1. 10 Lectures on Darwin's Legacy

Comment #313285 by gcdavis on January 6, 2009 at 1:49 am

...and if you really can't get enough of Darwin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00g9z9x/Darwin_In_Our_Time_On_the_Origins_of_Charles_Darwin/

5 talks about Darwin on BBC radio 4, including Steve Jones as a guest this morning

2. Atheists have moral reflections too

Comment #312654 by gcdavis on January 5, 2009 at 9:34 am

I enjoy TftD that is why I am campaigning. Listening to the “thoughts” of many of the religious contributors I often find myself agreeing with there assessment of a current issue and admiring their eloquence, particularly the likes of Bishops Harries and (the late) Jim Thomson as well as Indagit Singh and Jonathan Sachs, that is until they mention the god bit at the end!

3. Atheists have moral reflections too

Comment #312647 by gcdavis on January 5, 2009 at 9:02 am

Comment #312594 by Lemniscate

Actually I share your doubt but I have emailed the Beeb and asked them which department is responsible for the Ethics page, I guess we both no who that is likely to be. However the fight goes on.

4. Atheists have moral reflections too

Comment #312585 by gcdavis on January 5, 2009 at 7:24 am

I started my TftD campaign of letters and emails to the BBC over two years ago but it was not until late last year that I got a “serious” response from Mark Damazar, Controller of Radio 4. One of the recurring problems was that TftD is produced by the Religion and Ethics Department, (yes in that order). However very quietly the BBC website which used to have just one page now has two one for Religion and one for Ethics. I wonder if this is the first crack?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/

5. Atheists have moral reflections too

Comment #312567 by gcdavis on January 5, 2009 at 6:29 am

I thought Richard Dawkins had already spoken on thought for the day, about 5 years ago

6. Atheists have moral reflections too

Comment #312540 by gcdavis on January 5, 2009 at 5:51 am

As it was my complaint to the BBC regarding the lack of an atheist voice on Thought for the Day and the astonishing response from Radio 4 Controller Mark Damazer, that reignited this debate, I thought it worth publishing the exchange again.

My complaint:

"Thought for the Day" explicitly excludes contributions from those who profess no faith; this is extremely insulting to agnostics and atheists who probably account for the majority of the UK population. For all the issues that are examined on "Thought for the Day" there is a distinctive non-religious moral perspective.

One concludes that the BBC endorses the assertion that morality is inevitably linked to religious belief and that faith confers additional authority to the speaker. In a secular society such as our, this is an unacceptable policy. I therefore ask the BBC to ensure that in future "Thought for the Day" will allow contributions from outside religious groups despite the discomfort that this may bring to those who produce it.

His response:

TfTD is commissioned as a theological reflection on current events. It is not an opinion piece. All contributors are told to ground their 'thought' in their own theological tradition, using the words of scripture or liturgy that have been worn smooth as a pebble by centuries of repetition and devotion. Their authority is drawn from faiths that have survived the centuries, including periods of persecution and intense scrutiny and still proved themselves valid. It is therefore a unique voice on the BBC. I would contend that the BBC should strive to maintain its 'uniqueness' in an increasingly overcrowded market place and serve the audience by giving them a chance to hear a perspective from the great faith traditions that have shaped our society and continue to wield enormous influence over current
events.

So if you change the commissioning brief to allow in secular voices it would no longer be Thought for the Day and I hear no appetite for such a change from Radio Four.

I do not accept that the majority of the country are atheistic or agnostic.
The last census showed 71% declaring themselves Christian and another 8% spiritual. Since then with immigration continuing apace from countries more religious than our own I see no reason to think the religious majority has declined. In a survey a few years ago Radio Four discovered that one in four of its audience go to a worship service every week so we know there is a lot of interest in the subject.

Secularism has not swept religion aside as some would have hoped, indeed some academics are writing about the new visibility of religion, albeit more fractured and fragmented than before. With religion so high on the agenda it would be a strange time to change the one place where it is possible to hear the intelligent religious voice in a secular setting and understand something of why millions if not billions of people still put faith at the centre of their lives.


