1. Vatican divorces from Italian law

Comment #310961 by RascoHeldall on January 2, 2009 at 12:43 pm

The Vatican digs its heels ever further in its quest to stop the march of civilisation.

Hopefully this will at least have the neat side-effect of hastening its descent into utter irrelevance.

2. Religious Ed. rebellion

Comment #304466 by RascoHeldall on December 21, 2008 at 4:06 am

"Oh no! If my brainwashed children learn that there are other mythology-based belief-systems, they'll suss our one isn't true!"

As a blatant a subconcious recognition of the falsehood of their own faith as you could possibly wish for.

3. 'Child-witches' of Nigeria seek refuge

Comment #281943 by RascoHeldall on November 11, 2008 at 5:30 am

This is a perfect example of why the question mark in Dawkins’ ‘The Root of all evil’ documentary should be omitted.

But it's not the route of ALL evil, is it - that was Richard's point.

If anything, this latest horror to me demonstrates that IGNORANCE is a better candidate - every individual's religious belief is mediated through their level of ignorance, so if they know nothing, their beliefs are free to run in any screwed-up direction. British Christians, save for an insane minority, don't think like this sick Nigerian representative of their cowardice (sorry, 'faith').

A programme of education throughout these ignorant cultures would surely wipe this evil out in a generation.

4. Quentin Letts ranks Dawkins 30th on list of 'people who have wrecked Britain'

Comment #278591 by RascoHeldall on November 4, 2008 at 10:42 pm

I don't for one second propose to treat this Mr Letts character seriously. All I will say is that this peice does demonstrate how some people (including, apparently, the author) have certain needs that can only be met if plain speakers like Dawkins are suppressed. Theists are, after all, on the losing end of a difficult and emotive argument.

This does in the very least suggest that a certain sympathy with their plight wouldn't go amiss.

5. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278458 by RascoHeldall on November 4, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Thank you America.

6. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #278023 by RascoHeldall on November 4, 2008 at 10:52 am

I have read two reports that Republican canvassers were handing out leaflets in Virginia, saying that Republicans had to vote on Nov 4th, Democrats on Nov 5th! I wonder if anybody will fall for it.

Richard

If this is true then surely it is an out-and-out criminal offence? I would have thought it was worthy of a prison sentence.

7. Bill Heine interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #268219 by RascoHeldall on October 21, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Steve Zara wrote:

Discoveries of scientific facts don't inform ethical decisions. Scientific findings don't have moral weight.

To imply that because Natural Selection involves survival of the fittest means that we should select humans based on our idea of who is fittest is absurd.

OF COURSE IT IS!! THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT!!

Can't you read?!?

What part of "the example of Hitler should be used to remind us that we ARE vulnerable to the brutal forces of nature and that the relative panacea we currently live in (in the West) should not be taken for granted" did you fail to understand? If you SERIOUSLY took this to mean that "because Natural Selection involves survival of the fittest means that we should select humans based on our idea of who is fittest" then I simply feel sorry for you.

I was attacking the idea that "survival of the fittest" - a fact of nature - was not a Nazi propoganda theme, when it so obviously was (however badly misunderstood and mangled). If you read what I wrote in any other way, then either you don't understand the English language, or my grasp of it was insufficient to convey what I meant. Looking back over my last post, I find it hard to believe the latter is true.

This is a really dumb argument that is easily dismissed.

Hmm.

Lots of ways I could say in reply to that, none of which would be flattering. Or, to take your tack, I could pretend you wrote "the moon is made of cheese" and reply to that instead? (It isn't, by the way.)

Lol mahmood wrote:

Rasco, that kind of misses the point that; even if the Nazis did reference Darwin (and I understand there's little evidence of Darwinism in National Socialism), they weren't acting according to any 'natural selection' or 'evolutionary' principle. They were engaged in a giant eugenics programme, coupled with a genocide.

Well, that wasn't quite what I was driving at, but thanks for at least paying me the courtesy of reading my post. My point was simply that the notion of "survival of the fittest" does fit into the Nazi ethos (i.e. the concept of the Arian race surviving at the expense of the Jewish, or whatever twisted drivel it was), and so to refer to such a grotesque policy as Darwinian is not INACCURATE, regardless of how objectionable or moronic such a policy was. (Unless human activity - even activity which actively affects the relative frequencies of genes in gene pools - is somehow not to be regarded as a part of Darwinian evolution.)

