51. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #82974 by NJS on October 28, 2007 at 12:04 pm

From what THEEVANGELIST says I have another worry. Our close relationship to the great African apes can provide a compelling argument for their protection. If so many African people reject that relationship out of hand then I fear for their existence.

I know sometimes arguments against bush meat are hard in the context of poor, starving people but I'd assumed if that could be addressed, then an "instinctive" ethical argument against killing chimps and gorillas could be made. This makes me doubt that hope.

52. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82917 by NJS on October 28, 2007 at 8:47 am

If those 10 years olds in the car were discussing the pros and cons of Marxism and capitalism "passionately" would it therefore be okay to give them the vote after labelling them according to their views?

53. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #82907 by NJS on October 28, 2007 at 8:18 am

Its sad that South Africa has in many ways lived up to warnings of the pro-apartheid idiots who predicted what would happen. I think many African countries suffer from having been ruled for too long and the new "owners" not knowing how its really done. Sorry if I sound patronising.

I also think its a missed opportunity for some species pride - I would like to see Africans talk up the fact that its our "birthplace" (obviously not in a biblical sense) but unfortunately ignorant Christians (remember the bishop who dismissed Turkana boy) and other nonsense holds the continent back.

54. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #81683 by NJS on October 25, 2007 at 3:10 am

These surveys (36% approve of murder) as quoted are what frighten me.

I've come to the conclusion that they should be acted on. The idea that we can "corrupt" these people with our western values and turn them into human beings is now a dead duck as far as I'm concerned.

I'm going to sound like a BNP member here but I'd consider deportation for people who advocate murder. To those who say "they are born in the UK" - I'd say fair enough - but they always find convenient family in the usual suspect countries when they need them so that answers the question of where to.

55. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81198 by NJS on October 24, 2007 at 11:46 am

Surely the most ruthless mass-murderer in history is the entity that killed everyone on earth apart from one man and his family isn't it?

Ah, but that's just a metaphor/allegory/other phrase to describe something taught as fact which most people have backtracked from.

56. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80812 by NJS on October 23, 2007 at 5:14 am

Elton John deserves contempt for his crimes against music. If Passengers wasn't enough he is responsible for the most sycophantic piece of vomit-inducing crap ever inflicted on humanity - Candle in the wind (Diana version)

On royalty lets look at this from an angle pertinent to this site. The jug-eared prick has already bleated on about being "defender of faiths" with no mention of the majority of his future "subjects" who don't have any.

Also when anyone mentions how atheists "want to ban religion" the reply should be to quote the act of settlement - a law which prevents catholics from ascending to the throne via marriage or conversion - in other words not much different to muslim apostay laws in that the monarch has no freedom to choose their religion.

As has already been mentioned the royal family and the aristocracy still have power. If you combine the CofE with the upper classes you get a group which owns the vast majority of the land and wealth in the UK.

I also find it absolutely anathemic that I am not a citizen of the UK - I am a subject of her brittanic majesty.

57. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80338 by NJS on October 21, 2007 at 11:23 am

Making someone a knight doesn't mean a seat in the Lords - life peerage needed for that.

58. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80331 by NJS on October 21, 2007 at 11:08 am

I have as much contempt for the honours system and the monarchy as I do for religion.

How can we claim to be rationalists and then support a concept of priveledge by accident of birth followed by honours dished out as favours?

Religion and monarchy are two sides of the same coin.

59. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80277 by NJS on October 21, 2007 at 4:59 am

I think there are a few factors:

Firstly as I've said before I've never read a theist explanation of how they do reconcile evolution with God that made any kind of sense. I think though a lot pay lip service to this idea when it comes down to it they are "forced" by their adherence to God to shift their position towards the "simple" answer of creationism.

Secondly the time factor is against the idea - humans who live 60-80 years just simply can't grasp millions of years instinctively.

Thirdly its very human to want to be "special" - religions have fed that new from day one and I think this is the part of Darwinism that strikes most at the theist heart.

60. God's honest truth?

Comment #79994 by NJS on October 19, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Sinbad: I attended a catholic school in the UK from 1975 to 1982. I remember that the question of Genesis' "truth" was largely ignored but we certainly debated Exodus from a literal standpoint, going as far as suggesting "natural" causes for the red sea parting. It's only relatively recently that I've discovered there is no evidence for any of it (this of course applies to the whole OT).

