51. Jay Spears: Smak Dem Christians Down

Comment #114709 by jaytee_555 on January 22, 2008 at 3:45 pm

It's good to see that the 'Get Religion Out of Politics' crowd are getting pretty organised these days. I thought this was a very professionally done video with lots of class. I hope they do more like this.

52. The New Theology

Comment #113183 by jaytee_555 on January 18, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Seems to me to be a rather long boring and uninteresting article. Nothing much is being said except that the gaps where the theists need to install their 'God of the Gaps' are getting to few and too small.

I suspect that soon, some clever theologian with come along and explain how God is really the Ultimate Minimalist who demonstrates his infinite power by being totally invisible and doing absolutely nothing. Now what could be more awesome than that?

53. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111928 by jaytee_555 on January 16, 2008 at 3:06 am

It looks to me as if Huckabee realises he has no chance of winning anything; so before he returns to obscurity, he is trying to set himself up with a nice little sinecure by identifying and ingratiating himself with the knuckle-draggers who support the Falwalls and Robertsons of this world.

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

Comment #111338 by jaytee_555 on January 14, 2008 at 11:49 am

Good luck, George,

I hope things go well for you.

(...but if I find out it's you who has been providing all the straw for the 'straw-men' arguments we have to put up with, I'm gonna be very disappointed.)

Kindest regards to an old soldier

Jaytee_555

55. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107495 by jaytee_555 on January 4, 2008 at 4:00 pm

The many concessions that theists are now making to science lately seems to indicate that they know they have lost that particular fight. They have reverted to a 'God of the Gaps' approach based on the Argument from Ignorance. Most of the slicker theists (like Wolpe) are now shamelessly denying that logic, evidence and reason have any place in the debate at all, since the whole issue is 'metaphysical', and all about 'feelings' 'intution' and and 'revelation'. This is a clever move, because it panders to the less rational people in the audience - and they make the best religites. Even though they can never win arguments this way, at least they appear not to lose; and under the current onslaught from atheists, they are grateful to settle for what they see as a face-saving 'draw'.

Another old trick being revived by theists more and more often is to muddle things with huge swathes of concentrated vagueness in their arguments, hoping their opponents will simply not be able to unpack it all in the time available. Sam Harris's was not phased by this, and his incisiveness in this debate was very impressive. He effortlessly cut through Wolpe's obscurantism to nail the central flaw in the argument every time.

I also admire Sam's forbearance. Several times in this debate, Wolpe allowed Sam to develop a rational line of reasoning, only to interrupt and deliberately drown out the last few words as he made his final point. Sam's neat response to this was to make the same point again later, when he had the full attention of the audience. Nice work Sam.

56. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106388 by jaytee_555 on January 2, 2008 at 7:27 pm

"What's dangerous about the world today is not belief in God—or secularism or unbelief—but ruthless certainty"

Are you absolutley certain about that, Lisa?

57. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104933 by jaytee_555 on December 30, 2007 at 4:26 am

The Bishop seems to follow the logic of morality being derived from genes doing their best to survive into the next generation, but then cannot resist the temptation of adding a totally unjustified and unnecessary supernatural element.

It reminds me of the old story about a man who thought television worked because lots of little men lived inside the TV set. Someone took the trouble to educate him in electronics and showed him how television really worked. He thanked his teacher and said "Wonderful! I understand it now, thank you for explaining it all to me - but I still think there might be a couple of little men in there".

58. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104475 by jaytee_555 on December 28, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Message to the Bish; You can criticise Dawkins if you like - after all, it's your job - but don't try to steal the bits of him you approve of to support your crackpot religion. It's quite sickening to watch.

59. Man and God

Comment #103470 by jaytee_555 on December 25, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Do journalists never bother to check out facts these days? It's a bloody disgrace that no one in authority at The Times cared enough or knew enough to correct the factual errors in this piece. I'm not talking about opinions, which are fair enough - I mean the barefaced lies in this article that underly its structure. This article can no longer be excused as simple ignorance. It can only be a deliberate and mischievous attempt to perpetuate misrepresentations of authors - authors who write clearly and go out of their way to avoid being misunderstood.

