101. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #18775 by Homo economicus on January 23, 2007 at 12:49 am

Well it would be easy to test that she is the painter. A lot of artists talk about inspiration in a metaphysical sense, so for a child to think of it in a God like way is not that unexpected.

The paintings look good, and her talent can only grow with experience. Who knows what will inspire her as life goes on?

Cannot help but think how we would treat her if she claimed these things but had no creative talent what so ever.

Wonder if she does commissions. I would love a painting of mythology with a pink unicorn running away into the sunset.

102. Britons unconvinced on evolution

Comment #18774 by Homo economicus on January 23, 2007 at 12:36 am

I had a letter published about that court case and how ID was creationism and should not be in the the science classroom. A little old lady read my letter.

When I asked her what she thought about the issue she said "I have never liked cremation."

"Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" rocks. I have never relied on polls when I took part in a MORI poll and to balance the survey I had to be 'Jane'. Thinking about transport issues from a female perspective was interesting but it does not strengthen my feelings about polls.

Having said that since when should we allow polls to dictate the science curriculum? I would rather have science do that. I guess the story is never be complacment in the battle of ideas.

103. For the Bible told them so

Comment #18612 by Homo economicus on January 22, 2007 at 3:16 am

True but childhood indoctrination does not excuse not having empathy and critical analysis as an adult. To put into perspective all the children that I met at the local kingdom hall have now left.

I think you are right that reprogramming in these situations to see everyone as human beings is difficult. We can be sympathetic but not allow society to accept the actions of such belief when they are negative.

104. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18563 by Homo economicus on January 21, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Thad comment 21:
'I must also point out the rather obvious fact that the " Salman Rushdie" effect must be having an influence on our brave esteemed atheists in the west. Is it because they think that the wimpy Christians need to take the brunt of their analysis, or they are cowardly to equally express it about the Moslems?'

There have been discussions about burquas, education, community relations etc discussed. TGD mentions Islam as well as christianity. The bigger audiance though is largely one brought up in a christian culture.

I think you are forgetting that this war has given much more opportunity for terrorisim and violence to flourish. It might not be on your door step but we unleashed the hell that is happening in Iraq. We supported and sold arms to the tyrant Saddam. We tolerated Afghanistan untill 9/11, when the dangers were already very clear years before.

105. Zeus devotees worship in Athens

Comment #18555 by Homo economicus on January 21, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Now if they start having all the festival celebrations they may start giving the church a run for its money.

106. For the Bible told them so

Comment #18551 by Homo economicus on January 21, 2007 at 5:03 pm

As someone who as a child was prepared to die because of Leviticus 11:26-27 it is still surprising to me that people will not read the bible and think: is this something that is 100% the way I should be living my life?

It is about beliveing a set of rules without question because a divine law giver gave them to you.

Yet it was men in different eons that wrote this book. Why should we allow our minds to be held prisoner by such people?

Cast off the shackles and be free to think for yourself. There is no need to cause so much harm to so many people.

Yet why do such people want to?

107. God, Inc

Comment #18492 by Homo economicus on January 21, 2007 at 8:04 am

Like the idea behind it all.

108. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18490 by Homo economicus on January 21, 2007 at 7:41 am

I think the pseudo analysis of Bush is hardly analytical. I think we are dealing with an image others present rather than the man himself.

Dawkins made a comment of how useful it would have been to have done a psychoanalysis of Saddam.

Maybe we should do that with Bush once his term is over.

109. Ruth Kelly, her hard-line church and a devout PM wrestling with his conscience

Comment #18489 by Homo economicus on January 21, 2007 at 7:30 am

The only thing that matters is these children having loving homes to be brought up in. Period.

Faith agenices should have no special privledege in how they deal with social services. It seems to me as inappropiate as a Dawkinist run adoption agency which will not see religious people because of mind child abuse.

Prospective parents who have the interest of the child at heart do not deserve to be discriminated against. These children deserve to be settled in a loving home as qucikly as possible.

110. The Selfish Gene Turns 30

Comment #18392 by Homo economicus on January 20, 2007 at 11:47 am

I have the 30th Anniversary edition in front of me as I type. It will be the fourth Dawkins book I read.

Just want to pay tribute to Dawkins for helping in making the public understanding of science his life's work. Having left the JWs as a child the theory of evolution was something I always wanted to understand.

I hope to shake him by the hand one day and say thank you. Thank you for opening my eyes to the true wonder of the natural world.

