1. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #156362 by Seti on April 7, 2008 at 11:59 am

Why would I need any special qualifications to discuss religion? At least in terms of xianity, it isn't supposed to be difficult. Matthew 7:7 says "Seek and ye shall find." And after all, why should it be difficult? What kind of god would deliberately choose to make it difficult? Certainly not the kind of loving god xians claim.

2. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111692 by Seti on January 15, 2008 at 12:59 pm

All the very best of wishes for a speedy recovery, George. The world needs more like you!

3. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94743 by Seti on December 6, 2007 at 11:59 am

I have to go for Archbishop Francisco Chimoio - not only is he lying (and almost certainly knows he's lying) but his words will directly contribute to the suffering and death of a lot of people. If anyone doubts that religion can be a source of evil, he's powerful evidence that it is.

4. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85186 by Seti on November 5, 2007 at 8:53 am

Well according to Beattie, what is needed is more women! Apparently the views of the men who have written are invalid because in their "mock battle" (mock?!) they are perpetuating the oppression of women who are "seldom represented by their scholarly elites." Well, if she's making a point about the way in which women are not represented by their religious leaders she is right - that is a major problem, at least among the evil triumvirate of xianity, islam and judaism, which relegate women to second-class citizenship.

However, to suggest that women need a special kind of attention in the debate against religion merely perpetuates that perception of second-class-ness. The poor dears are more reliant on the myth to sustain their hopes and meaning? It doesn't matter what's true, the illusion is comforting? Just so long as it keeps them churning out a new sprog every year to add to the Vatican's power-base, eh Tina?

5. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68675 by Seti on September 8, 2007 at 4:35 am

One of my best friends is a vicar, and she told me that one of the major chains of Xian bookshops in the country has been taken over by an evenagelical Orthodox group. One of their key objectives is to stamp out Islam. They used to stock books on a range of faiths, but now no longer do. The are treating their staff very badly - many have been sacked. The profits are going towards building new churches.

6. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47245 by Seti on June 3, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Some recent research indicates that religion in the UK is in serious decline. According to the most recent British Attitudes Survey, 69% either did not claim membership of a religion, or said they never attend a religious service. 73% of those identifying themselves as Christian attend church once every few months months or less, and 42% of muslims attend mosque every few months months or less.

A YouGov survey (Dec 2004) found 56% of adults consider themselves agnostic or atheist. Various other studies indicate that 30-60% describe themselves as agnostic or atheist (65% of young people)

Home Office Research study 274 found only 20% consider religious beliefs an important part of their identity.

7. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47238 by Seti on June 3, 2007 at 4:58 pm

I'm not sure about religion being destroyed in 15 years, but I could certainly see it becoming one of those things you feel slightly embarrassed about. Like people who read their horoscope regularly, but would never admit to basing any important decisions on it.

There was a time when the existance of god was a "given" because there was no other available explanation - it must have been extremely difficult to be an atheist then. But now so much more is known, the "god of the gaps" is on life-support, reduced to a shifting cloud of ineffability.

The two props on which beleif remains are emotional need and ignorance (in the polite sense of "not knowing.") The emotional need will remain, I suspect, but you can't keep the people in ignorance for ever. And when they find out how they've been lied to, they'll tear the naked emperor from his horse and trample him into the ground.

8. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47137 by Seti on June 3, 2007 at 5:36 am

In response to 47130: It's perfectly possible that the "Amen" traces back to the Egyptian sun-god. The first monotheistic religion was developed in Egypt by pharoah Ankehaton (the father of Tutankhamen) and adopted the symbol of the Aten, represtented as the sun - the sun-god being Amun-Ra.

This religion was stamped out after his death in around 1330BCE, but it wouldn't be beyond possibility that a remnant remained loyal, and to escape persecution moved into the remote northern hill country of the Egyptian empire - a province called Judah!

Contrary to the biblical history, there is no trace of a monotheistic culture in Judah until around 1000BCE. Could this be the descendants of that remnant who escaped from Egypt? Could the Exodus story, for which there is no archeological evidence, be based on a mythologised version of that escape? I don't know of any evidence of this, but it's an intriguing thought...

