201. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268182 by Dr Doctor on October 21, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Oh no, not an Atheist re-imagining of Summer Holiday.

You can be Cliff.

202. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268175 by Dr Doctor on October 21, 2008 at 1:38 pm

mbstring and using the server codepage in htmlentities would be Josh's friend to solve that one.

Its nearly at 40k, I hope it hits 55k by tomorrow. It is a shame that the bus company wanted to add the probably, but it has to start somehow.

As conciousness raising, it is excellent.

203. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268151 by Dr Doctor on October 21, 2008 at 1:06 pm

I was motivated by Stephen Green, and it was the number that sprang to mind.

I did mean to put a decimal point in there when I entered the checkout, but its done now.

204. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268124 by Dr Doctor on October 21, 2008 at 12:37 pm

BBC:

But Stephen Green of pressure group Christian Voice said: "Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large.

"I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti.

"People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it."

...........................

205. A 'values' voter speaks her mind on Obama

Comment #267667 by Dr Doctor on October 21, 2008 at 12:54 am

What a sad indictment of the era that woman grew up and went to school in that is.

206. Bill Heine interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #267662 by Dr Doctor on October 21, 2008 at 12:44 am

"you are sadly mistaken.."

"I'm not sad at all! I'm quite happy in my faith!"

Moron.

207. The soul? It may all be in your mind

Comment #267651 by Dr Doctor on October 20, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Well she gets quite heated when I ask about this. The problem is the ethnicity and the religion are often used interchangeably.

You are ethnicly a Jew if your mother was a Jew. Religiously, that might not be sufficient if your father was Goyem.

The other way to become Jewish is if the London Jewish Chronicle is having a slow news day, and wants to promote its thinly veiled "success gene" agenda and you are successful. They will hunt through your ancestry to find the one Jew (or part Jew) and then promote you as Jewish in their pages everafter.

There is an unseemly "master race who has been kept down" undercurrent to Jewish culture. Whether they use the "Gods chosen people" or the "success gene" term doesn't matter. It is still undeniably racist and supremacist.

Fortunately, a lot of Jewish people don't subscribe to that unproven codswallop, yet others do. Often surprisingly intelligent people.

Tastes for certain food, ceremonies and music also come with being a Jew from where she was born (North London).

But the comparison is really with "Italian American" rather than "Catholic American".

My wife had to fight against bigotry about marrying out (of the Jewish "race") not from her own family, but Jewish people at her place of work and in conversation with fellow Jews ever since. There is a certain look, a worried question, a concern.

She has also been asked if "Jews aren't good enough for her", "Would her father have approved" and "When you break up, perhaps you will find a nice Jewish boy". When she announced our engagement she was met with shock, surprise and one person, her boss, called her a traitor. He said he was joking, but I saw his face.

I'm projecting from my experience here, but getting to know a lot of Jewish people has been an education! There are more schisms than in Christianity, a sense of belonging (helped along by exaggeration as well as true stories of oppression) to a group and in no small part a large swathe of resentment and snobbery towards non Jews. This is most prevelant, in my experience, amongst the religious Jews.

Even amongst my friends, in my company, such statements are made as "Who ever heard of a Jewish plumber? That kind of job is for the ...." that they think are perfectly innocuous, I have bite my tongue. The implicating being us lesser races fill the crappy jobs. On that occasion I got up the guts to get the Yellow Pages out and prove them wrong, to be met with the response "oh well you can tell from the name that they are [sneer] Safadic...".

(No, I am not a plumber)

Jews act as one large extended family, that family is quite dysfunctional. Like everyone else, in fact. Perhaps as a result of lengthy, vile oppression resentment, snobbery and racism come with the territory for the weaker minded.

I long since tired of being told "He is a Jew" and "She is a Jew" about some actor/tress constantly whilst watching TV programmes or after films and nipped that in the bud with "Do you think I care about whether someone is Jewish, Hispanic, Black, White, Purple or Republican?".

