251. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #89106 by Matt7895 on November 19, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Thankyou for this, I am watching it now.

I agree with the view 'when you're in someone's house, you respect their rules'. When I go into a church I take off my hat and make sure I'm not wearing shorts. After all, religious folk need a place where they can come together and practise the non-violent parts of their faith, I don't mean that in a condescending way, I think we as atheists shouldn't be trying to wipe out things like yarmulkes themselves, but try to stop people from thinking they need to wear them in the first place. When that happens, yarmulkes won't be needed. But until that happens, we need to have some degree of respect. At least, when we are in 'their house'.

252. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89102 by Matt7895 on November 19, 2007 at 5:58 pm

I actually live in the West Midlands... these guys are meant to be protecting me, it's genuinely worrying that they can make stupid decisions such as this.

And I agree with BaronOchs, it is abuse that race hatred laws are being used by some people to apply to religious matters. It's like those who like to call Hitchens and Harris 'racist' for despising Islam.

253. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89090 by Matt7895 on November 19, 2007 at 5:25 pm

I think it is unnecessary to call those who are not in a position to give money, or do not want to give money, 'disgusting' and 'sickening'. That's just downright rude and uncalled for. I know atheists aren't the type to be herded, but I did think atheists were at the least nice to each other.

Just because someone holds a different opinion than you doesn't mean you have to throw straw men at them. Leave that to the religious folk to do.

There's been plenty of over-reaction in the comments here. If you want to give money, great, go ahead. But don't insult those who don't. And don't tell them not to post here, they have as much right to voice their opinions as you do. If you took the time to read what many of these people are saying, you'll find they (or at least, me) hold a great deal of respect for Ayaan Hirsi Ali and are merely questioning the request for donations, or asking for more information. Now sorry, but is that too much to ask?

254. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88952 by Matt7895 on November 19, 2007 at 9:00 am

Well, sorry, but I won't be donating. I sympathise with Miss Hirsi Ali, but apparently if she only returned to the Netherlands she would receive full protection from the government there. The only reason why they are no longer paying for her is because she is residing in the United States. I don't think the Dutch government are being unreasonable on the matter.

255. 'Growing Up in the Universe' now available free online

Comment #88177 by Matt7895 on November 15, 2007 at 4:34 am

Thankyou for the torrents, I left them all to download over night and when I woke up this morning they were all done.

I hope to buy a copy of the DVD soon. I also saw a copy of 'Root of all evil: Uncut Interviews' in my local branch of Borders the other day, but held off on buying it as I aim to get it in the set with the original program. Looks like I'll add the GUITU dvd to the basket too.

256. The evolution of creationism

Comment #87994 by Matt7895 on November 14, 2007 at 3:50 am

How can he be agnostic yet believe in an intelligent creator? That makes him theistic or deistic, right? And don't tell me he falls for the whole alien thing either...

257. The evolution of creationism

Comment #87897 by Matt7895 on November 13, 2007 at 2:36 pm

The funny thing is they can't name a single non-religious person who accepts ID, while I can name plenty of religious people who accept evolution.

258. The evolution of creationism

Comment #87842 by Matt7895 on November 13, 2007 at 10:29 am

Ah, but the whole point of evolution is that simple things become more complex. Intelligent design isn't more complex than creationism, it is just as stupid and just as unproven.

259. A third of adults believe God watches over them

Comment #87526 by Matt7895 on November 12, 2007 at 11:25 am

But only of those polled... since it was done by a Christian charity, those most likely to involve themselves in the poll would be Christians.

The only reliable source of religiosity is the Census, and even then many believing Christians mess around and choose 'Jedi', at least some of the Christians I know do.

260. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87424 by Matt7895 on November 12, 2007 at 4:46 am

"His passion is to integrate Muslim and British cultures - he says integration must go both ways."

Not if he wants to impose his views on homosexuality, abortion, child indoctrination, alcohol, marriage and women into our society. He can shove those where the sun don't shine.

261. In a consumer society, browsing for belief

Comment #87423 by Matt7895 on November 12, 2007 at 4:42 am

notsobad wrote ""four out of five Americans say they have "experienced God's presence or a spiritual force."

Strange, the number correlates with the number of fat people. Did god tell them gluttony is not a deadly sin anymore?"