8. Bill Heine interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #268121 by RascoHeldall on October 21, 2008 at 12:35 pm

I don't understand why so many atheists feel the need to hysterically deny that Nazi nastiness was informed (at least in part) by Darwin's discovery of the mechanism behind evolution. To suggest Hitler's invocation of evolution MUST have been erroneous BECAUSE IT WAS HITLER is facile and emotive. Note, and wince at, the similarity with the creationists' even stupider position: Hitler had an interest in evolution so evolution MUST be erroneous BECAUSE IT WAS HITLER.
Nature doesn't care a fig for right or wrong and at a fundamental level, evolution is indeed about "survival of the fittest". If the Nazis had managed to subjugate the entirety of humanity to their vulgar vision, then in some respects Hitler's insane desire to demonstrate "survival of the fittest" would have been borne out. After all, humans are an evolving species like any other, and such a catastrophe would clearly have been evolutionarily significant.
Hitler therefore wasn't 'wrong' on this point, in a broad sense, just grotesquely in violation of the moral code that most of us agree upon. If anything, the example of Hitler should be used to remind us that we ARE vulnerable to the brutal forces of nature and that the relative panacea we currently live in (in the West) should not be taken for granted.
Where creationists use Hitler as an argument against the fact of evolution, then, we have only to make the point that it is arrant nonsense. Their suggestion that, because Hitler referred to Darwinian ideas in his vile propaganda, the entire scientific theory and supporting evidence should be thrown out, is about as stupid as saying that since Einstein's theory of relativity must be false because it was utilised in the making of the atom bomb.
That's all that needs to be said â€" we don't need to pretend evolution is something it isn't. (If you're feeling particularly pugnacious, you could also make the point that no benign omnipotent creator would ever sanction the existence of such a creature as Hitler, and that Hitler's very existence is direct evidence against the existence of such a being. But I digress.)

9. Video Game Pulled Due to Qur'an Quotes

Comment #266409 by RascoHeldall on October 18, 2008 at 10:20 pm

One day, the fact that people used to pander to this sort of nonsense will seem like a bad dream.

Or am I just a dreamer?

10. In conversation with... a computer program

Comment #266407 by RascoHeldall on October 18, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Ok, who managed to last more than a minute with Elbot before swearing at it?

11. 'God as Science Fiction'. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #258950 by RascoHeldall on October 2, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Spinoza wrote:

Starbucks requires a fairly strict dress code, black or khaki pants, black or white polo shirt, same colour undershirt as your polo, no exposed piercings except ears. Etc.

But they make a point of adding a caveat that says "Unless you've got a piercing or extra jewelery, etc for religious reasons." and they're very clear that the ONLY reason one could, say, have a nose ring, is if it were religiously inspired (I won't say mandated, because most of the time these things aren't strict "mandates", and MANY people who follow these self-same religions DO NOT follow these cultural traditions).

The point for me is - either there's a good reason to have a "no jewellery" code, or there isn't. If there IS a good reason - for example, safety - then by definition people who wear religious jewellery should be expected to abide by it. The same goes for any other code or regulation.

On the other hand, if the reasons for instituting the dress code (or regulation, etc.) are sufficiently feeble and arbitrary that the simple act of citing "religious grounds" is considered a sufficiently compelling excuse to ignore it, it rather suggests the code, and the justification behind it, are not worth the paper they are printed on. It then becomes a simple case of discrimination against those who dare to decorate themselves for reasons other than delusional piety. If Starbucks had a genuinely good reason to ban jewellery, then crucifixes would be as impermissible as heart-shaped lockets or lizard broaches.

Having said that, if the dress code IS there for a good reason, and DESPITE this religious people are still allowed to ignore it, this is where it gets to the point of self-evident absurdity and stupidity. And in these cases, I'd be much more inclined to come down hard on those drawing up/enforcing the rules, rather than the religious people that have been meekly allowed to circumvent the rules in spite of their best interests.

