201. Fleabytes

Comment #145703 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 2:49 am

And the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be vicious with those tendrils...

Excuse me folks, I must go now and partake of finest tea. I think the Rutles are expected later...

202. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145698 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 2:42 am

'Science cannot answer empirical questions about the origin of the universe'. What and Christianity can? The profusion of articles of this sort betrays a creeping desperation in the theists' arguments. Quantity not quality appears to be the order of the day. It doesn't matter how poor their counter-arguments are, there just needs to be enough of them to create the impression of a spirited rebuttal.

This puts me in mind of a saying from a friend of mine:-

"If you throw enough shit at the wall, some of it will stick."

203. Fleabytes

Comment #145567 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 5:59 pm

I think you're overlooking the subtler charms of Clairpenser's preaching. Pathfinder is strident and shrill. Clairpenser is the Dan Dennett of hellfire preaching!

Clearthinker, on the other hand, is the David Robertson of preaching...

204. Fleabytes

Comment #145556 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Err...Clearthinker?

205. Fleabytes

Comment #145528 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Ok everybody, it's time to put the "devilled eggs" away now. Clearthinker's back so let's all quit screwing around.

Clearthinker: Of course pathfinder is a wind-up merchant. Don't be troubled is by he (as Clairpenser might say!)

Myself, I'm off for a cup of tea (in moderation of course). I'll be back in a wee while. Hope to see some interesting posts (that's pretty much guaranteed here).

206. Fleabytes

Comment #145511 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Of course "in moderation"! Too much tea leads to impure thoughts, even to the very worst sorts of foul self-scratchings such as the pagans indulge in.

Wankers.

But I will take comfort from the Psalms when I am walking past a graveyard at full moon.

207. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145502 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Adrian: "his blood-chilling encounters with a childhood schoolmarm" caught my eye as well. WTF is he talking about? Hitchens describes his 'schoolmarm' with affection and fondness. She doesn't belong in the same category (or the same sentence) as "murderous fanatics". Tony Snow hasn't been doing his research properly methinks...

208. Fleabytes

Comment #145486 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Clairpenser: Your idolatrous worship of a false god does not do you credit. Have you considered the alternatives?

The Ontealogical Argument

It is possible to conceive of a beverage than which no greater beverage could be conceived etc.

The Argument from the first cup of the day

There must have been a time when no beverages existed, but we know that beverages now exist. Therefore there must have been a beverage that existed when no other beverages existed and caused their existence ex nihilo. This prime beverage we call Tea.

The Tealeological Argument
Tea shows evidence of purpose and purpose implies an Intelligent Brewer.

The Tealeological Argument special application: The Fundamental Constants of Tea

Tea has certain things that go into it that make it tea; without these it wouldn't be Tea stupid! Furthermore we're guessing that it's probably very improbable for Tea to be like this; too improbable for it to have just happened by "chance mutation or adaptation" (Ha! The very idea!). This means that there must have been an Intelligent Brewer to establish what goes into Tea and what doesn't ('tuning' or determining for example that the water must be boiled to exactly 100 degrees Celsius, otherwise your Tea won't taste very nice) and to make the Tea.

209. Fleabytes

Comment #145337 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Clearthinker: A sincere welcome back and thanks for your reply from me at least.
However, you've highlighted the least significant part of my post. The stuff about 'poor grammar' was just the parting shot; I'm surprised it's a new one to you as it's an old one to me, and Richard included a version of it in TGD. But if you've never heard that one before then perhaps you might recall "straining out gnats and ignoring camels"? We both know that very few (if any) Christians actually believe that the Bible was literally written by God and admit to human intervention, so obviously we can blame the humans for the poor grammar. The argument from poor grammar was merely a light-hearted remark and not a serious point. By the way, I'm not desperate to be an atheist (whatever that means) and you're not gifted in the art of discerning a stranger's motives, so how about we stay on topic? We were talking about progress. I gave you a few examples of progress in the last hundred years. I then asked what empirical evidence you had for the reliability of your scriptures. I put it more colourfully than that and you seemed to take offence; I'm sure you remember. Any thoughts on any of that stuff? Allow me to elaborate further by posing a few questions that troubled me greatly as an earnest, young theology undergraduate and practising Catholic. (Of course, I was no longer troubled when I realised what the answers to these questions implied):-

1.) Who wrote the last chapter of Mark's Gospel?
2.) Why does the author of Revelations claim to be the same person who wrote John's gospel, when he clearly isn't?
3.) Christ's ministry lasted for how long?
4.) Could Christians have got it wrong and should they be commemorating 'Good Thursday'?
5.) Can you honestly not see why, even if these questions and the many others like them don't concern you, they might cause some to wonder about the reliability of scripture?

