51. Scientist Build a 'Brain' From Rat Cells

Comment #53044 by jonecc on June 29, 2007 at 4:33 am

It was nice of him to run us through the back story to the Matrix, but all they seem to have achieved so far is to get neurons to respond to some very simple stimuli.

For the clump of rat brain to fly a plane, they'd have to arrange for the plane to provide the encouraging/discouraging feedback, which it would presumably do using good old-fashioned silicon chips.

Which makes me wonder, do they believe that the biological route has more potential in the long run than computers, and if so, why? The fact that nature has taken that route indicates not that it's necessarily a superior method, but that it's possible for that solution to evolve.

Of course, what they may do, as the article says, is gain insight into the way our brains work. That's got nothing to do with making robots that destroy their creators, though.

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

Comment #52657 by jonecc on June 27, 2007 at 4:25 pm

wilberforce.parry:

I think they're just using Descartes' most famous aphorism as shorthand for his dualism. Descartes, like Aristotle, said that the universe was made up of two kinds of 'stuff', matter and mind.

The 20th century philosopher Gilbert Ryle famously argued in his book 'The Concept of Mind' that mind was simply a property of the matter that constitutes a brain. One might for instance compare the sentience of a brain to the 'whippiness' of an ice cream, and by that analogy asking where the mind 'goes' when the body dies is like asking where the whippiness goes when an ice cream is eaten and digested.

53. Messiah

Comment #52465 by jonecc on June 27, 2007 at 4:41 am

The point with the Psychic Institute from the American Glastonbury is that they are a self-selected group, where all the questioning minds have been winnowed out.

You or I would think "OK, but he's talked to the woman, and she's selecting her own image. Give her five images, get someone Brown hasn't met to select one and ask her to draw it. Then repeat the process with different volunteers, a statistically significant number of times." All the people who might think that way, though, never joined or have already left.

It's analogous to natural selection. If members of the Psychic Institute were the only people who were allowed to breed, humanity would become more and more credulous with every generation.

54. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52290 by jonecc on June 26, 2007 at 4:20 pm

MIND_REBEL:

Alternative comment threads: why, and more importantly, how?

Do you have special powers, or can we all play?

55. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52288 by jonecc on June 26, 2007 at 4:12 pm

I've performed similar rhetorical tricks using the Aztec belief that human sacrifice is required by the Gods to appease them and stop them destroying the world, and King Charles I's belief in the divine authority of kings, that God put him in place to govern and that Parliament's refusal to follow him precisely is a rebellion against God.

I see two main points the trick highlights. Firstly, subjective metaphysical beliefs have to be seen as a product of the society in which they are created, whereas evidence-based beliefs can stand on their own, if they survive trial by falsifiable prediction. If you look at them from outside the paradigm in which they make sense, they just look absurd.

Secondly, popular human beliefs can disappear from the face of the earth. With a very few exceptions, nobody now believes in the necessity for human sacrifice or all-powerful monarchs, and it's entirely possible to conceive of a world where nobody believes in racism, homeopathy - or religion.

56. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52273 by jonecc on June 26, 2007 at 3:48 pm

MIND_REBEL:

The reason why Saddam Hussein enjoyed so many years in power is that the USA propped him up for the first half of his reign. The Taliban only managed to take control of Afghanistan after being armed by the CIA to fight the Russians. The links with Pakistan were established during those years.

Both did just as many evil things in those years, but they did them with the support of the US, who helped them take out their opponents, both religious and secular.

US foreign policy is like the foreign policy of any government in an industrialised state. It mainly seeks to secure markets and resources for its backers.

57. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52235 by jonecc on June 26, 2007 at 2:35 pm

I was very glad Rushdie got recognised, not that I care about royalist affectations but the guy's a great writer with important things to say, and he's paid a heavy price for saying them.

The thing that scares me is this. Politicians don't do this kind of thing randomly, and they don't normally do them for principles either. It was predictable that the Iranian government would say vile things, and someone in the British government decided this would be a good time for them to do it. I wonder what they're laying the ground for?

58. UK Gov boots intelligent design back into 'religious' margins

Comment #52191 by jonecc on June 26, 2007 at 12:54 pm

BicycleRepairMan:

You're welcome. One day soon, we may succeed in disestablishing the church, as the Americans managed in 1776.