Atheists are much more attentive and crtitical readers than theists, and are much better at spotting bullshit too. Journalists who write shoddy articles like this, and who clearly make no effort to get basic facts right, cannot expect to be taken seriously - not by atheists, anyway.

60. Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad

Comment #102637 by jaytee_555 on December 23, 2007 at 10:45 am

"Are you about worn out by all the television commercials you've been seeing, mostly about politics?

Well here's another one - entirely about politics!

61. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99842 by jaytee_555 on December 17, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Mmm....sort of stuff you'd expect from a 5th form schoolkid who hoped to be a journalist one day.....and the arrogance to criticise Christopher Hitchens as "infantile". Jeez!

Libby Purves' delusions of grandeur are misplaced. I'm not even convinced she's entitled to delusions of adequacy.

62. Bill O'Reilly Interviews Lori Lipman Brown

Comment #95503 by jaytee_555 on December 8, 2007 at 1:12 pm

For a TV presenter to invite someone on to a program just to interrupt the end of every sentence as the point of the sentence is being made, is the dirtiest trick in the book. O'Reilly is a disgrace to his trade, and a total shit. Lori Lipman Brown did very well to keep her temper in the face of such loudmouth bullying.

63. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92842 by jaytee_555 on December 1, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Prof Dennet's opening 25 minutes was all that was necessary to convince any person genuinely open-minded on the question of whether or not God is a man-made invention. D'Souza is not a thinker. He's a politician, and one gets the impression that he isn't even faintly interested in 'truth' - it's the 'winning' that counts for him, and it doesn't matter if it's by fair means or foul.

He doesn't deserve to share a platform with a serious philosopher like Dennet. He has the facile delivery and disregard for facts usually associated with used car salesmen. Though glib and confident, he seems lacking in true conviction and doesn't even care if he himself believes what he says, so long as it seems to help his argument.

If I were guilty of a crime, and needed a lawyer to get me off, I might well choose D'Souza to represent me, but if I were innocent, I'd want Dan Dennet on my side.

64. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91594 by jaytee_555 on November 28, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Prof. Dennet is mild mannered and polite, and I look forward to see how he'll handle D'Souza, who is an agressive master of misdirection and obfuscation. One of D'Souza's most successful debating techniques is to quickly rattle off (in a carefully rehearsed sentence or two) a dozen shallow arguments in sound-bite form. He's smart enough to know that although his arguments are refutable (indeed refuted) it will always takes a lot more time for his opponent to expose faulty logic than it takes for him to spout it. It would be really useful if Dennet could actually make this point in his opening remarks, and prepare the audience to look out for it. There is absolutely no doubt that Dennet could wipe the floor with him in honest debate, but I wonder if he has enough experience in debating with a professional disembler like D'Souza who, though intellectually lightweight, is nontheless a skilled and slick political trickster for whom truth is an irrelevance.

65. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91140 by jaytee_555 on November 27, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Mormon beliefs are not significantly nuttier than run of the mill fundamentalist beliefs, really - just less familiar.

Let's keep up the questioning of ALL religious political wannabees who claim their faith is central to their morality. If it's THAT important to them it's important to us too, since they aspire to be in positions of power over us. Hitch is spot on as usual. We are entitled to answers.

66. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89630 by jaytee_555 on November 21, 2007 at 9:34 am

I was one of the early posters who politely asked for more information to enable me to decide whether or not to contribute, and I'm glad I did. I fully expected Sam Harris to oblige with some answers, and I was not disappointed. I'm sure Sam responded because he realised the questions raised and concerns expressed were not unreasonable. I strongly suspect that the explanations he has provided will result in more contributions than would otherwise have been the case.

It is regretable that certain individuals (who seem to get off on insults) used this thread as a vehicle for ugly personal attacks - but that's folks, I suppose. Worst were the dogmatists, who insisted that other people who genuinely felt their limited resources would do more good directed to charities elsewhere, were somehow traitors to the rationalist cause. It was good to see their dogmatism dismantled by more rational posters.

I thought admin becoming involved (in a rather self-pitying and personal way) was unfortunate, and hope it does not become a normal practice.

In some ways, I feel this thread has been the most unedifying on this site to date - not because of the controvertiality of the topic, but because of the totally unnecessary nastiness on the part of some individuals. Surely we can have the occasional disagreement on issues without lowering the tone of this excellent and important site.

