401. The Only One in Step

Comment #14441 by Jack Rawlinson on December 22, 2006 at 1:03 pm

Yes, I was appalled by some of those letters today. There was also one from a certain Professor Steve Fuller of Warwick University which displayed a quite jaw-dropping ignorance of elementary fallacies. I noted that he's a professor of sociology. I fondly recalled a graffito in one of Leeds University Physics Department's toilets. Right next to the toilet roll dispenser some wag had written, "Sociology degrees. Please take one."

One begins to see why, perhaps... :-)

402. It is possible to respect the believers but not the belief

Comment #14402 by Jack Rawlinson on December 22, 2006 at 9:40 am

Yeah, I gave Tim a slap for this uncharacteristic wishy-washyness on the Guardian comment page yesterday. Along with a lot of other people.

403. The problem with secularism

Comment #14400 by Jack Rawlinson on December 22, 2006 at 9:31 am

AcesUp... that's superb. A wonderful example of what I earlier described as "...a flurry of pseudo-philosophical meanderings and logical loose ends". And the correct response to such pseudy drivel is:

1. Precisely define "radical ontological indigence"

2. Precisely define "natural desire to be"

3. Precisely define "prudent preservation"

4. Precisely define "perfective completion"

5. Precisely define "Self-transcendent action"

6. Precisely define "Tradition", explain why you have capitalised it, you dolt, and kindly proceed to elaborate on how you could possibly, in your most fevered, language-denaturing dreams, imagine it has a "sense" corresponding to "enacting the good as it communicates itself in the beauty of all beings". And please don't try to explain that cod-mystical verbal train wreck or I fear I may have to punch you. Sorry.

7. "To say this is to say that Tradition describes something like testimony to the action of transcendence within immanence. Absolute immanence is absolute transcendence, ''more interior to me than I to myself." Right, that's it. I AM going to have to punch you.

404. The problem with secularism

Comment #14388 by Jack Rawlinson on December 22, 2006 at 8:46 am

Shaker2006: that statement is a classic example of an empty, meaningless declaration which, when you analyse it, is based on nothing but faith hiding behind an obscure, ambiguous term ("integral insistence").

"Life displays a certain inherency".

What does that mean? That life is... uh... inherently life? You know, in the way that rocks are inherently rocks? Well, no shit, Sherlock! Oh wait... he's going to amplify!

"..beings that come about are a product of their own integral insistence."

And there it is. There's the statement of pure faith dressed up as profundity. Not the slightest evidence for the truth of the statement provided; not the slightest argument for it. And even if we accept the idea that species can, as rww puts it, "...like the way they are and choose to stop evolving.", where is the support for religious belief in that? Oh dear. Nowhere to be seen.

405. The problem with secularism

Comment #14372 by Jack Rawlinson on December 22, 2006 at 6:59 am

igor: it's a classic tactic of the more intelligent religious apologist (insofar as that isn't a contradiction in terms). They declare that the particular version or versions of god an atheist attacks are childish simplifications; outdated notions of the deity; misunderstandings of the far more subtle nature of god that sophisticated theologians hold and certainly not in any way like their interpretation of god.

The way to deal with this is to always throw the challenge right in their faces: "Okay then, educate me. Bring me up to speed with the latest wonders of modern theological thought. Define your terms precisely. Define your notion of god precisely."

In the unlikely event they actually try to do this instead of ducking the issue ("Too complex to sum up quickly", "Go read Boethius and get back to me", etc) you'll be treated to either a woolly, wordy, waffle-fest about a curious shape-shifter of a god, or else you'll be bombarded with a flurry of pseudo-philosophical meanderings and logical loose ends which the believer hopes you'll simply find too complex to keep track of. However, if you doggedly persist in picking apart each element of their argument you will always - ALWAYS - find that their god is ultimately built on faith.

Always challenge. And if they refuse to meet the challenge they can be fairly discounted.

406. The problem with secularism

Comment #14359 by Jack Rawlinson on December 22, 2006 at 6:15 am

TGD is "...barely literate"?

WHAT?

This person is clearly deranged, and his opinions are therefore worthless.

407. 7 monks injured in clash over monastery

Comment #14123 by Jack Rawlinson on December 21, 2006 at 8:18 am

Hang on, I object to this slander on the Scots! Everyone knows it's the Welsh who are into sheep! Right then, who wants some? *Picks up crowbar*

408. Now we know how to make the IDists dance in their petticoats: blaspheme.

Comment #14122 by Jack Rawlinson on December 21, 2006 at 8:14 am

Well, I said I thought the blasphemy challenge was a bit silly. I suspect now that might have been my age talking (47). Like professor Dawkins says, perhaps it's a good thing that predominantly young people are doing this. And given this hilarious reaction from the believers I have to revise my opinion. A bullseye has clearly been hit. Keep up the good work, deniers!

