1. Messiah

Comment #54600 by John Phillips on July 8, 2007 at 4:16 am

Recent research appears to show under certain conditions that parts of the brain react to subliminal images.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/notaware

Of course, how relevant this may be to the techniques that Derren Brown uses, or says he uses, is another matter.

2. Trio to rock against religion

Comment #52986 by John Phillips on June 28, 2007 at 11:38 pm

Paul: Actually, if you reread my post that is exactly what I said. I.e. give children the chance to see the myriad contradictions in each religion and left to their own they will soon see it for the BS it is. When I did comparative religion as a teenager it was looking at the different beliefs, histories and philosophies of the worlds major religions, i.e. compare them. It was the first I had ever really thought about the subject, even though I was notionally a xtian, and soon saw it for the irrational rubbish it was. It is the main reason that I have been an atheist now for 40+ years, ironically it happened in a CofW (Anglican) school.

3. Trio to rock against religion

Comment #52453 by John Phillips on June 27, 2007 at 4:05 am

PaulEmecz: You do amuse me, you accuse them of sweeping generalisations and then make one yourself with your statement

If they get Dr Dawkins out there, people won't be encouraged to read religious texts from other religions!

All this does is show that you haven't actually listened to or read much by RD, have you. For if you had you would have heard him say repeatedly that he believes that everybody should be taught both the history of religions and comparative religion and then left to make up their own minds on what to believe, or not. His thinking being, and one I share, that if everybody studied the history of religions and saw for themselves how each claims to be the true religion yet are all filled with a myriad contradictions, that the majority of children would come to the obvious conclusion that it is all bunk. Perhaps this is the reason that very few religious people, irrespective of faith, allow the teaching of a genuine comparative religion class to their children. At least not beyond the most shallow of such examinations, and we all know why that is.

4. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #52389 by John Phillips on June 27, 2007 at 12:32 am

But Paul, who designed the designer, and who then designed the designer who designed the designer, and so on? See the problem with the argument from design or incredulity? Ultimately it is a circular argument that can not be resolved, as, I repeat, positing a designer simply begs the question who designed the designer.

But, conversely, the one thing we do know with certainty, is that however incredulous or improbable it might appear, the probability of us being here is actually equal to one, as we are here. As for anything before the big bang, good scientists are quite happy to say that they don't know and may never know, but that won't stop the search for an answer. At the end of the day, that is the difference between a scientist and a priest, the priest thinks he already knows the answer, i.e. goddidit. Whereas the good scientist admits when he doesn't know and the joy of science is the search to know what we don't know.

5. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #49132 by John Phillips on June 10, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Only a religious person could take a work of fiction that seriously...


Krister

ROTFLMAO

6. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47195 by John Phillips on June 3, 2007 at 12:28 pm

JesusH: I don't know of a single atheist I would consider an apologist for islam. In fact, all I know are quite the opposite, seeing any faith based belief or dogma, even political ones, as inherently dangerous, especially for any not part of the in group. Though I do concur with those who have said that organising atheists is like herding cats and I am very definitely one of those cats :). For the atheists I have known over the last 45+ years who have always been open about their atheism, irrespective of their situation, have always struck me as being very individualistic and independent and not the type to allow themselves to be easily organised.

7. The Atheism FAQ with Richard Dawkins

Comment #47184 by John Phillips on June 3, 2007 at 11:10 am

reggiedixon: Unfortunately yes, the problem is that few people are taught critical thinking skills or what the scientific method actually is or what is meant by true scepticism, often confusing it with cynicism. This can be seen in the number of people who believe in all the various conspiracy theories, such as the 9/11 one, often refusing to accept the real evidence because it conflicts with either what they want to believe or because of cynicism about government or authority in general.

A similar attitude can be seen with those who believe in quackery such as homoeopathy or the so called dangers of Wifi. Here however the authority figure they are cynical about is science/technology. Of course, it isn't helped by those who exploit them and become that particular quackery's 'priest class', usually for financial gain or power of some kind. What all these exploiters do have in common, whether religious or other forms of quackery, is that they all exploit the need many people have for certainty in a seemingly increasingly uncertain world by offering a fake certainty. Such as the charlatan with the meter in the Panorama wifi program, who actually has a vested financial interest in claiming wifi dangerous as he is selling 'anti radiation' products.

8. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46870 by John Phillips on June 2, 2007 at 3:05 am

James_The_Doubter: RD doesn't try to prove that god doesn't exist, he simply looks at the evidence for one and finds none. Much as we could look at the evidence for the tooth fairy, Father Xmas, Zeus or a myriad other gods I imagine you are an atheist about. However, and here I have the same attitude as him, as scientists we can never prove a negative so must accept that there is a very small possibility (a vanishingly small one on the evidence so far, i.e. none) that one day we will find evidence for a god. In which case, as scientists, we will look at it and if it meets the type of standards a scientist expects of evidence we will accept that there is a god. Now some will argue that as we allow for however infinitesimally small a possibility that there could be a god then we should really call ourselves agnostics. However, due to the total lack of evidence so far, we see the possibility of there being a god as being so infinitesimally small as to be effectively so close to zero as to make no difference and so atheist is actually a more accurate label. To put it another way, if you wanted to split hairs, you could call us probability atheists, i.e. considering the total lack of evidence so far there is an overwhelming probability that there is no god. No belief or faith required, simply an analysis of the non existent evidence.

9. I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

Comment #46474 by John Phillips on May 31, 2007 at 11:54 am

I like the Onion and a spot of levity is always a welcome relief to some of the hideousness reported here. But while this is spot on in one sense, its not up to their usual standard, such as the one about Gravity, which was freaking brilliant. The problem the Onion and much of fundie parody has, as others have commented, is that genuine fundie output, such as Kirk and Ray and their banana, is often orders of magnitude funnier than any parody. In fact, fundamentalism itself, for all the threat it poses secularism, is often its own best parody.

10. Sam Harris Strikes Back

Comment #46083 by John Phillips on May 30, 2007 at 6:49 am

kevlaw: The point is, in my opinion anyway, that Hedges uses his argument about his type of god not being the one that is the problem in an attempt to negate any criticism of god in general. Not to mention the oft used tactic of attacking the man, i.e. Sam, rather than the argument, but that is a common tactic of the religite, both moderate and extremist. The problem is that if all believers believed in the same 'invisible feel good something that gives my life meaning on a personal level' one, that his god appears to be, then there would be no problem. However, as RD, Sam and others have pointed out time and time again, that is not the god that the majority believe in, neither is it the god believed in or used by the the crazies to justify their actions. Unfortunately, whether Hedges god is the same as the one causing the problem, the fact that he believes in something without evidence justifies the very same belief without evidence of the more troublesome kind of god belief. For if the seemingly rational person can claim that it is OK to believe without evidence in the irrational then he can't in all honesty complain when others believe in a more problematic and even more irrational god. I.e. he can't say his irrational belief without evidence is justified, but others belief isn't, because theirs exhibits a greater degree of irrationality than his. Not unless we accept that all that matters is the degree of irrationality involved. Unfortunately, once you accept that any level of irrational belief is justified then you can't argue against those who simply display, from his point of view, a greater degree of irrationality, at least not without losing all claims to logical consistency. We atheists on the other hand, simply say that all belief without evidence is irrational and all that differs between Hedges, the average believer or the extremist is the degree of irrationality, at least as long as any of them cling to a god concept.

To try and be fair to Hedges, for I have seen him talk on many issues, such as dominionism, and he makes a lot of sense, I believe, that like Prof. Winston, that much of their belief is almost like a Linus blanket. I.e. as much a cultural artefact as an actual belief in a god, but it is such a strong one that they find it impossible to let go of the actual god label in fear of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and so resort to various theodrivel and emotional arguments in support of their particular 'god' concept. Unfortunately, it leaves them in the position of trying to defend the indefensible and to take up logically untenable positions and criticise anyone with the temerity not to give religion the reverence expected they expect for it. If instead of attacking the atheist or non believer they took on the fundies with the same enthusiasm then we could make common cause with them. Unfortunately, while they waste their time attacking us, the extremists are taking over the ground they should want to occupy and in the process, negate most everything they the moderates say in defence of belief in the irrational. While the extremist may be seen even by the moderate as more irrational than them, at least the extremists are more logically consistent in their irrationality, however much of an oxymoron that may sound.


Roger Stanyard: While I haven't seen the TV channels you speak of as I don't have SKY, I have been told about them by friends and like you I agree that this is as much if not more so a political battle than a religious one. This was clearly seen in the recent battle over the anti prejudice legislation before the UK Parliament. Where fundies used all kinds of so called moral arguments based on their interpretation of scripture to try and justify their bigotry and cause the bill to fail. Thankfully, even with the help of some strong friends in the UK cabinet, the best they could achieve was a delay to the actual implementation of the bill. Similarly, we have had the battle with the UK's arm of the Discovery Institute, Truth In Science (what an ironic name), over their attempts to sneak in IDiotism into the science class. Fortunately, even though there are a few in both houses that support them, over all, the campaign against them worked and even strengthened our hand against them with a redrafting of the rules on what is considered acceptable in the science classroom, further highlighting what is and isn't science. Of course, we must remain vigilant, as from past experience they never give up, simply changing their tactics as necessary and our position isn't helped by the government's support for faith based schools.

11. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44450 by John Phillips on May 24, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Wrought in particular, excellent post, I enjoyed every word, more than I can say about the garbage you were responding to. For that was a real painful convoluted read, especially when if read carefully it actually appears to repudiate the god concept as held by the average believer in the Abrahamic religions.

How many more ways can these religites find to argue that us atheist are not talking about their particular god. Then again, with the evidence from the multitude of schisms in the various religions, perhaps it is no real surprise that not even they appear to know what they are talking about. It reminds me of the computer acronym: GIGO or garbage garbage in, garbage out, i.e. if you start from garbage premise then the result must also be garbage, however much you try to dress it up in theodrivel.

12. Gay row US Anglicans miss summit

Comment #44128 by John Phillips on May 23, 2007 at 11:05 am

A large factor in this is the strength nowadays of the African wing of the church which still condemns homosexuality unreservedly and has threatened to split from the main Anglican church over it before. But hey, when you base your belief on the irrational you will always be a hostage to fortune, i.e. others of an even more irrational stance gaining power.

13. Cult leader sparks Sikh riots with 'guru' stunt

Comment #44051 by John Phillips on May 23, 2007 at 8:23 am

This peaceful religion carries the knife as a symbol of the great warriors they claim they are/were. Sikhism is a warrior religion and doesn't protest peacefully as we discovered last year when a sikh woman wrote a play about sex abuse and murder in a temple which was shown in a theatre in Birmingham, UK. The theatre was literally besieged by sikhs and and in the end the play was cancelled, partly because the police couldn't guarantee safety to the actors or the theatregoers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm

14. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43284 by John Phillips on May 21, 2007 at 4:06 am

While the loss of religion wouldn't necessary lead to a better world, it would at least be one less irrational differentiation between groups.

What annoys me most about these type of articles is the constant failure to understand that any belief based on faith makes it impossible to use reason to dissuade those who use faith to justify the worst kind of excesses. Especially when the very moderates arguing against the excesses make a virtue of having faith, only arguing over interpretation and application of the irrational.

15. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43255 by John Phillips on May 21, 2007 at 2:53 am

Reason might well have shown us — did, in fact, show us — that there is a living intelligence deep down in everything on earth and in the skies above.

This is completely the wrong way round. The need for a reason made early humans posit many causes and possible intelligence behind the world they saw and experienced in the early days of humanities existence on this planet. But now, reason itself, through the scientific method, shows us that everything that was then attributed to a possible intelligence, is at the very least unfounded, as the only evidence for this 'intelligence' exists only in the minds of the deluded religites.

Isn't it amazing how many different kinds of gods these religites have and each one never the one any particular writer is criticising. Their definitions of their gods are even more varied and fluid than their morality.

16. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #43194 by John Phillips on May 20, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Devolved. Epeeist and myself have already highlighted how the site in question gives a very selective and inaccurate outlook simply on the history of science. Similarly, others on this site, and not just in this thread, have given you a wealth of information to show how wrong the site is in other areas so I really can't be bothered to waste any more time on you as I have a life beyond trying to deal with quote mining, cut and paste brain dead with closed minds. And yes, that is a quite deliberate ad hominem as you have not proven worthy of anything better but I will give you the opportunity for the last word as I am done with you once and for all.

17. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42848 by John Phillips on May 20, 2007 at 1:24 am

Devolved. You missed the point, for while I don't expect more from you than acknowledgement about xtianity's role in suppressing discovery in the past, the point in my P.S. in my previous post is as relevant today as it was when Synesisus was moved to write about it all those years ago. I.e. the religious, including xtian creationists, IDiots and YEC are trying to sneak religious belief into science classes under the guise of a so called intelligent designer. The tactic includes trying to revise our books so it fits their dogma. Such as the religiously motivated school boards in the US trying to give ID equal status to the Theory of Evolution in the science classroom. When the truth is that not a single ID or creationist proposal stands up to any genuine scrutiny so can not be considered anywhere near on par with the Theory of Evolution and thus only deserves attention, if then, in a philosophy or religious education class.

And please, if you want your arguments to appear to have some merit, stop using sites such as creationontheweb as your source of information. For at best the site's 'facts' are a joke and at worst it is pure falsehood leavened with delusion and you do yourself no favours quoting or referring to it. The more you rely on such sites for your information the more you prove the dictum I have already quoted to you on other threads, to paraphrase, 'It is better to keep quiet and simply be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and prove it beyond doubt'.

18. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42832 by John Phillips on May 20, 2007 at 12:19 am

Newton30: Thanks, for after seeing V's post about the Twin Towers conspiracy I thought I was going to have to write another long winded explanation of why it wasn't as they try to claim in the video but you saved me the bother. The other point I never see explained by those claiming a controlled explosion is why didn't those entering the building for work the morning of the disaster not see all the cabling runs or preparation work that would be required. For while I am not a demolition explosive expert, I do have friends who are and who have let me observe them work. Such as a much smaller but similarly designed building to one of the towers. A twelve story building took a week to prepare by carefully pre-weakening the main structural supports to ensure it fell as they wanted it to and with nearly another another week to lay the explosives and fusing sequence correctly. If the task was done purely with explosives without pre-weakening the main structural supports, the amount of explosives would generally be an order of magnitude greater at least and require far more work actually laying. Either way, with the amount of explosives required the required cabling runs alone would have been impossible to conceal from ordinary users of the building let alone the actual explosives.

Though sadly, we have the same lack of understanding of the basics of both engineering and aircraft design with those who claim that a missile rather than a jet hit the pentagon because of the small size of the hole. Failing to understand, that engines apart, a commercial aircraft is a very flimsy structure consisting basically of only a millimetres thick aluminium shell and with everything else also optimised for minimal weight and the pentagon building was anything but flimsy.

The BBC did a series a while back on various conspiracy theories including this one. In it they used some of the material quoted here to explain why some people believed that it was a conspiracy. However, they then went on to ask independent investigators and actual witnesses, including an independent academic who modelled the pentagon strike and showed with his model that only an aircraft could have caused the internal and external pattern of damage that resulted. Of course, believers, rather than trying to refute his evidence attacked the man, implying that he been got at. In the end, for those with a genuinely open mind the evidence presented in the BBC program refuted a conspiracy. Unfortunately, conspiracy theory believers have much in common with religious believers, i.e. start with an a priori assumption and fit the evidence to suit, either ignoring anything that doesn't fit their case, claim the evidence has been tampered with and/or claim that those who refute their claims with real evidence are in league with the 'devil', i.e. the conspirators.

Of course, one should always keep an open mind, but not so open that ones brains fall out.

19. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #42823 by John Phillips on May 19, 2007 at 10:33 pm

Devolved, you keep living up to your username, I will give you that. Using the creationontheweb site as your source for the history of science is not a very smart idea as the first recognisable scientists predate xtianity by some significant stretch of time. In fact, it is largely the xtians churches fault that we had the dark ages from around 600-700 or so AD onward, as it tried to wrest control of what was allowed knowledge into its own hands. One of its most famous, or rather infamous acts, at around 400AD being the destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the murder of Hypatia, one of the greatest thinkers of her day, murdered by xtians mainly because she was a woman and a pagan. Even though other more enlightened xtians regarded her with great respect for her learning, irrespective of the fact that she was a pagan. Even further back we have such as those Epeeist mentioned in his post who either all predate xtianity or were muslim scholars. In fact, one of the worst results of the xtian crusades against the muslim world was the effective forcing of a dark age on islamic scholars, from which the muslim world has yet to recover from.

Additionally, since even before the beginning of the dark ages, xtians have largely been the enemies of science and scientists, seeing its discoveries as a threat to their mythology and your creationism is this fear writ large. The enlightenment happened in spite of the church and not because of it when the discoveries made by numerous 'scientists' of the time became too strong for the church to refute any longer. That and the threat to the roman church from various schisms.

I assume you think you are being clever or intelligent quoting from and using sites such as creationontheweb as your source for information. Unfortunately, it only highlights your ignorance to the actual facts about another subject as you already have proved over your ignorance about evolution. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of your delusion.

P.S. This is a rather interesting letter, written to Hypatia by a former pupil of hers, Synesisus of Cyrene, then bishop of Ptolomais. Complaining about 'people who begin to undertake philosophy after failing at some other career': "Their philosophy consists in a very simple formula, that of calling God to witness, as Plato did, whenever they deny anything or whenever they assert anything. A shadow would surpass these men in uttering anything to the point; but their pretensions are extraordinary." The reason for his complaint was that he had been accused by such of keeping unrevised copies of books in his library. I.e. books that hadn't been revised so as to support xtian dogma. Sound familiar devolved? It should as it largely mirrors the general xtian attitude to scientific knowledge all down the ages and as some are still trying to do with their arguments about IDiotism and YEC.

20. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42808 by John Phillips on May 19, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Roll: Having had numerous friends die at the hands of drunk drivers over the years I would certainly report any friend of mine who insisted on driving while drunk and all my real friends know my stance on the matter. Any other action on my part simply makes me as culpable as any friend of mine who injured or killed someone while drunk driving as I don't just owe those I call friends a duty of care. To paraphrase and to possibly put it a bit strongly perhaps, "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". That includes something you apparently see as trivial, or at least less important than friendship. Personally I would argue who is the real friend here as friendship to me sometimes means being painfully honest with my friends, as they are with me if necessary, especially over something so potentially lethal as drunk driving.

21. Dobson, Armageddon, and Foreign Policy

Comment #42806 by John Phillips on May 19, 2007 at 7:01 pm

Does this idiot live in some kind of alternate reality that is a parody of the known universe? If he doesn't I find it really terrifying considering his position.

22. Brazil's Indians Offended by Pope Comments

Comment #42762 by John Phillips on May 19, 2007 at 11:59 am

I know the popes remarks were sick but I must say thank you to all, as some of the replies here have been pure comedy gold and my eyes are still filled with tears from laughing so much.

Especially BornAtheist's post #25, that is a definite 11 out of 10 :)

23. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42715 by John Phillips on May 19, 2007 at 6:36 am

The more I read such dross from theist apologists the more I come to believe that religious belief not only stunts brain development but causes regression. I truly wonder how someone can write such doublethink without giggling inanely the whole time, for I could not. Then again, after hearing what the pope had to say this week about his belief that the South American natives were grateful for the benefits the catholic church brought them, benefits such as genocide, it is obvious that they appear to live in some alternate reality where black is white, night is day and evil is good. The real evil being that the rest of us are forced to suffer the consequences of sharing a world ruined by their irrationality.

24. The Ethics of Hell

Comment #40482 by John Phillips on May 14, 2007 at 10:40 am

Y. Bother, only if you or Brian proscribe what not wasting it must mean. Knowing Brian from his posts here and youtube, I would imagine he simply means to make the most of this one life and not waste time worrying about a non existent hell. How the individual defines not wasting it is up to them, not Brian, me or you. Except that both Brian and I would consider it a waste to worry about a non existent hell, irrespective of whatever else the individual would choose to do with their life.

25. Christians and atheists start a calmer dialogue

Comment #40424 by John Phillips on May 14, 2007 at 9:23 am

Hi Billy, long time no see :) I think this is a religious variation on a theme, akin to some, even other atheists, asking us to be gentler in our criticisms of religion in the hope that we might catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar. I.e. Henderson is looking for an equivalent gentler or different way of deluding the unwary as his previous method was failing. Though to be fair to him, he is open about wanting to find ways to get more bums on seats but it appears that he has manged to con an atheist into helping him find a way through the lure of dialogue. Or am I just being overly cynical :)

26. Pope: God Will Punish Drug Dealers

Comment #40415 by John Phillips on May 14, 2007 at 9:11 am

Pi Guy: How very true as can be seen even today by the number of tribes in various parts of the world who still use various mind altering substances as part of their religious rituals. Often combined with fasting or other forms of deprivation, such as sleep, to enhance the affect.

27. Christians and atheists start a calmer dialogue

Comment #40380 by John Phillips on May 14, 2007 at 8:00 am

It appears to me that Mehta is looking for something to believe in while it seems, to me at least, that Henderson is just using him and the neopagans as a market research tool to find more succesful ways to delude more people.

28. True faith is greater than the ranters

Comment #40324 by John Phillips on May 14, 2007 at 6:09 am

FXR wrote: Organised religionism maintained by ordinary people is the compost without which the fundamentalism cannot grow.

Well said, a very apt metaphor.

29. Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins

Comment #40263 by John Phillips on May 14, 2007 at 3:57 am

It appears that the religites are writing RD's death bed conversion while he is still alive.

It no longer surprises me how easily religites can ignore one of their main commandments, i.e. thou shalt not bear false witness. It wouldn't be quite so ironic if it wasn't for the religites always telling us that their god is needed to give us a basis for morality.

30. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39486 by John Phillips on May 10, 2007 at 9:40 pm

I'm sorry but I couldn't watch more than a couple of minutes and even then I think I lost about 50
IQ points. It is so true when they say that fundamentalism is indistinguishable from its parody.

