Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by AdrianB


1. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167402 by AdrianB on April 24, 2008 at 2:15 am

136. Comment #167274 by Goldy on April 23, 2008 at 8:02 pm

marv78rpm
We had an eruv story not too long ago. You can get around all these silly God-given laws by putting some twine or raising some posts around an area, call it an eruv and bingo - God doesn't know!


If anything shows religion for the sheer stupidity that it is, it's hard to think of something better than the eruv.

On the one hand we have a group of religious folk at the most extreme end. People that cannot turn light switches off at the weekend, people that must really fear god.

On the other hand, they think they can fool him.

2. Judge orders La. school district to stop Bible giveaways

Comment #167371 by AdrianB on April 24, 2008 at 1:09 am

Every week, at my school in the UK, I would go (through choice I'm ashamed to say, or was it?) to Bible Studies evening class. I would be about 15/16 at the time.

We would read passages from the Bible, sing songs, eat some bread and cheese, and even (naughty) have a glass of red wine.

Each week we would sing along to "Read the Bible, the words inside are true and reliable .... etc," with the assistant school chaplain on guitar. I can still hear the song in my head now, was the popularity of that song.

The thing is, even though we were in Bible Study classes, singing that song, we actually never ever read the Bible. Not properly anyway, it was always just the same old warm fluffy passages.

It wasn't until I left school that I did actually read the book cover to cover. I would have been about 18 at the time, and that was the beginning of the end for my believing days.

3. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #166829 by AdrianB on April 23, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Anybody concerned about this is advised to spend as much time in cold water as possible.

4. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166301 by AdrianB on April 23, 2008 at 5:29 am

To be fair to Winston, I really do think that he is a nice decent chap. Like Dawkins, I also think he doesn't believe in 90% of the religious BS as well.

All I think he is doing is trying to prove to everybody that he is a nice guy, and tread a narrow middle ground to please everybody.

Trouble is, the narrow ground is so narrow it is in fact invisible. I don't think it would take too much more nonsense from theists telling him that he is evil to make the penny drop for him.

Good luck Robert.

5. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166231 by AdrianB on April 23, 2008 at 2:56 am

Remember, all the different gods seem quite specific on the evils of worshipping other gods. They all seem to get quite pissed about that.

The best wager then, if one is purely playing the best odds, must be to remain neutral and not worship any god at all for fear of really pissing off a different one. The worst that can happen if you don't worship any god, and it turns out there is one, is to be called a "fool". Not so bad eh?

6. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166216 by AdrianB on April 23, 2008 at 2:31 am

3. Comment #166156 by Mbee on April 22, 2008 at 10:16 pm

"You cannot lose by professing belief in God - if He does not exist you lose nothing, and if He does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife."

Can't lose? You live your life as a lie, then when you die you don't even know that you were wrong!

If you don't believe in god then you live your life based on the evidence available and when you die, if by some remote chance you were wrong, at least you would know it!


It puzzles me that people actually believe they can't lose.

Gosh these people must be easy meat to all sorts of scams. "Care to buy this perpetual energy machine sir? Free energy for life sir." "Double glazing madam, 90% reduction in your energy costs." I mean, what have these people to lose by taking up such wonderful offers?

Of course most people are not so gullible not to realise that there is an upfront cost in these wonderful offers, but many do fail to recognise that religions do come with costs.

Wasting time on prayer instead of action, and worship instead of fun, are all costs. Being told who to vote for, what you can put in your mouth, what you can wear, what you can do with your body etc etc bloody etc are all costs.

Yes you can certainly lose, and many people are.

:(

7. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165466 by AdrianB on April 21, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Your question of the Bird Flu. I agree, I want the scientists to use their ideas of MICRO-evolution to try and trace the origin of the infection, not Macro-evolution. I assume you know the difference?
In common with most people that understand the sheer simplicity and beauty of evolution, I find it puzzling why creationists need to invent a Sorities Paradox to cloud their understanding. Why do they feel the theory needs extra complication with this micro or macro nonsense?

Anyway (and I can't believe I'm actually getting involved in this debate), if you really want actual in-your-face evidence for evolution, instead of looking at the evidence over geological time (which seems a little to hard for you), and look at the evidence here and now over geological distance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Edit: Bugger somebody just pipped me to it with mention of Sorities Paradox!

8. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165226 by AdrianB on April 21, 2008 at 8:31 am

Aren't they just like a herd of deluded football fans singing?

"Oh, it's Mecca City, Mecca City is great. It's by far the best city, the world has ever seen ....etc"

9. Lungless frog discovered in Borneo

Comment #158686 by AdrianB on April 11, 2008 at 12:30 am

5. Comment #158604 by sarah95 on April 10, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Very interesting. No lungs! Epidermal gas exchange is such a thrilling concept! I wonder what that feels like...

However, a bit of an evolutionary misnomer there:

The aquatic frog has evolved backwards, re-acquiring a primordial trait, David Bickford of the National University of Singapore and colleagues reported.

Things don't necessarily always evolve in a predetermined direction. Not backwards or forwards necessarily, but simply changing.
Correct me if I'm wrong?

Yes it is a bit sloppy.

This sort of language will always play into the hands of the Gumby type creationist that asks, "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Gumby can now add "scientists think we will evolve back into monkeys."

.

10. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #157440 by AdrianB on April 9, 2008 at 5:18 am

My wife bought me the "Darwin Awards" book for Xmas.

On reading this thread I just want to apologise for laughing at it. I now know the error of my wicked ways, sorry.

11. The Atheist Next Door

Comment #156894 by AdrianB on April 8, 2008 at 11:22 am

Interesting that they suggest atheists have become more outspoken in response to the increasing power of the religious right.

Perhaps the penny will drop, that in their attempt to monopolise "everything" the religious right will one day end up with "nothing."

12. In search of the God particle

Comment #156871 by AdrianB on April 8, 2008 at 10:53 am

Comment #156855 by hungarianelephant

I'm with you on this. I think the future survival of our species is so dependant on discoveries that may arise from experiments like this, that even if, unlikely as it may be, something did go wrong, my last thoughts would be "well it was worth a try."

13. In search of the God particle

Comment #156759 by AdrianB on April 8, 2008 at 8:27 am

Here is The Times article of the same story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3701645.ece

This article allows comments, and the amount of rubbish posted by religious wingnuts is staggering.

14. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156599 by AdrianB on April 8, 2008 at 2:33 am

Come on folks, admit it this is funny. To have some religious bigot shoot themselves in the foot so obviously, thereby placing their nakedness in our headlights, is great sport for us atheists. We have not had so much fun since the CNN discussion programme with Karen Hunter, Debbie Schlussel.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,621,Panel-discussion-on-atheism-where-no-atheists-are-included,CNN

Most of what Monique Davis says is so predictable, but one thing puzzles me:

I don't know what you have against God, but some of us don't have much against him.
She does have something against him then? Shocking!

:)

15. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154692 by AdrianB on April 3, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Didn't I read somewhere that Paula was joining Richard in these Inverness lectures?

If that's the case, no wonder David Robertson's ego feels a bit bruised.

16. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149618 by AdrianB on March 26, 2008 at 2:19 am

320. Comment #149508 by Skeptigirl on March 25, 2008 at 7:20 pm

I just want to say thanks for posting that. It was a nice summary.

17. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149219 by AdrianB on March 25, 2008 at 9:21 am

Did anybody else watch the BBC4 "The Frost Report" repeats/tribute last night?

It actually had a comedy sketch about the lack of imagination in television. The sketch was David Frost as a newsreader, with his every word in pictures, finally cutting to a picture of a Lord, then a privy, and then a seal.

So I'm guessing that The Frost Report is the source of the 'Lord Privy Seal' joke.

18. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145244 by AdrianB on March 17, 2008 at 11:56 am

Hitchens recalls murderous fanatics in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and the Levant, and his blood-chilling encounters with a childhood schoolmarm.

Blood-chilling encounters with a childhood schoolmarm? WTF! I mean, has he actually read the book? Or does talking shit just come naturally?

Honestly, I had to stop reading after that. I'll have a cup of tea and try again later.

.