This is exactly the type of stuff that I think Children should be protected from. Setting up these stories as stories is one thing but you haven't convinced me that this is what happens. There is still a "forced" stance that takes the attitude that "pesky science means we can't tell you this happened but nudge, nudge, wink, wink its in the bible so take the hint".

In my view there are two sides to teaching religion. There is stating quite clearly that the history contained in the holy books is highly dubious and should be taken with a ton of salt, and secondly that the great "truths" of the various faiths can't be true as they are mutually exclusive. The state has the choice of choosing one of them at the expense of the rest or taking a stance to exclude them all. The latter choice imo is the best as it leaves schools to do what they should and doesn't impinge on parental rights.

61. God's honest truth?

Comment #79982 by NJS on October 19, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Sinbad: Can you tell me when the catholic church stopped teaching that the bible was literal truth?

If it was so enlightened in 400AD why was Galileo persecuted?

If it was so enlightened why is Darwin still the number 1 hate figure in christian history?

High level theological ramblings which didn't come within a million miles of the "faithful" do not convince me that the average christian has the slightest idea how they equate reconcile the bible with reality - they say they do but when probed on questions like "how did your God guide evolution?" they prove that they don't think about it at all.

62. God's honest truth?

Comment #79959 by NJS on October 19, 2007 at 8:54 am

Sinbad: "First of all, it's important to realize that both science and scriptures cannot be true.

I realize that the fundamentalists and the fundamatheists think this is so, but the vast majority of Christians (the religion with which I am most familiar) do not."

This is the rub for me. I have never heard any kind of remotely rational explanation for how these nice, moderate christians have moved from literalists to metaphorists in 200 years and still maintain any kind of integrity.

I would like you to explain to me how you would pass this integrity onto kids without deceit. Do you start with "these stories used to be true but now we know they are just metaphors" or do you start from the metaphor angle and then explain the hows and whys of why they aren't literally true?

Also can you tell me what values in the OT in terms of Moses, Noah, Job and Elishah are actually worth teaching?

63. God's honest truth?

Comment #79821 by NJS on October 18, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Sinbad:

I can understand your concern but surely there are some "absolute" truths we can agree on. Other subjects like Maths, History and Geography have basic tenets which are pretty much undeniable.

I think the aim of this legislation as I understand it would be to cover such undeniable "facts" pertaining to religion. I can't see how any sane person could object to making the teaching of a 6000 year old earth a no-no.

I think things like this are a long way from a direction you seem to be implying of a political dogma covering any subject being regarded as "fact".

64. God's honest truth?

Comment #79801 by NJS on October 18, 2007 at 3:04 pm

The main problem in the UK wouldn't be "this government" - modern politicians unfortunately give the masses what they want and there is a notion which is not fought that "faith school=good school". I also think that a lot of modern parents don't really "care" about the truth enough to make a stand like this - they would consider the perceived good results, even at the cost of mild brainwashing, to be worth it. Its sad to say but the modern world has made too many people pragmatic rather than principled.

65. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78811 by NJS on October 15, 2007 at 1:45 am

What I find funny is that he actually thinks he can define some kind of belief which can't be destroyed by exactly the same arguments.

Go on Bish - give it a go.

(And while you're on why don't you either support or condemn your minion who told flood drowning victims' families that God killed them because we don't hate enough for his liking)

66. A New Debate

Comment #75554 by NJS on October 3, 2007 at 1:51 am

Would a candidate who nailed their colours to the mast of evolution and stem cell research be committing electoral suicide though?

I see the US as being so messed up that someone has to "exagerrate" their faith to gain trust as a place where honesty would be fatal. Of course there are millions of rational people who would welcome a pro-science stance but I get the impression that as I said the "practicalities" of politics make it a no-no.

67. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74669 by NJS on September 29, 2007 at 11:44 pm

One point - his statement about the catholic church "turning" on the Marcos regime shows the whole thing up. This means that at worst the church previously supported him and at least ignored his excesses. This applies to many countries in South and Central America as well as you could argue Italy and Germany pre-WWII.

68. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73116 by NJS on September 24, 2007 at 6:49 am

"There is no religious test for any governmental position and the Constitution is more than upheld"

I know Federal is different to Governmental as I understand it in the US but I've read sites which quote federal laws in places like Texas and Arkansas which require chrisianity.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong and explain how the constitution can be trumped if its true.

69. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72714 by NJS on September 22, 2007 at 12:19 pm

It also asks for "Ethnicity" so I would guess its typical data mining/target analysis which I guess you can take as sinister or not.

