51. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306311 by JAMCAM87 on December 24, 2008 at 11:49 am

Comment #306305 by Quetzalcoatl

Just read his article on the tsunami and DR reminds me of the priest in Camus' "the plague" who, when confronted with the passing of a small boy and his tortuously drawn out death, manages to come up with an explanation as to why god would do such a thing. He mutters some vague nonsense about "suffering" making you stronger and so on. The doctor isn't too impressed by the priest and I feel the way Rieux does now.

52. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306296 by JAMCAM87 on December 24, 2008 at 11:08 am

DR

But no the Bible was not fabricated later on.

53. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306291 by JAMCAM87 on December 24, 2008 at 10:58 am

DR

"Dundee will win the European cup and RD will become a Christian!"

You seem to make a habit of believing in improbable events then' Kind of like virgin births, resurrections and all that shit.

David, again, which is more probable: a virgin birth (no male sex cell) or the existence of an all powerful celestial surveillance system who can not only read our thoughts, but can cause natural disasters, some of which can wipe out gays and blacks' Religion is MANMADE. Ten commandments, ten fingers; conclusion - man made. Male God; conclusion - man made. Hatred of women, present in all major religions; conclusion - manmade. Hatred of MALE gays (no mention of lesbians); conclusion - man made. Ironic that religion is hostile to the idea that we evolved from apes but yet the childish primitivesness of religious systems reminds me everyday that we are evolved from apes. Another question, if God really exists why does he need priests like you' Conclusion - religion was a man made device to exert power over others. Just a little christmas message for you.

*breath*

p.s. answer steves damn question.

54. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #306274 by JAMCAM87 on December 24, 2008 at 9:21 am

That was the best pwesent ever!!

:D

55. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #306270 by JAMCAM87 on December 24, 2008 at 9:19 am

Nice one jamcam; it's a bit insulting to Brian that Steve (and me) thought you sounded like him, in your theist disguise!

56. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #306266 by JAMCAM87 on December 24, 2008 at 9:14 am

:)

57. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #305983 by JAMCAM87 on December 24, 2008 at 3:05 am

Steve

to fit in David Robertson's particular fuzzy-creationist Scottish version of Christianity

58. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #305974 by JAMCAM87 on December 24, 2008 at 2:56 am

DR

Have a great Christ's Time - and a Happy New Year....

59. Religious Ed. rebellion

Comment #304764 by JAMCAM87 on December 22, 2008 at 5:28 am

I remember in Religious and Philosophical Education classes being taught the argument from design and the whole Paley's watch thing. The teacher never strongly refuted the argument in front of the class but instead the course gave serious weight to it as if it was a good argument.

RE needs some serious reforms. They should teach religious education on the assumption that God does not exist and take this as a starting point for an introduction to morality and ethics, psycology of relgion and history of religion. Kids shouldn't even be presented with the idea of God as a possibility.

60. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #304515 by JAMCAM87 on December 21, 2008 at 6:54 am

Comment #304497 by MarkHW42

"It's just that pretty much anyone you might care to mention is funnier than Alan Carr"

The Karen Matthews joke was brilliant though, wasn't it'

61. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #304514 by JAMCAM87 on December 21, 2008 at 6:51 am

Completely irrelevant but I saw Jimmy Carr in Paris when I was on holiday. Sent him a little wave and he raised his eyebrows in acknowledgement as if to say "nobody knows who I am here, it's great!" I wasn't his biggest fan but he has gone up in my estimation. Amazing how comedians are always the most sensible ones in society.

62. 'Tis the Season To Be Incredulous

Comment #303254 by JAMCAM87 on December 18, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Merry Christmas Christopher! I the only thing I like about christmas is the copious amounts of my mum's delicious cooking that I get to swallow and barely even bother to chew. Yes a moral and aesthetic nightmare indeed.

63. Three Godless Christmas shows

Comment #302060 by JAMCAM87 on December 16, 2008 at 11:12 am

Richard,

Go with Gerin Oil. I don't think that there's much point in being funny when there are so many "real" comedians there to do that for you. Not that you're not funny or anything.

64. Tiktaalik: The Music Video

Comment #301292 by JAMCAM87 on December 14, 2008 at 12:16 pm

I thought it was christian rock!

65. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #299889 by JAMCAM87 on December 10, 2008 at 3:17 pm

I'm surprised that people OLDER than me have done more drugs than me. I'm ashamed.

66. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #299878 by JAMCAM87 on December 10, 2008 at 3:09 pm

I think there would be no argument here at all if marriage, the unnatural affair that it is, didn't exist. I see no reason to enter a legal argreement with someone I love. Is your relationship not valid until it is on paper' I will most certainly not be marrying. It is a tradition so alien to me that it wouldn't even cross my mind should I meet someone. I do not think that gays should fight for marriage. Why would anyone want to even associate themselves with a gay-hating, bigotted, religious institution. As for civil partnerships, well, I see no reason to enter one of those either. For financial reasons' For legal reasons' Who cares about this sort of shit when you are supposed to be in love' As Jo Brand says when asked whats the best thing about marriage'...divorce.

67. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #298297 by JAMCAM87 on December 7, 2008 at 8:02 am

It's very interesting how it only takes one person to drive forward a thread into the regions of thousands of posts. I recall this happening with DR and with Darwin's Pitbull. I think there are a great many similarites between them and Bernstein. They hold a certain view which is essentially irrational and no matter how good the arguments are they remain unmoved. I don't admire people who change their opinions at the drop of a hat but the stubborness of David Robertson, Darwins Pitbull and Bernstein is truly dumbfounding. Isthatclear doesn't really fit into this category because he is just plain fucking stupid.

68. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298245 by JAMCAM87 on December 7, 2008 at 5:49 am

Roger,

I have noticed this as well. It wouldn't surprise me if they had the sports writer giving the nation a lecture about the moral decline of Britain due to atheism. And why not? The Torygraph, as you so aptly name it, has a pretty low standard of journalism. Why should they care if the same hack that writes a gossip column also writes about religion and politics?

69. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298243 by JAMCAM87 on December 7, 2008 at 5:37 am

"unfriendly climate for people of all faiths"

It's that whole "any faith better than none" bullshit again. How ironic that it is precisely that only in a secular society that religion is given freedom. If the cardinal really wanted faiths to live in a friendly climate he should begin by supporting a secular agenda. It is faith that inhibits freedoms and limits expression not "vocal and aggressive" atheists. The siding of religions is yet more evidence that all religions are equally false and that the biggest threat to their demise is reason, rationality and atheism.

70. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297952 by JAMCAM87 on December 6, 2008 at 8:14 am

There are quite a few homophobes on this site, Atheist Jon and Bernstein to name two of the more infamous ones. They are almost worse than those ignorant, on-the-street morons, who shout things like "fag" and "homo". They actually try to justify their homophobia. None of it stands up very well in the face of reason and their arguments become thinner and thinner until eventually they are saying things like "I don't like gays in the same way I don't like wine - it's a matter of personal taste" and that sort of nonsense. Thank you everyone for once again showing that reason transcends political leaning, ideology and personal feelings. Someday we're going to get tired of being proven right that a healthy dose of reason and rationality is the only way for humanity to progress.

I can think of no good reason to be prejudiced agaianst anyone becasue of their genetic make-up - sexuality, sex, ethnicity, skin colour, appearance.

We need more criticism of people's beliefs and actions and less bigoted nonsense from people like Bernstein and Atheist Jon.

71. 'Atheist bus' more like a bandwagon on highway to hell

Comment #293968 by JAMCAM87 on November 30, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Cartomancer

"As for the decalogue, how on earth does that constitute a viable moral system'"

She probably doesn't even know the ten commandments.

Comment #293951 by Mr. Darcy

Made me laugh. Ha!

72. 'Atheist bus' more like a bandwagon on highway to hell

Comment #293891 by JAMCAM87 on November 30, 2008 at 10:40 am

There may be some of this ilk, but militant atheists, in particular, are deeply unpleasant and caustically intolerant. Any time I have written about this subject, I have received offensive e-mails from militant atheists.

A life without a spiritual sense of purpose, or the moral parameters set by the Ten Commandments -- is a living hell.

73. 'Atheist bus' more like a bandwagon on highway to hell

Comment #293882 by JAMCAM87 on November 30, 2008 at 10:36 am

"It was all started up by -- predictably -- Professor Richard Dawkins"

It was all started up by Ariane Sherine. Yet another example of how these stupid religious apologists don't bother to check facts or read people's books before they criticise them and it just shows them up for the reactionary fools that they are. Such an unpleasant thing to read -so snide and whiney in tone.

