151. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #38540 by AdrianB on May 8, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Nails - he's doing a TV show to be aired shortly which sounds like a TV version of sceptical enquirer or a more polite version of Bullshit. Indeed when RD was interviewed on Penn's radio show last year and he mentioned it, Penn shouted "hey that's our show!" LOL

I did like this interview very much.

152. Vote for the Time 100 - Are They Worthy?

Comment #37033 by AdrianB on May 3, 2007 at 8:05 am

Is it true that somebody at Time has commissioned Michael Behe to write up Richard Dawkin's profile for this?

Is somebody havin' a larf?

153. The Damned

Comment #36962 by AdrianB on May 3, 2007 at 12:24 am

I thought this was a new video from my favourite band. Oh well back on subject .....

Last year my car radio was scanning throug some channels when it stopped on a local channel called "Ramadan" which is broadcast during the period. I thought I would listen for a while as it might be an education.

The DJ was a young hip sounding guy, and there was a reasonably sensible phone in discussion going on for a few minutes with most of the calls about Iraq. After a while I realised that every single call was extremely negative about the country they live in. No surprise there I thought.

What did surprise me was that there was then 30 mins of young kids, ages about 5 to 12 reading passages from the Koran. Without exception, every single passage was the vilest possible ones about hell. I'm not exaggerating when I tell you that when I got home I was utterly shell shocked and had to turn the radio on so my wife could believe me.

It is obvious that the darkest passages about hell are being preached to young Muslim kids in a way that they were not in the Anglican church when I was a kid.

Scary!

154. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #35075 by AdrianB on April 26, 2007 at 6:18 am

Just bought the "Hunter Of Climate" CD this morning .... brilliant!

155. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34705 by AdrianB on April 25, 2007 at 1:09 am

Sargeist – just to add some meat to the bones over my previous post I will say this was 20 years ago but my friend and a Muslim girl were crazy in love for 3 years and hoped to marry. I call her a Muslim girl, but of course for the three years when she was free from the shackles of her family she chose not to be a Muslim.

Of course, (you know where we're going) the girlfriend was given the same ultimatum by her family that you will be given. She leaves my friend, my friend converts, or neither can darken their doorstep ever again.

They ended up parting quite quickly after uni, and my friend has made another life for himself with a wife a kids. What is deeply sad is that he still sees his ex from time to time, and she ended up being married to a man she does not love with 6 children and all her dreams shattered.

156. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34522 by AdrianB on April 24, 2007 at 10:45 am

I feel for you Sargeist, you will have a tough time ahead. I had a friend at uni that was in the same position as you and it did not end happily. Good luck.

157. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34026 by AdrianB on April 23, 2007 at 4:28 am

I'm sorry but I've just got to say LOL.

158. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34011 by AdrianB on April 23, 2007 at 3:19 am

As long as government can stay out of faith, and faith can stay out of goverment, I'm happy. People are free to believe what they want to believe.

The idea of some "atheist organisation" seems a bit crazy to me, it would encourage the faith-heads to call atheism just another religion. (It always amuses me that the faith-heads think it is smart logic to dismiss atheism by calling it a religion)

In the meantime, while ever religion insists on getting involved in government, and getting tax free status at the same time, I will continue to be vocal about my atheism.

159. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #33981 by AdrianB on April 23, 2007 at 12:27 am

I forgot where the quote comes from, but if organising atheists into groups is like "herding cats" then there is nothing surprising about this headline.

160. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #33896 by AdrianB on April 22, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Again it seems that in the main circumcision is being defended by those that are circumcised, or have circumcised a son. This sort of delusional wishful thinking is just the same as the women who argue for their "right" to wear the veil.

(Oh and of course, wearing a veil WILL have medical benefits since it will reduce the chances of skin cancer!)

As I said, this is simply memes at work. If you are circumcised or if you are forced to wear a veil then it is nice to think that there are good reasons to do so, even though there are not.

There is not a single medical organisation that recommends routine circumcision. Abdi repeats the same old religious (meme) reasons plus the flawed medical reasons. But it is the reasons given by queen5102 scare me the most.

My wife is a pathologist, and I can tell you there is not one bit of the body that she has not seen come through her labs with cancer. Some of them in the most horrific of places, nose and face for example. Thankfully most of these types that have to be surgically removed are very rare, cancer of the penis is a one of the rare ones. A quick google search indicates that there are more deaths from complications arising from circumcision procedures than there are from penile cancer.

I am well aware that for many people where there is a history of cancer in their family, there is a very valid reason why that person may wish to undertake preventative surgery. However, penile cancer is NOT caused by an inherited faulty gene and so other members of your family are not likely to develop it.