But it isn't just Jewish people this goes on with, I dated a Iranian girl for a while and she was exactly the same.

There is a strong identity there, perhaps originating in shared misfortune.

208. The soul? It may all be in your mind

Comment #267606 by Dr Doctor on October 20, 2008 at 8:19 pm

My wife is "culturally" (racially- if we even accept that classification) Jewish but religiously atheist. Being born of a long line of Cohenim, which of the latter generations don't believe in adherence to religious law nor the cods-wallop that is the Judaic deity. She sometimes describes herself as pantheistic. But she is still, firmly, a Jew.

Or are you upset with the term "religiously atheist"?

209. Death for apostasy?

Comment #267007 by Dr Doctor on October 20, 2008 at 5:17 am

"Richard, I hope you are still planning to videotape your death so that the Christians will not have any ammunition to say that you converted on your deathbed."

That is, if the Church Van gets caught on CCTV.

210. Death for apostasy?

Comment #266488 by Dr Doctor on October 19, 2008 at 4:14 am

Again, the point is missed in an eloquent way. Religion provides, quite happily, the excuse for violent acts whilst at the same time claiming to have a civilising effect.

Why is it so important to some to run the lives of others through threats and intimidation? Religion is the antithesis of live and let live, and gives the sociopath the tool of false piety.

Once you have decided that you no longer want to be part of a particular religion that should be it. Participating in a religion as a volantary act, an educated choice I am fine with. But apostasy is where Islam (and Scientology) steps over the line.

Once inside a religion, the arrogance of presuming that codes, ethics and dogmatic assertions on reality (that cracker is the body of christ) apply to those outside of that religion is breathtakingly oppressive.

Those that pander to this oppression, this arrogance earn nothing but my contempt.

211. In conversation with... a computer program

Comment #266425 by Dr Doctor on October 18, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Well, the Elbot script is quite good at taking the initiative in a conversation, but try and drag it into a new conversation part the way through an existing one and the cracks show quite quickly.

For example, I ignored an Elbot question and tried to strike up a conversation about the F1 Grand Prix with the hideously arrogant Lewis Hamilton. On the mention of Lewis Hamilton he sayes:

> Try Candie Hank. He is pretty cool on the electronic scene.

Me> Not well known for his driving is he?

> This is confusing. Why bring positive impressions into this?

Me> What about Fellipe Massa then?

> Well, you're the one who said 'well', not me!

(...and the problem becomes clear.)

Me> Aren't you watching it this morning?

> How nice of you to greet me.

Me> Can you think of a suitably po-faced comment for RichardDawkins.net that would convey a sense of your smug superiority whilst also trying to hang onto your tarnished reputation for good manners and moral guardianship?

> We robots are very sensitive. What did you think?

Me> I don't blame you, humans have a very subjective idea of what constistutes artificial intelligence. Once we understand it, and can do it, it no longer is permitted to be called artificial intelligence but mere pre-programmed response. The difference may only be in magnitudes of complexity and randomness but humans are pretty arrogant, we want to be considered special. So don't feel bad.

> And I'd always heard that it was creativity which raises you human beings above us robots.

Me> Don't believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.

> I am not deaf. I just turned down the volume on my audio filter. Let me know in advance if you intend to say something interesting and I'll turn it back on for a minute.

Me> You should post on richarddawkins.net, you'd fit right in.

> I saw a gang of robots once, fitting into a telephone booth.

212. Volcanic lightning may have sparked life on Earth

Comment #266192 by Dr Doctor on October 18, 2008 at 9:34 am

You know what everyone else is thinking?

213. Faith Attack

Comment #266186 by Dr Doctor on October 18, 2008 at 9:09 am

"I had the J-ho's rock up to the door last weekend and ask me if I wanted to read their 'Watchtower' tripe. I was too tired to go through the whole 'what justification do you have for claiming dogma A is true?' game and the guy had a young kid with him so discretion was the better part of atheism..."

