301. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35225 by Jack Rawlinson on April 26, 2007 at 3:58 pm

And the "soft liberals" in this country wonder why some of us support bans on the veil in state institutions. You have to draw a solid line in the sand against the encroachment of this sort of primitive, sexist, patriarchal vileness. And hell yes, I'll call that particular spade a spade.

302. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34759 by Jack Rawlinson on April 25, 2007 at 6:04 am

Blah blah blah, whine whine, "insulting", blah blah, "arrogant", whine whine.

Yes, isn't it embarrassing having the innate stupidity of your stupid beliefs held up in the spotlight? TOUGH. Get used to it.

303. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34465 by Jack Rawlinson on April 24, 2007 at 6:43 am

I like Hitchens even though I disagree with some of his political views, and even though he can be a cantankerous old cuss. Actually, that's probably part of the reason I like him, come to think of it. I certainly like his bulldog obstreperousness and his unflinching honesty about his opinions. I admire anyone who isn't intimidated by opponents and is not afraid to tell them exactly what he thinks of them. He was SO right about Mother Teresa, and he said what needed saying about her at a time when to offer even mild doubts about her sanctified bullshit was akin to pissing on the flag. That took guts, and earned him a few death threats.

This book sounds like it's going to be pretty exhilarating to read and I shall be buying my copy next time I pass a bookshop. I also agree that as a matter of principle we should support works by our fellow atheists. To do so is a way of keeping atheism in the spotlight and raising awareness of just how many of us exist. Also, getting a book into the best seller list means that people who would not normally seek it out become aware of it and are more likely to take a chance with it. Maybe they see it in the best-seller pile at the airport, or when idly looking for something to read... so let's keep getting them into that pile!

304. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34297 by Jack Rawlinson on April 23, 2007 at 6:36 pm

That was as bad as I feared it might be. O'Reilly motormouthed over Richard's politeness and didn't really let him press his points. This is a standard O'Reilly tactic, one he tends to use with people he knows he can't out-argue. Richard barely got a word in, and O'Reilly was only trotting out the same tired, repeatedly-debunked bullshit about Stalin and Pol Pot and "You can't prove God doesn't exist".

Unfortunate.

305. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34202 by Jack Rawlinson on April 23, 2007 at 1:53 pm

God: "I am not allowed in schools"

Not allowed? Oh dear. Poor little god. His omnipotent, ever-loving hands tied by a minor restriction on religious practice in certain schools. What's an omnipotent, ever-loving god to do when a mere human law can keep him out of a place? I know! Send in a hitman to kill some random kids! He can do that! Ha! There's always a way!

The person who made that first video should be ashamed of his boneheaded stupidity and the profound depth of his offensiveness.

306. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #34084 by Jack Rawlinson on April 23, 2007 at 7:00 am

These "soft atheists" are almost as annoying as the religious. They remind me of hand-wringing "soft liberals" (and I say that as a person with liberal politics): so damned concerned not to rock anybody's boat or come out hard against things which are bad that they end up helping those things. They give tacit support to religion.

They're also happy to play along with the religious "rubber/glue" tactic of attempting to unfairly smear atheists with epithets such as "fundamentalist", "intolerant", "bigot" etc. They use loaded words to describe what we're about, such as saying that we want to "eradicate" religion. Sure, I'd like to see religion disappear entirely, but through a process of argument, reason and education. "Eradicate" carries negative connotations of force. We expect that sort of shameless distortion from those whose beliefs we criticise but it's especially irksome when it comes from people who claim to be atheists.

307. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33216 by Jack Rawlinson on April 19, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Stay cool, Richard. If you've done any homework on O'Reilly you'll know what to expect. Colbert he ain't!

He'll try to browbeat you but if you hang in there with your usual measured persistence and clarity you'll look good, I think.

308. Flea Circus!

Comment #32931 by Jack Rawlinson on April 18, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Barnacle: yes, I'd noticed that too. You have to wonder about the quality of the publisher responsible for dropping "The Dawkins' Letters" on the public. Well, you don't have to wonder too much.