9. Tales of Hay-on-Wye

Comment #45823 by Seti on May 29, 2007 at 11:03 am

The nice lady may have more usefully asked "What" does the good Archbish beleive? Is he one of those nice woolly theologians who think god is "just the name we give to our wonder at the universe" or is he someone who beleives that a loving, omnipotent god deliberately created some people with same-gender sexual attraction just so the people of "his" church could abuse them?

Whichever end of the spectrum he lies, there are many very devout xians who would beleive he is deluded. It isn't even necessary for us atheists to express an opionion!

10. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44532 by Seti on May 25, 2007 at 3:58 am

Isn't there some "law" (similar to Murphy's Law) which states that when you try to spook a fundie claim, you risk being taken seriously. Owing to the fact that fundie claims are already so far out on the other side of rational that they appear to be spoofs themselves (Kirk Cameron and the banana...?)

11. Pale Blue Dot

Comment #40605 by Seti on May 14, 2007 at 3:17 pm

That's beautiful. How can anyone say atheism lacks beauty, poetry? Their god is way too small.

12. True faith is greater than the ranters

Comment #40406 by Seti on May 14, 2007 at 8:44 am

Good ole Rees-Mogg. I suppose he was on holiday when the leaders of the Catholic and Anglican churches in Britain were ranting about their right to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexuality? There are just two things I ask of these people who claim the right to tell the rest of us how to live on the basis of what they beleive their god wants.

a) Prove that their god exists
b) Prove that that is what he/she/it/they want.

Surely that isn't too much to ask?

13. Science and fiction

Comment #37400 by Seti on May 4, 2007 at 11:37 am

For the want of somewhere better to introduce this subject - and it does link to the issue of faith schools - does anyone have thoughts about faith-based social care? I suspect that it is going to be the next big battle, and given the recent attitude of the established churches to the sexual equality bill I think we can see some of the concerns which may lie ahead.

14. A Brief History of Disbelief

Comment #35687 by Seti on April 28, 2007 at 10:15 am

I don't think Miller would accept the nomination as Musketeer. He doesn't even like the term "atheist," regarding it as somewhat redundant. One of the best things about the series was his air of mild astonishment that such a programme was even being made, as if he had been asked to present an exploration of disbeleif in fairies.

15. God Is in the Dendrites

Comment #35505 by Seti on April 27, 2007 at 11:50 am

The theists give themselves a huge problem when they claim that the brain was wired like that by "god" so we would be able to communicate with "him." (In fact, since they claim "he" created us, "he" must have been responsible for the wiring.) If some of us aren't wired up right, that would leave us at a major disadvantage when it comes to the salvation of our immortal soul. The equipment is duff, it don't work, there's no way the messages can get through. Bit mean of "him" really, don't you think? In fact it kinda undermines all that "Seek and ye shall find" guff.

16. In the beginning

Comment #34079 by Seti on April 23, 2007 at 6:41 am

Did anyone think it was going to be easy to get rid of all this superstitious clap-trap? Just show 'em a few fossils and they'd go, "Oh ye-e-es, I see it all now." Religion has always been about power, and those who have that power, or hope to get a share of it, are not going to release their grip easily. It's frustrating to have to re-fight battles we thought were more-or-less won, but we have to be in this for the long haul.

17. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33578 by Seti on April 20, 2007 at 4:02 pm

I can understand the anxiety expressed, given O'Reilly's approach to "interviewing." But maybe we should trust Richard to know what he's doing.

Those who don't know much about Faux News might like to check out this link - as it says, "We watch fox so you don't have to": http://www.newshounds.us/

18. The Empty Wager

Comment #33557 by Seti on April 20, 2007 at 3:15 pm

To gmurphy: Most atheists know a fair amount about the bible and its many flaws. Theology, however, is a pretty pointless topic of study - akin to a fashion article on the emperor's new clothes.

As for the link between human stupidity and religion, perhaps it would be most accurate to say that religion is the most prevalent manifestation of, and excuse for, human supidity. There are others, but many of them tend to be pseudo-religions like the Cultural Revolution of Mao Zedung, or share the same beleif in the supernatural like thinking your dead uncle is hanging around to have a few words with you via a long-dead native American called Running Bear.

I would agree that not everything which is facile and intellectually lame has a religious root - simply that anything which has a religious root is more than likely to be facile and intellectually lame.

