1. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #213812 by Dr Doctor on July 19, 2008 at 12:54 am

..and you are the master of what is appropriate, and what represents the output of British TV.

Why am I not surprised.

2. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #213808 by Dr Doctor on July 19, 2008 at 12:38 am

"[edit] Is there a dog in the picture? By that dances with wolves looking statue? (It looks like he's holding a mini-sheep dog. Either that or a fat maltese) "

Its not fat, just fluffy.

"Richard Dawkins is that rare specimen, a public intellectual, a knight of the mind who goes into battle against the ignorance and foolhardiness of the populace. Unlike the French, who worship their public intellectuals, giving them pet names such as les intellos, and airing them regularly on serious television and in print, the British like to shove academics into a musty corner, or laugh at them. This was not always the case: the Victorians, with their public lectures and royal societies, gloried in debate and celebrated the thrills of fresh knowledge. The nearest we get to this now is celebrating the thrill of Germaine Greer walking out of Celebrity Big Brother."

Hoho, masterly slap down there of Germaine "I'm an intellectual you know" Greer and British TV.

3. Texas State Board of Education approves Bible course for high schools

Comment #213807 by Dr Doctor on July 19, 2008 at 12:36 am

Wonderful news, I just hope none of us nasty atheists disrupt their serenity in their little reality bubble.

After all, one must not challenge someone elses world view or be rude in any way shape nor form. That might put them off joining our Atheist Club (3 athefix for the price of 1 when you sign up before the 31st of February).

4. Bush Bureaucrats at Dept. of Health and Human Services Redefine Contraception as Abortion

Comment #213108 by Dr Doctor on July 18, 2008 at 7:14 am

"Silly contraception. Abortions are acts of god.

Also, silly christians, trying to dictate reality by redefining words. Though, what's new there?"


Its like the whole cracker discussion never happened.

5. Bush Bureaucrats at Dept. of Health and Human Services Redefine Contraception as Abortion

Comment #213068 by Dr Doctor on July 18, 2008 at 5:50 am

mixmastergaz

I would intervene by lulling the KKK members with a few power chords, but that might interrupt their ceremony and offend them.

6. Bush Bureaucrats at Dept. of Health and Human Services Redefine Contraception as Abortion

Comment #213045 by Dr Doctor on July 18, 2008 at 4:01 am

Thats great.

I'd object, and support those that would object but I wouldn't want to put off the people behind the bill from possibly considering atheism in the future by saying anything that might impede or offend them in any way, or interrupt their world view.

Especially if they are in their office at the time they hear objection or protest.

I've learned my lesson.

7. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211408 by Dr Doctor on July 16, 2008 at 1:17 am

And here we go again. Steve, take a step back. Breathe. Look at what you have just written:

"This is NOT about what is TRUE. It is about how we live together in a decent society. In a decent society one group does not get to declare that it has unique access to the truth; it has to convince other groups of that. That's the rules."

There is evidence of the crackerness nature of the cracker. There is no evidence of the extra bits that are claimed by this religious group.

Those who make special claims, must provide the evidence for them.

What you are suggesting is that the scientific process is completely wrong and can be trumped so long as it doesn't disprove the special claims of these little cults in their reality bubbles.

Talking of standards of behaviour, you are not arguing for your ideas - you are just claiming you have a unique access to what the truth is.

"This is NOT about what is TRUE. It is about how we live together in a decent society. In a decent society one group does not get to declare that it has unique access to the truth; it has to convince other groups of that. That's the rules."

Prove it.

(Not to mention you are being again incredibly pompous).

8. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210834 by Dr Doctor on July 15, 2008 at 6:15 am

Tyler

I agree wholeheartedly (as you will have seen).

However some just cannot get their heads around this point of view. I don't understand why this position is so troubling to some, or difficult to understand. I can only assume there is a massive blind spot when it comes to this issue, and issues like this in general.

Expect to be treated worse than they would treat a Catholic who claims a cracker is the embodiment of their God ;-).

Doc.

9. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210161 by Dr Doctor on July 14, 2008 at 3:15 am

"Now I haven't a clue what you're talking about. I'm uncomfortable talking about "different realities"."

