Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by suffolkthinker


1. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #201085 by suffolkthinker on June 29, 2008 at 1:28 am

I thought it was a fun insert and typical of the programme. As for those who wonder why him: perhaps the fact his wife played a former companion to the Doctor has something to do with it? I seem to remember they were introduced by Douglas Adams who had also worked on the show and knew Layla from it. Sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong there.

2. Non-voters: It's all in God's hands

Comment #200274 by suffolkthinker on June 27, 2008 at 8:23 am

And how is this a bad thing? :-)

3. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192835 by suffolkthinker on June 14, 2008 at 3:02 am

Brian English said:

He seems like a nice guy. The weird thing is, and he doesn't argue for it, but many westerners do, is that Tibet was some paradise before the Chinese. It was awful. Boys were forced into monstaries and placed at the whim of older monks. Ordinary people were subsistence peasants with no rights.
I'm not saying it's wonderful under the Chinese, far from it. Just that it wasn't wonderful before either.
Well said Brian. I get so fed up with the new age fawning of the "Paradise" of Tibet. In the past (i.e. prior to the disintegration of China in the early 20th civil wars) it was a theocracy that paid tribute to the Chinese emperor. Whether it was genuinely a sovereign nation or not is a pointless argument of definitions. Paradise it was not.

Roll forward to the 21st Century, China is a whole stable modern (or rapidly mobernising depending on your view) nation. Yes elements of its regime are rather authoritarian for many in the west's taste but the average Chinese citizen is well educated, well fed and has more influence in selecting their leaders than a Tibetan has in selecting the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama.

The comment on language in this is also misleading. Certainly 50 years ago there was heavy pressure to suppress languages other than standard Chinese but these days Tibetan is recognised and the government pays for schools in that language as well as in Chinese. Not that much different from that status of Welsh or Gallic in the UK.

4. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192819 by suffolkthinker on June 14, 2008 at 2:35 am

For someone who subscribes to an absolutist faith this is hypocritical nonsense. Either he believes the Catholic doctrine he recently converted too and believes everyone else is going to burn in hell for eternity or his conversion was lip service to keep his wife happy.

Or perhaps he believes he needs to better understand other faiths so it's easier to convert them?

5. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190626 by suffolkthinker on June 9, 2008 at 9:53 am

It only took a few paragraphs to realise the writer knows nothing of science or logic. Why do these idiots never apply their own first cause argument and ask "but where did god come from?"

No point in arguing further.

6. Karma comedians

Comment #186829 by suffolkthinker on May 31, 2008 at 11:20 am

Whatever your view of Chinese government policy and practice in Tibet or elsewhere the reaction of the Chinese government and people stands positive comparison with any other "advanced" state in recent years when responding to an overwhelming natural disaster. Never perfect of course but certainly humane and responsive and amazingly transparent.

The PRC has been through an amazing transformation in the last 30 years. Sure viewed by western standards in some areas of human rights it still has a way to go but I wish the romantic New Age idiots obsessed with an imaginary notion of Tibetan freedom under a religious dictator who just happens to be the reincarnated form of the last dictator would actually take time to understand the real China of today.

7. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168532 by suffolkthinker on April 25, 2008 at 7:31 am

As a follow on to my last comment: if we can find 50 members of "Regent House" (basically current working members of the University and Fellows of the colleges) to sign a motion to censure the department we can get it debated and possibly get the site taken dowm. At the very least I can guarantee such a procedure would get a lot publicity.

So: any other Camtabrians here who also want to take up the cause?

8. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168525 by suffolkthinker on April 25, 2008 at 7:25 am

Great minds clearly think alike. Here is an email I sent independently to the website on this. I have also contacted the "Cambridge University Atheist and Agnostic Society" to see if they want to take up the baton locally. :-)

My email as sent below.

Hello,

I came across the "Investigating Atheism" site by accident. As an alumnus of Cambridge I was pleased to see the University engaging seriously with the Atheist debate. However on looking at the site I was extremely disappointed by its lack of rigour and what I can only call an implicit theistic bias.

