăcate anumite atlete. (sursa)

2. Site-ul oficial a lui Richard Dawkins (http://richarddawkins.net/) este banned în Turcia prin decizia unei curţi de judecătorie. Cine e în spatele şmecheriei? Harun Yahya, cel mai celebru creaţionist al musulmanilor. Acesta a mai reuşit să blocheze numeroase alte site-uri, dar a încercat fără succes să oprească publicarea în Turcia a cărţii "The God Delusion" (deoarece conţine insulte la adresa religiei). Culmea ironiei, cam în aceeaşi perioadă, una din cărţile lui Dawkins, ediţia turcă, s-a vândut ca pâinea caldă în Turcia. "The Ancestor's Tale" s-a vândut în prima zi, şi a doborât un record al editurii respective vechi de 26 de ani. (sursa)

Mă rog... nu e nimic nou. Până acuma, activiştii musulmani aveau mari probleme cu porcii, văd că s-au reprofilat pe şoareci. În ceea ce priveşte internet ban-ul, chiar că nu e nimic nou, mă tot mir totuşi ce le-a spus Harun Yahya judecătorilor pentru a-i convinge. Sau poate le-a dat un pic de cash-cash din organizaţia ilegală pe care o conduce şi pentru care a primit 3 ani de închisoare? hmm, it's anyone's guess...

Bill Newton Dunn, member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands, visited my home town today. In one of those small world coincidences he was in the same class as Richard Dawkins at Chafyn Grove school, in Salisbury, where he remembers Richard often starring out of the window. I also have him to thank for many a British Government essay, as he was the first person to use the term "democratic deficit"  when discussing political European institutions.

One person that we met in the town market (Mary) wanted to have a go at politicians for saying one thing and then doing another. Bill's wife Anna made the point how one person did not want to hear how policy was created at the European level. I sometimes wonder whether people actually knowing how the system operates is a separate issue from people wanting to hold their elected representatives to account. In many ways both these issues are answered by transparency - a key part of the democratic deficit.

That however does depend on people like Mary, who on her crutches charged at Bill to bend his ear while shoppers dived for cover. That spirit is vital; if people could only knew just how active people are on their behalf then perhaps it would take the edge off the cynicism that allows people to feel they have a valid excuse for not getting involved. Or ignore someone like me handing out flyers.

Today was "In My Town Without My Car" day, and Bill and the rest of us met up with the Mayor of Loughborough who bused into  town. I do find these things a bit gimmicky, hoping that my bicycle was secure outside the Cinema. To help with that John Catt was about, who is involved with Action For Charnwood keen cyclist and trustee of the British Humanist Society (I could go on but if you need a definition of pluralism in action it is John) gave me a security tab for my bike and a cycle map.

After talking to Bill about Richard, the junior years, and finding out he advocates the disestablishment of the Church of England from the State (the only time I have ever discussed such things in a McDonalds) we moved on to a garden party generously hosted by Councillor David Walker and his wife Claire.

Among things discussed with people were Michael Reiss and The God Delusion, with a late Summer's day beating down on us, with puffs and wine providing sustenance as we discussed meta physical frameworks of reality, and politics. It made me appreciate just how many things are going on behind the scenes whether at the local or international level.

For American readers there is a tale for you. Bill's son spent 6 months working for a Congressman in Washington DC, and just before leaving he tried to arrange interviews with people on the Hill to have something to bring back to the UK. No one seemed interested talking to a nobody Brit. The last day before he was due to finish he got his one and only call back, from a Senator that had a spare hour to discuss anything he liked while on a long drive.

That person was John McCain. In many ways it is that kind of character that makes me wish that his politics were not moving so far right in the Presidential Campaign. We discussed that if he can separate himself from the Bush administration he has every chance of hanging on to his lead in the opinion polls.

All the best to Bill for the forthcoming European elections in June of next year, and thanks to David and Claire for hosting the garden party.

From my earlier blog it is now official that Adna Oktar has been responsible for the courts action blocking internet access to richarddawkins.net

"Istanbul’s Sisli 2nd Criminal Court of Peace has banned the site in Turkey on the grounds that Adnan Oktar’s personality was violated by this site. The court reached the decision to ban the site on September 3. A lawsuit is filed for the damages of mental anguish against Richard Dawkins in the amount of 8000 YTL (about 4000 Euro)".

Irony is that Adnan Oktar is pro EU membership for Turkey. Freedom of speech restrictions and other concerns over human rights are a barrier to that goal. While most EU law emphasises libel, in Turkey the law has a focus on offense. The press officer for Adnan quoted above explained:

"We are not against freedom of speech or expression but you cannot insult people. We found the comments hurtful. It was not a scientific discussion. There was a line and the limit has been passed. We have used all the legal means to stop this site. We asked them to remove the comments but they did not."

Because if on the site we removed every post that someone else found offensive, then we would not have much of a site for people to discuss science, religion and secularism. I remember being accused of being a communist (which given that I am an Adam Smith fan I found rather amusing). It did not occur to me that laughing it off was not the appropriate option.

Because the mental anguish motive could have been much more profitable. Perhaps enough for a kebab.

In any case, I wonder if the website will be adding countries to the banner of shame? In the meantime thank goodness for proxies!

Quote from New Humanist.