1. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65204 by Adrian on August 23, 2007 at 7:01 am

The problem bamboospitfire, is not the quote - which of course is entirely accurate - it's the treatment they give it: Your students are being bombarded with such propaganda... and so on. As if a) they are being bombarded and, b) implying it's a lie and just propaganda.

Looking at the site, it seems to me that, having failed at trying to introduce ID from top down, through school governors and other legislators, with the Dover result, they are now trying to introduce it from bottome up, through students.

This film seems to be a propaganda process at trying to get as many student voices as possible to rise up and shout out loud, "We want the truth and you are preventing us from obtaining it..." and so on. Read this from their site:

It's critical that we take a stand to fight for the truth. In EXPELLED Ben questions why all the Neo-Darwinists are so nervous right now. What are they so afraid of? That's what I'd like to know, too. What are they hiding?

Wherever you are on the spectrum of belief, it's critical that all students have as much information as possible in order to make the most informed decisions they can. This fight is about making sure we all have access to the truth.

So beware, they are NOT arguing ID but emphasising a search for "truth" (as they call) and saying scientist are part of a conspiracy in preventing that search. That's the battle they are introducing and ID - like a battle commander - sits on the hill and waits for the weaknesses to be exposed before sneaking down and claiming a victory.

That's why we need to be serious about this. It's a deliberate, alternate strategy that might work unless we are on our toes, Mr Myers et al.

2. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65144 by Adrian on August 23, 2007 at 2:33 am

Sitting here in the more secular UK, I feel a rising alarm at what I read here.

I have had a brief look at their website (thanks Lh'owan for the link) and am impressed with their marketing skills. This is the sort of drive I have been hoping to see coming from the 'Out' campaign and others.

Quotes, misused like this:

'Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and author of "The God Delusion" states,

'"Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion."

'Your students are being bombarded with such propaganda throughout their education; despite the fact that MOST Americans do NOT believe we're the result of "random chance".'

are dishonest and misleading, but it is their 'drive' to '...recruit young, articulate spokespersons' to 'to sign-up and be part of a nationwide campaign' which makes we worried.

I do not think this is time for flippancy but for direct action - perhaps in the courts as Robotaholic and Ohnhai suggest. Certainly, by obtaining sufficient financial support to wage war on an equally efficient MARKETING front.

Richard Dawkins has recently aired a tv show against superstitious nonsense like 'faith-healing' and 'alternative medicine' (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8669488783707640763&q=dawkins, and whilst I applaud his efforts, the program lacked any bite. Such attacks need to be more strident and bare sharpened teeth.
.

3. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47599 by Adrian on June 5, 2007 at 3:46 am

We are talking about education and schools are now the primary places to obtain that.

Education is the imparting of knowledge and knowledge is the result of perception and learning and reasoning.

Teach children ONLY those skills and leave out biased opinion - indoctrination - and you will have a proper educational system that will, over time, obviate the need for 'policing' religious brainwashing.

This, in turn, will dilute the religious influence of parents as their children are steered away from religion, via critical thinking, and grow up less religious so that they, in turn, do not feel the need to indoctrinate their kids at home.

R.I.P. religion.

4. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46657 by Adrian on June 1, 2007 at 3:15 am

"A politician is an ass upon which everyone has sat except a man" Oscar Wilde.

I personally wouldn't get too bogged down with what the man is actually saying because; as a he's a politician, it must all be taken as posturing. It's what he's trying to do that is important.

He instinctively sticks his hand up in the air and later is advised it was a mistake. Now he tries to redress the balance by churning out this completely dishonest drivel.

Has he succeeded in appeasing his offended electorate? Of course not. In fact he has probably succeeded in alienating even more on both sides and even fence-sitters.

Methinks he speaks with forked tongue. Clearly not a politician to be trusted. An intelligent, dangerously deluded bigot.

5. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45709 by Adrian on May 29, 2007 at 3:37 am

What an enlightening response from Wee Flea. Methinks he doth protest too much.