Thanks Sam Harris, for providing the above article, helping me (and no doubt others) to make a better informed decision.

67. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88694 by jaytee_555 on November 18, 2007 at 3:08 pm

My initial reaction was to support Sam Harris' suggestion, but on reflection, I'd like some of the questions raised above to be answered before I decide.

68. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God

Comment #85940 by jaytee_555 on November 7, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Just another idle thought.....

I wonder if God (if he exists) ever wonders where he himself came from. Surely he cannot be certain that he was always there. How could he be sure that he hadn't been created with a sort of false-memory that made him think he was older than he actually is by some super-super-intelligence with a sense of humour?

69. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God

Comment #85937 by jaytee_555 on November 7, 2007 at 2:15 pm

By Flew's(?!) reasoning, evil must have its origin in God. If this is true, then God is not to be worshipped, but rejected. Conversely, if it is not true, the problem becomes 'how could 'evil' arise? - since it is a 'purpose-driven' form of information just as much as 'good' is.

If evil can exist without having been created by God, then so can everything else.

This was my simple intuitive reaction to the article, so if this reasoning is faulty, I'd appreciate someone picking the bones out of it for me.

70. The truth in religion

Comment #84269 by jaytee_555 on November 1, 2007 at 3:28 pm

I think Polkinghorne is plain dishonest. I'm sure he knows very well that this article is all wind and piss. If there was any real chance of proving this one way or another, I'd be willing to place a very large bet on it.

Obfuscation is the last refuge of the defeated, and it shows. He obviously feels he has muddled things enough to deserve his paycheck and make it look like he had something to say. The sheer cynicism of this type of theologian just depresses me. Give me an honest-to-goodness fundamentalist any day. At least you can respect their sincerity and pity their ignorance. This type of 'learned' dishonesty just makes me despair.

It's much easier to wake up someone who is asleep than it is to wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep.

71. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81732 by jaytee_555 on October 25, 2007 at 5:32 am

A central plank of De Souza's argument is that scientists are essentially 'faith-heads', taking a leap of faith when they place reliance in scientific laws. This is a completely false argument, and what is more, De Souza knows it. Whatever else he may be, he's not a fool.

Scientists' commitment to the laws of physics is evidence based, and totally unlike religious faith, which is no more than wishful thinking. Religious faith is man-made, and varies from religion to religion and culture to culture. There is no leap of faith involved in accepting the laws of physics. Indeed, they are called 'laws' precisely because they are demonstrably universal.

Note that De Souza does not even try to elevate 'faith' to the level of the rationality of science; he betrays his position's weakness by trying to drag science down to the level of 'faith'. He instinctively recognises the strength of the scientific position, and hopes he can disarm it by relegating it to the insubstantiality of 'faith'.

JT (UK)

72. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80414 by jaytee_555 on October 21, 2007 at 6:04 pm

.
I hate to admit this, but purely in terms of who "came off better" in the debate, the answer in my view has to be that De Souza did.

This is not because he was right, but simply because he was more fluent and confident than Shermer and a better debater. Shermer had all the best arguments but was was simply not up to the job of getting them across. De Souza's arguments were pretty pathetic but Shermer could not find a form of words incisive enough to expose them. He even read about 80% of his opening comments directly from notes and bored the arse of everyone, then in the later sessions he allowed De Souza to take control. Shemer knows the answers - I know - I've read quite a bit of his stuff (which is excellent) but in this exchange, he didn't deliver. Debating successfully requires particular skills, and unfortunately, being right is not enough.

The only consolation is that DeSouza mentioned he'll be debating with Christopher Hitchens soon, and I predict that Hitch will eat this odious little squirt alive and spit out the bones.

JT (UK)

73. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80380 by jaytee_555 on October 21, 2007 at 2:45 pm

The honour of a knighthood is for services to the nation (or at least, is supposed to be). Ultimately, it would be up to Richard himself to decide what to do if it were offered. I see no harm in signing this petition.

Would those who are so much against this also be against a brave soldier accepting a Victoria Cross just because it were presented by a royal?

As a paid up member of the National Secular Society, and deploring, as I do, that the Queen is 'Defender of the Faith', I'm not going to get all theological about it, and would like to see Richard offered the honour. Refusing or accepting the honour is entirely his own business.