As an example, I don't know how many British Sikhs have died unnecessarily in motorbike accidents by exercising their legal exclusion from the requirement to wear crash helmets, but statistically it seems likely that one or two of them must have done. Now obviously, there is only so much you can do for someone who considers cultural traditions to be more important than the possibility of splitting their head open, but the Government should nevertheless consider itself directly culpable in every instance of such deaths. They are a direct consequence of their feeble, automatic acquiescence to religious idiocy. (Hmmm...Freedom of Information Act, anyone?)

12. Art teacher made student pray to Jesus for forgiveness

Comment #250860 by RascoHeldall on September 20, 2008 at 4:39 pm

This teacher is a child abuser and has surely forfeited his right to employment.

13. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210972 by RascoHeldall on July 15, 2008 at 10:21 am

So, he hasn't read the Koran, then.

14. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203078 by RascoHeldall on July 2, 2008 at 11:00 am

Argh! Why didn't the police just ignore these cretins?! Why should they give two hoots about the superstitious ravings of intellectual half-wits?

Seriously - why does insane stupidity always get given credence if it happens to come from Muslims? If something so egregiously stupid was uttered by any other group - including Christians - it would be laughed at.

Does the fact that Muslim extremists stab and bomb people have anything do with this?

(That last question was rhetorical by the way.)

15. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198774 by RascoHeldall on June 24, 2008 at 1:11 pm

I once innocently asked a Muslim friend whether it was true Mohammed had a 9-year old wife, assuming it to be a scurrilous rumour. His reaction - telling me to keep quiet and never mention it again - said it all. He was clearly ashamed of his prophet's behaviour (otherwise, why react in that way?) which at the very least shows his inclination was to be civilised, even if his horrible religion prevents him fully admitting it. These barbarians evidently have no such qualms. Stop buying their oil, please.

16. God seekers go public

Comment #179481 by RascoHeldall on May 13, 2008 at 10:13 am

Evolutionary arms race.

The better we get at exposing these idiot's shenanigans, the better the idiots get at disguising them.

17. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171574 by RascoHeldall on April 28, 2008 at 3:22 pm

"Not much can be done when we have an honour killing case," said Sergeant Ali Jabbar of Basra police. "You are in a Muslim society and women should live under religious laws. The father has very good contacts inside the Basra government and it wasn't hard for him to be released and what he did to be forgotten."

One of the most chilling things I've read since...since the last time I read about a murder in the Muslim world.

Amazes me how western Muslims will protest about a handful of CARTOONS but don't raise a bloody finger to complain about the SHIT that is done DAILY in the name of their so-called 'faith'. It is pathetic, it is sinister, it is vile. How do these people live with themselves? How is it possible?

Argh, to be honest I am too disgusted to type any more.

18. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #156345 by RascoHeldall on April 7, 2008 at 11:16 am

Awesome news! Can't wait to watch it!

19. My Argument With God

Comment #131704 by RascoHeldall on February 23, 2008 at 3:19 am

Nicely-balanced little piece.

Ricky touches on something that I've often thought is probably the case - that there is a large subset of 'believing' religious people who know it isn't true, but keep the lie going for the sake of others, or so that they don't feel out of place culturally.

I was at a tradional(ish) Muslim wedding a while ago and it did strike me - if I was part of this culture and didn't believe, who would I tell? Who would respect my questions? All my close muslim friends have on a number of occasions indicated - usually inadvertently - that they don't deep down think the religious mythology was actually true. But if you take that cue and suggest, for one second, they don't really believe it, they will take offence and claim it as an insult.

How much of religion's success is due to this unspoken fear of being honest with each other, and pressure to be seen to conform? Does ANYONE actually believe it, or is it all simply a massive charade?

20. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #117662 by RascoHeldall on January 29, 2008 at 10:37 am

Who the hell is Imogen Heap?!

21. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115303 by RascoHeldall on January 24, 2008 at 1:18 am

If anything, Darwinism can help us explain - and better deal with - the phenomenon of racism. You only have to read the Grasshopper's Tale in Dicky D's last-book-but-one to understand why.

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

Comment #104641 by RascoHeldall on December 29, 2007 at 3:53 am

Oh my God - this guy ACTUALLY believes all that crap.

Is there some sort of compilation of Ratzi's insane pronouncements somewhere? Could someone make one? It would be nice to have, for when the next "sophisticated theologian" starts pretending theists don't take Biblical nonsense literally. Just a thought.

23. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103150 by RascoHeldall on December 24, 2007 at 11:15 am

I am not finding some of the gloating here particularly edifying. This poor, deluded fool was the product of a society which systematically nurtured and supported his insane delusions. He deserves our sympathy, not our derision.

24. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102511 by RascoHeldall on December 23, 2007 at 4:09 am

I wonder whether Blair will outline what are the key claims made by Catholicism (but not Anglicism) that so persuaded him, and the evidence he used to make this decision.

Hah!

Thing is, it isn't funny - this wierdo made a decision which directly led to the agonising deaths of many people, and reportedly did so (at least in part) with reference to Christian dogma and his pathetic belief in an invisible super-being. If this is true - and it seems that it is - Blair is a barbarian, and was simply not fit for office.

Perhaps if we can finally break down the 'taboo' on respecting irrational religious belief, the full implications of what this man has done will start to sink in with people, and the slow wheels of justice can finally begin to catch up with him.

25. This Week's Flea

Comment #100333 by RascoHeldall on December 18, 2007 at 1:57 pm

I am half-tempted to become a Flea myself and write my own response to Dawkins, so pitiful is the general standard of argument in these things. How hard can it be to actually READ what someone writes?
Or is strawmanning obligatory with these things?

26. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96938 by RascoHeldall on December 11, 2007 at 6:07 am

The scandalous, monumental idiocy of 'Father' Morris's position is exposed with a simple tweak:

"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 ateapotists who have, in your opinion, acted in a way that poorly represents your belief system, in particular your common denial of the existence of Celestial Teapots."

That man is so stupid I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.

27. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96855 by RascoHeldall on December 11, 2007 at 2:38 am

The film made $26million in TWO DAYS and that's a FLOP?!?

Just the sort of typically sharp and accurate analysis you would expect from a fundy theist. I know we're not supposed to treat religious inanity as indicative of a lack of intelligence, but sometimes it just is, isn't it?

28. The art of the soluble

Comment #96219 by RascoHeldall on December 10, 2007 at 7:18 am

* double-post *

29. The art of the soluble

Comment #96218 by RascoHeldall on December 10, 2007 at 7:18 am

Steve99 wrote:

An infinite supermind that also happens to be a nice chap is a very silly non-explanation.

If ever there was a stick to beat theists with, this is surely it.

The belief that God is somehow "good" is not only a silly claim (most religious claims are, of course) it's also one of the most widely-made claims made for God that is DEMONSTRABLY false. I don't think anywhere near enough capital is made out of this point.

While it's logically impossible to disprove that there is some sort of omnipotent guiding intelligence responsible for the universe, it is however trivially easy, and there is a preponderance of evidence, to disprove that there is an all-loving God that cares about humanity's happiness. I only have to say the words "tsunami", "child-rape" and "Islam", for example, to demonstrate this.

Rather than hitting our heads against a brick wall over logically-unfalsifiable propositions, I think we should do more to challenge people's beliefs about the CHARACTER of this being, since it's so easily shown that IF there is a celestial dictatorship (how I love Hitchens' turn of phrase) it is clearly a malign force, or at worst a cruelly-disinterested one.

Anyone who can maintain that there is a loving God in spite of the daily horrors that face our species is performing a morally-repugnant exercise in reality-denial. To postulate that there is an omnipotent being that could, in principle, intervene when a child is about to be abducted, raped and tortured, but does nothing about it, is a stupid conjecture which can't be disproven. But to then conclude that that being somehow LOVES the person whose suffering IT COULD HAVE PREVENTED AS A MATTER OF TRIVIAL EASE is to excuse the most heinous evil imaginable!

We would view any father who stood by, and willingly allowed his daughter to be raped, as a vile piece of filth. Few would have any qualms about locking such an appalling person away for life. Yet this is PRECISELY what God apparently does, if he has the attributes claimed for him by the majority of religious people! Why the double-standard? Why do theists expect less from the omnipotent creator of the universe than they do from a fallible, mortal, imperfect humans?