I don't mean to step out of line here but when I watch things like Jesus Camp and other documentaries focused on American evangelicals, most of the people in the church seem to be obese. I don't know if there is a link, it could be just coincidence. I certainly don't want to say stupid people also happen to be more likely to be obese.

262. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #86706 by Matt7895 on November 10, 2007 at 2:25 am

A wonderful man. And he doesn't have to speak out against ID because it holds no sway in the UK whatsoever. Evolution is taught on the National Curriculum and there is no way any government is going to change that - our political parties are all secular.

263. Church row evolves over fossil boy

Comment #86539 by Matt7895 on November 9, 2007 at 1:45 pm

"Bishop Boniface Adoyo, the head of the 35 Kenyan evangelical denominations, is leading opposition to the exhibition. "I do not dispute that as humans we have a history, but my family most certainly did not descend from the apes," he said."

Then you, sir, are an idiot. Thankyou, goodbye.

There's no arguing with these people.

264. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #86232 by Matt7895 on November 8, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Sigh....

265. Same Flea, Different Name?

Comment #85903 by Matt7895 on November 7, 2007 at 12:51 pm

ksskidude quoted the following:

'"Don't you feel sorry for the atheist lying in his casket all dressed up and no place to go?'"

Vera Newbold
Shawnee'

What a horrible woman, is all I have to say.

266. Same Flea, Different Name?

Comment #85831 by Matt7895 on November 7, 2007 at 9:39 am

As Daniel Dennett says, the argument has been won. Now its a propaganda war. All the flea books are from either delusional people who are otherwise reasonable minded, or just plain liars.

267. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85559 by Matt7895 on November 6, 2007 at 7:01 am

JamesDB wrote "Awesome speech, i enjoyed it thoroughly. Does anyone else find RD's voice somewhat comforting like I do?"

Absolutely, in the same way I also enjoy listening to Harris, Dennett and Hitchens. Their speeches are ambrosia for the mind.

268. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #85360 by Matt7895 on November 5, 2007 at 2:53 pm

The definition of atheist is simply non-theist. All you need to be an atheist is to have no belief in a god. That doesn't mean you don't believe in anything. It is illogical to draw such a conclusion from the lack of belief in a god.

269. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85258 by Matt7895 on November 5, 2007 at 11:26 am

I agree with DarwinsPitbull. The RRS have never claimed to be intellectuals in the same category as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens. If you listen to their podcasts you'll see that they put across their side in a colloquial fashion, something quick and easy for the average Joe to understand. I don't mean that in a degrading way, of course. Not everyone is into reading essays and theses whenever they want to hear a side of the argument.

270. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85242 by Matt7895 on November 5, 2007 at 10:53 am

"Well, that was pretty awful." wrote Janus.

How so? One only needs to look at the recent debates D'Souza has been a part of to understand where Kelly is coming from here. You don't even need to look at that hive of scum and villainy that is his column in USA Today.

271. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85042 by Matt7895 on November 4, 2007 at 4:26 pm

I pray (figuratively, of course) that when I get that old I don't lose my marbles and 'convert'. And even if I did someday decide to be a theist I'd truly be a lunatic to pick the Christian God over the thousands of others.

272. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85041 by Matt7895 on November 4, 2007 at 4:22 pm

"The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason & The War on Religion"

I love how they linked reason and religion there. Because of course you are a reasonable thinker if you are religious.

Its really quite sad how these scam-artists are making money off the backs of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens.

Its also a shame that the woman who wrote this latest book claims to be a feminist. Well, as the great-grandson of Charles Darwin, Matthew Chapman himself says, "For a feminist to still believe in god is like a freed slave still living on the plantation."

273. The Year of Living Biblically

Comment #84746 by Matt7895 on November 3, 2007 at 12:18 pm

If I saw this book in a bookshop near me I would buy it.

274. A House Divided: Hitch at Georgetown

Comment #84745 by Matt7895 on November 3, 2007 at 12:16 pm

I have a lot of man-love for Christopher Hitchens. He's the kind of guy you would just love to go up to and hug.

275. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83839 by Matt7895 on October 31, 2007 at 12:53 pm

"We should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns."
Richard Dawkins

276. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83751 by Matt7895 on October 31, 2007 at 6:17 am

He'll burn in hell in the eyes of Westboro Baptist Church. To them everyone outside their sordid little community is going to burn.

277. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83728 by Matt7895 on October 31, 2007 at 4:10 am

The Pope can go to hell.

278. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83441 by Matt7895 on October 30, 2007 at 3:49 am

"Bill Donohue, president of The Catholic League, has condemned The Golden Compass as a "pernicious" effort to indoctrinate children into anti-Christian beliefs...."

Ooh you can just taste the hypocrisy. Millions of children each year are indoctrinated into the Catholic church by evil old men like Donahue and he has the nerve to complain about an anti-religious film?

If he wants to be free to express religious belief then he should let others have the freedom to express non-religious belief. In the United States the Constitution demands it.

279. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #83033 by Matt7895 on October 28, 2007 at 4:29 pm

These people need to get it into their heads that black people ARE apes, just like every other human on this Earth!

It reminds me of 'Root of all evil?' when Haggard drives past Dawkins after the interview shouting, "You call my children animals?"

Duh....

280. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #82863 by Matt7895 on October 28, 2007 at 4:29 am

"Evolution, which will be offered as part of life sciences under the new grade 10 to 12 curriculum by public and private schools, is rated highly by education experts because they believe it teaches learners to think critically and analytically."

And maybe because there's overwhelming evidence to support it? Modern biology makes no sense without it?

Stupid article, I'd have expected better from the science-friendly Guardian.

281. AAI 07

Comment #82673 by Matt7895 on October 27, 2007 at 7:33 am

Brilliant.

282. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81303 by Matt7895 on October 24, 2007 at 2:59 pm

I think weaknesses in evolution (gaps in fossil record, formation of the eye, bacteria with one protein taken out doesn't work, etc) is a major debate point and Josh if you could ask Richard if you could use his 'Evolution of the eye' video, and put it up on the website, that would be great since Youtube keeps taking it down for breach of copyright.

283. Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism

Comment #81301 by Matt7895 on October 24, 2007 at 2:56 pm

That was a really interesting talk. Thanks to Eugenie and to Josh and Wayne for putting it up.

284. Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam: U.N.

Comment #80894 by Matt7895 on October 23, 2007 at 11:48 am

I know a Catholic and he says the Pope should change his stance on condoms. Obviously my friend isn't a very good Catholic.

285. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80854 by Matt7895 on October 23, 2007 at 7:47 am

I'm not going to tackle the issue of Stalin's atheism but when it comes to Hitler it is certain that he WAS religious. He invoked the word of God on multiple occasions, he blamed the death of Christ on the Jews, he signed agreements with the Roman Catholic Church. Amongst that he injected his own pseudo-scientific Aryan mythology to suit his own purposes. No way was he an atheist.

286. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80843 by Matt7895 on October 23, 2007 at 7:24 am

There's no reason why he wouldn't! You don't have to take it literally, of course, I certainly don't. Just like 'Jerusalem' it is the imagery that matters to most people these days.

287. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80840 by Matt7895 on October 23, 2007 at 7:19 am

Decius, Cromwell was good for finally destroying the concept of the Divine Right of Kings and absolute monarchy. But he certainly wasn't a good leader or a good role model as a Briton. Theocracy, dictatorship and mass murder are never admirable precepts as I am sure you will agree.

I hope you will also recognise that the monarchy of the present is very different to the monarchy of the past, not just in terms of government but also their connection with modern society. We have the two young Princes, who continue their mother's work in charity, are avid fans of music and sport, and serve their country in the armed forces. They are a family that is suitably adapting to reflect modern Britain.

Not only that but there is no real need for an elected head of state. We have a growing, powerful economy and a stable political system in place. The monarchy no longer has any political power, all executive power is placed in those who are democratically elected by the people.

You said you knew the difference between absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy. You said the question is what should be done about them. Well, I think constitutional monarchy will go on to be a successful system in Britain as long as it continues to reflect British society as a whole. This involves secularising the institution first and foremost.

288. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80835 by Matt7895 on October 23, 2007 at 6:56 am

Decius, I don't think you would be here if you truly respected Oliver Cromwell. The man was deeply Puritan and saw his army as God's own instrument. After committing regicide he set up an authoritarian dictatorship with himself in charge (with the title 'Lord Protector', dissolved Parliament), then embarked on a year-long brutal massacre of the Irish and subsequently took away their land. He was a hypocrite who became a de facto monarch towards the end of his tenure, being formally coronated with symbols and regalia, created baronages and nominated his own successor. He sought to ban all sport and make church attendance compulsory. If modern terms can be used to describe what he did back then, it can be said he was a religious fundamentalist. So no, I reject your view that he symbolises what is good about my country.