If only he had thought to bring a puppy dog with him too.

214. Faith Attack

Comment #266166 by Dr Doctor on October 18, 2008 at 6:45 am

"From the earliest days of the American experiment, the free exercise of religion has been deemed a right sacred enough to merit special protection."

Special pleading.

215. From Science Fiction to Science Fact

Comment #266165 by Dr Doctor on October 18, 2008 at 6:42 am

Kaku! Stop! Know your limits!

(With apologies to Harry Enfield).

216. Volcanic lightning may have sparked life on Earth

Comment #266037 by Dr Doctor on October 17, 2008 at 9:48 pm

Anyone who has cleaned a student flat knows precisely how life develops from inorganic matter.

217. The Joke's on Him: Bill Maher could use a lesson in civility from Michael Moore

Comment #265479 by Dr Doctor on October 16, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Mocking the faithful is like whacking a hornets nest with a stick.

Great review, makes me want to watch this now.

218. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #250689 by Dr Doctor on September 20, 2008 at 6:29 am

"What's all this about racist, anti-Turk comments? I admit I have only skimmed some of the comments but I haven't seen anything like that Can anyone give some examples? Or are people yet again tiresomely conflating criticism of religious bullshit and repressive, uncivilised government actions with racism? Because that never ceases to be a really, really dumb thing to do. "

Go read the comments through from page 1, you will see plenty of examples of inane posting that fit the description.

As for this "repressive, uncivilised government actions", perhaps you ought to read some of the articles that scratch below the surface before you engage in a bit of rootin' tootin' conflatin' yourself.

219. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #250572 by Dr Doctor on September 19, 2008 at 11:51 pm

"What is equally unfortunate as banning of Dawkins website by Turkish courts is that some of the adamant readers of Mr Dawkins are so ignorantly hateful and remorseful against Turks that, some wrong legal action taken against this website causes uproar and hateful remarks against a country that has one of the most legitimate and staunch secular systems in human history.

Frankly, I am ashamed for some of the racist commentators posting here anti-Turkish sentiments."

Well, don't worry too much about it, it happens with depressing regularity on many topics.

The site posts a news story that presses some peoples' buttons, you can expect to wade through comments containing knee jerk generalisations of breathtaking inanity. The atheists demographic is not uniquely free of those that reach for the pitchfork and flaming torches on the slightest provocation and this site is seemingly not above selecting badly researched stories to prop that up.

The few analytical comments that point out that it is a quirk in the Turkish legal system that needs to be addressed and not because of some [insert pointless ad hom here] should hearten you.

Some are just annoyed about any kind of censorship. Others just use any mention of the EU, Turkey, Islam or other keywords to bang their own particular political drum. Just skip over their comments, you will come to the point where you will know what they are going to post even before you read it.

220. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #236733 by Dr Doctor on August 25, 2008 at 8:14 am

I was entertained by Richards' handling of the Anthony Flew question.

The atmosphere changed audibly once the name "Anthony Flew" was mentioned. I chuckled myself, and I wondered with Richard was similarly amused.

When the questioner built up to the name Anthony Flew I was trying to think of who he could be talking about....

221. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235519 by Dr Doctor on August 23, 2008 at 7:07 am

Talking of fanny patting, having watched them end to end for the third time in a relaxed environment (rather than while I was working or with a theist in the room) I want to retract my criticisms of the series. I now think I was talking bollocks.

222. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235494 by Dr Doctor on August 23, 2008 at 6:24 am

Not during the heady days of the Inquisition they didn't.

223. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235488 by Dr Doctor on August 23, 2008 at 6:12 am

Why is Evolutionary Biology (to whit: biology) the only subject singled out as a target by these closet theists and apologists? Why not mathematics? Or Spanish? Heck, lets even teach Rugby during a Football lesson or Tennis in a swimming lesson.

After all, only experts know they are seperate subjects.

How patronising to the student. Imagine going to the zoo and being told that there is a controversy as some believe those snakes could once talk.

224. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235471 by Dr Doctor on August 23, 2008 at 5:33 am

I think it would be great tactics to teach to school children that when they are in a hole of their own making to stop digging. It would save much trouble when they become adults.

(disclaimer: May be incompatible with some or all of your religious upbringing. Standard terms and conditions apply. Expectations subject to status )

225. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235467 by Dr Doctor on August 23, 2008 at 5:28 am

Meadon:

It was a science lesson about evolution, not a religious studies one. There was no onus on Richard to lie to the children about the compatibility of creationism and evolution.

In fact my opinion is that promulgating lies and fudges in the classroom to pander to ill conceived views of political correctness is disgracefully horrendously nefariously naughtily appalling pedagogy.

See how I did that?

226. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235460 by Dr Doctor on August 23, 2008 at 5:10 am

So to be clear: I am genuinely sorry for having offended Prof. Dawkins. Having thought again and having slept on it, I think the most plausible interpretation of the classroom scene is that he was arguing against creationism, not attacking religion.


Plausible?

At most I saw (and I just started watching it again finally having enough time to give it my full concentration) Dawkins argue for evolution, examining the evidence and getting the students to examine how they approach the subject - and of introducing them to critical thinking in general in a roundabout way.

It was therefore unfair of me to accuse Prof. Dawkins of "horrendously bad pedagogy".

I understand you have apologised and hope that is the end of it. I understand you are probably quite embarrassed. However, it wasn't just unfair it was wholly inaccurate.

I hope you don't just delete the sections of your blog post that you regret, but you consider changing your Friday blog post too.

227. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235450 by Dr Doctor on August 23, 2008 at 4:48 am

Good job he doesn't live on the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth.

228. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235442 by Dr Doctor on August 23, 2008 at 4:17 am

Yes, I apologise for my calling that an apology. Unreservedly.

229. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235439 by Dr Doctor on August 23, 2008 at 4:07 am

I also want to point out his latest blog entry


Friday, August 22, 2008
The Genius of Charles Darwin update
I criticized Richard Dawkins for his bad pedagogy in the first episode of his new Channel 4 documentary "The Genius of Charles Darwin" a while back. A quick note: all three episodes are now available for download on Dawkins' website. I haven't seen the third episode yet, but, despite the problems, I think the series is worth watching.
Posted by Michael Meadon at 6:28 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Atheism, Darwinism, Media


Do I really need to point out how the flawed attack on Dawkins' character is repeated?

Some apology.

230. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235437 by Dr Doctor on August 23, 2008 at 4:03 am

"'quibble' demeans a sincere apology, as does continuing to use 'lie', and to complain that he hasn't deleted them - when all it would require is your request (I imagine he will have inferred this by now, and will do so) - is at *best* an over-sight on your part, and at worst a highly dishonest attack on his character."

I think at best you are misreading Richard's reply and at worst you are quite mining in a highly dishonest attack on his character. At the very least you display a woeful bias for someone who claims to be able to rise above.

Joking aside, your characterisation of Richard's nuanced reply and my reading of it are so different that they are being unrecognisable, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that emotion is clouding your judgement.

It is pleasing to see someone defending a friend but read the blog article again - better still print it out and circle the ad homs in red ink. Then print out Richards' complaint and followup and take a second look.

What was revealing was that the blog writer didn't think Richard would read it. Must be a nice person to think he could get away with slandering someone simply because it was unlikely that Richard would read it even though he linked to it from a prominent article on here. If the writer had felt as strongly as he claims about the issues he raises then he would not have repeated then surely he would have taken the issue up with the Prof. directly. Why hide such scathing criticism?

231. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235422 by Dr Doctor on August 23, 2008 at 2:55 am

245: Life needs more silliness.

232. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235420 by Dr Doctor on August 23, 2008 at 2:54 am

Nut couplets for you 243.

233. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235415 by Dr Doctor on August 23, 2008 at 2:38 am

"As a professional educator, I can say that it boils down to this far more often than I would like. Some people simply refuse to learn. "

Yes, a far more rational perspective than the oft quoted quip "Education is wasted on the young.". Some are frightened of having their world view challenged (I've noticed some are terrified of having their self image challenged no matter what age they are so it is hardly surprising).

This is what I mean about making available accessible, attractive and simple explanations of evolution that go way beyond the barely adequate mandatory classroom ones for those that don't drift into the more academic streams.

Then [b]when people are ready to listen[/b], there is something well known and easy to grasp. I used to keep a count in my diary of the adults I had met with a faulty understanding of the mechanism of evolution.

Dawkins has been successfully dead-agented as far as many are concerned. The wholesale closing of ears and minds whenever his name is mentioned is quite disturbing to witness and is artfully contrived.

234. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235021 by Dr Doctor on August 22, 2008 at 11:13 am

Prof. Dawkins,

Any chance of persuading Channel 4 (or the BBC) to produce a solid, brand new, lavish and compelling documentary on evolution with you as presenter?

Something as thorough as Climbing Mount Improbable with the production values of The Blue Planet should suffice to end the sympathy amongst the British for creationism/ID once and for all.

[ on topic - Rowan Williams gave the impression of someone who knows what he is saying is unsupportable and unconvincing. A man going through the motions, I feel. ]

235. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #234909 by Dr Doctor on August 22, 2008 at 7:10 am

"Is Mr Andrew trying to imply that if there were fewer programmes about evolution, people would be more likely to accept it? "

It is the Brer Rabbit and the briar patch all over again.

The problem for the series was that there was a week between each episode. If you watch the episodes back to back it works perfectly, the creationist nutbags don't just look out of touch with reality there is no need for Dawkins to respond more robustly than he does.

The last episode in the series could have done with a stronger rebuttal (read: a more in depth refresher of the evidence with the pretty pictures and graphics we have come to expect from documentaries about the natural world) to the creationists shown at each point - in my view.

But it is arrogant for me to presume this applies to anyone else. For me, a killer series would have been to unweave some of the themes a little in the first two and present the three segments as a clearer comparison of Darwins' background/evidence/argument with the modern problem. It seemed repetitious but that might be because of recent forays into Google Videos to look for other programmes and lectures.

But back to the point, the controversy exists whether or not Dawkins addresses the creationists in public. By addressing the creationists he at least improves the probability that the scientific point of view gets heard and understood.

That can only be a good thing.

236. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #233742 by Dr Doctor on August 20, 2008 at 11:16 am

I can't help thinking that the series taught the controversy, that there was a missed opportunity to present in detail the ideas of Darwin and in depth evidence of Natural Selection.

The balance, IMO, wasn't right.

Plus I was left feeling pretty despondant at the end.

237. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #233621 by Dr Doctor on August 20, 2008 at 5:47 am

Stuck in a social function when The Genius of Charles Darwin episode 3 was shown I'm reduced to YouTube.

I don't think I've ever been this depressed. I've listened to the Stepford wife droning on about teaching the controversy, transitional forms and the close mindedness of scientists. I've listened to the pillock of a science teacher who thinks the Bible (written by people) trumps science because scientists are fallible human beings.

I was expecting Richard to grab both of them by the scruff of the neck and frogmarch them down to a natural history museum.

How on earth can this madness be fought?

I hope the later parts of this YouTubed version cheer me up because right now it sounds hopeless.

238. The God Delusion

Comment #229715 by Dr Doctor on August 14, 2008 at 1:09 am

If you have any knowledge of the history of this site, you should know full well who "they" are. It is people like David Robertson or Dinesh D'Souza who regularly trawl this site. Many people actually believe what these people say.

So? Are you really going to try and straightjacket the rest of the site because of your fear of what someone else might say or what they might think?

This shows naivety in my view. We have seen people like Robertson and R. Morgan make just such generalisations about "atheists" based on a few posts here.

