51. Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution

Comment #62478 by BT Murtagh on August 9, 2007 at 11:42 pm

Similarly, we used to think that dogs evolved from wolves, but then we found some canine bones that were older than some lupine bones. Now we have to revise that theory too... (sigh).

52. Pentagon: Hold On, Christian Soldiers!

Comment #61952 by BT Murtagh on August 7, 2007 at 2:42 pm

The intensely frustrating part to me is that I know almost all my co-workers will think that this Christian Embassy is a good thing.

I can talk to them about almost any other kind of governmental malfeasance and get them to see when there's a problem, even though most of them can't remember from week to week what political party the President belongs to, but when religion enters the picture, forget it.

53. Does the Bible have a place in public schools?

Comment #61766 by BT Murtagh on August 6, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Here in South Carolina the state legislature recently passed a bill to allow just such Bible classes to be taught in high schools. Fine, but...

Ominously, they also specifically shot down an amendment which would allow the same privelege for other major religious texts such as the Koran and Torah, which casts a little doubt on their motives.

54. Who's Minding the Mind?

Comment #61581 by BT Murtagh on August 5, 2007 at 9:32 pm

Traytheist, it doesn't matter, so please stop feeding the meme, mmmkay?

I'm going to try spritzing some cleaner about next time I want to tidy up, see if I can get my subconscious to stop saying "or you could watch some television, or go online..."

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

Comment #61577 by BT Murtagh on August 5, 2007 at 8:47 pm

I have BBC America too, but I was bitterly disappointed in it - not only is it lacking in good science programs, even the entertainment part is just a constant lot of reruns. Plus it just seems wrong somehow to watch BBC with advertisements every five minutes...

I really want to see this program! Please, Richard, do use your good offices to promote some way for those of us in the Colonies to get it!

56. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61576 by BT Murtagh on August 5, 2007 at 8:37 pm

Good on you Richard!

Nonsense is nonsense, and it should be fought on all fronts. If we can persuade people to think rationally about the New Age nonsense, they will also find it easier to think rationally about the Iron Age nonsense.

As one stuck in the Channel-4-less wilderness called America, is there some hope I'll be able to purchase DVDs of this programme from this site (or anywhere else)?

57. The Out Campaign

Comment #59846 by BT Murtagh on July 30, 2007 at 8:43 pm

Deja Fu quoth:

BTW, the font of the "official" Scarlet A is *not* in the public domain, and I therefore reject it.

58. The Out Campaign

Comment #59845 by BT Murtagh on July 30, 2007 at 8:37 pm

I was already pretty outspoken and obvious in my atheism, so I wasn't sure this would be relevant to me. The longer I thought about it and read the comments, the more I've come to like the idea of a popular, recognizable symbol of atheist solidarity. (Note the absence of words like "standard" or "official"!)

I've already added the A to my website and will shortly be wearing it. Is it a perfect symbol? Perhaps not, but it's a good starting place - I particularly like the Hawthorne reference, that this is something they tried to make shameful but we're going to wear it as a badge of pride.

If other symbols come out later and become recognized as atheist symbols, great; the Christians have several, after all, and who can count the number of pagan symbols? Prior to this the closest we had was the Darwin fish, which I still like to show, but that's more an anti-creationist icon - a theistic evolutionist could get behind that too, for example.

59. Come Out!

Comment #59428 by BT Murtagh on July 29, 2007 at 3:17 am

There's no doubt that we're a widely despised lot, and I can't blame people for being hesitant to "come out" as atheists. They can expect to be shunned and distrusted, and possibly may face illegal job discrimination and the like. If they put atheist bumper stickers and the like on their cars those may get vandalized.

There seems to be a perception floating about that we're in constant danger of actual physical assault, though, and it's that aspect of it - and only that aspect - which I am asserting has been greatly exagerrated. The only physical assault I know of an atheist suffering (it's listed in one of Rieux's links) is a kid in high school being bullied by other high school kids.