I wouldn't say your views particular offended me either, it is true that republican talk does irritate me but I don't find it offensive since I like democracy and feel people should be allowed to say what they like. But it irritates me when people in other countries call for regime change here when we are already a democratic country that has an excellent human rights record. It is also worth pointing out we are not the only constitutional democracy in Europe. I feel people should instead direct their attention on absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia and dictatorships like in Burma and Zimbabwe which are not democratic. That is of course how I feel and I do not think everyone should take up that view, but I hope it does explain my point of view on the matter.

289. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80808 by Matt7895 on October 23, 2007 at 5:05 am

Well hopefully we shouldn't have to worry about their religious bias for much longer. The Fabian Society recommended in their report that the Queen should no longer be head of the church of England and instead be a 'Defender of all faiths' (and presumably none at all). The Monarchy have been well adaptive to changes in British society over the years and that should apply to religion as well. Britain is a lot different to the Britain in 1952 when Her Majesty was coronated. We're now a multi-racial, multi-faith society and the Monarchy should reflect that.

The government is already reforming the House of Lords into a democratically elected upper house. They are also following the Fabian report in areas relating to powers invested in the Prime Minister by the monarch, being removed and given instead to Parliament. All they need to do now is ask her to step down from the religious role, I'm sure she will do so if prompted.

Steve99: That particular issue is being addressed. The Monarch will no longer have the power to call or dismiss Parliament, as I have mentioned in this post. As for selecting Prime Ministers, the protocol is that the leader of the majority party becomes Prime Minister, of course she could choose to not do that but it would provoke a constitutional crisis, therefore it is EXTREMELY unlikely the Queen would go against protocol and not do that.

290. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80794 by Matt7895 on October 23, 2007 at 4:12 am

"I certainly do not recognize Elizabeth as Queen of any part of Ireland. Furthermore, only a Celt deserves such a title; my use of "Queen of England" was purposeful"

Well many Northern Irish people DO recognise her as their Queen, that is the Queen of the United Kingdom, and long may she and her heirs continue to be so.

I also find your use of the term 'Celt' quite prejudiced and xenophobic.

When it comes to the monarchy I agree with the Fabian Report into the future of the monarchy, that is making it purely secularised, and the transferral of the very few powers left invested in the Queen to Parliament (which is already being done, as the PM is wanting to make Parliament able to call and dismiss itself).

To any American here criticising our system of constitutional monarchy: It is none of your business. Why are you worried about it? Who-ever we, the British people, would like as our head of state has no bearing on your own political system. You live in an executive republic as it is your right to do so. I don't comment on American political matters, I have no business saying who I think should be the next President or how effective the present one is at leading his country.

Here in the UK many people like myself (actually, the majority) prefer to live in a system with a permanent, non-party political head of state with no executive power, with the only person making such decisions being the Prime Minister who is responsible to Parliament and the country. The only bias the Head of State has is in regarding to religious matters because of her status as Head of the Church of England. However as the Fabian report suggests, she should give up that position and formally give it to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who already has it de facto.

The Monarchy is now purely a figurative institution, a representation of Britishness, an icon for people to rally behind and feel proud of. The Monarchy may have done some terrible things in the past but so have some Presidents: do you judge your Presidents now on what their predecessors have done?

There is no avoiding Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is massively popular in the world and she and her family have done much for charity.

I for one cannot wait for His Royal Highness Prince William to become King. He will make an excellent role model and representative of the UK in the wider world.

291. Cheney and Obama: It's Not Genetic

Comment #80579 by Matt7895 on October 22, 2007 at 8:06 am

Does anyone know what Obama's viewpoints are on atheism and on evolution?

292. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80555 by Matt7895 on October 22, 2007 at 6:46 am

I've just finished listening to D'Souza's speech and I have to say the last time I heard such rubbish it was coming from the mouth of Kent Hovind. He didn't make a single good point in the whole speech, it was just mindless drivel. I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt and look for some merit in what they say, but in D'Souza I could find nothing.

293. Egypt's fight against female circumcision clashes with tradition

Comment #80529 by Matt7895 on October 22, 2007 at 4:32 am

It almost makes me feel quite violent when I read about female genital manipulation. If somebody ever tried to do that to my wife or daughter I'm really worried about what I might do in response.

294. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80315 by Matt7895 on October 21, 2007 at 10:10 am

Signed.

295. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #79989 by Matt7895 on October 19, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Excellent, thanks very much. I always like listening to Hitchens.

296. God's honest truth?

Comment #79752 by Matt7895 on October 18, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Its a wonderful approach by the Swedish government but there is absolutely no chance of any such measure being implemented by Britain, simply because our government supports faith schools.

But at least we don't teach creationism or ID in our science lessons here. That's a relief, although it would be great if religious schools were banned altogether.

297. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79551 by Matt7895 on October 17, 2007 at 4:44 pm

I'm not sure if McGrath is dishonest, I'd much rather give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he absolutely believes what he says.

However there is a clear difference in how he speaks when he knows the cameras are on, and how he behaves when they aren't. This is evident in the Dawkins/McGrath uncut video. His voice and manner of speaking is much different when he thinks the film has been cut, and of course this comes as little surprise, after all it would be silly to imagine him speaking to his wife the same way he talks to Hitchens and Dawkins.... "I think you've raised some excellent points," "I would like to say," etc....

He does like to dodge difficult questions, either he honestly says 'I can't give an answer to that one but it's very important', or he says 'I've already answered that', as was the case in the uncut video at approximately 50 minutes in, Dawkins presses the issue of McGrath hopping around the issue of God intervening in human affairs.

My thoughts are he might seem really friendly and reasonable on camera but he isn't off-camera. Northern Bright has spoken off his personal jibes against Dawkins in his flea books; I don't doubt it, but I haven't read his books, and I probably never will.

298. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79504 by Matt7895 on October 17, 2007 at 1:16 pm

I wish I could say I laughed at that, but in truth I do not find such things amusing anymore. Though it did bring a smile to my face simply because the Bible quotation half-way through reminds me of the 'debate' the Rational Response Squad did with those two simpletons, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. RRS challenged them to not use the Bible in their arguments. Of course, they couldn't do it, they straight away referenced the Ten Commandments as the debate began. There can be no debating with these nutjobs simply because they see the Bible as literal truth, and that is why they keep referencing it. Look at YouTube; atheist and science related videos are INUNDATED with idiots posting Bible passages.

So what I say is this: next time someone thinks its a good argument to tell you what Jesus or some other fictional character said, either walk away or reference a fictional character of your own, say Conan the Barbarian or Mickey Mouse.

299. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79501 by Matt7895 on October 17, 2007 at 1:02 pm

I'd just like to say to fides_et_ratio, whether he is a troll or just a deluded religious nutjob, you asked why Hitchens didn't present 'evidence' in his arguments. It is so irritating that I keep having to do this on YouTube, I didn't think I would have to do it here at the 'Clear-Thinking Oasis', but here it is. The onus is not on us to disprove your imaginary friend. The onus is on you to prove he exists.

Secondly, you said McGrath handled Hitchens well. Did you watch the same video I just did? Instead of taking on his points, McGrath presented the usual straw-man to the more important ones and agreed with the others. That's not taking on, that's conceding. Watch the video again.

Finally, you were entertained by, as you... eloquently put it... "AM's highlighting of the wishful thinking of athiesm."
Atheism isn't wishful thinking, atheists base their opinions on logic and evidence. That isn't wishful thinking, that's reasonable thinking. Religious faith is a PRIME example of wishful thinking. Atheists by their VERY DEFINITION do not have religious faith.

300. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79496 by Matt7895 on October 17, 2007 at 12:53 pm

This was definitely Hitchens at his best and most concise. McGrath was McGrath as always, absurdly polite and with irritating mannerisms; 'I would just like to say,' 'This is a very interesting discussion', etc. Though this is not an attack on his character, just his method of argument. I'm much more in favour of Hitchens' blunt, honest way of putting things.

It is a shame, however, how hostile the crowd were. I noticed Hitchens got quite a few boos at the end of his initial speech, and McGrath seemed to win by the applause factor. Hitchens did get chuckles and claps for his jokes but not for his serious points, whereas McGrath got much more support. It seemed the audience as a whole didn't really 'get' Hitchens, I use as an example their muted response to when McGrath said God didn't force people to follow him, Hitchens said 'Well you can go to hell', that got a very frosty reception when in fact it was absolutely true according to the core teachings of the Bible.