Sunday, September 16, 2012
I went to the Dublin Writers Festival, on June 5th, 2012, to see and hear Richard Dawkins live. I took some notes and thought, I'd share.
It was called
"Richard Dawkins in Conversation"
A reporter named Crawly or Crawley or something like that interviewed him.
It was not monotone or boring but quite entertaining and very funny.
There was a little chitchat first.
Mr Dawkins said that he had just come from Conemara where he used to be a lot when he was a boy. And that he likes it a lot there.
On the question on what the most asked question is, that he gets he said "What's happening next in evolution?" and with a smile he added that he gets this questions all the time and pretty much everywhere, and everyone who asks him this questions seems to think they are the first ones with the idea.
The interviewer asked him if he thinks, a death bed conversion would be possible for him, he said "no" and, after a few words of Dawkins that I didn't write down because I listened, the interviewer added "No death-bed-conversion, looking for loopholes". I assume it's not funny out of context but the whole room was laughing.
He was asked if he was religious as a child and he answered with Corinthians 13:11
"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways."
Very interesting was that he went a similar way out of religion as I have heard a lot in the past. He said that after leaving Christianity he became a deist because he said "there has to be something".
He mentioned his parents who have always been great in giving answers that where based on fact and science and when he graduated school he chose between Art and Science for university. Well, we know what he chose after all, eh.
He mentioned he likes art and literature quite a lot and when asked what his favourite work of literature would be he said that he likes "evil and war". Not for the ideas or the author but for the fine and well chosen language in the book.
After that they talked about Hitchens and what Mr Dawkins thinks about him. He said that he admired him for having been on the same side as he is when it came to public debates. He first met him only 4 or 5 years ago and he remembers watching him on TV on a ship when he was at the Galapagos islands when Hitchens was on TV and made the statement: "If you gave Falwell an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox. "
He was asked what he has to say about the statement that atheists and even he himself is arrogant. His reply was that this statement is mostly coming up when people have nothing else to say against an argument you stated.
Another question was about the claim that people like him seem very stritent (dunno if i spelled it right but it sounded like this) when it comes to talking about religion. He explained that actually this is not true. We can say the worst things about stuff and noone is being really mad about it. He gave the example of restaurant critiques saying "this is not only the worst restaurant in Dublin, it is the worst restaurant on the planet" that you actually expect such comments. But we learn that religion is special, if it is religion you can't say anything and it is bad to say something negative about religion. And our ears are so trimmed to that, that even the slightest comment about it sounds absolutely bad.
The reporter then asked him how he feels when he is speaking in the US as people are so religios there. He answered that he actually gets the best receptions in the US, especially in the bible belt.
He was also asked what he thinks might be the most irrational religion and he started make examples connected to politics.
First he gave an example about Mormons, believing that there was a guy who found golden tablets with a strange language that only he understood and that he stored in a hat, and that he translated them into 15th century english when he was a 19th century man, and that these plates vanished after the translation PLUS every mormon who dies gets his own planet, even those who have been babtized after dieing. And then he asked if he is supposed to vote someone for president who believes that this is true!
The next example was rom. catholic, wther he should vote someone who believes that a wafer becomes the real dead body of a 1st-century man after being blessed.
In connection to this he also mentioned that in the US it is a taboo to ask people who are up for election, what their belief is, because it is a private belief. He said he once wrote an article on this topic (forgot where, sorry) and he mentioned those private beliefs of important people like doctors, teachers, politicians, etc. And people said it doesn't matter what they believe at home as long as they do the right thing.
So he asked if you would trust your eye-doctor to properly fix your problem if you know that he beliefs babies come from the stork.
Or if you would trust a geography teacher to teach your child properly if you know he believes that the earth is flat.
He said that he thinks, these people should be fired and that he would not trust them to make important desicions if they are able to believe complete unproven nonsense.
After this the question was about natural selection and if he would be willing to give a few details so he talked about two theories. One by Hamilton which was about genes being potentionally immortal due to the fact that they are being copied all the time through successful reproduction.
The other theory was about groupselection which says that groups of animals that act social have a higher change of survival.
His example was an ant nest. He said that the workers do not reproduce but all they do is work for the queen and care for the offsprings and those ants that are female become queens in their own nests and reproduce and get their own workers etc etc. and this would be one of the successful examples of these two theories.
