Comments by PJG

251. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130032 by PJG on February 20, 2008 at 12:10 am

In view of his feelings about what he was told about Hell, I wonder what Bart Ehrman thinks about the Baby Bible Bashers.

252. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130020 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 11:26 pm

chuckgoecke

I expect BE has read the books by the Four Horsemen but Misquoting Jesus was published before TGD and he mentions his agnosticism in that. He also said he was planning to write a book about how he lost his faith and that it was more to do with the suffering in the world than the fact that he believes The Bible to be the work of man, though that may only be mentioned in the paperback edition (2007).

253. Fleabytes

Comment #129963 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Well done Paula.

I spent about fifteen minutes trying to read McGrath's book (in a bookshop... I wasn't going to BUY it!) and was struck by his "I was a teenage werewolf - erm...sorry - atheist" stance. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. I once heard him say that he had swapped his "faith" of atheism for the faith of Christianity. I have never heard an atheist describe their non-belief as a faith (though theists try to suggest it is). I just don't believe him and suspect his "atheism" was either some sort of brief adolescent rebellion or that he feels that suggesting he was "converted" by some vastly superior evidence for the existence of God (that he never shares with us, of course) simply gives his book more credence than those of life-long Christians.

It was, to me, just unreadable. That you read it all, and the other three, to the depth of such a good critique.... I think you deserve a medal.

You wouldn't like to take a look at "The Irrational Atheist" now, would you? On second thoughts, you have suffered enough for one lifetime.

254. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129569 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 10:17 am

I just hope that in 10-15 years' time, one of these kids doesn't turn up at a school with an assault rifle...

The trouble is that if one does, it will probably be publicised that the shooter was an "atheist" having lost or renounced his/her faith.

Look at Hitler, Stalin and various other nasty "atheists" who had strong religious backgrounds. Their horrendous acts are nearly always blamed on "atheism", not on their warped religious upbringing and/or the abuse they suffered as children.

These children may well rebel against their parents in the future and may come to "hate God and Jesus" for the abuse meted out to them in "His name" but if any of them commits an atrocity, I will bet good money that "atheism" gets the blame.

255. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129428 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 5:57 am

It's also very interesting how shy he is when not on stage. Of course the grandmother attributes this to the lord working through him.

I attribute it to his being a very disturbed little boy who can only "relate" to people when he is on stage.

It was interesting that the little girl likened herself to a "child actor" or a "singer". Maybe she is not deluded!

256. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129382 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 3:30 am

Thanks Quill... that is interesting, though not encouraging!

I come onto this site on most days and find myself either inspired (by the people on here and some of the articles) or deeply depressed (by things like this video). Today is not a good day... I'll have to go and stroke a cat (a remedy for all ills) :o)

257. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129374 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 3:19 am

HunterZolomon

from Skeptics Annotated Bible (always good for a laugh on a damp Tuesday!)

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Balaam's talking donkey
"And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass..."

Balaam and his donkey have a nice little chat. Apparently, they do this often, since Balaam isn't the least bit surprised when his donkey starts talking to him.

258. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129342 by PJG on February 19, 2008 at 1:54 am

I feel physically sick watching this and can't take more than about five minutes at a time. I'll come back to it later when my stomach has settled.

What is going on in the US? I'm not being patronising - I am very much aware that the flow is heading towards Britain, but what can we do to stop this?

Is one of the problems "home-schooling"? Are there any national exams that the children HAVE to take to show that they are being given a general education at home or do they simply withdraw from any recognised education?

Whenever I see anything about home-schooling, it appears to be only the sick/deeply deluded and/or stupid parents who do this. Apologies if I am generalising on very, very little knowledge about it, but that is how it seems from my home in the UK.

259. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128908 by PJG on February 18, 2008 at 9:29 am

AllanW

You could grow old and grey.

Pass me a biscuit will you?