If words such as "loving", "good" and "compassionate" are to have any meaning, then they simply cannot be applied to God. It is a simple fact that if God was both (a) omnipotent and (b) loving, he would intervene to prevent suffering. He doesn't, so he clearly cannot be both (a) and (b). This fact is, in my view, an open goal – and we are missing it by trying to insist that there is no God at all. Perhaps acknowledging that there is a chance theists could be right about the existence of God, but demonstrating to them how there is no way this being can be a force for good, might be a better tack than simply trying to discredit an unfalsifiable proposition. Maybe a more realistic medium-term goal is to bring people round to the idea that mere humans are capable of greater good than their indifferent God ever has been.

30. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96151 by RascoHeldall on December 10, 2007 at 4:22 am

No-one should have the right to inflict unnecessary surgery on a person without their informed consent. It's as simple and as clear-cut (sorry) as that.

Anyone who disagrees with that simply does not understand the concept of human rights.

31. Let us kill all the teddy bears

Comment #94931 by RascoHeldall on December 7, 2007 at 2:44 am

I'll again ask where all our muslim counter-protesters are? If they are indeed the greater majority, why do they not even write anonymous letters to editors, or to tv stations? Where is the widespread outrage that such action is taken in the name of their "moderate peaceful faith"? Or does it not exist?

Good point.

I wrote to the allegedly-moderate Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) earlier this year to ask if they would consider staging, or at least being involved in, a peaceful demonstration against the terrorists acting in the name of their faith. It would have been an opportunity for the more progressive wing of Islam to show solidarity with the civilised world, and build bridges with other 'communities'.

No reply.

I wrote again. Still no reply.

Finally, on the third attempt, when I indicated I would be writing to my MP, they sent some cock and bull flim-flam which translated as "No, we're not going to protest against the actions of any muslim".

32. Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

Comment #94926 by RascoHeldall on December 7, 2007 at 2:32 am

The trouble with this sort of thing, though, is that it's ultimately dishonest. Simply re-naming the universe 'God' doesn't magically make science compatible with fairytales of an interventist, prayer answering psychopath who hates women and homosexuals. It is like renaming Volvos 'cheese' and then claiming that cheese is the safest type of car.

33. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94696 by RascoHeldall on December 6, 2007 at 9:20 am

This is the message from the slave of Allah to all the athiests.

You really consider yourself a slave to this being?

Don't you have any self-respect at all?

Muslims are living in Dewsbury, and therefore they have the right of getting some help from the government because the tax money is not just deducted from non-muslims.

Muslims currently have the right to EXACTLY the same level of treatment as EVERYONE ELSE.

On are you suggesting Muslims deserve special treatment?

If so - why?

Devil has made you see religion as a set of beliefs worth only of insult.

That's the right. The devil, in his supreme wickedness, has showed us the superiority of reason over blind faith, liberalism over totalitarianism, and civilisation over barbarism.

What a bastard!

I ask Allah to give u peace of mind and would encourage you to read Quran.

Well, you're right there. After following the Qu'ran's instructions on how to beat my wife, I certainly got some peace and quiet!

(I'm joking, of course.)

34. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94172 by RascoHeldall on December 5, 2007 at 12:20 am

So it was a wind-up then, more or less.

Phew.

35. Ask The God Delusion author Richard Dawkins

Comment #94171 by RascoHeldall on December 5, 2007 at 12:13 am

Pope Benedict says that disbelief in God is responsible for some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" in history?

Wow. He really said that? All I can say is, I can only guess how much more cruelty throughout history has been committed by people who didn't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster either.

Seriously - what a moron! I realise he has to believe in angels and suchlike to hold such the esteemed [sic] and worthy [sic] position that he does, but I would have thought that despite that, a certain basic intelligence was necessary as well?

Obviously not.

36. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #93971 by RascoHeldall on December 4, 2007 at 2:03 pm

OK. You nearly had me there. Nearly.

Still, bit early for April Fools' gags, isn't it?

37. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #91419 by RascoHeldall on November 28, 2007 at 9:14 am

Fanusi wrote:

This is hogwash, and anyone who knows anything about the Prophet knows that it's hogwash. I'm not about to gamble the continuation of Civilisation on this lot.

Sure, it's hogwash.