If I am not mistaken, the first response to his self-promoting post was politely informative and invited others to consider Mr Robertson's ethics. Someone did, and entered a satirical response, even referring to Private Eye magazine.

And then Mr Robertson becomes offensive, calls ALL of us, "...small minded, petty and pathetic...[with] small fundamentalist minds..." and, with a masterful burst of creative imagination, "small fundamentalist mindsets", rounding off with "...pompous, moralistic and self righteous..." and entreats us to "Get a life". If "Delusion" is offensive, where does it put that lot of invective?

Well, Mr Robertson, you win, I am offended, but, apart from that you have failed miserably in your argument by attacking everybody else - Dawkins, Hitchins et al and their supporters - and offering little in support of your claim "to engage with the discussion that RD had raised". You "wrote it because [you] wanted to"? You weren't forced to write it then, or struggled against your personal preference? Doh. Such vituperation does not win you thinking supporters.

Why not be honest? Weren't you angry with RD, scared of the clear success of his atheistic advances, wanted to challenge (rather than 'engage') but, obviously, not lose money in the process?

6. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45165 by Adrian on May 26, 2007 at 4:47 pm

Nikki, the Objective Ministries Website is a spoof site. Much of it looks credible, but its objective seems to be to satirise the Xtian websites.

7. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #45060 by Adrian on May 26, 2007 at 4:24 am

Graduates will be ideally placed for working in the UK's Faith Schools, won't they?

Isn't that what all this is about? Spend some of my immorally gained wealth from selling old cars, or whatever, in indoctrinating youth at every opportunity - including leisure activities and sports.

8. Mysteries to Behold in the Dark Down Deep: Seadevils and Species Unknown

Comment #43763 by Adrian on May 22, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Kakashi_monkey, interesting. How many alien spacecraft have you seen?

9. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43270 by Adrian on May 21, 2007 at 3:21 am

This article posits an interesting thought: that even without religion, conflict would still be rampant and violence and death would naturally follow.

However, it overlooks one important factor: FAITH.

With faith, there is no reasoning possible, therefore you only need to know that 'the others' have different faith, to hate them.

However, without faith, there is ample room for REASON to deflate a conflict and NEGOTIATION to resolve it.

I suggest then, that the author is wrong.

10. Pope Warns of Globalization, Marxism

Comment #42079 by Adrian on May 17, 2007 at 3:15 pm

…the liberation theology movement Benedict worked to crush when he was cardinal... holds that the Christian faith should be reinterpreted specifically to deliver oppressed people from injustice. (an example of doctrine being more important than lives) Benedict emphasized Catholic moral values (Catholic moral values are different to secular ones in what way?) as the answer to Latin America's social and economic problems. (That has to highlight a contradiction because, when there are more Catholics per capita there than anywhere else on Earth, who presumably follow those Catholic moral values, it shows that rather than providing the answer, those values must be contributing to the problem) He defended the church's often bloody campaign to Christianize indigenous people…. (How can you defend genocide?)

He warned that legalised contraception and abortion in Latin America threaten "the future of the peoples''. (Too right. Keeps them healthy and alive for longer)

…and said the historical Catholic identity of the region is under assault. (Thank goodness)

…told priests to steer clear of politics…saying Latin America needs more dedicated Catholics at high levels in government, the media and at universities. (How is that steering clear of politics?)…bring the light of the Gospel into public life, into culture, economics and politics. (Such contradiction, and the man speaks for God?)

11. Nothing sacred: Journalist and provocateur Christopher Hitchens picks a fight with God

Comment #41233 by Adrian on May 15, 2007 at 4:52 pm

God with a capital is acceptable when referring to a specific god. Just as in the days of the week, "Tuesday the 5th, or any tuesday," is fine, although nowadays the tendency is to capitalise every time.