260. The Dog Allusion

Comment #128907 by PJG on February 18, 2008 at 9:26 am

I can just imagine the hate mail Christopher Hitchens would have received if he had written a book entitled "dog is not GREAT". Death threats from Islamic fundamentalists are NOTHING compared to those from the Canine Defence League!

Sam Harris: The End of Fifi?

261. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128903 by PJG on February 18, 2008 at 8:47 am

Maybe, minhuna, you are mistaking "assertion" and "aggression".

I don't see any violence or even aggression in the first five comments. A bit of vexation, maybe, and certainly some strongly held opinions but no hatred or vitriol.

I wonder if you have come into this thread with a certain preconception... our eyes see with us, after all. EDIT: I include myself in this, of course!

262. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128804 by PJG on February 18, 2008 at 2:00 am

Trouble is I think the 'peoples front of Judeas' are taking a short-term expediant of uniting against their common enemy - Secularism.

I fear you are right but he HAS sparked a lot of debate that might otherwise never have happened and he isn't coming out of it very well. A short-term "uniting against the common enemy" is likely to be just that, short-term, as they will soon get back to admitting that they each think the others will go to hell (along with the atheists) and then we can wait for another massive gaffe to aid the cause of secularism!

I live in hope. :o)

263. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128799 by PJG on February 18, 2008 at 1:10 am

The other, to my opinion most probable scenario is that he is cunningly trying to strengthen the grip of religion and religious institutions on the society as a whole. By assigning a stronger position to Islam in "Muslim Communities" he is trying to foster the position of the church and Christianity in the wider society.

I read the entire transcript of the ABofC's speech. To me, the above was the ENTIRE point. It wasn't subtle or cunning, it was blatant! Maybe the ABofC THOUGHT he was being clever!

I still think he did us a favour. By making such an error of judgment which can be interpreted either as ignorance (of Sharia law - "family" or otherwise), stupidity or deviousness, he has single-handedly emphasised that the wisdom of having 26 Bishops in the House of Lords should be questioned. I thank him for helping us towards a completely (and constitutionally) secular state.

264. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128397 by PJG on February 16, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Congratulations!

Wishing you a wonderful life together.

265. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127216 by PJG on February 15, 2008 at 4:01 am

.

Henri Bergsen

If you believe that the existence of God is true, then how can you ask what truth is?

You write as if you know that your belief in God is not true, but that it has value and you prefer self-deception.

266. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127212 by PJG on February 15, 2008 at 3:42 am

* Back from cat stroking (and coffee making!)*

Henri Bergson

Falsity may have value but only if you do not feel yourself (or those you are deceiving) capable of handling reality.

Watching this.....

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2194,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Big-Debate,Richard-Dawkins-Jonathan-Dimbleby-BBC

.... I was struck by the stupidity of the former Archbishop of Canterbury when he defended lying to a child about whether the dentist would hurt him/her.

He seemed to think that a parent telling the child that it wouldn't hurt was OK. In fact, that teaches the child one very bad lesson... that their parent cannot be trusted.

Telling the child that it will hurt a bit but that they will be alright, that it will save them having worse pain later on and that it will be over in a few minutes teaches four very good lessons.

1) That the parent can be trusted
2) That sometimes people have to have a bit of unpleasantness for long term gain
3) That they (the child) can COPE with a bit of unpleasantness and
4) that the parent respects them enough to know that they can cope with the pain (and the truth!)

Yes, falsity can have benefit, but it is a "quick fix", immature benefit. Give me the respectful, grown-up version any time.

EDIT: Falsity, at best, is patronising

267. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127184 by PJG on February 15, 2008 at 2:49 am

LorienRyan

Heh heh! No, I don't think it will ever end. The truth is, it isn't really about atheism vs. theism, it is just about people.

Take one sort of dogma away and they will normally fill the "dogma gap" with... another dogma.

Look at PhilG's comment at 124. That says it all really... belief in belief.

*Sighs, rolls eyes and goes to stroke a cat*

268. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127178 by PJG on February 15, 2008 at 2:31 am

LorienRyan

Two wrongs don't make a right.

