1. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #272085 by MartinSGill on October 27, 2008 at 1:32 am

The difference between childhood myths and fairytales is that we stop pretending (in many cases never even start) that they are in any way based on reality or fact.

Even Santa, once figured out, is acknowledge as a myth.

The danger comes when we refuse to accept myth and fairytales as such; which is where religion comes in.

2. Gaming Evolves

Comment #241219 by MartinSGill on September 2, 2008 at 2:34 am

I was planning to pre-order this game.

I've changed my mind though since I learned that EA are going to use SecuROM DRM for the game. Given the fiasco that caused with Bioshock and Mass Effect and the fact that quite a few anti-virus organisations have categorised SecuROM as malware given how invasive and strict it is.

Don't take my word for it... google around, the official Spore forums are EA are a good place to start. (http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/spore-game-discussion/329962-spore-securom-death.html) A quick google will find thousands of posts about it.

Or look on wikipedia for the effects of secuRom on your computer.

3. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227501 by MartinSGill on August 10, 2008 at 3:52 am

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I happen to agree with the review. I thought it myself when I was watching the series.

I'd much rather have had RD making a very clear and unequivocal case for evolution by natural selection and letting people come to their own conclusions vis-a-vis god. Just getting everyone accepting and understanding evolution is actually a very big step towards eliminating religion entirely.

He threw away a good chance of getting the loonies to listen to the evidence and possibly start them thinking maybe even start them questioning their beliefs, or at least some of them. Instead by bringing god into the presentation as blatantly as he did, he just turned them off and turned them against him and anything else he might say however profound.

There's a time for small steps with potentially far-reaching impact and this series could have been it.

4. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #201120 by MartinSGill on June 29, 2008 at 5:06 am

RD was on Doctor who because the producer, Russel T Davis, is a huge fan of Dawkins and not the only one, it seems.

Davis Remarked: "People were falling at his feet ... We've had Kylie Minogue on that set, but it was Dawkins people were worshipping."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/russell-t-davies-return-of-the-tea-time-lord-805255.html

Now both RD and his wife have had parts in Doctor Who I still prefer Lalla though. :)

She still does the occasional Big Finish Doctor Who audio play and she's great in those to.

5. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166172 by MartinSGill on April 23, 2008 at 12:08 am

Having recently read Viktor Frankl's book (Man's Search for Meaning) I drew the conclusion that he was either agnostic/atheist or possibly a deist, despite his Jewish heritage.

The message he made about survival in the camp though was one more about needing something to cling to, something to keep one going. In Victor Frankl's case he says it wasn't spirituality, but his desire to see his wife again and his burning ambition to rewrite the book whose pages the Nazi's destroyed.

6. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #124069 by MartinSGill on February 8, 2008 at 9:18 am

Let's cut the guy some slack. He's openly admitted he has no idea what's happening and he's asking scientists to find out what's going on.

I think this is the best approach and I think he's at least bright enough to realise that you don't get something for nothing; and there's nothing wrong with him hoping though.

If it turns out that he's managed to discover a technique for getting electric motors to be a lot more efficient then that's a damn good accomplishment.

Lots of things have been discovered by accident; Vulcanisation, Penicillin to name just two.

7. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101133 by MartinSGill on December 20, 2007 at 1:09 am

The BBC's today programme just had a small bit about Nick Clegg's comment.

The debate interestingly enough (American politicians take note) had nothing to do with whether his belief was good/right or not.

It had to do with whether giving an honest direct answer to a straightforward question was wrong or not.

Interestingly enough the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (not interviewed), was on Nick's side, saying he preferred open honesty, regardless of religious views.

The worst that was said about Nick was that he was "Honest, but reckless" and that he should have avoided answering the question and kept quiet about his religious views, one way or another.

There was of course the obligatory dig at American politicians and their idiot tendency to bring religion into everything.

8. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100795 by MartinSGill on December 19, 2007 at 10:46 am

The LibDems are the only party I know of in UK politics that are determined to bring about a truly secular country.

They're on record as wanting to disestablish the church and they're opposed to faith schools.