Well don't let the fact you don't have a clue stop you from replying ;-)

I'm sorry you are experiencing discomfort.

"I don't have to adopt someone's beliefs or opinions in order to act considerately about the fact that they hold them."

It is irrelevant.

As I tried to point out pages and pages back you cannot use something in your self-imposed reality bubble as a stick to beat someone over the head that has declared themselves outside of that reality bubble unless you first put forward something that proves your reality bubble is, in fact, reality. You have to convince those outside of the reality bubble.

If you do that, then respect is automatic, granted by right.

Treating the subject with kid gloves for fear of offending is the whole "seduction" argument, and I have no time for it, nor its advocates.

10. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210127 by Dr Doctor on July 14, 2008 at 1:21 am

I'm defining a reality bubble as somewhere where normal reality does not have to apply.

"In any case, you post seems to imply.. ... your views are inside the "reality bubble"".

No, you have it arse about tit I'm afraid.

I'm saying that inside THEIR reality bubble, for them, transubstantiation has meaning. Their laws apply and their claims are automatically accepted by people in the bubble.

I'm saying that outside of THEIR reality bubble, their laws do not apply, and their claims are not automatically accepted.

The question is, what defines the reality bubble, what is in your minds or the fact you happen to be standing in territory owned by a member of the reality bubble?

If the former, then you can stand in a church, or a catholic household with your own reality intact. If the latter, then that would imply that if you enter into a church you must adopt (or pretend to adopt) the laws of the reality bubble.

It is quite simple really. The entire thrust of my argument is to point out the impracticality of Steve's quasi-NOMA approach to this.

(crux? I meant thrust).

Edit: Days work ahead, so just in case you take issue with me calling it a "reality bubble", I am calling it that because presumably for them, it is reality. It is THEIR reality.

11. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210120 by Dr Doctor on July 14, 2008 at 1:09 am

"Other people don't decide the intention of your words, you decide that."

Have we been reading the same forum? ;-)

12. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #210117 by Dr Doctor on July 14, 2008 at 1:04 am

So the question remains, Steve, where does the reality bubble start and end?

Is it a geographical reality bubble (you enter the church you adopt the "reality" of the church), or is it in your head?

If you are standing in a church, and you suddenly change your views, are you inside or outside of the reality bubble?

13. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209276 by Dr Doctor on July 12, 2008 at 1:59 am

On a more interesting level, I get the impression that various religious groups look on at the Muslim activist groups that protest and burn down buildings in the name of defending their right not to have their faith questioned or ridiculed with actual envy.....

...and this leads to incidents such as this being blown out proportion.

14. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209274 by Dr Doctor on July 12, 2008 at 1:57 am

"It has one very useful purpose. It illustrates where the burden of proof lies."

"How?"

I believe I explained it in the post.

"No, that isn't true at all. They had the point of view that it is just a cracker imposed on them by someone who had agreed to take part in their rituals."

This is what I call mental gymnastics. Whilst they are in their little unreality ghetto, your point would have merit. The problem is they reached out of this ghetto into the real world.

"If someone playing soccer started to run while carrying the ball, would you say that those who complained "were failing to respect the view that rubgy is a better game"?""

Irrelevant. Read what I said again. I said:

"
I agree with you that Catholics can, within reasonable boundaries believe what they want amongst each other. It is when they reach out into the secular world to accost a third party, or influence laws with this belief we have a problem. They cannot automatically expect to have this belief respected.

If they had just said "It was rude and disrespectful that our ceremonies were disrupted." I'd agree and I'm sure we would all move on. They didn't though. They are trying to use this as a stick to beat other people and indeed, cow them into silence."

Which covers that point.

15. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209268 by Dr Doctor on July 12, 2008 at 1:53 am

#2092697

Masterful.

16. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209266 by Dr Doctor on July 12, 2008 at 1:50 am

"I really don't think that Steve is arguing that the wafer is the body of Jesus..."

While I think your rushing into the discussion in the way you have is terribly sweet, in your rush to defend and offend you have missed the point not just in this post but the previous one.

17. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209262 by Dr Doctor on July 12, 2008 at 1:46 am

"What I am trying to understand is what the point of PZ's comments along the lines of "it's just a cracker". I am not sure how it moves discussion on, or justifies anything one way or another."

It has one very useful purpose. It illustrates where the burden of proof lies.

We have on the one side a group of politically motivated Catholics stirring the pot saying "they insulted our holy cracker". On the other side we have PZ Myers stirring the pot saying "it is just a cracker".

This is reflective of the whole Theist vs Atheistic debate.

I agree with you that Catholics can, within reasonable boundaries believe what they want amongst each other. It is when they reach out into the secular world to accost a third party, or influence laws with this belief we have a problem. They cannot automatically expect to have this belief respected.

If they had just said "It was rude and disrespectful that our ceremonies were disrupted." I'd agree and I'm sure we would all move on. They didn't though. They are trying to use this as a stick to beat other people and indeed, cow them into silence.

This is why this issue is serious, if they prove the cracker is more than just a cracker and indeed is the body of Jesus then anyone disrespecting that point of view is plain wrong. Until then, they can't expect that just because they believe something that they get a free pass on proof.

Prove it is more than just a cracker, and we can all get along. If you can't, then you can say what you like (freedom of speech is fine with me), but you just can't *do* what you like.

They are failing to respect the point of view that it is just a cracker, failing to respect the burden of proof and given we have that severe lack of respect for basic precepts why should anyone give two hoots about their outrage?

As for how it moves us on, it provides us and them an opportunity to observe where the lines are drawn, how much they can or cannot get away with now we are not in 1624 and when tempers are cooled there are going to be one or two people looking back and saying "maybe it is just a cracker.".

Minds are changed in the cool-down period after an argument. I've got no issue with that. But you can't change a mind, or influence it in any way shape or form without confronting a fault assumption in the first place.

The cracker is not the Body of Jesus Christ Their Lord.

They have, as Hitchens would say, all their work ahead of them.

Unfortunately, so do you.

18. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209242 by Dr Doctor on July 12, 2008 at 1:03 am

Prove that it isn't just a cracker, and we can indeed move on.

Until that point, it is just a cracker.

19. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209235 by Dr Doctor on July 12, 2008 at 12:52 am

"My point is that it isn't going to work just to declare yourself right. "

Nor does it work to declare someone else "completely wrong".

20. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208945 by Dr Doctor on July 11, 2008 at 12:22 pm

There is nothing worse than a pedant who makes a mistake. But you are right, that is what I meant.

But on appeasers, you seem to think there needs to be a war for appeasement?

Definition:

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.
2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.
3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

(3) is to which I was referring, and I think it quite accurately describes the double standards on show.

21. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208892 by Dr Doctor on July 11, 2008 at 10:56 am

To criticisms like Styrer-s' Christopher Hitchens would respond in a far more rounded, reasonable and witty manner than we have seen on here.

22. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208814 by Dr Doctor on July 11, 2008 at 9:23 am

I'm pleased, but surprised after a days' work to see that peace has broken out despite our disagreements.

If the price of not being in lockstep with some great atheist movement in the sky is the odd hotheaded argument and taking the odd patronising "take it elsewhere" comment then it is a price worth paying.

"'Styrer says: support the little fucker, come what may. A few others do too. Some are in the middle. Others veer towards apology to the congregants of the Church - they can do and say what they like. 'Little fucker was a guest, don't you know, and should have honoured the host-guest relationship.'"

QFT, minus the "fucker".

"What matters is that Atheists get organised and start lobbying, one day we will disband and the atheist movement will no longer be needed, but until that point I think we can survive accusations of fundamentalism until we have achieved our goal. Is anyone cringing at my use of "we" and "goal"? I know I am. "

Yes. If anyone wants to found some kind of political movement on the basis of a self-selecting "group" of independent thinkers then they will have a real fight on their hands.

23. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208485 by Dr Doctor on July 11, 2008 at 1:31 am

"Of course it isn't!"

I'm glad you finally made that *crystal clear*.

"Can't people just be left alone?"