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

Comment #80276 by jaytee_555 on October 21, 2007 at 4:45 am

.

If evolution is not counter-intuitive, why did it take such a long time before Darwin came up with it? Enough of the relevant information was already available, provoking one of the leading scientists of the day (Huxley, I think) to remark how stupid he felt for not having come up with the idea himself.

We've all had fun with those puzzles like "What would you rather have, a ton of half-sovereigns, or half a ton of sovereigns?".* Those of us who got the answer wrong and had to be told the correct answer, can often find it frustrating when we pass the puzzle on to someone else and find that they get it wrong too, yet even when the answer is explained to them, they persist for ages in arguing with us - until finally, they 'get it'. Then they usually smile with that same sense of satisfaction we felt when we 'got it'. I think 'grasping' the idea of evolution is a bit like that.

I think it is true that religious indoctrination often scares people from even considering evolution long enough to 'get it' and grasp its simple elegance. Moreover, the widespread idea that there is some 'debate' about the subject, allows people who consider it, but don't grasp it immediately, to not even bother persisting until they do.

I think Rob Brown is doing something useful in suggesting ways (animated graphics etc) to make it easier for people to see how evolution by natural selection explains everything so well. But the fact remains that religious indocrination is a huge obstacle, and many religious people simply don't want to know. It has been well said that, while it is relatively easy to wake a sleeping person, it is extremely difficult to wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.

*...just in case you don't know this one, the answer is not 'they are both the same'!

JT (UK)

75. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79234 by jaytee_555 on October 16, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Wow! Hitch was ****ing brilliant.

It's ten minutes since the video ended, and I can't wipe the smile off my face. Hitchins wiped the floor with McGrath, wrung him out, then hung him up to dry. I really can't see Mc Grath agreeing to another round. Not if he has any sense.

Jaytee (UK)

76. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76103 by jaytee_555 on October 4, 2007 at 5:55 pm

77. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76102 by jaytee_555 on October 4, 2007 at 5:55 pm

The format of the debate was grossly unfair to Dawkins, and an organisational disgrace.

First, a quotation from Dawkins book was read out by the chairman, and Dawkins was invited to comment on it. But since the book was published 12 months ago, Lennox had had all that time to prepare, hone and practice his attack on the quotation. Surely, at that point, Dawkins should have been given an opportunity to deal with Lennox's points; but astonishingly, the chairman moved on to the next quotation!

This absurd way of proceeding continued throughout, and the result was that Dawkins was repeatedly frustrated by having to backtrack to Lennox's previous points before he could answer the new question. Even after Dawkins had pointed out the unfairness of this, the chairman persisted in continuing in the same format. Dawkins was clearly unsettled and disadvantaged by this, as it prevented the natural flow of questions and answer. I will be try to be charitable, and assume that this was accidental and not deliberately rigged; but it is almost unbelievable that Dawkins would agree to a debating format that systematically denied him the right of reply.

Fortunately, he still managed to dismantle Lennox's arguments, but not always with his customary facility. This had nothing to do with any serious challenge in Lennox's arguments, but was a direct result of the ridiculous format employed.

Lennox's closing comments were nothing more than intellectual suicide, and an admission admission that he believes in miracles and prefers magical thinking to reason. His gratuitous preaching will, no doubt, endear him to Christian Fundies, but will surely confirm to rationalists everywhere their conviction that the virus of faith severely disables certain parts of otherwise able minds.

Dawkins was able to capitalise on Lennox's final departure from scientific argument into baseless faith-fantasy, and hit the nail right on the head by pointing out that all that 'scientific' sophistry was no more than a desperate attempt to justify Lennox's desperate need to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and loves him.

This was not Dawkins best performance, due to the reasons given above, but it was certainly good enough.

78. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72783 by jaytee_555 on September 23, 2007 at 12:59 am

Does anyone have any good ideas about how we could actively support this brave headteacher?

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

Comment #69058 by jaytee_555 on September 9, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Pewkatchoo says it's satire, not irony. Well, perhaps - but Wiki says:

Irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says and what is generally understood.

H. W. Fowler, in Modern English Usage, says:

Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear & shall not understand, & another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware both of that more & of the outsiders' incomprehension.

