201. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75600 by Jack Rawlinson on October 3, 2007 at 5:45 am

Richard, I don't understand your argument. Pugilistic? So? I'm afraid I do regard this as a fight.

An "I'm a heliocentrist" T-shirt would be pointless because non-heliocentrists no longer exist in any significant quantity and such as do certainly have no power or influence.

This is decidely not true of theists, is it? Your comparison is simply not appropriate. We are in the position of having irrational people in power, affecting our lives on a daily basis in both overt and insidious ways. It is precisely because we have taken your suggested approach that we find this situation deteriorating. Complacency and deference to the religious have undone us. Most schools in Britain are now faith schools! Only thirty years ago, when I was a kid, that would have shocked the hell out of the country! How did that happen? It happened because we rational people sat back, quietly "respected" the religious people as they sought influence, became politically active, achieved power and used it.

Look at America and the situation is even more obvious. Christian universities were created with the stated intent of getting their graduates into positions of political power. And they did. They were not content to sit back and let the wheels of time grind slowly, hoping that, you know, the good guys always win in the end.

Great social advance has frequently come about through fighting; through people brave and angry enough to take to the streets or to strike or to just damned well shout their grievances loudly and often.

Abortion rights are under threat. Stem cell research is under threat. Even the right to contraception is under threat. The pope and his vile crew continue to make life hell for people all over the world, especially the third world. The US Supreme Court is one 87-year old man away from being controlled by theists. Wake up, this is a fight. For some of us, at least. The rest can hold our coats, if they like.

202. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75593 by Jack Rawlinson on October 3, 2007 at 5:30 am

Matt7895: yes. I think the very reason we're being subjected to stereotyping and the same repeated fallacious attacks is because we're having an effect. We've rattled them. In fact, it's arguably good that they keep trotting out these hoary old anti-atheist reactions because the more they do that, and the more tireless we are in pointing it out, the more they start to look like rock-headed, incorrigible bigots.

That pleases me.

Don't fall for it, people. If we retreat from the term that accurately defines what we all have in common - a-theism, a lack of theism - then they win on the divide and conquer principle. And yes, VanYoungman, atheism is the most inclusive definition of what our otherwise disparate and widely-varying crowd have in common. Having no belief in God. If we allow ourselves to dribble off into little groups of rationalists/brights/secularists/humanists/nice-people-who-think-maybe-you-should-ease-up-on-the-god-stuff then the momentum we've built up will break and disperse. And the believers would love nothing better than that.

I know that many of us, by nature, feel uncomfortable with grouping behind a label, any label. But when your objective is action and social change, it's necessary. And it might as well be as accurate as possible. Our efforts should be directed to combating and exposing the bigotry and ignorance which lies behind the stereotyping and fallacies about atheists. We will need to repeat ourselves a lot, just as RD does. That is undeniably tiresome (I've been at it for over thirty years!) but that's fighting for you. If you're up against an army you have to keep firing.

203. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75577 by Jack Rawlinson on October 3, 2007 at 3:41 am

Well, I wrote at length on the convention yesterday and mentioned Harris's view on the use of the term "atheism". I think he's dead wrong, and here's why.

It seems to me that it would be in the interest of the religious if we back down from describing ourselves as precisely what we are. That would be a win for them because it would make us look weak, appeasing, easily intimidated. It would be like homophobes bullying gays out of using the term "gay": something we know was frequently and aggressively attempted when gays first started openly using that word. And let's face it: to this day gay people still face a hell of a lot of the sort of knee-jerk negative preconceptions Sam frets about for atheists, yes? But we wouldn't use that as a reason to propose gay people should drop the term, would we?

Or, perhaps more appropriately, it would be like the mealy-mouthed attempt to describe black people as "coloured" or the even more nauseating euphemism, "people of colour". How did black people react to that? "Say it loud, I'm black and I'm proud".

We don't have to be proud to be atheists, but by hell we should say it loud.

204. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #75326 by Jack Rawlinson on October 2, 2007 at 10:48 am

For anyone interested, I wrote a report of the Convention. It's pretty long, so I'll link to where I posted it. It's a primitive old message board with no HTML so excuse the format.

http://www.phlogredux.org/messages/158253.html

205. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #75244 by Jack Rawlinson on October 2, 2007 at 6:04 am

It's "Variable" Jack. It must be your age! :)

Aiee! Pwn3d!!!

Thanks...err.. Damian? :-)

206. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #75123 by Jack Rawlinson on October 1, 2007 at 9:40 pm

v4ri4bl3: (nice friendly handle you have there, by the way. Is it your online bank account password, perchance? Do tell.)

I do hope you were able to, at least, catch your breath before allowing the second part of your opening statement to belie the first.

An interesting opening gambit, which seems to be demonstrably at odds with observable reality. Unless, perhaps, I am very, very thick. I suppose I must accept that as a possibility, much as it pains me.

we can conclude that believing in something for which one has no evidence is not an effective means for understanding our world.

I'm right with you there, me old china.

However, this doesn't give me any right to belittle and castigate those who think otherwise.

Oh dear. I'm afraid I'm not with you there so much. You see, I happen to think that when people profess bad, evil and stupid beliefs or ideas, they are eminently deserving of castigation and belittling. I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that one.

So, do you or do you not think Christians are idiots?

Which part of "...they think Christians are idiots for the same reason I do" was unclear to you? Do you, perhaps, have developmental difficulties? My deepest and most heartfelt commiserations.

Because you "talked with a few of them," you seem to think you have reason to call them all idiots.

Ah, you choose to repeat the same fallacy I called you out on in my previous post. Not impressive. Let me attempt to drive it through your recalcitrant skull a further time. Do me a big favour and see if you can manage to pay attention this time, would you? There's a good chap.

"...they think Christians are idiots for the same reason I do: because they have an idiotic belief system."

Did you get that? Let me spell it out again. I think Christians are idiots because they have an idiotic belief system. That's the reason I think Christians are idiots. There's no other reason. Still struggling to understand plain English? Shall I say it again? Okay then, here it is. I think Christians are idiots because Christian beliefs are idiotic. Not because I talked with a few Christians who were idiots. No no no. That was merely what we call corroborative evidence.

I think that is despicable.

You do? Oh Lordy. There goes any chance of my sleeping tonight. I shall break out the tear-proof pillow covers at once.


We disagree. And that is ok.

You bet your self-important arse it is, sonny.

207. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #75011 by Jack Rawlinson on October 1, 2007 at 10:56 am

"And you treat Christians as if they were all idiots, simply because you disagree with them."

That's almost certainly a lie, and one much-beloved by religious apologists and the "I'm an atheist but" brigade(Can we start calling those irksome folk IAABs or something?) I won't speak for the RRS - they're more than capable of doing that for themselves - but again, I talked with a few of them and I have every reason to believe they think Christians are idiots for the same reason I do: because they have an idiotic belief system.

I disagree with Hitchens on Iraq, but I sure as hell don't think he's an idiot.

Do better than flinging out lazy, unjustified assumptions if you're going to criticise the RRS.

208. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74935 by Jack Rawlinson on October 1, 2007 at 6:59 am

bayareadude: fascinating.

I was at the convention too and I had no problem with Richard's behaviour. Yes, his manner and personality are very, very different from Hitch's. But when I saw him he was unfailingly civil and polite, if quieter and more reticent with the public than some of the other speakers.

I didn't speak to him beyond a couple of greetings and so on but he was fine.

I saw him smiling a lot.

And here's the thing that struck me the most. He attended far more of the secondary events than any of the other speakers. That impressed me.

They're different people. Hitch is always going to be the big, gregarious barroom socialiser. Harris seemed incredibly shy. Richard is restrained, quiet but polite. Dan Dennett is polite and warm. I think you projected unreasonable expectations onto the prof. He was pretty much how I expected him to be.

209. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #74930 by Jack Rawlinson on October 1, 2007 at 6:39 am

And just for "balance", folks... check out the latest from Theo "Mad-eyes" Hobson in the same edition of The Guardian.