EDIT: PhilG

I thought that was a good one too! You just have to laugh don't you?

269. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127149 by PJG on February 15, 2008 at 1:45 am

I thought this was great.

MB did manage to avoid answering lots of questions, albeit rather clumsily. Can we all email her, a la Jeremy Paxman, and ask if she believes in the Virgin Birth until she HAS to answer or would that be considered "spam"?

One thing that I thought was a pity was when MB said that RD cared about science and facts but she cared about "people". RD did counter this, but he did so in a way that is unlikely to have been understood by most religious people.

To those of us who know that you can live fulfilled, good, caring and moral lives without any belief in God, we know exactly where he is coming from. For those who see atheism as an uncaring, selfish mindset, I suspect they would have latched on to that and feel satisfied that "ONLY RELIGION cares about people".

270. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #126781 by PJG on February 14, 2008 at 8:13 am

I only hope that the "powers that be" do not make it a point to give the position to a theist to try to be politically correct because RD is so famously an atheist.

EDIT: I know, Corylus, that they couldn't do that openly, but we all know this sort of thing happens - they would just say the matter was decided on other factors and no-one would ever prove otherwise.

271. Council pays psychic for exorcism

Comment #126742 by PJG on February 14, 2008 at 5:21 am

When my gran was a little girl (around 1911), her school-friends bet her that she wouldn't go into the graveyard after dark. My gran was adamant that there was nothing to fear, there were no such thing as ghosts etc. The "witnesses" stayed outside the gates and watched as my gran walked confidently into the cemetery.

She sat under a tree and, to her horror, saw a skeletal finger beckoning to her from under the lip of a tomb. She was terrified and started to run out of the graveyard but before she came in sight of her friends she calmed down and walked as nonchalantly as she could out into the street in order to win her bet (though she did say her heart was still pounding!)

She said she KNEW there had to be a natural explanation so the next morning she returned to the graveyard and looked under the lip of the tombstone. There, caught in a spider's web, was a leaf, wafting in the breeze. For all the world, in a dim light, it looked just like a bony, beckoning finger.

She was nine years old at the time. The (adult?)people in this story should be ashamed of themselves.

272. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #125329 by PJG on February 11, 2008 at 8:40 am

*Holds head in hands* (AGAIN!)

I reiterate, "You cannot educate someone out of an emotional need".

The more scientific knowledge goes beyond most people's understanding, the more frightened, lost and powerless they feel. Far from getting people to leave this lunacy behind, scientific advances seem to be pushing people towards it.

I am tempted to walk around with a sandwich-board... "The End of the World is Nigh"!

273. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125315 by PJG on February 11, 2008 at 8:15 am

V.S.Ramachandran. A worthy successor.

Regarding those who like the sound of "Sir Richard"... Does the honour involve any pledge to God? Could be a tricky one. Maybe RD could get HRH to use (uncooked) spaghetti instead of a sword?

274. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125101 by PJG on February 11, 2008 at 1:06 am

Wonderful article.

I hope this, and others like it by enlightened Muslim women, gets through to some of the silly girls who are insisting that it is their right to be veiled.

275. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124082 by PJG on February 8, 2008 at 9:59 am

There are a lot of comments on here that suggest that it shouldn't matter if new laws are brought in that do not affect those who do not adhere to the particular religion it applies to.

Actually, I do mind.

I hate it that we have laws that allow children's genitals to be mutilated because of their parents religion. I hate it that we have laws that trump ours on animal welfare (allowing for what we say is inhumane slaughter for Halal and Kosher meat).

I also do not want laws that subjugate women (I don't think there are any women sitting on the "bench" in these Sharia courts we have in this country). Sharia Law (as I understand it) was written by (heterosexual) men, for (heterosexual) men, and anything that increases the power of that in the UK is not good - even if it doesn't apply to me (yet).

276. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123961 by PJG on February 8, 2008 at 3:06 am

Cartomancer

I think you are generally correct in what you say.

However, I am not sure if I am right about this, but if Sharia law stated that a man can have up to four wives and our legal system recognises those women as being wives....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml

...then what happens if the man divorces any or all of them in the Sharia court, but not according to the British law? Is he (are they) divorced or not?

In fact, the above article is a bit of a storm in a tea-cup. There are many single mums who are claiming benefits. It could be that three are the mistresses of the same married man and they all claim benefits for themselves and their children - and the man may also be claiming benefits for himself and his legal family.

In this country, they are called "mistresses" not wives. The end result is that the state is paying for other people's children. I may object to this but it doesn't make any difference whether they are married to the father of their children or not - the taxpayer still forks out.

The only difference between the situations is that the man could be given the benefits due for multiple wives even though (according to Sharia law) they are divorced... and the money should therefore go to the women.

Forgive if I have misrepresented this - I'm sure someone here will correct me! :o)

277. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123952 by PJG on February 8, 2008 at 2:50 am

176. Comment #123933 by Tyler Durden -
Aye, but he's brutal when it comes to dealing with crosses :)
You hit the nail on the head with that one.

Lovely! I can always count on this site to make me smile!! Thanks to both of you.

278. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123926 by PJG on February 8, 2008 at 2:11 am

I am really sorry if I am hugely out-of-date here (I haven't time to read all the comments) but The Irrational Atheist is available for free download.

http://irrationalatheist.com/freedl.html

I've only read a bit of it but MY GOD (!) what an angry man the author is!

If I could be bothered, I would love to list the ad hominem attacks made on each of the Horsemen. If you removed those, I think the book would be about 50% shorter!!!

279. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123911 by PJG on February 8, 2008 at 1:41 am

Phoenix42

I think you may be right but don't you think he has shot himself in the foot? If he said this because he thinks it will improve the standing of Bishops in the House of Lords, then he must be stupid!

I think this may be exactly the sort of thing we need to show that we need a (constitutionally)secular state in the UK. If it raises this as a serious issue, then the ABoC has finally done us a favour.

EDIT: IanD. Great cat - what sort is it?

280. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123548 by PJG on February 7, 2008 at 10:38 am

This could be a good thing.

There have been many comments on this website about how the UK may "sleepwalk" into a dangerous situation regarding religion and the state. This may be what was needed to make a lot of complacent people sit up and realise where kow-towing to religious dogma may lead.

281. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123523 by PJG on February 7, 2008 at 10:00 am

I did send the ABoC stuff to the site admin. a few hours ago. Maybe there is a time delay - I assume Josh is allowed to sleep!!!

282. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123337 by PJG on February 7, 2008 at 2:06 am

This radio programme was broadcast in the UK last night. At minute 28 the claim is made that Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has researched all the cases of suicide bombing between 1980 and 2003 (315 cases) and found that less than 50% were religious, the majority being atheist. Does anyone know about anything about this research - or Pape?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/mainframe.shtml?http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/moralmaze

283. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122798 by PJG on February 6, 2008 at 5:30 am

Al- rawandi

Studying why people believe in God is not theology, it is psychology, surely?

The study of religion itself may be of historical interest (and so could be part of History). Religion's role in literature could be studied as part of that subject... etc.

Theology is the study of the nature of God and of religious "truths". It is like studying the nature of unicorns.

DavidGYoung
In that case, why call it a Theology course and not "History of Religion"?

284. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122316 by PJG on February 5, 2008 at 7:25 am

LorienRyan

A bit of a shame the explanation used "All swans are white" as an example of a scientific theory when we know there are black swans.

285. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122293 by PJG on February 5, 2008 at 6:33 am

Home8896

I am in England where we don't have the evangelical problem... though we now have God TV and judging by the British input into that, it will only be a matter of time :o(

I do think that most people of my generation left school with a bit of understanding of natural selection (if nothing else!) and the Bible literalists are certainly in the minority here. I don't know what it is like with the younger generation as I give most children a wide berth!