See the last couple of minutes (08:20) of this leadership hustings video (I wonder who sent in that question... ho hum... :P )

http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x877x_libdem_leadership-ehustings-2007/video/x3kmm7_personal-values_news

9. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #91864 by MartinSGill on November 29, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Poor Sudanese government.

On the one hand the they've got the entire civilized world crying foul and their stupid adherence to a barbaric system and its diktats is highlighted to the world for the iron-age system it is.

On the other hand they've got the Islamic loony-hooligan-terrorists in their own country that will probably lynch them all and arise in insurrection if they don't come down on this teacher like a tonne of bricks.

They probably had no choice but to punish her. If they'd dismissed the charges the country would be in flames now.

As usual the religious loonies influence policy as they always have throughout history; with violence and the threat of violence.

10. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91328 by MartinSGill on November 28, 2007 at 3:59 am

It's well known that in the Koran Mohammed took a nine-year-old girl as his wife (one of many) and in our society today that would make him a paedophile. Does that mean Mr. Bunglawala refuses to condemn paedophilia and child abuse as it would be "asking [him] to condemn [his] prophet"?

11. A Revelation

Comment #78223 by MartinSGill on October 12, 2007 at 7:39 am

Oh.. as to the article... maybe it's just me... but it seemed very skewed towards Christianity and the theists.

Lennox wasn't criticised at all whereas Dawkins was infamous, provocative and picking an example of humour that implies RD was evading.

12. A Revelation

Comment #78222 by MartinSGill on October 12, 2007 at 7:37 am

From what I understand of the US system a professor is anyone that teaches and hence seems to hold little respect.

In the UK a professor is an academic "rank" that ranks higher than Doctor. It's awarded to academics who have contributed significantly to their university. Where I studied Engineering, the head of the department position (of about 35 Phds) rotated biannually through only 4 professors.

I could, of course, be wrong, maybe it's even one of those state-to-state issues.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

13. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75531 by MartinSGill on October 3, 2007 at 12:12 am

I both agree and disagree with Sam (does that make me an agnostic? :P ).

I think the term atheist is not overly helpful. The problem as I see it though is that we've tried reason and reasoning. It's called the enlightenment and for the past 200 years we opposed ignorance with reason and see where that got us.

14. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72801 by MartinSGill on September 23, 2007 at 2:20 am

jaytee_555 on September 23, 2007 at 12:59am Wrote:

Does anyone have any good ideas about how we could actively support this brave headteacher?

15. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72146 by MartinSGill on September 20, 2007 at 12:34 pm

I actually think this is a good article, but not for the reasons that Skinner might like.

I'm all for encouraging the religious to examine just what it is they believe in, that they really must read Dawkins and come to grips with what he says.

When the religious start examining the god they believe in and then compare it to the god the theological debating society envisages they'll discover that the two are nothing alike.

This will turn the fundies against the theologians, which will only be bad for religion and hence good for atheism. But it will also get many religious to really examine just what it is they believe. When they note all the contradictions between their long held beliefs and the convoluted, mind-boggling, spaghetti arguments used by theologians to rationalise something that doesn't actually exist, it might bring many of them to their senses.

In the end... anyone that gets religious people to read dawkins has my support. The more people read TGD the more people have a chance to examine their views in a different light and maybe break free of their religious shakles.

Richard Skinner is his own worst enemy. He doesn't realise that most religious people believe in the "Straw God", and not in his god. And getting those people to take RD seriously is a win for rationalism and atheism.

16. In God we doubt

Comment #67285 by MartinSGill on September 3, 2007 at 2:40 am

I have to admit that I recognise a lot of myself in Humphrey's description of atheists.

Unfortunately he suffers, at least in my case, from the delusion that I treat ALL Christians that way. I have to admit, to start with I did, but then I looked at myself and decided I didn't like the person I was becoming. I was becoming the enemy. The irony is, that by not being fond of the way I was behaving, I'd actually won a victory against the religious loonies. I'd shown that morality and decency does not come from the bible, indeed my very distaste for the behaviour of those claiming that argument for themselves is why I disliked seeing it in myself.

I still think of many Christians in just those terms though, but I reserve my scorn for the biblical literalists, and the creationists who John himself buries in scorn and contempt. How then is he any different to me? Just which parts of his list don't apply to him when he thinks of creationists, evangelicals and insane, megalomaniac mullahs?