As I said above, I'm a very out and obvious atheist in a very fundamentalist part of the country (plus I'm a physically unimposing guy) and I've never had so much as a hint of violence offered me. I don't think physical violence is a danger in America under any but very exceptional circumstances. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think I am.

60. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59417 by BT Murtagh on July 29, 2007 at 2:30 am

Veronique, I get most of my t-shirts from CafePress.com or SpreadShirt.com; they have loads of designs or you can make your own, e.g. my newest "6 Impossible Things" is one I ran up myself on SpreadShirt last week.

Josh, thanks for making me realize what should have been blindingly obvious; I was looking at it all wrong, I've got loads of atheist tees but no RichardDawkins.net ones at all! I'll be ordering one later today when I get to my secure computer. I do think the http://outcampaign.org/ URL would also be good; if you later add that as an option I'll have me one of them as well! :)

61. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59374 by BT Murtagh on July 28, 2007 at 10:09 pm

MrEmpirical, I know we're not being elected - that's the "Yes, there's prejudice against atheists" part of my statement. You quoted it, for crying out loud.

As for data, do you have any suggesting that we are in fact being lynched in America? Hmmmmm? Oddly enough, the "lack of anecdotes" pretty much is "lack of data" (or at least equivalent).

My point is simply that the fear is probably being a bit overdone here.

62. Come Out!

Comment #59366 by BT Murtagh on July 28, 2007 at 9:48 pm

Just a note to those who tremble to wear an A because it's too dangerous - get real!

I'm in South Carolina, one of the reddest Bible Belt states there is. Today I'm wearing a t-shirt listing "6 Impossible Things to believe before breakfast: Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Pink Unicorn, Spaghetti Monster, God." Yesterday it was my "American Atheist" jersey with those words and a big bright red-white-and-blue Atheist Atom symbol. The day before it was "Fine, I evolved, you didn't" with the Christian and Darwin fish. Before that it was my faux-Listerine label "ATHEISM: Rinse away religious beliefs and superstitious nitwittery. Kills Dogma on Contact!" Before that... well, you get the picture.

I have atheism-related t-shirts for every day of the week, and I wear them all the time; I'm about as "out" as it is possible to be without tattooing it on my forehead. My major complaint about this A t-shirt is that it isn't obvious enough. I prefer to go straight toward the frankness-bordering-on-offensive end of the spectrum.

Did I mention that I live in South Carolina? You can hardly spit here without hitting a fundamentalist church. You know I'm offending the hell out of these people every day, and twice on Sunday.

I have never gotten worse than a dirty look from any of the fundies I am totally surrounded by. So can we please tone down the "I'm afraid to wear a big red A, because they might string me up to the nearest lamppost" rhetoric? Yes, there's prejudice against atheists, but get a grip, they're not lynching us for it.

(I will admit I'm damn glad I'm not gay as well!)

63. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59361 by BT Murtagh on July 28, 2007 at 9:35 pm

Just a note to those who tremble to wear an A because it's too dangerous - get real!

I'm in South Carolina, one of the reddest Bible Belt states there is. Today I'm wearing a t-shirt listing "6 Impossible Things to believe before breakfast: Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Pink Unicorn, Spaghetti Monster, God." Yesterday it was my "American Atheist" jersey with those words and a big bright red-white-and-blue Atheist Atom symbol. The day before it was "Fine, I evolved, you didn't" with the Christian and Darwin fish. Before that it was my faux-Listerine label "ATHEISM: Rinse away religious beliefs and superstitious nitwittery. Kills Dogma on Contact!" Before that... well, you get the picture.

I have atheism-related t-shirts for every day of the week, and I wear them all the time; I'm about as "out" as it is possible to be without tattooing it on my forehead. My major complaint about this A t-shirt is that it isn't obvious enough. I prefer to go straight toward the frankness-bordering-on-offensive end of the spectrum.

Did I mention that I live in South Carolina? You can hardly spit here without hitting a fundamentalist church. You know I'm offending the hell out of these people every day, and twice on Sunday.