There have been a few newspaper articles lately about creationism (creeping in by the back door)... and a rise in the number of faith schools is a problem here too. At the moment, most articles touching on religion focus on Islam and the threat from fundamentalists rather than any threat to our education system.

I think I am right in saying, however, that the majority of Muslims are creationists. I heard recently that 95% of Muslims worldwide are creationists though I hope most of the %5 are in the west!

It means we cannot be complacent here ... we are likely to be squeezed between Islam from the east and the Evangelical wave from the west with the opposition to scientific advancement that seems to come with both. I fear this will impact on the UK sooner or later.

286. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122284 by PJG on February 5, 2008 at 5:08 am

Verylee

"Fool who has said in his heart there is no god"!

This is an example of where we can disassociate from those who say this because they missed out the bit in the Bible where it goes on to say, "But verily, the wise man saieth in his brain, after thought, contemplation and realisation that there is lack of evidence for his existence, that there is no God"

287. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122247 by PJG on February 5, 2008 at 2:11 am

Verylee

I really agree with you on this point about anti-evolutionists "insulting the intelligence of the audience" tactic.

OK, the fact is that most people DO misunderstand the meaning of "theory" in science. Most people are amazingly ignorant of the theory of evolution and science in general. It horrifies me when I talk to JWs and other Bible literalists, I find it impossible to believe they attended, let alone understood, a single science lesson while they were at school.

However, if you talk to them as if they have a basic understanding, they often start to enquire and then you can start to discuss evolution (and religion) with them. It is interesting to see the change in their attitude. I think it is a good ploy - imply they are intelligent/educated enough to be beyond believing the twaddle and they may rise to it and start to feel left behind. No-one likes to feel left behind or that others think they are ill-informed.

An example of this is in the PZ/Simmons debate itself... Dr. Simmons wanted to seem open to learning by taking the details of Mary Jane West-Eberhart's book when PZ made him look like an ill-informed idiot.

(Incidentally, according to the DI website, Dr. Simmons is a practicing medic - pity his patients)

288. Dusty Clues: Study suggests no dearth of Earths

Comment #122237 by PJG on February 5, 2008 at 12:56 am

Of course, just because life (as we know it Captain) may be possible on other planets - and life supporting planets are a statistical probability given the numbers involved - it still doesn't mean life is there (abiogenesis being uncertain - we might be the only planets where it all came together at the right moment!) and so the theists can still cry "we're special".

My guess is that, should life be found elsewhere, they would still say "God made life on other planets but only HUMAN life on Earth" and if intelligent life were found elsewhere, they would STILL claim something like "Well, that is why God made the universe so BIG... so he could seed it with other planets and other life."

The problem is that any discovery is just a snap-shot in time. If they can't understand the concept of evolution (and the timescales involved) and therefore don't accept that it is an ongoing process, they can still claim that "Goddidit".

P.S. That is interesting - "abiogenesis" is not in the spellchecker but "Goddidit" is! :o)

289. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #121965 by PJG on February 4, 2008 at 12:28 pm

It is coming this way Steve... slowly but surely!

290. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #121959 by PJG on February 4, 2008 at 12:10 pm

While this university is indeed technically a secular institution, secular does not denote taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices.

Where is the "active stance in opposition...."?

The proposal says, "to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief."

not

"to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life against (the need for) superstition or religious belief."

291. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121847 by PJG on February 4, 2008 at 8:39 am

We have laws in this country about the humane slaughter of animals - faith trumps them and we have halal and kosher meat. We have a law that protects an invisible being (whose existence has yet to be established) from being offended (blasphemy). Faith is taken seriously in law-making - as we all know.

The people who are claiming that their faith should be put above other considerations and the people (often our politicians) who pander to them, should be ashamed of themselves. Sadly, they are not, and where there are votes, there is might and might is right, it seems - it proves so in the above examples (and if the blasphemy law is changes, I suspect it will be because it only applies to C of E and other faiths feel that isn't fair!)