19. 'Anonymous' takes anti-Scientology to the streets

Comment #144689 by AdrianB on March 16, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Secret Video: The Scientologists Celebrate The Birthday Of The Prophet, Tom Cruise

http://gawker.com/5003867/secret-video-the-scientologists-celebrate-the-birthday-of-the-prophet-tom-cruise

LOL

20. Special Guest: Richard Dawkins

Comment #142669 by AdrianB on March 13, 2008 at 1:50 am

It challenge any neutral to listen to Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor and conclude that atheists are .... angry, militant, aggressive etc.

The FFRF podcast is one that I never miss, along with Point Of Enquiry, The Atheist Experience, The Non-Prophets and now Atheist Talk.

21. Please Call Earth. We Still Haven't Found You.

Comment #137701 by AdrianB on March 3, 2008 at 11:13 am

By coincidence my DVD of the film "Contact" arrived on Saturday, and I watched it last night. It's only the second time I've watched this film, thinking I was a bit unimpressed by it when I first saw it.

What was I thinking? What a fantastic film!

I've been thinking about the film all day, and then this article appears.

22. Dispatches: Holy Offensive

Comment #135430 by AdrianB on February 29, 2008 at 12:33 am

As a place to crash...any suggestions?
I would stay in The Premier Inn next door to Waterloo/London Eye.

http://www.premierinn.com/pti/home.do

Not so convinient for Eurostar now it has moved, but central (next to London Eye) and not too expensive.

I would just use it as a base to sample the place, don't plan too much, just get out and walk, visit the West End a museum and a few pubs. Maybe book one of those DuckTour things that leaves across the road, we really enjoyed it and it's a quick way to see everything.

http://www.londonducktours.co.uk

After you've seen everything in a couple of hours, ticked everything off as it were, you can then enjoy the limited time you've got.


.

23. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133363 by AdrianB on February 26, 2008 at 6:07 am

drcancerman - you can call me shallow if you like, but I am very interested in the "naked brazilian celebrity having sex on the beach" if you would be so kind to provide details.

:)

24. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133280 by AdrianB on February 26, 2008 at 2:43 am

Authorities in Brazil, China, Iran, Morocco, Myanmar, Syria and Thailand have blocked access to YouTube in the last few years, according to Reporters Without Borders, a press advocacy organization.

The countries acted after concluding that YouTube videos were subversive (China), immoral (Iran), embarrassing to well-known figures (Brazil) or critical of a country's king (Thailand), the group said.

Governments also have sought to regulate user-supplied Internet content to stymie allegations that they abuse human rights, the group said.

If, as many have suggested here, it is futile to try and block sites, these countries really need to look to Afghanistan to see how the Internet can be controlled.

Death to anybody that looks at sites the authorities don't like should do the trick.

25. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128803 by AdrianB on February 18, 2008 at 1:59 am

2. Comment #128578 by mdowe on February 17, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I'm still baffled how a tradition that treats half the human race as forced labour and sex-slaves has managed to endure so long. A testament to the power of childhood indoctrination backed up with terror and brutality I guess.


Have you not seen the birth rates of women that are "sex-slaves" compared to that of women that have freedoms?

This alone is enough to explain how it endures so long.

Even here in the UK, where you would imagine Muslim women to have significantly more freedoms, official statistics indicate that Muslim women have 4.7 children compared with an average (including Muslim women) of 1.8.

Great article by the way.

26. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126015 by AdrianB on February 12, 2008 at 11:35 am

Thanks for posting the link to those cartoons Ole. I do like the one by Rasmus Sand Hoyer.

:)

27. Sharia fiasco

Comment #125129 by AdrianB on February 11, 2008 at 2:27 am

57. Comment #124970 by Goldy on February 10, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Which is why I have a problem with Condell making the distinction between "Islamic Culture" and "the indigenous culture".

And trust me, there can be a pretty fine line between the two. Quite a few pubs near me in Bradford that had a clientele of Muslim persuation. Indeed, it was like being in a pub in Pakistan, if you can picture it - all Urdu and Pakistani dress.
They're not all rabid jihadis - and even the religious ones like the occassional drinky-poo.
You later say that you live in NZ, so I wonder if you have a rose-tinted view of the Bradford you left behind?