The following is cut'n pasted from The American Cancer Society:

"A recent study reported that uncircumcised men who had phimosis in the past were at increased risk of developing penile cancer. Penile cancer risk was not increased among uncircumcised men without phimosis. However, it is important that the issue of circumcision not distract men from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors -- poor hygiene, phimosis, having unprotected sex with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking. In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is one of the least common forms of cancer in the United States. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns. Ultimately, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence."

161. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33686 by AdrianB on April 21, 2007 at 5:49 am

I'm sure Peter Hitchens is looking forward to this book as well.

162. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33202 by AdrianB on April 19, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Didn't RD enter into an agrrement with Gould not to debate with creationists?

This has to be nearly as risky.

Still I look forward to watching. TGD sold pretty much solely to our side, perhaps we need to take some risks and now is the time to crank up the debate to the opposition.

163. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32870 by AdrianB on April 18, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Apologies if this is not appropriate, but feel I must discuss this while the subject is hot. I can honestly say that I had not really given the subject any real consideration until this thread was started. Anyway I have been discussing this quite a bit with my wife of 20 years the last couple of days, and this led us to do a bit of "research" if you get my drift!

Quite to our surprise we have both discovered it is actually touch to the prepuce of the penis and clitoris that gives the most pleasurable sensation, rather than touch to the glands directly. For both of us the most intensely pleasurable feeling comes from the action of the prepuce riding back and forth over the glands.

We can certainly conclude that masturbation for either sex would be less pleasurable without a prepuce, so Kellogg was correct with his own conclusions in the late 1800s.

(I would suggest you all go and do your own research now!)

I recall a Desmond Morris (I think) programme about the mechanics of the female orgasm, where the cervix opening actually dips down at orgasm, presumably picking up any semen as it does so. It would seem sensible to suggest that there would be an evolutionary benefit for the male and female to orgasm as close to simultaneously as possible.

Again after discussions with my wife I feel that the so called staying power benefits attributed to circumcision are oversold, and whilst men might think it is cool to go at it like a jack-hammer for ages it's not really what women want and certainly not what the evolutionary process requires.

I would be interested if there is actually any research that links fertility to circumcision.

164. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32747 by AdrianB on April 18, 2007 at 6:58 am

D.O.C. appeared on the "Bullshit" programme that I watched again last night. They appear to be a reputable organisation and I doubt very much that there is any attemp to mislead or defraud.

165. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32607 by AdrianB on April 17, 2007 at 2:59 pm

At least most or all of us agree that female circumcision (which isn't just removal of the prepuce) or to forcibly circumcise a 12-year old against his wishes are both abhorrent.

The interesting debate for me is the fact that 60% of US boys, or 1 million a year, are routinely circumcised. It is also interesting reading these posts that whilst most non-US posters seem to find this routine act abhorrent as well, the US posters can't see what all the fuss is about this seemingly innocuous act.

Isn't this just memes at work?

Seemingly innocuous act? It has been shown that infants have a nervous system that is more sensitive to pain than adults. In the Penn&Teller programme there is a scene with a baby screaming very loudly during the process. In another scene a baby seems very calm, almost asleep which is quite common and is reassuring for the parents. In these cases the baby is not calm but actually suffering from neurological shock! Believe me, although the child will forget, the experience at the time of the procedure will be very painful and stressful indeed.

In another scene from the programme a paediatrician shows the tools used and tray to which the baby is strapped down using "soft rubber straps". Penn shouts (well it wouldn't be Teller would it) "where is Amnesty International? Oh, I guess it's not human violation because the straps are soft!" LOL

Jews started the practice in the US for religious reasons. It was further promoted by Kellogg and other extreme Christians nutcases in the mid 1800s as a deterrent to masturbation. The procedure has continued to increase as people want to conform. Not forgetting that the paediatrician gets 400 bucks for each 30 minute procedure. Of course it is just memes at work.

For those that doubt loss of sexual pleasure with the removal of the foreskin, first watch this video from the site linked in the article:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/prepuce.html
Then consider this, the foreskin rides back over the shaft of the penis forming ribs, and then slides back and forth over the glands retaining lubricants within the vagina. Any surprise that the % sales of ribbed condoms is much greater in the US than it is in Europe?

166. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32500 by AdrianB on April 17, 2007 at 7:28 am

"So given this, is it ethical for doctors to circumcise babies in Africa for example"

No.

167. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32496 by AdrianB on April 17, 2007 at 7:12 am

nancy2001 - as I typed my comment I just KNEW you were going to come back at with me with that!

Of course it is reasonable course of action to do what you did in your particular case. Most of us will have no argument with that.