That is why I say they are beyond education and reason, YssiBoo, I wish it were not so. Of course I don't want to shorten my life because some idiot doesn't want to go against her faith. I think they should be removed from the course (or job) within minutes of suggesting their faith is more important than the health of their patient. All I was saying was that I am not going to hold my breath because our politicians do not want to offend the Muslims!!

292. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121730 by PJG on February 4, 2008 at 3:40 am

Wipeout (Wooter?)
You'll find lots of Wooter's comments on this thread. They are still there (as of one minute ago)

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2030,Do-the-laws-of-God-trump-those-of-man,Globe-and-Mail,page2#comments

293. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121724 by PJG on February 4, 2008 at 3:29 am

http://codesmithy.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/pz-meyers-does-a-horrible-thing/

294. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121716 by PJG on February 4, 2008 at 3:10 am

*PJG heaves a sigh, accepts that no amount of education or reason will get through to these people, and goes to make another cup of tea.*

The planet will survive, living things will continue to evolve. Human beings will just become another one of the millions of extinct species. Religion and religious conflict may bring that extinction about a few hundred or thousand years earlier than would happen without it, that is all.

295. U.S.: 'Demonic' militants sent women to bomb markets in Iraq

Comment #121072 by PJG on February 2, 2008 at 11:50 pm

One question:

If women are not allowed to go out without a male member of their family, who was with these women at the time?

Am I misunderstanding something?

296. Documents detail church coverup

Comment #121068 by PJG on February 2, 2008 at 11:28 pm

NormanDoering

However, you will, of course, find pedophiles seeking access to children in the same way you'll find more necrophilia in funeral parlors and forensic labs than in high school education or computer programming.

As a friend of mine said many years ago, "I don't know why people are surprised when they hear about paedophilia being rife in the church and children's homes. If you fancy children, you aren't going to look for a job with Help the Aged."

297. Documents detail church coverup

Comment #120760 by PJG on February 2, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Geoff

It makes me wonder if religious people (in the UK) are exempt from the requirement for an "enhanced CRB" check.

They are not exempt... but a person has to be caught before they are going to show up on a CRB check. The idea that someone is "safe" because they have a clear record is a joke, and a dangerous one. It gives parents a false sense of security if they don't understand this... and many do not understand!!

298. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120682 by PJG on February 2, 2008 at 9:54 am

I think the Creationists (sorry, creationists - I don't want to dignify them with the capitalised version!) just show themselves up and the more they do it, the better.

PZ did a wonderful job. One of the best things was that he pointed out that carping back to "Darwin" and pointing out errors made 150 years ago seems to be the major "defence" the creationists have against the theory of evolution.

In a debate about the current state of microbiology, it would be seen as laughable to keep bringing up errors of understanding made by Pasteur. The fact they don't see this is just mind boggling.

299. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120670 by PJG on February 2, 2008 at 9:21 am

Home8896

During the last World Cup, there was a joke here in the UK which referred to all the "England" (or "Ing-er-land") flags that people were flying from their cars...

"The world is full of arseholes. Thankfully, God gave us the flag of St. George so they can be easily identified". Maybe we should modify it slightly...

"The world is full of idiots. Thankfully, God gave us the Christian fish symbol so they can be easily identified".

Just a thought.

300. U.S.: 'Demonic' militants sent women to bomb markets in Iraq

Comment #120667 by PJG on February 2, 2008 at 9:02 am

This isn't really THAT surprising is it?

If women are seen as "less than" at the best of times, mentally disabled women are likely to be seen as virtually subhuman and eminently "disposable".

This sickens me to the core. The only comfort I find is that these women died very quickly and, I hope, did not know what was going to happen. I just wish the bombs had detonated early and had taken the pond-life that fastened them on, rather than the innocent civilians.