1. Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design

Comment #205915 by Macropus on July 7, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Gourmet who fly to London without Hong Kong stopover must be off his noodle!

If you can make sense of any of this you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

2. The Expelled Evolutionist

Comment #189249 by Macropus on June 5, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Sigh,

What on earth is "relative unknowability"?

What is an "unconditional" god of the gaps?

Why "of course, the existence of god can't be proved"? If god exists, why can't it be demonstrated?

Why must theists always descend to mystical mumbo jumbo?

Is it totally unreasonable to expect a god who has created a universe and takes a personal interest in me to make his existence as obvious as my nose, or perhaps just say hello?

3. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #185490 by Macropus on May 27, 2008 at 11:29 pm

At the hearing in the House committee, Caroline Crocker, CEO of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, "said Darwinian evolution is outdated and doesn't explain new findings in science. She also said she had been persecuted in the academic world because of her views," according to the AP.

Isn't it wonderful how religious people use the language of religion to elicit sympathy. Anybody else would have said they'd been criticised in the academic world, but if it's about religion it's persecution.

On the other hand, if she's been saying that Darwinian evolution doesn't explain new findings in science, and if she has not provided good evidence to support this proposition, long may her "persecution" last. Glib statements may satisfy her flock but they deserve all the contempt we can muster.

4. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172683 by Macropus on April 29, 2008 at 10:11 pm

This is a pathetic article. The author seems to want to identify with the "I don't really understand Dawkins" brigade. It seems to be just too hard, and why bother anyway?

This bit was astonishing:

"He doesn't necessarily think religion is the root of all evil, but rather is perhaps only a branch.

The root, strangely enough, is that which first made Dawkins famous -- evolution."

Is he really suggesting that in his opinion evolution is the root of all evil? Shame on the natural world for engaging in it for 3.8 billion years!

5. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123250 by Macropus on February 6, 2008 at 5:22 pm

A very interesting, relaxed and informative interview. At last an interviewer who asks interesting questions:

"Are you not scared of an entirely rational world?"

instead of the usual devil's advocate stuff.

Bring on the rational world I say, and bring on cameramen who can keep a camera still and focussed. A most annoying and distracting feature of the film.

6. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109819 by Macropus on January 9, 2008 at 8:16 pm

What a scream - I loved it. Nice to see RD smiling so much.

7. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76926 by Macropus on October 7, 2007 at 7:49 pm

"Atheism" is quite an old word, various forms of which have probably been around as long as gods have. Although the Concise Oxford defines it as "disbelief in the existence of God", its literal meaning is closer to "without gods", rather than "disbelief". An amoral person, after all, is one who is simply unconcerned with or untroubled by morals rather than one who disbelieves in their existence.

I am an atheist in the literal sense (one without gods). It makes no more sense to me to pronounce a disbelief in gods than it would to pronounce a disbelief in fairies or the flying spaghetti monster. The notion of belief in such things is ridiculous, and an avowal of disbelief scarcely less so. I wish that atheism were as redundant as afairyism but I would happily describe myself as an afairyist the moment fairyists gained enough support to influence governments to replace high school Biology with Toadstool Ergonomics. It is only because the theists form such a large majority in so many countries that we need the term "atheist" at all.

Sam's argument is well made but it left me with the uneasy feeling that we are being bullied by the forces of darkness out of using a word which describes us perfectly, and with which we should be completely comfortable. The measure of our success (alas, probably all too distant) will be the word's natural extinction through lack of use when theism is relegated to the crackpot status it deserves.