210. Fleabytes

Comment #144791 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 6:28 pm

I wouldn't want to try and read too much into Cornwell's conceit; it just suddenly struck me in way that it hadn't before what an odd thing it was to do. And it also seems odd that his, presumably, theistic readers should find it compelling rather than slippery and deceptive. But presumably Cornwell knows how best to address his intended audience; by insulting their intelligence.

211. Fleabytes

Comment #144769 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Ok, returning to the topic (perhaps this next point has been made elsewhere; I freely confess I've not read all the posts), I was just thinking what an odd thing it was for Cornwell to do to write from the perspective of an angel. Afterall, I doubt that Paula thought to herself when proofreading 'Fleabytes' "You know this would all be immensely improved if I change from a straight forward first-person authorial voice and write it instead imagining myself to be a mermaid. That should just give it that extra rhetorical boost to make it really bite."

212. Fleabytes

Comment #144741 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 5:06 pm

There are three aspects to the Beveragehood, each finding unity in the fulness of the one Beverage. Tea the instigator, Marmite the off-shoot and Bovril the holy-undrinkable. Yet there are not three Beverages but one Beverage with three aspects. And honestly this makes sense. Just ask John Cornwell; he saw the shelves full of books on the subject just before he started pretending to be an angel.

213. Fleabytes

Comment #144624 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Tim: Black Sabbath is a taste I've certainly acquired; I played 'the wizard' last time I was on air.

Dr Benway your suggestion sounds great but unbroadcastable. OFCOM wouldn't allow swearing in the daytime.

Richard M.: looking forward to it.


Queen and Bonzai: Thanks for those, I don't recall any of them but I'll have a listen.

Thanks everyone.

Quetz: Only divine sanction can account for the continued presence of the disgusting muck that is Bovril on our supermarket shelves. I think someone smarter than I needs to come up with a compelling counter argument to the argument from Bovril.

214. Fleabytes

Comment #144457 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 5:31 am

I'm thinking of a song with lyrics along the lines of "the things you're liable to read in the Bible ain't necessarily so" (which I'm guessing is the title), but it's not my era. Who's the recording artist and would this one fit?

215. Fleabytes

Comment #144454 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 5:24 am

Thanks for all the suggestions everyone; I'll definitely look into them. Keep them coming if you think of any others. When I first thought of this as a theme for a programme it occured to me that there was the potential for heavy rock or metal to dominate. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of a lot of heavy rock and metal bands but I'm particularly interested in suggestions from other styles.

Richard Morgan, if I can find a way of converting one of your songs into a broadcastable format I'd love to give one an airing. I try to play commercially unreleased music whenever I can, and I'm keen to feature an unusually broad playlist in terms of musical styles/genres. The programme won't air for a few weeks but I'll be sure to let you know.

216. Fleabytes

Comment #144433 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 4:33 am

I don't know either of the Motorhead tunes you mention S.G., but I'm definitely gonna trackdown "God was never on your side" for the title alone! I can't wait to announce that one. Thanks for the inclusion of the lyrics; I'm not worried about the self-contradiction inherent in addressing someone whose existence you deny. The XTC song I mention above makes a virtue out of it and concludes with an impassioned:

"And if you're up there you'll perceive
That my heart's here upon my sleeve
If there's one thing I don't believe in
It's you; Dear god!"

I think the video's on youtube for the interested.

217. Fleabytes

Comment #144429 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 4:07 am

I'm perplexed by the references to tea and sock puppets and intrigued by the missing posts but, since anything appears to go at this point, here's a completely off-topic question:

Does anybody know of any good songs with an atheistic point of view?

I ask because I'm trying to put together an hour's worth of music with atheism as a sort of loosely defining theme to it, for future broadcast.

So far I've thought of:

'Imagine', 'God' or 'I found out' by John Lennon
'What God wants' by Roger Waters
'Dear God' by XTC
'The Way' by Me'shell N'degeocello
'Galaxy Song' by Monty Python
'Tom Sawyer' or 'Freewill' by Rush
er...
that's it...

