1. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177189 by BigC on May 8, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Good luck with the interview tomorrow Richard.

If you want to be controversial (for a change eh!), you could point out that this man spoke out against medical science, then had to go into hospital to get a pacemaker fitted a few days later.

If that isn't god sending him a message, I don't know what is! (Who's the Frankenstein now hmmm???)

It's a good job the clergymen of the day didn't create a fuss about the development of pacemakers, otherwise he may not be around to share his delightfull insights into embryo research.

I think the advice from previous posters about soundbites and ending with questions for him to answer is great advice.

I won't be up that early but look forward to listening when it's posted on here.

2. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167062 by BigC on April 23, 2008 at 3:19 pm

The New Atheists are typically concerned with defending (at least) the following theses.....


.....Religious education of children is 'child abuse'.

How many times is this going to be misquoted by religious nutjobs?

That's on this page:

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/newatheistgoals.html

3. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #155534 by BigC on April 4, 2008 at 5:13 pm

I haven't read all the comments so apologies if this has been covered already, but the "Wee Free's" as they are known locally are the biggest bunch of intolerant fundamentalist crackpots in the whole of the UK.

This was the church who only a 2-3 years ago protested when they decided to have scheduled flights land on the Scottish islands on a Sunday!

The only reason they behave the way they do is because they live in very remote areas and are cut off from civilisation most of the time.

They are the Scottish equivalent of inbred hillbillies.

Thankfully they are treated like the joke figures that they are by pretty much the rest of the country.

4. The atheist delusion

Comment #144461 by BigC on March 16, 2008 at 5:45 am

I really hope Richard is given the opportunity to respond to this twaddle by the Guardian.

5. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125165 by BigC on February 11, 2008 at 3:21 am

I'd love to see Sir David Attenborough get the job, but I'm guessing that he would also be too old, and may not be seen as "academic" enough.

He has no doubt taught the public more about the natural world than almost anyone else and is one of the most trusted figures amongst the general public in the UK and beyond.

6. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115759 by BigC on January 24, 2008 at 4:11 pm

GSP,

You can't cherry pick because we do not claim that the writing of Darwin, Dawkins or anyone else are infallible.

Christians on the other hand say the the bible is the word of god.

It is clear that whoever wrote the bible thought that the earth was flat.

It is clear that the earth is not flat.

We therefore come to the conclusion that the bible is fallible, and if it is fallible there is no logical reason to believe it any more that any other book written by humans.

But if you point out that Darwin was wrong about something, we say "Yes, well, he was only human, other brilliant thinkers have expanded on his theory and polished up his ideas, that's how science works".

So, in short, you make the rules when you claim the bible is infallible. The only way to put the two books on a level playing foeld is to admir they were bith written by humans with no divine inspiration.

By all means feel free.....

7. The Group Delusion

Comment #110228 by BigC on January 10, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Diacanu,

Judging by discussions on the forum it appears that Richard is planning to write a book for children.

I'm not sure if it will be a general book about science or if it will focus particularly on belief systems and atheism.

8. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106840 by BigC on January 3, 2008 at 2:52 pm

When Richard Dawkins ridicules creationism, Chuck Norris cries.

9. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106218 by BigC on January 2, 2008 at 1:56 pm

I loved this bit:

I urge skeptics to wrestle with the unexamined 'blind faith' on which skepticism is based, and to see how hard it is to justify those beliefs to those who do not share them," he writes. "I also urge believers to wrestle with their personal and culture's objections to the faith. At the end of each process, even if you remain the skeptic or believer you have been, you will hold your own position with both greater clarity and greater humility." Doubt, says Keller, is the cornerstone of faith.

Skepticism is based on "blind faith". Ha!

"wrestle with you personal and culture's objection to faith" I beg your pardon?

"Doubt is the cornerstone of faith". No, lack of doubt is the cornerstone of faith. Logical doubt is the cornerstone of skepticism.

10. Man and God

Comment #103408 by BigC on December 25, 2007 at 1:21 pm

That comments about some of this article bordering on libel are spot on. Particularly:

"Dawkins claims that religion, because of its irrationality, can lead to extreme violence; ergo, faith instruction to the young is worse than paedophile abuse".

He has read: "religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse" and turned it into "faith instruction is worse than paedophelia".

I find it hilarious that people always have to reinterpret what RD says before arguing against it, because they know if thy try to argue against him without skewing his words they have no case.

The old "militant atheist" phrase had reappeared again as well. That's just plain lazy. Using a phrase you've heard somewhere when this subject has been discussed without even stopping to think about what it actually means.

11. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100470 by BigC on December 18, 2007 at 4:58 pm

I like Jeremy Vine and I disagree with the people who think he was being hostile towards Richard.

He always asks the questions that he thinks the listeners will want him to ask. There would have been no point in asking him the sort of questions that we would ask him, so he tries to portray the argument of the faith head because that's the best way to get Richard to articulate his feelings.

It was devil's advocate and nothing more.

12. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99353 by BigC on December 16, 2007 at 12:23 pm

My post didn't appear first time round so I'm posting this again.

The article got me so angry I decided to write a letter to the editor:

Sir,

I was rather bemused by the comments attributed to the AH Trust in Jamie Doward's article on the proposed building of a Christian theme park. I would be very interested to know on what basis this charity ascertains that "Evolution is a falsehood". (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2228201,00.html)

If the charity do indeed have evidence that throws the well established and proven theory of evolution into doubt, then I suggest it would be a whole lot cheaper for them to publish this groundbreaking research on their website and allow other scientists to carry our similar research to back it up (or question it), rather than building a theme park to illustrate their theory.

If they do not have any evidence then I suggest that it is the AH Trust who are pedalling falsehoods and I congratulate the councils who have stood up to them and refused planning permission for this ludicrous plan.

The fact that they have chosen to aim their message at children shows that the only way they can spread their outdated version of Christianity is by targeting people who are too young to have fully developed the process of rational thought. Their message is simply too deluded and in contradiction of modern science to fool anyone else except the most hardcore Christian fundamentalists.

Colin Scott
Edinburgh