111. God's Hostages

Comment #18373 by Homo economicus on January 20, 2007 at 6:42 am

I love women, my mother was one.

That anyone can condone violence to women for traditional reasons (trying to lower bloood pressure . . .)

Sam keep it up!

112. A Middle Ground for Stem Cells

Comment #18311 by Homo economicus on January 19, 2007 at 2:30 pm

'It is a simple and uncontroversial biological fact that a human life begins when an embryo is created. That embryo is human, and it is alive; its human life will last until its death, whether that comes days after conception or many decades later surrounded by children and grandchildren.'

Following on from comment 4

A zygote is not human. It is a potential human. But a potential x is not the same as the actual x. A potential human does not have the rights of a human.

Concerned about zygotes feelings? Then be a vegan. Animals suffer in a more real sense than a zygote does.

113. Dispatches: Undercover Mosque

Comment #18215 by Homo economicus on January 19, 2007 at 3:05 am

'Any muslim who helps ... atheists, will be cursed.'

'A state within a state till the Islamic state can take over.'

'We are doing brainwashing because the [unbelivers] are doing braindefiling' (A lot of cults say this when you lay that charge at their door).

The importance of secularism in British society has never been clearer.

114. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #18042 by Homo economicus on January 18, 2007 at 3:45 am

Apparently they are going to remove the word gullible from the Oxford dictionary.

Got an 80 mph gale outside at the moment. Hope my house is built on firm foundations :)

115. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18039 by Homo economicus on January 18, 2007 at 3:41 am

Duff, I could not agree more.

Sam is a wonderful communicater, it feels like music.

Pump up the volume Sam!

116. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17933 by Homo economicus on January 17, 2007 at 3:36 pm

We seem to think that principles can be applied 100% in all situations.

Now I will defend fondness for beetles in not being alone in thinking there are no absolutes, that all principles can be relative to the circumstances.

Now Sam speaks of blind eyes; I find that repulsive. If it is going to happen we need to know what the interogation techniques will be used and in what circumstances. And have a public debate about it.

117. Copy of The God Delusion Purchased for $20,000

Comment #17853 by Homo economicus on January 17, 2007 at 3:45 am

Went to first meeting of LSS (see comments 3 and 10).

I can assure you that my experience was a society that wanted intellectual inquiry about the natural world, and rather than sitting around like Bromfondle and Magicthighs discussing God, having fun in a social setting.

As to principles of secularism, if you check the link I doubt we would consider them religious:

http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/membership.htm

118. Surviving 'Jesus Camp'

Comment #17849 by Homo economicus on January 17, 2007 at 3:30 am

As a secularist I think the freedom to believe is a fundemntal human right, but that faith does not have a special privledge within society nor is it desirable for it to have such a place.

As a humanist, it is important that people can reason for themselves. With children, it is learning the skills and analytical ability which is important. No one has the right to force their opinions on anyone, with children this is especially so.

Blatantly this Jesus camp is indoctrination and the impact on children highly questionable to the point that child abuse may not be too strong a word. I would be just as opposed if these things happended in an atheist camp.

I would be shouting with Josh in the cinema.

119. Christian Shrine Needs Two Exits, Israel Says

Comment #17809 by Homo economicus on January 16, 2007 at 5:20 pm

The importance of health and safety being secular could not be better illustrated.

Seriously though. For sites with historical significance are there different applications of health and safety requirments around the world?

120. Creationism Song

Comment #17807 by Homo economicus on January 16, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Well yes but I will still enjoy Johnny Cash and Ken Rogers. They will not take my country from me!

As someone that came from an indoctrinating cult as a child (JWs) I can assure you the best defense is having the curiosity to ask why and seek out answers. The problem is where the curiosity is killed. I hope the kids will grow up curious about what evolution is all about.

121. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17805 by Homo economicus on January 16, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Fondness for beatles

In your situation, the guilt is on the accomplice, not the people who are not torturing them. I am very reluctant to go down to such a general level as I would fear a culture of law enforcement that would be terrifying in its application and a threat to freedom.

Where I do agree with you is the lesser of two evils. Where thousands of lives are at stake the law and international treaties will be damned. That is the reality. Yet I would not take such actions lightly, and would share John C's revulsion in having them done. I just think there may be very few situations where the greater good may be served.

Speical cases do not mean there should be general applications.

What there should be is a public debate as to how information is aquired, what proceedures are in place before extraction of information, and in what circumstances.

