1. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172108 by Titchfield on April 29, 2008 at 8:39 am

"It is tax time here in the US. I looked at my taxes, I pay 4 times as much to the US federal govt. than I do to the State of California. Yet all my benefits are from the state. I get nothing from the federal government. Where the hell does my money go?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States#Tax_distribution

Mostly it goes on health, social welfare and paying off the national debt. Just like most other countries in fact.

2. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171663 by Titchfield on April 28, 2008 at 4:55 pm

The only surprising thing about this is that our government is aware but hasn't had the guy arrested and prosecuted. If the mother's had time to get involved in fighting the problem it obviously happened some time ago.

There's not much civilisation out there it seems and it absolute IS a religious matter. The police sergeant, himself presumably a Muslim said so. If it weren't the fault of their religion the mullahs would have stamped on it by now. As it is they're perfectly happy with the rape, murder, abuse and opression of men, women and children.

If you think that's an unreasonable generalisation then here's another couple. The Catholic church is run by a guy who's pro-child abuse (given the document he wrote about covering it up and his failure to extradite all his bishops who are currently facing charges). The Anglican church in the UK is run by a similar guy who failed to sack a bishop who said a while ago child abuse was ok in the 1990's because it was a different time.

You don't get to claim moral/spiritual/religious authority and then fail to do everything within your (not inconsiderable) power to wipe out such forms of evil. It's highly improbable that the father could have done that if the rest of the family had been conditioned to prevent him (as they seem to have been present). In any healthy family, in a civilised society if the father turned out to be psychotic the others would stop him themselves.

3. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146082 by Titchfield on March 18, 2008 at 3:38 pm

I note that the BBC doesn't believe he even existed, attributing him as the stuff of legend. Hmm. I was pretty convinced he was a well known author myself but there you go.

4. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #140710 by Titchfield on March 8, 2008 at 11:54 am

Someone suggested that Hitchens would make a great Lord and whilst I agree that would have been true 10 years ago he is now, sadly, a Yank. As such I'm pretty sure he can't be given the right to sit in the House of Lords and quite right too.

As for people saying that the Lords should be done away with because they fall asleep whilst listening to debates can I suggest the following. Firstly look at the Commons and see how many of them do exactly the same thing and they're elected (which is apparently the only thing you need to be to fulfill your role). Secondly try listening to the debates for hours on end and staying awake yourself.

The role of the House of Lords doesn't require them to be elected people. What would be the point in another elected house when the turnout at elections is already so poor anyway? Plus it provides some measure of counterbalance to a government which has a huge majority in the Commons and can help reign in the excesses that such governments can be prone to.

5. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102176 by Titchfield on December 22, 2007 at 12:22 am

Excellent interview. I still don't agree with Hitchens about the extinction of religion which I believe is entirely possible. I do take his point about credulity and the likelihood that humans will always believe silly things I just think that if I'm capable of not choosing to believe, so is everyone else. Just because we have a tendency to do certain things doesn't mean we are incapable of refraining from doing them.

6. Good God! A politician who doesn't believe...

Comment #102170 by Titchfield on December 21, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Neil Kinnock didn't play badly with the electorate because he was an atheist. He was just an annoying twat with ridiculous ideas.

7. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101145 by Titchfield on December 20, 2007 at 2:18 am

[quote]Sounds like you'd prefer he were a martyr who sacrificed his political career on the altar of atheism. Yeah! That'd show 'em![/quote]

You do realise he is the leader of the Lib Dems, right? It's not as if he's likely to get anywhere anyway. Yes, I do damned well expect politicians to have the courage of their convictions. It would be naive to expect them to refrain from stuff like this but we shouldn't be numbed into thinking that's the way they *should* behave!

I've e-mailed him to ask what his parties position is on separation of church and state as I've never been able to find a clear statement on the subject for any of the big three. As he's an out atheist I figure he ought to be on our side. I severely doubt he'll answer just one query though.

8. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100564 by Titchfield on December 18, 2007 at 11:12 pm

I'd be more than happy to use the guy as a punch bag if he's volunteering as I don't have anywhere in my house I can hang one up.

Christians are offended eh? Ummmmmmm.... good? I would think they'd find the whole shop offensive seeing as it blatantly promotes a non-creationist agenda. Can these people get any more pathetic?

9. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99108 by Titchfield on December 15, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Well yes. It is a long bloody road to go down. Hardly never ending though, there's absolutely no reason to think we can't do away with dictatorship. As to who we should go after, all of them. There's no reason to leave any dictator in power beyond our own weakness. You've effectively said that you don't mind how much or how many humans suffer because it might be a bit hard to help them. Would you risk a burning building to save a child? But we shouldn't risk soldiers to save foreign children?

I don't care what Bush and Blair's reasoning was for going into Iraq as there are so many reasons why it should have been done. Does it annoy me that they probably lied? Yeah but not so much as their religious sentiments, dodgy election practices and even more dubious educational/science policies. Everyone who claims we didn't have good reason to move against Saddam Hussein should perhaps recollect that he did drop WMD's on the Kurds amongst many other atrocities. Who cares after that if he was involved in 9/11? He was certainly capable of it.

Hitchens explained his reasoning about wanting the debate with the religious to continue quite eloquently. Perhaps the others didn't agree but that's the wonderful thing about our side of the fence, we're able to discuss things rationally. Hitchens wants the mental exercise of debating with the religious and feels that it adds something to the world to be able to do that.

Your attitude towards Hitchens disgusts me frankly, based as it is entirely on your disagreement with him over Iraq. He'd be the first to applaud the soldiers and others who have given their lives working over there I'm sure and I imagine the parents would appreciate that. You on the other hand denigrate everything that they've done with your attitude towards the sacrifices they've made.

I totally agree Bush and Blair disguised their reasoning, were duplicitous and conniving in going to war. I would agree that the occupation has been very poorly handled. Neither of those things detracts from the efforts of the people out there or counters the myriad justifications that could have been used (and weren't) for the war.

As for the round table itself I thought this was a superb event and I'd love to see more similar discussions. I think good old Hitch wouldn't really have much trouble finding equally stimulating debates if there were no religion although it has to be said that it's probably the most important debate there could ever have been. It was good to hear them all kicking around ideas and to demonstrate that they don't all agree on everything but, being rational not religious, they are able to discuss their thoughts properly.

10. Believe it or not

Comment #99106 by Titchfield on December 15, 2007 at 3:04 pm

Atheist may have a negative connotation for some but so does the word 'conservative' for many. It's not going to stop me preferring government to stay out of my private life and add as little legislation as is possible. You can't just have fluffy nicey words to describe yourself and expect people to suddenly side with you.

11. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #99102 by Titchfield on December 15, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Nice. Makes me wonder what Bill Hicks would have had to say about this.

12. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #99100 by Titchfield on December 15, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Human rights? Would that be what the current Pope's documentation on how to protect the church from the scandal of their priests buggering children by not reporting it to the police and pressuring the parents to conceal it and punish the child, is all about? The human right to continue child abuse is that it?

Is the science bit a reference to flat earths, suns that orbit planets and the firm belief that HIV is a good thing to spread?

Goodwill would be accepting donations to be used for the care of the sick and the dying in India and spending them on supporting more child abusing priests? The oppression of elderly ill-educated female atheists and forcing them to continue spreading the evil of catholicism? Hmmm. Denying care to the terminally ill unless the submit to catholic doctrine?

Donohue obviously has very different values to my own.

13. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #99099 by Titchfield on December 15, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Pyota - you keep blithering on about phimosis which you evidently know nothing about. It's treatable. Treatable not something you have to amputate for. Little boys don't get circumcised en masse for phimosis they get circumcised en masse because their parents and doctors are ignorant savages who enjoy child abuse. End of story.

I'm fine with amputating bits of people that really need to come off but not if there's a viable treatment option. Phimosis for instance isn't fatal, it's easily treatable just like all sorts of other skin problems. You would be pretty pissed off if your doctor suggested chopping your infants foot off because of a verucca I imagine.

Spinoza - how do you know your sexual pleasure isn't affected? Are you speaking with certain experience having experienced plenty of sex before your circumcision? Regardless not everyone is the same. I can assure you that from my point of view rolling back my foreskin and going commando would be uncomfortable - I would imagine the same would not be true of circumcised men and that alone would demonstrate desensitizing of the glans.