409. Beneath The Surface

Comment #13987 by Jack Rawlinson on December 20, 2006 at 1:58 pm

Yes, excellent. The guy basically allowed Richard to present an overview of the book and to respond to some of the criticisms levelled against it. That has to be valuable. I hope the audience figures were good.

410. Beneath The Surface

Comment #13984 by Jack Rawlinson on December 20, 2006 at 1:20 pm

Well, I've only listened to half of it so far but what I'm hearing is an articulate interviewer who's totally sympathetic to Richard's ideas and is providing him with a wide open platform to express them. Refreshing to hear, after all the instances of people cutting him off or surrounding him with idiots who haven't read the book.

411. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13765 by Jack Rawlinson on December 19, 2006 at 10:39 am

Had to laugh at the Wikipedia entry for Liddle. It's been fixed now but this morning the opening sentence read:

"Rod Liddle (born 1960) is a controversial British journalist, adulterer and notorious twat best known for his term as editor of BBC Radio 4's Today programme."

412. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13342 by Jack Rawlinson on December 17, 2006 at 6:22 am

Very disappointing intellectual cowardice and dishonesty from a man I have a lot of respect for, politically. Benn hammered away at his straw men ("Science can't give me moral guidance!") long after Richard had agreed with him. He totally dodged the central issue of the importance of truth, over and over again.

I suppose, given that he is a politician, it's a little naive of me to be somewhat surprised by that.

413. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13266 by Jack Rawlinson on December 16, 2006 at 1:54 pm

Kismettana: I don't think anyone is saying that we shouldn't allow non-experts to speak. The criticisms have been about the content and approach, not the act of speaking out.

Nothing wrong with a bit of disagreement about tactics!

414. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #13265 by Jack Rawlinson on December 16, 2006 at 1:49 pm

Well, I must say that now the "I deny the holy spirit" videos look like the height of sophistication. So thanks for that, Dembski, you absurd dimwit.

415. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13139 by Jack Rawlinson on December 15, 2006 at 7:55 pm

Yeah, I'm another one who thinks this is sort of silly. If you're an atheist, it's no big deal to do this. And if you're a Christian, I guess you wouldn't do it and you'd think the atheists who do are going to hell. Well, then we join all the other damned sinners in their blinkered eyes. We knew that already.

The main reason to blaspheme is to demonstrate opposition to the idea that blasphemy is wrong, or should be criminalised. That's a good reason to do it because there's a clear point. And when I blaspheme I do it just a bit more colourfully than "I deny the holy spirit".

416. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12922 by Jack Rawlinson on December 14, 2006 at 11:54 am

aidanjt:

You ask why we shouldn't pursue absolute knowledge. I didn't say we shouldn't pursue knowledge. We should, and we should strive to make it as reliable as possible. However, I said that absolute knowledge is unattainable for we humans, as we are non-absolute creatures.

This is basically stating Socrates' dictum: "I only know that I know nothing". Socrates didn't mean by that that he was ignorant. It meant he recognised that such knowledge as he had was necessarily uncertain, since it came to him through the imperfect engines of human perception and human reason. This has always seemed obvious to me, but there are many philosophical thought experiments which try to illustrate it. What if we're just "brains in vats", being fed false perceptions by a mad scientist which give us a perfectly believable impression of our "reality"... but which are as false as the things we perceive in dreams? Crazy, right? But can you absolutely disprove it? No. But does that mean we should use the term "agnostic" about every single thing we experience? Of course not. Hence my point about certainty beyond reasonable doubt.

You say that it's important to set clearly defined boundaries in language and that ambiguity serves no purpose in science or language. This is a confused statement which I only partially agree with. I agree that ambiguity serves no purpose in science, but I strongly disagree that it serves no purpose in language. Language can be used artistically as well as scientifically and ambiguity can be a very powerful form of artistic expression. I hope you're not one of these cold-blooded rationalists who feel there's no place for art in our world!

I have no problem with dictionary.com's definition of an atheist, but it isn't the one you gave. You added that bit about an atheist being unconvincable which is most definitely not part of the definition.