Our sense of urgency should not go against the importance of ascertaining guilt and due process. The thing is that there is no proper public debate with any affect on the US administration.

I believe in human rights. The issue is are such rights absolute or relative and in all situations?

122. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17440 by Homo economicus on January 13, 2007 at 5:54 pm

RD is very respectful of other people. He is not (righlty) respectful of people's superstitious mumbo-jumbo and argument that faith qualifies as evidence (its in the Holy Bible therefore it is true!).

There may be times when the charm offensive may be more effective. Yet I can understand why RD may not want to spend that much energy on people not prepared to reason prefering instead super-natural explanations to the real thing.

I would only add that some have only a bit of sand in their eyes. Some will see the light of day and come out of the cave.

123. For Human Eyes Only

Comment #17439 by Homo economicus on January 13, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Yes I agree, lets have some more science posts up here like this.

124. Copy of The God Delusion Purchased for $20,000

Comment #17438 by Homo economicus on January 13, 2007 at 5:29 pm

And I bet it wasn't even signed ;)

Good to know that humanists meet up and have fun. May have to try the Leicester Secular Society if they have anything like that sense of fun.

125. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17374 by Homo economicus on January 13, 2007 at 4:17 am

John C,

I agree that a reflective equilibrium could be reached between us. Others here have said Sam should not have raised this issue becasue it weakens his other points on religion - that was what I was refering to.

History shows torture has been used for many things. Using it to determine guilt is an especially cruel and counter productive, yet that seems to have been the main way through the ages to acheive confessions.

That historical context, of itself, does not mean that it may not be effectively or even morally be defensible in another situation. It does however reveal a nature we should not be proud of.

126. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17370 by Homo economicus on January 13, 2007 at 3:55 am

John C

Well I agree that the slippery slope argument is real. Hence my criticisim of Harris that if a ticking time position could happen that does not mean that a on the nod appraoch would be appropiate. Innocent people should never ever be tortured or killed in war.

If we are prepared to say that saving human life may require others death why is it harder to say saving human life may require others torture? In a Wittgenstein sense of language this really interests me. I get the picture that it does for Sam.

I fear that this type of situation, without the Hollywood grandeur or sense of scale, does happen in the real world and we are not always aware when it does. Are we saying in all situations it is never ever justified? Or from a utilitarian ethical point of view yes there may be thankfully few situations be but it needs codefying to stop the barbaric cruelty of humankind that can be unleashed?

We are cowards if we never debate any issue for fear of being misrepresented, and not true to ourselves not to mention a view which may be taken and painted to distort other views we have.

My argument against holding the Bible as holy would apply to special reverence to the Geneva convention. It is the principles and how it appeals to our sense of justice which is important - a text should never stop debate. That would be the case for keeping the Geneva Convention. Laws, international or domestic however can change if the situation and sense of justice does. Otherwise homosexulaity would still be illegal in the UK.

I condemn utterly what the US is doing and the flights coming out of the UK in special rendition. Yet that does not mean we should not discuss whether there are circumstances where the need to get the information is justified and how should that be done?

As to Harris, I have no tribal loyalty. I have to borrow from Voltaire "I may not agree with what you are saying but I will die for your right to say it."

127. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17355 by Homo economicus on January 13, 2007 at 2:44 am

Hi all just come back to the thread.

Yes we can cherry pick Gorenfeld's article. I want to understand what Sam Harris means, not how I or Gorenfield interpret it to mean. The article implied that Sam was agreeing with Gorenfeld's interpretation. That's my beef.

If we look at the consequence of collateral damage and the consequence of limited specific torture in a ticking time bomb scenario, why the fuss of the latter as opposed the former?

Now we can say collateral damage is a by product, not the intention. Yet we know it will happen and targets can be wrong or in civilian areas. The consequence is death and horrific injuries.

Can we not say the same for the ticking time bomb? We are not torturing the person for the sake of inflicting pain or because we want to. We don't, we want to save numerous lives. We are assuming:

1) This person knows where the bomb is (this person is complicit in planting the bomb)
2) He will not willingly tell us
3) Many people will die without the information

Now we seem unconcerned with the innocent people killed in the collateral damage which we know happens in war. But when we have someone complicit in planned mass murder who can tell us where the bomb is he suddenly has human rights in a different way to those who suffer collateral damage.

This moral defragmentation I find strange as Harris does. If you argue for non-violence in all situations I can understand. Yet there are circumstances where though I hold this position I would find it morally indefensible e.g. a psychopath in my house trying to kill my family. Then I would do what it takes to stop the psychopath hurting my family - in this situation self-defense which may mean the person's death is morally acceptable, or more so than letting him murder my family and me too voluntarily.