Why would you compare the cracker "provocation" with farting in a lift and not the "delibert fart in the lift" by PZ Myers? Surely in your book PZ provoked the very reaction he got? Or is it fine for people to insult Catholicism, religion and the words and deeds of those surrounding the incident but must not refuse to eat a communion wafer?

That deliberately not eating a communion wafer is so much further up the scale that you will, without thought nor hint of preview rush to support PZ Myers when he comes under threat but spend your time beating around several bushes and an ornamental pond when it comes to a student being threatened with physical violence?

To me, it seems that you are not treating the two related incidents with equivalence. I look forward to you putting me right on that.

"Steve, it seems atheists are happy to erect strawmen against each other. If someone recommends moderation and an appropriate response they're appeasers."

I presume you are talking about the fart in a lift strawman?

Recommending moderation is one thing, what I am criticising is another. I am criticising the double standards on display.

24. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208468 by Dr Doctor on July 11, 2008 at 1:07 am

"PZ Myers was not threatening anyone. He was simply ridiculing people. I think right now this really is about free speech. I think it is a wider issue than just religion."

Whereas not eating a cracker, instead taking it home with you is sufficient excuse to be subject to massive harassment?

25. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208449 by Dr Doctor on July 11, 2008 at 12:35 am

In the meantime it seems to me, when I put on my ultra cynical hat:

1. The original incident provoked an extreme, hollow sounding over-reaction by the Catholics and provided a tub for the NOMA style appeasers to thump to further groom their rise-above image.

2. Donohue, a renowned pillock escalates the war of words, and indeed action.

3. PZ and Prof. Dawkins now use this to show how much flex the atheist lobby now has, (after all, what possible disciplinary action could PZ face over this?), accidentally providing the narcissist tub thumpers further chance to groom their rise-above holier than thou image.

It is the fact I don't want to be anyones' political pawn in this game that stops me from sending any correspondence to the University. That and the surety that any President or Chancellor of any University would not bother to read a word and would go on to do exactly what they please.

We have had the stalking horse, now we have the cause celebre. On the other hand I don't think Prof. Dawkins is a smart politician, just an honourable man who isn't afraid to stand up for what he has concluded.

I'm more tempted to write in support of the original victim, who if he had walked into a private Catholic family home and "stolen" a cracker I'd criticise slightly. But save 99% of my criticism for where it deserves, the over-reaction.

In the meantime while I fiddle, I hope Rome doesn't burn too much.

26. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208414 by Dr Doctor on July 10, 2008 at 11:45 pm

"You seem to have a strange idea of what is hypocritical."

No, I don't.

"I dislike simplistic views, such as that when there is a disagreement like this only one side must be right, and one side wrong."

Yes, indeed. There we can agree.

"Indeed. I saved you the bother of having to tailor the garment."

I think you just slipped it on without nary a fuss. All the pins are still sitting in the little fabric hedgehog cushion, waiting.

27. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208405 by Dr Doctor on July 10, 2008 at 11:32 pm

"How is it strange?"

It isn't strange, it is typical of human behaviour. A goodly proportion of people are natural hypocrites.

"I think there is consistency in defending the rights of some weird people not to have their holy bread messed about with and defending the right of Myers to post on Pharyngula while being at the University of Minnesota. It is about allowing people to be left alone in a civilized society."

Not wanting to drag the argument onto here but firstly I displayed a general garment that you seem to think is cut to fit.

(edited out the entering into the argument yet again)

28. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208401 by Dr Doctor on July 10, 2008 at 11:26 pm

I did write a lengthy post sending up the mental gymnastics of the religious appeasers on the "Goddamn cracker" thread.

It went missing.

So instead you'll have to pretend it was there and variously blush, yawn, titter, snigger, smirk, flip the bird and finger point.

In the meantime, that ruling seems contrary to the law of the land.

Homophobic cow. <--- please do try and sue me.

29. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208399 by Dr Doctor on July 10, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Oh, I could have cut to the quick but it is my atheistic sense of charity that stops me. That and my appalling typo habit.

30. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208396 by Dr Doctor on July 10, 2008 at 11:15 pm

Very strange that some who were commenting on the previous thread showing irrational reverence for Catholics, their customs and their crackers (and indeed, even making the same facile point that was made to Prof. Myers) are now rushing to PZ's rescue.

I can't help thinking that glory is undermining poorly held principles in some cases ;-)

31. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207760 by Dr Doctor on July 10, 2008 at 6:50 am

If it is a false dichotomy, you can't say without doubt.

32. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207084 by Dr Doctor on July 9, 2008 at 6:59 am

So according to some who frequent these boards, if you enter a catholic church they have a right to force feed you wafers? How about if you suddenly decide you aren't a Catholic?

Irregardless of customs, manners there is one law that goes all the way along, all the way up and all the way down in a country with highly specific exemptions.

You don't have a right to not be offended, and you have a right to decide what passes your lips no matter who you are with or where you are unless that right has been suspended by law.

Really, please, get over it.

33. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #206885 by Dr Doctor on July 9, 2008 at 12:01 am

The religious lobby is demonstrating in no uncertain terms that hysterical over-reactions are an effective defensive shield.

34. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #206870 by Dr Doctor on July 8, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Well the guy should thank his lucky rabbits foot that he wasn't killed like Rowland Taylor was.

35. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #206866 by Dr Doctor on July 8, 2008 at 11:00 pm

So Priests are like wizards?

Looks to me like Martin Luther had a point.

36. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #206863 by Dr Doctor on July 8, 2008 at 10:56 pm

I think the Roman Catholic has every right to be disgusted that the cracker isn't passing out of Websters' backside and into sewers. It is blasphemy, and *he* entered the church which makes it an invasion as well as an act of provocation.

It isn't as if it is some mere Pringle, Disco, Walkers or Cheesey Wotsit potato-chip here. This is the body of Christ (well, one of them). What next, a rinse and spit of the Blood Of Christ?

Webster Cook should go to hell, and burn to a crisp.

Hows about that for Christian forgiveness?

37. Atheism on the buses

Comment #206861 by Dr Doctor on July 8, 2008 at 10:47 pm

"There is no God, don't let religion ruin your life. It's the only shot you have."

38. Prayer refusal pupils 'disciplined'

Comment #204663 by Dr Doctor on July 5, 2008 at 1:11 pm

I meant to add that I see it as no different from the petty sadism of your average PE teacher. The religion of the teacher is irrelevant in this example, what is important as to whether this consititutes taking religious "education" too far and whether the teacher is in fact a bully.

If, again, the story is true in essence or details.

39. Prayer refusal pupils 'disciplined'

Comment #204660 by Dr Doctor on July 5, 2008 at 1:04 pm

"I am in no way advocating the equality of the two disciplines (theology and science), nor am I claiming some kind of NOMA seperation. What I am suggesting, is the act of participating in limited religious ritual may provide a more tangible example of the nonsense that is religious ritual, as science experiments show the usefulness that is science."

The main purpose of a practical science lesson is to make something that can be abstract and difficult to visualise for the student real and actual.

"To me, the argument that these rituals should be banned legitimizes the rituals themselves."

But you don't say why.

"To say our children should not be forced to perform a simple Allah worshiping ritual, almost implies that there is something that can be worshiped that differs from a preferred icon."

That makes no sense to me as a sentence. Could you retry, you leave me very confused here.



"If not this argument, it at least appears to be giving a greater amount of significance to a truly insignificant act."

If the "act" has no meaning, then why perform it? Why force children to perform it? What value can it bring to their education?

It is a needless waste of time, and as I said, IF the reason for discipline was that this was disrespectful to a facet of Islam, then it undermines entirely the basis of your argument that the act has no meaning therefore why not perform it. It clearly has a meaning to the teacher, and children are not stupid. Children of all ages sense the power games played by the adult.

Oh well, it only takes a minute, why not do it?

Not a strong argument. You and I draw lines in different places, and teachers act in loco-parentis and need to be careful they do not overstep the boundaries. This is the case whether it is the participation of a child in a religious act.

Would you, for example, like it if your child was asked to pull down the lever on a demonstration electric chair in a "right wing crime and punishment" part of a social studies lesson?