59. Row over religion's role in US jails

Comment #52055 by jonecc on June 26, 2007 at 3:56 am

This whole exercise is like stone soup. The Christians claim it's all about Jesus, but it's the other ingredients which have been shown to work in an entirely secular context. Religious belief just isn't a determining factor.

60. God Hates the World

Comment #51935 by jonecc on June 25, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Wee Flea:

The phrase Richard Dawkins used was "certain aspects of religious indoctrination". He uses this clip as an example of the problem, but doesn't describe it as typical. It's hard to assess other people's motives, but I would presume that his aim is to show why the subject needs to be discussed.

Obviously, it's an extreme example, and I accept that you are not motivated primarily by religious hatred, as these people seem to be. However, you yourself have said that you have told your children that the story of Christ is true. We object to this, because we think children should be free to make up their own minds. You are of course on the other end of the spectrum from the Phelps family, and we recognise this, but we still think that you shouldn't do it, and that Muslims, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses and for that matter atheists shouldn't do it either.

I grew up in a secular household, as it happens, but I never went to atheist Sunday school. No-one ever took me to the local Humanist Society offices and bathed my forehead in unholy water. In fact, we were all Christened in a church, because that's what people used to do.

I was never told that I had been born into the atheist faith community, or that my parents' metaphysical beliefs created obligations for me. I was only ever told that it was up to me to make up my own mind.

You have previously suggested that Richard has argued that religious parents should have their children taken away from them. I think this is because he has compared the religious indoctrination of children to child abuse, and in child abuse cases children are often removed, but I am aware of no instance where he has said any such thing.

In fact the only concrete measure I recall him advocating is that we should refrain from calling a child a Christian, Muslim or atheist child, for instance, just because of the metaphysical leanings of their parents.

61. Supreme Court nixes suit over faith-based plan

Comment #51888 by jonecc on June 25, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Ironic that their acronym is SCOTUS. Duns Scotus was a medieval theologian.

62. God Hates the World

Comment #51883 by jonecc on June 25, 2007 at 1:16 pm

I put something about this on my own blog, but this is the last bit of it.

"It's all quite jolly, and they look like they're having as much fun as they're giving us, but then just before the end the mocking laughter turns to horror and a boiling rage. For the last thirty seconds, the final chorus is sung solo - by a very young girl. She looks about two, and lisps through the words quite heartbreakingly. Right at the end, she smiles sweetly into the camera, apparently unaware of the content of the message she has just delivered. I suppose for now this is a blessing, but you just have to look at the rest of them to know how she's going to turn out.

I know this is dangerous territory I'm going into, and I may regret this, but I dare you to watch this video and then tell me no part of you wants that little girl taken into care. Hell, I'd look after her. I'd teach her nice songs, songs with some humanity. "Please allow me to introduce myself", she could lisp into the webcam, "I'm a girl of wealth, and taste". Or maybe she might enjoy encouraging people to sing if they're glad to be gay. We'd have to put it online, of course, otherwise how could her parents know of their daughter's progress?

They'd be heartbroken, of course, and with any luck they might make some public showing of their distress. Then we could all go and shove our placards into their weeping faces.

Not that we'd ever do any of those things. We wouldn't lower ourselves."

63. Create a back-up copy of your immune system

Comment #51236 by jonecc on June 22, 2007 at 3:11 am

It's an interesting idea, but the main thing that strikes me is the exorbitant cost of private medicine. Suppose they had 1000 customers. They'd get a down payment of $800,000, then $25,000 dollars a month to run a fridge.

64. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51080 by jonecc on June 21, 2007 at 11:38 am

There is a real issue with children growing up in religious households. I don't think anyone sensible has suggested perfectly good parents should have their children taken away just because they tell them unprovable metaphysical statements are true, but it is necessary to establish the principle that pluralist education for children is a civil right.

We might also want to consider whether physical modification of a child for non-medical reasons is acceptable.

65. The courage of their convictions

Comment #51006 by jonecc on June 21, 2007 at 2:47 am

Whoever is organising the Atheist Alliance International conference in September, I hope this group gets an invite, along with their sister organisations in other countries.

66. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #50835 by jonecc on June 20, 2007 at 6:33 am

Having read most of his books, I thought the God Delusion was similar in tone to the others. Not having a scientific background, The Blind Watchmaker was my first experience of the precision and clarity of thought that science can offer. Of all his books it remains my favourite.

He's always written passionately, and he's always debated robustly, occasionally possibly a little too robustly. In particular, I thought comparing Stephen Jay Gould with creationists was a rhetorical flourish too far, and as I recall he himself said afterwards he thought he might have overstepped the mark.

He also made the notorious remark about that British Airways woman having a stupid face. Again, though, he had the grace to admit afterwards that it wasn't his finest hour.

So the impression I'm left with is of a committed and articulate polemicist with an elegant turn of phrase, who very occasionally goes over the top and then admits it afterwards. Who among us could claim to be doing any better than that?

67. The Great God Debate

Comment #50106 by jonecc on June 15, 2007 at 5:19 am

I was very taken by Hitchens' reference to society's sexual morays. You can get arrested for that.

I think he may have said sexual mores.

68. The Great Mutator

Comment #49712 by jonecc on June 13, 2007 at 5:45 am

I enjoyed the dice analogy as well. If anything, Coyne understates the power of the Maths, as his model assumes that all 20 proteins have to be added in the right order.

I just made a spreadsheet simulation based on the opposite assumption, that the proteins can be added in any order, and ran it a couple of times. It works on the function

If previous roll =6, keep 6, if not, roll again.

I ran it several times, and in most cases it took less than 20 generations.

The truth is probably that there is some flexibility in the order of proteins, but not complete flexibility, and the number of generations required would be between 20 and 120. A blink of an eye by the standards of geological time, anyway.

I wonder about Behe. I'm not a trained scientist, and I first saw the simulation I've described on TV, in Richard Dawkins's 1991 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures to teenagers. What must his colleagues do to him? Surely the campus dining rooms must be a torture to him, as they gather like hawks to gnaw on his recidivist bones for their sport.

69. Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

Comment #49525 by jonecc on June 12, 2007 at 9:06 am

Also, a "bona fide" moron would be someone who acted moronically in good faith. Not someone who believed without evidence to a high standard, but someone who was trustworthy - the phrase is Classical Latin, and predates Christianity. I'm not sure what Spag Bol meant, but I don't think it was that.

70. Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

Comment #49523 by jonecc on June 12, 2007 at 9:02 am

The poll indicates that a majority of Republican voters don't just doubt the theory of evolution in a philosophical, theoretical kind of a way, but actively assert a belief in Biblical creation. Have we marginalised them, as The Spaghetti Monster suggests, or have they marginalised themselves?

71. A Quote Against Theocracy

Comment #48386 by jonecc on June 7, 2007 at 4:55 pm

I think Lewis' classical scholarship is showing. Gibbon advanced a similar argument in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Emipire, explaining why persecution of Christians became worse after the Empire became Christian, as the official Church persecuted heretics with more thoroughness than the old pagan Empire had managed for all Christians. In a schism which prefigured the Catholic/Orthodox split, the offical religion in the west was heretical in the east, and vice versa.

72. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48215 by jonecc on June 7, 2007 at 4:21 am

By the time I got to this you'd all shredded it so finely I couldn't find anything worth dissecting, so I'm just going to highlight his self-description as

"a Christian looking for empirical support for his interior convictions"

Which is perhaps a little more revealing that he'd meant to be. The rest of us at least try to use empirical evidence to test our convictions rather than cherry pick to shore them up.

73. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46209 by jonecc on May 30, 2007 at 3:05 pm

From the article, quoting the President's Council in their 2003 report (Being Human: Readings from the President's Council on Bioethics):

"We have both corporeal and noncorporeal aspects. We are embodied spirits and inspirited bodies (or, if you will, embodied minds and minded bodies)".

In 1277, Pope John XXI issued a condemnation of 219 propositions argued by philosophers of the Paris school, and explained in some detail the exact propositions that philosophers were to find to be true. 826 years later, an immeasurably less literate and sophisticated President finds himself wandering into territory he couldn't begin to understand either.

74. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46035 by jonecc on May 30, 2007 at 4:01 am

Prager asks "If you saw ten men walking towards you late at night, would you be relieved to learn that they were coming from a Bible study meeting?"