In the ticking time bomb I do not want to wait for the bomb to go off and kill many people before having the person tried and convicted of planting the bomb and sentenced to life imprisionment or death penalty in the US.

Where I crticise Harris is that it should be a on the nod, not for public scrutiny how we get the information. The slippery slope concern is that then this technique for getting information will be applied more widely: suspects whose guilt is unknown, where life and death is not at issue.

The ticking time bomb is a unique situation that I would argue calls for a unique response. To try and make it a more general response would be going too far.

128. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17071 by Homo economicus on January 10, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Been watching how this debate between Harris and Gorenfield is going.

Gorenfield should have written an article on why he thinks Harris' position is not helping the secular cause. The format he did suggested that this was an article based on an interview with Sam representing Sam's views in a way he condoned. Not Gorenfield's interpretation of Harris' work.

Instead Gorebfield seems to be a hatchet man determined to draw blood on Sam's reputation. If you have criticism of Harris (I have read plenty in the forums and posts on RichardDawkins.net) then write a proper article, or do a proper interview with Sam addressing these concerns.

Gorebfield went fishing with Sam. Sam careful of the bait next time.

129. Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Comment #17068 by Homo economicus on January 10, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Bravo Polly!

Thankfully the Lords did get down (Labour were whipped to support government, Lib Dems did, Tories were free) and voted 3-1 in favour of current legislation.

'However, secularists are not threatening to deny services to the religious: it is they who want to discriminate. Keeping the public sphere free of dogmas is not a denial of the right of anyone to act as they please - so long as they don't harm others.'

I hate being called a militant. I do not want to close churches, ban religion or stop people having free speech with torch lights. But when it comes to public policy it has to be about treating us all as human beings.

The religious mind set sees differences about other people; that is not something that should impact on how services and goods should be offered to customers and citizens.

130. Halting progress

Comment #17032 by Homo economicus on January 10, 2007 at 8:44 am

Thankfully it was fundies rather than mainstream religious groups out there.

Went to Blackpool for the FA Cup game (Aldershot played well but lost to a side two leagues higher). There were hotles with no same sexed couples in their windows. Families and same sex couples only. Then there were hotels showing the rainbow flag, and badges with Gay friendly on them.

There were some hotels even for Gay and lesbian only. Now, if we are saying that services must be avialble and open to all regardless of sexuality, will these hotels have to open up to all as well?

131. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #17021 by Homo economicus on January 10, 2007 at 5:58 am

Have to say I lost faith in the Guardian years ago when it reported on the front page a Labour Government reshuffle completely wrong the day after.

132. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #17017 by Homo economicus on January 10, 2007 at 5:46 am

'But the fact is that we are still unable even to guess Darwinian pathways for the origin of most complex biological structures.'

So we need a "designer of the gaps" as a scientific theory do we?

'Science has turned lots of corners since Darwin, and many of them have thrown up data quite unpredicted by his theory.'

Has any one ever claimed that evolution is a general theory about everyting?

'If true, ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry.'

As opposed to human curiosity about the natural world being a motivator?

'But, according to Randerson, ID is not a science because "there is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID". Remind me, what is claimed of Darwinism? If, as an explanation for organised complexity, Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on ID.'

No evidence for evolution, but there is for ID? Hmmm and your evidence is . . . curiously not in this article!

'When a religious person advocates teaching ID in science without identification of the designer, there is no dishonesty or "Trojan horse", just realism about the limitations of the scientific method. If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.'

Oh I see science proves a designer but not who/what/it is. Damn shame. However, you loose me when you say that using evolutionary theory (as a Darwinist) means I have a religious belief to foster on people.

No, if someone is teaching evolutionary theory in school they are explaining how the biological world works. As to whether God kick started the whole thing is a debate outside the science class room. I want science to be taught, not someone's supernatural belief system.

Lets keep religious language out of the science classroom. Allow children to have developed skills, logical reasoning and knowledge they need for the adult world. Lets teach them to be critical of everything and examine the evidence, so they can work things out for themselves.

Additional: link to Mr Buggs talking breifly about ID in a local news report

http://richarddawkins.net/article,426,Intelligent-Design-packets,BBC-London-Graham-Wright

133. 2006 Koufax award nominations are open

Comment #16834 by Homo economicus on January 9, 2007 at 5:14 am

Hmmm, sorry but should I really be taking these awards seriously? When they are:

'The Koufax Awards are named for Sandy Koufax, one of the greatest left handed pitchers of all time. They are intended to honor the best blogs and bloggers of the left.'