Any suggestions chaps?

218. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144344 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Steve

I couldn't agree with you more. But I am concerned that by admitting to scepticism towards universal rules we open ourselves up to the charge of being postmodernists! ;)

I'll bet that's what Hedges (remember him?) would accuse us of!

219. Fleabytes

Comment #144338 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Clearthinker/Robertson (delete as applicable) has been absent for a while now. Others may feel differently (and I can't say I blame them) but I hope he does come back to talk to us, and I don't mind if he brings some cyber-friends with him. I wasn't lurking on this site at the time of the weeflea-gate shenanagins and I'm intrigued by the reference to the mystery of the 300 missing posts.

I think it's great that the whole God argument has been re-awakened with such gusto; here we all are countering Robertson's counter arguments to Paula's counter arguments to Robertson's counter arguments to Richard's arguments in the TGD. Put like that it sounds like we should be getting tired of this discussion by now but I'm still totally caught up in it all.

220. Fleabytes

Comment #144323 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 3:48 pm

You both realise that this sounds a little paranoid right?

221. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144317 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Steve, Ungodly...
Sorry to interupt fellas, and please feel free to continue and ignore me without comment but here's my twopen'orth

In the dramatic and exceptional circumstances outlined by Steve above it seems to me that the right thing to do would be to torture the potentially-mass murdering bastard if that was really the only course of action left open. (It's a while since I read Harris but isn't this the same or a similar scenario to the one that Harris refers to with regards to torture?)

However, it shold be noted that these are very exceptional circumstances. I'm not sure that we can draw general or universal rules from such extraordinary or even unique situations. In fact I'm not convinced that trying to arrive at a set of universal rules really has all that much to do with ethics.

Anyway do please continue your interesting exchange chaps...

222. The business of natural selection

Comment #144291 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Mathematics is a language I can barely understand, but as I read this I could hear the booming voice of 'Deep Thought' declaring that the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything is...

is...

223. The atheist delusion

Comment #144085 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 4:12 am

Interesting that Gray considers Onfray's book to be the best amongst the 'new atheists'; I thought it was one of the worst (admittedly I haven't read it in its original language). It's full of unsupported assertions and provocative guesswork like 'St. Paul was impotent and that's why he's got such a downer on sexuality' (obviously I'm paraphrasing from memory!)

I agree with the earlier poster who said this guy is like Hedges; it's the same thesis. Too much reason/rationality leads to tyranny.

Bollocks.

224. Fleabytes

Comment #144074 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 3:09 am

Clearthinker's gone awfully quiet hasn't he?

His last post was pages ago!

Do you think he might have called it a day?

Admittedly my last post was pages ago as well but I've been waiting for his reply...

225. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143671 by mixmastergaz on March 14, 2008 at 9:46 am

Sounds to me like Mr Hedges has been reading Zygmunt Bauman. Bauman's a sociologist who's argued that too much reason and rationality was the root cause of the Holocaust (I'm paraphrasing him but, unbelievably, that's his argument!) For Bauman as for Hedges, up is down and black is white. Parodying Bauman's argument only slightly it goes something like this:

- The Nazis conducted their 'final solution' in a very organised and efficient way.

- Organistaion and efficiency are products of the Enlightenment.

- Therefore we should identify the Enlightenment's privileging of reason/rationality (for Bauman these words are synonymous) as the driving force behind the Holocaust.

It's not exactly a water-tight argument, but it proved very popular with left-oriented theists here in the UK. There was something of a Kerfuffle when it emerged recently that Bauman had been a stasi informer during the war years. Many sociologists were wringing their hands and falling over themselves to try and re-habilitate Bauman, so attached as they were to his thesis.

All of which reminds me of a joke graffitied on the toilet-paper dispenser when I was at Uni:

"Sociology degrees dispensed with here."

(With apologies to sociologists with their heads screwed on; there are a few of them.)

226. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143518 by mixmastergaz on March 14, 2008 at 7:19 am

Does anyone know which particular books the Bishop had in mind? I'm guessing Phillip Pullman would be on his 'ban list' but it's not as if there are likely to be shelves full of books that are critical of the Catholic Church to be found in the average school library. Comparing criticism of the church with the indescribable horrors of the Holocaust displays a disturbingly slender grasp on reality. Not only is this offensive to Judaism (Catholics offending Jews; not exactly a first is it?), but also to Catholics of good character (who will have to answer for this idiot) and an affront to common sense. As objectionable as most of us probably find his views to be, I notice that no one is seeking to censor him. If only he could find within himself the capacity to reciprocate. That seems unlikely; I doubt whether he could find his own arse with both hands.