On balance yes, but that just proves that I believe Christians are less likely to mug me than muggers. This isn't an especially moral hurdle to clear.

If I saw ten men walking towards me late at night, I would also be relieved to learn that they were coming from a humanist meeting, or for that matter virtually any meeting at all, as muggers rarely do meetings.

"If you saw ten men walking into school to teach your children, would you be relieved to learn that they were coming from a Bible study meeting?" Definitely not.

75. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45872 by jonecc on May 29, 2007 at 12:39 pm

There is a real political point, which is that most people just don't listen to intellectual arguments.

There's a body of evidence growing which suggests that societies become less religious if they have a decent standard of living, political freedoms, a decent education system, a Welfare State and socialised health care.

Now there's a program we can all get behind.

76. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45870 by jonecc on May 29, 2007 at 12:34 pm

So Christians have used the pun so much that Jesus Christ Himself is tired of it?

I'm sorry for you, JCH. They must be such a trial for you on so many levels.

77. Sam Harris Strikes Back

Comment #45852 by jonecc on May 29, 2007 at 11:48 am

In any case, it's by no means clear that monotheism was a moral step up from polytheism.

In Roman times, for instance, it is true that while the Empire was polytheist it persecuted Christians, but this persecution was occasional, and depended on how strongly the current Emperor and the Governor of your province felt about it.

After Constantine made the Empire Christian, and especially after Theodosius banned paganism, far more people were killed. In particular, other Christians were in great danger, if they differed in their interpretation from the local bishop.

The pagans thought Christians were annoying, and persecuted them if they could be bothered, but Christians thought different Christians were heretics, and persecuted them morning, day and night.

78. Tales of Hay-on-Wye

Comment #45811 by jonecc on May 29, 2007 at 10:36 am

There is a reason why the word 'delusion' is particularly apposite when discussing religion.

If you are arguing a case based on reason and/or evidence, then flaws in your argument can be identified and labelled. If the essence of your case is non-rational, if you are appealing to some kind of personal inner experience, then to say that you are incorrect is to say that you have interpreted that experience as real when it was actually imaginary, which is what 'delusional' means.

79. Transcending Jerry Falwell

Comment #44826 by jonecc on May 25, 2007 at 10:58 am

devolved:

One obvious proof is to turn to Matthew Chapter 1 and compare the list of Jesus' ancestors with the list in Luke 3. They are quite different.

80. Italian TV urged to scrap BBC film accusing Pope of abuse cover-up

Comment #44793 by jonecc on May 25, 2007 at 9:43 am

Fortunately, in these days of the Internet, it sounds like half the population of Italy have seen it anyway.

Interesting to note that the head of the parliamentary committee has Fascist links. Fascism is still a much stronger force in Italy than people often realise.

81. The Blairs' Witch Project

Comment #44788 by jonecc on May 25, 2007 at 9:37 am

The terrifying thing (apart from Philip1978 in a towel) is that the guy who's been in charge has so little respect for the concept of evidence. No wonder we've got an eruption of faith schools.

82. Fighting the Fundamentalists

Comment #44681 by jonecc on May 25, 2007 at 7:16 am

It seems to me that there's a lot of different questions all mixed together here.

To some extent, we're talking about a collective effort to apprehend the nature of the world around us through reason and evidence. In this respect, the relevant metric is not how many people agree with us, but how good our models are, how well they explain things.

To some extent, we're talking about a political campaign to make religion history. In this respect, the relevant metric is precisely how many people agree with us, and how far we succeed in freeing humanity from religious influence.

To some extent, we're talking about reducing the negative social impacts of religion. In this respect, people who believe in a benevolent, easy-going God who likes us to relax on the beach are clearly a step up from people who think he wants us to persecute gay people and stone adulterous women.

To some extent, we're talking about making the world a better place generally. In this respect, the relevant metric is the quality of life that people experience. Even if someone is a total fundamentalist religious nutjob, we'd prefer it if they were a religious nutjob who recycled. From this perspective, the newfound interest of some evangelical Christians in environmental and social justice issues is a positive step.

Does this seem like a reasonable exposition of the tactical question?