19. A debate on people who profess no religion

Comment #33542 by Seti on April 20, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Was it just my imagination, or was his Grace of York talking utter twaddle? Perhaps he suffered in the editing...

20. The Human Body as an Evolutionary Patchwork

Comment #31201 by Seti on April 11, 2007 at 10:55 am

And even more sobering to think how incapable we seem to be of living together and protecting this one beautiful jewel of a planet.

21. Praying for the Apocalypse

Comment #30705 by Seti on April 9, 2007 at 12:12 pm

So having made an almighty mess of this world, they think the almighty is going to step in and whisk them off to another one. Wouldn't occur to them for a nano-second to do something to improve this one, would it? No - too difficult for them. And doesn't have the Hollywood-style dramatic arc of their medieval fantasies.

Just one question. WTF does a man who purports to be looking beyond our crass materialistic world need to dye his hair black?

22. U.N. Draft Cites Humans in Recent Climate Shifts

Comment #30004 by Seti on April 6, 2007 at 4:43 am

This climate debate gets very heated (har har!!) There's currently a pattern emerging where global warming is becoming the "establishment" so those who like to think of themselves as a bit cleverer, able to spot a conspiracy a mile off, are now rallying to the other side. One would hope they're thinking hard about it, and really understand the arguements, before shouting their mouths off. One would hope...

Like most people I find the science hard going, so I tend to come at it more from a forensics angle. I like to check out the sources. This guy Kary Mullis, for instance. He is indeed a respectable scientist, a chemist. But his field is genetics, not climatology. I doubt if he'd be too pleased if Stephen Hawking, for example, started pontificating about amino acid sequences. I willingly concede that he knows a great deal about it all than I do, but I have a couple of questions:

1) He says science is driven now by economics, and I'm sure he's right. But I would have thought there's considerably more money on the "not human agency" side. Oil companies and motor companies are not short of a bob or two, and they're usually more than willing to throw it at anyone who will help defend and increase their profits.

2) This thing about warming preceding CO2 increases. That's already been answered by the ICCC people, and indeed the answer is right there in Mullis's arguement. As the planet begins to warm, more CO2 gets sequestered in the oceans and vegetation, hence it seems that the CO2 increase is lagging behind. But surely there's a limit to how much CO2 can be sequestered in a short space of time? We're talking of millions of years' worth of carbon here. If that's released at the rate we're releasing it, won't it rapidly overcome the ability of the planet to absorb it?

3) A lot of the other stuff has been answered by the ICCC people. The apparent temperature dip, for example could be the result of "global dimming" as muck spreads in the upper atmosphere and blocks the sun.

Mullis seems to enjoy controversy. For example, he's questioned the link between HIV and AIDS. Now I don't know whether, or why not, any such research has been done. But I do know that here in the real world there appears to be a fairly significant link between people who are HIV+ and those who develop the illnesses described as AIDS. It may not be the whole story, but I don't think it would be a good idea to wait for the precise details to be fairly sure we need to do something about avoiding the spread of the virus.

He also appears to think these are jokes:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/hadith_humor/hadith_laugh.html

23. Dawkins vs Haggard: the Python Edition

Comment #29919 by Seti on April 5, 2007 at 1:35 pm

That is just brilliant! One of the best I've seen.

24. U.N. Draft Cites Humans in Recent Climate Shifts

Comment #29918 by Seti on April 5, 2007 at 1:32 pm

[quote](9.43 am on 23rd October 4023BCE, I think?)

They claim it was pm, not am actually. [/quote]

Well, he could have finished by 9.43am, but he stopped for a fag.

25. U.N. Draft Cites Humans in Recent Climate Shifts

Comment #29876 by Seti on April 5, 2007 at 9:46 am

This is one of the things which gives such urgency to the religion debate. There are those in the US, particularly, who have power, and who genuinely beleive that there's no need to worry about the planet as Jesus is coming anyway - and even that the more mess we make of it, the sooner he will come to rescue his people (bleurgh!!!) One of these people is a VP of Ford Motor Company, (I think) who is a young-earther. He has said that the carbon equation cannot possibly be right because it didn't take millions of years to sequester the carbon, it was put in place in one go (9.43 am on 23rd October 4023BCE, I think?)

26. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29610 by Seti on April 3, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Here's another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5AMi7v53bw&NR=1
It's really weeerd to see a perfectly ordinary girl sitting there describing the tortures of hell ("flames coming out of your eyes") in the most matter-of-fact voice, then smiling brightly as she says "You're going to hell."

27. The God Debate

Comment #29081 by Seti on April 1, 2007 at 2:31 pm

"You could prove to the satisfaction of every scientist that intercessory prayer works if you set up a simple experiment. Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer; this is within the capacity of God. [Warren is laughing.] I find it interesting that people of faith only tend to pray for conditions that are self-limiting."


When I was a kid I used to pray for a bike. Then I realised God doesn't work like that. So I stole a bike, and prayed for forgiveness. (Not my joke - don't know whose it is!)

28. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27984 by Seti on March 27, 2007 at 1:41 pm

I just watched the first section from the You Tube vid, and they scored a perfect ten:
1) Cited Kent Hovind's "challenge" as proving the scientists don't really have good evidence
2) "It's only a theory"
3) To be a theory it has to be observed and tested
4) Chemists can't create life
5) Evolution has never been repeated in modern times
6) Scientific ideas change
7) The Peppered Moth is the best example evolutionists can claim, and they've used it for forty years
8) Darwin expressed doubts
9) Quoted Darwin out of context
10) The scientists are lying but we're telling you the truth

(I think number ten was the biggest doozie of the lot.) Look guys, I have a stack of marking to do - can you wonder I'm easily distracted?

29. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27964 by Seti on March 27, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Well, that seems pretty conclusive. No new life in the peanut butter MUST mean evolution is a fairy story. I mean, that's just self-evident, isn't it? How could I not have realised that before? Oh, I know, I don't eat peanut butter - I prefer strawberry jam. Do you suppose the same principle applies?

30. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27336 by Seti on March 24, 2007 at 5:37 am

Yet another diatribe on the same lines as many others. What they have in common is an inability to see what religion looks like from the outside (understandably, perhaps) and an assertion that wherever they themselves are located in this cloud of witlessness is in fact the "heart" of their particular dogma. And an indignation that anyone is daring to disrespect them (understandably, perhaps!)

Clarkson, in his eagerness to disassociate himself from the lunatic core of his co-religionists, ends up doing precisely what Harris et al accuse him of. He wants the voice of criticim to remain diffident and soft, to deal politely with the nice liberal types like himself (as he sees himself) and not to pay too much attention to the dragon of Dominionism breathing fire behind him.

Everyone who beleives in the supernatural, whether gods or ghosts or gremlins, feeds that beleif in others. If you can beleive that the position of the stars and planets can tell you what sort of day you are going to have, or that your dog can recognise the ghost of Abraham Lincoln, it's only a very small step to accepting the rest of the guff. From the outside, they all look pretty much the same.

31. 'They Tried To Teach My Baby Science'

Comment #26477 by Seti on March 19, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Oh dear - are you absolutely sure these are fake? (cue little sardonic laugh icon.) I've seen stuff on fundie sites which are at least as bad as that.

32. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26311 by Seti on March 18, 2007 at 4:09 pm

A very long winded way of saying nothing at all.

33. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25907 by Seti on March 15, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Thanks for a more balanced view, Quetzalcoatl - what is needed is a balanced approach, looking at the evidence, not polarisation and fundamentalism.

I found another link which calls into question the probity of the anti-human-agent side:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html

(I daresay others will be able to come up with competing links against the pro-human-agent side, then we can compare them and get even more confused.)

34. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25870 by Seti on March 15, 2007 at 1:59 pm

If you're going to do a meta-analysis, you need to show that the research studies you're analysing were themselves rigorous and reliable in the first place, otherwise your results are going to be as useless as the worst study used. So if 16 of those studies were by Southern Baptist colleges, you would know what to make of the results.

Secondly, you would want to know the details about the circumstances of this intercessionary prayer in each study. Has the placebo effect been accounted for?

Finally, you come to the rule that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Given that there is no overall evidence that intercessionary prayer works under normal real-world circumstances, you would want to see some very clear, indisputable and statistically very significant results.

35. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25633 by Seti on March 14, 2007 at 11:59 am

Thanks for the link to the Independent, Veronique. I clicked another link on that page:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

I think we need to look very carefully at both sides of the debate, but when you find out that people are deliberately misleading you on some things you are justified in being dubious about the other things they are saying.