Indeed, how is Giles Fraser any different to me? He also has "scorn (if not contempt) for the more traditional approach". As do I. The "traditional" approach leads to fundamentalism, the crusades, inquisitions, the oppression of science, the abuse of women and the mess in the middle east.

In many ways I see Fraser as no different to Sam Harris. Sam sees himself as a spiritual person and appreciates Jainism, Fraser is exactly the same, but instead of Jainism, he's chosen to label his spirituality Christianity.

The irony is that a couple of "traditional" Christians I know refuse to consider what Fraser believes to be Christian at all. They want nothing to do with the Anglican church, they hold it in contempt because it's not really Christian any more. Anyone who doesn't believe the resurrection really happened cannot be a Christian.

The problem with Humphrey is that he focuses too much on the British religious, epitomised by the Anglican church. A form of Christianity that is so watered down, and mostly harmless, that it's all but impotent; the very reason many "Christians" reject it and seek faith along more "traditional" lines.

Does Humphrey consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali an atheist militant? The woman who quite correctly points out the in the middle east millions of women live the lives of slaves or cattle at the hand of "traditional" religion, and all she wants is freedom for herself and her gender that the impotent Christians already have? And she wants those people to be vary of becoming more like her "traditional" former countrymen.

Humphrey may have spoken to many religious people, but he doesn't seem to have spoken to any of the evangelicals and the "undoubtedly stupid (witness the creationists)". Yet it those "undoubtedly stupid" people that the atheists he mislabels as "militant" are opposed to.

People like Giles Fraser, the man Humphrey seems to hold up as the argument against the atheists, are pretty much the vision of a religious man that these "militant" atheists are striving to achieve. People that believe, but believe intelligently, and sensibly.

Over 50% of Americans believe God created the Earth and humans fully formed in a matter of days; they are the "undoubtedly stupid" as Humphrey calls them. They are the target of atheist arguments and opposition and indeed fear.

It's a shame that Humphrey's exploration of the religious seems to be limited to those he's comfortable with, instead of focusing on those he, like the atheist "militants", holds in contempt.

17. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65510 by MartinSGill on August 24, 2007 at 2:15 pm

I feel sorry that she was trapped.. but the really sick bit for me is that her "close friend" not only doesn't destroy her letters as she asked, he goes and makes them available to the entire world.

The reason? He's a priest and he's pushing her sainthood as a coup for the catholic church. After all the catholic church hasn't been covered in roses recently and it needs a new hero to distract the disillusioned masses from all the child molesting priests.

Catholic Church Uber Alles, and the wishes of their victim be damned.

18. Poll: Which religion do you associate with?

Comment #64819 by MartinSGill on August 22, 2007 at 1:36 am

Given that this is now the third atheist site that I've seen reporting this poll, I'm not surprised.

Let's hope it stirs some debate, although there's not much hope. The site quite correctly points out that "this is not a scientific poll".

19. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64464 by MartinSGill on August 20, 2007 at 6:41 am

This issue again highlights just how divisive faith schools are to a community and by extension to this country. This four year old, who has no notion of what a god or religion even is, will either lose her friends because she is not officially of their religion and hence will be rejected by the new school, or will have a different label forced upon her so that she can keep her friends. This change of label though may well ostracise her in her local community because her parents, and by extension she herself, have turned traitor to their "faith".

This girl reminds me of a piece of beef during the BSE crisis. If it has the wrong label no one will touch it.

I cannot believe that I am being forced to pay for this nonsense with my taxes.

20. Good luck, Dawkins!

Comment #63801 by MartinSGill on August 16, 2007 at 12:30 am

Yes, the information is out there; the problem is that people just don't give a rats arse.

They'd rather read toilet paper like The Sun and be fed nonsense than read a newspaper with articles that actually cut to the heart of the matter.

The fact that nonsense like religion is given so much respect doesn't help either. If the superstitious nonsense religion comes up with is acceptable then why not all the other idiocy like astrology, tarot cards and so forth; it's all the same stuff after all.