He was also talking about the theory of kin selection and that it is not true and not false because it follows logically Darwin's theories. (I am sorry but I forgot most of that part)
After that he was asked how he thinks about making political and social/moral statements in public. He said, that he doesn't feel qualified to make political statements and that is why he refuses to go public on programs (tv and radio) that are about that. But he feels qualified and fine with making social and moral statements in public.
The last question in the interview part was about dumbing down things for people who are not very educated.
Mr Dawkins quoted Einstein: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Then came the questions from the audience and I only give you those that I found best.
A teacher said that she find her students being quite bored about science and asked for a tip how to make it less boring.
He mentioned his book "The magic of reality" which is mainly aimed towards the younger generation. He also said that a lot of people say that it has to be useful and that is what makes science interesting but what he find very important to show kids how great science is, how inspiring and how wonderful and complex everything is. Looking into the stars and wondering, checking out the leafes of a tree or the ocean, would be great things.
Someone else from the audience asked what his guilty pleasure is.
The reporter added with a grin "Keep it clean and a version for public" Everyone had a good laugh and Dawkins said that his guilty pleasure is the Computer. He said it is so highly addictive and he spent so much time on programming and on searching things on the internet.
Another question was if he had any hints for aggressive secularism, meaning how to get things moving more secular in very christian countries.
He said "Make your voice heard, don't be shy, speak up, show we are ordinary, nice people!"
A mother of two sons said that she doesn't really want to know anything but her sons are asking what his favourite dinosaur is.
He said that birds are his favourite dinosaurs because birds are the species whose skeleton is the closest to the flying dinosaurs and they are feathered dinosaurs. He added that he would love to get on a time machine to travel back and see them for real.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
25th / 26th, August 2012!
If you would like to sign up, please include your name, age, and how many people you will bring along.
Please sign up by 18th, August 2012.
The event is for people of 16 years or older. People under 18 years will have to hand in a letter of consent, signed by a parent or legal guardian.
We are kindly asking for €5 per person for snacks, drinks, and material.
We will have a speaker, a workshop, discussion round, BBQ, and an "official unbabtizing".
Don't miss an entertaining weekend, and sign up now! Limited spots available!
Thursday, January 19, 2012
A brief background to what is happening in Romania and the protests going on.
It all started in the 1990's when a doctor who had moved to Romania decided to improve emergency rescue services. This doctor was Raed Arafat.
What exactly did he do, back then? He started an experiment with a single second hand car. Preparing it for special emergency situations. He parked it at the hospital where he was working and said that if something very urgent comes in, they have to send this car. It was the best equipped and he had a fireman coming with who would open doors etc.
At some point Dr. Arafat expanded this service all over Romania. By this time he got money from the government and was able to buy more cars and even helicopters. He started working with firemen who would open trashed cars or get into collapsed buildings to rescue people.
This service is called "SMURD" (Serviciul Mobil de Urgenta, Reanimare si Descarcerare) - Mobile Emergency Service for resuscitation and extrication.
Dr. Arafat was, by that time and until just recently, a state sub-secretary attached to the health ministry. He got a budget that he was using on this project and it works very well. There are other services like that but SMURD is working best.
Now, after pretty much cheating the Romanian People for a long time on a lot of levels, the President had the great idea to privatize SMURD. Of course Dr. Arafat opposed this so (to make it short) he was forced to resign from his position. Of course all this happened publicly and people only needed one more thing to explode.
So people were outraged, this plan is bad, it would cost more tax money and people are poor already, it would not necessarily keep the service level where it is now, and added to all the other bad things the president already did people now want him to leave.
They want immediate elections. They want the president with his party and ministers gone.
The president did not make a statement since the protests started and it's a week now and there are more and more people now.
Today is January 19th 2012, there was a huge organized public meeting, 20,000 people attended in Bucharest, while somewhere else in Bucharest people kept protesting as usual.
Here the “fun facts” that are not so fun.
This whole thing is getting ridiculous.
# A headmaster went from class to class with a police man, telling his students (all of legal age) that if they join the protests they will be kicked out from that school.
# Riot police gives tickets for shouting against the president
# Trains to Bucharest are being stopped in mid journey and people are being asked where they go and what they do there. Everyone who seems to be on the way to protests is kicked from the train.
# A father has been arrested, he wasn't even protesting. He was there with his 11 year old daughter, lost her in the masses. But he was arrested anyway.