This kind of programme is riding a wave of "Oh I'm sick of this global warming guff" and people being worried about it - or trying to avert it - having a drastically negative impact on their life style. Also - as seems to be happening on here - as soon as something becomes "established fact" you inevitably have those who like to see themselves as "free thinkers" immediately start to rebel against it. That's fine, so long as they remember the "thinker" part as well as the "free" part, and really try to examine all the evidence presented by both sides.

36. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25466 by Seti on March 13, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Veronique, the programme was only a few days ago. After watching it, I posted on the Ethical Atheist website about it, hoping someone on there would have some info for me. I then went and logged onto some other sites which were discussing it, I think mostly linked from the Channel 4 website, and also googled. That was when, for me, the evidence presented in the programme began to unravel, and I posted about this further on EA.

I'm sorry I can't link you directly to the other sites I searched, but if you take this link you will see what I posted.

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4399

37. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25357 by Seti on March 12, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Besides, it isn't the size of the population which counts, it's the resources they use.

38. Top Scientists Warn of Water Shortages and Disease Linked to Global Warming

Comment #25352 by Seti on March 12, 2007 at 12:56 pm

#25346. I watched that programme on C4, Tattie, and it seemed to present quite a compelling arguement. But since then it's begun to unravel.
1) They claimed they weren't in the pay of the energy companies, but three have been. And one has now said he was duped into taking part.
2) Several of the scientific "evidence" has been refuted or was misleading. They stopped the graph on solar impact at 1980, there is a good explanation for the 1940s cooling period, the medieval warm period is questionable and was not world-wide, better calibration has shown the temperature of the troposphere is more in line with the expectations of the CO2 explanation...

I was also sceptical about the concern for the developing countries which was expressed - sounds much like the crocodile tears of the genetic-modification lobby. And also, there seemed to be a "Don't worry, go on driving your Humvee" agenda behind it all - when we know that even if the CO2 theory is incorrect, pollution is damaging in other ways, and our dependence on oil is causing the kind of world-wide political problems which could make us all wish global warming was all we had to worry about!

39. Blame Abraham

Comment #25116 by Seti on March 10, 2007 at 8:00 am

That was good. I liked the family simile - theists are so fond of absolving their beleif for any responsibility for their wars "They're really territorial disputes, religion is just a minor part of it." No - they are, and always were, about trying to please some imaginary Big Daddy Inna Sky.

Religions have always been about political control. The priests in Ancient Egypt had enormous power - and the wealth that inevitably goes with it. Ankehaton tried to break this by setting up a new religion, the world's first (so far as we know) monotheistic religion - some 500 year before the Kings Hezekiah and Josiah of Judah, together with their priests, turned a minor hermaphrodite wind-god called Yahweh into Top God, and wrote a spurious history of Israel to unite their population and lay claim to the wider territories of the northern kingdom.

One Nation Under God - ring any bells?

40. Darwin's God

Comment #24054 by Seti on March 4, 2007 at 1:53 pm

"Maybe, in fact, belief was the default position for the human mind, something that took no cognitive effort at all." Yes, I've often thought that.

I don't see that there is any need for disagreement between the two positions - the neurological and the adaptationist. The neurological developments may well have occured first, ad-hoc, as by-products of other useful facilities, but then found a niche in an environment which favoured mutually-co-operative groups. That's how evolution works.

Then politics took over - being the one who has a direct line to the boss-deity, whoever it happens to be, is a quick jump to power.

41. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23558 by Seti on March 1, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Sorry, once you've read a few of these they get kinda boring. Couldn't be *rsed to finish it. Was it any good?

42. Faith

Comment #23046 by Seti on February 26, 2007 at 3:08 am

Another of the ironies - among many - is the threat that if we don't do what they want, they'll get violent:

"They want to close the door and ignore religion, but this will provoke a violent religiosity. If someone seeks to deny my existence, I will fight to assert it." Azzim Tamimi, director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought

"If you exile religious communities to the margins, then they will start to speak the words of fire among consenting adults, and the threat to public order and the public arena, I think, will grow and grow." Richard Chartres, Bishop of London


And again the proposition by Grey that by arguing against dogmas, atheists are missing the point: "The core of most religions is not doctrinal. In non-western traditions and even some strands of western monotheism, the spiritual life is not a matter of subscribing to a set of propositions. Its heart is in practice, in ritual, observance and (sometimes) mystical experience . . . When they dissect arguments for the existence of God, atheists parody the rationalistic theologies of western Christianity."

