1. The stone is cast

Comment #41385 by Simon Quick on May 16, 2007 at 4:13 am

This man puts me in mind of a book I am currently reading by Prof Robert I Sutton of Standford University, namely. 'The No Asshole Rule', with an slightly amended sub-title, 'Building a Civilised World ( statt, workplace ) and Surviving One that Isn't'!
He, as Sutton says, is the sort of person that makes you want to say, 'what an asshole'!

2. Faith

Comment #23506 by Simon Quick on March 1, 2007 at 7:19 am

Letter to Guardain Unlimited 27.Feb07

Sir
In response to your article by Stuart Jefferies, Faith.
The issue is determined by two fundamental facts, the first being that most theists define their identity - either to themselves and or others - by way of their religion and or beliefs. The second fact, consequential on the first, is that such means of identification prompts in its adherents the wish for a special status or particular respect.
The opposite is true of atheists who neither define their identity by way of their 'lack of belief' nor demand any special privileges as a result. The outcome being, that no matter how diplomatically an atheist couches their opinion on the beliefs of a theist, the theist will take it as a personal attack; because it is seen as a negation of their personal identity on the one hand and disrespectful of their beliefs on the other. Teach children to believe that they are firstly a Muslim, or Christian, or Jew and you have instilled in them a near permanent bigotry that perpetuates the above; and that is what Dawkins means by 'child abuse'.

3. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21637 by Simon Quick on February 10, 2007 at 9:08 am

Response posted to thetimesonline 10.Feb07

Sir,
Two points:

I find McGrath's affront to Dawkin's supposed black and white attitude remarkably naïve, given that his church, and his fellow believers in scriptural doctrine the world over, have and continue to take an identical stance; bluntly put, our old book is right and everyone else's isn't.

I must also question Prof McGrath's own intellectual honesty, given his statement: "the hallmark of intelligence is not whether one believes in god or not, but the quality of the processes that underlie one's beliefs". Knowing, as we do, that there exists no evidence to support the existence of a god, the only 'indication' of any such possibility is our inability to prove a god does not exist, suggest to me that McGrath as a scientist or philosopher is not examining his own beliefs with any great rigor and the 'processes that underlie his beliefs' are to say the least erroneous.

4. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #20964 by Simon Quick on February 7, 2007 at 6:11 am

Comment sent to CNN Ms Zahn Thanks to Joe OD for link.

Dear Ms Zahn

With the exception of Smith the participants in the debate following 'Beliefs under attack' were incredulous mindnumbing stereotypical Americans who did nothing to better their own, or the image of CNN and the US in the world. Can I be so bold as to suggest a follow up programme entitled 'the fine art of golf' and debate the subject without any golfers. Sounds nonsensical? Well that is this programme's format.
This programme was yet another demonstration that bigotry is fine in the name of a god but not in the name of no god.
Do yourself CNN's and America's image a favour think balanced, open and factually accurate; more like Smith please

Yours sincerely
Simon Quick

5. Dispatches: Undercover Mosque

Comment #18275 by Simon Quick on January 19, 2007 at 9:03 am

I would propose that we move the Doomsday Clock a few more minutes closer to 12.00.

This video goes to show that the comments of Sam Harris, that we should not tolerate religious moderation, are correct.
Britains write to your MPs to get these people before the courts and stop this hyprocrasy.

6. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16514 by Simon Quick on January 7, 2007 at 4:06 am

Letter to the Guardian 07. Jan 07

Sir

Now that Michael Gersten and David Frum have left their posts can I suggest that Tobias Jones apply for the position of speech writer for George W. Bush. His clear emphasis on delivery and not on content, his over-emotive use of adjectives and and adverbs to preach the fear of fear bear all the hallmarks of the two infamous characters' writings.
Like George W, when Jones does try to address content his comments are fundamentally flawed. e.g. Dealers in religion: Tony Blair, the Queen, plus members of the House of Lords; all public pushers of this soft-opiate. Like George W he is of course economic with the truth. 'Christianity did dissent from state secularism', in exactly the same way as the Ayatollahs did so in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan, by simply replacing it with a higher form of totalitarianism. Mr Jones would also, I am sure, be happy if 'the believers' in southern Somalia would 'take the public lead again'. They certainly 'understand commandments that the state', albeit interim, 'don't seem to understand'.

Yours

7. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16513 by Simon Quick on January 7, 2007 at 3:33 am

Letter to the Wall Street Journal 07. Jan 07.