227. Fleabytes

Comment #143440 by mixmastergaz on March 14, 2008 at 5:46 am

Clearthinker:

Consider the condition of a child born today in the UK compared with, say, a century ago (we're both UK residents I think). She would likely be born in a much better equipped hospital that was free of charge at the point of delivery, and the care she and her mother would receive would be far superior to that of counterpart a century earlier. She would be able to attend school later on; again this would be free at the point of delivery. If she was born into modest circumstances she'd be entitled to free school meals and other forms of financial support and her schooling would be a vast improvement on that enjoyed by her century-earlier counterpart, who would by no means even be guaranteed an education at all (or if she did, a much shorter and far more restricted one) and would not receive the sort of financial help outlined above. When she left school she'd have far more opportunities open to her than she would a century earlier. Shortly after this time she'd be entitled to vote, a right denied of course to her counterpart. When she came to have children herself, these too would be much more likely to survive child-birth, as would the mother. There are plenty more examples of progress I could refer to (I'm sure you could think of plenty of others as well, if you really thought about it). So again I put it to you, can you honestly deny that there hasn't been progress during this time period? One hundred years is the blink of an eye in geological time yet we've made so much progress (I don't know if you believe that the Earth is as old as the evidence points towards).

I've read most of the Bible too (I skipped a bit in Chronicles; do you blame me?) and I'm a theology graduate. I don't find the answer that you've read the Bible to be compelling evidence that it's not just the fireside tall tales of ancient, semi literate desert shepherds. If an omniscient being really had a hand in its authorship, then why does he have such poor grammar?

228. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143235 by mixmastergaz on March 13, 2008 at 5:37 pm

al rawandi:

Of course I'm not calling it Holocaust 2.0! I'm just surprised at how unafraid of delibrately 'pushing buttons' and openly revealing his prejudices the Bishop is in these comments. Thanks for telling me Britain is different from Germany in the 1930s! Although I live in Britain, I hadn't noticed that! :)

229. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143080 by mixmastergaz on March 13, 2008 at 12:21 pm

A Catholic bishop has the nerve openly to speak of a "conspiracy" in the same breath as the Holocaust. There's a disturbing familiarity about this. Pardon my ignorance if this isn't exactly on-the-nail but wasn't it this sort of paranoid talk about conspiracies which led, in part, to the Holocaust? Ok, the paranoia this time is centred on a different "minority", but ultimately little appears to have changed. This coming shortly after we hear of Pope Nazi's restoration of the prayers for the conversion of the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy makes me think there's a conspiracy of fascists in the upper echelons of the Catholic Church! Perhaps paranoia is infectious, but I can't help thinking that by praying for the Jews on Good Friday the Pope is hoping to revive the ancient, racist slur of deicide. Afterall, this prayer could be uttered on any day of the year. To choose to pray on Good Friday will, I fear, inevitably remind Catholics of the supposed culpability of Judaism in the matter of the crucifixion. I can't bring myself to believe that the choice of Good Friday as the most appropriate time for Catholics to offer up this particular prayer is coincidental, anymore than I can bring myself to believe that this absurd, strutting Bishop isn't anything other than a crude, mean-spirited homophobe of the very worst sort.

230. Fleabytes

Comment #142997 by mixmastergaz on March 13, 2008 at 10:26 am

Clearthinker:

Just out of interest, can you explain what would constitute evidence for you that there has been a progression in human morality? When I think of the casually racist and homophobic views of my granparent's generation I can't help but feel that we've moved forward on these issues (I don't say that we've overcome them of course). Would, say, statistical evidence of a fall in hate-crimes be admissable evidence? If not then why not? Forgive me, but your argument on this point sounds more like one of convenience than of conviction. And I'm struck by your insistence on empirical evidence on this issue, (which would seem to me to be merely a matter of common sense) but your apparent ambivalence to it on the issue of the reliability of scripture. How can you be sure that scripture isn't just an account of the half-remembered fireside tall tales of ancient, semi-literate desert shepherds?

231. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142700 by mixmastergaz on March 13, 2008 at 3:20 am

I agree with Steve's reservations. We're indirectly selling them scientific credibility, or at least the appearance of scientific credibility, but this can't really be bought. They're trying to have their cake and eat it and we're holding the plate for them if we co-operate.

What scientific contributions did Mother Teresa make? The fact that she was the first recipient of this award undermines its scientific integrity surely?

232. Beauty ad banned after Christian outcry

Comment #142690 by mixmastergaz on March 13, 2008 at 2:57 am

I can see why an 'old school' feminist might take exception to this advert (although I think there would be many more ads out there that she would find much more offensive) and I can see why some Christians might also be offended by it. But why is it that everyone seems to think they have the right to insist upon living in a world where nothing ever offends them? I remember hearing Terry Gilliam speak on this topic once. He said something along the lines of "offensive is good; it's where the real stuff happens" (Mr Gilliam is rather fond of the word 'stuff'). This is obviously a rhetorical question but...Is the offence taken at this advert proportionate? I mean, surely there are more serious things to get worked up about. No one is inciting harm or prejudice in the ad. No one would be stupid enough (I hope) to think that any self-respecting woman would really act in such a stupid way as depicted here. If you think it's stupid or offensive you've got many outlets in which to express these views, but we don't really need protecting from this sort of crap. We can just say, "Well, that's a load of crap" and leave it at that. Maybe those 23 complainers ought to focus their attention on something that actually matters. This is just so trivial. If you're offended by this then I wonder how you manage to get by in the world at all. And you've no right to insist that the rest of us need to be wrapped up in cotton wool in order that you can avoid having your over-sensitive feelings hurt. I've heard of the 'tyranny of the majority'; this the pettiness of an insignificant minority.

233. Fleabytes

Comment #142317 by mixmastergaz on March 12, 2008 at 9:55 am

Thoughtsoncommontoad:

Thanks for the recommendation! I've just read the fascinating introduction to this book online. Looks like this will be another one to add to the growing pile of books for me to read over the Easter holidays. I especially liked the bit about headphones. It reminded me of the first time I listened to "Darkside of the Moon" through my parent's headphones as a child. A life-changing experience!

234. A God blog

Comment #142297 by mixmastergaz on March 12, 2008 at 9:19 am

Replying to Matt (post No. 5)

I wouldn't say the Telegraph is Britain's most conservative newspaper (although it depends how you define 'conservative'). I usually read the dear old Torygraph on Fridays (generally I take the Indie or the Grauniad) and find it to be a much less conservative read than either the fucking Daily Mail or the unconscionable Daily Express (which I would never actually buy you understand, but I'll flick through abandoned copies of either on the train in a spirit of 'know thine enemy'). The Telegraph compares pretty favourably with the Mail and Express. Actually, parts of 'Mein Kampf' compare pretty favourably with the fucking Daily Mail (there, I've said it again; now I feel a bit better) or the hateful Express, but you take my meaning...

235. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #140317 by mixmastergaz on March 7, 2008 at 6:14 am

This is quick (and vaguely relevant) complaint from the UK.

Richard recently gave a lecture here in Liverpool but there was no mention of it on this site. I was particularly annoyed to have missed the opportunity to attend the lecture as I'm a teacher of 'Religious Studies' and both I and my students were very much looking forward to it. However we only learned of Richard's visit about two weeks before the lecture was scheduled to take place, by which time all the available tickets had been taken, despite moving the lecture to a larger venue. Of course, if the details had been included here, as Richard's American lectures are, then I'd have known almost immediately.

Please could you also include details of Richard's public appearances outside the US in future?

236. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #140309 by mixmastergaz on March 7, 2008 at 5:58 am

Replying to Max D (post 56):

The Lords are a bit like the Jedi council, only they don't enjoy the same amount of respect or have as much integrity.

The Jedi robes are much cooler too...

237. How to abandon your God

Comment #139552 by mixmastergaz on March 6, 2008 at 4:31 am

Rod asks "where did the lapsed Catholics go?" (apart from purgatory and hell obviously! I'm paraphrasing you Rod; hope you don't mind). Well, I'm a very lapsed Catholic and I ended up lurking here. From my experiences when I was still a practising Catholic here in the UK I'd say that many stay within the fold and just don't talk about the fact that they have serious disagreements with the Church authorities. None of the Catholics I used to know from church (and still know) were at all persuaded by half of the things they were expected to believe in. Just by looking at how the numbers of kids in catholic families has dropped we can see that the ban on contraception isn't being taken seriously. I'm also pleased to report that there were openly gay couples in church, and none of the rest of the faithful seemed to have a problem with that. In fact one couple were widely respected in the parish, and would go on pilgrimage to Lourdes each year with the local group, caring for elderly fellow parishioners. I'm sure for many people, leaving isn't an option simply because of the purely social aspects of attending church. What do others think?

238. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #134630 by mixmastergaz on February 28, 2008 at 3:59 am

Since everyone else is throwing in their two-pen'orth here are my top five fiction titles:

1.) Hitchhiker's Guide Trilogy (in 5 parts) by Douglas Adams (he it was who introduced me to Richard's non-fiction, thank you Douglas)
2.) His Dark Materials Trilogy by Phillip Pullman
3.) Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie
4.) The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco
5.) The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle

239. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133327 by mixmastergaz on February 26, 2008 at 4:26 am

Just a quick thought but if the arguments of Dawkins, Hitchens and others were really as weak and insubstantial as the fleas assert than why do they need to be refuted repeatedly and repetitively?
I've now read two flea books, the McGraths' and Cornwell's. They both make a lot of hay about the style, tone and stridency of Richard's views in TGD. But their responses don't actually read like calm and measured appraisals. In fact they're vitriolic propagandists when compared with Richard's precise and elegant prose.
They're also both rather insubstantial responses and leave many of Richard's strongest arguments un-challenged. I believe Christ referred to this sort of selective editing as straining out gnats and ignoring camels. Perhaps it's naive of me to even hope for consistency from these intemperate ranters.

240. Fleabytes

Comment #130308 by mixmastergaz on February 20, 2008 at 9:08 am

Wow, Paula! Sterling work. I wondered why you'd been absent from these threads for so long. I can see you've been busy. I did add a brief review of the McGraths' book a little while ago and was considering trying to jump on the flea 'gravy train' with a book refuting their arguments myself, but I think you'd be better placed to do this. How about it? If you've had enough of wrestling with wilful self-deceivers you can hardly be blamed, but I for one think you should consider it. If I'm repeating something others have already suggested I apologise (slightly). This is a very long thread and I've not had the time to read all the posts (in fact I've not quite finished reading your original refutations!). Anyway, bravo!

Ps I hadn't even realised that 'wee flea' was Robertson! Doh!

241. Council pays psychic for exorcism

Comment #126758 by mixmastergaz on February 14, 2008 at 7:12 am

I'm curious to learn how news of this reached the BBC. Was it an affronted rationalist working at the council? Or did the person 'suffering' from the alleged paranormal activity contact the media. There's an obvious inference if it's the latter...

242. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126734 by mixmastergaz on February 14, 2008 at 4:31 am

I agree with Philip (and Aayan Hirsi Ali). Where are the moderate Islamic voices condemning this murderous intolerance? Of course, it's a rhetorical question. A more pertinent one might be 'Why are there so few Muslims who are prepared to speak out against this madness?'

I attribute this, at least partly, to the totalitarian nature of Islam. Yasmin Alibhai Brown's article on the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury's recent remarks about sharia law noted that this gives the message to Non-Muslims that Muslims want 'exceptionalism'. But surely Islam is an 'exception'. A majority of the adherents of no other world faith would dare to call for the killing of cartoonists in 2008. Islam is the exception to this particular general rule (and many others). It is not racist or Islamophobic to notice this and remark upon it. The cowardly concessions to Islam made by certain elements of our media platforms only serve to compound this problem. If Islam is treated as an exception then Muslims may come to regard themselves as exceptional.

243. Conservative Rabbis to Vote on Resolution Criticizing Pope's Revision of Prayer

Comment #126703 by mixmastergaz on February 14, 2008 at 2:21 am

It does strike me as odd, as an earlier poster commented (sort of), that the Pope wants to single out the Jews for special prayers. That these prayers are to be offered on (so called) Good Friday also seems to me to be significant. Could it be that the Pope wants to revive the vile, despicable and nonsensical charge of 'deicide' by reminding the faithful how needy these Jews are of prayer given the enormity of their 'crime', the commemoration of which coincides with the one day in the Catholic calendar when these prayers are thought to be most appropriate?

244. Blasphemy

Comment #123041 by mixmastergaz on February 6, 2008 at 11:51 am

Can I be tedious and briefly off-topic on a point of grammar/punctuation? You're too kind.