83. Fighting the Fundamentalists

Comment #44611 by jonecc on May 25, 2007 at 5:34 am

I see absolutely no reason to pander to this kind of ludicrous charlatanism. Any time we give deluded people an inch, they take a mile. So let's all agree to stand firm on the evidence. There is no way Arsenal will win the European Cup next year.

84. Exorcism exercise for fired-up faithful

Comment #44564 by jonecc on May 25, 2007 at 4:42 am

"Casting out demons is rarely dangerous"

Would he care to enlighten us about the exceptions to the rule? Because based on years of detailed research watching Buffy the Vampire I would have thought there were risks involved.

Perhaps he's just trying to keep his business insurance down.

85. The root of all evil?

Comment #43652 by jonecc on May 22, 2007 at 7:33 am

When Richard Dawkins made the series, he objected to the title "The Root of all Evil" unsuccessfully. He's said many times that he thinks religion is only the root of some of it.

86. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43571 by jonecc on May 22, 2007 at 3:29 am

eggplantbren: he means that if you removed all the shit from him there would be virtually nothing left.

87. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43570 by jonecc on May 22, 2007 at 3:28 am

It turns out two of his honorary degrees were from unaccredited institutions, and one was from the Temple Baptist Seminary of Tennessee, whose accreditation comes from the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, who were founded to "promote the welfare, interests, and development of postsecondary institutions, whose mission is characterized by a distinctly Christian purpose.

I suppose he called himself Doctor because he'd doctored his own academic record.

88. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43564 by jonecc on May 22, 2007 at 3:09 am

dancingthemantaray:

I found Hitchens' tactic a little discomforting too, but it's worth bearing in mind that it was a response to being not just on US TV in general, but on Fox in particular. Because Fox is dominated by conservatives and Bible bashers, liberal secularists have to be aggressive to get their point across.

It's also important to emphasise, as Hitchens did, that Falwell isn't offensive just because he was religious, but because he preached hate, and in particular because he used sophisticated advertising techniques to extract donations from mainly low-income Americans.

89. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43430 by jonecc on May 21, 2007 at 11:30 am

I've said this before in similar arguments, but the particular problem that religion presents is the way it gets passed down from parents to children. I've no idea which side my ancestors were on in the great European war of the mid-seventeenth century, but if I was from the north of Ireland or parts of Scotland (Wee Flea's part, I'm guessing from his username) I'd know full well, by which religion I'd been born into.

It's not even as if the original war was really about religion - Catholic France fought on the same side as Protestant Sweden, and William of Orange invaded Ireland with the blessing of the Pope - but that hand-me-down religious identity blights the twentieth century with the labels of that benighted age.

90. Scientists Draw Link Between Morality And Brain's Wiring

Comment #43420 by jonecc on May 21, 2007 at 10:43 am

This is just a guess, but is research like this pointing towards the idea that evolutionary morality derives from empathy, whilst the actual moral rules we apply might be culturally determined? That would explain why most people have an ethical sense, but we're quite capable of ignoring it in certain situations.

One might similarly conjecture that the sex drive is innate, but that individual predilections depend on their previous experiences.

Would this work for Luthien and Henri Bergson?

91. Catholic Church Reconsiders Limbo

Comment #43318 by jonecc on May 21, 2007 at 5:45 am

These people can be quite funny.

http://newsbiscuit.com/

92. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43315 by jonecc on May 21, 2007 at 5:26 am

Michael Novak writes about Christianity as a force for equality, freedom and science, yet he is a Catholic, and works for the American Enterprise Institute.

Does he believe in the virgin birth? Does he support the Pope's attacks on liberation theology? Where does he stand on babies in Limbo?

They act like they're modern folks when they're in the media, but scratch the surface and it's the same old Iron Age freak show.

Also, his history is cock-eyed. When Christianity took over the Roman Empire, it did not come as a force for peace. More Christians died after the change than before, as the wrong kind of Christian was labelled a heretic.

From Poland to South America to the Philippines, Christianity arrived at the point of a sword. Neither was it the main source of scientific research, much of which came from Hindu India, via the Muslim Mediterranean. When the West took over, it was not religion that forced the pace but the Industrial Revolution.

There was good work done by monks and clerics in the medieval west, but that was because they were the only people who had the time and resources. If society had created a secular priesthood rather than a religious one, who knows what they might have achieved?