Why is this article up here or as a UK resident is there something significant about these awards I am not aware of?

134. Open Letter to Rev. John Auer

Comment #16833 by Homo economicus on January 9, 2007 at 4:46 am

I agree that the Rev. John Auer may have handled it better. Eg spoke to the family, and spoke of the need for vigilence so that no one can use their position of authority for bad ends. Did he do this in his sermon that day?

We are responding of course to the letter rather than getting a view from parishioners going into the church or the Rev John Auer response.

Needless to say, with the whole history of the church, what comes out is an attitude to defend the organisation rather than protect children and deal with people within the church who may be a threat to children. Such an attitude is not worthy of a human being.

135. Consciousness Without Faith

Comment #16821 by Homo economicus on January 9, 2007 at 2:02 am

On the subject of:

'The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality'

It is more a historical account of how Buddhism has explored philosophical and scienctific inquiry. If you are interested in that the book is great.

For a simple monk he does show an interest in science. I hope he is sincere when he says that what science says wins over buddhist thought.

As to different marketing strategies. Yes we need them, and well targeted as well.

136. Consciousness Without Faith

Comment #16698 by Homo economicus on January 8, 2007 at 5:35 am

I think it is good that Sam can clarify his thoughts which have sometimes been misunderstood in his books.

I started meditating as a form of relaxation, and looked into Buddhism. There is a distinction perhaps from being spriritual and religious, and I agree with the comments that the words Harris uses carry a baggage that he does not mean.

If we are going beyond belief, with mediation helping people to relax and have experiences that affect consciousness, a scientific explanation is worth having.

Some have suggested in other topics Dawkins should ditch Harris. Are we not a broad enough movement that we can have areas we disagree on but what unites us is the focus on supernatural explanations effecting public policy?

137. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

Comment #16104 by Homo economicus on January 4, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Brilliant talk. Wish this guy had been my sciecne teacher.

This is a link for Judge Jones' decision:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf

138. If they preach the cause of the poor, they're my people

Comment #15968 by Homo economicus on January 4, 2007 at 2:42 am

The journalist does not mention humanism, which is concerned about such social issues as poverty.

'Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity.• American Humanist Association'

The church has the resources to do a lot of humanitarian work, and to be fair it does. That does not mean it should be immune from logical questioning to the lack of realism in its belief structure. Especially, like the contraceptive issue, where it adds to human misery.

Does anyone have examples of humanist societies out there doing good deeds? Think they would be useful to know.

139. No religion and an end to war: how thinkers see the future

Comment #15967 by Homo economicus on January 4, 2007 at 2:25 am

Ever seen past predictions by scientists? Not always right.

I remember the Financial Times once asked people to make predictions about the economy for the forthcoming year. The ones closest to reality were not the economists or financial accountants. It was the dustmen (refuse collectors).

Lets hope the evangelicals future is pie in the sky.

140. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #15963 by Homo economicus on January 4, 2007 at 2:17 am

I always thought that if someone prophesied about something that did not come to pass they were declared a false prophet.

If this guy genuinely 100% believes that god is personally telling him about the future, then he really is suffering from a neurological abnormality and needs help not ridicule.

However, if this guy is a publicity seeking, getting the readies in evangelical, then lambast away, he deserves all the cynicism. The way you can stretch his predictions to fit future events does seem to fall into this category.

141. Letter From America: Atheists throw down the gauntlet

Comment #15857 by Homo economicus on January 3, 2007 at 11:04 am

'The two movements are almost entirely dissimilar, of course, with Christian fundamentalism engaging in no violence or threats.'

So abortion doctors are not threatened or killed by Christian fundementalists?

Dawkins et al militant? Well I do not want acts of violence for my ideas nor do they. I just want children to be taught science and for everyone to think for themselves critically about life the universe and everything. Give them the analytical tools to come to their own conclusion.

And if that scares the pants off anyone, then they should be ashamed of themselves.

142. Beliefwatch: Blasphemy (Challenge)

Comment #15797 by Homo economicus on January 3, 2007 at 3:51 am

If we do not believe in God why go to such trouble to be angry against a non-existent entity?

If our aim is to win by reason and rational probing there may be more effective ways.

