Comments by bamboospitfire

Comment #115964 by bamboospitfire on January 25, 2008 at 6:30 am

The following is a dramatic presentation. It was written by a ficticious...

The introduction to the Bible, surely.

What a load of bollocks.

Comment #114870 by bamboospitfire on January 23, 2008 at 4:55 am

The solution is the re-establishment of our constitution on the primary liberal principle that no-one can deny another any right that he/she would claim for him/herself. Our existing society is already founded on such principles, but they need re-asserting and enforcing because, as Pat suggests, it seems that a lot of people have forgotten what the principles are, thanks (ironically) to 60 years of peace and freedom. Islam is inherently hypocritical in terms of rights and responsibilities and that is why it is so fundamentally immiscible with western civilisation. There is no need to mention religion in the debate if we understand our own principles. That Islam as stated in the Koran is diametrically opposed to those principles will become immediately obvious to anyone who considers the question.

53. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113979 by bamboospitfire on January 21, 2008 at 6:12 am

I agree that Britain requires a written, secular constitution.

I disagree with the Monarchy in principle, although the only problem I have with it in practice is the fact that Charles is plainly a born idiot. His comments on alternative therapy may well prove lethal, if they have not done so already. Elizabeth has been fine, IMO.

I would welcome a referendum. The only valid government is one which derives its authority from the consent of the governed. If we agree to keep the Monarchy, fine. It has no real power anyway. I just wish Charles would put a sock in it. He is just another man, and far less able than his position might suggest.

Disestablishment of the C of E is an absolute necessity. The Bishops must be removed from the Lords as soon as possible and the point must be made that religion has no place in politics.

If Charles wants to change the title of "Defender of (the) Faith", he should change it to "Defender of Freedom". I would welcome that change. Would he welcome it? Could he?

54. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #112382 by bamboospitfire on January 17, 2008 at 2:37 am

Dear Mr Scales

Thank you for your bravery and generosity in defence of the principles on which civilised society is based. We owe you a great debt. I hope we can go some way to repaying it through our continued defence of those same principles.

Best wishes for the future.

James

55. The Group Delusion

Comment #110462 by bamboospitfire on January 11, 2008 at 8:34 am

Children need something written at their level of comprehension to counteract the many misunderstandings and out right lies spread by their playmates, often resulting in ostracizing for not following the heard mentality.

Off topic, but this comment reminded me of an amusing remark made by a contemporary of mine when we were both involved in the Sunday School nativity play, aged 4, I think. I had been cast as a shepherd (I was regularly cast as a shepherd, much to my annoyance) so there I was with the regulation dressing-gown-and-tea-towel-head-dress outfit, together with a child-size crook (crafted by my farming grandfather) and a stuffed toy lamb. The boy turned to me and said: "What have you got that for? Shepherds don't have sheep." Presumably he went on to study at Liberty...

56. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #110349 by bamboospitfire on January 11, 2008 at 2:57 am

From the BBC site. Very, very well said, sir.

Nicholas Hytner, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What we have now is essentially a secular country based on a common bond of decency which includes free speech.

"And free speech includes the expectation that there should be mutual respect between those with different beliefs.

"And I don't believe that the law should address what people believe. The blasphemy laws protect belief; they don't protect people."

57. The Group Delusion

Comment #110335 by bamboospitfire on January 11, 2008 at 2:33 am

As long as E O Wilson doesn't think that changing his mind about one issue will necessarily lend any reflected credibility to group selection as a whole...

I am very pleased to see that Professor Dawkins responded in such unequivocal terms to the suggestion contained in the 'Survival of the selfless' article that he had "acknowledged [his] error". I thought it looked off when I read it, as I commented on the forum at the time.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=28211

58. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #110018 by bamboospitfire on January 10, 2008 at 10:01 am

42. Comment #109960 by ADH on January 10, 2008 at 7:08 am

"Prof. Dawkins's enthusiasm is infectious."

Indeed! He is an atheist meme machine!

As you know, I was referring to his comments on science.

59. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109887 by bamboospitfire on January 10, 2008 at 2:06 am

Hmmm. The look on the Professor's face at the end suggested he thought someone had spiked his tea with acid.

I agree with Philip that the science discussion at the start was the most important part. Prof. Dawkins's enthusiasm is infectious.