However, similarly, it doesn't make any rational or doctrinal sense whatsoever to believe that God as depicted in the Old Testament is a good, loving being, but millions of Christians manage it. The point is - apart from at the most extreme fringes - Christianity has been beaten into something vaguely compatible with civilisation, DESPITE the obnoxious, violent nonsense at the heart of the religion. No-one is stoning their daughters for not being virgins in the West, because there is an unspoken acceptance in our society that the diktats of the Old Testament are insane bollocks. Few Christians will admit this openly, of course, but they admit it implicitly through ignoring it.

Yes, that means that most Christians are scripturally-ignorant, hypocritical, intellectually dishonest, whatever – but what you rather have? (1) A society which genuinely treats its holy text as a literal set of commands from the creator of the universe, or (2) one where the majority continues to pander to their emotional weakness through religion, but don't, in the end, take it too literally?

I think Islam as a doctrine is horrifying, and the barbarous views of many of its adherents is repugnant in the extreme, and must be fought at all costs. But at the same time, as Bonzai says, there are loads of Muslims who are just ordinary people, and take it as seriously as the average Christian probably does – I had a few Muslim friends at uni, for example, who (to varying degrees) ate non-Halal meat, drank, took drugs, had sex outside of marriage and to non-Muslims. True Islamic moderation IS possible, I think, but the biggest stumbling block is that those who take the religion seriously tend to be those with the most barbarous and deranged views. So you have facists like the head of the MCB – supposedly a moderate organisation – supporting stoning and hinting at the virtues of Shariah law. (IF ONLY the muslims who didn't take their religion seriously could be the spokespeople for it!)

Thinking you can simply eradicate the whole concept of Islam in a fell swoop is being ridiculously over-optimistic, to put it as mildly as I can. It is too engrained in culture, as is Christianity, to be simply done away with. The ONLY possible course of action is to support these liberal Muslims in their quest to establish a more peaceable interpretation of the religion. To be honest, I have no idea how anyone could even contemplate reconciling the Koran with 21st century civilisation, but we need to encourage and support those that want to see this happen. And frankly - who CARES if it's ultimately a dishonest enterprise, not true to the poisonous doctrines laid out by the Koran, if the ultimate effect of doing so is the saving of lives and the emancipation of millions of women and gay men?

38. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89544 by RascoHeldall on November 21, 2007 at 3:44 am

chezzyd wrote:

Personally I am wondering who in the West Midlands police has a blindly pro-Islamist agenda....

Same here. I think serious questions need to be asked of the role of the 'Islamic relations' officer who appears to have been the catalyst for this appalling farrago. Did this officer contrive the charge for no real reason other than to try and invalidate the programme's criticism of the Islamic groups concerned? And if so, wouldn't that be an obscene dereliction of duty? I think the West Midlands force needs to establish as a matter of urgency that there is no conflict of interest here, and rule out definitively that this officer is linked in any way with the barbarous (and illegal) activities featured in the video.

We also urgently require a plausible explanation for why such a flimsy – nay, nonsensical - case actually got as far as the CPS. Having said that, in the current climate of hair-trigger sensitivity over matters of race (to borrow Prof. Dawkins' phrase) I can well imagine senior officers, wary of the gun that is being held to their head over this issue, letting this one slip through for the sake of appearing to be 'on message' and not being seen to criticise 'minorities'. But that is no excuse. Even if it is shown that the Islamic relations officer acted appropriately according to his job description, there was a failure all along the line to put the breaks on this intellectually-indefensible charge, and I think we at least have the right to demand an investigation into how and why this monumental cock-up was allowed to happen.

39. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86442 by RascoHeldall on November 9, 2007 at 8:26 am

ADH wrote

RascoHeldal, I don't know what hell is like. The Bible uses phrases like "outer darkness" and refers to fire (which I believe to be metaphorical, as I have explained above) It is where God is not. The utter and eternal absence of God. Of course most of you lot will say "so what?" or "no loss!", or "so what makes it different from the universe as it is?" Maybe that's when the truth of a godless existence will really be seen for what it is. (Emphasis mine.)

As you indicate, to us atheists the Biblical God certainly SEEMS to be imaginary, and SEEMS to be a delusion possessed by a (substantial) minority of humans on this planet. However, you seem to be saying that there is something qualitative about the universe that indicates God's presence, that we would notice if it wasn't there.

So in what ways would the universe be different if the Christian God was just a myth, and belief in it a sincere but misguided delusion?

40. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86405 by RascoHeldall on November 9, 2007 at 6:49 am

ADH wrote:

I don't believe that Hell consists literally of fire. I believe that this is a metaphor for the self-inflicted torment - the Self entrenched in its own distortions for all eternity.

OK, so what will literally happen to me then? (As I am certainly destined for this place if your beliefs are right.) Would I be conscious? What would the place look like? Would I meet Adolf Hitler there?

I am genuinely interested to know your views on what is going to happen to me. If nothing else, it would be nice to prepare, know what I mean?

41. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86401 by RascoHeldall on November 9, 2007 at 6:27 am

Goldy wrote:

Errrr...isn't there a wee inconsistency here?

It isn't really, to be fair. If you accept the premise that God gave us free will, loves all humans but is arrogant and insecure enough to reward them on the basis of how much they suck-up to him, then it's logically consistent. (King Lear, anyone?)

The problem is that the larger proposition that God gave us free will is of course nonsensical – if God 'planned' evolution, then every decision our ancestors ever made would have had to have been predestined to ensure that the human race evolved to its present form. To suggest that absolute free will can co-exist with divine pre-planning of nature is logically incoherent.

If creationists are honest about one thing, it is the dichotomy between their religion's claims and the facts of the matter. They at least realise that if their religion is to have any basis in reality then evolution by natural selection must be false, that the two postulates are as mutually-incompatible as it's possible to be. That they choose to ignore the encyclopaedic body of evidence supporting evolution over the pathetic claims of their religion speaks volumes about their psychology and intellectual capacity, but at least they are consistent. The moderates' dishonesty - in trying to pretend that the claims of science and religious mythology can somehow co-exist as long you keep saying they do - is in many ways more aggravating.

42. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86072 by RascoHeldall on November 8, 2007 at 4:10 am

ADH, please can you clarify, once and for all, EXACTLY what will happen to your children after they die if they don't accept your beliefs.

I'm not looking for some metaphorical whitewash here, I'd like to know what you think will LITERALLY happen to them when their corporeal forms have ceased to be.

Thanks.

43. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85643 by RascoHeldall on November 6, 2007 at 3:00 pm

ADH wrote:

RascoHeldall, I do believe and I do care. But I don't have and nor do I want to have control over my children's choices!

If one of your kids motioned to put their hand in a fire, what would you do? Intervene immediately, or enter into a gentle "dialogue" with them to allow them to find their own path, in their own time?

I hope you don't think it presumptious of me to assume that you would intervene immediately.

But according to the doctrine you are defending here, your children are currently motioning to put their WHOLE BODY in the fire, FOR ALL ETERNITY. And yet, for some strange reason, you seem rather sanguine about the chances of talking them into believing. What if you can't? What if you don't get round to it? Have you never considered these possibilities?

Since I do not for one second question your love and devotion for your children, please consider it a compliment when I say I am still not persuaded of the sincerity of your belief in this particular aspect of Christian doctrine.

44. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85590 by RascoHeldall on November 6, 2007 at 9:49 am

ADH wrote:

"I am hoping and praying that they come to faith. But I am not going to alienate them by coercion. They know what we believe about the consequences of shutting God out of their lives. We don't mince our words about that. But we will not resort to fear tactics."

So you accept, then, that the way things stand, your kids are dooming themselves to an eternity of torment. You seem remarkably calm, even blase, about this.

Gotta ask - why on earth are you having a debate on an internet forum with complete strangers, when you could be using that time to plead with your kids to save themselves? If I thought my kids were about to be spit-roasted I'd be doing everything I possibly could, every second of every day, to stop that.

Two possibilities spring to mind. Either (a) you don't really, deep down, care what happens to them or (b) you don't really, deep down, believe it's true.

Which is it?

45. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85134 by RascoHeldall on November 5, 2007 at 4:45 am

It would be good to know just how common it is.

P.S. I also wonder how many dying people are cornered into trading lip service of religion for hospice care?

My Mum was in hospital earlier in the year (routine) and was regularly accosted by religiofools offering to pray for her. She told them in plain terms why she thought they were insulting her intelligence, but the point is there is a good reason (from the Christian parasite's point of view) why they are stalking hospitals.