309. Flea Circus!

Comment #32914 by Jack Rawlinson on April 18, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Graham: the flea circus in Bentine's show was one of the highlights of my youth! And as well as I can recall, his fleas had far more wit and agility than the sorry crop of watery religious apologists struggling desperately to deal with Dennett, Dawkins and Harris.

310. Christians at Bible publishers have their throats cut

Comment #32912 by Jack Rawlinson on April 18, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Here's another story to quote next time some idiot believer tells you that religion is necessary for morality.

311. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32621 by Jack Rawlinson on April 17, 2007 at 3:49 pm

"Atheism isn't the final word"? Sorry mate, on the subject of god, it is. You're just too dim or needy to know it. But if you're lucky, one day you will.

312. Medical 'Miracles' Not Supported by Evidence

Comment #31768 by Jack Rawlinson on April 14, 2007 at 6:54 am

Another book recommendation for a different and highly amusing angle on the subject of "miracle" healers: The Hippopotamus, by Stephen Fry.

313. The God Debate

Comment #29461 by Jack Rawlinson on April 3, 2007 at 2:01 am

Here's the value of this sort of "debate": it illustrates just how stupid people like Warren are. It takes the boneheaded, obdurate ignorance of the inveterate faith-head and shines a big, bright light on it for - and here's the important bit - others to see. Others who may not really have seen it so clearly before. Others who may be impressionable children living under religious indoctrination. It's not about persuasion, it's about exposure.

Those of us who are fully familiar with the arguments of both sides need to remember that there are always plenty more people who aren't, and there will always be another generation of children the superstitious primitives are eager to get their hooks into. So it's up to us to keep shining that big light on the damnfool bigotry and witlessness of people like this buffoon Warren. And I'm glad we have prominent representatives like Sam Harris out there fighting the good fight.

314. Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

Comment #26705 by Jack Rawlinson on March 21, 2007 at 8:07 am

Why does the word 'gift' in this context make me squirm with embarrassment?

keith: probably because it unjustifiably assumes that someone or something gave the baby. This is something religious believers do almost unconsciously: they build the a priori assumption of the existence of God into their most mundane utterances. So a piece of good fortune is a "blessing" (unspoken assumption: from God). When you escape danger, have good health or sit down for a good meal you should be "thankful" (unspoken assumption: to God). A baby is a "gift" (unspoken assumption: from God).

It really is a virus of the mind. And an extremely pernicious one.

315. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26128 by Jack Rawlinson on March 17, 2007 at 5:27 am

So let's get this straight... err... as it were:

- prenatal tinkering to "cure" potential homosexuality: a good thing
- stem cell research involving blastocysts with perhaps no more than 150 cells: a bad thing.
- religious hypocrisy: perfectly acceptable.

316. Free Speech

Comment #25670 by Jack Rawlinson on March 14, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Hitchens can be a jerk and I most certainly don't agree with him all the time but he's right on the money here, and I respect the guy a lot for his fundamental nous about rights.

317. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25177 by Jack Rawlinson on March 10, 2007 at 5:15 pm

cheshirecat: I wasn't suggesting you should impose your beliefs on your friends. I was suggesting you should assess theirs (and yours) honestly, and not shrink from making a rational judgement about them.

318. When the ain'ts go marching in

Comment #25163 by Jack Rawlinson on March 10, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Richard: you know you've made it when Bertrand Russell is being described as "...the Richard Dawkins of his day", instead of the other way around. :-)

319. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25150 by Jack Rawlinson on March 10, 2007 at 11:58 am

It is not for me to decide whether they are deluded or not

Why not, cheshirecat? Don't you make judgements about your friends' - and enemies' - personalities and qualities? Isn't that how we decide who we even want to be friends with: by deciding that we like this or that about them, or that we dislike certain aspects of their behaviour and views?

One of the things I value about my friendships is honesty. If I think a friend of mine is talking nonsense or deluding him or herself I say so. And I hope they'd do the same for me.

320. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25148 by Jack Rawlinson on March 10, 2007 at 11:53 am

That was pure, shameless tabloid-style shit-stirring by The Guardian's writer and just the latest in a depressing string of articles which are either badly-argued pro-religion pieces or snide, distorting attacks on atheists and atheism.

I've had it with the Guardian. I've been saying this for some time but that's enough. With heavy heart I'm shifting to The Indy. It may be boring but last time I checked it wasn't churning out this sort of nonsense.