Yours sincerely

Mark Damazer
BBC Controller Radio 4


My reply to his response:

Dear Mr Damazer

Thank you for your response to my correspondence. However I am astonished at its contents. In your opening paragraph you endorse the assertion that faith confers additional authority to the speaker and that morality is inevitably linked to religious belief.

Let me quote you: “Their authority is drawn from faiths that have survived the centuries, including periods of persecution and intense scrutiny and still proved themselves valid”.

As a private individual you have every right to hold these views but as the controller of BBC Radio 4 this partisan view is in opposition to your public service obligation of neutrality, objectivity and fairness. One is left in no doubt that the “authority is drawn from faiths” in your opinion justifies a ban on those who have no faith contributing to this programme.

You go on to say “So if you change the commissioning brief to allow in secular voices it would no longer be Thought for the Day” again your prejudice is staggering. The secular voice would include those who are atheist, agnostic and humanist, who are every bit as qualified and concerned to comment on current events in the context of an ethical and moral perspective as those of religious faith.

You continue “and I hear no appetite for such a change from Radio Four”. Perhaps you should visit the BBC forums and message boards where this complaint is regularly expressed.

You say “and serve the audience by giving them a chance to hear a perspective from the great faith traditions that have shaped our society and continue to wield enormous influence over current events”. These great faiths were also responsible for 9/11, 7/ll and countess other atrocities throughout human history and yet you still assert their moral authority.

As regards the extent of religious belief in the UK you state “The last census showed 71% declaring themselves Christian” and “In a survey a few years ago Radio Four discovered that one in four of its audience go to a worship”. I am happy to accept this statistic if it would result in TftD being delivered by a contributor who does not have a faith agenda on one day of every week that the programme is broadcast.

I ask you once more to change your mind

Yours sincerely

Graham Davis

7. Richard Dawkins interviews Nicholas Humphrey

Comment #311766 by gcdavis on January 4, 2009 at 6:16 am

Comment #311761 by decius

But sorry, this is war of ideas over a very serious problem.
The health, well being and finances of a lot of sick people who risk to be denied proper treatment are at stake.

8. Richard Dawkins interviews Nicholas Humphrey

Comment #311764 by gcdavis on January 4, 2009 at 6:12 am

I have some bottled quantum-energised water for sale. It helps with clear thinking. It is only 20 quid a litre.

9. Richard Dawkins interviews Nicholas Humphrey

Comment #311758 by gcdavis on January 4, 2009 at 5:54 am

Decius did you have a stressful christmas? Why not try some nettle tea, it’s guaranteed to cure bad temper.

10. Richard Dawkins interviews Nicholas Humphrey

Comment #311756 by gcdavis on January 4, 2009 at 5:47 am

Comment #311751 by decius

Therefore Lourdes holy water works.

This is the kind of thinking we are up against in this thread. Thanks for the label of "fundamentalists" for attempting to save the arse of those, like you, who find it compelling.

11. Richard Dawkins interviews Nicholas Humphrey

Comment #311742 by gcdavis on January 4, 2009 at 5:27 am

Reading the sequence of posts following the DrHameer comments I have to agree with him about one thing, that some are verging on the fundamentalist. Science explains things and for those things that science has yet to explain, conjecture is not only reasonable, it is essential in order to provoke fresh thinking. It is a fact that some people recover from a life threatening disease like cancer when there is no medical explanation (yet) as to how this has occurred. The placebo effect is well established but not fully understood. Most of us expect science to provide explanations in the future, in the meantime a little humility would not go amiss.

12. What Will Change Everything?

Comment #310785 by gcdavis on January 2, 2009 at 2:21 am

As they author says, many of the great advances in science have been made without any public debate about their desirability. Some like penicillin are indisputably good for mankind, others like splitting the atom, less so.