Go kick him around a bit. I have. :-)

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/theo_hobson/2007/10/deliver_us_from_dawkins.html

210. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74821 by Jack Rawlinson on September 30, 2007 at 4:23 pm

And Jesus, people, I'm only just catching up on this thread. Stop dissing anger, for Christ's sake. Some things are worth getting angry about and it is perfectly possible to be angry and remain rational. Anger does not equal irrationality and it does not equal violence. You sound like those religious idiots who accuse Richard of "shrillness" when in truth he's just being passionate or earnest. Anger can be healthy and necessary. Or as John Lydon put it, "anger is an energy". Stop being such hand-wringing nancies.

211. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74820 by Jack Rawlinson on September 30, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Yorker: I intend to post about the convention. I just got back a couple of hours ago so tonight I'm just chilling with some nice red wine. Suffice to say for now that it was really interesting and far more fun than I expected. And I never did get to meet Homo Economicus because he didn't have "Homo Economicus" on his badge! I met Obscured By Clouds though, and he's a cool guy. As is Pastor Deacon Fred of Landover Baptist. More to follow...

212. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74719 by Jack Rawlinson on September 30, 2007 at 5:58 am

Posting from the final day of the convention I have to say that having talked with members of the RRS and learned a bit more about what they do first hand, my respect for them has gone up quite a lot. These people are incredibly hard-working and enthusiastic and yes, some of their tactics are perhaps questionable but they are really out there actively taking theism on. They're doing real activism. For that alone I admire them. And to those who bitch about their style and methods I'd say: get out there and do it your way instead. The more ways the better. Let's see which ones have the most impact.

213. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #72957 by Jack Rawlinson on September 23, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Actually, my mistake. This isn't the article I was thinking of. There actually is a Tristram Hunt who wrote an anti-Dawkins, pro-religion piece in The Guardian at around the same time. This piece is vapid rubbish too, but not quite so directly insulting to atheists. And I have to give Farrow respect for getting into the argument and responding to the comments. Very few god-pushers do that at The Guardian.

214. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #72953 by Jack Rawlinson on September 23, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Not Hunt. Farrow. I get these idiots mixed up.

215. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #72952 by Jack Rawlinson on September 23, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Yeah, this one's a week and a half old and I laid into it (along with many others) on the Guardian itself. My initial comment was deleted because, apparently, it's okay for Hunt and his fellow religious apologists to insult atheists ("stupid, solipsistic") but not okay when we respond in kind. Such is The Guardian's pro-religion policy these days. I self-censored my post and re-submitted it. I wonder if it's still there. But not too much. I've almost had it with The Guardian.

216. Poll: Are Dawkins and Hitchens good for humanism?

Comment #72758 by Jack Rawlinson on September 22, 2007 at 5:27 pm

And I'd like to second Robert's point about respect. My disagreement with people like Hitchens over the Iraq invasion is a case in point: it doesn't mean I don't respect him. It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone and still respect them.

217. Poll: Are Dawkins and Hitchens good for humanism?

Comment #72756 by Jack Rawlinson on September 22, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Bonzai: I do think that this poll has far more to do with Hitchens' attacks on religion. As far as those are concerned I have no hesitation supporting him. His support for the Iraq war was wrong, and it's a shame that (perhaps because of his instinctively combative personality) he now feels he has to defend it, even in the face of the brutal evidence of just how wrong it was. I've met quite a number of otherwise intelligent, humane people who have fallen into that bad place, I'm afraid.

It's always hard to admit error, but it's especially so when that error has resulted in death, torture and mayhem on such a massive scale. And when your ideological opponents predicted exactly that result it's just a little too hard for many people. I understand that.

218. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72672 by Jack Rawlinson on September 22, 2007 at 7:33 am

Dr Benway, thank you for that wonderful coffee analogy. I have wasted far too many hours trying to get theists like Dianelos to understand the nub of the anthropic principle argument. I shall certainly be adding that one to the armory!

219. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72671 by Jack Rawlinson on September 22, 2007 at 7:27 am

That was great, and the reason it was great is that it's an American show. I think maybe people in Britain and elsewhere outside the US still don't really get that it's unusual and gutsy to have an American TV host saying things like that so clearly and uncompromisingly. America needs more if it.

220. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72439 by Jack Rawlinson on September 21, 2007 at 5:33 am

*Yawn*

1. The mass of believers do not study Eagleton's obscure theology either. They believe in something far more like the sort of god RD primarily attacks in TGD

2. Courtier's reply.

3. Put up or shut up: if Eagleton and his defenders are so impressed by Dun Scotus et al's wondrous arguments, let them present them. Let them, perhaps, write a best-selling book expounding the ideas for the general reader. Oh - still not done that yet? I wonder why.

Next.

221. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #72019 by Jack Rawlinson on September 20, 2007 at 6:49 am

I think this one hits a new low. Well... actually there are so many lows in it I thought a herd of cows had invaded the site.

Quite apart from the staggering quantity of blatant lies in the piece you have to be astounded at the gall of this person presuming to tell RD what natural selection is!

222. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71091 by Jack Rawlinson on September 17, 2007 at 8:07 pm

No. Just no. Why is this guy trying to meld the bullshit practices of the religious onto atheism? Atheism is about rejecting all that cultish, ritualistic shit. I don't like this at all.

"We need to get visible and let people know that we're much more like [believers] than different from them,"

No, we really don't. Because we're not like them. We're different from them. Really, really different in a very fundamental, very crucial way. Why are you trying to deny that? Could it be that perhaps you're still religious at heart?

I have a bad taste in my mouth.

223. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70724 by Jack Rawlinson on September 16, 2007 at 6:52 pm

And I'd add that I've lived in the US for the last six years (nearly) and I still happily and proudly declare my atheism at the slightest opportunity. It's much more entertaining to do so over here!

224. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70723 by Jack Rawlinson on September 16, 2007 at 6:50 pm

ksskidude asks: "Have any of you actually come out in public and declared your atheism?"

Well, yeah. When I was about 14 and extremely loudly and frequently ever since. But then I'm British, so it wasn't really a big deal. :-)

225. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70687 by Jack Rawlinson on September 16, 2007 at 3:43 pm

I'm with sapient on this much: I have no problem at all with insulting the religious. They've insulted me (and my intelligence) all my life and I hold most of them in such contempt I'd be something of a hypocrite if I entirely concealed that.

I also think there's a potential value in provocation: these people have been granted undeserved respect for so long it's arguably useful to subject them to its opposite. Sometimes really shaking someone rattles them out of an easy complacency. It challenges them. It makes them realise the extent to which their precious beliefs are despised, in certain quarters. And if it doesn't? If it just reinforces their idiocy? No loss: such people are probably lost causes anyway. I'm certainly willing to take the chance.

Also, it feels right to me. Also, it's fun. :-)

You go, sapient. You stick it to 'em in a different way to me, but you still stick it to 'em. That's the main thing.

226. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70676 by Jack Rawlinson on September 16, 2007 at 2:55 pm

The RRS's style differs from mine (although I like their in-your-face attitude) and I really don't think we needed this sort of point-by-point blog rebuttal here on the main page, but I'm with the people who say, "the more the merrier". Let it spread where it will. The more people who become motivated to actively resist religion, the better.

227. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69037 by Jack Rawlinson on September 9, 2007 at 3:20 pm

I hate this, and I hate the person who wrote it.

Because, goddammit, I wish I'd written it myself!

Beautiful. I hope RD sees this. I think he'll appreciate it.

228. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68978 by Jack Rawlinson on September 9, 2007 at 11:29 am

Corylus: there's no ginger prejudice here. Those of us who have made such remarks are ironically taking the piss out of Hobson's resorting to physical insults ("jowly") against Hitchens. Hell, my girlfriend's a ginge. I mean redhead. :-)

229. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68924 by Jack Rawlinson on September 9, 2007 at 6:12 am

World Net Daily is a right-wing, god-bothering loony camp. I'd be disappointed if we didn't cause these crazies to wet their beds and cry for mommy at least once.

230. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68707 by Jack Rawlinson on September 8, 2007 at 8:06 am

kraut: calling a lot of very thoughtful and compassionate people - including me - "washed-out commies" is not a good way to avoid starting a fight. However, I really, really don't think this is the place for a scrap about politics, so I'm not going to rise to the bait. I'd encourage others here to do likewise.

231. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68702 by Jack Rawlinson on September 8, 2007 at 7:50 am

Northern Bright: good response. I hope you sent it to the letters editor as well as posting it on the comments section.

I can't get to the Telegraph piece right now, but from that quoted paragraph attempting to conflate the virus metaphor with Nazism... well, I think I can guess what to expect.

232. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68667 by Jack Rawlinson on September 8, 2007 at 3:32 am

Jesus, NMcC... where did that splenetic rant against JemyM come from? The post was broadly reasonable and made a couple of good points. Yes, the "born equal in the USA" line was rather naive to say the least, but aside from that the thrust of JemyM's post was certainly not "crap from beginning to end". If this is some sort of personal grudge thing could I suggest you take it elsewhere?

233. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68634 by Jack Rawlinson on September 8, 2007 at 1:09 am

detox: did you notice that that reviewer has only one review on Amazon - this very promptly added rave about Crean's book? Interesting. I'm sure it must be absolutely genuine. :-)

234. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68632 by Jack Rawlinson on September 8, 2007 at 1:01 am

I feel a weary duty to read these books - or at least to start them - out of a sense of fair play. We complain that many of RD's critics clearly haven't read TGD, or have read it inattentively, so it seems only fair that we should read these before criticising them. Even though, I hasten to add, the evidence shows that they are almost certainly likely to be tedious retreads of the same tired old "arguments" we have become so used to debunking.

Still, I hate the idea of putting money into the hands of these people, so to date I've sneakily read chunks of them in bookstores, to at least get a feel for the standard of counter-attack. So far it has been almost shockingly weak and, as we all know, highly reliant on distortion, misrepresentation, misunderstanding or plain old lying, as in the case of that shamefully dishonest Cornwell character.

I'll have a look at these next time I'm in Barnes and Noble... :-)

235. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68539 by Jack Rawlinson on September 7, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Well, I suppose some congratulation is in order for Mr. Hobson as he seems to have managed to slightly moderate the shrieking, panicked hysteria of his recent, astonishingly pisspoor Guardian piece - probably, at least in part, because of the thorough kicking it took in the comments section. Unfortunately he seems unable to entirely conceal this aspect of his genetic makeup, which seems to be as firmly ingrained in him as his receding red hairline (oh - I'm sorry Theo! Was that unfair? You know, a bit like calling your opponent "jowly"? Excuse me while I entirely fail to apologise.) As a result he finds himself unable to resist repeating the absurd "pretentious" and "cowardly" insults, even if he does moderate the latter to refer rather more accurately to the religious than to atheists (...one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty, 'us good' over 'you bad').



He repeats the lie - roundly debunked in the aforementioned Guardian row - that "Atheism of the kind they espouse is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does." It is becoming increasingly clear, is it not, that the faith heads are becoming more and more guilty of simply paying no attention to rebuttals of their fatuous statements, preferring to simply repeat them over and over again like well-trained parrots. And yet they shriek and thrash like throttled chickens should we have the temerity to point this out and use it to suggest that their intellectual probity might be somewhat lacking.

He makes claims - for example, "But this is to make an assumption about the relationship between rationality and moral progress that does not stand up." - and then offers not the slightest support for them. He has the utterly comical self-blindness to call atheism - or at least one particular straw man version of it - "naive". How blackly humorous to be called "naive" by someone who believes in incredible things without proof!

Next he attempts a standard faith head tactic - redefining religion as something so wide, so shape-shifting, so thoroughly general as to be meaningless. He drivels on, in his balding, gingery way (sorry!) about raves and sports and rallies... and tries, desperately, to suggest that these are all somehow "religious", in the vain hope that this means we will turn our attention and attacks away from the primitive dimwits who grovel in pews and on prayer mats; who bob and nod like silly little budgie toys in front of wailing walls; who condemn contraception, and who actively and effectively seek to restrict its availability in the third world and beyond; who pontificate daily about morality on the basis of patent fantasy and ancient superstition.

Sorry Theo. In case you haven't got it yet, we're smarter than that. Much smarter. Unlike benighted souls like you who, apparently, struggle to distinguish a yoga class from a catholic mass.