However, when merely talking about gods there is no need to use upper case. Not to capitalise the god of the Christians when referring to him is being paranoid, perverse or provocative. It's a title or name just as Jesus. Think of a king or the King as another example.

I see no justification to write 'He' in any circumstance (except at the beginning of a sentence, of course).

12. Unholy row at clergy soccer game

Comment #38121 by Adrian on May 7, 2007 at 3:07 am

Hilariously funny, but behind all that is a serious problem.

"Both sides have learned to better understand our cultures and we have had an open discussion."

Basically, they would claim toleration and understanding, but these are euphemisms for 'unbridgeable gaps', and all that happens is a sweeping-under-the-carpet of the notable differences.

The time must come when someone has to expose the shit under there and sweep it out, and when that happens, it'll hit the fan.

13. Author of the Year Ad

Comment #37382 by Adrian on May 4, 2007 at 10:34 am

Congratulations, and they are all worth reading.

14. Bonobos and chimps 'speak' with gestures

Comment #37305 by Adrian on May 4, 2007 at 3:49 am

Fascinating, yes, but I sometimes wonder if there isn't too much read into these gestures.

For example the upturned palm, as described above, used in various situations, they seem to imply has different meanings. However, it appears to me that you could substitute the word, 'please' in all these situations, and that has one meaning.

Or am I just too simplistic?

15. The God Delusion

Comment #36381 by Adrian on May 1, 2007 at 2:50 am

At last, a review of the book by someone who has read it and understood it.

16. Pop Tech Lecture

Comment #36376 by Adrian on May 1, 2007 at 2:37 am

Eloquent as always. Entirely inoffensive.

It's difficult to see how anyone could disagree with his arguments.

The world needs to change and it must start in the classroom.

.

17. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #33362 by Adrian on April 20, 2007 at 12:23 am

D'Souza's post does not deserve a response - so to emphasise the irony, here goes:

I assume this idiot means 'no previously known atheists' when he says: "Atheists are nowhere to be found." Or did he ask everyone in the public gathering?

The universe has "pitiless indifference", but then so does my kitchen table, does that say anything about any sentient beings that inhabit the Universe? Obviously not. We humans can occupy an unfeeling universe and apply our own feelings to our experiences. It's like saying the Universe feels no pain. Well I certainly do whenever I stub my toe against the indifferent table-leg. And what's the 'soul' to do with anything? With or without such an entity, the result is the same when it comes to feeling.

To no one's surprise, I have not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community either, so what does that say about anything? That they are excluding 61-year-old Englishmen to make a point?

And who says atheists do not recognise evil and good? The molecules he sarcastically refers to are constructed into sentient beings who have feelings and feel suffering – theist and atheist alike.
If this is the best modern religiosity has to offer, I think we need something more than modern religion.

Finally, I think he is excellent in giving atheists a good name and theists a bad one if this is the sort of drivel he produces. Any undecided rational bystander must conclude that it would be dangerous to follow this sort of logic.

18. Kadra attacked in public

Comment #32103 by Adrian on April 15, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Blaming these Somalians (who, I presume are not anymore, but are Norwegians) for what they did is like blaming a pitbull for attacking a child. It's not their fault for they are bred that way or, for 'bred' read 'indoctrinated'.
It's the indoctrinators who need to be ideologically castrated.

19. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30426 by Adrian on April 8, 2007 at 3:15 am

.
What crap:- "The new religion has a scientific appeal, with orthodox evolutionary theory recruited to provide a rationalistic "proof" for atheist teaching." He has put the cart before the horse twice in that sentence. The best answer is the quote:

"Atheism is a belief system the way "Off" is a TV channel."

Once he understands that, all the wind is taken from his sails. But of course, he won't because his whole agenda is to fight evolution and replace it with creationism.

Then he says:- "In the end, racked by despair at life's apparent meaninglessness, its members would return to more nourishing faiths." You can only give credence to that nonsense if you are determined to remain ignorant and peddle religious distortions.

20. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29468 by Adrian on April 3, 2007 at 2:49 am

I presume she is writing to a particular group. Her style is sugary, intellectually light and typically 'Women's magazine' writing. For example, "... has a real bee in his bonnet about religion". Bee in the bonnet? What's wrong with the phrase, 'has concerns'? And, anyway, what's the book about, for God's sake? Oops, "Dawkins wouldn't want me to say "thank God"". Well, lady, that shows how empty-headed you really are - Dawkins says exactly that many times, and why the Hell would he care what you say?

Sarcasm is, of course, employed when the recipient fails to see the blatantly obvious. It's usually stating a case that is the opposite to the point being made, or by stressing the obvious, as if 'you' are too stupid to understand it. Sarcasm is not understood by Americans on the whole as it is not so much a part of their culture as it is in England.

21. Brain Injury Said to Affect Moral Choices

Comment #26938 by Adrian on March 22, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Nah, we all have the same basic morals. It's how you claim to come by them that is the difference.

22. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26936 by Adrian on March 22, 2007 at 12:04 pm

jonecc
You ask:
"Adrian
Why, because you don't like religious belief, should people be compelled to remove such symbols from public places? If you were wearing a T-shirt saying "There is no God", would you want to be made to remove it?"
I am not sure why you should assume I am not a religious person. From what I said, I could in fact be, for example, a Jehovah's Witness. Nothing delineates them from the ordinary man in the street, or me.
I would never wear a T-shirt that expressed my personal opinions which are of no relevance to others. I recognise that to expose anything like that might offend others.
I agree that to enforce the idea might be a problem, but I still can see no justification for allowing the individual right to "manifest a religion or belief". Sure, anyone has the right to believe what they want and to practice in worship in any way and in whatever garb they choose, but do so in private or places put aside specifically for it, like churches, mosques or Kingdom Halls. But why do you have to tell me about it? What is your purpose in exposing me to your beliefs? It's can only be to make some impact upon me, otherwise there is no necessity, and that is offensive simply because I do not agree with you.
If you can give me some justification - beyond alleged civil liberties - for wearing religious garb in public, then maybe I will concede.

23. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26896 by Adrian on March 22, 2007 at 7:54 am

Back to basics, I have a problem with 'the individual right to "manifest a religion or belief"'.
I personally find it offensive to have someone else's religious beliefs thrust down my throat. What should I care what they believe? Why do they assume they have the right to tell me all about it by wearing crosses, or mitres or 'dog-collars' or, indeed a niqab? I should not be interested in that any more than I am interested in someone's sex life. That's their business and should remain so.
Remove ALL religious paraphernalia from public display and remove these problems overnight.

24. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #15256 by Adrian on December 30, 2006 at 2:52 am

As Don say in Comment #7272 in response to Richard's, 2. I'm an atheist, but people need religion. What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to comfort the bereaved? How are you going to fill the need? Don says:

In the meantime, the question about how we replace God with awe of nature is a valid one, in my opinion and although we should and have made a start to addressing this, its something that we're going to have to keep returning to in the short and medium term

I think we are overlooking one aspect to this argument about 'replacing' God with Science.

I can receive pleasure - rapture even - by obtaining an orgasm in the 'missionary' position, but that does not suggest I should not also obtain pleasure - more or less - from other positions - or even masturbation. I can also receive comfort when I contemplate with rapture the wonders of the universe that scientific discovery has revealed to me. But maybe I am one of many millions of shallow thinkers (this is not condescension, simply fact) who also finds solace in religious rapture, and who is to say I need to replace that with anything? It does not require intellectual conjuring for me to incorporate both sources into my belief system, merely intellectual indolence.

By putting myself in the above paragraph, to illustrate where shallow thinking can be disarmingly comfortable, I perpetrate a poetic dishonesty so as to lessen the impact of condescension. But again, as Dom says:

It may be patronising and condescending, but that may not stop it from being true.