Mr Schulman has clearly 'taken with both horns' the chance of expressing his opinions and they are just that, opinions. No proof, evidence, or substatiation, just heresay and platitudes, appealing to the mutual back-slapping brigade who lack the intellectual honesty and moral courage to say they have been deluded.
If this is shallow and doesn't make you feel intelligent Mr Schulman, so be it. Because religions, as you well understand but will not admit, have, actually, no depth and no intellectual breadth. All that we need to know about religion we know, all that there is to know about religion we know. As such, how much more condescending, Mr Schulman, can someone be than to preach such false prophet elitism to the already converted?

To all
Can I recommend that as well as responding here, we all take the chance to reply directly to the media outlet concerned.

8. Atheists challenge the religious right

Comment #16141 by Simon Quick on January 4, 2007 at 11:44 pm

MelM's suggested video is an excellent example of reason against blind faith.
Watch the reply of the 'man in the hat', the body language speaks for itself, shame we don't know what he is saying, but his gestures speak for themselves.

All power to this lady! Thanks MelM for this link.

9. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15561 by Simon Quick on January 1, 2007 at 9:55 am

All

Can I recommend that you go to:

http://economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8407261

This article is one of a number written in this week's The Economist all about the brain and has some fasinating information about personality, thought and emotions. Also a better read than the NY Times.

10. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #14871 by Simon Quick on December 26, 2006 at 7:32 am

Letter to the Times, 26. Dec 06

Dear God!

That's an expletive note, not a salutation. I was of the opinion that you were meant to be omniscient and not, jealous self-centred, illogical, self-pretentious, and a child-like name caller. Your criticism of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion smacks of sour-grapes god, at being found out to be a fake. To pick up on just a few of your 'in-omniscient' ramblings:

You seem to forget that in science hundreds of book are written with theories base on previous models; new books build on, or dispute previous books and our knowledge advances. On the other hand, hundreds of books are written about you, all discuss the same thing, in different ways, and finally the your version takes precedent, knowledge stagnates.
Thus, Eagleton's observation is actually a good one. One only needs one book to know you god - assuming you are one of the 4 book-based gods - all the others are the equivalent of your marketing and merchandising campaign; 'the making of', so to say.

God you are so inconsistent! You dismiss the use of simple logic - A is B and B is C therefore A is C - rather disparagingly against Dawkins, regarding 'pulp fiction and the gospels' etc. Yet a few paragraphs later, use the same logic to justify your own argument when discussing Hitler and Stalin. Hitler and Stalin were atheists, atheists are pathological despots therefore Hitler and Stalin are pathological despots. It was not like that god. Hitler and Stalin did what they did, not because they were atheists, but because they were pathological despots. I might ask you god, where the hell were you at this time? Taking the moral high ground no doubt!

I could go on god, but suffice to say its clear why you take such an affront; religion is about pathological depot figures like you, god. Spirituality on the other hand, which many, Dawkins included, accept requires no god, despot or otherwise. God, like Hitler and Stalin before you, you've had your time, it's over, accept it. In fact, go now before you do what they did and make a complete fool of yourself.

Merry Mithras-mas god, yours sincerely

Simon Quick

11. What I found out about God

Comment #14664 by Simon Quick on December 24, 2006 at 2:28 am

It is actually somewhat irrelevant what Humphreys says in this article one must read or listen to what was said by his guests.

To save reading the whole set of transcripts I have prepared a critique of the programmes plus commentary and posted it on my blog at the following address:

http://simonquick.blogspot.com/2006/12/humphreys-in-search-of-god.html

It is worth spending some time reading and re-reading the actual words of these three with out the interference of their voices, intonation or other expressives attributes distracting from the actual content. Which, needless to say, is very thin!

12. The end of one law for all?

Comment #10792 by Simon Quick on November 29, 2006 at 8:26 am

Please note that, although my first reaction on reading the headline was very much the same as most, further reading showed it to be rather misleading. The issues in hand here are not criminal matters they are, as I understand it, civil disputes they are not even legal matters. As such they are matters commonly dealt with by arbitration or mediation in the UK and other countries very successfully and without reference to the courts. All matters that have a legal impact or are criminal matters must be put before the police or the courts.

This said, the procedures of commerical mediation demand total impartiality on the part of the mediator; and, by definition, the parties define the objective criteria with which to assess the merits or otherwise of the party's own suggested proposals. No reference is usually made to laws - other than proposals must be legal - or religious norms. The parties NOT the mediator take the decision.
And this is where is Ms Balchin is correct, ( though not her use of the word mediation ) if a party in such proceedings is seen as 'a lessor' the result is a in fact a 'kangaroo court', particularly as the decision being taken by a quasi-judge.

This is what I fear is happening here, it is not mediation but a judgmental process based on the laws of religions whose values may well out of line with the common law of the land.
For the sake of fairness there is no reason why such disputes cannot be settled by professional commercial or family mediators or arbitrators without resroting to using a religious process, value system or similar.