People are raised to be stupid and placid (and I don't think it's a conspiracy, just a failing). People leave education bored to tears with it and unable and certainly unwilling to learn anything. They forget the primary rule that learning is fun, or more likely have have it bored out of them by government targets and incompetent teachers. If we paid teachers more, we'd actually attract more competent ones, instead of rejects that can't get jobs in industry or take on the role to push (brainwash) a political or religious agenda (yes, there some genuine, dedicated, convinced and excellent teachers out there, but I consider them the minority).

The result is that people would rather just "feel" their way through life than think their way through life.

21. Kenya: The Death of Religion And Rise of Atheism in the West

Comment #56590 by MartinSGill on July 16, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Is this decadence or modernity? I have seen jealous men fighting in bars over other men and women killing one another over love for other women. Where will the children come from? Will the idea of natural fathers and natural mothers ever exist again in the West?

22. The US map of faith

Comment #55574 by MartinSGill on July 11, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Now I live in Florida where the God Business is one of the biggest earners in the area. On the road to my house you have to pass four or five mega-churches, each one bigger and more predatory than the others. I can't seem to get away from these simple people.

23. Brainwashed children plead to die as martyrs in Red Mosque siege

Comment #54665 by MartinSGill on July 8, 2007 at 12:06 pm

What do you except when you allow faith schools?

Christian schools are no better, the only difference is that current Christianity doesn't aim for suicide bombings and terrorists. If Christianity did, you'd find the same effect in your local Christian faith school. In the end, a faith school is all that that mosque is.

24. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #52898 by MartinSGill on June 28, 2007 at 12:45 pm

When the laws move outside the goldilocks zone "life as we know it" isn't possible.

What about life that we don't know?

Who says that an alternate universe with different constants can't bring forth life in a totally different way?

In my view presuming that our constants are the only valid constants is a tad arrogant and rather full of hubris.

Maybe we should be talking about "constants of the gaps" or "multiverses of the gaps".

25. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52231 by MartinSGill on June 26, 2007 at 2:33 pm

It's nice to see Christopher echoing my own blog post of a couple of days ago (http://blog.martinsgill.co.uk/archives/53).

While all I have to work with are my principles, Chris can lend considerably more weight to his words simply by virtue of the fact that he has been there, and seen what it's really like.

26. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51285 by MartinSGill on June 22, 2007 at 7:51 am

I like Hitchens (C) mostly because he just refuses to pull his punches.

I don't actually disagree too with him on the War in Iraq either.

I opposed the war because all the reasons given were wrong. We went to Iraq because of a personal grudge of Bush, not because Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and needed to be removed.

The religious civil war that's raging in Iraq now is a direct result of our intervention and I think far too few people take responsibilities for their actions nowadays, preferring to blame someone else.

Well, we (as a country) made this mistake, and we are all responsible for fixing it, and running away sends entirely the wrong message. Unfortunately the thing Iraq needs is the one thing that the current crop of politicians will never give it, a true secular state with full freedoms even at the expense of local religious "imperatives".

27. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51267 by MartinSGill on June 22, 2007 at 7:16 am

Religious symbols have no place in school full stop.

You are there to learn and be educated, not to proliferate your belief system. If you want to show your god how devout you are you should spend more time in church, and less time in the courts of law wasting everyone's money.

28. Bush Vetoes Measure on Stem Cell Research

Comment #51024 by MartinSGill on June 21, 2007 at 7:27 am

When religion rules the country, science suffers.

Will the US-ian Golden Age of science go the same way as the Arabic Golden Age? Trodden to rubble under the heels of religious doctrine and bigoted stone-age mentalities.

29. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44554 by MartinSGill on May 25, 2007 at 4:25 am

...the Earth does not move. If it moved, we would feel it moving. That's called empiricism, the experience of the senses.

30. Shark virgin birth mystery is solved

Comment #43945 by MartinSGill on May 23, 2007 at 4:38 am

Thanks for the link BaronOchs. I'd actually read that before but forgot about it.

I think the important point is:

Mary being a mammal, whether she reproduced by cloning or by selfing, the result could only be a daughter. Jesus either had an earthly father, or Jesus was a woman.