I have never gotten worse than a dirty look from any of the fundies I am totally surrounded by. So can we please tone down the "I'm afraid to wear a big red A, because they might string me up to the nearest lamppost" rhetoric? Yes, there's prejudice against atheists, but get a grip, they're not lynching us for it.

(I will admit I'm damn glad I'm not gay as well!)

64. Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

Comment #59213 by BT Murtagh on July 28, 2007 at 10:21 am

Well, we know it's not George W. Bush:
"[The anti-christ] also will be a man of peace, one who has promoted peace for many years."

65. Resisting peer pressure: new findings shed light on adolescent decision-making

Comment #59193 by BT Murtagh on July 28, 2007 at 4:17 am

JanChan quoth:

Ok, now if we can only do the same for religious beliefs... probably something like measuring which part of the brain activates when blind belief is thrown in our faces.

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

Comment #58680 by BT Murtagh on July 25, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Shorter version:

The atheist position is beautifully simple; there isn't a paradox here, there simply isn't a God there to intervene. What would you expect?

The theist response is just a further surrender to unreason; we can't understand, just accept it anyway. Whatever you do, don't check your premises!

67. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58678 by BT Murtagh on July 25, 2007 at 6:15 pm

God is a verb?

Is god a transitive or intransitive verb, I wonder? Let's see...

I god. You god. He/she/it gods.

I god you. You god me. We god our godded family.

No, it's godding not doing it for me. God it!!!

68. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57806 by BT Murtagh on July 21, 2007 at 6:54 am

sheepscarer quoth:

(front of T-shirt)
3 impossible things to believe before breakfast
(back of T-shirt)
Santa Claus, tooth-fairy, god

Six impossible things to
believe (before breakfast):

1) Santa Claus
2) Easter Bunny
3) Tooth Fairy
4) Pink Unicorn
5) Spaghetti Monster
6) Any God, Anywhere

69. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57465 by BT Murtagh on July 19, 2007 at 12:41 pm

"Waiting for media.fastclick.com..."

Grrrr. I don't mind reasonable, nonintrusive advertising; bills have to be paid.

Right after pop-ups on the scale of annoyingness, though, lie these fucktarded banner ads that have to download their content from some 300 baud acoustic modem on the other side of a timewarp leading back to the 1980s.

70. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57444 by BT Murtagh on July 19, 2007 at 11:20 am

The linguistic deficiencies of the typical fundie always remind me of my favorite riddle:

Q: What do you you get when you cross an agnostic, an insomniac and a dyslexic?

A: Someone who lies awake wondering if there really is a dog.

71. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57431 by BT Murtagh on July 19, 2007 at 10:13 am

I don't pick fights, but then again I don't need to; all I need do is refuse to be cowed.

If someone makes what is to me a transparently stupid statement I'll challenge it, even if it is a religious statement (most of which are in fact transparently stupid).

If that means a fight/argument/discussion, then I feel more than adequately prepared to hold my end of it, thanks due in no small part to 'evangelical unbelievers' who have gone before me.

72. Phony Piety on the Far Right

Comment #57424 by BT Murtagh on July 19, 2007 at 9:44 am

While I'd like a nontheist President, I'd happily settle for one who checks his/her religion at the door of the Oval Office, so to speak. Unfortunately, it's a rare strain of the virus which would allow that in anyone but a hypocrite.

As Sam Harris points out in EOF, if you really believe that any teaching which reduces a child's faith in Jesus the Big Red God is liable to condemn that child to eternal torment, then it would be staggeringly immoral to allow that teaching to occur. Any teaching of proper skeptical, logical thinking is going to risk a child's learning to doubt the truth of JBRG, so a faith-head President's only moral course is to try and institute a theocracy for the sake of the children.

Your choices then are (theoretically) to elect someone who is dumb enough to actually believe these fairy tales in spite of the evidence, an honest theist who is compartmentalized enough (at age 35+) never to have thought sufficiently about his/her fundamental beliefs to doubt them, a hypocrite who pretends to share the popular delusion because it is necessary to get the votes, or an open nontheist who will thereby never garner the votes to win.