74. Vatican thanks Muslims for returning God to Europe

Comment #293487 by JAMCAM87 on November 29, 2008 at 5:15 am

"Every religion has its own identity, but I agree to consider that God is at work in all"

Some questions:

So God created thousands of different religions' Why are you a Catholic when God has a hand in all religions' Muslims are still condemmed to hell according to catholics for not being true believers but at least they got people talking about God before they went on to that eternity of suffering. Is that what you are saying' You cannot have it both ways. You cannot simultaneously say God has a hand in all religion and that Catholism is the one true religion.

This "teaming-up" of faiths smacks of desperation and highlights the arbitrariness of religion. Seems that any religion is better than none.

75. £35,000 of taxpayers' cash given to 'atheist bus' group

Comment #291995 by JAMCAM87 on November 27, 2008 at 2:52 am

I'm so angry I think I want to go and stone a thirteen year old girl to death because atheists are well known to do that sort of thing according to a certain barrister.

76. God Trumps

Comment #286685 by JAMCAM87 on November 19, 2008 at 6:50 am

Boy, did I laugh hard at the muslim card.

77. Puncturing the Acupuncture Myth

Comment #286270 by JAMCAM87 on November 18, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Comment #286255 by Sciros on November 18, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Gee thanks for killing another placebo effect motherfuckers. I'm running out of stuff to make me feel better w/o chemically altering my body!

78. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #286249 by JAMCAM87 on November 18, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Comment #285969 by MPhil on November 17, 2008 at 10:33 pm

That's where the concept of (weakly) emergent characteristics comes in - and that's why it is so important.

79. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #286244 by JAMCAM87 on November 18, 2008 at 11:55 am

Comment #285637 by decius

"I am an acharlatanist - that includes all forms of deception of the masses and quackery, down to religion."

I am now even against the term "atheist". It makes as much sense to me to be "anti-santa-clauseist". I am simply not deluded

80. Atheism/Agnosticism Plus Compassion Equals Humanism

Comment #284116 by JAMCAM87 on November 14, 2008 at 11:44 am

If you want to do something naughty, you're going to do it, and all the theology in the world isn't going to stop you.

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

Comment #281424 by JAMCAM87 on November 10, 2008 at 10:08 am

Comment #281358 by Mark Jones

Yes our comments are beastly apparently. But his description of Dawkins as a "crazed prophet" and the various other insults in his list are far from beastly.

Quentin Letts, if you're reading, this is what I really think of you:

I think you are a complete slime ball. Your writing is nothing but gossip that you shit straight from your ass. I'm glad we hurt your feelings. Go cry on the shoulder of someone who cares.

Comment #281353 by phil rimmer

Go Janet!

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

Comment #281411 by JAMCAM87 on November 10, 2008 at 9:46 am

Hey guys,

The video isn't working anymore. I'm not sure why. If anyone finds it let me know.

EDIT - click on aquinas' name and you can watch the video.

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

Comment #281300 by JAMCAM87 on November 10, 2008 at 5:31 am

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H0poirzBHs4

Looks like Quentin Letts has been reading our comments.

84. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280981 by JAMCAM87 on November 9, 2008 at 4:57 am

Steve,

I have no doubt a lot of them would be put off giving assistance to an "atheist community".

I think if we want to form a group or community, we should label it based on what we are aiming to achieve.

This really doesn't work with the term "atheism".

If asked what I want to achieve, it isn't for others to be atheist. I would not be happy if people got to atheism without the use of reason. The promotion of reason has broader effects - it leads people to question all kinds of dogma, and all kinds of supernaturalism. Atheism is a common view reached by the application of reason.

So, even if it were appropriate, an "atheist community" would be far too limiting for me.

I want to promote reason and clear thinking.

85. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280978 by JAMCAM87 on November 9, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #280747 by phil rimmer

"I wonder if you are happy like the Swedes are happy'

I can't find the reference at present but in a survey, the (godless)Swedes self-describe themselves as being happy more often than other nationalities. However, a part of this general happiness seems to consist of accepting that NOT being happy is a natural part of ones life also.

