101. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #118944 by Jack Rawlinson on January 31, 2008 at 7:47 am

Happy Birthday, Josh!

The traffic increase says it all... this site has become one of the best both for discussion and for keeping track of relevant news about atheism, evolution, science and all sorts of tangentially related things. It's certainly my favourite atheistically-inclined online community.

102. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118005 by Jack Rawlinson on January 30, 2008 at 7:51 am

Atheism and Violence:

http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/addiscartoon.jpg

103. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117828 by Jack Rawlinson on January 29, 2008 at 6:29 pm

But their arguments are shopworn, stale hand-me-downs and threadbare heirlooms...

Unlike, of course, the "arguments" of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism.

These people really need to re-read that old biblical verse about logs and motes, don't they?

104. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117826 by Jack Rawlinson on January 29, 2008 at 6:27 pm

I would just like to say that I despise Ann Widdecombe with a passion that transcends all human understanding. On the other hand, she looked like an intellectual giant compared to whoever the hell that first speaker was.

105. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116903 by Jack Rawlinson on January 27, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Oh God, dlitt... let this NOT lead to a debate on chiropractic. Because while I fully accept that the "theory" behind it is utter arse... it works on me. I have a recurrent back problem that only a good back-cracking alleviates with any efficacy. And yes, I have tried "proper" treatments.

Oh wait... you did say let this not lead to a debate of chiropractic... :-)

106. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116743 by Jack Rawlinson on January 27, 2008 at 10:21 am

It's appalling that circumcision without consent is still legal. It should be classed as child abuse every bit as much as infant tattooing or branding would be. And for exactly the same reasons.

107. US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

Comment #116028 by Jack Rawlinson on January 25, 2008 at 10:18 am

Cue a rash of hysterical, "Evil Frankenstein Scientists!" features from the usual suspects....

108. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116026 by Jack Rawlinson on January 25, 2008 at 10:16 am

I've seen this before. It made me laugh... until I remembered that some poor sods will actually worry about it.

What a nasty sort of "Christian" it is that does this stuff. Their god is the ultimate terrorist and they are his eager helpers. Sickening individuals.

109. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115238 by Jack Rawlinson on January 23, 2008 at 7:20 pm

What MPhil said. The truth is the truth is the truth, and the fact that you may not like it, or what it implies, or what it might lead to, does not stop it from being the truth. Only weak minds struggle with this incontrovertible fact.

That said, when was the last time you heard someone convincingly use Darwinism or evolution as an argument for racism? On the rare occasions I've seen or heard that attempted, the idiot who tries it always ends up a sad and sorry heap of an out-argued, out-flamed corpse lying dead amidst the fallen remnants of his or her shattered fallacies. Those who try to appeal to the bogeymen of racism end eugenics as an attack on Darwinism are cowardly or cunningly disingenuous.

110. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114903 by Jack Rawlinson on January 23, 2008 at 6:43 am

Pieter: this is a direct quote from Ron Paul.

Well, first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And I think it's a theory: The Theory of Evolution. And I don't accept it, you know, as a theory. — Ron Paul on evolution, December 1, 2007

That's Ron Paul saying he doesn't accept the theory of evolution. I'd like to see any "context" you can give that makes that go away.

111. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114902 by Jack Rawlinson on January 23, 2008 at 6:39 am

Using your own personal political leanings in a piece like this? Even jokingly? Not a good idea. Shame.

Also, Ron Paul is an evolution-denying nutcase and libertarianism is just anarchy for people with money. I seriously do not get the cult of Paul.

112. Islam in Europe

Comment #114901 by Jack Rawlinson on January 23, 2008 at 6:34 am

I don't think Pat was even trying to be funny in this one. He's right, though. As usual. He'll be accused of only talking about the extreme end of Islam, of course, but sorry, until I hear the much-mentioned (but little heard) "moderate" Muslims start attacking that extreme and standing up for the liberal values of the countries they live in, Pat's absolutely justified in concentrating on the extremists. They're the problem to be faced. And I for one have no respect for any "moderate" wing of a religion or ideology that does not firmly stand up to and stand against extremists who commit evil in its name.

I *am* Islamophobic, because I am "religiophobic". I think those are rational, moral things to be.

113. Interview with Ian McEwan

Comment #114261 by Jack Rawlinson on January 21, 2008 at 4:40 pm

McEwan's long been one of my favourite authors. This is good.

114. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #113993 by Jack Rawlinson on January 21, 2008 at 7:13 am

Good to hear Richard standing up for the term "atheist"; I'm right with him on that. The key problems with Sam's position:

- it assumes a situation which isn't here yet: the "Utopia" where it isn't necessary to say we don't believe in gods. We're not there yet. When we are, we can stop calling ourselves atheists.