25 years ago I would have agreed with you. One of my best friends was at Bradford Uni back then, and I spent many a weekend drinking in those pubs. There were a few Muslim friends within his group that went drinking with us, and you saw a number of Muslims in the pubs. To be honest I never gave their religion or colour a thought. I knew nothing about Islam, and they didn't wear the uniform. Their sense of humour and aspirations seemed to be just the same as mine, with the only difference being they would laugh when England lost at cricket.

Bradford seems a very different place now. Despite the fact that there a vastly more Muslims living there, I will not see a single one in a pub on the odd occasion I go back to visit my friend.

28. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125100 by AdrianB on February 11, 2008 at 1:05 am

By the way, has anyone come across any audio/video of the 21/1/08 Hitchens debate with Jay Richards, "moderated" by Ben Stein?

29. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117918 by AdrianB on January 30, 2008 at 1:39 am

I posted similar to this over on the forum, but having watched this I have to mention this again.

I continue to be totally appalled by the total hypocrisy and poison that comes forth from the lips of Ann Widdecombe. A woman who obviously converted to Catholicism on realising that the Anglican Church was too nice.

Her hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality is well known, and it is quite stark to see the difference between the horrible Ann Widdecombe and nice John Barrowman.

A few days after this programme John Barrowman was on the Jonathan Ross radio programme, and he was talking about his sexuality and how he had decided to be very public about his homosexuality. Talking about the downside of this, he mentioned how he had met Ann Widdecombe during the filming of this show and it was obvious that she was disgusted at his very existence.

Her hypocrisy is obvious. She claims that homosexuality is an abomination based on The Bible. At the same time ignoring her own unique sexuality.

She is a self-confessed virgin. I cannot imagine her having any sort of sexuality at all. Now isn't this just as odd, or normal, as homosexuality?

I would never claim to have any objections to somebody's sexuality, whether opposite sex, same sex, no sex or even bicycle! But if you are going to spout poisonous nonsense about homosexuals based on scripture, you'd better be scripturally squeaky clean yourself.

Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. (1 Timothy 2:15)
So what are the chances of a old barren, man hating, self proclaimed virgin like Ann Widdecombe got of going to heaven then?

30. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117494 by AdrianB on January 29, 2008 at 1:16 am

Just being a supercilious atheist, that article made me chuckle and snicker.

But it is totally irrelevant what we think.

Some time ago I posted what a Catholic friend of mine thinks of Richard Dawkins. That he is a "horrible man" that has accused her of "paedophilia".

WTF!!

(I checked this with her again recently, and she really does think that Dawkins thinks she is a paedophile! She takes her children to church, that is child abuse, and paedophilia is child abuse. Simple.)

Well that's what her church has told her, and she believes it. She really is one of the nicest people I know, but her church is "protecting" her from Dawkins. She will never ever read THAT book.

But that is not good enough. The Church knows that their congregations are aware of the "new-atheists" books, and that people are actually reading them and agreeing with them. What about that? This is where the second line of "ostrich defence" kicks in. Acknowledge that the "new-atheists" books exist, but point to all the fleas. It doesn't matter what a rational person thinks of the arguments, that we might chuckle and snicker, it only matters what the church tells its flock what the arguments are. Church flocks all over the world will think that Vox Day's book does indeed trounce the "new-atheists" books' (that they will never read) arguments. That is all that is important.

31. US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

Comment #115919 by AdrianB on January 25, 2008 at 3:29 am

I can highly recommend watching the Richard Dimbleby Lecture from last year, which was given by Dr. J. Craig Venter and titled "A DNA-Driven World."

Part 1 of 5 is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLMYPlH8V2Y

.

32. Islam in Europe

Comment #114984 by AdrianB on January 23, 2008 at 11:22 am

al-rawandi,

I always feel very uncomfortable discussing this with people. It is quite common for them to throw in the "race" card, so I always have to stress that it's religion I'm uncomfortable with.

The religious meme, particularly the Islam one, demands big families for obvious reasons. It wouldn't surprise me if religion wanted to ban contraception and abortion ... oops! :)

I happen to think that controlling birth rates is essential to the very survival of humanity, so it upsets me to see religious leaders encouraging the opposite, and politicians rewarding the opposite.

How do we counteract?