31. A Bunch of Monkeys

Comment #39447 by John Phillips on May 10, 2007 at 4:58 pm

I think those criticising it for using the term monkey instead of ape are missing the point. Which is that it was the creationists themselves, such as during the Stopes trial, who originally used the term monkey instead of ape. I assume this was done, at least from what I have read and seen of subsequent use of the term by them, as a means of making it appear even more farcical to their core audience. Thus our use of the term in this context is even more ironic than if we used the correct term of ape.

32. Atheist offers to send letters post-Rapture

Comment #38846 by John Phillips on May 9, 2007 at 9:58 am

jonecc: Well if he does, I can give him a very, very long list of people who are guaranteed to be around after the rature :)

33. Atheist offers to send letters post-Rapture

Comment #38835 by John Phillips on May 9, 2007 at 9:24 am

I wonder if he needs an UK branch :)

34. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38802 by John Phillips on May 9, 2007 at 8:07 am

Peacebeuponme: One of the reasons I was particularly open about my atheism is that when volunteering with some religious organisations I got very tired of the automatic assumption that as I was a volunteer I had to be a good little xtian. Strangely, the more religious the believer, or at least the more religious they thought themselves to be, and I am not talking about the organisation's preacher or priest, the harder they found it to understand why as an atheist I volunteered at all. I.e. most simply couldn't seem to understand that doing the work itself was reward and pleasure enough.

35. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #38794 by John Phillips on May 9, 2007 at 7:51 am

Bremas: Does he have the faintest idea how ridiculous he sounds, i.e. my orbiting tea pot is real but yours isn't. Its not panto season yet is it?

36. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38767 by John Phillips on May 9, 2007 at 6:31 am

Peacebeuponme: Actually, having worked in the voluntary sector, such as night shelters, day centres and outreach as well as other types of NGOs, for the last twenty plus years the majority of the people who gave up their time to work in secular based organisations were largely non believers and by some margin.

Of course, the religious often had their equivalents, but even in the religious based ones, you would be surprised how many of the volunteers were actually non believers. However, when it comes to head counts, in the religious based organisations, all volunteers tend to be counted as religious even when they are not.

I used to volunteer in one organisation run by a particular xtian group and was often complimented by people who didn't know me, but who had watched me working, on what a good xtian example I was. At this, great hilarity would ensue, as those who knew me well, especially the preacher in charge of the organisation, would take almost a wicked pleasure in explaining that I was a card carrying atheist and proud of it. It often caused the complimenter some consternation and they were often left lost for words, but I took it in the spirit intended and usually thanked them while explaining, gently but firmly, that I personally didn't need a god to tell me what was 'good' to do. I know it opened a few eyes about us 'godless' atheist and even helped a few others 'come out' over the time I was there. Of course, my stance also annoyed some of his more conservatively religious members, but the preacher's attitude was that I had a skill-set they needed and that was all that mattered.

37. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #38755 by John Phillips on May 9, 2007 at 5:43 am

What I find interesting, and actually a bit sad, about much of the criticism of Hitchens stance on the war is the number of ad hominems. Such as statements like 'he must have hit the bottle too hard when thinking about the war and sobered up to write about atheism'. So if he writes something you agree with he must be sober but if he takes a stance you disagree with, irrespective of whether you have actually read his reasons for that stance or not, he must be drunk. Please, like we ask of the fundies and the religites all the time, attack the argument not the man, assuming you can that is. For attacking the man rather than the argument is the type of tactic we have all come to expect from the religites and their ilk, for haven't we seen a plethora of such articles directed at RD himself rather than at the arguments presented in the book.

38. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38665 by John Phillips on May 8, 2007 at 10:47 pm

"Better God-fearing than sneering"

unless you are talking about atheists of course, in which case you can apparently be both "God-fearing and sneering". We mustn't be mean to the poor xtians just because we don't understand them.

Unfortunately, while some of us may not understand them, we understand only too well the damage some of them can cause all of us by trying to impose their fluid morality on all. Does their never ending drivel know no bounds?

39. Interview with Pierre Rehov

Comment #37915 by John Phillips on May 6, 2007 at 8:41 am

What I find interesting is that a culture that largely denigrates women apparently finds its ultimate reward partly in the arms of multitudes of those same women.

Additionally, all those many acts deemed vile, corrupt, debauched etc. when done in our earthly form are deemed appropriate reward for those brain washed loons who kill others in furtherance of their self perceived religious aims.

I think Mr. Spock would have had a comment or two about the illogicality of it all and I would add one about the hypocrisy of it all.

40. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37129 by John Phillips on May 3, 2007 at 12:46 pm

oao: I agree with you that islam is the elephant in the room, and a very big one it is as well and like you I believe that many in the west, particularly in Europe, appear unaware of the very real danger it poses. However, it should be understood that RD made this talk for a western audience in 2002 on the back of what he saw as the dangerous influence of the xtian right on those in power in the US. Similarly, while he does mention islam in his book, it also was meant as more of a wake up call to the west about its own elephant in the room, i.e. fundamentalist xtianity. Perhaps if we can deal with our own elephant we will be in a better position to deal with the other one. Especially when you consider that in the US a muslim, simply because he has 'faith' is considered more trustworthy than an atheist.

41. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #37030 by John Phillips on May 3, 2007 at 7:53 am

Coel: I suppose it depends on whether you are an uptight asshole or not, personally I saw the different username immediately and saw it for what it was and had a quite chuckle. To be honest, for all his faults :) I bet David (weefree) has a quiet chuckle as well when he sees it, if only at the cheek of it.

And before you ask, no, I am not responsible for it. It is not my style as I tend to be a lot more open about such, whether meant in jest or seriously.

42. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #37012 by John Phillips on May 3, 2007 at 6:23 am

Coel: Actually if you look at the user name displayed it is obviously someone having some fun at weefree's expense as the user name is wefree, notice the missing 'e'.


Weefree: Unfortunately, I have yet to see you supply any actual evidence beyond various reiterations of 'I believe because' but no actual evidence. A hint for you here, purely subjective evidence doesn't count as objective evidence.

As to your point about atheist evolutionists claiming that there may be a religious 'gene' in some people. Yes there has been some speculation to that affect, however, assuming there is one, it still needs to be 'triggered' and this is where indoctrination comes in. The difference between religious indoctrination and your claimed atheist indoctrination is that the former is active, i.e. the child is repeatedly told and is witness to religious dogma, while the latter is inactive or passive, i.e. is told nothing. For I know plenty of atheist parents and not one of them teaches their child that there is no god. In fact, the only time I have ever heard god or lack of mentioned is when a child brings it up themselves. Normally as a result of someone external to the family bringing up the 'god' subject with the child. The usual answer has been along the lines of we, i.e. the parents, don't believe in a god or gods because we can't find any evidence in support of any, but some people do so it is up to you, i.e. the child, to make up your own mind when you have looked at the subject and the evidence for yourself. Please tell me how you will misrepresent that as indoctrination.

43. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #37007 by John Phillips on May 3, 2007 at 5:53 am

SharrieG: Your quote question is covered in the [Comments Posting Guidelines] link above this window.

Your point about the bishops being in the house of lords is very pertinent. For while they have generally been less egregious in their use of their power than the fundies would be, many of them have still tried to use that power to block or campaign against various kind of anti discrimination laws, based purely on their religions attitude to certain members of society, such as gays. As others have already answered in this thread, even ignoring the dangers of justifying any beliefs system based on no evidence, the number of supporters claimed by the religious in or with some power is part of the danger when they use their religious belief to promote laws that affect believers and non believers alike.

Additionally, you state that in your opinion the pope is more conservative than fundamentalist. However, the line between conservatism and fundamentalist in this situation is a very narrow one. For instance, looking at the catholic church's stance on condom use in AIDS infested Africa, I would consider its stance more fundamentalist than conservative, at least if you look at the result of that stance, i.e. unnecessary deaths. Added to that is the pope's recent statements with regards to evolution, where ever so subtly he professes support in one breath while apparently moving closer to the creationist camp in another, a very big step backward for the church as a whole.

44. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #36683 by John Phillips on May 2, 2007 at 2:41 am

SharrieG: The problem is that too many treat the bible as literal truth and many of them tend to be the dangerous ones. Unfortunately, moderate xtians cherry picking the 'good' bits of the bible and ignoring its less savoury aspects still base their faith on nothing with any evidence to support it. Thus the moderate is effectively enabling the fundies by justifying faith without evidence and is the reason that in many ways atheists regard moderates as equally dangerous as fundies, only for different reasons. Even more so when the moderate is rarely prepared to stand up and argue against the fundies interpretation. Generally, preferring instead to attack the atheist for having the temerity to question faith without evidence. If the moderate took back the ground from the fundy and made them largely irrelevant to people other than themselves, then we would be happy to let you keep your personal faith without evidence. Until then, we have to loudly and repeatedly question all faiths based on no evidence for the danger it represents to all of us in todays world.

45. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36648 by John Phillips on May 1, 2007 at 11:03 pm

weefree said:

Indeed. People are not born atheists. They have to be indoctrinated that way.

Now now David, that is very disingenuous of you as you well know. For what people believe is largely a function of parental and societal influence. I.e. in muslim countries most grow up to be muslims, surprise surprise, in xtian countries the children generally grow up to be xtians, even bigger surprise.

