1. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235300 by gunnarjb on August 22, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Comment #235290 by Meadon:

Now - what does "it" in Dawkins' sentence refer to? The boy's religion? Or creationism?

Read the transcript again:

RD: Right. So you know what you believe when you start and any new book that says anything different you don't read it, or what?
Boy: Even if it's got evidence I just like I follow the stronger evidence which is the holy book,
RD: So the reason you believe it is because that's the one you were told first [trails off].

Wouldn't you agree that by "it", Dawkins is referring to the holy book? In the context of the conversation, Dawkins is simply suggesting that the evidence for evolution (in the science book) should override a literal reading of the Bible, inasmuch as the Bible is inconsistent with the evidence for evolution.

2. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235206 by gunnarjb on August 22, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Meadon says the important word is "it". The boy starts using the word "it", referring in abstract to a science book on evolution. Then the boy talks about the stronger evidence in the holy book. Thus, it seems rather obvious that by "it", Dawkins is referring to the "holy book". Dawkins is pointing out that rejecting evidence on those grounds is a bad idea. Most educated Christians (in Europe at least) choose to reinterpret the Bible where it contradicts science, rather than to reject science. What Dawkins said in the classroom does not disallow that position.

3. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125595 by gunnarjb on February 11, 2008 at 4:44 pm

The words of an Icelandic heathen in year 1000:

"It seems to me as though our matters were come to a dead lock, if we are not all to have one and the same law; for if there be a sundering of the laws, then there will be a sundering of the peace, and we shall never be able to live in the land. Now, I will ask both Christian men and heathen whether they will hold to those laws which I utter?"

4. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90469 by gunnarjb on November 25, 2007 at 8:38 am

The situation is more imbalanced in the US than in the UK.

In the UK, you can admit that you are religious and still be prime minister. In the US, admit that you are an atheist and you are highly unlikely to be elected for anything. This prejudice is apparent in the famous George Bush Sr. quote: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm)

5. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40691 by gunnarjb on May 14, 2007 at 5:25 pm

David Robertson wrote:

Firstly as an evangelical Christian who is passionately committed to the truth of the Bible I am so only because of the evidence. If that were proved to be false (if for example Jesus' bones were found in Woking) then that would be the end of my faith.

Oh ye of little faith! I'm curious to know, what evidence would suffice to prove to you that some bones in Woking were those of Jesus? Assuming sufficient evidence had been provided, would it not still be possible that Jesus miraculously grew an extra set of bones at the moment of ascension or that Jesus left his bones behind as he had no use for them (being the divine son of God and obviously unaffected by gravity in his ascension)?
Wouldn't it be possible God was testing your faith by placing those bones there?