The Church frequently tried to interfere. From 1270 to 1284, for instance, they issued a series of decrees which explained exactly what propositions philosophers were to find to be true. This is not how it's done.

From the Renaissance on, the focus of scientific progress shifted away from Catholic and Muslim lands, and into Protestant northern Europe. This was because scientists and philosophers enjoyed greater freedom, away from meddling Popes and mullahs. Of the great figures of modern science and philosophy - Newton, Darwin, Leibniz, Lavoisier, etc - very few were clerics.

93. Catholic Church Reconsiders Limbo

Comment #43298 by jonecc on May 21, 2007 at 4:36 am

I figured the Pope wouldn't let God let me in, but I am surprised by their vehemence on the subject of babies. If all the non-Catholic babies there have ever been are in there, Limbo must be like the community cafe just after the creche closes for the day. A few millennia of that and you'd be clamouring to be let into hell.

94. Antarctic 'treasure trove' found

Comment #42567 by jonecc on May 18, 2007 at 12:23 pm

I often wonder what this kind of thing says about the likelihood of life elsewhere.

We know that many planets and large moons have a wide range of climates (hot planets have poles, cold planets may have deep oceans with volcanic heat), and that life on earth got going fairly much straight away after the earth cooled by the standards of geological time.

We can also see on earth that once started life can adapt to all kinds of challenges - not just the Antarctic, but deserts, freezing lakes, deep underground. You have to wonder how much of it there is out there.

95. The stone is cast

Comment #41440 by jonecc on May 16, 2007 at 6:00 am

Dower is right. We shouldn't be putting abusive, derogatory pieces about Falwell in these discussions, it gives the wrong impression about us.

So I've put mine here http://secback.blog.co.uk/2007/05/16/jerry_falwell_s_dead~2280161

96. Atheists with Attitude: Why do they hate Him?

Comment #41432 by jonecc on May 16, 2007 at 5:51 am

Like Hitchens and Harris, my ancestors were probably involved in the wars of the English Revolution. Maybe they fought for the divine right of kings, maybe they supported the autonomy of Parliament. They may have wanted freedom of trade, or they may have been more concerned about taxes. Statistically, it's likely that some of them fought on each side.

Just for the sake of argument, let's pretend Hitchens' ancestors all fought on one side, and mine all fought on the other. It doesn't matter. We'll never know, and wouldn't much care if we did.

But in the north of Ireland, everyone knows. This is because the Catholics were on one side, and the Protestants on the other. The victorious Protestants passed down their triumphalist metaphysics through Lodges and business organisation, while defeated Catholics put their children in separate schools, and taught them never to forget.

In practice, everyone in northern Ireland probably has ancestors on both sides as well, but their metaphysical allegiances oblige them to pretend history is less complex than it actually is.

These days, the antagonism between the two sides has more to do with jobs, housing or methods of policing than with religion. The point is, though, because religion passes old labels down the generations it does have a way of burdening today's social divisions with the ideological baggage of yesterday's.

97. State Darwin museum

Comment #41394 by jonecc on May 16, 2007 at 4:33 am

If you come to the UK, see our glorious Natural History Museum in London. There's a good one in Oxford, as well (and probably other places - we like that kind of thing, which is why everyone's favourite living Briton is David Attenborough).

98. Christopher Hitchens is Not Great

Comment #41393 by jonecc on May 16, 2007 at 4:32 am

Sorry, put the last in the wrong thread.

99. Christopher Hitchens is Not Great

Comment #41392 by jonecc on May 16, 2007 at 4:31 am

If you come to the UK, see our glorious Natural History Museum in London. There's a good one in Oxford, as well (and probably other places - we like that kind of thing, which is why everyone's favourite living Briton is David Attenborough).

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

Comment #41391 by jonecc on May 16, 2007 at 4:26 am

When I read articles like this, where the author seeks to distance themselves from other, less sophisticated Christians, I always want to ask them:

Do you believe in the virgin birth? Do you believe in the resurrection? Do you believe in the miracles?

And when they start blathering on, it makes me want to pin them down. Yes, I know you think they're profound and meaningful stories, but do you or do you not believe they actually happened? Are they or are they not real historical events?

Because then you've got them. Then they have to choose which side of the fence they're on. Are they in the modern world, or are they still in the Iron Age?