Next, the goggly-eyed ginger madman (Christ! I'm sorry Theo! I'm just following your lovely Christian example!) trots out playground tactic no. 37 - the "I know you are but what am I?" shtick. He claims that the anti-religious person needs his anti-religious "beliefs"; that they are a "faith". He states this as precisely what it is: an opinion. No attempt to back it up whatsoever. But as I say, it is more than an opinion; it is a tactic. It is the same tactic as that used by those who try to damn us as fundamentalists. They think, in their pathetic naivety (oh no! I can do it too!), that by turning our criticisms of them back against us, they will silence us. Oh dear. They seem unable to detect that when we call them naive, or needy, or driven by faith rather than reason and evidence... we provide examples and reasons of why we are saying that. They also seem to struggle with the idea that this makes any difference.

I wonder if it's time to re-link the evidence that shows religious people tend to be of lower IQ and lesser educational achievement than atheists? Possibly not. :-)

Finally - why on earth did he put that mystifying "sic" after Hitch's use of the word "man" in "...it wholly misrepresents the origins of man (sic) and the cosmos"? Is the moon-faced rustnut (damn! stop influencing me, Theo!) unaware, perhaps, that "man" is a widely accepted term for "mankind", and that it includes women too? Is he, perish the thought, trying to score a cheap shot against Hitch for quite rightly pointing out that religion has been, and is, responsible for the most egregious sexism and repression of women? Is that a measure of how desperate he is? Surely not!

Hey Theo? Have you considered hair dye? Or a toupee? Sorry! I can't help myself! I'm too easily led!

236. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68423 by Jack Rawlinson on September 7, 2007 at 6:47 am

This tripe is getting a well-deserved kicking over on the comments page at The Guardian, not least from RD himself. Me and quite a few regulars from this site have also weighed in. It's pretty busy, and I recommend you join the melee - assuming you haven't already!

237. Interview with Richard Dawkins and John Cornwell

Comment #68391 by Jack Rawlinson on September 7, 2007 at 4:02 am

Well, that was frustrating to listen to. It boiled down to Cornwell repeatedly telling lies about what RD had said and RD repeatedly pointing that out. What made it frustrating was that it was not possible for RD to give specific examples of the lies, with proof, as he did in his recent "Willful mendacity" post here.

One can only hope it will prompt people to read the books and judge for themselves. Although of course, many will prefer to simply believe the person who represents their "side".

238. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68189 by Jack Rawlinson on September 6, 2007 at 10:14 am

hungarianelephant: thanks for giving the wonderful "Knowledge of Angels" a mention. That's a superb novel and I can't recommend it highly enough. It's certainly one that atheists will appreciate.

239. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #68155 by Jack Rawlinson on September 6, 2007 at 8:58 am

These are some of the latest examples of the tiresome but traditional tactic of the religious apologist: to shamelessly twist, misrepresent and - sometimes - tell outright lies about what atheists say, believe and argue. They do this for a very simple reason: it's so much easier to beat straw men than real ones.

I've long been used to it in my battles with the religious and their defenders, and it's annoying but sadly predictable to see it happening in print with regard to the contents of TGD and the other recent "New Atheist" works.

We just have to keep nailing them whenever and wherever they appear, as you've done here. It's a constant game of Whack-a-Mole!

240. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #68142 by Jack Rawlinson on September 6, 2007 at 8:43 am

Standard arrogant drivel from Alibhai-Brown; the latest in the long line of lazy religious apologists to trot out the same increasingly threadbare and flea-infested straw men.

The title of the piece is jaw-droppingly ignorant, as well as arrogant. It assumes that "these atheists" have never been religious which, of course, many of us have. And many of us know very well what religious faith means, what it entails and how it feels. We did not come to our current views on religion from a position of ignorance or inexperience of it.

It seems to be incredibly difficult to get such simple ideas into the heads of these flustered, blustering apologists. It's almost as if they lack certain basic areas of intelligence and comprehension. But that couldn't be right, could it? :-)

241. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #68136 by Jack Rawlinson on September 6, 2007 at 8:25 am

So, the nub of the argument here would appear to be, "Truth is 'unattractive', so I'm going to whine about the people who avidly pursue it".