I thought he was a bit kind to Rowan Williams and rather harsh on the general religous public, however. It wasn't too long ago we had an article posted here which confirmed that Williams had admitted that he would not say anything from the pulpit that he didn't personally believe. The article went on to confirm some things that Williams had said, all of which were total batshit. Williams may be an intelligent, learned man, but he still believes some total rubbish and his criticism of Prof. Dawkins is downright disingenuous. By the same token, many members of the public who believe such things are still intelligent and learned, but they are suffering from a major case of cognitive dissonance. Presumably Prof. Dawkins was going for laughs.

60. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108976 by bamboospitfire on January 8, 2008 at 4:19 am

So, who else thinks that Sharkbait is in fact Mitt Romney in disguise?

Of course, I agree with the general point of the article that belief in such shit as creationism suggests an inability to wieght up evidence as you would hope the POTUS would. I don't disagree that acceptance of evolution by natural selection and some religious beliefs are compatible. But I think those religious beliefs would be restricted to more deistic beliefs. Regrettably that's not what we're dealing with.

As a (West) Yorkshireman living in London, I can confirm that the best beer in the world comes from North Yorkshire and Cornwall, although the Home Counties have a lot going for them as well in that respect. I can also confirm that if I was intending to come and live in England I would not choose Sheffield, at least on a permanent basis.

61. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #108515 by bamboospitfire on January 7, 2008 at 5:31 am

An outrageous decision at first instance, but surely the relevant words of the state constitution are "in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience". The only requirement is that a person should not be prevented from worshipping as he or she sees fit. In other words, the views of the parents are irrelevant, as long as they don't seek to limit the adoptive child's freedom of religion and there is no evidence provided to suggest that they would have done so. Moreover, the dictates of one's own conscience may well result in an absence of worship altogether. I have less of a problem with the wording of the state constitution than I do with the one-eyed, theist judge who interpreted it so badly.

62. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101850 by bamboospitfire on December 21, 2007 at 3:03 am

Tricky one, this. I haven't read all of the posts that have appeared since yesterday, but here are my two cents anyway, which hopefully stand alone.

I can see the point that RD (or any atheist) singing carols does rather give the wrong impression, given some of the words. I think that singing a carol is different to reading the Bible or listening to Handel's Messiah (something I did at St John's, Smith's Square last Friday, as a matter of fact, and very good it was too) because of one's direct involvement in the process. You are singing the words yourself, not merely listening to them or reading them. By adding one's voice I think it results in apparent (if not real) affirmation of what is being sung. That is a difficulty, particularly in circumstances where you can expect children to copy adults without question and given the fact that the nice (if totally unrealistic) Christmas story is the sugar-coated version of Christianity that is used to hook the kids in the first place.

On the other hand, I think that singing carols on the express basis that "it's just a bit of fun, all this nonsense" is potentially a very powerful meme. It seems to me that RD is saying "of course we can all join in for a bit of seasonal amusement - everyone knows it's bollocks". Moreover, I think it is useful to show that atheism doesn't mean you have to be a bit of a Scrooge.

I would have liked RD to comment on the pagan aspects of the Christmas festival during the interview, just to point out that the Christians have pillaged other religions for their own celebrations. Why shouldn't people of no religion do the same?

I remain rather undecided on this one. My mum always wants me to go to church with her on Christmas day, but it was already becoming very hard to stomach, watching the indoctrination of very young children who didn't know what was being done to their minds. It is difficult to stand by and allow it to go on unchallenged and I don't know if I shall go this year. What's more, the carols are generally rubbish modern ones these days anyway... ;-)

63. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #100767 by bamboospitfire on December 19, 2007 at 10:02 am

This is bloody brilliant. One of the best things I have seen on this site to date. Thanks!

64. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100698 by bamboospitfire on December 19, 2007 at 6:19 am

"I would have hoped that, in a society in which we are seeking to show respect to all people and beliefs, we might have grown out of this kind of nonsense."

Trying to paint this as some sort of puerile jape won't work. Edwards also needs to draw a distinction between people and faith. Respect for the person abounds. Respect for batshit-insane beliefs is rightly in short supply. He should get used to it.

"Our customers are intelligent, curious people who enjoy exploring all types of books and music."

Looks like Borders only sells stuff to atheists.

"Borders wouldn't do this to any other religious festival."

If not, it should; although fear of violence from Rage Boy and chums will prevent any mockery of Islam.

65. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97424 by bamboospitfire on December 12, 2007 at 4:16 am

lol @ 3legcat. I was thinking something similar. Clearly Morris is incapable of commenting on atheism because he doesn't know what it's like to be an atheist. ;-)

66. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97421 by bamboospitfire on December 12, 2007 at 4:05 am

Incredulous and steve99 make a serious point, but if people are jumping to conclusions as to the motive when a Muslim father strangles his westernised daughter, the only people to blame for that are all the other Muslim fathers who have murdered their westernised or otherwise "un-Islamic" daughters on religious grounds. Let's wait and see, but I fear that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

67. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97416 by bamboospitfire on December 12, 2007 at 3:50 am

To USA Limey and Don Quix. I would be concerned by any attempt to discoiver whether preachers and presidential candidates are lying about their beliefs using this method since revealing them as atheists would also reveal them as liars. The believers will draw only one conclusion from that, even though (as we know) correlation does not equate to causation.

68. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96930 by bamboospitfire on December 11, 2007 at 5:43 am

I would just like to add to my previous comment my view that Morris's letter is (perhaps unsurprisingly) patronising in the extreme and I find his suggestion that the Professor apologise on behalf of atheism for the murderous regimes of Stalin et alia to be one of the most offensive things I have ever read.

This is what he says:-

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

This man is inviting Richard Dawkins to confirm that Stalin, Mao, Hitler etc were representative of atheism (!) and that atheism was responsible for the genocide perpetrated by totalitarian regimes (!!) and then to apologise for that as a representative of those of us who do not believe in gods (!!!). Unbelievable. I have no doubt at all that this offer will not be accepted by the Professor, but the concept is just abhorrent. I know I don't need to ask this, but how could our lack of belief possibly tar us with that brush, so that one of us who is publicly recognised should have to apologise for the crimes of some of history's most evil men? Morris's suggestion is outrageous and I trust the Professor's response will make that clear in the strongest terms. I am appalled.

There is only one other thing I would say to Morris, in the words of the Hitch:-

"Oh, and fuck you."

69. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96882 by bamboospitfire on December 11, 2007 at 3:28 am

I'm with everyone else on the "fighting back with prayer" thing. Hilarious and ridiculous in equal measure. I'm sure the CV atheists are shaking in their boots.

As for all this "attacking", damn right it's an attack - one that points out just how fucking obscene theistic belief can be. Get used to it.

70. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96858 by bamboospitfire on December 11, 2007 at 2:47 am

Oh dear. Morris either does not or cannot understand the argument and his conclusions are based on false assumptions. There is no reasoning with people like him. One might as well talk to the wall. The tragedy is that other even simpler theists will regard his commentary as valid. This is all extremely depressing.

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

Comment #96277 by bamboospitfire on December 10, 2007 at 9:23 am

Forum ate my post...

In brief, since I can't be bothered typing it all again in full:-

1. pyota missed the point by identifying religion rather than lack of consent as the reason for the general consensus that medically unnecessary circumcision of non-consenting children is abhorrent.

2. What Jack Rawlinson said.

3. If we should circumcise baby boys to prevent future illnesses, presumably we should perform compulsory mastectomies on post-pubescent girls to prevent breast cancer, for example.

4. As if anyone seriously has their son circumcised to avoid the small risk of urinary tract infection in later life.

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

Comment #96198 by bamboospitfire on December 10, 2007 at 6:32 am

Way to miss the point entirely, pyota.

The "medical benefits" only apply if you're stupid enough not to wear a condom or if you have appalling personal hygeine. The other non-religious motives (such as the locker-room point) are just risible. There is no good reason to cut the foreskins off babies.

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

Comment #96192 by bamboospitfire on December 10, 2007 at 6:28 am

RascoHeldall has said almost everything that needs to be said on this topic. The circumcision of individuals who have not consented to the procedure is an abomination. I am not circumcised and I do not wish to be. If I were to be held down while my foreskin was removed, whether under anaesthetic or not, would that be acceptable? If the answer is no, why should age make any difference? Circumcision is utterly and irredeemably wrong and should be outlawed immediately for those under the age of 18, the penalty to reflect other crimes involving knives and the wounding of children. My only concern would be the danger posed to children whose parents decided to go ahead anyway and have the procedure performed illegally. Whether that danger would be any greater than the existing danger is another matter.

74. Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

Comment #88377 by bamboospitfire on November 16, 2007 at 9:54 am

Once more I salute the Hitch and his outstanding prose.

Surely this book will be the No.1 Christmas Present for 2007 to be given by those who frequent this site.

75. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #85106 by bamboospitfire on November 5, 2007 at 1:54 am

I think this is an exceptional article. I'd be delighted to see more from Mr Standing. The argument is rock-solid (as far as it goes) and the prose is superb. It is also wonderful to have a theologian stand up and say "yes - actually, it is all bollocks". Since that is the sort of ammunition we have always required to respond properly to the likes of Rowan Williams, this article is invaluable and the suggestion that Standing has wasted his time is just laughable.

Further to Prof Heard's comment above, it seems to me that whilst there will be some Christians who don't necessarily accept the Nicene Creed (for example) and who may therefore believe that they fall outside the scope of what RD etc are attacking, those people are exposing themselves to allegations of atheism with regard to Christianity. Perhaps they take a metaphorical view of Christianity, in which case they can't seriously claim to be religious at all; or perhaps they take a deistic view and wrap it up in Christian language, but that isn't in fact Christianity. (Whilst we atheists may not be able to define what someone believes, we can certainly categorise it.) Either way, what they cannot escape is the fact that TGD is expressly aimed at all gods and the logical arguments apply equally to whatever solipsistic mumbo jumbo these people might have contrived for themselves as they do to Christianity.

Lastly, I think Wardsie's point was brilliant and it should become a stock response to the theological crowd. If a theology degree is necessary in order not to believe, surely such a qualification is also necessary in order to have faith.

76. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79964 by bamboospitfire on October 19, 2007 at 9:14 am

Everything I know, everything I act upon, every person I vote for in elections, everything I say with confidence always comes out of the tried and true data from controlled experiments. Thank you science and especially the specific kind of science of controlled experiments, for that is the only way of knowing.

You said McGrath had made solid and tangible points. I gave an example of something he said which was neither solid nor tangible because it was expressed as a fact without any evidence being provided to support it, hence my reference to controlled experimentation. If you're going to make factual claims you have to be prepared to back them up. McGrath of all people knows this thanks to his biophysics, remember? He therefore has no excuse. The whole debate was about the effect of religion. It's not as though McGrath didn't have time for some research before turning up for a bit of arm-waving. (That's a metaphor, before you start bleating about ad hominem again.) Come on. Is sarcasm the best you can do? Regrettably, I have a feeling that it is.

77. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79939 by bamboospitfire on October 19, 2007 at 7:07 am

You guys who say that Mcgrath said nothing but nonsense are just taking a piss on yourselves. You have no clue and do not have the intellectual tools to make sense of the very solid and tangible points he made in his first 20 minutes. And for those of you who want to save us from the extemists, I'm with you. Don't forget that your atheism has led many others to extremism. DUH. If you want to base morality on REASON, then whose REASON??? The enlightenment made a God of REASON and it gave us the bloody French revolution. Do you have a piss ass clue how to base morality on REASON? I have no doubt in your morals. Many of you are surely good people. But finding a basis, a solid basis for your morals in some kind of philosophical sense, is a much harder question than you admit. McGrath said this, but since you got no clue about how hard it is to create an ethical system, then you just base it easily on REASON, witout even stopping to think what the hell reason is. Stop pissing nonsense and have enough humiilty to learn something from somebody. Are you not too much of a self-mastur_ _ _ _ _ _ socieity here to learn from McGrath? YES? NO? Theists can learn a great deal from you, (and I have learned much from Hitchens book), but you already know it all, so you don't need to learn from us. That bites. Have some of you not stopped thinking and growing? Keep enjoying yourselves on RichardDawkinsAtheistSelf-CongratulationSite.Net

Oh dear.

Solid and tangible points? Like the idea that religion improves people's health? I look forward to reading the results of the controlled experiment which settles that one. Or do you mean the idea that moderate religion is ok and we only need to worry about fanatical Muslims? I'll believe that when "moderate" believers begin condemning the extremists with the vigour their horrific acts and statements deserve. And of course none of the points that McGrath makes go anywhere near showing that there is a god. Dan Dennett did a better job of arguing *for* religious belief at AAI.