- it mistakenly asserts that no other group identifies themselves by what they are against, or don't believe in. As I've pointed out before, this simply isn't true, and I've listed numerous examples of organisations and groups who do indeed identify themselves in this way.

- it asserts that it is inherently bad to identify yourself by what you stand against, yet never advances a sound argument for why this is so. I have no problem identifying myself as an anti-Nazi and I'd be interested to hear someone tell me why I should have a problem with it.

- it is essentially advocating surrender or evasiveness in the face of criticism (valid or distorted) from the religious (and, sadly, others). It says that because the word can give negative impressions we should simply give it up rather than correct those impressions. I do not find this impressive or palatable. "Atheist" correctly, succinctly and accurately describes what we are, and the fact that some people attach false or negative associations to it should only encourage us to put them straight, not to run cravenly from the word they have misappropriated.

- it won't help. It is naive in the extreme to imagine that simply not using the word "atheist" will magically remove the negative connotations of disbelief, or stop believers criticising us, attacking us, or misrepresenting us. The only thing that will stop that is if we keep our mouths shut, crawl back into the closet of meek, silent disbelief and return to the weak (and dangerous) attitude of, "I will publicly respect your belief no matter how idiotic I privately consider it". The reality is that as soon as we criticise belief or start using rational argument to dismantle it, we will be pegged as atheists or we will be subject to fallacious attacks whether we, or those we criticise, actually call ourselves atheists or not. To imagine that a mere change of identifier will remove or alleviate this innate problem is, as I say, absurdly naive.

115. Britain cannot put its faith in religiously divided schools

Comment #113621 by Jack Rawlinson on January 20, 2008 at 7:48 am

Paula Kirby writes: "And there's clearly only one way to overcome the communication difficulties between men and women, and that's by ensuring that the 2 sexes never meet in school hours during their formative years."

Hey, that was the system I grew up in, and it worked fine for me! I never had any problems relating to girls as a a teenager! Oh wait... yes I did. Good point. Carry on. :-)

116. King Me!

Comment #113503 by Jack Rawlinson on January 19, 2008 at 7:56 pm

And of course, one tactic to use in this situation is to beat them at the change-the-rules game. The next frame of this cartoon should be the first guy hip-throwing the second and screaming IPPON, BIATCH! :-)

117. The New Theology

Comment #113155 by Jack Rawlinson on January 18, 2008 at 5:31 pm

Impressive, these religious folks, aren't they? Even the relatively smart ones take decades to realise they have to shift the god-goalposts yet again in order to be something other than a complete embarrassment within polite, educated society.

But the saddest thing is that even the smart ones aren't quite smart enough to make that final leap into the happy place which starts with, "Oh my god, I've been a complete asshat all my life for trying to maintain a belief in something that is intrinsically nonsensical. I need to stop doing that now."

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

Comment #111487 by Jack Rawlinson on January 14, 2008 at 7:03 pm

All the best for a full and swift recovery, George. Your life story is inspiring, and we all appreciate your generosity to the RDFRS. Thanks!

119. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109803 by Jack Rawlinson on January 9, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Oh, and the ontological argument has more holes in it than a crate of Swiss cheese in a leaky boat. The only difficulty one is faced with in dealing with that piece of airheaded nonsense is deciding which of the many possible lines of attack to choose first. Only very low-IQ god-botherers even try to advance that one seriously these days.

120. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109802 by Jack Rawlinson on January 9, 2008 at 6:36 pm

I'll be picking this one up. I'm not afraid of maths - I had to do plenty of scary-level maths at Uni - but I doubt there'll be much of that here. None of the "arguments" mentioned for God need any heavy maths in order to dispose of them.

121. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109273 by Jack Rawlinson on January 8, 2008 at 5:33 pm

I love it. Hitchens is the nice cop, RD is the nasty cop. I think Emily Condon has been smoking too much crack.

122. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109272 by Jack Rawlinson on January 8, 2008 at 5:31 pm

AshtonBlack - ha! I just saw that you did it too!

123. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109271 by Jack Rawlinson on January 8, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Okay, when he said "This is a dream, you prick", I actually splurted some of my drink over the keyboard.

Love this guy. Brilliant.

124. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109267 by Jack Rawlinson on January 8, 2008 at 5:23 pm

It wasn't a bad year for God, because God doesn't exist. It was a bad year for God-botherers.

I intend to do my best to give them many more bad years.

125. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107564 by Jack Rawlinson on January 4, 2008 at 6:51 pm

This is the Harris I like. He's such a good arguer.

126. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106222 by Jack Rawlinson on January 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm

The "wacky" comment was stupid and, of course, entirely unsupported. So was the suggestion that RD spends a huge amount of time here. It seems to me he drops in here and the forum occasionally to comment and that's about it. I imagine the articles of his which appear here are posted by Josh.

127. Changing my Mind

Comment #106220 by Jack Rawlinson on January 2, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Paula Kirby writes:

"And yet I don't agree with Sam Harris's objection to the use of the word "atheist" to describe ourselves. It's the underlying negative association you have to work to change, not the word - otherwise the negative association just attaches itself to whatever new word you find instead."

That perfectly sums up in two succinct sentences what it took me about two pages to argue when I criticised Harris's stance on the use of the word "atheist". :-)

128. Top Ten Stories of 2007

Comment #103734 by Jack Rawlinson on December 26, 2007 at 3:37 pm

BigJohn: you're such a moderate. Think how badly behaved teenagers are!

129. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102712 by Jack Rawlinson on December 23, 2007 at 1:00 pm

"Christians believe that the almighty God has visited us, not just through prophets, saints and humanitarian heroes, but through sending his son to be born of a virgin in Bethlehem...,"

Oh, right, but we nasty atheists better not make any "sky daddy" jibes because that doesn't reflect the reality of Christian belief, right? Riiiight.

130. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101929 by Jack Rawlinson on December 21, 2007 at 7:33 am

Who Would Jesus Bully?

Suffer the little children, indeed.

"If you sin, you better have the courage to bash Jesus' face in!"

Hmm. Yeah, I reckon I could take the scruffy hippie, actually. In fact, I could totally nail him.

131. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101687 by Jack Rawlinson on December 20, 2007 at 6:43 pm

That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.

Yuh! And the idea that flying saucers draw pretty circles in Farmer Giles's corn field just before abducting him and jamming an anal probe up his fundament is so bonkers it compels us to believe it!!

And they wonder why we disrespect them.

132. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101323 by Jack Rawlinson on December 20, 2007 at 8:25 am

So the guiding star tale is a myth because, "stars don't behave like that", but he believes in the virgin birth, even though human reproduction doesn't behave like that.

You have to marvel at how much cognitive dissonance a faith head's head can hold.

133. Abstinence Programs Face Rejection

Comment #100530 by Jack Rawlinson on December 18, 2007 at 8:06 pm

Also, random less-than-six-degrees-of-separation interesting fact! The lead author of that study mentioned in notsobad's Washington Post link is my partner's ex husband. Blimey!

134. Abstinence Programs Face Rejection

Comment #100528 by Jack Rawlinson on December 18, 2007 at 8:01 pm

As others have said, the key here is real, solid sex education at an early age - well before puberty. Most teenagers do get absurdly horny and will have some sex if they can. I don't blame them. I was the same. It's natural, for goodness sake. What you do with natural things that might have major consequences is educate kids about them: fully, accurately and with no silly squeamishness or prudery.

I consider myself very lucky to have been a pre-teen in early seventies Britain. At age 11 we were given the business: sex, what it is, how it's done, what the risks are, what's effective contraception and what isn't, STDs and how to avoid them, what to do about them if you get them... the only thing my sex ed was weak on was homosexuality, but life taught me about that pretty quickly.

I swear, people diss the seventies (and often for very sound reasons), but we had some good education back then.

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

Comment #100514 by Jack Rawlinson on December 18, 2007 at 7:16 pm

Oh, grow a skin, you weak little pussies.

136. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99427 by Jack Rawlinson on December 16, 2007 at 4:10 pm

I'd just like to add my own little condemnation of the anti-smoking sparts. I've had it with those people, and I say that as a lifelong non-smoker (well... okay, just ignore that cigar I'm holding in the pic there...). Get a sense of proportion, for pity's sake. Don't dictate so. It's unbecoming.

137. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99425 by Jack Rawlinson on December 16, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Should renunciation of a claimed yet wholly unproven deity spiritual authority be a prerequisite for membership in a free society?

Fixed that for you. Oh, and the answer is "Yes, wherever the alleged dictates of the alleged deity conflict with the laws of that society. Or you go to jail. Don't like it? Then get the hell out of my society."

Clear enough? Good. Next!

138. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #98998 by Jack Rawlinson on December 15, 2007 at 6:31 am

"...the past scrumping offence of one non-existent man, Adam"

Oh, I like that. I'm going to have to steal that I'm afraid. :-)

139. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #98720 by Jack Rawlinson on December 14, 2007 at 6:11 am

Mr York, who was making dinner at the time, had a knife in his hand and stabbed Mr Boa in the chest during the brief altercation...