Or perhaps a simulated act of rape in a crime lesson.

Silly examples no doubt, but teachers are trained to know what is appropriate, and what is not and this act of ritual is a de-facto submission to an ideology that many parents would see as over the line and so would many teachers.

A responsible teacher would make the exercise purely voluntary.

40. Prayer refusal pupils 'disciplined'

Comment #204652 by Dr Doctor on July 5, 2008 at 12:49 pm

I also don't think it is needful to condemn an entire group on the actions of a single individual within it.

I think that is setting your sights far too low.

Use the best examples to condemn the entire field of religion, religions that run schools and religious privilege.

Remove their tax breaks, their right to intervene in school education, the privileges and make the playing field level and you know, maybe the world would end up being a better place. It certainly wouldn't make it worse.

Oi, teacher, leave those kids alone.

41. Prayer refusal pupils 'disciplined'

Comment #204648 by Dr Doctor on July 5, 2008 at 12:36 pm

If the basis of this story is true, that the children were given detention for refusing to take part in a "prayer demonstration" (regardless of whether it was detention for being disrespectful), then I think they have every right.

Compelling children to take part in acts of religious ritual is not good education, and is nothing that cannot be illustrated with books, videos or practical demonstration.

Getting the child to do it steps over a line. It does not convey any lesson, or useful information beyond what it is like to kneel and bend your back in a certain direction.

Heady stuff.

I would back any child, mine or others, that refused to take part in something on a point of principle, especially over such a worthless "demonstration", given they can articulate why in a rational way.

If the reason given for detention is true, then that is a disgrace and it is appalling that one or two members of this site are being mealy-mouthed about the issue.

If the reason was something else, like disruption, rudeness etc then that is a different point entirely.

I'm certain there is more to the story, but to use it as a stick to beat those that are showing "hypersensitivity" seems misplaced. There are other stories for whom that reaction has been merited more in the past which came and went without comment.

42. Does the Pope wear Prada?

Comment #204564 by Dr Doctor on July 5, 2008 at 8:44 am

Flobear.

The only way for an outsider to understand Roman Catholocism is to look at the polytheistic religions of ancient Greece and Rome and the time before Constantine.

Once you look at that, you realise that Roman Catholicism could really not be any other way.

43. Christians challenge teaching of evolution

Comment #204416 by Dr Doctor on July 5, 2008 at 12:14 am

You'd have to package the article in an accessible way. At the level that a half-wit can understand, after all, the half wit ignoramus is the bread and butter of all religion.

44. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204415 by Dr Doctor on July 5, 2008 at 12:12 am

It is a small step, perhaps, from faith schools to self-governed faith communities. Police and law no-go-areas.

The only one not covered by these areas that are governed by the trump card of religion would be the atheist. Hated by all, feared by all and thus persecuted by all.

Reason is in retreat in the West, religion is on the march and blood will run in the streets before long.

45. Christians challenge teaching of evolution

Comment #204413 by Dr Doctor on July 5, 2008 at 12:04 am

Yet more proof that NOMA is a one way street.

46. Does the Pope wear Prada?

Comment #204412 by Dr Doctor on July 5, 2008 at 12:03 am

Dressed by Christ not Prada?

Looks like a designer label to avoid.

47. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202908 by Dr Doctor on July 2, 2008 at 6:11 am

Thereby ruining a perfectly good copy of the Daily Mail.
-------------------

There is such a thing?

48. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202905 by Dr Doctor on July 2, 2008 at 6:08 am

God is rubbish, he even went out of his way to make sure all the evidence points to his not existing! Pathetic! :)
---------

That just shows how smart the big guy is, steath-o-matic God. God is the ninja of the metaphysical world.

Plus, the universe is shaped just like a nice fat ear plug, which is why God never replies to prayer.

49. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202899 by Dr Doctor on July 2, 2008 at 6:03 am

Brilliant article.

50. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202897 by Dr Doctor on July 2, 2008 at 5:57 am

Disgraceful heresy. Don't you know God is great? Super in fact, perhaps majestic. The DEC alpha and the C= Amiga.

QED.

All else is pseudo-religious babble.