321. Conservapedia v Wikipedia

Comment #24635 by Jack Rawlinson on March 7, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Pranksters have already started having fun with this. Check out this original version of the entry for "Cactus".

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cactus&oldid=15693

I think Conservapedia's editors and checkers are going to have their hands full chasing stuff like this down. :-)

322. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24562 by Jack Rawlinson on March 7, 2007 at 9:33 am

Stephen J: your "reasons noted above" are unconvincing.

You first question whether there can be a rational basis for accepting "ought" statements, or for favouring one set of "ought" statements over another. Your post then seems to proceed on the unproven assumption that there is no such rational basis. I do not feel you have made that case.

One can posit a number of rational arguments for deciding that one ought not to inflict pain, for example. One is the argument from fairness: if I do not enjoy having pain inflicted on me and would wish to live in a society where no one inflicted pain on me, it is reasonable to assume that most other human beings - having the same pain receptors and reactions as me - feel the same way. It is therefore fair to feel that we should avoid inflicting pain on other human beings. Similarly, we could then go on to make a rational argument for fairness as opposed to unfairness.

Or, we could make a rational argument from self-interest and social cohesion: it is rational to expect the breakdown of a society in which the infliction of pain on others is encouraged. That is, such a society is likely to degenerate into one in which the majority live in fear, cannot work, cannot be useful, fully-contributing members of that society, and so on. This can actually be observed to a degree in real societies where law, order etc have broken down for one reason or another. Such societies degenerate. And again, we can then go on to make rational arguments about why such societies should be regarded as "worse" than ones where unfettered pain-infliction is discouraged.

On a smaller scale, surely you would not argue that it is impossible to rationally defend the proposition that I ought not to rape and kill your daughter? Because I could certainly make a rational argument that I ought not to!

323. Why there are almost no genuine atheists

Comment #24475 by Jack Rawlinson on March 6, 2007 at 8:16 pm

"one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don't make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call "God." For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of "ought" statements, as in "we ought to preserve biological diversity," or what have you."

The unsupported declaration that "ought" statements don't make sense without belief in God shows that the writer is stupid.

When are the primitives going to throw someone intelligent against us?

324. Long live satire

Comment #24424 by Jack Rawlinson on March 6, 2007 at 3:02 pm

"I found the magazine hugely offensive ... freedom of expression does not constitute a freedom to offend."

Is that right? Okay then, I demand that Islamic preaching and the open sale of the koran be banned. Because it offends me. Or does one person's offence count for more than another's?

325. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23885 by Jack Rawlinson on March 3, 2007 at 11:08 am

Over in the forum I posted a thread entitled "Put Up or Shut Up", challenging any "theologian" who adopted the "Eagleton Defence" to make one of these oh-so-sophisticated arguments for God.

No takers last time I looked. Haven't seen any in the press which publishes these pathetic attacks on RD et al, either. Nor have I seen the likes of Eagleton and Orr publishing bestsellers of their own introducing these knock-down arguments to the general public.

Funny that, eh?

326. The return of God?

Comment #23877 by Jack Rawlinson on March 3, 2007 at 10:00 am

Craig insisted that it was incumbent on Wolpert to prove that God is an illusion.

Showing by such idiotic insistence that he has no grasp of even the most elementary logic. Seriously: these people who cannot get the very obvious fact that it is the proponent of an idea or entity who bears the responsibility for providing evidence are intellectual cripples and it is futile to try to argue rationally with them. They don't have the mental toolset required for it.

327. The return of God?

Comment #23875 by Jack Rawlinson on March 3, 2007 at 9:52 am

Craig insisted that it was incumbent on Wolpert to prove that God is an illusion.

Thereby demonstrating in one idiotic insistence that he has no grasp of the most elementary logic and is fundamentally irrational. Seriously: people who cannot get the shatteringly obvious fact that it is the proponent of an idea or entity who must provide evidence, are intellectually crippled. And it is futile to argue with them.

328. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23712 by Jack Rawlinson on March 2, 2007 at 7:01 am

"...theistic belief does not (in general) need argument either for deontological justification, or for positive epistemic status, (or for Foley rationality or Alstonian justification)); belief in God is properly basic."