31. Shark virgin birth mystery is solved

Comment #43912 by MartinSGill on May 23, 2007 at 3:55 am

So... with parthenogenesis now known to occur in loads of species, how long will it be before the god-worshipers seize on this as "proof" of the virgin birth?

Given that my knowledge of biology is limited, it certainly stands to reason that if parthenogenesis exists in a wide range of other species, it might exist in mammals.

The good news is... it also means that "jesus" wouldn't actually be divine, just very unusual.

32. Liberty U student plotted to set off explosives, police say

Comment #43894 by MartinSGill on May 23, 2007 at 3:38 am

"The bombs were made from a combination of gasoline and detergent, ABC reported via a local law enforcement official. The official told ABC that the bombs were "slow burn" and would not have been very destructive."

33. Christopher Hitchens Explains It All for You: Move over, Sam Harris; another atheist wants the pulpit

Comment #41056 by MartinSGill on May 15, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Alas, as the preceding paragraph suggests, we are dealing with a very intelligent and well-read author who, when it comes to "religion," is simply incapable of reason.

34. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #36854 by MartinSGill on May 2, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Having just seen the article Jonathan Dore linked to, I note that German politicians and public are equally outraged. Good.

35. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #36852 by MartinSGill on May 2, 2007 at 2:03 pm

I'm ashamed of my heritage (well half of it) if this is really as bad as it seems. The only excuse I have is that I don't live there anymore.

While these decisions are pretty much indefensible, I think some mitigation might be in order.

For understandable historical reasons germany and especially german judges tend to have a very hard time dealing with issues were racial or especially religious discrimination/choice/freedoms is concerned. They also tend to be extremely aware of the international reaction to their decisions.

No judge wants to see their name in print under hte headline "Court makes Nazi's proud" or similar nonsense. It's no surprise then that maybe they would err on the side of "tollerance".

Decide that the Koran is wrong.. and you get calls of German judges defining a religion as wrong, just like Hitler did 70 years ago.

The good news is that Der Spiegel, one of the most influential and serious news magazines in Germany is highlighting the issue.

Let's hope people take notice and stop women being abused under the protection and guiding hand of religion.

36. Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Comment #36652 by MartinSGill on May 2, 2007 at 12:21 am

I suspect some will read into what I've said as being BNP-esque, the truth is I'm actually mostly pro-immigration (with safe-guards). People choose to come to the UK because, when all is said and done, this is one of the richest, safest and most free and liberal countries in the world and anyone that wants to contribute to that and earn a share of that freedom and prosperity is more than welcome.

In this one respect, I think America might well be ahead of us.

Most immigrants I know (ironically, possibly even the fundamentalist Muslims) work hard and long and contribute much more to our society than some of our own population, that does nothing more than sit at home all day, living off benefits, watching TV.

37. Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Comment #36651 by MartinSGill on May 2, 2007 at 12:08 am

I must actually agree with oskorei.

The short of it is that they choose to live here, it's easy enough to get a passport and go elsewhere, this is a free country after all. I think it's time we gave a little less respect to their views and insisted they give a little more respect to ours. If British society is really that opposed to their views why not go somewhere that supports their views?

We as a society complain about all those people that come here wanting freedom and prosperity, yet those people that don't want freedom don't seem to want to leave.

I suspect that these radical Muslims want too much. They want all the prosperity and affluence that a free society brings without the actual freedom. If they get their way they'll lose both freedom and prosperity, as will the rest of us.

One thing is sure, if any ruling this Sharia "court" actually makes contravenes British law, then they'll find themselves in big trouble.

Here's an interesting thought... it says only Muslims are allowed inside. If I as an atheist wanted to see how a court like that worked and they denied me entry, I wonder if I'd have a case against them under religious discrimination laws.

38. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36385 by MartinSGill on May 1, 2007 at 2:59 am

Comment #36340 by devolved:

My grand parents lived through Nazi Germany, and I grew up in Germany and let's get one thing clear, those events had zero to do with atheism. If anything they had to do with Hitler's view that he was the avenging hand of god. You can argue all you like if Hitler was a Christian or not, but one thing he wasn't was atheist.