Seems enough wiggle-room there for me, though strictly pedantically, you could be right.

Pewkatchoo is off-topic, and so am I now, so let's drop it to avoid derailing the main discussion for a penn'orth of tar. (And yes, Pewkatchoo, I know that this is a mixed metaphor!).

JT (UK, actually)

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

Comment #69024 by jaytee_555 on September 9, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Brilliantly funny and seriously penetrating. It is regretable that a weakness in appreciating irony so often goes with religious belief.

81. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68904 by jaytee_555 on September 9, 2007 at 4:04 am

I'm still wating for a 'flea' to tackle one of Dawkins' clear and straightforward arguments head on - I mean with real intellectual honesty and logical rigour. It just never happens. From the word go, they fly off into obscurantism, misrepresentation, fantasy and appeals to vague intuition. Take (for example) Dawkins' easy to understand exposition of why, just because the non-existence of God cannot be proved, this in no way justifies belief in a God who forgives sins, intervenes in the world and people's lives via miracles, and decrees who's genitals one is allowed to touch, etc. Has any one of the Christian apologists given a reasonable (or even faintly persuasive) explanation why Dawkins is wrong about this? Not one of them has attempted to offer an explanation of how and why Christian belief should follow in some intellectually respectable way.

If I were a Christian, I wouldn't dare to put pen to paper unless I had sound, convincing and easy to understand arguments to put forward. And yet, again and again these apologists blithely and baldly restate the old arguments - the very arguments that Dawkins lays out in TGD with utter fairness prior to systematically demolishing them. Such logical ineptitude is regularly exposed on this site by ordinary run-of-the-mill contributors. It just isn't good enough for professional theologians and |media Christians to expect people to pay for books that do nothing more than simply restate the positions that are being questioned.

On the positive side, I think the spectacular collective failure of these 'fleas' to come up with anything of intellectual substance cannot escape the attention of the interested agnostics who visit this site.

82. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68899 by jaytee_555 on September 9, 2007 at 3:34 am

I'm still wating for a 'flea' to tackle any one of Dawkins' clear and straightforward arguments head on - I mean with real intellectual honesty and logical rigour. It just never happens. From the word go, they fly off into obscurantism, misrepresentation, fantasy and appeals to vague intuition.

Take (for example) Dawkins' easy to understand exposition of why, just because the non-existence of God cannot be proved, this can in no way justify belief in a God who forgives sins, intervenes in the world and people's lives via miracles, and decrees who's genitals one is allowed to touch, etc. Has any one of the Christian apologists given a reasonable (or even faintly persuasive) explanation why Dawkins is wrong about this? Not one of them has even attempted to offer an explanation of how and why Christian belief should follow in some logical and intellectually respectable way.

If I were a Christian, I wouldn't dare publish a book unless I had sound and convincing arguments to put forward. Yet, again and again, these apologists baldly restate the old arguments - the very arguments that Dawkins troubles to lay out in TGD with utter fairness prior to systematically demolishing them. This sort of logical ineptitude is easily and regularly exposed on this site by ordinary run-of-the-mill contributors. It just isn't good enough for professional theologians and |media Christians to expect people to pay for books that do nothing more than simply restate the positions that are being questioned.

On the positive side, I think the spectacular collective failure of these 'fleas' to come up with anything of intellectual substance will not escape the attention of the interested agnostics who visit this site.

83. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68844 by jaytee_555 on September 8, 2007 at 11:28 pm

Mr Collins specifically condems the 'God of the Gaps' brand of religious belief, but his own argument is based entirely on the claim that science remains silent on the existence of God because God is 'outside' of nature. Isn't this just the ultimate 'God of the Gaps' theory?

He seems to feel the weight of Dawkins' arguments, otherwise he'd not need to pretend that the God he personally believes in is a totally different one from the God Dawkins says is a delusion. It seems pretty clear from the 'bones of Jesus' comment that Collins believes in the bodily resurection of Jesus and mainstream Christianity, and surely that kind of God belief is precisely what Dawkins IS talking about.

84. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68292 by jaytee_555 on September 6, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Everyone who has read TGD - even those who disagree with Dawkins - must recognise that what Cornwell said in this program was a clumsy, but nonetheless willful and disgraceful attempt at character assassination.