In short, you can choose the stupid, the psychotically stupid, the pragmatically dishonest or the simply unelectable.

I doubt the unelectable could even get to a primary in practice, so I'm actually glad for the opportunity to vote for a dishonest President. Yes, religion poisons everything.

73. Convict sues God for broken contract

Comment #56931 by BT Murtagh on July 17, 2007 at 9:45 pm

I thought God was supposed to be both omnipresent and omniscient?

If so, serving the papers is a snap; as soon as they are created (maybe even before) God is apprised of their contents, and they are already in His possession!

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

Comment #56707 by BT Murtagh on July 17, 2007 at 2:10 am

I wonder if he even knows why God made homosexuality a sin?

(His boyfriend thought it would be hot!)

75. The New New Atheism

Comment #56705 by BT Murtagh on July 17, 2007 at 1:46 am

Unlike the classical atheism of Epicurus and Lucretius, which rejected belief in the gods in the name of pleasure and tranquility

76. Darwin or Design

Comment #56684 by BT Murtagh on July 16, 2007 at 11:48 pm

The SciPhiShow quoth:

PZ's atheism is held at least as dogmatically as any religious believer i've ever encountered and it serves the same purpose as a defining characteristic of his worldview.

77. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56683 by BT Murtagh on July 16, 2007 at 11:23 pm

Traditions can come from anywhere, and they're not obligated to have a reason. Giving presents on someone's birthday is a tradition. Setting off fireworks on New Year's Day is a tradition. Why do those things, why on those days particularly? No reason, but it IS a tradition.

There's also no reason, in my view, not to appropriate holidays like Christmas and Easter - after all, they were appropriated from earlier religions! I enjoy coloring Easter eggs with my son, and decorating a Christmas tree, and no myths need be attached to doing so - it's just a free-floating tradition in my house, as I imagine the seder thing is in the Hitchens household. We can leave off the superstition without throwing out the fun parts.

I don't even have a problem with calling the holiday around the Winter Solstice "Christmas" because, Bill O'Reilly take note, Christmas is no more about Christ for us than Thursday is about Thor, or January about Janus. It's just a name to us, and its etymology is only of passing interest. Feel free to tell me to have a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hannukah, a Cool Yule, a Super Solstice... and I'll wish you pleasure and joy on any holiday you care to name.

As for nonreligious stories to encourage thinking, there are tons of them about. Aesop's Fables and the stories of Uncle Remus are particularly good (e.g. the fox who insists the grapes are sour because he can't reach them & "Please, Br'er Fox, don't throw me in that briar patch!"), but almost any story can be used that way, including the ones that make no sense if you discuss why they don't make sense (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland have prompted some very fun discussions with my boy! :).

78. Found: the giant lion-eating chimps of the magic forest

Comment #56485 by BT Murtagh on July 16, 2007 at 2:31 am

Lion may be being used as a shorthand for big cat - let's not be overly literal.

"His words are not to be taken literally - by 'Blessed are the cheesemakers' he means any manufacturer of dairy products."

79. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56122 by BT Murtagh on July 13, 2007 at 9:57 pm

rmercad2 prompts me to this plea, because I see an annoying meme taking hold here:

Can we please avoid the Slashdot-esque "First Post!" obsession? Being the first to comment on a story means NOTHING, especially if it's a banal and pointless self-congratulation on getting the first post followed by an admission you have nothing relevant to say, as seen on several recent stories.

A banal and pointless bemoaning of the fact you didn't get the first post isn't any better, either, especially if you have nothing relevant (insightful, or funny, or at least on topic) to add to that.

You don't get extra points for being First Post. Aim for Best Post instead; take your time, put some thought into it, maybe even polish your wording a bit.

We now return to your regularly scheduled deprogramming by the estimable Sam Harris...