I can tolerate delusional people, not respect their ideas that stem from the delusion. But if their actions are going to cause harm then society as a whole must step in. Fact must win over faith.

143. Do galaxies follow Darwinian evolution?

Comment #15796 by Homo economicus on January 3, 2007 at 3:42 am

I think most of us agree that the use of language in biology does not have the same meaning used in the cosmos. Ideas may be similar but they need their own explanation and terms.

I would blame the journalist, though I think it may be an honest attempt to convey the ideas simply by use of bilogical analogy. Without realising that it makes it more confusing rather than a bridge to understanding!

144. America's Holy Warriors

Comment #15795 by Homo economicus on January 3, 2007 at 3:33 am

While I do not doubt that some Christian fundementalists want an armed militia, I think the dangers are overstated. The private hiring out of military operations though is a real concern if you believe the state should only have a monopoloy of military force, where profits is not the bottom line.

The Christian right message probably plays well to law and military groups as opposed other public bodies; in a sense that may be their easy growth market so they will target them.

The judiciary and schools is the main battle ground for ideas I would argue as long as the army remains under the chain of command. The US is not Thailand thankfully.

145. Talk in Class Turns to God, Setting Off Public Debate on Rights

Comment #15264 by Homo economicus on December 30, 2006 at 3:48 am

Teachers are not there to give their belief as fact, but to educate so that their pupils will have the skills to think and reason for themselves.

To do otherwise is de facto brainwashing. May be their should be a teacher version of the Hippocratic Oath to this regard of educating not indoctrinating?

146. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15107 by Homo economicus on December 29, 2006 at 12:39 am

It is sad that any country would need a legal clarification so people are free to sit anywhere on a bus.

Does religion/custom make people stupid or do stupid people use religion/custom as a justification for their action?

As for the last comment on menstruation, this is no excuse in an enlightened age to accept a woman not sitting next to you. Though I appreciate you are offering an explanation Stewart, rather than agreeing with it.

147. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #15002 by Homo economicus on December 28, 2006 at 3:27 am

Just returning to Sam's article rather than Robert's post . . .

What a brilliant succinct rebuttal of claims made negatively against the atheist position.

When it comes to Stalin et al I think it is a stronger position that what they carried out was wrong to anyone's sense of justice. What is needed against such people is a mind that is always ready to question belief, even ones' own. And not afraid to challenge it, despite the consequences.

Whether Stalin was a pseudo religious figure or an atheist misses the point. He did wrong, atheists and God believers can agree, the issue is would we have spoken out against him at the time in Russia? Or become dissidents, or just try to survive?

And does the world have a moral responsibility to stop such people from committing genocide?

148. Merry Mithras

Comment #14534 by Homo economicus on December 23, 2006 at 3:40 am

On the subject of QI, it took a lot of petitioning and pressure to get the BBC to realease a DVD. Thankfully they have now just done so with first series (which discusses things beginning with A).

Please if you think this show is funny buy the DVD, I want them to be able to make money so they will get the other series out soon.

And paradigm667, did mail you about the nature of the show not realising how many good comments you had made on here. It would be great if the creationists did have Jo Brand's humour!

149. The Only One in Step

Comment #14491 by Homo economicus on December 22, 2006 at 5:02 pm

The constant energy from the Sun reduces entropy on earth, allowing life to create order out of disorder. An energetic God librarian we do not need fellas.

These guys need ID cards so we know where they stand ;)

And now in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics I am off to bed as I am worn out.

150. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #14411 by Homo economicus on December 22, 2006 at 10:30 am

Yes this is hardly a critical analysis of the book, but a revelation of a mind troubled that someone disagrees with him. I read Dawkins, quote him, but a disciple? No offense, I'd buy him a drink but not wash his feet or die in his name.

Ideas are powerful - even if they are right or wrong. This letter was a "you're wrong, I know I am right but not saying why". If we use sixth form arguments perhaps he could tell me the more cognitive arguments we should be using as atheists for our position (or is he just insulting 6th formers?).

And if they are wrong please say why you think so. Don't just keep on saying your wrong your wrong oh more fool you. Not very enlightening.

Dawkins should be knighted for services to science. He has not been yet (and the idea of Dawkins to the rescue on a noble stead did make me laugh).

A god may have caused the universe as a first cause argument - but how do you prove which of the ones that humans have worshiped is it? With eyes open I do not feel that life and the universe needs a creater to be explained, far less one worthy of worship. Explain please a loving God creating creatures which can only survive through pain and suffering on others?