This sensible and balanced view of one's emotional prognosis may be yielding a kind of happiness (a contentment'.. perhaps not) less accessible to the "happy" clappy xian, with her euphoria, unsustainable by the outrages of fortune. "

I think I should be more clear. I would never define myself as happy. For the simple reason that there are just too many things to be angry about. So I guess what I meant by happy was happy with the world the way it is at present.

86. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280731 by JAMCAM87 on November 8, 2008 at 7:00 am

Dear all,

I actually have to agree with the article. I am definitely less happy than most of the religious people I know. But I'd rather be misreable than go walking about in some deluded stupor with no grasp on reality.

87. Obama the Secularist

Comment #279766 by JAMCAM87 on November 6, 2008 at 11:24 am

Comment #279738 by Elli

"conviction these are much closer to his real thoughts on the subject then his pandering to the religious"

I have heard many times that Obama doesn't even believe in God. Is there any evidence for this' It is also my gut reaction that he is an atheist in disguise for two, maybe unconvincing, reasons:

1)He is educated.
2)He is a secularist and in most cases atheism is a pre-requisite for secularism.

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

Comment #278889 by JAMCAM87 on November 5, 2008 at 11:17 am

Comment #278321 by phil rimmer

What a wonderful post, it cheered me up when I read it. :)

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

Comment #278136 by JAMCAM87 on November 4, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Comment #278107 by Kit Finn

"Ah, the Daily Mail. probably a bigger factor in 'wrecking Britain' than all 50 put together."

Yeh and Quentin Letts should be at least in the top ten of his own list.

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

Comment #278108 by JAMCAM87 on November 4, 2008 at 12:13 pm

"In times of turbulence, the human being is little different from the vole or the dormouse. It will take shelter where it can."

And that's when the vulnerable and the sick and the ignorant walk straight into the open arms of religious fanatics ready to convert, use and misuse them.

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

Comment #278090 by JAMCAM87 on November 4, 2008 at 12:00 pm

"A man less obsessed with himself and with the narrow calculations of men in white coats might realise that religion, although never offering proof of God's existence, can sugar catastrophe and brighten chasms."

This says it all really. I wonder if he would describe the stoning of the rape victim in Somalia as needing a good bit of sugar-coating. What a fucking retard.

92. Stoning victim 'begged for mercy'

Comment #278085 by JAMCAM87 on November 4, 2008 at 11:57 am

I absolutely knew it! I said in a previous post that the BBC hadn't covered this story properly and now here is the follow up.

93. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #277364 by JAMCAM87 on November 3, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Comment #276295 by Mark Jones

Thanks Mark!

94. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276271 by JAMCAM87 on November 1, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Comment #276267 by Brian English

Brian, good answer, thanks.

95. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276265 by JAMCAM87 on November 1, 2008 at 4:17 pm

I have been accused of holding faith positions and for believing in a perfect entity.

Apparently I have faith that science can explain everything and that I believe in a perfect entity which is science.

How do I respond to these accusations?

96. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276248 by JAMCAM87 on November 1, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Decius,

"Don't worry. Luckily, this isn't a New Age site, I won't claim special telepathic connection."

But surely posting so simlarly in one day is just too improbable to have happened by coincidence? Surely the supernatural must account for it? I don't want to jump to conclusions or anything but now that I think about it...yes...the universe is just too improbable...GOD MUST EXIST!

97. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276243 by JAMCAM87 on November 1, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Comment #276234 by Brian English

"JAMCAM87, you've lost me, first you say that maths is coherent, so it's correct on logical grounds, but you use that to argue against my argument that a theory needs to be correct on logical grounds?"

Ok, then we agree I think. Things need to be mathematically logical. A theory cannot contradict maths.

Like decius said, can you think of an example of a theory that is incoherent on logical grounds? I certainly can't.

98. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276233 by JAMCAM87 on November 1, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Decius, just realised you posted about quantum mechanics as I was posting. That is TWICE in one day that I have replied (almost) identically to someone else.

99. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #276231 by JAMCAM87 on November 1, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Brian,

"The result is correct, but the theory incoherent on logical grounds. We'd have to rework the theory because though we get the right answer, we have no idea why."

That's not strictly true - quantum mechanics has many logical contradictions wave/particle duality and quantum tunnelling etc. There is no MATHEMATICAL contradiction, just a human, fabricated one. If we had never described them as particles or waves in the first place then no confusion would have arisen.

100. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #276226 by JAMCAM87 on November 1, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Frankus,

That was really interesting, thank you.