1. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172117 by bamboospitfire on April 29, 2008 at 8:46 am

I have to say I don't entirely understand Dawkins's thinking here -- how, after all, could the executions of religious figures not follow logically from the promotion of atheism.

But he offers that perhaps it's because Marxism itself acts something like a religion in its appeal to a higher power -- the Party, rather than God. And in this Dawkins may be absolutely right, though it reveals that an atheist philosophy can indeed operate as a religion, and therefore offer a logical pathway to evil deeds.

The root, strangely enough, is that which first made Dawkins famous -- evolution.

2. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163157 by bamboospitfire on April 18, 2008 at 3:18 am

Mitchell Gilks - on what basis do you say that the shape of the Earth is not round? I agree that it is not perfectly spherical, but if we're going to be pedantic let's get it right. ;-)

3. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163080 by bamboospitfire on April 18, 2008 at 12:59 am

I'm shocked and appalled that CPT (Cabbage Patch Theory) wasn't given even a single mention. It is plainly supported by an equal if not greater amount of hard, rigorously peer-reviewed scientific data as ATT. I'm going to write to my MP and the Daily Mail.

4. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162449 by bamboospitfire on April 17, 2008 at 1:56 am

What Bigorra said.

25 seconds of a song is a lot. I seem to recall Metallica successfully suing another band for using the chords E and F in a certain manner. Ono should take Expelled to the cleaners. I would be very disappointed if she doesn't. However, I agree that this may all be a ploy to make the producers of Expelled look like the victims that they claim to be. If so, I have rarely seen such despicable behaviour.

5. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162019 by bamboospitfire on April 16, 2008 at 2:20 am

Justin Chang of Variety wrote:

Stein does find some eloquent ID supporters in movement co-founder Stephen C. Meyer, Paris-based mathematician David Berlinski and Oxford professor Alister McGrath, who argue that scientists have become slaves to their own dogma, willingly misreading the evidence to support their claims. Pic is most compelling when it contrasts this level-headed reasoning with the vitriol of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, whose brief screen time constitutes a thorny, fascinating study of atheism taken to hateful extremes.

6. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #160619 by bamboospitfire on April 14, 2008 at 8:35 am

Great article and highly amusing.

However...

What is going on at the Grauniad when on the one hand they publish wonderful work such as Brooker's article alongside utter bilge like this brainfart from Ravenhill? Is the editorial team smoking crack?

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/visualart/story/0,,2273469,00.html#article_continue

7. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160332 by bamboospitfire on April 14, 2008 at 12:51 am

Oh dear. You really are quite dim, aren't you, Mr Ravenhill?

First off, we have the bald assertion that "this perpetual state of agnosticism, this lack of commitment, must surely be corrosive. Those who are able to locate, and to explore intelligently, a system of belief, be that religious or political, are surely making a valuable contribution to our times." Is that so? Says who? I was hoping that the following paragraph might contain some evidence for this assertion. Perhaps unsurprisingly, none was forthcoming. Pathetic.

So Mr Ravenhill enjoyed Biblical stories as a child? Whoop-de-doo. The only reason that is the case is because he was taught the nice ones, rather than the stories of fire and brimstone and eternal damnation for questioning the divinity of Jesus. He goes on to argue that the Bible is a literary necessity. Indeed it is. None of this supports religion itself and Professor Dawkins has said time and again that he regards the Bible as an essential literary source. This section could have been written by the Professor himself: "The Bible - as literature, if nothing else - should be an essential part of every child's experience. And children should study the great Christian art of the past, too. We often have a revisionist view of this great legacy of paintings, music and literature. Of course, we can't help denying the beauty and resonance of the Sistine Chapel, Handel's Messiah, Milton's Paradise Lost or the York mystery plays."

As for humanist artists, who cares whether they believed or not? It doesn't make the myth true. And as for the Church commissioning new work, is there not sufficient art in any event? And would artists not paint religious scenes without commissions to do so - if they believed?

Anyway, to the point. That we are seeking to undermine art, literature and aesthetics in general. What libellous bullshit. I have heard of no-one who supports the work that Professor Dawkins has done with regard to religion claim that any such aim should be encouraged. For Ravenhill to argue otherwise is utterly disingenuous, flying in the face of everything Professor Dawkins has said on the topic. Ravenhill should be ashamed of himself. A lazy, pointless and downright wrong article.

8. Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement

Comment #158739 by bamboospitfire on April 11, 2008 at 1:58 am

Kaiserkriss - law suite? Is that like a really, really expensive hotel room?

ZekeCDN - if the Expelled producers press on without removing the clip, watch it turn 'financial' very quickly. ;-)

9. Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement

Comment #158226 by bamboospitfire on April 10, 2008 at 8:29 am

This just keeps getting better. Professors Myers and Dawkins must be laughing their socks off. You reap what you sow.

10. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156177 by bamboospitfire on April 7, 2008 at 2:52 am

With regard to John Lennox, whilst he may be an accomplished mathematician, he is slick but insubstantial and poorly reasoned on the god issue. I doubt his appearance at UHI will see anything new beyond the tripe he spouted at St Helen's, Bishopsgate recently. My comments on that lecture can be found here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=37542&hilit= lennox

11. Thy will be done

Comment #154262 by bamboospitfire on April 3, 2008 at 2:13 am

I think having the prayer 10 minutes before the meeting is scheduled to start is fair enough since that is presumably time in which the councillors can do whatever they like. The prayers are therefore effectively private. What I do object to is council time being wasted on prayer when they have work to do, not least because they need to work damn hard if they are to stand any chance of justifying the exorbitant rates of Council Tax that we pay...

12. Supreme Court to consider Ten Commandments vs. 'Seven Aphorisms'

Comment #153741 by bamboospitfire on April 2, 2008 at 1:19 am

If the Supreme Court has any sense at all it will pull down all the monuments and save everyone a lot of time and trouble whilst simultaneously saving the Xtians a huge amount of embarrassment. Whilst it would be amusing to watch the Eight I'd Rather You Didn'ts go up alongside the Ten Commandments with equal status in law, which would have the theists foaming at the mouth, surely it would be better for the sensible, constitutional approach to be adopted from the word go. In any event, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster needs to get on this right now. Whatever happens, this opportunity is solid gold and should not be missed.

13. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153154 by bamboospitfire on April 1, 2008 at 6:05 am

Yes, but we are not talking about abstractions or religious history here.

One is tamed by secularism the other isn't. That makes a huge difference. Until either Islam is dragged screaming and kicking into, well, at least the 19th century or the RC Church has devolved into its old way there is no equivalence between the two in the way they are practised in the real world.

A poodle used to be a wolf, but it would make little sense to say they are the same thing because they used to be.

14. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153081 by bamboospitfire on April 1, 2008 at 2:37 am

Not all religions are the same. Islam is definitely much worse than Catholicism, which is merely stupid but not murderous.

15. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150491 by bamboospitfire on March 27, 2008 at 2:10 am

As per the forum thread, many happy returns, Professor.

16. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149083 by bamboospitfire on March 25, 2008 at 5:17 am

Presumably the tone of this article from Professor Dawkins is intended to prove that his supposedly "offensive" remarks about religion are far more gently worded than they could be.

17. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144890 by bamboospitfire on March 17, 2008 at 1:32 am

Ordered it last week. I fear that it will leapfrog the other unopened books on my shelf...

18. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142689 by bamboospitfire on March 13, 2008 at 2:56 am

oriole has hit the nail on the head. The whole question is moot, at least in the context of the Templeton Foundation, because if you don't say that your research indicates that God exists, they won't give you the money. In order for anyone to accept the prize, that person has to be offered it, and that means that he or she has already sold out.

19. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141071 by bamboospitfire on March 10, 2008 at 1:45 am

Sally Kerns is an evil, evil woman. However, I had to chuckle when she began speaking about indoctrination of children being a bad thing. Replace the word "homosexuality" with "Christianity" and I couldn't agree with her more.

20. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #140136 by bamboospitfire on March 7, 2008 at 2:00 am

What a great victory for democracy and human rights. I shall have to read the debate in full, although I am surprised at the comments of those Lords who didn't seem to understand that the main reason blasphemy has to be decriminalised is that it is an affront to the concept of free speech. Anyone, no matter what their religious view, should be able to see that and agree with it. It seems that when it comes to matters of religion, even the minds of the Lords can become clouded.

As some have already said, now for the removal of the Bishops and the disestablishment of the Church of England. That institution and its officers have no place meddling in matters of state or being recognised as part of our government.

For those who believe that the UK is anachronistic, our systems may occasionally appear dated because we have history going back more than 300 years. If blasphemy had become a recognised crime in the UK in 1787 rather than back in the 16th century, you may have had a point.

21. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127414 by bamboospitfire on February 15, 2008 at 8:52 am

All the best to Hall and Weinstein in their efforts.

It always makes me laugh when fundies in the US assert that Catholics are not Christians. It just goes to show how spectacularly stupid these people are.

One could understand if it was "us" (Christians) against "them" (Muslims), but these people seem determined to cause divisions within their own ranks. Extraordinary.

And Bruce Fister?! You couldn't make it up!

22. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125294 by bamboospitfire on February 11, 2008 at 7:51 am

annabanana wrote:

I wish that E.O. Wilson weren't too old for the post or I'd nominate him.

23. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125170 by bamboospitfire on February 11, 2008 at 3:25 am

What shoes to fill; what an act to follow. I shall look forward to confirmation of the new appointment with interest. Professor Dawkins's successor has his/her work cut out!

24. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #123382 by bamboospitfire on February 7, 2008 at 4:22 am

RD said:

"The God Delusion is an advocacy of the belief that there is no god..."

I thought it was an advocacy of the view that belief in gods is irrational. Admittedly it's been a while since I read it. Does TGD actually contain any positive statement that there is no god? The opening line of the video seems very odd to me.

25. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #118855 by bamboospitfire on January 31, 2008 at 4:44 am

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the correct approach to this situation is to let the boy decide for himself when he reaches the age of 18, which is exactly as it should be for all boys, no matter what their parents think. The problem for the Jews in this case is that it is inconceivable that a 12 year old boy should be held down against his will whilst a priest (or anyone else) mutilates his penis. A moment's reflection reveals that the same logic must apply to babies.

The wishes of a 12 year old boy are indeed irrelevant in this context. He should be left until he is older before he makes this choice, but it is a choice for him and him alone. I understand that in the UK you have to be 16 before you can legally have a tattoo (at least without parental consent). I doubt it is legal to forcibly tattoo babies or anyone for that matter without consent.

For those of you interested in the origin of this vile practice, you will be unsurprised to learn that you need look no further than the book of Genesis. I have copied in the relevant verses below. It is noteworthy that Abraham was 99 years old when he was circumcised. If it mattered that one must be circumcised at 8 days old, no-one would be able to convert in later life.


17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

26. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #118799 by bamboospitfire on January 31, 2008 at 2:06 am

The Greek democracy was not first because it was not a democracy. It was a strict class state where slaves and women barely had human status.

27. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #118075 by bamboospitfire on January 30, 2008 at 9:44 am

I have now managed to watch all of the clips. I can recommend the fifth segment, in which RD manages to put his point across with some force that labelling children is in fact child abuse. There is apparent support from the audience, and (moving into the sixth segment) several audience members make valid points about the inability of young children to understand the issues involved and the fact that operations such as Jesus Camp are certainly examples of abuse of young minds, which are all to susceptible to misdirection in a supernatural context.

I found some of segment six rather disturbing, not least thanks to the condescension of Widdecombe, who believes that religion should not be the reserve of adults since it would effectively segregate children within their own families. Nonesense. It is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that their children are included in family life whilst allowing them the freedom to consider their own potential religiosity when they are ready to do so. Does Widdecombe seriously think that anyone would recommend chidren being shooed from the dinner table whilst the adults say grace? What has the woman been smoking? Furthermore, Jesus Camp and other such schemes are quite obviously nothing to do with family life. They are mendacious vehicles of mass indoctrination far outside any normal family context.

By the end of the debate I thought the chap from Ekklesia had acquitted himself well. Whether his children grow up to be Christians or not, I very much doubt they will be nasty, intolerant, condescending, fundamentalist bigots of any stripe.

Carey is way off the mark when he says there is a form of secular indoctrination going on. He is also wrong to argue that faith should be valued. Respect for faith is the one thing that needs to be eradicated.

Finally, Nicky Clarke is an appallingly rude man, having interrupted almost everyone he spoke to.

28. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117958 by bamboospitfire on January 30, 2008 at 4:24 am

Darwin's shitsu - that's what I thought as well.

29. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117957 by bamboospitfire on January 30, 2008 at 4:23 am

Very interesting to note that all of the people who called or emailed the show in relation to blasphemy as quoted in the second segment said that criminal blasphemy was an affront to demoncracy, civilised society, freedom of speech and good sense. Good on them. Perhaps that could be said to be more representative of the general population? Did the show get any calls from viewers with the opposite opinion?!

30. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117931 by bamboospitfire on January 30, 2008 at 2:33 am

I'm not sure if I can be bothered to watch all of this because the first section plumbs new depths of inanity. However, with regard to that section, here are my comments.

God is not the lawgiver for our nation. That is Parliament, on the authority of the people. The Christian woman displays her ignorance proudly from the get-go.

The problem with blasphemy as a crime is that whilst it may be possible to prove mens rea, it is not possible to prove the actus reus quite simply because it is not possible to prove (certainly not beyond reasonable doubt!) that a God exists to blaspheme. In other words, blasphemy cannot be a crime. More fundamentally, it cannot even be an action!

King Alfred reigned from 871 to 899. How is that man's theological interpretation of our legal framework relevant in 2007? In any event, if it is relevant, it appears that King Alfred, not God, is the lawgiver for our nation, according to that woman.

What if she had not been from Wantage? Another accident of birth issue, perchance?

The representative of Ekklesia immediately begins referring to "my God" as if it makes a difference what one believes. This just underlines how inane the whole debate is. Even the Christians can't agree on whether there should be a blasphemy law, so why should one be imposed on everyone else?

As for blasphemy "striking at the core of society" - hardly. God is not Britain. How dare that woman conflate the two. Fairness stems from a rejection of hypocrisy - the principle that no-one should deny anyone such rights as he would claim for himself. Nothing to do with God. Was Calvary fair? The woman is a screaming banshee of hypocrisy.

The fact that the Queen is Head of State as well as Head of the Church of England is a constitutional abomination, not a cause for maintaining the blasphemy law.

So, we have to base out society on something? Absolutely. America and France have managed it without God, to name only two. Let's try Liberty, Equality and Humanity for starters. Fuck your God.

I see Widdecombe decided to turn up wearing a crucifix and a fish. Obviously one or the other is insufficient to convey her zeal for the Lord. Her blathering was, regrettably, entirely vacuous.

Our man with the homosexual website is a politically correct coward who throws in an unwarranted barb against "militant atheism" to appear balanced. A good way to lose any respect I might have had for him.

Good on RD for sketching a faint outline of the allegation of hypocrisy that should be levelled at all defenders of this awful law.

Muslim talking about atheistic arrogance... Hmmm...

31. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #117594 by bamboospitfire on January 29, 2008 at 7:48 am

Matter doesn't follow the expansion of space. It is held together by the nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity. The expansion of space acts like a very, very weak force tending to push things apart, and is insignificant even on the scale of clusters of galaxies.

Basically, yes.

yes.

32. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #117049 by bamboospitfire on January 28, 2008 at 6:48 am

Steve said:

The reason why everything on Earth isn't expanding is interesting... matter isn't "glued" to space. Space can expand without dragging matter along with it. Matter can, and does, resist this drag with all kinds of forces, including gravity. But, the expansion of space does have an effect... you are just a fraction taller because the expansion of space is "pulling" your head and feet apart.

33. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115964 by bamboospitfire on January 25, 2008 at 6:30 am

The following is a dramatic presentation. It was written by a ficticious...

34. Islam in Europe

Comment #114870 by bamboospitfire on January 23, 2008 at 4:55 am

The solution is the re-establishment of our constitution on the primary liberal principle that no-one can deny another any right that he/she would claim for him/herself. Our existing society is already founded on such principles, but they need re-asserting and enforcing because, as Pat suggests, it seems that a lot of people have forgotten what the principles are, thanks (ironically) to 60 years of peace and freedom. Islam is inherently hypocritical in terms of rights and responsibilities and that is why it is so fundamentally immiscible with western civilisation. There is no need to mention religion in the debate if we understand our own principles. That Islam as stated in the Koran is diametrically opposed to those principles will become immediately obvious to anyone who considers the question.

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

Comment #113979 by bamboospitfire on January 21, 2008 at 6:12 am

I agree that Britain requires a written, secular constitution.

I disagree with the Monarchy in principle, although the only problem I have with it in practice is the fact that Charles is plainly a born idiot. His comments on alternative therapy may well prove lethal, if they have not done so already. Elizabeth has been fine, IMO.

I would welcome a referendum. The only valid government is one which derives its authority from the consent of the governed. If we agree to keep the Monarchy, fine. It has no real power anyway. I just wish Charles would put a sock in it. He is just another man, and far less able than his position might suggest.