It smacks of the sort of weak-minded, hand-wringing attitude one sees in the more delicate, sensitive little souls at the church coffee morning, doesn't it? I can see how that would justify only calling yourself a HALF-decent atheist. You'd need a bit more backbone to be a completely decent one.

242. Bible Belter

Comment #68133 by Jack Rawlinson on September 6, 2007 at 8:13 am

"...the whole performance not dulled by other equally formidable Richard Burton habits"

That made me laugh out loud! I just finished "God Is Not Great" myself, and while I had a few minor quibbles with the structure and weighting of some of Hitchens' arguments I thoroughly enjoyed it, and this is a fair review.

243. In God we doubt

Comment #68109 by Jack Rawlinson on September 6, 2007 at 6:39 am

Sad to see someone as sharp and sublimely arrogant as Humphrys in the "I'm an atheist but..." camp. I thought he had a bit more intellectual rigour about him than that. Oh well, it doesn't amount to much. Because we're right and they're wrong. :-)

244. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67061 by Jack Rawlinson on September 1, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Good God! They printed my reply! I'm astounded!

245. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66943 by Jack Rawlinson on September 1, 2007 at 4:16 am

It never ceases to disgust and amaze how religious apologists - and more specifically, those who seek to trash Dawkins - not only specialise in self-deception but also in the attempted deception of others. What we see from this review is yet another tiresome litany of the usual predictable and shamelessly fallacious criticisms of Dawkins and The God Delusion. These include the blatant straw man ("[Dawkins]...dishonestly bundles all religious belief and practice into one crude bag that supposedly equals fanaticism.") and the silly old 'Emperor's New Clothes' or 'serious theology' tripe (Dawkins... breezy disregard for...serious theology. )which PZ Myers so brilliantly ridiculed with his wonderful "Courtier's Reply"

(http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php).

As for the final point about the wisdom of not knowing, well really... one is almost left speechless at the shocking irony of reading a religious apologist criticising Dawkins on those grounds. Whenever I read articles like this I find myself thinking for perhaps the thousandth time that religious people are simply not very intelligent. Or at least, that they have some crucial area of their brain disabled :that part responsible for intellectual analysis and critical thought.

246. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66378 by Jack Rawlinson on August 29, 2007 at 9:09 pm

"An Englishman has to be quiet when an Irishman talks"

Great argument, Paddy!

247. 'Jesus loves you' email

Comment #66160 by Jack Rawlinson on August 29, 2007 at 5:33 am

Scooternyc: I'll be there. Are you going?

248. Scientists Induce Out-of-Body Sensation

Comment #65333 by Jack Rawlinson on August 23, 2007 at 4:42 pm

I had an OBE when I took some particularly potent acid. It was fantastic. But I'd have had to be a real idiot not to realise that it was happening because my altered brain chemistry was messing with my normal perception.

249. Enemies of Reason

Comment #65009 by Jack Rawlinson on August 22, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Great stuff. I'm particularly interested in the placebo effect and I was glad Richard mentioned that real doctors can produce it too - even if not intentionally. I've certainly experienced it myself several times. You know... you wrestle with a worrying pain or symptom for weeks until your anxiety level peaks and then you go to the doctor and... almost immediately you feel better. Maybe not completely better, but you notice a real improvement. The pain diminishes, or becomes less frequent. I've talked to many friends - skeptics and rationalists all - and they've experienced this too. The placebo effect is real and surprisingly potent, and RD is right to highlight the fact that alternative therapists really play up the factors which might amplify it. The attention. The listening. The sense of caring. The delivery of reassuring words and noises. And so on.

I'm enjoying this series a lot.

250. A Defense of Atheism

Comment #63995 by Jack Rawlinson on August 17, 2007 at 7:18 am

That "...a facile writer about science" really jarred with me until I realised (from the tone of the rest of the article) that the writer meant it in the complimentary sense of "clear, easy to understand" rather than the usual (in the UK) derogatory sense of simple-minded or shallow.

One of those transatlantic differences of usage, I suspect.