Translation: Belief in god needs no proof.

Dress it up with a bunch of big words, a couple of obscure references and call yourself a "philosopher".

What an immense pile of vacuous verbal masturbation.

329. Religion in Conflict: Are 'Evangelical Atheists' Too Outspoken?

Comment #23304 by Jack Rawlinson on February 27, 2007 at 5:57 pm

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby"

Ooh, I am SO going to steal that, MIND_REBEL! Thanks!

330. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23301 by Jack Rawlinson on February 27, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Okay, that was pretty good. Crawley is pretty good. Because he asks the questions believers typically want to ask, but gives Richard a full chance to answer.

331. Faith

Comment #23081 by Jack Rawlinson on February 26, 2007 at 7:02 am

I read this tripe yesterday and it just made me tired. The relentless, shameless, lying, distorting stupidity of these people.

"Atheists like the Richard Dawkins of this world are just as fundamentalist as the people setting off bombs on the tube, the hardline settlers on the West Bank and the anti-gay bigots of the Church of England."

I mean... what can you say to someone moronic enough to say something like that and actually believe it? And they wonder why we insult their intelligence and disrespect their opinions and beliefs?

Savages.

332. Biology and Bullshit

Comment #22976 by Jack Rawlinson on February 25, 2007 at 7:10 am

[The argument from design] has had numerous stakes driven through its heart, but like a cinematic version of the undead, it keeps resurrecting itself, staggering, zombie-like and covered with flies, back into public view.

Beautiful!

333. Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November...

Comment #22575 by Jack Rawlinson on February 19, 2007 at 4:23 pm

What happened to Guy Fawkes & co for their treason? Well they end up being burned at the stake, as will be remembered by many Guys being thrown on bonfires over this weekend. And the Bible depiction is something similar for all those who want to dispense with God.


.....but he loves you!

[Thank you George Carlin]

334. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22574 by Jack Rawlinson on February 19, 2007 at 4:19 pm

"...teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs."

Oh man. Does irony get any heavier than that?

335. Mr. Deity

Comment #22560 by Jack Rawlinson on February 19, 2007 at 6:17 pm

These were pretty good. But has anyone else noticed this in the Mr Deity FAQ?

In future episodes, I intend to turn the tables a bit and poke fun at what I call the "angry atheists" (of whom I am not fond). We'll see if they take it so well.

Uh-oh... :-)

336. Response to Orr

Comment #22321 by Jack Rawlinson on February 14, 2007 at 6:23 pm

This is great, and a stellar example of what we atheists must do when dealing with the increasingly hysterical reactions of the religious (and their apologists) to atheist resistance: we must calmly and relentlessly insist that they justify their ad homs, retract their straw men and back up their preposterous claims.

Dennett has Orr on the hook for something that many of the more intelligent religious apologists have used as a tactic to attack Dawkins: the specious claim that because Dawkins has not chosen to tangle with the faux-esotoric sophistry of the "respected" modern theologists, his whole attack on religion is therefore void. This is plainly a nonsense since, as both Dawkins and Dennett point out, this vapid, pseudo-intellectual bullshit esoterica is way outside the beliefs of the vast majority of religious people. And it is that vast majority which concerns us. Not the sniffy, posturing doctors of "theology" in their meaningless ivory towers. No, we are primarily concerned with John and Jane Doe and their simple-minded religious beliefs: beliefs which lead them to reject evolution, science, compassionate humanity and basic reason.

And yet again: whenever apologists like Orr refer to these arcane yet oh-so-compelling theological arguments we must demand that they PRESENT them, so that we can tackle and rebut them (and believe me, as one who has actually taken the time to seek them out, they're very easily rebutted). If they refuse to do that, we know what to conclude: they simply don't have the courage of their convictions.

337. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21616 by Jack Rawlinson on February 10, 2007 at 6:28 am

Here's how science would sort out this muddleheaded way of thinking: everyone else just needs to get out of the way, and let the real scientists, like himself, get to work. They would have these questions sorted out in no time.

That's such an insolent straw man it almost deserves to be called libellous. What a lazy-minded, distorting fool this man is. I am so tired of reading articles by these cretins.

338. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21523 by Jack Rawlinson on February 9, 2007 at 6:06 pm

If that really wasn't a satire on the type of criticism levelled at RD by our less intelligent religious brethren, it should have been. It's too depressing to consider someone could be stupid enough to think it makes actual hits on The God Delusion.

339. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21005 by Jack Rawlinson on February 7, 2007 at 8:52 am

Same old crap. Same old inattentiveness. Same old fallacy-strewing. Same old misrepresentation of RD's position. Same old pathetic religious neediness.

Boring.

340. Britons unconvinced on evolution

Comment #18751 by Jack Rawlinson on January 22, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Okay, that's surprising and depressing. What the hell has happened to my country?

We live in the Dim Ages.

341. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #18707 by Jack Rawlinson on January 22, 2007 at 2:52 pm

That's not God! That's Noel Edmonds!!

NO DEAL!!

342. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18518 by Jack Rawlinson on January 21, 2007 at 1:00 pm

M_R: right now the cute words which are springing to mind in relation to you are things like "hypersensitive" and "paranoid". And I mean that in a non-serious, "just-joshing-with-ya" way, 'kay? :-)

I'm British, so perhaps there are racial overtones to "redneck" that my cultural ignorance means I'm unaware of, but to me it seems no more racist than our Brit terms like "chav" (which basically means under-educated and largely white working-class youth with a fondness for dressing in sportswear and indulging in minor criminality). The term is vaguely derogatory but inasmuch as race forms any part of the characteristics of the group, it isn't the element which makes the term derogatory. People don't sneer at rednecks or chavs because they're white. I think gangsta rappers are shallow, idiotic boneheads, but not because they're black.

343. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18506 by Jack Rawlinson on January 21, 2007 at 10:07 am

Do you hate poor blacks, too?

Who said I hated people for being poor or white?

We atheists are too used to that sort of straw man not to spot them, no matter what the source, I'm afraid.

Do you have any quick ways to describe them?

"Poor blacks" is pretty quick, and is probably the description I'd use.

Any other questions/assumptions you'd like to make?

344. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18425 by Jack Rawlinson on January 20, 2007 at 5:48 pm

I love Muriel Gray and I want to have her children.

I have no problem at all with terms like "redneck". It's just a quick way of saying "under-educated, ignorant hick moron". And those people really do exist, you know. One thing atheists of all people shouldn't be afraid of is calling it like it is.

345. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #18253 by Jack Rawlinson on January 19, 2007 at 6:04 am

Question for admin: where is the troll thread? I just had a quick scan on the forum and couldn't see it there.

346. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #18096 by Jack Rawlinson on January 18, 2007 at 9:36 am

Classic satire from The Onion's golden era. Funny that it fooled a few people here, too!

347. Sam Harris at Idea City '05

Comment #17915 by Jack Rawlinson on January 17, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Great speech. I loved his "big diamond" illustration. And I wish every religious believer would listen to this with an open mind. If they can find one, of course. :-)

348. Atheist Outreach: Group Coaxes Unbelievers Into the Open

Comment #17818 by Jack Rawlinson on January 16, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Well hell, I may be a Brit but I live in NYC. Maybe I should go check these folks out and lend my support. I certainly have no problem being "out of the closet" about my atheism. Even after five years in possibly the most liberal city in the US it amazes me how negatively atheists are viewed here. In Britain it means nothing. In fact, people tend to assume you're an atheist - or at least an agnostic - unless you show the immense bad taste and lack of social grace to say otherwise. :-)

349. Christian Shrine Needs Two Exits, Israel Says

Comment #17817 by Jack Rawlinson on January 16, 2007 at 6:14 pm

"an unprecedented violation of the status quo"

Man, I haven't heard that expression since I goosed Francis Rossi in 1974

350. Wash. school board restricts Gore's global-warming film

Comment #17787 by Jack Rawlinson on January 16, 2007 at 11:39 am

scot: "The global warming bandwagon is beginning to resemble a religion"

No, it isn't. Not if you look at it properly. Why? because unlike a religion it has masses of hard, scientific evidence to support it. And it really isn't hard to find at all. Watching the film would be a good start, you know.