I appreciate the need for capitalisation when talking of 'Christians', or 'Muslims' or what have you. And I'm aware of the convention of only capitalising these words in phrases like 'non-Christian' or 'non-Muslim'. But I think it would convey a more honest respect for the latter examples if we were to break with convention and capitalised thus:
Non-Christian
Non-Muslim etc.

Am I joking?
You decide.

245. Blasphemy

Comment #122887 by mixmastergaz on February 6, 2008 at 8:56 am

Correction, it's a letter not an article.

246. Blasphemy

Comment #122877 by mixmastergaz on February 6, 2008 at 8:45 am

Styrer: I've read your posts with interest. I concede that you make some persuasive points about Dennett's double-speak. However, I think we disagree by degrees. I think you're overstating the case a little. This article is clearly not written to an intended audience of Muslims. I'm not aware of the typical editorial content of the Boston Globe but I'm assuming it to be a left-of-centre oriented journal. If that's the case then it's conceivable that Dennett is addressing himself to those liberals who are somewhat reluctant to lift the bull's tail and look the facts of Islam in the face. I accept that Dennett has softened his usual line on Islam here, but I also think it's reasonable to address different audiences in different contexts in different ways. This is a brief article in a newspaper, not an academic contribution to a scholarly journal. Dennett's comments in 'Breaking the Spell' (which seemed to me to be the most painstakingly-careful-not-to-cause-too-much-offence book by a 'Horseman') are, in the main, generalised and not written with the consideration of how the remarks might contribute to the perilous circumstances of a journalist fearing for his life. This does make a difference to how we conduct the argument in public. I'm also unclear from your posts so far as to how you think we might best proceed in order to secure a happy outcome in this particular case. Do you propose intellectual honesty at all times in all cases, or would you concede that pragmatism might also have its uses?

Best,
Gaz

247. Putting Candidates' Religion to the Test

Comment #121754 by mixmastergaz on February 4, 2008 at 4:42 am

The questions certainly rasied a smile. I'm a UK resident so it's interesting to contrast the political situation here with that on the otherside of the Atlantic. The leader of the Liberal Democrats over here (the third party generally enjoying up to about 30% of the support of the electorate) declared his atheism almost as soon as he became leader. The interview was quite funny. It was a straight "Do you believe...?" and Clegg just said "Er...no", sounding pretty decisive despite the pause. Of course the Lib Dems have never been in power but it's encouraging to hear the leader of a political party being unafraid to express this view simply. If only this were the case in your own otherwise magnificent United States, if it's not too rude of me to say so.

248. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #121747 by mixmastergaz on February 4, 2008 at 4:22 am

Agn: I saw it on the BBC news website on Saturady morning. I can see others have provided links reporting the same developments. Being something of an internet luddite I'm not sure how to provide a link to this page. Having looked at the links provided by others here I concur that maybe this doesn't amount to as much as the Beeb's article on Saturday morning suggested. Perhaps the theo-fascists are hoping if they make a few gestures we'll forget about it and focus our attention elsewhere. Therefore I'd argue it's vital we don't ease up the pressure. Consquently, and I suppose hypocritically given my earlier posts, I've signed the Indy's petition and I've written to my MP, but I'm not looking for a medal or anything :)

249. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #120580 by mixmastergaz on February 2, 2008 at 3:53 am

agn: Fair enough, I take that back. I was playing deconstructionist games with a, and he or she with me, much to my chagrin.

In reference to point 3 of your post ("...will in all likelihood become...guilty of the cold deliberate murder of Mr Pervez") let's not give up all hope of a positive outcome. The Afghan senate has now withdrawn its support of the death penalty in this case and people in Kabul are demonstrating on behalf of the accused. Things seem to be moving in the right direction.

250. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #120556 by mixmastergaz on February 2, 2008 at 1:14 am

I was encouraged to hear that the Afghan senate has withdrawn its support for the death sentence and has stated that it recognises Mr Kambakhsh's legal rights following pressure from the UN. I was even more encouraged to learn that 200 people demonstrated their support for Mr Kambakhsh in Kabul. Although these are simply steps in the right direction and Mr Kambakhsh is not yet 'out of the woods', I concede that I may have spoken too hastily, cynically and pessimistically about the potential for a diplomatic solution to this case. I hope so.