The actual indoctrination is by the parents and society while the child is still in the trust adults without question phase. Now my parents were what would probably be described as agnostic but were quite happy for me to go to Sunday school and chapel with the rest of my friends and I suppose I loosely thought of myself as a xtian but it wasn't something I thought about at that time, being only a child. However, I actually became an atheist through thinking about it, ironically, initially in RE classes in a church of Wales school that actually taught us and encouraged us to think for ourselves. No indoctrination needed, only a rational examination and study of the so called facts of various religious beliefs. Further examination since, has only highlighted how irrational and ridiculous they all are.

And please, don't keep us waiting any longer, for we are all still waiting for you evidence for your god's existence. Come, don't disappoint us as you seem to have plenty to say about other matters, especially if you can find an opportunity to misrepresent or insult us in some way. In which case, I would have thought the ultimate insult to us atheists, from your point of view at least, would be to present unassailable evidence for you god's existence.

46. Convention ends with Satan and immigrants

Comment #36627 by John Phillips on May 1, 2007 at 7:20 pm

I know I shouldn't but I can't stop laughing after reading that. Somebody please put my mind at ease and assure me that this is a parody and not reality. Otherwise, we are doomed, doomed I say. Next they'll be burning witches again.

47. Just 120 Trillion Miles From Home

Comment #36614 by John Phillips on May 1, 2007 at 6:26 pm

But most of the problems facing human travel to planets such as this one are already largely financial and political in nature. For we already have technologies that with suitable development resources would take us up to significant fractions of light speed and we also know the answers for most of the other problems mentioned here. If the moon race had been a genuine attempt to reach it as a genuine stepping off point then we would probably be at or past that stage already. Unfortunately, the moon race was simply a who can piss higher contest between the US and the USSR and once won there was little public or political will to expend any more resources.

48. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #36591 by John Phillips on May 1, 2007 at 4:44 pm

And the response of Christians (and of poets and painters and musicians) is, time and again: 'If you don't talk in terms of spirit or of God, how well can you say you have understood or entered into the richness and complexity of the world?'

If he spent a fraction of the time he wastes on justifying and rationalising his belief system in understanding the wonders science has opened up for us then he would not need to make such a stupid statement. Goddidit is such an empty and meaningless answer as well as demeaning to all humanity compared to the answers and understanding that science has already and continues to give us for the real wonders of our universe. If religious belief had given us even a fraction of that knowledge it might have some validity, but seeing it has given us absolutely nothing, then need I say more.


This is getting extremely boring, more so called refutation based largely on semantics or arguing the definition of words rather than the content. Sims: I also like your 'argument from etymology' line, as here it is very apt.

As others have noted, in some ways I do have more respect for the fundies than these moderate believers, who apparently re-jig their irrational justification every few decades as we learn more and more about the natural world. At least with the fundies you know where you are as their beliefs, though equally irrational, are at least held and based on their belief in the inerrancy of their scriptures. Which at least has a certain irrational logic, if that is not an oxymoron :). However, the moderates keep shifting the goal posts in defining a xtian by cherry picking to suit and in the process allow any nutter to do the same, with equal justification.

Additionally, their justification for their belief is sounding more and more like POMO ramblings than even POMO itself. In fact, the religious relativism apparently required to rationalise moderate belief is sounding increasingly like a parody of POMO. I.e. they use a lot of big words but they don't actually convey any information or meaning.

Though, where he did make sense, what appeared strangest was that he appeared to be agreeing with much of what RD had written in TGD with regards to the negatives of belief but didn't like the way he said it or that he was dissing his god. Or did I misunderstand and it was case of damning with faint praise or did I just get confused with his POMO like ramblings. Help, he even has me rambling now, it must be contagious.

49. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #35999 by John Phillips on April 29, 2007 at 8:08 pm

I can't decide which is funnier, these vidiots or the various posts here. Of course, the major difference is that the posters are trying for funny, these vidiots are not, or at least I assume they are not. Then again, as others have said, true creationism is almost impossible to differentiate from its parody. Either way, keep it up people, I needed a good laugh :)

50. Darwin nearly failed to evolve in print

Comment #35986 by John Phillips on April 29, 2007 at 6:00 pm

gcdavis: Gibberish is gibberish, irrespective of the language used and was based on his flawed analogies and lack of apparent understanding of biological processes, especially for someone who claims to have medical qualifications. Though being an Indian, he probably has a better grasp of English than most native English speakers I know. At least if my experience over many years of dealing with professional people from the sub-continent is any guide.