101. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25672 by cheshirecat on March 14, 2007 at 4:26 pm

I think you have all got this badly wrong and are led being led by your assumptions.

People did 'suddenly' decide to take the bible more literally. It was called the reformation. Biblical literalism is not a recent phenomenon.

102. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25671 by cheshirecat on March 14, 2007 at 4:18 pm

"Fundamentalism, whether Islamic, Christian or Hindu, has found a hold in recent years, not because people have suddenly decided to read scriptures more literally, but because the failure of secular political movements, the rise of identity politics and the collapse of traditional moral codes have all made radical faith-based identities seem attractive."

This has long been argued. Read 'La revanche de dieu' by Kepel. Some have argued that western cultural expansion led to the rise of islam - read Benjamin Barber, 'Jihad vs. McWorld'.

I personally believe that the colapse of the Soviet Union and its failure to support Arab nationalism as a result has led to the main power in the reigion becomming Israel and the United States. Secular nationalism having failed means that Islam takes its place.

Hitler is not remotely relavent. You would not judge either atheism or religion by one mad man who came to power by one of the worlds great political accidents on a tide of secular nationalism.

103. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25647 by cheshirecat on March 14, 2007 at 2:06 pm

To fight irrationality it is first neccesary to define it. Whoever defines it defines it to their own ends and predujudice. You cannot fight an abstract noun. That would be like making a 'war on terror'.

104. Non-believers can be bigoted too

Comment #25640 by cheshirecat on March 14, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Mr Malik may be correct when he talks about the failure of secular movements. I can think of examples of this. The failure of pan arab nationalism which reached its height under Nasser (president of Egypt, remember him) is partly what results in the middle east adopting Islam. The failure of pan-arabism means that men seek other identities. Let us remember that the PLO were a nationalist movement. They failed and from their failure results the success of groups like Hamas.

105. US Congressman Holds No God-Belief

Comment #25379 by cheshirecat on March 12, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Briatins first atheisist MP was Charles Bradlaugh who was elected in 1880. He refused to take the oath on the grounds of his atheism which caused him inumerable difficulties and challenges fromhis opponents. However the speaker overuled the opposition complaints and he went on to be re-elected Liberal MP for Northampton. According to some his favourite party trick was to take out his pocket watch and time 60 seconds in which he challenged God to strike him down.(I hope the standard of debate has moved on from this but i'm not sure) He died (somewhat ironically) of Bright's disease in 1891.

106. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25219 by cheshirecat on March 11, 2007 at 4:23 am

Has anyone ever been to a humanist funeral?

107. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25190 by cheshirecat on March 10, 2007 at 6:52 pm

I have made a rational judgement about it. Having done so what should I say. I deem your beliefs to be irrational. I simply don't believe in this God of yours. Do you suppose I could come up with anything they had not contemplated and remember here that they are the cleverer than me. I come a poor second in brain power and debating skills. Do you seriously think I would come off well in this confrontation. Do you seriously think I would not upset and endanger my friendship. Is believing oneself to be right not enough. Do we have to burden other people with the contents of our conscience.

108. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25151 by cheshirecat on March 10, 2007 at 12:11 pm

I wouldn't for the world impose my opinions on my friends. I don't think we are for one moment being dishonest. We all know each others opinions but I don't go through a checklist of my opinions and beliefs when chosing my friends. I got to like people before I knew anything about their beliefs. If you only know people who agree with you in every way what on earth do you talk about?

109. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25149 by cheshirecat on March 10, 2007 at 11:54 am

Don't you have friends who so to speak hold differing views on the question of whether there is a God? I do. I don't want to go calling my friends "faith-heads" because I don't agree with them. They aren't any less kind or intelligent or funny for believing in God. It is not for me to decide whether they are deluded or not, that is their problem. So this is partly why I object to the term.

Then if you do believe that you are of the same species as everyone else on the planet, ("Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind" etc etc) why would you hold yourself above and apart from them in such a way. I think its this aspect that dosen't play so well in the media.

I'm sure Richard can take criticism. If I had just written a best seller I think I could take any ammount of criticism in good humour.

110. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25139 by cheshirecat on March 10, 2007 at 10:30 am

His science may well be subtle. The selfish gene may be a brilliant book. However i'm increasingly alarmed by the way that he portrays people recently. I just think that calling people "faith-heads" is not clever or constructive. You don't understand the human condition by giving half the population of the planet that label. Its saying "I know what you all are, I understand you perfectly and I don't like you". If thats what you want to say then fine. I just don't call it subtle thats all. I mean no more than that. I would like to know what others think about the term "faith-heads" and the use of language in general.