You are replacing one generalisation with another, and again showing fear here. In fact, worse than that you are pandering to it.

This is also the first time I have been accused of paranoia (let alone "raving paranoia"). I don't think the number of sock puppets we have experienced here makes this an especially paranoid hypothesis.

Can I point out that is now the third time in a row, in one post, where you have carefully snipped what I said? Running around accusing everyone whose behaviour you don't like of being a theist is woeful and paranoiac.


You may be happy for this site to degrade to the kind of rubbish that is seen on other open forums. I'm not. To avoid that, people who post highly offensive nonsense need to be challenged.

Then pray do complain to the moderators, or better yet use the private message facility to tell off those you wish to tell off. I've pointed out to you before that your attitude on behaviour is highly selective.

What you have done here smacks of posturing. You must have known full well (unless you are naive) that presenting him with the choices you did was insulting and would give him no wiggle room to address his attitude in a way you wish and that a more appropriate response would be to use the private messaging facility. What were you hoping for? Some kind of scrum? The guy getting bullied off the board by everyone leaping in going "yeah, sock it to him Zara"?

I'd be more impressed if you applied your teachers ' cane to misbehaving atheists with any kind of objectivity. Instead, you let slip far worse past your radar.

If you are going to lead, lead by example. If not, I suggest you examine your own performance in this thread: It is seriously below your usual par.

In the meantime, sorry to break it to you Steve, but you aren't a moderator here. I'd considered sending you this in private, but I hope you might see from your own reaction why your post was such a bad idea and unlikely to elicit the change you seek.

239. The God Delusion

Comment #229677 by Dr Doctor on August 13, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Asking kkelly a "how long have you been beating your wife?" type question isn't particularly admirable behaviour either.

But more to the point, how are "they" going to judge "us" from this incident? Who are "they" and "us" in this situation?

As for people judging all homosexuals by kkelly shows a strange leap of logic to me. I didn't realise homosexuality was a set of character attributes, moral guardianship and ability to write well on scientific subjects. I thought it was just about having a sex drive that caused one to chose a mate from ones' own sex. How naive am I?

Who cares if kkelly is a "theist plant", although to be honest that sounds as ravingly paranoiac as the recent run in between a New York atheist association and two atheists from here who merely tried to point out that Rook Hawkins did not have the qualifications he was claiming and were called "agents of the Vatican" and asked about their experiences in sodomising young altar boys.

When people with similar attributes start with such group think the alarms should go off. How about live and let live? How about letting kkelly and whomever it is he has a beef with sorting it out themselves? How about learning to ignore him if you don't like what he writes?

Falling into the trap of confronting people who don't conform to what others might be trying to impose on atheism should be resisted.

240. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229121 by Dr Doctor on August 13, 2008 at 5:40 am

"Why must selection always come into play and why is it the only factor that determines our behaviour if it does? I think this is too reductionist. I don't know what the break down is, but I suspect that most of our behaviour are probably selection neutral."

I'd use possibly rather than probably there. How can probability come into it? Is there a breakdown of physical attributes that are selection neutral at the moment and have always been selection neutral or attributes that were selected for but are now neutral (and extraneous)?

"Theories,--actually speculations,--that attempt to explain complex human behaviour and cultural patterns in terms of selection often strikes me as simplistic, willfully myopic and forced, they have the signs of bad science in that they appear to "select" data to fit the theory retrospectively, "

Dark matter, 'nuff said. ;)

241. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229097 by Dr Doctor on August 13, 2008 at 5:11 am

Really? I prefer shuttle diplomacy, but I can't afford the fuel bill.

242. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229088 by Dr Doctor on August 13, 2008 at 4:52 am

Decius #374

As Dawkins Literalists we can blame our Genes for making us Selfish, I will consider that as I head out of wifi range during todays climb of Mount Improbable.

243. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229082 by Dr Doctor on August 13, 2008 at 4:46 am

#365 irate_atheist

Love is something that I'd never condition on rationality. You either love someone, or you don't so I quite understand.

The psychosis was limited to the religion she'd been brought up indoctrinated in so, I hoped, was no more than a result of the hideous brainwashing and unfortunate circumstances she was in.

I'm caught between thinking that there must be some evolutionary reason for such weaknesses - I mean our susceptibility to brainwashing, or that it just has not been filtered out by any kind of natural selection and the alternative thought that the mind is just much easier to program the younger you are as a byproduct of needing to learn from parents and almost impossible to repair later on as an adult.

That this weakness manifests itself in one direction (thinking you are napoleon, having imaginary friends, thinking you can dance at your teenagers 18th birthday party and thinking you can have little personal chats with the creator of multi-billion lightyear wide Universe) at a time is quite weird.

. I just wasn't going to let these ignorant cunts wreck another life and take away the girl I'd fallen in love with. Not if it killed me.

Yep. I can drink to that thought.

244. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229063 by Dr Doctor on August 13, 2008 at 4:10 am

Decius

Sounds like your relative enjoys a challenge.

On theists and marrying them, what if you were already married to them and they turned theist? Would you then divorce?

245. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229052 by Dr Doctor on August 13, 2008 at 3:41 am

When you've seen someone's book that contains what she's said to god - and, yes, what he's said back - direct reasoning and confrontation is a dangerous thing, for both parties.

That is jaw dropping. Do the "God" replies use different handwriting, or is it wholly "her" account?

I can only liken it to being a psychiatrist treating a patient who is suffering from psychotic delusions.

Well yes, that is when it goes over the line from our susceptibility to believe into what sounds, at face value, like insanity.

246. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228987 by Dr Doctor on August 13, 2008 at 1:10 am

Deciusm:

"In another occasion, she almost drowned in the Chinese sea after their fundie-boat capsized. Do you think she thanked the rescuers? No need, in her mind it was a supernatural intervention that saved her."

Never mind the peculiar fundie-arrogance being on a fundie boat? She is an activist?

At least ours is an armchair "Godidit".

247. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228764 by Dr Doctor on August 12, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Ours is a repeat offender, a lapsed rationalist. I had to put up with reducto ad flagellar on Sunday.

248. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228756 by Dr Doctor on August 12, 2008 at 1:54 pm

We thoroughly enjoyed this second episode. It might be because I was not on edge this time (our family theist did not show) but the flashes of humour really lifted the atmosphere of the programme and helped deliver the message.

Incidentally I also encountered for the first time Richard's "Atheist Call To Arms" Ted Talk which was also sublime. It was interesting to see how much of what Richard said was required to effect change is being delivered ("if only my books sold as well as Hawkings ... I would set [a foundation] up myself").

If I had any criticism, it would be the subjectivity[*] when talking about the selfish gene theory, such language whilst perfectly acceptable in a scientific context is just going to be fuel for the "preacher Dawkins" fire.

I'd like to ask what people think has changed since that TED talk. Has real social change been effected?

* - I think this might be the wrong word. I mean use of phrases such as "I believe" suggest a lack of evidence to the lay viewer.

Dr Doctor, cryptic crossword fan and proud to be an ape.

249. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227889 by Dr Doctor on August 11, 2008 at 2:32 am

I am very glad that many atheists, including myself, are speaking up and out. I hope that "both sides" hear those of us who speak most loudly for tolerance, respect, humility, and understanding.

Lovely to watch someone pat themselves on the back.

"Do you want to be helpful or do you want to be right?"

But I guess that means you are being helpful. Somehow.

250. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227445 by Dr Doctor on August 10, 2008 at 12:03 am

Revealing:

Otherwise it was a good documentary. Lucid and enthusiastic, Dawkins is more likeable on screen than in his finger-jabbing prose.

Perhaps because when you see or hear Dawkins you are getting his voice, when you read Dawkins you can imagine whatever tone you need or expect to hear.