But you would not suggest routinely removing the breasts of all young women because it would reduce the overall incidences of breast cancer? Of course not.

I wasn't having a go at you nancy2001, only what you were quoting from a textbook. Apologies if you think I was.

However, I do maintain that the case for circumcision in not valid, end of story.

If I was to totally remove my son's penis at birth his chances of penile cancer would be nil, if I was to remove part of it his chances of penile cancer would be reduced. But that is irrelevant anyway since in 99.9% of cases parents are not having their infants circumcised for medical reasons.

168. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32478 by AdrianB on April 17, 2007 at 6:22 am

nancy2001 - your textbook should also mention that surgically removing your breasts will reduce the risk of breast cancer!

There is absolutely no justification for the widespread circumcision on an infants, medical or otherwise, end of story.

169. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32444 by AdrianB on April 17, 2007 at 4:54 am

So Veronique has never ****** anyone that has not been circumcised, and my wife has never ****** anyone who has. This is simply an example of how this religious practice has become established that side of the Atlantic.

I really do recommend getting to see the "Bullshit" programme on the subject. It actually showed a baby being circumcised, and believe me the poor child was distressed.

Penn admitted that he was circumcised in accordance with tradition, but any genuine reasons were bullshit. The programme followed a young couple with their new baby, discussing whether to have him circumcised. The mother's main concern was causing unnecessary harm, and the father's main concern was the potential insults he would have to suffer later in life when in the showers alongside all his circumcised mates.

Of course there is no medical benefit whatsoever. For purely evolutionary reasons I would guess the opposite in fact. (I would do a google search to investigate, but probably wise not to at work.) I would guess that protecting the glands with a layer of skin, and rinsing it with sterile urine each time you take a piss are beneficial.

Of course in a country where 90% of males are circumcised any myth about "being unclean" is going to be popular. In the Penn & Teller programme they interviewed a number of young girls if they had sex with uncircumcised men and the responses were usually "err, how horrible, never"

Of course the long term effects of male circumcision over female circumcision is not as bad, but that is only because we are not comparing like with like. Cutting a baby's finger off would not be as bad as cutting a baby's hand off, but in both cases the baby would not remember the pain in years to come. What if a religion proposed cutting off the finger of each child?

170. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32387 by AdrianB on April 17, 2007 at 1:38 am

Spinoza, when I read you have no problem with infant circumcision I assumed you were from the US where the majority of men are circumcised. I see you are from Canada, and I don't know what the babaric preferences are there!

You will gather that I cannot agree with infant circumcision in any way and I would suggest anyone thinking otherwise to watch the Penn&Teller:Bullshit episode on the subject.

171. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32363 by AdrianB on April 17, 2007 at 12:26 am

Oh dear, his local bookstore has 5 books on atheism.

He should go and count the books on religion, and then add to that the books on angels and spirituality.

Should make him feel all fuzzy and warm inside again.

172. As Religious Strife Grows, Europe's Atheists Seize Pulpit

Comment #31784 by AdrianB on April 14, 2007 at 9:31 am

I am getting a bit peeved at hearing the term militant atheist.

Loud and vocal we maybe, an urge to convert to our way of thinking we may have, but militant certainly not. We are no more militant than an Anglican vicar. We are just starting to shout our cause, but until we start adopting the same tactics as the militant theists, violence or threats of violence (which we won't), then we should argue against the use of the term militant whenever it is used against us.

173. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

Comment #28410 by AdrianB on March 29, 2007 at 5:19 am

Yes, we are definitely seeing a pattern emerge now in debates between believers and atheists/agnostics. "Well that's not the God that I know" is the usual retort.

Now that we have 30,000 different denominations of Christianity, and the leader of one of them can't decide if hell is real or not, we can now see that the theists are on the back foot.

In reality every believer has their own personal religion. How many religions are there? About 4 billion I would suggest.

174. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27887 by AdrianB on March 27, 2007 at 6:01 am

I think you're letting your ImagineAZion run away with yourself now!

175. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27881 by AdrianB on March 27, 2007 at 5:51 am

Fishpeddler - you make a valid point. Not a day goes by when I don't wish there WAS a god. For example, every day I am cut up and annoyed by other arrogant road users who drive with no regard for others. I can wish that these people will get punished for their actions, but I very much doubt they will.

176. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #26389 by AdrianB on March 19, 2007 at 4:40 am

Are Christian's discriminated against? I would suggest only in so far as everybody is discriminated against.

When I interview people for positions in my company I am always guilty of discrimination in some form or another and will come up with a variety of reasons why I don't want to work with somebody. I would never ask a job applicant about their religion of course, but if somebody came across as overtly Christian then it is possible that I would dismiss them, just if somebody came across as overtly 'anything' I would dismiss them.