111. Happy 50th Birthday to PZ Myers!

Comment #25129 by cheshirecat on March 10, 2007 at 9:15 am

I love bad poetry.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stuffed-Owl-Anthology-Review-Paperback/dp/1590170385/ref=pd_ka_1/202-5147636-3233438?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173546862&sr=8-1

112. Happy 50th Birthday to PZ Myers!

Comment #25127 by cheshirecat on March 10, 2007 at 9:12 am

Brilliant!!

113. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25125 by cheshirecat on March 10, 2007 at 9:08 am

If Richard Dawkins is subtle then I am a Dutchman.

114. Public Acceptance of Evolution

Comment #24895 by cheshirecat on March 9, 2007 at 4:46 am

The problem is the idea is too politicised. Its the nature of American christianity to be ridgid, conservative and to equate the ideas with the left. This makes them automatically hated by some republicans.

I mean the pope believes in evolution, consequently catholics should have no problem with evolution - if they did not reject the statement through misunderstanding or ignorance. For instance Poland is a very Catholic country its just no one ever bothers to stand up and preach against evolution because there is no idealogical objection to it in Catholicism. Besides most Catholics are not great bible readers or biblical literalists like some in the protestant faith. Therefore Poland does better than the US despite (one presumes) having an inferior education system.

115. Happy 50th Birthday to PZ Myers!

Comment #24794 by cheshirecat on March 8, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Proof of reincarnation. William Mcgonagall lives again in the body of Richard Dawkins.

116. Religion and Politics

Comment #24271 by cheshirecat on March 5, 2007 at 3:57 pm

I hate the misuse of history through selective quotation.

The English believed in the Protestant wind had helped them to defeat the Spanish. "the wind blew and they were scattered". Their faith based policy had done them very well so they believed - and would continue to believe through centuries of expansion success and imperialism.

Furthermore the Spanish with one of the biggest fleets ever assembled and their army in the low countries were not leaving things entirely to God. Medina-sidonias speech was simply that of an aprehensive and inexperienced commander.

117. Darwin's God

Comment #24260 by cheshirecat on March 5, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Politics is not about whether there is or isn't a God. This point is entirely irrelevent. It is about the welfare of the people and the good of all in this country whether or not you share their views or beliefs. I will never support a party that discriminates against others holding lawful beliefs and engaging in the lawful practice of their faith.

118. Darwin's God

Comment #24084 by cheshirecat on March 4, 2007 at 5:40 pm

I would not give a brass farthing for that Orwellian nightmare.

119. The return of God?

Comment #23937 by cheshirecat on March 3, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Living in England I think people experience little pressure to believe anything. The influence of religion is extreemly abstracted. People believe of course, but in ghosts and their horoscope, herbal medicine, homeopathy, fortune tellers etc. Most people if you ask them are either sceptical or will say they believe in God and then describe their own personal entity so completely divorced from any sort of major religion as to be unrecognisable. People pick and chose their deity. Then there are the druids and those poor souls who believe themselves to be white witches. There are the muslims who pray a great deal and there are the muslims who drink a great deal. There are christian unions in the universities and people who try and get them banned from the Students Union on technicalities (who seem to be the rest of the student body - Exeter i'm talking about you). Incidentaly the Catholic societies on university do not talk to the christian union. A few Jews. The odd eastern influenced religions that seem to advocate odd mystical beliefs. The sikhs, of course, rather a good lot generally (i'd have to say my favourite)- and they don't have the caste system that hinduism has. Hindus.

There is a profound difference between England and America.

When Douglas Adams was interviewed by American Atheists magazine they asked him if anyone had tried to convert him.

He said he was puzzled by the question and that it expressed a cultural difference

They also asked him if he had ever had nay problems in his professional life through being an atheist. He said 'not even remotely. its an inconcievable idea'

You see in England if you did discriminate against people for having different beliefs to your own you'd probably talk to very few people and get not very far. Besides their are laws against it.

120. Pope is warned of a green Antichrist

Comment #23925 by cheshirecat on March 3, 2007 at 2:45 pm

The Devil really does wear green.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0149-6611(195411)69%3A7%3C470%3AWTDWG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

121. Bishops must not sit in reformed House of Lords

Comment #23920 by cheshirecat on March 3, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Yes. The mighty religious tyranny of 3 elderly gentlemen in frocks who probably went on CND marches with some christian socialist organisation in their youth. I think you are confusing Lords reform with the French revolution Citizen Robspiere.

122. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23911 by cheshirecat on March 3, 2007 at 2:00 pm

What do you mean by reason?

1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
6. Logic. a premise of an argument.
7. Philosophy. a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.
b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.
c. Kantianism. the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.

–verb (used without object) 8. to think or argue in a logical manner.
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
10. to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.
–verb (used with object) 11. to think through logically, as a problem (often fol. by out).
12. to conclude or infer.
13. to convince, persuade, etc., by reasoning.
14. to support with reasons.
—Idioms15. bring (someone) to reason, to induce a change of opinion in (someone) through presentation of arguments; convince: The mother tried to bring her rebellious daughter to reason.
16. by reason of, on account of; because of: He was consulted about the problem by reason of his long experience.
17. in or within reason, in accord with reason; justifiable; proper: She tried to keep her demands in reason.
18. stand to reason, to be clear, obvious, or logical: With such an upbringing it stands to reason that the child will be spoiled.
19. with reason, with justification; properly: The government is concerned about the latest crisis, and with reason.

be wary of words.......

123. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #23908 by cheshirecat on March 3, 2007 at 1:46 pm

I was simply commenting on the sport people get from not believing. The first fellow - Yorker was complaining about the idiocy of these debates.

"Personally, I will not bother about these silly "Does god exist?" debates." he says when thats mostly what this website is taken up with. I would bet that a lot of people get much joy in the form of righteously indignant anger from people like craig. It satisfies a basic need in people. I think Craig is entertaining, maybe not right. No reason to hate him. You don't think a man stupid for simply being wrong.

124. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23901 by cheshirecat on March 3, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Dawkins makes historical claims - "Religion has damaged society though it might in pre-historic times have had an evolutionary role".

Dawkins makes sociological claims. "Religion is child abuse".

Dawkins makes theological claims - "God as depicted in the Bible is not very nice". (it seems to me on this one it would be possible to disagree with this and not believe in God - the debate would still be a theological one.)

Why should he then be excused from reading any of the literature or engaging in any of the debates.

125. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #23897 by cheshirecat on March 3, 2007 at 12:52 pm

You probably don't like this website much then.

126. Pope is warned of a green Antichrist

Comment #23894 by cheshirecat on March 3, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Well green was always thought to be a somewhat Devilish colour. Look at Sir Gawain and the green Knight or the Green Man or Robin Goodfellow. All dress in green and were mischievous spirits. I would not be suprised if the Devil did wear green.

127. The return of God?

Comment #23891 by cheshirecat on March 3, 2007 at 12:25 pm

"They should clean up their mess, and then we can talk"

There we go again them and us. We can't divorce them you know. I feel much the same about people who take Echinacea when they get a cold but I try not to let it get to me.

128. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23890 by cheshirecat on March 3, 2007 at 11:46 am

Your arguement seems to be that Richard Dawkins book is a popular book that encourages people to question their religious beliefs. I think the 'Da Vinci Code' might have filled all of those criteria. Just because the book is popular or encourages people to question deep rooted assumptions does not make it a good book.

129. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23874 by cheshirecat on March 3, 2007 at 9:22 am

The trouble is Richard Dawkins dosen't just say religion is wrong he says its bad. Yet to prove that religion is bad you would have to know something about its relationship with people and society and the history of this relationship. Understanding this relationship would involve knowing some theology and how the theology was applied by people in all classes of society and throughout history. Richard Dawkins understanding of theology is lacking but more crucially so is his conception of history. This is why his books do not impress sociologists, historians or theologians whether they believe in God or not.

130. If God is talking to you, too, Mr Cameron - don't listen

Comment #23756 by cheshirecat on March 2, 2007 at 1:29 pm

He is wrong when he says that the English church is 'middle of the road' down to Elizabeths design. Diarmaid Maculloch has called this the myth of the English reformation. In fact the church that Elizabeth fashioned was staunchly Calvinist and so was she. The idea that it was a half way house and linked by direct descent to todays church is drivel. The present church owes its present state not to Elizabethans like Richard Hooker but to more modern thinkers.

131. The God Delusion

Comment #21912 by cheshirecat on February 11, 2007 at 4:38 pm

"People please keep an eye on this Catholic weasel that has found the message board"

I think that if you don't know why its wrong to end a comment about the evils of persecution with this remark then there is really no reason to explain it to you.

132. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21315 by cheshirecat on February 8, 2007 at 3:57 pm

That sort of thing is the product of writing polemics. Just don't be angry with those who criticise you. If their opinions are worthless then they do not warrent anger. If they are useful the they have done you a favour.

133. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21153 by cheshirecat on February 7, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Whats the difference between God and Richard Dawkins?










God doesen't believe he is Richard Dawkins.

134. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #21135 by cheshirecat on February 7, 2007 at 5:32 pm

You may not agree with McGrath but if you think he is a fool then more fool you.

135. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #20996 by cheshirecat on February 7, 2007 at 8:10 am

Though I might do if I lived in the US. But Dawkins dosen't so I still cant see why he makes such a fuss.

136. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #20995 by cheshirecat on February 7, 2007 at 8:09 am

I can sort of undertand why Mcgrath gets riled by it all though. Dawkins is the sort of atheist who dosen't so much not believe in God as personally dislike the fellow. (Apologies to George Orwell)I don't see the need for all the bile on both sides myself.

137. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #20984 by cheshirecat on February 7, 2007 at 7:41 am

Two Oxford professors bickering. There truly is nothing new.

138. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20381 by cheshirecat on February 2, 2007 at 4:51 am

I'm not messing around. I'm just playing with a few ideas seeing what criticisms people come up with.

I dont think I was being post-modern (though some postmodernist criticisms of the historical method are actually quite good). Nor was I saying anything about truth, evolution or science. Evolution is not a point of view, it is as true as anything can be. I was making a modernist criticism of RDs mis-use of history (his bias) to prove that all religion is damaging all of this time. He selects historical evidence to suit his theory. I used the word 'narrative' which you assumed would make me a post-modernist, where as I just want to borrow the word. I object to him getting up and making shrill speaches to the effect that religion is 'the root of all evil'. Why write books about the complexity and variety of life and not accept such complexity morally or historically.

139. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20312 by cheshirecat on February 1, 2007 at 5:34 pm

Also. Why Oliver Cromwell?

140. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20310 by cheshirecat on February 1, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Of course the sociologist Max Weber thought that the 'protestant work ethic' was responsible for the rise of modern capitalism and all its joys and failings.

We think religion is good or bad depending on what we believe and we create our narratives of the past to fit that belief. For there is so much history out there it is easy to pick and chose one piece and impossible to quantify it all. It is safe to say this. Anyone who thinks that religion was a malign influence throughout society all of the time is wrong. We all can think of evidence both for and against. If it were a court case we would be here till the end of time just to hear the evidence. Religion, magic and belief has played a strong role in societies from the dawn of recorded history to the present day. To decry the idea of a 'personal God' as naive is to cut yourself off from the understanding of history and the human experience. You do not have to share their beliefs but you must make an effort to understand believers. It is not trully religion that drives hatred but the failure to understand and empathise with your fellow humans. For no man is an island.

And to anyone who says 'what about suicide bombers' (how tiresome is this refrain). The failure of understanding is ours in a small part and theirs in a far greater one.

There used to be in England after the civil war and idea or feeling that historians allude to called personal piety. You believed what you believed quietly and didn't bother other people with it. No talking religion or politics to guests. No one should make 'windows into mens souls' least of all scientists.

141. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20169 by cheshirecat on January 31, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Well then I don't think darwin should get all the credit when his grandfather first formulated some of the ideas of natural selection in 'zoonomia' and the 'temple of nature'. He added the motto 'E conchis omnia' (everything from shells) to his family crest. This was in the 1760s so no one can say these ideas werent floating around.

142. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20154 by cheshirecat on January 31, 2007 at 3:55 pm

I am 'silly and ignorant'. I don't recall ever believing in intelligent design though.

Richard Dawkins believes that religion has come about because mankind needed a way of explaining the natural phenomena around and their creation in a way they could understand. They needed a creation myth. I simply don't buy this.

I think that mankind needed a way of explaining the enormity of death. A way of coping with a life in the words of Thomas Hobbes that was 'nasty Brutish and short'. It certainly was pretty awful in 1651 and it is bad enough for some now. Not quite the 'opiate of the people' in the sense that people believed their wrongs would be redressed in the next life but some information and comfort about death.

This is how Bede rationalised Christianity. Here one of the pagan priests tries to persuade king Edwin that they should all accept Christianity. Its the most famous passage in the historia ecclesia.

The present life of man, O king, seems to me, in comparison with that time which is unknown to us, like to the swift flight of a sparow through the room wherein you sit feasting in winter amid your thegns and earldormen, with a good fire in the midst whilst the storms of rain and snow prevail abroad. It enters in at one door and quickly out through the other. For the few moments that it is inside the storm and wintry tempest cannot touch it, but after the briefest moment of calm it flits from your sight out of the storm and into it again. So this life of man appears but for a moment; what follows or what went before we are ignorant. If this doctrine brings more certain information we should accept it.