# A man, standing on the side of the crowd, watching the protest without participating was shot in the leg and beaten up so bad that by now he lost the bones in his leg and needs an implant.
# A journalist was arrested for being there as a reporter, his press-id was ripped off and he was beaten inside the police van.
This list goes on and on.
Reactions from the officials?
In attempt to stop the protests Dr.Arafat was accepted back in his position by now.
The president did not talk to the public, yet.
The whole situation got international attention by now and the EP-president has warned Basescu to take the protests seriously and to address the complaints.
USA officials had a message for the Romanian People to protest peacefully and for the authorities to stop the violent repression.
Everybody seems to notice the situation except the president and the government.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
- A philosophy about life?
- A form of atheism?
- Hatred against Jahwe (the god of the bible)?
- A form of rebellion?
- Black magic?
- CoS (Church of Satan)
To get into it we need a basis and a few facts:
Satanism got it's name back in the times when christianity started rising.
The name "Satanism" has a long story. In short, a few stories got confused and mixed up in a weird way (greek myth about Helios, the fallen angel / angel got thrown out of heaven, the morning star in Isaiah/Bible).
So back then there was christianity starting to rise, and everyone who did not believe in christianity or dared to question something were said to be Satanist. So at this time Satan was the opposite of Jahwe (the god of the bible) if you want. So if you did not follow Jahwe you automatically were said to follow Satan. All kinds of things were made up, always pretty much the opposite of what was meant to be good and christian > black messes, demons, rituals, to name a few.
So for a long long time this is what was said to be Satanism and of course during trial there were forced confessions that underlined all this so after some time people did believe it.
But we don't want to forget, at this point, that it only started with people who simply didn't believe / questioned the belief.
So what is Satanism?
Actually there is no real Satanism. Yes, I dare say that. Why? I met so many people who told me they were Satanists. I am not judgemental and I never was, so I asked what exactly they believed AND I listened carefully.
So we go with the list from the top:
- Philosophy about life
Everyone is "their own god" meaning embrace yourself. Question everything, don't follow blindly. Do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone. Stay within the laws. Follow your dreams and your own targets. Take what you need / want. Don't care about what others think / say.
- Some kind of atheism
A bit like what was mentioned above but with the strong "there is no god" mixed into it.
- Hatred against Jahwe
Mostly people who are or used to be christians. Who got disappointed in some way. The community / church / priest / the bible / god didn't help / praying didn't work / lost someone important / lost something important / etc.
Ending up with a statement of hate against the god of the bible, turning the back on it and following Satan who seems more real.
- A form of rebellion
Being different is something many people want and need. And especially want to show. Shocking people with "I am Satanist" and showing that one is different. Often this is gets really dangerous, depending on the people you get in touch with.
- Black magic
No. Black magic is something different. There is no direct connection to satanism. There are people who call themselfes Satanist and "do" black magic as well as the other way around but not every Satanist is into black or any magic.
There are in fact some cults out there that are very dangerous and call themselfes Satanists. Those who actually kill and hurt people and animals, who do perform all kinds of rituals, who do illegal things.
Actually believe in the real existance of Satan. They do have a book just like the bible, they preach and you can actually be an official member.
So, there is no definition of Satanism that just fits.
Sorry to disappoint.
And as always, wanna add something, just answer to the post or if you want to say something but not publicly, mail me: clos3rlook[at]gmail[dot]com
Thursday, July 14, 2011
- a lot of arguing
- never being able to listen and/or shut up for a minute
- constantly bragging about your disbeliefe
- trying to convince people
Why are there so many people who can't control their urge to babble on?
You can never help someone into reason by ignoring their concerns, thoughts, teachings. Even if you have been at the very same point, you are not inside that persons head. You may know their answers in advance, you may know a lot, but you will not help anyone by cutting into a sentence, by getting loud in your argument, by throwing numbers and facts in their faces, by being in anyway aggressive.
Just think how you would react if some religious person would act like that towards you. You'd shut down immediately and get pretty angry for sure.
If you do have the urge to "convert" people into atheism then get down to their level no matter how ridiculous it seems to you.
Reason inside their believe system, question inside their horizon.
There are so many simple things inside their own teachings, that you can point out already without adding all your own stuff. So start small, and IF (yes only IF) you find a little hole of doubt in them you can use that but don't try to stab them. It is no use, you will get frustrated and they just shut down.