Anyway, it's completely unnecessary to circumcise children, it's only done for religious reasons either as an article of faith or because the adults concerned are disgusting scumbags who think sex and masturbation are sinful. The foreskin is in no way a redundant organ just because you can live without one.

14. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97092 by Titchfield on December 11, 2007 at 11:51 am

Is this priest seriously suggesting we take a leaf out of the book on morality written by the Pope? This would be the same Pope that literally wrote the book on how to cover up child abuse?

15. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #82830 by Titchfield on October 28, 2007 at 1:15 am

edwaltthespisactor says

in the UK we have a problem with right wingers claiming Patriotism and the flag. I was inspired listening to this speech to claw back patriotism and the flag.

16. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79195 by Titchfield on October 16, 2007 at 12:27 pm

I really wanted to try and watch all of this but after Hitchens excellent intro Mcrgrath came on to speak. I honestly couldn't stomach watching him hop about on stage as if someone had poured itching powder down his trousers, he seems to be the most irritating type of person. Reading others comment I don't think I'e missed much though.

17. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78577 by Titchfield on October 13, 2007 at 4:28 pm

How very patronising. Please note, he's still not offered any evidence for the existence of his god. Also, I'd expect the Archbishop to sack any Bishop who proclaimed that he didn't know how bad child abuse was in 1990 because it was a different time back then. But he didn't do that either. From my point of view, he's a monster.

As for the Queen, I don't think she can just give over the title, constitutionally speaking. I do however think it's totally unreasonable for the government to continue to force the reigning monarch to cowtow to one religion or another, particularly when they don't have to (anymore).

18. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #47301 by Titchfield on June 4, 2007 at 3:09 am

Eximious did you just say "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." only with a lot more words? ;)

Quite clearly this Robertson chap has no evidence of the existence of god. He is a fundamentalist and is not prepared to admit that his belief system is based entirely on faith. If we could somehow force his hand his whole argument would ultimately come down to some 'evidence' such as the Bible a book which is merely one of the best examples as to why authors need editors and not, proof of the existence of a deity.

Eximious, communication has broken down not because we are angry but because Robertson refuses to communicate with us. We may as well try and persuade an alcoholic to stop drinking as attempt to talk him into a rational perspective and get him to simply put forth his evidence.

19. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46842 by Titchfield on June 1, 2007 at 11:42 pm

"Billions of people derive comfort from religious belief, and they should not be denied this. Millions of people also are motivated by their religion to do good works (others find it odd that some people think they need religion in order to be good)."

Rubbish. Billions of people living in the most appalling ignorance and often poverty, does not sound like a comfortable situation to me. Would they not derive comfort from the certain knowledge that having sex with a condom on will not damn them to eternal torture and will in all likelihood improve their quality of life? The fact that billions of people are supposedly believers (many in societies where to admit to being otherwise is to effectively sign your own death warrant) does not mean that they do believe or that their religious beliefs are anything other than an absolute nightmare for them.

As for people being motivated by religion to do good works, that seems increasingly unlikely as we gather more information about the way our brain works. There doesn't seem to be any reason to think that our morals are anything other than an inevitable result of evolution. If you were to take moral guidance from the bible or koran you'd probably seem pretty much like a psychopath these days.

20. Gay row US Anglicans miss summit

Comment #43974 by Titchfield on May 23, 2007 at 5:38 am

I don't see the problem really. I wouldn't invite them to my house, filthy god squaddies that they are. They're welcome to pop around for a chat if they denounce religion though :)

21. Some US Muslims say suicide attacks OK

Comment #43940 by Titchfield on May 23, 2007 at 4:30 am

I've just been reading End of Faith by Sam Harris and this sounds very much like the polling information he used. It's no longer a surprise to me.

22. Science and fiction

Comment #37330 by Titchfield on May 4, 2007 at 5:31 am

Bizarrely it's hard to find any comment on the issue of religion on the major parties websites. That's why I started the following post on the David Cameron website (as if it gets enough votes he will answer it in a couple of weeks on his blog):

http://www.webcameron.org.uk/blogs/3716-Should-we-make-separation-of-church-and-state-a-key-part-of-parliamentary-reform

In particular my post was about the separation of church and state which, of course, covers state endorsement of dubious teaching practices such as creationism.