Consider the statement on the "Atheism and Morality" page: "However, the suspicion endures that atheism must lead to immorality, and public atheists past and present must devote a significant amount of their time to addressing this charge". This statement is value laden and leaves an argument on the negative view of Atheism. A truly balanced view would simple omit that statement and present both cases. As a thought experiment consider how the page would read if the sentence were replaced by "However, the suspicion endures that defenders of religion continue to misrepresent the Atheist view on morality and public atheists past and present must devote a significant amount of their time to addressing this charge". Both sentences are unreferenced and unnecessary but selecting either leaves the argument on a bias towards one view point. The next paragraph is even more biased, using the usual theist trick of associating atheist morality with the morals of certain atheists. To site de Sade and Nietzsche as examples to illustrate the "failure of the Enlightenment project of an autonomous ethics" while omitting to equally promote the equivalent arguments of the practicing Catholic Hitler or practising Muslim bin Laden as the "the failure of theistic arguments for the necessity of god to morality" is ludicrously unbalanced.

I see this email address implies this is a project of the Faculty of Divinity: can you confirm that and can you also on the site give any religious affiliation of the researchers?

I hope the faults of the site and project can be corrected because as it stands I am very disappoint in my alma mater being associated with such a project. If the intent of the site is to act as a view from the theistic argument, I can accept that as reasonable intellectual pursuit however if that is the case it should clearly be stated. Similarly if that is the case, I would like to see Cambridge promoting an equivalent site presenting the argument from an atheistic view point.

Regards
Martin Baines MA (Downing 1980)

9. Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says

Comment #168490 by suffolkthinker on April 25, 2008 at 7:08 am

How can that be? Surely God only created man 6,000 years ago (on a Tuesday)? :-)

10. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167377 by suffolkthinker on April 24, 2008 at 1:14 am

I just spotted the following about one of the people behind the page (Miguel Farias): "His current work is funded by grants from the John Templeton Foundation (USA)".

I think that says it all really.

11. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167365 by suffolkthinker on April 24, 2008 at 1:02 am

The site as it stands is a scurrilous piece of work: perporting to be unbiased but is in fact a clearly theistic view point. There are so many things I could quote from it to back that up but the last paragraph of the Atheism and Science page gives them away most clearly:

At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar: for every atheistic scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their atheism, there is a religiously inclined scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their theism. Thus the atheist simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion if they suppose that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to atheism. This is evident in each of the main branches of science, both natural and social, which have some relevance to the issue of the truth or falsity of atheism/religion.
The emphasis is mine to draw attention to an substantiated and unreferenced, value laden arguement.

The site's email address is the Faculty of Divinity an institution closely associated with a theist world view. Historically mainly Church of England but more recently branched out in other "faiths". Still hardly something likely to promote an unbiased arument on atheism. After all why present the arguments for abolishing your whole department?

12. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161417 by suffolkthinker on April 15, 2008 at 9:24 am

Is anyone surprised by this? Given the premise of the church that homosexuality it wrong this is just a logical conclusion to it.

Yet another example of why religious institutions should not be allowed to be entrusted with the education of the young.

13. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156208 by suffolkthinker on April 7, 2008 at 5:34 am

Woese expanded the concept. "Evolution is a better version of the second law of thermodynamics, of time-zero, which implies that things are going to degenerate until even the atoms fall apart. But maybe that's not the way it's going to play out."
That quote alone demonstrates someone either does not understand evolution by natural selection or does not understand the second law of thermodynamic. Or I suspect more likely both.

Still it did accidentlally remind me of a great party after my finals that was entitled "Heat Death of the University". :-)

14. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153311 by suffolkthinker on April 1, 2008 at 11:25 am

Part of me wants to just say "so what" - a case of one obnoxious belief system usurping another. Sadly with all its faults I think Catholicism is marginally less evil in its modern incarnation than modern Islam so another part of me is worried.

15. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149768 by suffolkthinker on March 26, 2008 at 8:10 am

The Rev. Ted Nelson, leader of Big Church Alive, a nondenominational church in Wausau, said "it's easy to judge a family for doing this or not doing that, but the bottom line is, they did what's best in their heart, and the result turned out to be bad."

"I would be the last one to condemn those parents for what they believe," Nelson said. "People are very sincere about their beliefs. But we can be sincerely wrong."
If they are "sincerely wrong" and it just affects them, no problem for anyone but themselves. When it affects the lives of children it is simply them being sincerely evil.
What happens next will be a good (or should that be sad?) test of the justice system where they live. Anything short of a long custodial sentence and their children be placed in the care of genuinely caring adopted parents will be frankly scandalous. Ok, I *might* allow them to section the parents for life under the local equivalent of the Mental Health Act as an alternative to prison.

16. Austin Dacey - The Secular Conscience

Comment #149710 by suffolkthinker on March 26, 2008 at 6:55 am

In 7. Comment #149554 by Robert Maynard on March 25, 2008 at 11:06 pm

The fact that secularists are on both sides of an issue, and both appeal to evidence, doesn't mean the dispute is at an impasse. That would be like saying that two contradictory scientific theories are on level footing because they both include data. Bring on the sudden death round, the penalty shootouts.
Simply, one is more right than the other, one synthesises all the available data better than the other - at least one of them is wrong.

It's not that simple: it depends on the value set being used to evaluate the evidence.

For instance: I am personally 100% opposed to state Capital Punishment while I know other Atheists and Secularists who support it. While we might argue over some of the evidence, most of it is not disputed but we evalute it according to different decision criteria. To me the state taking any life in cold blood is simply one death too many, to others it's an empirical balance resulting in fewist deaths (where factors such as whether x number people are executed incorrectly is balanced by even few people being murdered as a result of deterence/few crimanals reoffending), for others it is simply the "right" punishment for taking anothers life. The "evidence" will do little to change the views of any except those in the middle group.

17. The death-of-god debate

Comment #148612 by suffolkthinker on March 23, 2008 at 11:57 am

The author describes himself as a "Marxist". That alone is enough to show people he can read something and not understand a word of what is written.

If you do read Marx it is laughable - full of ridiculously detailed mathematical calculations based on the flimsiest of assumptions and even flimsier logic. He arrives at "scientific" conclusions without any scientific method just political polemic disguised by cod science. It would be laughable were it not that millions of people have died in its name.

Rather like religion really.

18. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140872 by suffolkthinker on March 9, 2008 at 12:33 am

Living in Merca's bible belt we have more than our fair share of stupid laws like that.
Being a new country all of our stupid laws are relitivly new, post enlightenment I guess.
I am curios. Are these blasphemy laws in England also new or are they from HenryVIII or something older?

They are ancient "common law" offenses which means they were never approved by parliament but came into being being through court action. Murder is similarly a common law offence although there is a lot of statute law that now defines its and its punishment. The thing about Blasphamy being a common law offence not defined or moderated by statute is that in theory a court can issue pretty much any sentence there is a precident for - since people have been executed for it in the past that effectively means a life sentence since all capital punishment has been abolished.

19. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #138943 by suffolkthinker on March 5, 2008 at 1:12 am

To quote the Boomtown Rats:

"They can see no reasons
Cos there are no reasons
What reasons do you need to be shown?"

20. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #138940 by suffolkthinker on March 5, 2008 at 1:08 am

So a religion that demands people "respect" it, shows respect to other religions then. Oh right of course not, it's modern Islam.

I rather like the idea of giant tea pots as items of worship. Ofcourse to be properly transposed to Englang they need a matching giant tea cosy and nice cucumber sandwiches to accompany it.

21. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125225 by suffolkthinker on February 11, 2008 at 5:12 am

Whilst I appreciate the article I was left with one dominant thought: Yasmin if this is all so abhorrent to you why the hell are you a part of it? Just get OUT and renounce the whole rotten filthy barrel.
While I sypmpathise with you view, I think Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is just one of those people on a journey of belief. Probably too hard to completely break the strings of faith but clearly a moderate free thinker. I like to think of her a "fellow traveller" and tactically I think it helps our cause to have intelligent, moderate women like her who identify themselves as muslims speaking out like this.

I wish her well!

22. Sharia fiasco

Comment #125009 by suffolkthinker on February 10, 2008 at 5:04 pm

So does anyone remember the way one nominates someone for a "people's peerage"? Time for Pat to get his seat in the upper house I feel :-)

23. Scientists want rewrite of Earth's time line

Comment #117566 by suffolkthinker on January 29, 2008 at 5:54 am

What does it matter? Arguing about definitions is in most cases pointless and you just end in the end saying thing like "well in his definition it would be the XXXX while in her definition it is the YYYY era".

If this sort of thing turns you on, take up botany (or horticulture) and you too can go round naming countless subspecies culitvars. On the other hand if you want to do real science, study what you observe and let others worry about minutea of definitions. :-)

24. Honour Killings

Comment #113681 by suffolkthinker on January 20, 2008 at 10:27 am


...Muslim schools are crucial for Muslim children...


That's where I gave up. The whole idea that children are somehow automatically a member of some religion is sickening.

25. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113673 by suffolkthinker on January 20, 2008 at 10:18 am

We have deposed monarchs in England (and Scotland and the rest of what is now called the United Kingdom) for less evidence of joining a foreign faith than this.

Time to give up all pretence of Defender of the Faith being a role suitable for the head of state. Let alone allowing him to become Defender of Faith (or is it Faiths? I lose track of his idiocies) as he seems to want.

At the very least we need a real campaign for Disestablishment and proper separation of church (or mosque) and state in this country. But why stop there? Can anyone give me a good reason why utterances such as these are not good cause for scraping the whole Monarcy and replacing it with a modern republic?

26. The New Theology

Comment #113221 by suffolkthinker on January 19, 2008 at 2:38 am

Much of this is either just Deism or "god of the gaps" stuff. Pointless.

Once you admit any part of your favourite holy book is not literal truth stopping short of anything less than atheism is wooly thinking at best or dishonesty at worst. Ok I might let them call themselve "agnostic" if it helps their self image but there is no practial difference.

27. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110756 by suffolkthinker on January 12, 2008 at 9:52 am


would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug


Given I've only met one, he endowewed by University rather generously, has public said he has not need for a God Hyothesis and has given more to help real suffering than anyone alive there can only really be one choice....

28. Man and God

Comment #104166 by suffolkthinker on December 28, 2007 at 3:19 am

For Paula's stats: I can never really remember believing in god. Early in childhood I suspect I just went along with it as my mother explained things using terms like "when god made us". At a very early age (certainly pre-school) I asked the question "but who made god?" and the answer I got was totally unsatisfactory. I always was a precocious questioning child.

That is still the basis of my disbelief. Why replace one mystery with a bigger made up one?

As I've got older I have added more subtlety to the arguments but I still feel the simple questions of a child often illuminate things best.

29. Here's an improvement on democracy

Comment #98270 by suffolkthinker on December 13, 2007 at 11:58 am

"I think that we in the West might describe China's government as brutal and totalitarian. It may be very secular and therefore stable and prosperous, but I would not want to live there."

Having spent significant time in both China and Saudi Arabia I can confidently state I would choose China to live in. In fact I would choose China over many, maybe even most, regimes in the world. Certainly not a democracy by our standards. Certainly they use the death penalty way too much for my tastes (but so does Texas). Certainly not a comfortable place if you really rail against the system. These days however the PRC is generally IMO a place that is set up to advance its citizens and does a pretty good job at it. Has generally good laws administered generally fairly. And yes it is totally secular too and while not encouraging to minority religions is much more tolerent of them than virtually every Muslim country.