Since religion is mankind's ultimate expression of fear at the thought of its mortality, what better place to seek out people who may be vulnerable to these fears than a hospital? Of course, they don't care two figs about the person. All they care about is getting another death-bed conversion. Animals.

46. The God Delusion and Alister E McGrath

Comment #81674 by RascoHeldall on October 25, 2007 at 2:57 am

Why do TV/Radio stations/debating societes etc continually give McGrath the time of day?

He has somehow a name for himself as a progressive spokesman for Christianity despite having NOTHING new or useful to say in defence of the religion - he uses the same old pathetic, moronic arguments, such as - unbelievably - that Darwinisim leads to some sort of societal disorder, and hints of the usual "you can't prove me wrong so I'm right" line, a position so egregiously stupid it sorely challenges the notion that religious belief is unrelated to intelligence quotient.

But because McGrath is an educated man who can string a sentence together, and is judiciously platitudinous, he is able to make these tired arguments sound more reasonable than there are. But he is still ultimately singing from the exact same hymn sheet as any of the more overt religiofools such as D'Souza or Sharpton.

47. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73767 by RascoHeldall on September 26, 2007 at 5:45 am

I don't think rational argument works against the majority of theists (though it certainly needs to be made, at every available opportunity!). The fact is, the arguments against religion are obvious enough that intelligent pre-pubescent children can make them.

The reason rational argument usually fails is because the 'battleground' if you like, is at an emotional rather than rational level, and so no amount of rational argument will touch it. Trying to use logic and reason to talk someone out of a religious delusion is like trying to talk someone out of loving their wife. It simply isn't going to work. The only time I've ever been able to make 'inroads' is when I've asked questions like - "what do you feel you would lack in your life without this belief?" or, even more pointedly, "Why is it necessary for you to believe in God to be happy?"

48. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72824 by RascoHeldall on September 23, 2007 at 4:13 am

"We believe that it is important that collective worship should provide the opportunity for pupils to worship God as well..."

Holy crap! There's not even the basic recognition in this that 'God' might not actually exist - it's just taken as read! Likewise, the airy-fairy commitment to 'spiritual development' of pupils, as if any of this crap is actually, like, real!! (It is also the gravest insult - the assumption that children NEED this bullshit mythology in order to grow as people.)

New Labour are writing this medieval drivel into the policy of our country. This is goes beyond disgraceful and into the terrority of barbarism. What on earth can we do to stop the rot?

49. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72122 by RascoHeldall on September 20, 2007 at 11:47 am

I don't understand this current trend of people blaming atheists for other peoples religious based ignorance.

Because atheism scares them.

The thought that there might not be a purpose to life other than what they make of it, the thought that there is nothing beyond death - if you have been bathed in this sort of childish wishful thinking since birth and are confronted by a rational argument that undercuts it, what are you to do? The intellectually honest response would be to evaluate the argument with a view to modifying your position where appropriate, but it doesn't seem to be as straightforward as that for many theists.

There appears to be a worrying lack of emotional maturity lurking behind much of this anti-Dawkins backlash, with many of the so-called counter-arguments seeming to boil down to "This hurts my feelings! So stop it!". Rather than deal with the difficulties presented by atheists' arguments, these theists berate Dawkins et al because they have made them confront a reality they do not want to confront. Because these thiests' intellects have been shaped to operate on an emotional rather than rational plane, the atheist position – when expressed with the clarity of a Dawkins or a Harris – becomes an assault on their emotions, and they respond in a similar way anyone would to, say, racial abuse. Of course, they don't have a moral or intellectual right not to be hurt by criticisms of their religion, but the fact is they ARE hurt, and blame atheists for this, when, of course, the real fault lies with those in our society who have kept theistic lies going centuries beyond their sell-by date.

50. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71941 by RascoHeldall on September 20, 2007 at 1:08 am

I'm very concerned with the number of dumbass or dishonest anti-atheist 'thought' pieces that have started to pepper the Independent of late. It has been my paper of choice for a number of years, but the quality of these pieces has been so low I may need to reconsider. One senses that this orchestrated (if pathetic) attack must be a conscious editorial decision, perhaps influenced by the sound of personal convictions being rattled? Thank goodness they still have Johann Hari on the payroll, anyway!