Hitler's view of survival of the fittest has more to do with selection and discrimination than with any non-religious belief system; actually, if you examine the religious view that only true believers go to heaven you could argue that that is survival of the fittest. Only those fit enough to believe fully in God are saved, the rest go to hell.

In point of fact Hitler was greatly influenced by Arthur de Gobineau's ideas of struggle for survival between the different races.

He was also opposed to any concept of atheism:

"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".

Source: Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, Oxford University Press, 1942

One day maybe the religious will actually check up on their facts. Although, if they swallow the greater myth of a virgin-born, resurrecting, split-persona deity then the myth that Hitler was an atheist must be that much easier to swallow.

39. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36355 by MartinSGill on May 1, 2007 at 1:35 am

An excellent article, it confirms many things I have already suspected, and also highlights many issues and connections I'd not yet drawn myself.

It also paints a very poor picture of the United States, in terms of social maturity.

Mass faith prospers solely in the context of the comparatively primitive social, economic and educational disparities and poverty still characteristic of the 2nd and 3rd worlds and the US.

40. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34439 by MartinSGill on April 24, 2007 at 4:24 am

Those that deride/belittle Humanists might wish to visit
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1160
where they will note that our very own Richard Dawkins is Vice-President (honorary) of the British Humanist Association.

41. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34430 by MartinSGill on April 24, 2007 at 3:30 am

For all those that deride humanists: I consider myself a humanist, I also consider myself one of those "new atheists".

Here's why:

Atheism isn't a belief, it's a negative. It's the description of something we are not. We are not religious. It's like saying I'm not blue; I'm not alien; I'm not communist. It doesn't define me in the slightest way.

This is the mistake that all those religious apologists make all the time by claiming atheism leads to Stalin and Pol Pot. Atheism doesn't define Stalin or Pol Pot, they are defined by their beliefs, by their belief that their dogmatic and ultimately evil approach to ruling and society is the only true way, by their belief that a field of corpses is a worthwhile price for the success of their dogma; a good reading of the old testament should easily show the similarities to religion. Those people are/were as dogmatic and irrational as any of the religious fundamentalists that use them in their examples.

Atheism is a term coined by the religious to lump us all in a group they can deride; point us out to children while telling them horror stories about us and spitting at us as we pass. Well, I refuse to let the religious dictate the terms.

I am not a negative, I am not defined by something I am not. I am not missing something, some god shaped hole; I am whole, it is the religious that have growing within them a god shaped tumour and cancerous growth.

I am defined by what I believe in, not by what I don't believe in.

Yes, I am also an atheist, and yes I believe that religion is something that deserves no more respect than a club that thinks blue is the prettiest colour, yet I am so much more.

I believe in rationality and scepticism, critical thinking and careful evaluation and an absence of wishful thinking and self-delusion.

I believe that there is nothing after this life, no mystical being guiding or watching over me, no super-entity that will reach down one day and save or destroy me. I believe that all we have is one life, one chance to make a difference and one chance to improve the world for everyone.

I believe that our morality comes from within us, from our evolutionary history and above all from our own rational examination of the world around us, our respect for ourselves and those we share this planet with and the realisation that they too only have one life.

I've been an atheist most of my life (as far back as I can remember in fact), always doing what I thought was right and proper because my rational mind and my empathy told me is was so.

When I read up on Humanism a couple of years ago my reaction was simply: "I do all this anyway".

What I have now is a name I can put to my values. A name that explicitly denies a higher power and explicitly acknowledges that the ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of everything that happens to me and those around me lies with humans and not some mystic entity.

I feel no need to have religion eradicated, although I'd not mind if it were. I can live with religion the same way I can live with smokers, drinkers and other drug users. If they want to destroy their one chance at life, let them, as long as they don't destroy mine or that of others.

When someone asks me: "ok, you don't believe in god, but what do you believe in?", I can answer them.

Since I've never written this down anywhere as such, I've also posted in on my blog. (Yes, this is a blatant plug, but how else am I going to get my readership above 1 :) ).

42. Brian Lehrer interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34394 by MartinSGill on April 24, 2007 at 12:29 am

I looked into those laws about not being able to hold office when I first heard about them; I consider them a travesty and a legacy of the dark ages.