But the whole point is that religions insist that their god exists (trotting out these arguements we have repeatedly shot down) and that therefore not only are they entitled to behave according to their dogma, whatever impact it may have on the rest of us, but that we also have to adhere to elements of it, subsidise it with our taxes, let them teach it to our children.

Let them prove that they are right, or let them butt out. They can carry on their practice, ritual, observance and (sometimes?!) mystical experience in peace. Just let them stop pretending to be victims, and then threatening us with violence!

43. Presentation on Atheism

Comment #22709 by Seti on February 21, 2007 at 4:08 am

Brilliant! Very brave of him, and a very good presentation.

(So I admit it seems a bit mean of me to quibble about him using the Peppered Moth, when the research on it has been discredited.)

44. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #20522 by Seti on February 3, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Hey, I'm going to become an a-timist. Well, when I say become, I'm just using a figure of speech, because "become" implies a future tense, and since there's no such thing as time there cannot possibly be a f

45. FiveLive debate on faith and discrimination

Comment #17266 by Seti on January 12, 2007 at 1:24 pm

If these people could offer us some evidence that there is a God, and that he wants homosexual people to be discriminated against, I might consider going along with them.

However, even by their own terms they are contradicting themselves. Surely, to them, the words they claim were said by Jesus should be the most important. Well, didn't he "come to perfect the law"? So why are they still quoting Leviticus at us (while no doubt wearing their clothes of mixed fibres and still digesting last night's rather pleasant King Prawns) And shouldn't the words of Jesus trump the words of Paul?

So let me see, what did their Jesus character actually say about homosexuality? Um... sweet FA, according to my Bible. Obviously wasn't too bothered about it, then.

46. Secret Life of Brian

Comment #16750 by Seti on January 8, 2007 at 12:45 pm

"Freedom of speech does not end when it offends someone. It should only end when it incites violence."

I don't read that as meaning freedom of speech should end when it incites violence against the speaker - that really WOULD end all freedom. I read it as it should end if the speaker begins to incite violence. No-one should have that right.

Regarding the Life of Brian - I really think that movie, the reaction of the holy-joes, and the skit on Not the Nine O'Clock News did more to advance the cause of secularism than almost anything else in the past fifty years.

47. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16332 by Seti on January 6, 2007 at 6:21 am

He's managed to invert so much of history and linguistics, I can only assume he wrote this standing on his head. It's his take on the meaning of "secularism" that's got me beat. How on earth has he managed to twist this around to mean the primacy of "God's" authority - ie whatever some believer says "God" wants.

But let's not be beastly to the Christians (hmmm... that sounds like the cue for a song.) All they want is the right to tell us how to conduct our private lives, to use our taxes to keep their redundant buildings from falling down, to indoctrinate our children into their sects and to take over our public services so they can pull the rug if we try to disagree with their perjudices. And we have the cheek to expect them, in return, to show us some kind of rational basis for their beleifs. Poor diddums.

48. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16223 by Seti on January 5, 2007 at 4:04 pm

@LDMiller. In Victorian England you could go to prison for being an Atheist, which was regarded as blasphemy. I'm not quite old enough to have witnessed this first hand, but I'm fifty-seven, so knocking on a bit. I've had a lifetime of being expected to politely accept other people's bizarre delusions, even when they insisted that gave them the right to order my life. I'm sick of it - and I'll be as flippant (or immature, cock-sure, whatever) about it as I like.

49. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16208 by Seti on January 5, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Um... why should we flatter them? Maybe in GBS's time a little patience was due, but they've had a long time now to grasp the basics of rational thought. It begins to look like deliberate ignorance.

And WTF should anyone be expected to take theology seriously?

50. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #16086 by Seti on January 4, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Now, if I were a cynic I might suspect this had something to do with whipping up a panic over Iran's nukelar capabilities, so his little pal Bush can go over and righteously smite them (pre-emptively.)