I for my part do not try to make someone an atheist. I am happy that I am out of religion and I am happy that, where I live, I can't be harmed for my disbelieve. If people ask me about my opinion or views on religious topics I make clear that I do not believe and that is normally enough.
I answer but I do not force anything on anyone.
There is a fine line between being honest and being a missionary. Think about it.
And here the video that inspired this post:
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
There are such runs every now and then, for cancer, aids, poor people, and lots of other things.
Raise awareness, yes. But raise it in the right way!
Why would you run against abortion?
I would rather run for it...
Here a bit of brainstorming:
- Seeing the cells that are evolving into a baby as life already and therefore seeing an abortion as murder.
- Give the unwanted kid a future in a family that will be happy to have a baby because they can't have one naturally.
- Forcing a woman that does not want a baby (for whatever reason) may result in a crime. Thinking about dead babies in bushes and trash cans here.
- Having abortion illegal helps a black market for illegal abortions or having people simply abort in another country.
- Some woman may have to carry out a child from a rape. This will damage her psychological for a long time, being reminded of that bad crime that happened to her for 9 month continuously.
- Some people might not be ready to it, bouncing back to the rape, which also happens to younger women teens or girls, some get pregnant, but their bodies are not ready to carry out a baby, so a birth or even just letting it grow inside might be a hight risk.
- Scared women who life with abusive partners or families, have to hide the pregnancy and once it is not possible anymore they might just abort the baby themselve, of course under high risk again, but if you are scared out of your mind you will do such things.
- Baby stays in the family but feels it is not wanted, not loved, abused.
- Carrying out a baby that will have huge defects that will make it unable to ever life an own life and stay dependent for ever might be worse than not being born at all.
Anything to add, just Comment
Saturday, June 25, 2011
I do this for two groups of people out there:
Group one: Those who are not sure if it is ok to think outside religious dogma.
Group two: Religious people who honestly want to know how someone can be honest and moral etc without religion.
As you saw from part one of this little series it is a long way to free yourself. Religious brainwashing sits deep. This religious brainwashing makes you think - let's say - "unfree".
And you have to free yourself, you have to start questioning things you never thought about, you have to look at things from a different angle.
Well maybe start with reading the scripture that used to be the base of your faith from cover to cover. Research the "facts" in that scripture. Don't be happy with what you know already, go through it again.
Being a freethinker is not only about religion of course. But starting with your old scriptures is a good starter because this is what dictated you for a long time and without looking over it critically you can't make a real opinion about moral, social structures, politics, right, wrong, laws, etc.
You will start looking at todays life, you will find your own definition of moral, right, wrong and other things.
Don't think it is a process of one or two weeks. It takes years.
From my experience (because this is how the series started):
From a very early age my mother let me decide a lot of things. Like what relion I want to have, later it was what school I want to attend, and other more or less important things. When I had questions they got answered or I got pointed to the answer so I would have to figure it out on my own.
Not only that, I had to make some big desicions about my life all the way. Just to name a few:
When I was 11 I decided where to live, mother or father.
When I was 15 I got my mom to bring my brothers to my father cause he could deal with them better.
When I was 18 I kicked out my brother from home.
I never did these things to hurt someone and all the things I decided resulted in an improvement of living quality. Sometimes, even at only 15 years old, I would maybe pressure my mother, my brother, friends to do something but in the end they always saw it was a good thing.
Like kicking out my brother who made life for us too hard, he lied and drank and took drugs and would never never listen to what my mother says, and when he came back one night aggressive, fighting and talking about the gun he had hidden and then left because my mother got angry about that, that is when I packed his things and told him to leave once he came back, while my mother sat there in shock not being sure. BUT it helped us all. My brother very soon understood and changed, my mother got more relaxed and I had peace too.
So I was risen a religios freethinker if you want. The brain works very complicated. You put religion and the hole god thing into another "box".
So from the beginning, thinking for myself, deciding a lot of important things for me and with my family made me very sceptical and curios.
Learning and reading are good things, you grow on the things you understand. And starting to talk to others, really listening, really discussing things makes you think more and more on your own. You get to have real opinions, not dictated from someone or something (like an old scripture).
If something is still unclear, feel free to comment or send me a mail to: clos3rlook(at)gmail(dot)com