Disestablishment of the C of E is an absolute necessity. The Bishops must be removed from the Lords as soon as possible and the point must be made that religion has no place in politics.

If Charles wants to change the title of "Defender of (the) Faith", he should change it to "Defender of Freedom". I would welcome that change. Would he welcome it? Could he?

36. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #112382 by bamboospitfire on January 17, 2008 at 2:37 am

Dear Mr Scales

Thank you for your bravery and generosity in defence of the principles on which civilised society is based. We owe you a great debt. I hope we can go some way to repaying it through our continued defence of those same principles.

Best wishes for the future.

James

37. The Group Delusion

Comment #110462 by bamboospitfire on January 11, 2008 at 8:34 am

Children need something written at their level of comprehension to counteract the many misunderstandings and out right lies spread by their playmates, often resulting in ostracizing for not following the heard mentality.

38. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #110349 by bamboospitfire on January 11, 2008 at 2:57 am

From the BBC site. Very, very well said, sir.

Nicholas Hytner, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What we have now is essentially a secular country based on a common bond of decency which includes free speech.

"And free speech includes the expectation that there should be mutual respect between those with different beliefs.

"And I don't believe that the law should address what people believe. The blasphemy laws protect belief; they don't protect people."

39. The Group Delusion

Comment #110335 by bamboospitfire on January 11, 2008 at 2:33 am

As long as E O Wilson doesn't think that changing his mind about one issue will necessarily lend any reflected credibility to group selection as a whole...

I am very pleased to see that Professor Dawkins responded in such unequivocal terms to the suggestion contained in the 'Survival of the selfless' article that he had "acknowledged [his] error". I thought it looked off when I read it, as I commented on the forum at the time.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=28211

40. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #110018 by bamboospitfire on January 10, 2008 at 10:01 am

42. Comment #109960 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 7:08 am

"Prof. Dawkins's enthusiasm is infectious."

Indeed! He is an atheist meme machine!

41. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109887 by bamboospitfire on January 10, 2008 at 2:06 am

Hmmm. The look on the Professor's face at the end suggested he thought someone had spiked his tea with acid.

I agree with Philip that the science discussion at the start was the most important part. Prof. Dawkins's enthusiasm is infectious.

I thought he was a bit kind to Rowan Williams and rather harsh on the general religous public, however. It wasn't too long ago we had an article posted here which confirmed that Williams had admitted that he would not say anything from the pulpit that he didn't personally believe. The article went on to confirm some things that Williams had said, all of which were total batshit. Williams may be an intelligent, learned man, but he still believes some total rubbish and his criticism of Prof. Dawkins is downright disingenuous. By the same token, many members of the public who believe such things are still intelligent and learned, but they are suffering from a major case of cognitive dissonance. Presumably Prof. Dawkins was going for laughs.

42. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108976 by bamboospitfire on January 8, 2008 at 4:19 am

So, who else thinks that Sharkbait is in fact Mitt Romney in disguise?

Of course, I agree with the general point of the article that belief in such shit as creationism suggests an inability to wieght up evidence as you would hope the POTUS would. I don't disagree that acceptance of evolution by natural selection and some religious beliefs are compatible. But I think those religious beliefs would be restricted to more deistic beliefs. Regrettably that's not what we're dealing with.

As a (West) Yorkshireman living in London, I can confirm that the best beer in the world comes from North Yorkshire and Cornwall, although the Home Counties have a lot going for them as well in that respect. I can also confirm that if I was intending to come and live in England I would not choose Sheffield, at least on a permanent basis.

43. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #108515 by bamboospitfire on January 7, 2008 at 5:31 am

An outrageous decision at first instance, but surely the relevant words of the state constitution are "in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience". The only requirement is that a person should not be prevented from worshipping as he or she sees fit. In other words, the views of the parents are irrelevant, as long as they don't seek to limit the adoptive child's freedom of religion and there is no evidence provided to suggest that they would have done so. Moreover, the dictates of one's own conscience may well result in an absence of worship altogether. I have less of a problem with the wording of the state constitution than I do with the one-eyed, theist judge who interpreted it so badly.

44. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101850 by bamboospitfire on December 21, 2007 at 3:03 am

Tricky one, this. I haven't read all of the posts that have appeared since yesterday, but here are my two cents anyway, which hopefully stand alone.