The author poses a very important question; should science be free to explore and experiment as it sees fit or should there be an agreed agenda within developed societies that would establish no-go areas for science? The problem of course exacerbated by the poor understanding of science by politicians and the wider population, the GM crop debate is an example of this.

The application of science is of course already limited by law, however as science draws closer to understanding what makes us age for example and possibly discovers ways delaying or even preventing it, or if the likes of Craig Venter are able to develop a totally synthetic form of life sometime in the future, the implications, both philosophical and practical are so profound that they shouldn’t be left at the sole discretion of science.

13. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #308564 by gcdavis on December 30, 2008 at 3:58 am

Like others I dislike the term “new atheists” as I have been one for most of my life. However the term has some merit as evidenced by a “new” publishing phenomenon, ten years ago a book on atheism would be likely to sell in the hundreds not hundreds of thousands. The publicity surrounding these new books has encouraged those who had previously kept their disbelief to themselves to come out as atheists and so they too might be regarded as “new”. Where “new” is inappropriate is when it is applied to philosophical or even scientific concepts. There has been no new discovery or theory that suddenly makes the case for atheism overwhelming. Atheism is a very simple idea it doesn’t require any specialist knowledge or training. All I had to do was to start asking myself questions and the whole edifice of god and religion fell apart.

What drives the “new” atheism is the very real danger of religious fundamentalism across the planet. A tipping point was reached after 9/11, we all know that we cannot sit back and let these dangerous ideas based on ignorance and stupidity spread further and deeper into our own societies.

14. What do atheists do at Christmas?

Comment #305968 by gcdavis on December 24, 2008 at 2:44 am

As a miserable atheist I shall of course be alone over christmas. After breakfast I will spend the next three hours tearing pages out of a bible and cursing anyone who has the temerity to ring or call (I will save the quran for Boxing Day). Having loaded my air rifle I will take pot shots at birds and cats that enter my garden. Just before dusk I will spend an hour or two breaking into cars and if I am lucky, stealing children’s presents, I don’t want them of course so I will throw them into the nearest waste bin having stamped on them first. After having ordered pizza deliveries for a bunch of random addresses and hidden in the bushes to witness the horrified response when they are delivered I will move on to the church car park where I will deflate as many tyres as possible.

Having spray painted the message “You are just a monkey” on my neighbours front doors I will return home to indulge my unfettered carnal lusts. Yes this is a typical sad atheist christmas and with no god to guide my actions or restrain my disgusting impulses one that is thoroughly debauched and immoral. I cant wait for easter!

15. Key Event That Breaks Continents Apart Discovered

Comment #300497 by gcdavis on December 12, 2008 at 1:27 am

Nice one j.mills!

16. Richard Dawkins interviews Father George Coyne

Comment #299619 by gcdavis on December 10, 2008 at 4:32 am

Intelligent people who retain belief in god seem to share one thing in common and that is an ability to compartmentalise their belief so that it is ring fenced against rational argument. It is as if the temporary suspension of disbelief that we all use in order to enjoy a film or a novel has become permanent in this one discreet area of their thinking.

There are probably lots of explanations as to why they do this but the really interesting question is how. I wonder if much research has been done in this area?

17. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: 'It's Not A Clean-Cut Division'

Comment #299030 by gcdavis on December 9, 2008 at 2:35 am

Brainsys
Does it not make you just teansiest bit doubtful about a Biology degree awarded from an institution that proclaims: The Holy Bible is the only inspired, authoritative written word of God, progressively revealing God’s will for humankind. Doesn't seem to leave much room for those biology textbooks!

18. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson On Religion And Science: 'It's Not A Clean-Cut Division'

Comment #299020 by gcdavis on December 9, 2008 at 2:17 am

Brainsys
I its the university that is suspect rather the name on the award. Their mission statement says it all

Statement of Faith
Taylor University is firmly committed to the lordship of Jesus Christ and evangelical Christianity. To assure the central place of Christian principles in the philosophy and life of the University, the trustees, administration, faculty, and staff believe that:

There is one God, eternally existent in three persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- the ultimate Creator and Sustainer of all things in heaven and on earth.
The Holy Bible is the only inspired, authoritative written word of God, progressively revealing God’s will for humankind.
Jesus Christ is the living word of God who made known and carried out God’s plan of redemption through His virgin birth, sinless life, atoning death, bodily resurrection, and ascension, and who will return in power and glory.
The Holy Spirit is present in the life of the believer, testifying to the lordship of Christ and enabling the believer to live a godly life.
Humankind, though uniquely created in God’s image, rebelled and stands in need of redemption.
God graciously extends salvation to anyone who comes to Christ by faith.
The Church is the community of believers who express their unity in Christ by loving and serving Him, each other, and all people.

19. SUVs at altar, Detroit church prays for a bailout

Comment #299017 by gcdavis on December 9, 2008 at 2:11 am

As the high priest of gas guzzlers why wasn’t there a Humvee at the alter?

20. Muslim pilgrims stone devil amid tight control

Comment #299012 by gcdavis on December 9, 2008 at 2:01 am

The problem lies in the transcription of the Quran, although his memory was said to be word perfect the illiterate Mohammed missed out the last word as he dictated this particular verse to the ever present scribes. It should have read “Devil gets Stoned Man”

21. Richard Dawkins and Aubrey Manning

Comment #295899 by gcdavis on December 3, 2008 at 3:34 am

Yep AdrianB

I think Aubrey is 78, an age when thoughts about the future tend to be about your children and grandchildren’s future rather than your own. He said he was personally an optimist, most of us are, but could he be optimistic about the future of our planet? No.

Whenever I get depressed about the future, I am reminded of an Auden poem that I studied for O-Level many years ago and in particular a couple of lines:

Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages



SEPTEMBER 1, 1939

I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.

Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.

Into this neutral air
Where blind skyscrapers use
Their full height to proclaim
The strength of Collective Man,
Each language pours its vain
Competitive excuse:
But who can live for long
In an euphoric dream;
Out of the mirror they stare,
Imperialism's face
And the international wrong.

Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.

The windiest militant trash
Important Persons shout
Is not so crude as our wish:
What mad Nijinsky wrote
About Diaghilev
Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.

From the conservative dark
Into the ethical life
The dense commuters come,
Repeating their morning vow;
'I will be true to the wife,
I'll concentrate more on my work,'
And helpless governors wake
To resume their compulsory game:
Who can release them now,
Who can reach the dead,
Who can speak for the dumb?

All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.

Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.

22. Richard Dawkins and Aubrey Manning

Comment #295872 by gcdavis on December 3, 2008 at 3:09 am

Call me sentimental but I had tears in my eyes after that conversation. Aubrey exudes such compassion and warmth. Just imagine how wonderful this planet could be if there were more like him, but as it isn’t we are lucky to have the Prof to stand up to the forces of darkness on our behalf.

23. Unknown 'Structures' Tugging at Universe, Study Says

Comment #280657 by gcdavis on November 8, 2008 at 2:24 am

When I read stuff like this, like Donny Rumsfeld I realise the more we know, the more we don’t know. As a lay person I am intrigued by science because it is about ideas and the scientific method is about subjecting those ideas to scrutiny in order to justify their wider acceptance. With biology and much of earth based science the “proofs” have been tested to the point where theories have become fact, at least to most reasonably intelligent people.

With cosmology the ideas are so extraordinary and the “proof” difficult to validate in the way that Evolution can be, that for the layperson and I suspect many scientists too, these explanations cannot be accepted in quite the same way. Darwin’s ideas too were extraordinary but at least they were reductionist, with cosmology it seems the opposite, rather than gradually honing in on the answer, it seems as if each answer results in two alternative answers.

Forgive me if I am talking bollocks (many years ago I failed all three science exams)!

24. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #279407 by gcdavis on November 6, 2008 at 3:08 am

Great comments 279062 by Dispiracist

As the source of moral behaviour Hitchen’s always cites “human solidarity” without explaining. This is my take: We humans are hard wired to be good. The evidence is all around us in every family. The key to being good is altruism and empathy. We humans have to devote a huge amount of energy to nurturing our offspring or none of us would have survived infancy. Alongside the selfless devotion of parenting is empathy, when our baby cries we feed or comfort it. Understanding another’s needs and putting them ahead of our own is the bedrock of moral behaviour.

So the human family is the crucible where altruistic behaviour is forged, not out of a desire to please a distant god but out of biological necessity. And the human family is the base unit of human society; its structure is echoed in almost all human organisations, whether social, legal, political or religious. Within the family is the archetype of all human relationships.

25. Swatting attacks on fruit flies and science

Comment #276010 by gcdavis on November 1, 2008 at 4:13 am

There is a paradox at the heart of all democratic forms of government because the will of the people can never be truly trusted and nor should it be. The myriad of different voting systems used in democratic elections seek to filter the will of the people so that it doesn’t result in the lowest common denominator prevailing.
All politicians claim they represent the will of the people however we are now at a point in human history where “true” democracy could be implemented; technology offers the prospect of, phone, text, email, web voting on every issue. Parliaments and politicians could be dispensed with and the will of the people exercised. How scary is that?

26. Atheist Bus Campaign Comic

Comment #275527 by gcdavis on October 31, 2008 at 9:21 am

Seen in a Rome gift shop...
http://www.e-design.to/atheism/probably_pope_graham_davis2.jpg

27. Teaching hate in UK schools

Comment #275232 by gcdavis on October 31, 2008 at 1:58 am

What the **** are we doing funding these places!

British MPs should wake up to the threat that this bullshit poses!

28. A slow but certain demise

Comment #275226 by gcdavis on October 31, 2008 at 1:45 am

Terry Sanderson is president of the National Secular Society, if you are not a member, you should join, Terry and his colleagues are tireless in the cause of ridding the UK of religious privilege.

You can sign up to the weekly newsletter even if you are not a member.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/subscribe.html




Members include:
Graham Allen MP
Prof. Peter Atkins
Iain Banks
Lorraine Barrett AM
Edward Bond
Michael Cashman MEP
Colin Challen MP
Nick Cohen
Prof. Richard Dawkins
Lord Desai
Angela Eagle MP
Baroness Flather
Rt. Hon. Michael Foot
Ricky Gervais
Ian Gibson MP
Prof. A. C. Grayling
Johann Hari
Dr. Evan Harris MP
Patrick Harvie MSP
Christopher Hitchens
Paul Holmes MP
Prof. Ted Honderich
Mary Honeyball MEP
Kelvin Hopkins MP
Sir Ludovic Kennedy
Stewart Lee
Graham Linehan
Robert Marshall-Andrews QC, MP
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Lord McIntosh of Haringey
Jonathan Meades
Maryam Namazie
Sir Jonathan Miller
Taslima Nasrin
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
Lord Peston
Harold Pinter
Philip Pullman
Lord Raglan
Claire Rayner
Martin Rowson
Joan Ruddock MP
Joan Smith
Dr. David Starkey
Lord Taverne QC
Polly Toynbee
Baroness Turner of Camden
Sophie in 't Veld MEP
Gore Vidal
Prof. Lord Wedderburn of Charlton QC

29. Secrets of worm grunting support Darwin's instincts after 127 years

Comment #273081 by gcdavis on October 28, 2008 at 5:18 am

I have to admit to being a lapsed angler!

But when I was a kid, on the advice of some angling pundit or other, I used to empty a bucket of water mixed with a lot of washing up liquid onto the grass. After a while a few "irritated" worms would emerge, I then bathed them in a saucer of milk to restore their mucus. I am not kidding, it sounds quite daft now but what the hell!

30. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #272341 by gcdavis on October 27, 2008 at 9:04 am

MsBertaZ
Maybe an interesting point of view would be to invert the research and consider how religious indoctrination from an early age can affect a child's grasp on reality.

31. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #272309 by gcdavis on October 27, 2008 at 8:12 am

You may think what Dawkins said is ridiculous, but Richard Dawkins can say all the ridiculous things he wants and it would not discredit atheism

32. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #272300 by gcdavis on October 27, 2008 at 8:01 am

Melusine

I agree 100%

33. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #272279 by gcdavis on October 27, 2008 at 7:20 am

Although an atheist for 50 years I read the Narnia stories to my four kids, I enjoyed them and so did they, they are great yarns. They were quite aware of the religious allusion after we chatted about the characters and the storylines. No harm done, none of them are raving godheads!

Come on Richard get back into the debate, this is the first time that a substantial number of your supporters have disagreed with you, isn't that interesting?.

34. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #272258 by gcdavis on October 27, 2008 at 6:58 am

Richard has lost the plot on this one

Similarly, my intuition suggests that a diet of wizards and magic, where anything can change, at the shake of a wand, into anything else, might predispose a child to lazy habits of thought, avoiding the urge to question how and why things really happen.

This is emphatically not true, by the way, of good science fiction, which respects scientific principles and never resorts to lazy magic tricks.

35. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #272111 by gcdavis on October 27, 2008 at 2:22 am

This is one of the few times that I disagree with Richard. Imagination is one of the defining human characteristics; if imagination had been constrained by reason humankind would not have developed very far. An essential component of imagination is fantasy, you have only to listen to young children at play to realise that. Most children start off by blurring the boundary between fantasy and reality but gradually the distinction between the two becomes clear.

Imagination is an ingredient in all endeavours, whether an author writing a novel, a scientist making those links that have not been thought of before or even a footballer visualising the situation before taking a penalty. Imagination is essential to the enjoyment of fiction and drama. As adults we are able to suspend disbelief for the period of watching a movie and then return to the rational world.

So let your kids indulge their fantasies, even join in with them, and don’t be afraid that they will end up irrational zombies, mine haven’t

36. No-God squad climb aboard the atheist bus

Comment #271043 by gcdavis on October 25, 2008 at 7:25 am

Sorry to spoil the party but much as I welcome an atheist “fight back” this one is a gesture not a campaign! And before someone says “look at the publicity” that will quickly fade, what is needed is a long term strategy.

A PR/marketing/advertising strategy first defines goals, it identifies the audience and only then does it embark on a creative approach and select the media to be used.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that, with the exception of vociferous minorities the UK is not very religious, but many still think of themselves as culturally christian as evidenced by census results. But many of those who are not religious are not wholly rational either, they believe in conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, the Loch Ness monster etc.

Belief in something “outside ourselves” is regrettable but harmless so “god” is not the problem but religion certainly is. In my opinion it is the status and privileges that religion enjoys that need to exposed and undermined and the acceptance of the moral authority of religious leader that needs to be challenged. In my own small way that is what I have been doing in my correspondence with Mark Damazer over Thought for the Day (mentioned elsewhere on this site and the National Secular Society Newsletter.
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=61578
http://www.secularism.org.uk/subscribe.html)

Getting back to the bus ads “probably no god” is about as unconvincing as it can be and as stated previously god is not the problem. So if money is still coming in then please get some professional advice on how to spend it more effectively.

37. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268675 by gcdavis on October 22, 2008 at 6:02 am

AdrianB

You're talking about it of course. "Preaching" to the converted! But who is it the ad is trying to affect? The underlying strategy of any good ad should always be evident

Also the problem isn't god, it is religion. I have friends who are deists, no problem, it doesnt inform their actions

38. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268662 by gcdavis on October 22, 2008 at 5:37 am

Daydream Believer

Who is the target audience, what is the goal, what is the wider strategy?

39. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268640 by gcdavis on October 22, 2008 at 4:37 am

What a waste!