Atheism has led no-one to extremism of the sort we're concerned with and you know it. Passion, yes. Totalitarianism, never. If you think the Stalin point is a good one, you haven't got a prayer of understanding this debate, which makes your own allegations smack of hypocrisy.

Your reference to making a god of reason highlights the fatal flaw in your argument. Elevate *anything* to the level of a god and watch the carnage. As soon as you make something "sacred" you devalue humanity.

A good place to look for the basis of morality, as Hitchens alluded to, is natural selection. A society without morality will collapse, so you shouldn't be surprised to find morality evident in humans given our continuing existence. Welcome to the anthropic principle.

Of course we learn from McGrath. He is the theistic totem. He is the best you've got. And he continually fails to answer the questions put to him or provide any argument which can't be torn apart in seconds by countless people on the internet - people who don't hold two Oxford PhDs. It is sad to watch a man who is evidently so gifted waste his talents defending such an intellectually offensive position.

78. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79689 by bamboospitfire on October 18, 2007 at 7:07 am

Having watched more, the most troubling aspect of it is that they think the way to combat atheism is MORE BRAINWASHING at a YOUNGER AGE. These people are disgusting.

79. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79688 by bamboospitfire on October 18, 2007 at 7:04 am

The most troubling aspect of the video for me was the assumption that we are only allowed to speak our minds because the Judeo-Christian worldview makes it possible. Sorry - in fact that's not just "troubling". It makes my blood boil. We can only say what we think because YOU let us? Tell that to the Spanish Inquisition! Tell that to the millions of closet atheists in America today who feel compelled to kowtow to Jeebus to avoid ostracision from their communities. We can say what we think because people like US (not people like you) have protected our freedom to do so. It has nothing to do with your beliefs. Just because the Muslims are more insane than you are doesn't make any difference.

Also, if I was a "professor of literature", I'd want to be able to come up with better English than "full of attacking". Please...

80. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79669 by bamboospitfire on October 18, 2007 at 5:45 am

Someone tell McGrath to stand still, for pity's sake! And what rubbish he speaks. Faith of atheism...? I mean... Oh, forget it. *headdesk*

The Hitch is just devastating. His arguments are cast of bronze and he is a delight to listen to. Utterly brilliant.

81. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78143 by bamboospitfire on October 12, 2007 at 1:54 am

The true common ground between Christianity and Islam is that both are total batshit. I would be delighted if all those who ascribe to these grotesque systems recognised that.

As has been pointed out above, Christianity and Islam are imiscible concepts. Believers in either sect can't even agree amongst themselves, so I see no prospect of any agreement between the religions.

This letter also seems to fly in the face of the attitude shown by the Muslim doctors, dentists and shop assistants in Britain who seem determined not to have anything to do with anyone who does not conform to their woo-woo ideology.

82. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77295 by bamboospitfire on October 9, 2007 at 1:13 am

17. Comment #77281 by Jonathan Dore on October 9, 2007 at 12:06 am

Yes, I think Hitchens is being unfair here: what he didn't make clear is that the Dutch are no longer willing to pay for her protection while living *abroad*. There's no question that she will continue to be protected in the Netherlands, so they've just told her she needs to come home if she wants them to continue to pay. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I think the response to that is that she is more at risk in the Netherlands than she is in the US. Why should she be required to put herself in greater danger in order to obtain the Dutch government's protection?

I haven't seen a comparison between the cost of protection in the US with the cost in Holland. Is the difference really going to be so significant?

83. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77291 by bamboospitfire on October 9, 2007 at 1:04 am

Whilst I agree with the general sentiment of the article - that the US should be willing to pay for the protection of a person on their soil who represents the stand against Islamic oppression and who is subject to a very real threat of death - I do feel that the Hitch has been rather disingenuous in failing to give the full story (as set out bey bartvdo above) and I also find the comparison of the Dutch government's actions with regard to Hirsi Ali and the massacre in Srebrenica distasteful, given the way it has been expressed. Fair enough, this is the second time the Dutch government has done something which flies in the face of its previous achievements, but I think trying to put the two events on a par was foolish. The Hitch would have done a much better job of persuading people to his view, I think, if he had simply argued that this is not the first time that the Dutch government has acted badly and had left people to make their own comparisons. I do agree, however, that the refusal to continue to fund Hirsi Ali's protection sends a very worrying message to dangerous Muslims and I think the price was well worth paying to avoid that.

84. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #74970 by bamboospitfire on October 1, 2007 at 8:46 am

Theology is in trouble as long as it remains the study of the nature of God without also asking whether that is a valid question in the first place. I think the definition is crucial. If theology is always what RD defines it as in his letter, it has no place outside church libraries. If it is the study of various topics in a religious context, then it is as valid as the next subject. However, we can give names to those topics, and RD has done so. In the circumstances, I would argue for nailing down theology as the study of the nature of God so that it can rightly be thrown out of universities and replaced with objective courses in religious history, art, sociology and the like which do not require any baseless assumptions to be made about anything.

85. Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin

Comment #74314 by bamboospitfire on September 28, 2007 at 5:27 am

My first reaction was "Injunction!" but, even if it was possible, do we want anyone to think the scientific community has anything to hide? Will it not be more damaging to the creationist cause if the film is allowed to be released to a public which knows the filmmakers to be frauds? As for Stein commenting that no-one had asked him what it was about, presumably that's because they had already been told - a pack of lies.

86. Polygamist Leader Convicted in Utah

Comment #73756 by bamboospitfire on September 26, 2007 at 4:43 am

Religion is not an excuse for abuse? Well said. But then, religion is not an excuse for anything.

87. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73744 by bamboospitfire on September 26, 2007 at 3:55 am

I note that the scientist in the cartoons bears a fairly strong resemblance to Adolf Hitler.

88. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72500 by bamboospitfire on September 21, 2007 at 10:01 am

"I agree that a large proportion of his book is indeed based on error."

I'd be delighted to learn what aspects of the book Skinner believes to be erroneous. I expect his perspective is based on a failure to separate the question RD asks (does God exist?) from the question Skinner asks (what is God?).

Doesn't RD define the god he is attacking as ALL gods? Surely that neatly sidesteps the point Skinner is trying to make. RD includes Skinners God in his definition, no matter what Skinner might say God is.

"statements such as "God is ultimate reality"; or "God is the ground of our being", or "God is the precondition that anything at all could exist", and so forth"

Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Skinner also fails to notice that in practical terms the important thing is what the Great Unwashed believe God to be, not what some theologian in his ivory tower thinks. One man, one vote.

89. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #72443 by bamboospitfire on September 21, 2007 at 5:48 am

Collins's "outside of nature" argument is, frankly, hilarious. If God is outside nature, how can Collins be aware of God being outside nature in order to inform us poor, simple-minded atheists of that fact? Is Collins himself supernatural? Or is it just FAITH? If it is just faith, then God is manufactured. And Collins argues that it is illogical to say that there is no God - that omniscient, omnipotent contradiction in terms! *headdesk*

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

Comment #72099 by bamboospitfire on September 20, 2007 at 10:22 am

Oh for f... King's is my alma mater - what are they doing playing host to this imbecile?! For shame... I may go to the debate and see if I can have it out with the woman.

91. Catholic school board in Halton may ban HPV vaccination

Comment #71566 by bamboospitfire on September 19, 2007 at 3:55 am

Re Comment #71392 form Will in Aus, whilst Professor Frazer is correct that those who choose not to use the vaccine only harm themselves, the real issue here is that the decision not to use the vaccine is not being made by the girls who are being put at risk as a result of the vaccine being withheld. This is where RD's child abuse point really crystallises. These girls have been branded with their parents' religion, and now they're going to be denied protection from cervical cancer because of it.

It's not even as though the threat of cervical cancer due to HPV has prevented promiscuity in the past. It will not do so now.

If they do go through with the proposed ban, it will be an absolute outrage.

The board's contact details are here: http://www.haltonrc.edu.on.ca/aboutus/

92. Oxford's Christian colleges 'are not suitable for school-leavers'

Comment #71560 by bamboospitfire on September 19, 2007 at 3:22 am

The reference to "atheistic creed" jars a bit, but I suppose we can let it go.

Generally, great news. If theology can be revealed as the absolute non-subject that it is, fantastic. I have no problem with the objective study of religion as a phenomenon, including the arguments that are given for the existence of gods, but when divinity is studied on the assumption that its basic premise is correct, eyebrows must be elevated.

I only have one anecdote about Oxford's teaching of theology, which is that my trusts tutor at university studied theology there, with the result that he became an atheist, read law and went to the Bar. Perhaps they should be allowed to carry on...?!