80. The US map of faith

Comment #55656 by BT Murtagh on July 11, 2007 at 10:19 pm

You know, jshuey, some would question your inclusion of Florida as a Bush state! ;)

81. Interview with Dan Dennett on Danish TV

Comment #55475 by BT Murtagh on July 11, 2007 at 8:15 am

I actually made some headway with explaining evolution to a creationist using Dennet's ideas about evolving religious memeplexes, though quite in the way I expected.

The sticking point was how micro-evolution could lead to new 'kinds' and I used the analogy of two branches of a given religion gradually changing until you had, say, Catholicism and Mormonism, different as Great Danes and Chihuahuas, and about as likely to interbreed. (Yes, they look pretty similar to me too, but to him they were hugely variant.)

Just as the analogy was giving out - i.e. the point where I was realizing that I didn't know how to verbally map the transition to full-on speciation - his eyes suddenly lit up with understanding and he said something like "OH! So little heresies can stack up! It doesn't have to be one sudden leap, like Scientology!"

At that point I decided it was best just to agree, and let that concept cool and embed itself. The next time we talked, he was finally able to accept that eyes can in fact evolve stepwise... :)

82. Evangelicals See Dilemmas in G.O.P. Field

Comment #54751 by BT Murtagh on July 8, 2007 at 8:45 pm

I've examined the so-called "Fair Tax" proposal in some detail. Semantically, it has a lot in common with the "Clear Skies", "Healthy Forests" and "No Child Left Behind" bills. There's certainly a lot of room for improvement in the tax collection system, but that's an extremely regressive proposal, contrived examples to the contrary.

More on topic, I do wonder how these people pick and choose how to apply the "filter of faith" to their thinking. It's overwhelmingly important to keep the blastulae heading into the incinerators so they can't be used in potentially life-saving research, but government aid to help the poor is unimportant and a pro-war stance is perfectly okay?

83. Genetic Engineers Who Don't Just Tinker

Comment #54741 by BT Murtagh on July 8, 2007 at 8:01 pm

mmurray quoth:

Why stop there? Why not modify poor people so they don't mind being poor and hungry ? Modify people who have to work in mines and factories so they enjoy it ? Modify people so they don't mind doing what the government asks them to do ...

84. Genetic Engineers Who Don't Just Tinker

Comment #54738 by BT Murtagh on July 8, 2007 at 7:47 pm

The three big problems with burning fossil fuels are 1) impurities (like sulphur), 2) unsustainability, fossil fuel sources being large but not unlimited and 3) the fact that we're thereby releasing huge quantities of carbon in a short period of time which have been sequestered for a very long time.

Creating renewable fuels biologically can avoid all three issues. No other inputs are needed besides sunlight, water and atmospheric carbon, so impurities need not be an issue. The Sun is not going to go out any time soon, and when it does we'll have bigger things to worry about, so sustainability is not an issue. Since the carbon is being taken out of the atmosphere immediately before returned to it, there is no net increase in CO2 levels, so that is not an issue.

If and when it becomes practicable to produce fuels in this manner, they could be ultimately green, i.e. no overall negative environmental impact. It's missing the point to say we need greener fuels *instead* of this, this is a method for producing green fuels.

It is, in effect, a way of storing solar power in a combustible liquid. So are fossil fuels, for that matter, but this would be a clean closed cycle, so we don't get the pollution or CO2 buildup associated with burning ancient organics.

85. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54313 by BT Murtagh on July 6, 2007 at 10:46 am

Henri Bergson,

With respect, 655 words should be within the compass of any competent thinker, and a response to previous points by definition is not a monologue.

Where do you derive your statistic of 95%? In what sense are "religious" societies "false"? I made no such connection, so how is that "my study"?

Do "all rulers of society" understand that illusions keep peoples together? What is your evidence that this is the case? Is it not possible that sometimes the rulers are equally misled?

Most importantly, why are you a) attacking my presentation, not its substance, b) providing a false equivalency as an unproven warrant, c) muddying the concept of a strawman with a strawman (okay, I have to give you credit for that), and d) generalizing statements of a first century Roman statesman onto a completely orthogonal concept from the twentieth century?

Take your time, as I'm headed to bed now.

86. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54299 by BT Murtagh on July 6, 2007 at 9:57 am

Every society has some constellation of predispositions considered good, and some bad. In this sense, good is defined simply as conforming to societal expectations, bad as not; the specifics may be viewed as arbitrary since they are defined entirely within the societal system itself, i.e. they are ultimately self-referential.

If no universal standard can be applied to judge between sets of societal predispositions (which is to say between societies), then no society can be usefully judged except in its own terms; this is the view known as moral relativism. Taken to its logical extreme, the reductio ad absurdum, moral relativism carries all the flaws it is accused of; murder is indeed equivalent to jaywalking, to a hypothetical detached intellect judging the two.

However, there are at least three standards which can be applied across societies which are useful for comparing them irrespective of the specific tenets of the compared. Our hypothetical detached intellect may still, without moral judgment, scale any two given societies (sets of interacting presuppositions) on the bases of internal consistency, of adaptability to change both external and internal, and ultimately of utility in terms of survival.

The former may be judged by the degree to which an individual member of a society can think and act within the society's precepts without conflicting with others doing likewise. A society which values only adherence to a given set of self-consistent values would always score highly on such a scale, and need never fear destruction from within; destruction from without would always be a danger.

Most religions score pretty badly on internal consistency; this is why they either split incessantly into smaller schisms, or actively suppress societal mechanisms (such as widespread literacy) for examining their precepts. The latter tactic badly degrades societal adaptability.

Contrastingly, science by its core methodology incorporates any novelties of data or ideas into its core. Basic inconsistencies, such as the conflicts between general relativity and quantum mechanics, are not suppressed or ignored but rather actively worked upon. Nothing is sacred except the methodology itself, and if you could empirically convince scientist that tossing chicken bones worked better they'd probably order all further lab lunches from KFC.

Adaptability is thus built right into the foundation of science. Contrarily, since religion relies strongly upon revelation for content, and such revelation is normally decreed unquestionable (one might almost define religion in such terms), the bases of any given religion are by definition unchangeable and thereby inapt for adaptation either internal or external.

The remaining criterion by which our hypothetical detached intellect might judge societies is simple ability to survive. The Darwinian viewpoint prefers the society that survives best, but there is no inherent guarantee that the society which survives best prefers the Darwinian viewpoint. It could well be, as you imply, that some particular set of non-true societal assumptions might work better than the truth, and even that some non-scientific societal processes might better serve any given good, including survival. With respect, though, I consider it very unlikely; I have to confess, of course, that what makes me consider it unlikely is largely the application of the scientific method itself.

While the body of societies which have appreciated the scientific method (of testing ideas against reality) is necessarily small compared to those which had no such notion, the former have been far more successful, not only in traditional terms of population and wealth but in terms of adaptability to changing circumstance.

Without knowing it for an inconcontestible fact, I therefore believe that a secular society based on evidence-based inquiry is 'better' than a religious society based on authority-based faith., where 'better' is based on societal survival. Is it possible that a society based on unfounded assumptions and unsound (or no) methods for testing them would be better suited for survival than a society which valued truth and logic?

Well, possibly, but I'm not betting on it. Show me a study, or a disprovable theory.

87. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54189 by BT Murtagh on July 5, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Actually, come to think of it, does Dr. Berns really have solid reason for believing that the feedback structures have to be acquired "by socialization during childhood and adolescence"?

Granted that that's probably the easiest time to do so, but the human brain can retain a lot of plasticity throughout adulthood as well.

88. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54188 by BT Murtagh on July 5, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Excellent article. I've seen such studies written about in mainstream press before, and for some reason the writers always go overboard and claim that this proves that altruism is "hardwired" - which is not the case. Dr. Berns stated it precisely:

"It suggests that the altruistic drive to cooperate is biologically embedded-- either genetically programmed or acquired through socialization during childhood and adolescence."

89. God not out of the question for most Canadians

Comment #54182 by BT Murtagh on July 5, 2007 at 9:41 pm

That's why American fundies hate Canucks:

Revelation 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

Funny, though, they don't seem to like people who outright oppose them either... doesn't leave a lot of choices, does it?