Since it also asks for other data which must be on my NHS record anyway (age/sex etc) all in all the only "useful" question is next of kin.

70. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72691 by NJS on September 22, 2007 at 9:54 am

Its just that it doesn't happen that often and I like to take it seriously :)

I remember ticking the "None" box with gusto for the 2001 census (I don't think they had in 91) but thought at the time that they should have stated "by the way, going to weddings, funerals and christenings does not make you a bloody christian - actually think before answering" just to see what the figures would have looked like if everyone followed the advice.

71. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72685 by NJS on September 22, 2007 at 9:11 am

Ocytocin: I think "none" is a bit of a wimp out generally - it implies it doesn't matter when I feel strongly it does.

However I don't want to go down the "Atheism" is another religion/belief system route.

I like the idea of "None (I have a brain)" but in the UK that might offend the doctor and I don't want tortuous sinus surgery if I don't need it :).

72. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72681 by NJS on September 22, 2007 at 8:55 am

I received an appointment letter to see an ENT specialist today and the out-patient form has a space for religion.

Any suggestions at to what I should put?

I was think "Not Applicable" but that implies reticence rather than "pride" in my rationality.

73. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72638 by NJS on September 22, 2007 at 3:58 am

This us a good story for me as it shows that the argument "NI is about politics not religion" is bollocks. Every facet of their lives comes from the bigotry and ignorance inherent in cult separation.

Also the poster who mentioned that the catholic schools wouldn't take any notice because its proposed by the DUP - what's wrong with not taking notice because the bloke is an idiot?

I honestly think the catholic church's stance on teaching evolution and ID is extremely reluctant - see recent comments on evolution from the head paedophile.

74. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71612 by NJS on September 19, 2007 at 10:44 am

I was thinking about this in terms of morality. I maintain that my Atheist view that teaching people right and wrong in terms of the concepts themselves is "superior" to religion's "do this or you're damned" carrot/stick mentality.

This is a new twist: Don't have sex before you marry - not because its not right (on some sad argument) but because you'll go to hell and even better theres a nice little cancer to speed you on your way.

I'm sick of mincing words - its time to say it every time you hear the term catholic church - murderers.

75. Religious education

Comment #71321 by NJS on September 18, 2007 at 12:39 pm

I love that 10:1 question - not because I can't think of one reason never mind ten but because I only need one for the other:

No evidence. QED.

76. Argentine Church Faces 'Dirty War' Past

Comment #71021 by NJS on September 17, 2007 at 2:17 pm

It mirrors what I didn't know about catholic complicity in Rwanda until I read God is not great.

77. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70197 by NJS on September 14, 2007 at 10:00 am

Apart from the admitted "hole in the sheet" thing, can someone list the alleged factual innaccuarcies in Hitchens' book?

I finished it last week and found the amount of "facts" overwhelming at the time so can't believe this idiot has checked the truth of each and every one.

78. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68486 by NJS on September 7, 2007 at 9:16 am

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question:

If you don't believe in a "man with a beard crashing about in the sky" then what the hell do you believe in?

79. In God we doubt

Comment #67270 by NJS on September 3, 2007 at 1:59 am

Replies to his replies.

1 What inteligence do people use to dismiss Ra, Thor and Zeus but believe in God? - irrational at best.

2. Do alcoholics kill people over brand choice?

3. Beneath contempt.

4. A function of strength of brainwashing and weakness of character.

5. Naive at best - bullying/brainwashing works.

6. How many would have been killed in the crusades if nuclear weapons were available.

80. Polling Data on Science and Religion

Comment #66975 by NJS on September 1, 2007 at 6:42 am

Surely we should undermine religion by attacking its privileges and the spurious structures that support them. We should explain the dangers of fundamentalist belief, religious or otherwise. We should demonstrate that atheists are moral, ethical people and we don't need science to do that.

81. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64310 by NJS on August 19, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Riley: My point on ulterior motives is mainly aimed at "missionary" type work. I'm sure that some theists in the past did see spreading the word as their duty but imo there was very much a recruitment angle with a power and monetary slant. The way the catholic church and the CofE worked hand in hand with the European empire builders from the 15th century onwards is proof of that.

The power angle especially I see in modern times with the conditioned aid sent by the US to Africa.

I generally have a problem with "personal" charity - I see it as the crumbs from the table fuelled by the guilty consciences of the rich - I would much rather see more governmental based aid programs (without said conditions).

82. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64284 by NJS on August 19, 2007 at 11:39 am

Riley:

Why does he think this is a good argument?

83. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61409 by NJS on August 5, 2007 at 4:07 am

I don't suppose Richard is actually going to be able to interview Prince Charles or Cherie Blair to find out how they justify their support for alternative ideas?

84. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61375 by NJS on August 5, 2007 at 1:54 am

When watching one of the pieces of Hitchens having a go at Falwell I found one thing I thought he got wrong. His opinion was that Falwell knew his message was a lie and was effectively a con man driven by greed. I think his message was BS but he did believe it.

I think the people referred to in this piece fall into both camps but the ones who are "honest" con men know that they can use the classic defence of respect for beliefs to get away with it. That why I feel this fits in with the anti-religion big picture.

If people had the courage to say "You may believe it but its garbage which makes charging people extortion or fraud" then we could extend that to other realms.

85. How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Comment #58736 by NJS on July 26, 2007 at 2:34 am

If the coach had plunged down the ravine but somehow the people had survived, it would of course been a miracle of God looking after his faithful - they died so whats the response?

As I've said before the worst thing I've ever heard a theist say was a woman who survived a train crash in the UK a few years ago and then questioned what the people who died believed.

I also agree with the first poster that pilgrim does not equal good person.

86. Red Mosque Fueled Islamic Fire in Young Women

Comment #58320 by NJS on July 24, 2007 at 12:42 pm

On the Panorama about integration a couple of months ago, a veiled moslem girl explained how this life was just a test to see if you were fit for paradise. As well as sharing the above poster's sadness at this it echoed an argument I've had which falls into the "how can you be so stupid and not realise its made up" category.

The idea of a 70 yr "test" with an infinite reward breaks down for me straight away - why 70? why not 5 or 500? Why such a stupidly short period out of all proportion to the time in heaven?

And of course my clincher which is to ask why if a baby which is baptised is then perfectly innocent why don't you kill them then to ensure they go to heaven with no hassle?

87. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #57900 by NJS on July 22, 2007 at 4:50 am

So it took his discovery that the catholic church is complicit in criminal abuse of children for him to merely question his faith and not the application of a bit of intelligent thought in the first place?

Sympathy my arse - another moron.

88. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57734 by NJS on July 20, 2007 at 8:29 pm

I find this oath business interesting.

Having a strong Atheist position means I know I could never swear on the bible but I know many people who don't really believe in its contents or notional author who would probably "go along with" the oath. This wouldn't of course mean that they wouldn't testify truthfully but it would be interesting if there were legal challenges on the foundation of the oath.

As also mentioned I could see cases not just in the US where jurors would infer "reliability" based on what the witness swears on.

As usual the sensible thing would be to remove the superstitious link and have everyone swear on the same secular basis.

89. Hitler Was an Atheist Who Killed Millions in the Name of Atheism, Secularism?

Comment #56442 by NJS on July 15, 2007 at 7:08 pm

I think its fair enough to use these points in response to Theists but at the same time the cynic in me recognises a man who would easily have pandered to christians in his writings and speeches if he knew thats what they wanted to hear. I see parallels with US politicians (on this pandering point - I'm not calling them nazis).

90. God not out of the question for most Canadians

Comment #54443 by NJS on July 7, 2007 at 6:06 am

I think Prof Dawkins has said that it was evolution for him that "disproved" religion. This wasn't quite the case for me but I have come to the conclusion that it is the magic bullet.

If there are broadly 3 schoold of thought as described in the poll - "pure" YEC creationism, God as a guide, and "godless" evolution then I think of the two former positions its actually the second one I have more of a problem with.

To some degree I think creationists recognise that their position doesn't make sense but are willing to be be stubborn with their "God did it" ethos. I think its wrong but there is a bloody-minded honesty that I admire to some extent.

However the middle ground position that recognises the age of the universe and earth and evolution with common descent but tries to impose this guiding hand I find the most frustratingly objectionable of the lot. It tries to be "sensible" but raises more questions than the simplistic YEC one. If he's so powerful why gradual change that looks "accidental"? Why the mass extinctions? etc etc. As I said it makes less sense than "let there be light".

I was argunging with someone a while ago who reckoned that God had "guided" human morality through the ages with little nudges here and there to let us see what he meant. The result of this was modern christianity. Now leaving aside the other religions I asked the obvious questions like what form did these nudges take? Did he kill the Mongol emperor and thus save Europe for christianity? His response was that he hadn't really thought of that he just "felt it" - exactly I said.

91. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53814 by NJS on July 3, 2007 at 10:46 am

I like the idea of making it personal by naming the victims and demanding that the idiots who say these things have to account for why person X should die thanks to the loving God.

92. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53496 by NJS on July 1, 2007 at 5:55 pm

This brought to mind that story from a couple of weeks ago where the US presidential candidates were given the opportunity to show how stupid they were by being asked about evolution.

First of all I'd like this story to be given huge import in the media and then I'd ask the major politicians a few pertinent questions.

When does respect for faith stop and a recognition of mental illness begin?

Is it right that lunatics like this have a place in government? (the House of Lords for non-UK readers)

Is it right lunatics like this get tax breaks?

Is it right lunatics like this are being given the power to set up more and more schools?

I'd love to see them really nailed down on giving answers.

93. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52767 by NJS on June 28, 2007 at 3:31 am

I've always defined "the soul" as just a concept of our humanity and conciousness - evolved as much as the rest of us and obviously not immortal.

The article exposes why I think the religious are so afraid of evolution even more so than cosmology or other sciences which immediately challenge some of their concepts like the age of the earth. Central to all of them is this idea of humans as "special" and evolution has always destroyed this idea imo. Of course we are "more evolved" in some areas than most animals but as described above their are good scientific reasons for this.

Raising the questions of when Man became ensouled and whether animals have any similar claim has always been a powerful weapon in the armoury.

I know Theists like to claim that evolution and faith can be mutually acceptable but I've never seen any kind of argument on this that makes sense and in fact it makes less sense in context than Genesis literalists.

94. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51405 by NJS on June 22, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Theres a comment on the BBC's HYS about a jedi wanting his daughter to be allowed full robe and light sabre which though satirical made me wish that someone would "show up" the idiots by bringing such a case.

I'd love to see the high court decide when is a religion not a religion and just a delusion - I guess the person would have to prove its "real" to them and not just brought for the sake of it to prove a point - oh hang on thats what the girl is actually doing.

95. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51288 by NJS on June 22, 2007 at 8:02 am

Just as many young Muslims in the UK are "covering up" more, not as an expression of faith but as a political statement meant to agigate, more and more christians are stamping their feet and saying "special rules for them means special rules for us".

As a couple of people have said I'm torn between a "why bother" attitude and one of "ban the lot".

Having said that the deliberate attempt to cause a fuss rather than just wear the things makes me favour the latter.

As an aside funny how men in the abrahamic religions don't have to remain pure isn't it?

(though I realise this particularly US stupidity does seems to apply to both)

96. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50501 by NJS on June 18, 2007 at 1:09 pm

"they told the Catholic church to take a hike over adoption by gays."

No they allowed a period for "consultation" which means they'll bury the climbdown in a bad newsdaay

97. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50497 by NJS on June 18, 2007 at 1:04 pm

"You only have to turn on the news, any day at any time, and see the first hand results of religious ideas being put into practice"

Along with my despair at the stupidity of the case in the UK last week with the honour killing I also felt angry that not one of the several news reports I watched and read mentioned the "religion of peace".

I know they will say its cultrural but I've read of honour killings involving people who originate from countries stretching from Turkey to Indonesia - the common thread is obvious - why don't they speak its name?

98. Call for 'post-9/11' RE teaching

Comment #50355 by NJS on June 17, 2007 at 5:50 am

I read the "not always a force for good" and laughed .

I'd love to ask the person who wrote it when it ever was.

99. A battler beyond belief: Review of 'God is Not Great'

Comment #50277 by NJS on June 16, 2007 at 10:24 am

Fawning aside, I like the author's take on the Stalin argument - especially the smallpox/cancer analogy.

Its also interesting he makes the point about "teaching the controversy" (if I can steal that) by making the other side of the story compulsory in faith schools if we have to suffer their existence.

100. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50270 by NJS on June 16, 2007 at 7:36 am

I've just read that "Humanae Vitae" as posted above and a few comments come to mind.

Anyone who says or claims that the catholic church can marry evolution with their dogma cannot have read that document - it blatantly states a "created as we are as God intended" model for human biology - as I've always suspected they don't fight evolution too strongly for fear of another arse-whupping from science but "secretly" their dogma still rejects it.

The people who wrote that would be committed under any definition of mental health issues in ant semi-civilised country.

It shows no understanding of biology, psychology or human nature in any way, shape or form.

The degree of culpability for encouraging unchecked pro-creation in an overpopulated world is nothing short of criminal.

Any catholic who could read that and agree with it has no human dignity.