An ill-thought out concept and a truly pathetic slogan, surley there is someone with some PR/Advertising experience to stop wasting this golden opportunity.

40. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258402 by gcdavis on October 2, 2008 at 1:50 am

Jonesie or anybody!

I am currently uploading the 30 meg file to YouTube, it is going very slowly even on 8 meg broadband, is there any smarter way of doing this?

Now sorted
http://www.youtube.com/my_videos?pi=0&ps=20&sf=added&sa=0&sq=&dm=1

41. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258395 by gcdavis on October 2, 2008 at 1:25 am

SPINELESS!!
What price freedom of speech?
Boycott YouTube/Google
This is not China!!
Email UK newspapers, this must not go unreported

Admin: I think this demands an alert on this site with a list of all other video hosting sites so that we can make sure Pat's insights are out there

42. Which science book should the next US president read?

Comment #257785 by gcdavis on October 1, 2008 at 5:39 am

...or maybe

"My First Book of Spells and Potions"

43. Which science book should the next US president read?

Comment #257671 by gcdavis on October 1, 2008 at 12:08 am

I am delighted to learn that the President can read, I always assumed that this is one of the many skills he has yet to master. That said maybe he should start with...
"Mr Bean goes to CERN"
...and takes a ride on the Large Hadron Collider

44. Ancient underwater reef found in SA's Flinders Ranges

Comment #252421 by gcdavis on September 23, 2008 at 4:21 am

A reef that is 800 million years old! Hum, but the earth is only 6 thousand years old! The bible says "First God made heaven & earth...." But he must have been somewhere else when he made heaven and earth, the explanation is obvious, he used left over building materials from "somewhere else" to make earth!

45. When Atheists Attack

Comment #250972 by gcdavis on September 21, 2008 at 12:29 am

Sarah Palin's ignorance is guaranteed because of how she has spent the past 44 years on earth.I care even more about the many things Palin thinks she knows but doesn't: like her conviction that the Biblical God consciously directs world events.

46. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #249660 by gcdavis on September 18, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Richard Morgan

The guy is a non-entity, who cares?

47. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #249375 by gcdavis on September 18, 2008 at 4:12 am

geehigh

I agree 100%

48. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #248950 by gcdavis on September 17, 2008 at 8:38 am

Sargeist
You are right in describing the purpose of the programme "why science is important when it comes to many of the major problems that are or will be facing mankind (or more specifically the next president)". Take global warming, the main issue here is that the current administration has been hijacked by the oil companies and that has resulted in climate change denial. The focus of the programme here should have been to show how the science was being undermined by political opportunism, ignorance and self interest.

49. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #248793 by gcdavis on September 17, 2008 at 1:06 am

My fears expressed in the OP were realised last night, it was crap! The BBC does natural history brilliantly but it has lost its way with science. The department responsible needs to be totally reformed. I have no science training or skills but like many people I am fascinated by what science does and the people that do it.

This programme failed in its attempt to provide a coherent message, even worse it made a totally confused detour via Watson to eugenics. It looked like it had been made by first year media studies students who had been given a camcorder and told to get on with it.

Horizon should be put in the hands of science communicators, fortunately there is an abundance of them and then maybe the BBC could regain the respect it once had for producing popular science programmes for intelligent but lay people.

50. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #248422 by gcdavis on September 16, 2008 at 7:48 am

You could have fun with a Sarah Palin autocue!

Senator (Buy den) has suggested that my knowledge of foreign policy is not up to much. Well I know all I need to know about (iRan), (iRark), (South OOsetHear) and (Qbar) in fact I bet they don't even know what a hockey mom is in Paris (think Hilton!). When the Good Lord made all these places he didn't intend us Americans to know about them, he just made sure that they know about us (us-US clever aint it). For my foreign policy I am gonna start by visiting (uRope) and I'm really lookin forward to (LunDin) and meeting (GawDun Dirty color that don't go with nothin). etc etc