Even a totally partisan theist idiot would not believe that Dawkins would dream of making such stupid statements. This apology-of-an-apologist-cum-liar must surely have lost all credibility with those who listened to the interview - including the theists.

85. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68225 by jaytee_555 on September 6, 2007 at 12:29 pm

"If God does not exist then everything is permitted"

Cornwell seems to think that even if God DOES exist, lying is permitted.

86. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67467 by jaytee_555 on September 3, 2007 at 2:13 pm

This IS desperation, pure and simple. Dawkins is one of the most lucid writers around, so why should TGD need an accompanying 'explanation'?

This guy is terrified that honest rationality will win the day, and so he's anxious to muddy the waters at any cost. He insults potential readers by implying they are too stupid to be allowed to read the book without his 'parental guidance'.

By all means, buy this product if you don't trust your own intelligence enough to follow plain reasoning written in plain English.

87. In God we doubt

Comment #67387 by jaytee_555 on September 3, 2007 at 7:47 am

As has already been said, Humphrys is out of his depth here. Any regular reader of this forum could counter all his points very easily - that is if (unlike me) they could be bothered to hack their way through this boring article, dismantling it sentence by sentence. If Humphrys had spent a couple of hours reading through a few of the really good posts on here, he'd maybe not have bothered putting forward such a shallow, uninspired, old-chestnutty and done-to-death load of sentimental tosh as his contribution to the debate.

88. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #63025 by jaytee_555 on August 13, 2007 at 12:29 am

I found the discussion a bit disappointing. Hitchins was uncharacteristically soft on White, and allowed himself to get dragged somewhat into the 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' type of theological argument. White was talking absolute bollox, and seemed for the most part to get away with it. Sure, he was a slippery customer, but even on a bad day, Hitchins should have done better. Hitchins won on points, but it should have been a K.O. in the second round.

89. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62725 by jaytee_555 on August 11, 2007 at 2:59 am

Brooker's general assessment may well please hardened Dawkins fans; but if his opinion that the Prof's 'huffing furiously' in previous aprogram was counter-productive and hilarious', why has he 'huffed furiously' himself in this article?

It could be by recommending that people who believe in silly superstitions,(i.e. the majority) should be 'slapped around the face until they grow up' could discourage the very people who need to see this program from watching it.

Let's hope I am wrong, and that most are not Guardian readers.

90. Scarlet Letter Campaign Update: A Victory

Comment #62345 by jaytee_555 on August 9, 2007 at 10:44 am

When a parody or a satire of something is indistinguishable from the genuine article (as appears to be the case here) it is really quite funny. Except that it REALLY isn't funny

91. The New New Atheism

Comment #56615 by jaytee_555 on July 16, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Oh Dear! What a mess. Berkowitz says;

"....by treating all religion as one great evil pathology, today's bestselling atheists suppress crucial distinctions between the forms of faith embraced by the vast majority of American citizens..."

Not true. The writers who Berkowitz criticises all recognise and make distinctions between the 'moderate' and 'fundamentalist' adherents of faith, and Dawkins in particular, goes to considerable lengths to explain why the former, though less dangerous, give support and cover to the latter.

"Profitability is not the only feature distinguishing today's fashionable disbelief from the varieties of atheism that have arisen over the millennia".

But surely, today's fashionable disbelief is not remotely as profitable as religion, and the purchase of a book is not compulsory.

Berkovitz accuses Dawkins of contending that

"...we can now know, with finality and certainty, that God does not exist...."

Again simply untrue. Dawkins has never said that, and allows the possibility (albeit a remote one) that God exists.

"...God's testing of Abraham taught, among other things, that the then widespread practice of child-sacrifice was contrary to God's will..."

This is NOT the common interpretation of this story. The main point is Abraham's faithfulness, and God rewards him for it. There is nothing to indicate that it is a lesson against child-sacrifice. In fact, it is a celebration of mental sadism and child abuse in praise of irrational belief. Incidentally, if killing innocent children is against God's will, why did God command women and children to be slain after battles (but virgins spared)? Etc, etc etc.

He admits that the principle of 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth' is differently interpreted today, but completely misses the obvious point that it is differently interpreted precisely because humanity is more moral than religion.