They want assurance about their life after death not an origin myth. They already have a perfectly good saxon one.

So back to children and religion. Your sense (meaning all of you in general) is that children are made to fear hell and that's a bad thing because hell doesn't exist. Its fear without good cause. Yet suppose you have a dying child (a little melodramatic I know). What the child fears most is not Hell but separation from his/her parents. The possibility of reunion in the afterlife comforts not only the child but their parents. Its hope without good reason, but at the end of the day its still hope.

I would just like to add that a Catholic upbringing never stopped Mendel doing the first genetic experiments with peas and he was a monk at the time (later abbot of his monastery) at the same time Darwin was writing his great work. He's one of the forgotten heroes of the movement often referred to as the 'father of genetics' though the importance of his paper was only discovered later.

143. 'Friends of God' Documentary

Comment #20109 by cheshirecat on January 31, 2007 at 12:39 pm

You have to laugh.....

144. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20100 by cheshirecat on January 31, 2007 at 11:01 am

Anecdotes are not evidence. They cannot be quantified. You can prove any statement you like with single instances. I have many of my own for people of all faiths who have been brought up to be sensible (in my opinion). Nevertheless I'd like our teacher to give us some examples of what sort of thing worries her/him. Oh and I thought coppernose's comments were interesting and informative. What I'd really want however is someone who could point in the direction of an academic paper on this matter.

145. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20099 by cheshirecat on January 31, 2007 at 11:00 am

The criminal population used to be made up of Catholics because Catholics were Irish and poorer and so more likely to commit crime. Now it is because Eastern Europeans are more likely to be poorer and commit crime and also are more likely to be Cathoic. Religion has nothing to do with it. The prisons of the big port cities used to be full of Catholics.

146. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20033 by cheshirecat on January 31, 2007 at 5:56 am

I once heard that a far greater proportion of church goers and christians were female. I wondered if anyone could back this up/had heard it before? I certainly know that anyone professing religious belief at my school was thought slightly effeminate. I wonder if this has something to do with it.

147. The Ego and the ID

Comment #20019 by cheshirecat on January 31, 2007 at 5:05 am

On the contrary, I think you are naive to take Dawkins at his word when he makes such gross generalisations. The study of religion in modern society is a social science. Give me some evidence that a conventional religious upbringing does children any damage. Has anyone written a paper on this or do they consider it too absurd to even bother testing it?

148. The Ego and the ID

Comment #19988 by cheshirecat on January 31, 2007 at 2:14 am

Ok so maybe I was being stupid. I just don't like it when Dawkins says things like 'religion is child abuse'. That is a prime example of something for which there is no evidence.

149. The Ego and the ID

Comment #19923 by cheshirecat on January 30, 2007 at 4:50 pm

It is true. No one had heard of it. Its an American invention of the early 20th century with which we could do without importing. Around the time they went and invented that delightful brand of evangelism in the 20s and 30s they decided that clever people weren't to be trusted.

If the mass of the people know anything about it at the moment it is through it being topical. Richard is partly responsible for this. The British public hate people in authority telling them what to do.

Why take religion out of schools? Its still compulsory to have some religious instruction every morning at assembely in British schools. Sets most people against religion for life whilst giving them a bit of general moral guidance to ignore.

If Dawkins thinks the ID lot are mad why does he engage in the debate on their level? People think there must be two sides to this. They must have an arguement here if Richard Dawkins gets in such a lather over it. It leads to politicians saying - well I think children should decide for themselves. They don't look at they science they havent the time or inclination. They just say - this Dawkins bloke is a bit of a hardliner over this, we must have some sense of faith moral guidance etc etc...

150. The Ego and the ID

Comment #19915 by cheshirecat on January 30, 2007 at 4:16 pm

I swear there wasn't a man in England who took intelligent design seriously before Dawkins started attacking it. Within twenty years of Darwin and Wallace evolution was accepted. If there is a rise in its popularity I will lay the blame squarely at his door and the attempts to dig up the bones of this debate. He's the professor of 'the public understanding of science' not the professor of attacking American religious loonies. They foam at the mouth, he foams at the mouth - none of us have learnt anything. And now he's got me ranting. For what its worth (not much) I think Dawkins and the religious right deserve each other. Long may they tear strips out of each other in the sports halls of American colleges.