They are not enforced because any state that tried to enforce them would lose when it came to the supreme court (costing them loads of money and a lot of embarrassment) and they know it.

As an example, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that having to swear an oath to a supreme being was illegal and a breach of the 1st amendment.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/silverman.htm

43. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33380 by MartinSGill on April 20, 2007 at 1:25 am

Wonderful

44. Flea Circus!

Comment #32994 by MartinSGill on April 19, 2007 at 1:10 am

What we need is flea powder.

Most of the flea books have stupid titles. None of them are on any best seller list or have authors nominated for writing awards and I have yet to actually see any of them in my local book shops.

None of their authors have any qualifications worth the paper they are written on either. Making them an authority on... uh... nothing.

45. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32724 by MartinSGill on April 18, 2007 at 5:31 am

Well, I've made a donation.

While I agree with RD that this is very much a matter of Misha's rights being trampled on for no better reason than religiously inspired child abuse.

The problem is that in America circumcision is "normal" and far too many American's believe that it's beneficial, after all it's easier to convince yourself that it's beneficial for you than to admit you've been somehow reduced especially in an area as emotionally charged as your "man hood".

In that sense it's very much like religion using the old "but it's good for you" apology, even though there's no evidence that's the case and sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise.

As to smegma being "dirty". It's ironic that smegma is the greek word for soap, and I doubt it would have been called that for no reason.

Yes, I know the practicalities of female/male circumcision are different, after all religions doctrines are created by men and mostly used to oppress women, so it's very unlikely men would require themselves to do something that horrible to themselves.

I still contend that my statement that male/female circumcision are the basically the same thing holds true. Both are mutilations of the genitals and both are child abuse.

46. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32439 by MartinSGill on April 17, 2007 at 4:40 am

Circumcision for anything other than medical necessity is also known as genital mutilation.

When it's done to women we are outraged, when its done to men no one seems to think it matters.

Child abuse, pure and simple.

Isn't there also a jewish practice (luckily rare) where priest is supposed to suck the foreskin off a child with his mouth?! Paedophilia codified as worship. I'm doing my best not to visualise that act as it will make me gag.

47. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31376 by MartinSGill on April 12, 2007 at 7:39 am

@pissinintothewind

You are correct. I read up some more on the Hitler youth after my post and discovered that I was wrong about equating it to the boy scouts. The Hitler youth served more as a recruitment/training arm for the military than as any boy-scout movement.

I'll admit that the reason I believed that that was the case was because I knew most German children had joined it at the time, regardless of their (or their parents) views on Hitler and the Nazis. I also knew that some very anti-nazi people had been in the Hitler youth, and I just couldn't see them joining such an organisation if it weren't like the boy-scouts.

I discovered that joining the Hilter youth actually became compulsory around 1939-40, which explains the high membership numbers.

Mostly I was outraged at someone being pigeon-holed because of something they did 50 years ago; even if I can't stand the guy myself. It'd be like claiming RD had to be a liar because he went to Sunday School when he was a child (I have no idea if he did or not).

48. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31351 by MartinSGill on April 12, 2007 at 5:21 am

The Hitler Youth entry on his CV says it all to me

49. Is God poison?

Comment #30908 by MartinSGill on April 10, 2007 at 9:38 am

I found this a very strange article. At many points I was almost cheering the author along with thoughts like "finally someone gets it", but then I came across misquotes and some very jarring presumptuousness that had me shaking my head in astonishment and confusion.

Bethune does a fairly good job of describing the arguments atheists have against religion and just how damning they are, yet also seems to caricature and demean atheists, with arguments that are almost ad hominems in their nature.

I have no idea how a religious person might read this article. I'm just confused; it's almost as if Bethune was rallying for atheism and secularism, then towards the end he decided that maybe he was going to upset the majority of his readers so he started to deride atheists instead. It's almost as if the first part of the article was written by a different person to the latter part.

50. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

Comment #28385 by MartinSGill on March 29, 2007 at 3:28 am

Those figures are just wrong. There's a difference of 212 votes between the two sets of values.

Has someone been cooking the books? (and were they tasty?)