I can see the point that RD (or any atheist) singing carols does rather give the wrong impression, given some of the words. I think that singing a carol is different to reading the Bible or listening to Handel's Messiah (something I did at St John's, Smith's Square last Friday, as a matter of fact, and very good it was too) because of one's direct involvement in the process. You are singing the words yourself, not merely listening to them or reading them. By adding one's voice I think it results in apparent (if not real) affirmation of what is being sung. That is a difficulty, particularly in circumstances where you can expect children to copy adults without question and given the fact that the nice (if totally unrealistic) Christmas story is the sugar-coated version of Christianity that is used to hook the kids in the first place.

On the other hand, I think that singing carols on the express basis that "it's just a bit of fun, all this nonsense" is potentially a very powerful meme. It seems to me that RD is saying "of course we can all join in for a bit of seasonal amusement - everyone knows it's bollocks". Moreover, I think it is useful to show that atheism doesn't mean you have to be a bit of a Scrooge.

I would have liked RD to comment on the pagan aspects of the Christmas festival during the interview, just to point out that the Christians have pillaged other religions for their own celebrations. Why shouldn't people of no religion do the same?

I remain rather undecided on this one. My mum always wants me to go to church with her on Christmas day, but it was already becoming very hard to stomach, watching the indoctrination of very young children who didn't know what was being done to their minds. It is difficult to stand by and allow it to go on unchallenged and I don't know if I shall go this year. What's more, the carols are generally rubbish modern ones these days anyway... ;-)

45. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #100767 by bamboospitfire on December 19, 2007 at 10:02 am

This is bloody brilliant. One of the best things I have seen on this site to date. Thanks!

46. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100698 by bamboospitfire on December 19, 2007 at 6:19 am

"I would have hoped that, in a society in which we are seeking to show respect to all people and beliefs, we might have grown out of this kind of nonsense."

Trying to paint this as some sort of puerile jape won't work. Edwards also needs to draw a distinction between people and faith. Respect for the person abounds. Respect for batshit-insane beliefs is rightly in short supply. He should get used to it.

"Our customers are intelligent, curious people who enjoy exploring all types of books and music."

Looks like Borders only sells stuff to atheists.

"Borders wouldn't do this to any other religious festival."

If not, it should; although fear of violence from Rage Boy and chums will prevent any mockery of Islam.

47. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97424 by bamboospitfire on December 12, 2007 at 4:16 am

lol @ 3legcat. I was thinking something similar. Clearly Morris is incapable of commenting on atheism because he doesn't know what it's like to be an atheist. ;-)

48. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97421 by bamboospitfire on December 12, 2007 at 4:05 am

Incredulous and steve99 make a serious point, but if people are jumping to conclusions as to the motive when a Muslim father strangles his westernised daughter, the only people to blame for that are all the other Muslim fathers who have murdered their westernised or otherwise "un-Islamic" daughters on religious grounds. Let's wait and see, but I fear that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

49. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97416 by bamboospitfire on December 12, 2007 at 3:50 am

To USA Limey and Don Quix. I would be concerned by any attempt to discoiver whether preachers and presidential candidates are lying about their beliefs using this method since revealing them as atheists would also reveal them as liars. The believers will draw only one conclusion from that, even though (as we know) correlation does not equate to causation.

50. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96930 by bamboospitfire on December 11, 2007 at 5:43 am

I would just like to add to my previous comment my view that Morris's letter is (perhaps unsurprisingly) patronising in the extreme and I find his suggestion that the Professor apologise on behalf of atheism for the murderous regimes of Stalin et alia to be one of the most offensive things I have ever read.

This is what he says:-

"I think you would do a great service to humanity to reject, as John Paul II did for Christians, the evil actions of a tiny percentage of atheists who have, in your opinion, acted in a way that poorly represents your belief system, in particular your common denial of the existence of God."

This man is inviting Richard Dawkins to confirm that Stalin, Mao, Hitler etc were representative of atheism (!) and that atheism was responsible for the genocide perpetrated by totalitarian regimes (!!) and then to apologise for that as a representative of those of us who do not believe in gods (!!!). Unbelievable. I have no doubt at all that this offer will not be accepted by the Professor, but the concept is just abhorrent. I know I don't need to ask this, but how could our lack of belief possibly tar us with that brush, so that one of us who is publicly recognised should have to apologise for the crimes of some of history's most evil men? Morris's suggestion is outrageous and I trust the Professor's response will make that clear in the strongest terms. I am appalled.

There is only one other thing I would say to Morris, in the words of the Hitch:-

"Oh, and fuck you."