I really don't know. Education, education, education I guess. It will take many generations to erode the primitive and/or religious desire to have big families, by which time it might be too late.

What I would like to see happen in the short term is the political financial rewards for having large families, and at a young age. Take a stroll over to a "chav" bulletin board and you will discover a wealth of discussions that indicate that there are enormous numbers of people willing to breed for benefits. Scary.


.

33. Islam in Europe

Comment #114970 by AdrianB on January 23, 2008 at 10:42 am

7. Comment #114532 by technogogo on January 22, 2008 at 11:25 am

Class, pure class. As always.

I do wonder if the forward projections about birthrates are genuine cause for concern in the longer term. I wonder if 2nd and 3rd generation muslims, raised in Europe, will care much for the more extreme variety of islam. Isn't there some evidence that these future generations will become more european? Of course this depends on us being able to prevent the creation of isolated and enclosed sections of muslims within Europe. That is something that deserve political focus.

Take at look at the latest figures from The Office Of National Statistics, Birth Statistics for 2005.

click here

Page 56
Table 9.5 Total ferility rates: country of birth of mother, 1991 and 2001

Total for United Kingdom 1.8 in 1991 and 1.6 in 2001
Mothers of Pakistani origin 4.8 in 1991 and 4.7 in 2001

The birth rates are key, just as the compound interest rates are key to your pension fund. And just as Joe Public does not understand compound interest rates until it is too late, he will suffer the same fate with birth rates. Simple arithmetic tells us that we will have a Muslim majority in less than 50 years.

Common sense informs us that we should control birth rates, unfortunately Islam (and other religions) demands the opposite.

.

34. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113938 by AdrianB on January 21, 2008 at 3:31 am

11. Comment #113689 by bertie wooster on January 20, 2008 at 10:39 am

I fear the day when my daughter or hers would be forced to wear a veil, or sit on a separate area on a bus. If we in "the West" continue to bow to Islam for fear of "offending" its adherents, such a day may not be far off. Perhaps we should start by commemorating "Salman Rushdie Day" and the Dutch. "Theo Van Gogh Day". Islam and Muslims are the greatest hypocrites.

On the one hand they enjoy far greater rights in Europe than they could ever dream about in their countries of origin, yet seek to impose their Islamic shackles on the rest of us, with European governments bending over backwards to accomodate their every whim.

With their higher birth rates and uncontrolled immigration, they are now obtaining far too much influence on timid, spineless politicians, who pander to them in order to cling to power.

The secular world needs brave leaders, yet I cannot see a Churchill in our midst, only Chamberlains, or worst still, Galloways.

It should be noted that in the UK, parents of Pakistani origin (which is the best I can do for guessing Muslim birth rates) are having on average 4.7 children, whilst for the rest it is somewhat less than the average of 1.8.

Just a few more years before the majority that practice a faith is Muslim, and a couple of generations before the absolute majority is Muslim. So you are correct to worry about your grandchildren.

I just want to add, "Aaaarrrggghhh, I'm sounding more like a BNP supporter ever day. Stop it, stop it, stop it!!"

35. Honour Killings

Comment #113912 by AdrianB on January 21, 2008 at 2:03 am

If I may, I would like to write a few lines in defence of "binge drinking"

I know certain youngsters take this to excess these days, and I accept that for a minority it is a problem. But since I am partial to a bit of "binge drinking" on the odd occasion myself, I object quite strongly to the idea promoted by intolerant religious bigots that the odd 6 pints on a Friday night is as wrong as "racism …incivility, gun and knife crimes".

In fact my occasional "binge drinking" is a social bonding session with my friends that, from my experiences actually increases "civility" between the vast majority of participants.

Rather than being a modern day problem as often claimed, I would argue that this is an Anglo-Saxton tradition that goes back many generations. I have seen my parents and grandparents in this happy state, and have heard many stories about my great-grandfather. The UK has always had some of the longest and most stressful working lives, and there is nothing better than to lower ones inhibitions and have a bit of banter at the weekend.

You only had to watch Bruce Parry in his excellent BBC documentary "Tribe" to see that most happy and successful tribes exhibit similar behaviour. In fact I feel quite sorry for the Muslims that are restricted from this natural behaviour, just as they are restricted from other natural behaviours.

36. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109446 by AdrianB on January 9, 2008 at 4:37 am

The Bible provides the moral rule, which is timeless and unambigious:

"In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.(Matt.7:12)

It always boils down to "The Golden Rule" which I think is the greatest human invention.

But of course, we had already invented the idea before Jesus suggested it, and it's nowhere to be found in the 10 commandments.

37. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109416 by AdrianB on January 9, 2008 at 3:09 am

I want to than all the contributors to this thread, but particularly Steve Zara for writing what I have intrinsically known but not seen in put so eloquently.

I don't have a problem with god, or people that believe in god. For me it is just an interesting philosophical/scientific question that given our current understanding should remain a topic of discussion over a pint of ale in the pub. Nothing to fall out over, just a difference of opinion.

Atheism has no doctrines or moral guidelines, just has theism has no doctrines or moral guidelines.

I would suggest that if the only question was one of atheism or theism then the world would be a much happier place. The real problem is religion, or the particular brand of atheism or theism that comes with dogma and rules. It just so happens that religion usually comes with a belief in a god or gods. Perhaps in light of this, the main thrust of Richard Dawkins' book is interesting, while that of Hitchens' book more important? (I'm not saying better RD!)

If people want to believe in god let them. If it makes them feel good, fine. As long as it stays out of politics and other people's lives, let them get on with it. I think we've had an interesting time this last few years debating the question of god, and I've enjoyed it. But surely it is now time to concentrate on the important issue, to make sure we retain our Western secular freedoms, which are under attack like never before in my parent's lifetime.

As for ideas how to promote the book? Free "Root Of All Evil" dvds? There's still very few people that have seen this in the US.

38. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109195 by AdrianB on January 8, 2008 at 2:52 pm

robotaholic - you should buy your dad the book!

(Good luck in that department.)

39. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109192 by AdrianB on January 8, 2008 at 2:48 pm

No surprise. RD really is Enemy No.1 and so many people now believe he is the horrible man that they have been told that he is.

I mentioned on another thread that a Catholic friend overheard RD's name mentioned in conversation and she decided to tell us what a horrible man he was. When I asked her for her reasons I was shocked to hear her say "Well he thinks I'm a paedophile for a start!"

She's not read anything by RD, seen him on TV, or anything, and yet she is prepared to believe what her Church has told her.

Sad.

40. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108246 by AdrianB on January 6, 2008 at 10:01 am

81. Comment #108209 by gregonomic on January 6, 2008 at 8:59 am

I'm concerned about the use of "cancer" (a somewhat nebulous catch-all term) as an example of "natural evil". Sure, many "cancers" are essentially unpreventable, but a sizeable minority, if not the majority, are the result of lifestyle choices and/or environmental exposure to mutagens.

As such, they are no more "evil" than plane crashes and traffic collisions.

I would just like to say that I would think that most cancers are probably viral or age related, rather than exposure to mutagens. Mine and my daughter's cancers were certainly viral in origin. Nearly all cancers in the chidren's cancer ward where I spent much of my time were viral.

Anyway, it is pretty certain that if he existed, god can take the blame!

My experience with children's cancers, and seeing many of them die, was quite significant in my conversion from agnostic to atheist.

41. Stop House Resolution 888

Comment #107811 by AdrianB on January 5, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Comment #107800 by _J_ on January 5, 2008 at 11:49 am

If you Americans are rewriting your history, will you take contributions? I dare say an evening in with a few pints will produce some valuable 'long forgotten' facts.

Did you know that the 'War of Independence' is just a daft story (based loosely on Star Wars and Braveheart) to distract you from the truth, which is that your nation is actually out on loan from Britain, and was due back in 2000? (There's now a substantial overdue charge.) No? Amazing what you learn when you read the history books, eh?

I've been saying this for some time. I'm okay with the claim that the US is a Christian nation because the founders were Christian, as long as they remember that they were also English. So, gerroff our land!

(I reckon I own that bit of land just to the south-west of Orlando, it's got a fibreglass castle built on it.)

42. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104604 by AdrianB on December 29, 2007 at 1:53 am

He does have an uncanny resemblance to The Emperor in the Star Wars films in that photograph.