93. Religious education

Comment #71181 by bamboospitfire on September 18, 2007 at 2:03 am

Oh dear. I take some comfort when considering articles such as this from the fact that my own madcap fundy RE teacher probably did more to make my colleagues and me question religion than almost anything else. I also don't think it is possible for a remotely inquisitive human being to consider a variety of monotheistic religions without questioning whether any of them are true, since they all claim to be the only one that is. However, we shouldn't have to clutch at such straws. The study of religion should necessarily include a frank discussion of whether there is any good reason to believe any of it at all. And you can do that whilst leaving science in the lab.

It seems to me that this is the sort of situation which requires atheists to involve themselves in both policy-making and teaching. Is the policy side of things something that the National Secular Society, for example, should be raising with the government? On the teaching front, would it not be particularly rewarding to open young minds to the possibilities of philosophy which sit opposed to theism, as well as teaching the facts about religion which will help children better understand the people with whom they share the planet? No child's faith has to be questioned by his or her teacher. If religious education is taught in an even-handed, unbiased way, the children will do it themselves.

94. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69693 by bamboospitfire on September 12, 2007 at 8:16 am

This is what the Catholic League have to say on their wrbsite:-

http://www.catholicleague.org/chatterbox.php?#75

"On its website today, New York magazine gave Kathy Griffin "kudos" for unleashing a "joyfully blasphemous rant" upon receiving her Emmy award. Griffin's words, "Suck it, Jesus, this is my God now" were so offensive and vulgar that most other news outlets won't reprint them. Yet the Gotham publication goes so far as to gush, "Thank God we can always count on Kathy Griffin to inject a little energy into a boring awards show."

"The publication's appetite for bigoted celebrity outbursts, however, seems to come and go. Foul-mouthed comediennes who insult Jesus and all Christians may meet with approval, but other celebrity offenders haven't been so lucky.

"Don Imus earned a spot in New York's list of "Great Moments in Bigoted Slurs" for his remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Isaiah Washington called a cast mate a "faggot" and was branded "despicable" and a "leading homophobe" by the weekly. Mel Gibson also earned the "despicable" label (twice) for his drunken anti-Semitic outburst, and was even described as being on par with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both Gibson and Michael Richards (the comic of "Seinfeld" fame who went on a tirade against blacks) were listed among the "Great Moments in Racism." And the use of the word "faggot" by Ann Coulter and Eminem was enough to drive the magazine's pollsters into Union Square to ask passersby for their thoughts on the matter.

"Yet Kathy Griffin faces no such scolding. Instead, she is hoisted up as a hero. While anti-Semitism, gay slurs and racism are (rightfully) condemned by New York's avant-garde, Christian-bashing is cause for celebration. And the editors aren't afraid to admit it."

1. Most other news providers seem more than happy to print the comments.

2. Mockery of religion does not equate to sexism.

3. Mockery of religion does not equate to homophobia.

4. Mockery of religion does not equate to racism.

That people are losing their fear of "bashing" religion certainly is a cause for celebration.

Although the Catholics should be applauded for not resorting to violence when their religion is mocked, the fact that Muslims might not be so restrained is utterly irrelevant.

For the record, Mohammed can suck it too.

As a brief aside, if you can stomach it, keep reading that page on the Catholic League's site. Apparently, when a priest rapes a postpubescent boy, that's not paedophilia - it's homosexuality. Presumably that makes it a whole lot better...

Do these people really need to be told that it's not ok to sexually assault people, regardless of their age or gender?

95. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69633 by bamboospitfire on September 12, 2007 at 1:52 am

Hate speech? I see that Donohue continues his vacation on Fantasy Island.

So much for the First Amendment.

96. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69266 by bamboospitfire on September 10, 2007 at 8:47 am

The aim of this (highly amusing) article is merely to expand on the point made by Sam Harris in response to the argument that only extreme religious belief is harmful. I recall Harris saying that the argument that moderate religion is ok is akin to arguing that moderate Nazism is ok. Perhaps many members of the Nazi party were kind, honest, generous people. But they shared a view with others who exterminated millions of innocent people in the furtherance of that view. That is where the comparison with religion begins and ends. You may argue that some Muslims (for example) are good people, but they share a view with others who have exterminated thousands of innocent people in the furtherance of that view in 2001 alone. The moderate position enables the extreme position. It is very simple. Let's not miss the point by trying to draw (irrelevant) distinctions between political and religious beliefs.

97. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68493 by bamboospitfire on September 7, 2007 at 9:57 am

When I saw the author's name I expected to find a desperate, intellectual cluster-fuck of an article, and boy did Theo deliver!

Religion may be harmful because it is false, but it is worth pointing out (since Theo seems to have missed this point) that religion is not harmful ONLY because it is false.

So what is hated about religion so much? Well, its falsity comes pretty far down the list. I'd say that the (mass) murder; mutilation; guilt; fear; sexual discrimination, repression and deviancy; servility; arrogance; and general bigotry that it engenders are more serious, tangible problems than whether god actually exists. (As atheists are continually at pains to point out, none of us care what people actually believe - it's what they do because of those beliefs that is the issue.) So if people didn't believe in gods, would these problems (to the extent that they are caused by religion - and they are) go away? Obviously. So would the world be a better place without religion? You do the maths, Theo. It wouldn't solve all the world's issues - no atheist ever said it would - but it would certainly help.

And let's not try to bring enjoyable secular passtimes within the scope of "religion". It's just pathetic. And whilst religion may be linked strongly to culture, culture does not necessarily have a damn thing to do with religion.

Seriously, I can't believe people are paying this man to write this crap. It's just embarrassing.

98. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66477 by bamboospitfire on August 30, 2007 at 5:03 am

I'm surprised that Donohue didn't acknowledge the fact that the Hitch is, in fact, from Northern Ireland. Doesn't he watch CBS?!

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1550,A-Matter-of-Faith,CBS-Sunday-Morning-Julia-Sweeney-Christopher-Hitchens

99. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66441 by bamboospitfire on August 30, 2007 at 2:20 am

"Bill needs 30 seconds,"

"He can hang himself any time he likes..."

Genius!

Did anyone else laugh at Donohue every time he criticized The Missionary Position for its lack of citations and evidence?

I give the Bible an F!

100. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65222 by bamboospitfire on August 23, 2007 at 8:21 am

Since we're in a sharing mood. Afraid this is a bit of an essay.

I am one of the millions of people who do not live by faith. Whilst I do not believe in any god, I am in awe of the universe. My morality is not dependent on a book, but on my own innate sense of right and wrong. I do not expect to survive my own death, so I hold life in the highest regard. My only aim is to make the most of my existence.

Yes, religion is under attack in modern society, precisely because it is antithetical to modern society, yet it seeks to impose itself on it at every turn, from global politics to school biology lessons. Religious faith stifles thought. It claims to provide all of the answers in circumstances where we do not even know all of the questions. It silences debate and usurps enquiry. It claims that the truth has been known for thousands of years and, by doing so, holds humanity back from seeking out the knowledge which could enable us to understand not only ourselves but the universe itself: the knowledge which, given the limited life-span of our solar system, will ultimately be required for the very survival of humanity and life as we know it. Moreover, whilst actively seeking to hold back human progress, religious faith divides us on a global scale. It causes and prolongs conflicts on grounds which have no basis in testable reality. It encourages people to destroy themselves and others for the sake of an unseen paradise. It is held up as justification for the murder of countless otherwise innocent people on the ground of thought-crimes, a term which should not even exist.

Even at its least destructive, religion wastes untold money, time and other resources in the praise of gods which, applying any rational standard, simply are not there. How much work of real value could be achieved if the religious turned their attention to doing something that was actually useful? This is not to belittle the efforts of those who do good deeds in the name of their religion, but there is nothing of tangible benefit done by the faithful that cannot be undertaken by someone who is rid of all gods. In any event, is it not better to do good for its own sake rather than in return for the bribe of eternal bliss?

To base a belief on faith is to admit that it has no logical or evidential justification. For this reason, faith can never justify the imposition of any regulation. This is the foundation on which the wall separating church and state is built. It is also the fundamental reason why the unsolicited encroachment of religion into public life - something which, at least in America, is constitutionally forbidden - is of such great concern. No-one can be expected to believe in anything for which there is no logical or evidential basis; no-one can be forced to hold a belief; no-one should be forced to profess a belief which they do not hold; and no-one should be forced to abide by laws which have their roots in the irrational and un-testable beliefs of others. So, whilst it is and should always remain open to anyone to hold whatever belief they wish, the line between religion and politics can never be stark enough.