1. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182896 by beebhack on May 21, 2008 at 5:26 am

Scientology:

1: Makes truth claims about the world without justification.
2: Has a bizarre creation myth which it is trying to live down.
3: Encourages rich people to buy influence
4: Fears and resists rational enquiry
5: Has degrees, or ranks, of service
6: Promises enlightenment via ritual and observance.
7: Has a venerated dead prophet.
8: Takes offence when criticised.

Yup, it's a religion.

2. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165641 by beebhack on April 22, 2008 at 1:05 am

"Atheist orthodoxy"

What would a heterodox atheist look like?

3. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156251 by beebhack on April 7, 2008 at 7:37 am

Pattern seeker: "As an American, it seems the only things we export these days are wars and religious stupidity."

Oh, I dunno. The new R.E.M album's pretty good....

4. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120094 by beebhack on February 1, 2008 at 8:56 am

Totally right, Benny. And the suppression of barrier contraception, particularly in the developing world, is another good way of safeguarding human dignity.

5. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #118769 by beebhack on January 31, 2008 at 12:50 am

This must not stand. By all means sign the Indy's petition, but also write to your MP/Congressman/appropriate representative, and the FCO (or equivalent). Alert your Trade Union, particularly if you work in the media. Get it on the news agenda (I've only seen it in the Indy this morning) -- again, if you work in the media, get it on the running order. Make some noise, and keep it going.

6. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #117005 by beebhack on January 28, 2008 at 3:05 am

Paula Kirby: "too much pop music, too little discussion, too superficial news coverage, and generally too much NOISE. Too much advertising, too - for non-BBC stations, that is."

In addition to which there's the community service it offers, its coverage of local issues which mean more to its audience than anything else, its willingness to bring subjects -- like this one -- to the attention of a section of the public who would never normally seek it out, the high esteem in which it's held by listeners (according to any thorough survey you care to read), its sometime genius (often matched by horrific banality), its nurturing of talent (Chris Morris, anyone?) ... and so on. It's surely irrational to 'detest' something which gives voice to everything from solid (and occasionally award-winning)journalism, to wacky competitions and NOISE, which irritates me, too, but I reserve my detestation for stuff that really deserves it.

"I think that just about covers it." Guess so.

7. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116789 by beebhack on January 27, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Paula Kirby: "Two thoughts:

1) I detest local radio"

... er... all of it? All the time?

With respect, Paula: why?

8. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115950 by beebhack on January 25, 2008 at 5:53 am

The font looks like Comic Sans.

Yup, it's Hell all right.....

9. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #92263 by beebhack on November 30, 2007 at 6:43 am

There was a similar case in the UK recently -- a young JW mother died after refusing a blood transfusion offered when she suffered serious labour complications, leaving her kids motherless. The BBC's Breakfast programme had a JW spokesman on to explain it. It was a fantastic example of overt respect given to irrationality. You would have thought that the most blisteringly obvious question was 'a life has been wasted; give us evidence that there is any truth whatsoever in the belief that lead to the rejection of evidence-based therapy'. If the BBC was interviewing a politician, say, on a life-and-death decision that's the first question that would be asked. But, no -- the highly-paid journalists fronting the show simply accepted the 'we did it because that's what Jehova tells us in the Bible' line, uncritically. The JW also claimed that the transfusion would not necessarily have saved the woman's life. Well, the clear rejoinder would have been that the faith-driven decision was to rob the doctors of their best chance of saving her life -- but that doddle of an argument wasn't put. I just hate the media, sometimes.

10. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92188 by beebhack on November 30, 2007 at 2:59 am

I completely agree that what people do with their reproductive systems is private and I applaud Dawkins's contention that it's OK to lie about it, in particular circumstances. But Julian Baggini, in The Pig that Wants to be Eaten, posits a really interesting scenario. Very briefly, if a man admits to his partner that he is having cyber-sex with an futuristic online service (no humans involved and I'm not actually sure of the doubtlessly sticky details) can she reasonably take offence? After all, there's no 'other woman' and, technically, no "cheating" in the tabloid sense. The guy is still attentive, loving etc to his flesh-and-blood mate. The answer is, I think, yes, because the hurt is in the turning away from the loving relationship which has been built up over years. In the end, it doesn't have to do with what the guy does with his penis. I think there are difficulties in applying reductive principles to emotions. So, for example, functioning partnerships which countenance 'conditional trust' -- ie the participants expect fidelity, in some spheres but not in others -- are difficult to sustain.

11. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88189 by beebhack on November 15, 2007 at 6:41 am

So we have to compromise our correct use of language because of stupidity?

No.

12. Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

Comment #87427 by beebhack on November 12, 2007 at 5:13 am

"What on earth do his drug-addled ramblings have to say about morality? "

Drug-addled? First I've heard that Joyce was some kind of junkie (tho' he certainly had medical problems). No time to talk in detail about Joyce and morality, but his novels (which I have finished and remained sane, and will again) incessantly question society's norms. Joyce rejected Church-imposed morality, hated catholicism in particular and proclaimed himself an atheist.

13. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84078 by beebhack on November 1, 2007 at 5:49 am

I imagine these guys cause serious hurt to the grieving. But don't they provide a really interesting insight into a certain kind of religious mind? The British doco-maker Louis Theroux did a film on them a while ago and, it transpired, they really, really believe they're being pious and devout; in other words, by their own lights, they're completely justified. As justified as a young man who straps on a fertilizer bomb and gets onto the Piccadilly Line. So, in a perverse way, I'm content for the WBC to continue to do their thing -- advancing the cause of sanity by accident.

14. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #79020 by beebhack on October 15, 2007 at 10:47 pm

Well, if the Bible had the occasional army of monkeys I'd take it much more seriously.... Rowan Williams please take note.

15. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78669 by beebhack on October 14, 2007 at 7:53 am

"The religious believer says that moral integrity, self-introspection, honesty and trust are styles of living that connect with the character of an eternal and free agency, the agency most religions call God. "

That'll fill the pews.....

16. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68363 by beebhack on September 7, 2007 at 2:25 am

"I should have thought the irony in my words would be obvious."

Professor Dawkins shouldn't be surprised at Cornwell's apparent literal-mindedness - which, I suspect, is disingenuous. It plays pretty well to his audience. I think it's clear that, often, religionists have little capacity for decoding irony.

17. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62774 by beebhack on August 11, 2007 at 11:33 am

For more Brooker on psychics, check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTGgxQCcvqY

I bet the RD show isn't quite this funny.... then again....

18. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61641 by beebhack on August 6, 2007 at 4:25 am

I suspect that many here will already know of Dr Ben Goldacre, who regularly shreds woo-woo nonsense of all kinds and is particularly sound on homeopathy:
www.badscience.net

19. Science and fiction

Comment #37325 by beebhack on May 4, 2007 at 5:12 am

Cameron supports faith schools too, just like the current lot (they say 'parents should have a choice' but I suspect that's a smokescreen; Blair and Cameron are both faith-heads, and Gordon Brown is a Son of the Kirk)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6380629.stm

The irritating thing is that faith schools tend to get, on balance, decent results, dangnabit.

It's perplexing that Central Office clearly didn't realise what a profound problem creationism in science lessons is -- hence the need for a double-dose of 'clarification'. It's just not on politicians' radar in the UK, with one or two honourable exceptions.

Can I suggest that everyone here hammers the issue on the doorstep when they're next canvassed, and perhaps raises the issue at hustings?

20. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23371 by beebhack on February 28, 2007 at 8:01 am

Spielberg's planning a film already -- the Holy Family are cloned using samples of their ancient DNA and put on display in a theme park... with terrifying consequences...

21. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #18995 by beebhack on January 24, 2007 at 8:11 am

Sean
Dead right. Such a course could encompass logic, critical thinking, how to form an argument etc. I'm sure if it had been open to me when I was at school it would have had positive implications for other classes, whether sciences or humanities. Of course, it would be anathaema to the religious.

22. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15952 by beebhack on January 4, 2007 at 1:19 am

Down_under

It would be interesting to ask a UK parliamentary candidate (particularly one standing in certain constituencies) whether they would oppose or back the exclusion of particular scientific material from, say, a privately-endowed school on dogmatic grounds. I suspect you wouldn't get a straight answer. I'm afraid our government, for all its pretentions to evidence-based policymaking, understands political realities (as it sees them) and reacts accordingly.

Yes, a recent poll suggested that two out of three questioned thought religion did more harm than good.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1978045,00.html

What's interesting, though, is this line: "A clear majority, 63%, say that they are not religious - including more than half of those who describe themselves as Christian."

It seems to me that there's broad confusion between faith and a set of shared cultural values and that tends to skew answers to the questions set by the pollsters. In addition, I daresay that if you asked the same set whether they believed in 'something' -- feng shui, crystals, astrology etc -- the answers you would get would reveal something quite different. However, it was cheering to read the Guardian on just before Xmas....;-)

23. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15799 by beebhack on January 3, 2007 at 4:46 am

down_under

Ah, but.... in the short time I have lived in my current London home I have been leafletted three times on my way to work (at 6.30am) by prowling Christians. A couple of years ago we had a bunch of fundamentalists burning TV licences outside the BBC building where I work in response to a programme (see here)

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/springer.html

... it was just like Munich in the late 'thirties, I swear. And we have a government which actively encourages 'faith' schools and toadies to 'faith' communities. Soooo... not so damn rational after all, perhaps. Interestingly, there was a doco on a couple of days ago about the making of Life of Brian. It recalled the attempts made to block it by Mary Whitehouse and the Festival of Light and asked whether it would be possible to make it in today's climate. Interesting question.

24. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15687 by beebhack on January 2, 2007 at 4:19 am

I'm sitting at work with those New Year blues .... and tears of laughter streaming down my face. Thank you for posting it. And thank you, USA, for selflessly laying down your dignity in order to make it possible.

Maybe it'll be a Happy New(ton) year after all ...

25. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13683 by beebhack on December 19, 2006 at 5:01 am

As a former colleague I've defended Liddle here before -- largely because he was a good editor who managed to be quite amusing along the way. Unfortunately last night's programme displays the kind of debate he routinely -- and rightly -- used to scorn. Liddle has the kind of intelligence and engagement which should make him the rationalist's rationalist -- yet, as someone here has already pointed out, he chooses to adopt different personas, presumably for showbiz purposes. I think this is the case for many commentators, some of them quite influential.

26. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #11927 by beebhack on December 8, 2006 at 8:23 am

Solid ad hominem tactics; I used to work with Liddle (actually, a very amusing and mostly rational guy) and this doesn't surprise me. He fronted a reasonable doco a few months ago attacking the so-called Vardy schools in the North of England (chokker with Creationists). Shame he's such a media tart, now.