If he looks evil, and he speaks evil ....

43. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102551 by AdrianB on December 23, 2007 at 7:58 am




Trust PZ Myers to answer this far better than I ever could.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/we_have_a_problem.php#comments


44. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102546 by AdrianB on December 23, 2007 at 7:43 am

Atheists make no claims. They can't be fundamentalists.

God is unproved. That's now my most concise definition of atheism.
I like it, I must remember to restrict my definition in this correct way. Thanks.

45. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102527 by AdrianB on December 23, 2007 at 5:55 am

I've just read this article again, and I must say this is getting quite tedious now. We have a list of Christian name calling and complaints against us, which include the following:

"Christianophophia"
"militant atheists"
"fundamental atheists"
"secular fascists"
"secular tyranny"

When pushed for actual examples to back up their complaints, it is always the same three; banning Christmas, the British Airways woman not allowed to wear a cross, or the girl not allowed to wear her purity ring. And that is the total sum of their complaints. In this article the archbishop repeats two of them as his examples.

Well even if any of these could be argued with any justification then it would still puzzle me how they could possibly think, even in their wildest dreams, that any of this is in any way comparative to the hatred, discrimination and murder that leads from "fundamental theism".

Of course none of these example can be argued with any justification.

The idea that we want to ban Christmas is refuted quite well by Polly Toynbee.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2055,Sorry-to-disappoint-but-its-nonsense-to-suggest-we-want-to-ban-Christmas,Polly-Toynbee

The real truth behind the British Airways cross controversy is presented by Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society. (A very good read)

http://www.secularism.org.uk/editorialchristianbulliespressth.html

And anybody that thinks for a moment that the purity ring girl was a victim of secular tyranny should listen to Marcus Brigstocke.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1440,Can-the-rest-of-us-have-our-planet-back,The-Now-Show-Marcus-Brigstocke

So I'm still waiting for a good example, I suspect it might be a while.

46. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102253 by AdrianB on December 22, 2007 at 7:43 am

So let's just think this through shall we.

A fundamental belief in religious texts can lead to ..... oh, just too many horrible things to list here. I'd be typing all day.

And a fundamental lack of belief in a god can lead to ..... tumbleweed floats by ..... can't think of anything.

Oh hang on, there's the purity ring girl, oh and the BA checkout lady, oh and they won't let us do nativity plays. Sob, sob.

47. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102248 by AdrianB on December 22, 2007 at 7:33 am

Horrible, just horrible.

I 'fundamentally' believe in my love for my wife and children. Is this to be feared?

48. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101771 by AdrianB on December 21, 2007 at 12:43 am

If you were lucky enough to be one of those shepherds on the hills around Bethlehem who got the news from the angelic host, or one of the wise men who followed that star, you were lucky. No long, dark night of the soul for you. Instead, just one brilliant flash of celestial light and the secret of the universe was revealed.
At least he's managed to get in the best reason for NOT believing in my opinion.

We are supposed to believe that there were lucky people that actually met Jesus and knew his divinity. How lucky they were to truly know, and yet they couldn't be bothered to leave any evidence for the rest of us, or protest when he was crucified.

We are supposed to believe that there are lucky people that had personal contact with god himself. The Hebrew slaves were provided with incredible evidence, led by god as a column of smoke by day and a column of fire by night, manna from heaven, the parting of the sea etc. How lucky they were to truly know, and yet as soon as god's back is turned they are off worshipping some other god.

Of course I don't believe any of this for a moment.

49. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100866 by AdrianB on December 19, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Bonzai - and when did you stop beating your wife?

:roll:

50. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100822 by AdrianB on December 19, 2007 at 11:49 am

83. Comment #100813 by Bonzai on December 19, 2007 at 11:30 am

We were all appalled by the Talibans for blowing up the big Buddha statues. We don't need to be Buddhists to understand that these statues were a heritage of human civilization. The statues had a meaning beyond the specific Buddhist ideology that inspired them.

So how are the atheists here who insist that we must remove all religious reference to Christmas for the sake of ideological purity any different from the Talibans?

Well most of us aren't, and those that do want to remove all religious reference do so for themselves.

Bit of a difference there I'd say.

More Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Next