90. Unorthodox Atheist

Comment #54179 by BT Murtagh on July 5, 2007 at 9:31 pm

A loud second to jimbob's comment #8 (54079)!

I would add that an examination of Thomas Paine's 1794 classic "The Age Of Reason" might also be in order. While Paine was deistic rather than atheistic, it does a pretty good job of demolishing religion in general and Christianity in particular, and it would be just as funny to see them trying to mark a major text by a Founding Father as 'inappropriate' in HS.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/

91. Nato accuses Taliban of using children in suicide missions

Comment #53876 by BT Murtagh on July 3, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Fanusi Khiyal, you've confused me. First you say this, in reply to my comment that such tactics may erode support for the perpetrators within their larger communities:

With respect, that would be a first in decades, given that has been the standard modus operandi with jihadists throughout the world. There won't be a blowback because the communities identify themselves too much with Islam.

With respect, this defeatist attitude that we cannot do anything even about the most vile and fanatical has. got. to. go.

Even the most fanatical and violent can be turned away from evil.

92. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53525 by BT Murtagh on July 1, 2007 at 11:16 pm

The bishop, who is a leading evangelical, said that people should heed the stories of the Bible, which described the downfall of the Roman empire as a result of its immorality.

93. The Panel

Comment #53522 by BT Murtagh on July 1, 2007 at 11:00 pm

I was just feeling good about myself, having had no difficulty with any of them, when quoth the great teapot:

This shows that the people taking part have a life and don't spend all day swotting for a physics A level they took 30 years ago.

94. The new age of ignorance

Comment #53516 by BT Murtagh on July 1, 2007 at 9:19 pm

Frankly, those analogies for the Second Law of Thermodynamics seem designed to make the matter less clear in the mind, not more...

Oh, subtle!!!

95. Nato accuses Taliban of using children in suicide missions

Comment #53513 by BT Murtagh on July 1, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Assuming this is true, and unfortunately I see no reason to assume it isn't, one can only hope that there will be a blowback* against the perpetrators, depriving them of support from their own communities.

I can understand without condoning the pride that parents of adult suicide bombers express; after all, they see it as an act of bravery in a good cause. A child, however, by definition can't make such a choice. The death of the child in the vest surely cannot be seen as anything but simply another murder, and the murder of an innocent from amongst their own, rather than of the "other."

I hope that the horror of that will wake up the consciences of some of the jihadis' supporters to just how amoral their 'holy war' truly is. It's a small hope, but it's the only one I can glean from this.

* No pun intended. Not a joking matter.

96. Scientists Transplant Genome of Bacteria

Comment #53510 by BT Murtagh on July 1, 2007 at 8:01 pm

You've got to love the fact that we're now quite casually using phrases like 'old fashion genetic engineering'!

"Young whippersnappers... why, when I was a lad we didn't even HAVE polymerase chain reaction sequencers, we had to root around with scanning tunneling electron microscopes until we dern well FOUND the cascade point of our arteficially deranged nucleotide sequences... AND WE LIKED IT LIKE THAT!"

97. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #52712 by BT Murtagh on June 27, 2007 at 10:24 pm

This was my favorite part:

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

98. Got to have faith?

Comment #52711 by BT Murtagh on June 27, 2007 at 10:09 pm

Blech. The rot continues.

Aren't there any UK ministers who are unequivocally disestablishmentarian?

99. Rudy Park Comic Strips

Comment #52708 by BT Murtagh on June 27, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Since when is RD an anthropologist?

Oh well, I guess one scientific discipline is as good as another, eh? ;)

100. Trio to rock against religion

Comment #52684 by BT Murtagh on June 27, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Well, as I admitted I was never much of a metal head, and I'm happy to be corrected by those who are. There definitely are some fans who buy the whole Satanist thing at face value, but I'm happy to be informed they're in a minority.

Oh, and I should have said earlier - As for Architecture Of Aggression and the lads, more power to their mikes!