...He said York had no intention of harming Mr Boa at the time he was stabbed.

Woah. Just how stupid do you have to be to buy that? "Yeah, I stabbed him in the chest with a kitchen knife, but I had no intention of harming him."

Oh, okay then. We'll let you off with three years.

MADNESS.

140. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98469 by Jack Rawlinson on December 13, 2007 at 5:14 pm

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Hello? HELLO?

America: please take your country back.

141. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98193 by Jack Rawlinson on December 13, 2007 at 8:35 am

Damn, I can't watch this yet. I have a lot of time for Tim Garton Ash yet I also recognise he has disturbing 'soft liberal' tendencies. Similarly, I admire Hirsi Ali a lot for her brave and uncompromising anti-Islamic stance yet I have some distinct problems with some of her more fiercely right-edged politics so I'm particularly interested in this discussion. I guess I'll have to be patient.

142. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97085 by Jack Rawlinson on December 11, 2007 at 11:34 am

From where does Dawkins derive this faith in human freedom? Not from science. It comes from Christianity, which has always held that humans are different from all other animals in possessing free will.

Okay, that's a whole new level of stupid. That's double-concentrated stupid to the power of ten.That's a level of stupid several kilometres below whale shit.

This... utter IMBECILE... seriously thinks that:

a) Humans are the only animals that possess free will?
b) Christianity is the only belief or philosophy that accepts free will?

Dawkins derives his "faith" in human freedom the same place most of us do: simple observation of how humans actually behave.

This writer displays a level of unintelligence which leaves me gasping for air.

143. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97002 by Jack Rawlinson on December 11, 2007 at 8:45 am

...although having just read Durandal's comment about the film costing 180 mill, I guess 26.1 really is a bit of a downer after all! I had no idea they'd poured so much money into it.

I'm finding it hard to care too much about this really, since I can't stand fantasy stuff anyway. Well, apart from the Gormenghast trilogy, which is much more than just "Fantasy". :-)

144. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97000 by Jack Rawlinson on December 11, 2007 at 8:40 am

Hmm. From what I've gathered, the film hasn't done so well because... err... it isn't a very good film. Still, a little fact like that isn't going to stop the god-botherers clutching desperately at straws, I suppose. They're good at that.

On the other hand, 26.1 million in the first weekend is hardly a flop.

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

Comment #96215 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2007 at 7:08 am

I've been banging on about this for years because frankly it staggers me that this procedure - unless done for genuine medical reasons - hasn't been outlawed as child abuse. The discussions of whether or not it has "beneficial" or "detrimental" effects; whether or not it reduces the incidence of penile cancer or the transmission of HIV; whether or not it reduces penile sensitivity... these are all irrelevant. They're red herrings. The point that matters is that this is irreversible physical surgery done to a child unable to give consent. It is exactly as bad in principle as if a parent decided to tattoo, scar, brand or pierce their infant child. The only reason it gets a pass is because of long-standing and widespread cultural and religious practices.

It's outrageous, it's unjustifiable, and it should be outlawed.

146. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95846 by Jack Rawlinson on December 9, 2007 at 10:43 am

"...his Christian belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation."

Thereby proving he is not a scientist, does not respect scientific method or evidence, and is therefore wholly unsuited to being a science teacher.

Correct decision.

147. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #95096 by Jack Rawlinson on December 7, 2007 at 10:46 am

If that wasn't a joke, Fanusi, how nice that you spoke to them. Do you think you could do us all a favour and speak to them again, and suggest they start making some noise publicly? That they start protesting in the streets? Writing letters to newspapers? Demanding to appear on TV programs?

Because if they don't, we're going to keep giving them well-deserved shit for their craven lack of action. 'kay?

148. Let us kill all the teddy bears

Comment #95006 by Jack Rawlinson on December 7, 2007 at 6:36 am

This is the second article I've read recently by this guy Morford which has absolutely nailed it. I like him.

149. Fox: 'Atheist Outrage' over holiday 'Tree of Knowledge'

Comment #94637 by Jack Rawlinson on December 6, 2007 at 6:09 am

Good for Downey, I say. I can't watch the video yet, but it sounds like she handled this well.

This paranoid, desperate idea that this was "sabotage" of a Christian festival... how weak of them.

150. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94481 by Jack Rawlinson on December 5, 2007 at 6:25 pm

Out of that list, D'Souza. Ben Stein should have been there too, though.