That is not meant to excuse the bad things done by the regime of the PRC, just to put more postive view of the place than ChrisMcL's

30. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92654 by suffolkthinker on December 1, 2007 at 3:43 am

I adore Pat's videos. A stident, funny and ptovocative voice of reason. His previous vodeo on the Islamofacists was so on the mark.

There may be times we tactially work with "moderates" from religious movements on certain issues like getting Gillian Gibbons out of a Sudanese prison but why bother debating with those who are beyond reason?

31. In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim's tale

Comment #91670 by suffolkthinker on November 29, 2007 at 12:13 am

I seem to remember our own (British) Royal Family just entertained the Saudi Royal Family on a state visit without a mutter about how they behave yet our Prime Minister is happy to refuse to attend a meeting is the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe is also attending.

Zimbabwe has an obnoxious government so credit on that, but Saudi has an even more obnoxious government and set of laws. Double standards or what?

Surely it's not oil that makes the difference?

32. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91431 by suffolkthinker on November 28, 2007 at 9:31 am

So this will be the "moderate" muslim country we are in neogtiations to allow to join the EU then?

What a shame the EU contitution was rejected with Freedom of Speech and Religion entrenched in it.

33. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87358 by suffolkthinker on November 12, 2007 at 1:11 am

He says:
Sir Salman Rushdie should never have been knighted, he says. "He caused a huge amount of distress and discordance with his book, it should have been pulped."

That sums it up. His view that books should be pulped just because he doesn't like them causes me and I suspect most here a huge amount of distress and discourdance.

34. Fox News Discussion on 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #85759 by suffolkthinker on November 7, 2007 at 2:49 am

The curious thing about the His Dark Materials trilogy is that while it is oftne described as promoting atheism, the world described is clearly theistic in the sense that the "Authority" in it does exist. Of course that "Authority" is defeated and is obviously part of the Universe not spearate from it and the omnipotent controller of it as most religions preach. Sophisticated Theistic debaters ought to be able to use this to make a point, but of course they never do, being far too wrapped up in being offended about having their beliefs questioned or in complaining about having children "indoctrinated" by something other than their own world view.

I love the books for being the antidote to Narnia and their Christian allegories and wish the film well. I will wait until I see it before I pass judgement though - I am not sure I really trust Hollywood to be true to its spirit.

35. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75530 by suffolkthinker on October 3, 2007 at 12:09 am

I have always instinctively disliked labeling myself with something that I do not believe in, however in recent years I have strongly come round to Richard Dawkin's view that we do need to come "out" and stand up, and for now the label Athiest is useful as it is at least well known.

Think of it as labelling yourself as anti-apatheid in South Africa 1970. Hopefully it will not always be necessary, but for now let's stand up and up and be counted.

36. Oxford's Christian colleges 'are not suitable for school-leavers'

Comment #71529 by suffolkthinker on September 19, 2007 at 1:20 am

Reading this I'm quite pleased that Cambridge the theological colleges are kept at arms length and not part of the University.

Of course we still have the abomination of the Faculty of Divinity :-(

37. Censoring Sir David

Comment #69938 by suffolkthinker on September 13, 2007 at 8:24 am

This is doubly ironic as when interviewed Sir David once said (I paraphrase) "The religious often ask me to praise god for the wonders of nature I describe on the screen, to which I usually reply: if I did that I would have to also praise god for the wonder of creating Bilharzia."

38. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #63342 by suffolkthinker on August 14, 2007 at 1:57 am

If you think the Bible is bad (and I do), then for a laugh read The Book of Mormon. Reads like a cod impersonation of the King James Bible.

But actually, it's not just the Bible that is bad literature - try reading the Koran. Now I don't read Arabic so I'll admit to only having read a couple of different English translations (or interpreations as most Muslims insist it ceases to be the "word of god" once translated), but it is even more incoherent, nasty and just plain weird than even the Bible.