And if 'the punishment fitting the crime' is basically a biblical concept, does this justify (as most Christians teach) that the eternal punishment of athesists with physical and mental torture in Hell for being unable to believe, is justified?

Berkowitz could be right about one thing, though! He quotes Ecclesiastes,

"There is nothing new under the sun"

If this comedian was up to date with the current debate and had something original and useful to say, he'd not be dishing up the same old same, old stuff that has been rebutted a million times. For a lawyer, he makes a very unconvincing argument.

92. Police plea on genital mutilation

Comment #55489 by jaytee_555 on July 11, 2007 at 9:23 am

bitbutter (comment 55423) is absolutely right.

Suppose the Koran HAD sanctioned female circumcision, that would have made it OK then?

The Bible (OT) sanctions male circumcision; and as Christopher Hitchens frequently points out, this also is nothing more than child abuse based on superstition. If people want to have their sex organs mutilated, they must be old enough in law to consent to the procedure, and even then, only when it has been shown they are not being put under pressure from clerics and cultural leaders.

93. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53483 by jaytee_555 on July 1, 2007 at 3:51 pm

I could hardly believe I was reading such absolute bollocks, then I had a quiet little smile to myself. Ah! I thought, I'll not be caught out again, and scrolled back to the top of the article looking for the words 'The Onion'.

Nope! It wasn't The Onion...it was from The Telegraph.

One could expect this sort of opportunist tripe from the Falwells and Robertsons of this world, but to hear it from Anglican bishops who have actually studied at universities and been awarded degrees is just about the last straw.

And critics of Richard Dawkins have the cheek to say we should try to get these so-called 'moderates' onside with us, and stop making them out to be fundamentalist nutters! We certainly don't need support from this fancy-dress parade. They seem not to care that they talk and look like total prats.

94. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51367 by jaytee_555 on June 22, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Before training and graduation, medical students should declare if they are unwilling to provide the sort of treatment discussed in this article. Those who choose to opt out of providing perfectly legal procedures on religious (or any other grounds) should be given an inferior and limited qualification, reflected in the letters after their name. Suggestions being, O.P.Q. (Only Partially Qualified) or I.F.C. (I'm a F***ing Cretin).

95. The courage of their convictions

Comment #51003 by jaytee_555 on June 21, 2007 at 2:20 am

Let us not only wish them well, but give them our support at every possible opportunity. It would be wonderful if some MP could ask Gordon Brown to pledge full support to the Council of ex-Muslims of great Britain in his first Prime Ministers Questions in the Commons.

96. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49922 by jaytee_555 on June 14, 2007 at 5:36 am

"Olasky.....could have trapped Hitchens into defending his unapologetic stances vis-a-vis those religious people with whom he wants war. Olasky could have gotten Hitchens to contradict himself if he played it right."

All Hitchens would have needed to do would have been to point out that Moses was the agressor and the 'Bin Laden' figure in that situation. In any case, Olasky could not have denied that God instructed Moses to kill everything, except of course, the virgins. A god who instructs anyone to do that is either a god one should avoid like the plague, or a man-made excuse to rape.

97. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49639 by jaytee_555 on June 12, 2007 at 5:00 pm

It is good that we have such a perceptive mind and excellent writer as Myers on the side of reason. Without apparent effort, he utterly nullifies Fish's comments and exposes them for the smug and shallow drivel they are.

98. Evolution: God as Genetic Engineer

Comment #49156 by jaytee_555 on June 10, 2007 at 5:35 pm

There is nothing really surprising about Behe's denial of reality; his agenda is not scientific, but political. I suspect he feels he is justified in 'lying for the Lord'.

To quote another Pythonism, "He's a very naughty boy"

99. Dobson and John MacArthur fantasize about the downfall of America

Comment #49034 by jaytee_555 on June 10, 2007 at 3:48 am

When I used to go to church as a kid I used get a lot more coughs and colds than I do now. I am forced to conclude that God was punishing me for church attendance. I once got a very bad case of tonsilitis in easter week, after attending five services. What more proof can one want?

100. Pell plans fidelity oath for principals

Comment #47810 by jaytee_555 on June 5, 2007 at 3:08 pm

"...it's not about control..."

If that is not a disgraceful, outright barefaced LIE, I don't know what is.