In the main however most Christians I know look and behave just like all the atheists and agnostic that I know, so discrimination is impossible.

When I left university and went for my first job I was quizzed about my faith at length by the MD of the company, and it was made clear that I would not be considered if I was not a Christian. Now that WAS discrimination!

Anybody tried getting a job for a company in the control of an Exclusive Brethren family or similar? I thought not.

I caught a bit of The Heaven & Earth programme, and in the main I sense discomfort at the fact that the atheist voice is becoming more vocal and that is it. The only 'real' examples given of discrimination were the British Airways cross issue, and the magistrate who had to resign over his inability to follow his own principles to discriminate.

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

Comment #23504 by AdrianB on March 1, 2007 at 6:28 am

"Those who look for judgment not from the electorate or parliament or a free press but from God release themselves from the constraints of democracy."

Yes ClemIsMe, I agree this is a very good quote to remember.

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

Comment #23429 by AdrianB on February 28, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Michael Portillo is an interesting guest on this evening's Moral Maze on Radio 4. Well worth a listen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml

179. Meet the Relatives. They're Full of Surprises.

Comment #21589 by AdrianB on February 10, 2007 at 3:16 am

Bit surprised to see no comment to this, compared to the may comments about the lunatic rantings of McGrath.

To be honest I'm not interested in the rantings of McGrath, I just sigh, laugh and move on.

This is what it's about. This is fantastic. Good luck to all those involved in this exhibition.

180. Neil deGrasse Tyson - Death by Black Hole

Comment #20052 by AdrianB on January 31, 2007 at 7:13 am

It should be added that the Point Of Inquiry podcast is an excellent listen. As is the Freedom From Religion Foundation podcast.

Any other recommendations anyone?

181. The Ego and the ID

Comment #19971 by AdrianB on January 31, 2007 at 12:07 am

MacGruder, I totally agree with you. On the last census my wife and me put CofE as we always have just because we always have. We are both atheists. If you remember last time there was some amusement as many people decided to put Jedi. LOL.

Next time I hope that those that are non-religious put so and the true numbers become plain for all to see.

182. The Ego and the ID

Comment #19904 by AdrianB on January 30, 2007 at 3:17 pm

If you go directly to the article and read some of the comments you will probably despair :-(

183. Does Evolution Select For Faster Evolvers? Horizontal Gene Transfer Adds To Complexity, Speed Of Evolution

Comment #19858 by AdrianB on January 30, 2007 at 10:16 am

I have to say that as somebody who just takes a casual interest in the science on evolution, this is one of the most interesting concepts I have read about.

In fact, when one steps back and thinks about it for a few moments, the idea seems blindingly obvious.

I look forward to RD's comments.

184. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19146 by AdrianB on January 25, 2007 at 7:20 am

One has to admire Mr Dawkin's restraint, almost Christian, in not making the obvious easy "told you so" comments about Ted Haggard.

185. A Middle Ground for Stem Cells

Comment #18272 by AdrianB on January 19, 2007 at 8:24 am

I disagreed with so many thing with this article I don't know where to start, so I wont.

However I just wanted to add that I think Madpatriot has raised a very good point. Turn the argument in reverse to some of the extreme pro-lifers and ask them at what stage is somebody really dead? Is it when the heart stops, or the brain, or is when every single cell has flown?

Should we respect the cadaver? Is cremation murder?

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

Comment #15849 by AdrianB on January 3, 2007 at 10:28 am

Don't you just love this sort of woolly thinking?

Let's get rid of "unbridled" consumerism.
"The poor deserve the best"
etc etc
As if both are mutually exclusive.

What has religion ever done to eradicate poverty. Sure the church may have a history of aid to the poor, but as for eradicating poverty? I'll take the sign of Microsoft or McDonalds over the sign of the cross anytime.

187. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15325 by AdrianB on December 30, 2006 at 11:21 am

60. Comment #15241 by JohnC on December 29, 2006 at 9:45 pm

John I agree with what you say in the above post. I believe that the rise in fundamentalism over the last few years, and the desire of those people to gain more political power is precisely because they know their religion is in decline.

I liken what is happening to that of a light bulb momentarily getting brighter just before it goes pop. Can't wait for it fizzle and fade away, but we should be aware that it could be messy beforehand.

188. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15128 by AdrianB on December 29, 2006 at 4:04 am

6. Comment #15124 by He-man Daunted World on December 29, 2006 at 3:50 am

In response to the loveley opinion you brought our attention to. Have you ever noticed that nearly all the attacks on RD come from people in the paid employment of religion?