You then say that you agree that nothing is absolutely certain, so... good. We agree! However, I disagree with you when you then state that things "don't just drop into black and white categories". They certainly can do. The example you gave - belief and disbelief - may very well be a matter of opinion, but there is nothing to say that opinions cannot be "black or white". For example, we all know people who definitely believe in god. There's nothing grey about their belief. They 100% believe. They may be wrong in that belief, but the belief itself is totally fixed and unwavering.

Next, you state that, "...we, as rational thinking people, can look upon evidence and form a rational opinion of the facts without critical bias". I agree. Then you say that agnostics are "...between two extremes" and once again I agree, but unlike you I do not see that those extremes are necessarily absolute. An agnostic may find himself between an atheist such as myself or RD - who acknowledges the Socratic dictum - and a believer who recognises that his fervent belief may be wrong. The point is that one can decide to believe or not believe based on the evidence and still recognise that an uncertainty exists. I can firmly believe that no god exists (and thus meet the definition of 'atheist') yet acknowledge that such a position can never be absolutely proven and thus carries a degree of uncertainty - even if that degree is incredibly tiny. Someone else can firmly believe that god exists (and thus meet the definition of a religious believer) yet acknowledge that he cannot prove that existence.

Finally, in the sense of the point I am trying to make (about the impossibility of absolute knowledge) I have to disagree with your assertion that we can be absolutely certain even of things like the sun rising tomorrow. How do you know the sun won't experience some unforeseen astronomical cataclysm before then? You don't. You can be extremely confident it won't based on current evidence and scientific knowledge, but you cannot be 100% sure!

Hopefully this clarifies my point a little.

417. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12873 by Jack Rawlinson on December 14, 2006 at 6:08 am

As others have pointed out, aidanjt's definition of atheism is incorrect. Atheism is only lack of belief in any god. That's all it is. aidanjt is in error to add "dispite [sic] any evidence to the contrary". If evidence to the contrary existed, and the evidence was of sufficient quality, an honest atheist would become a believer. aidanjt is ascribing obdurate dogmatism to his version of an atheist who is, as a quick look at a decent dictionary will confirm for him, a straw atheist.

Nothing is certain, aidanjt, therefore it isn't really sensible to insist that an atheist is absolutely convinced there is no god. Sure, some are, but the point is that such unjustified absolutism isn't an essential part of being an atheist, any more than absolute conviction in the reality of god is an essential part of being a believer. If we take your position of insisting on absolute knowledge - which is an impossibility - then we become technically agnostic about everything. We become agnostic about the existence of Thor. We become agnostic about whether we really have a mother or were born of a virgin (how can you know for certain?). We become agnostics about believing the sun will rise tomorrow. This is silly. There is such a thing as certainty beyond reasonable doubt, and that's the sort of atheism - and belief - which applies in the real world. RD has described this very well in his book, which I assume you've read?

418. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12767 by Jack Rawlinson on December 13, 2006 at 6:04 pm

The Daily Mail and the Telegraph? Ah, how sweet! The two most predictable Tory rags in the UK trot out their seasonal OMG CHRISTMAS IS BEING DEFILED BY THE GODLESS HORDES WE'RE ALL DOOMED BRING BACK THE BIRCH TWO YEARS IN THE ARMY WOULD DO 'EM GOOD hysteria. It makes me think of sleigh bells, and chestnuts roasting on an open fire. I'm tearing up here.

419. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12765 by Jack Rawlinson on December 13, 2006 at 5:59 pm

Saucus: yes. This article is yet another in an increasingly tedious stream of intemperate spewage from the slack mouths of bridling religious dimwits who only succeed in demonstrating that they haven't paid the slightest bit of attention to what Richard actually says. Time after time they trot out the same old straw men - all of which were specifically dealt with in TGD - and they just make fools of themselves. And then they wonder why sometimes atheists sneer at them!

The fallacious attempt to claim that Stalin's atrocities were directly linked to his atheism is a perennial favourite of these fulminating dunderheads, as is their insistence on ignoring the documented fact that Hitler believed in god. Their blinkered need to make demonstrably false claims about what RD says and believes just shows how hard they've been hit. It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

420. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12762 by Jack Rawlinson on December 13, 2006 at 5:37 pm

Oh - he wants to "face us down"? That'd be a refreshing change. Go for it, Dooley. Let's see how well you do, you liar. Yes, liar. To say that Dawkins' only creed is me, me, me is a lie. And you know it too, don't you, Dooley? So if that's the level you need to sink to in order to face us down, this shouldn't take too long.

Always nice to see a direct hit.

421. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12568 by Jack Rawlinson on December 12, 2006 at 3:32 pm

Another farrago of straw men, shameless misrepresentation and the blustering rage of someone who clearly doesn't think it's nice to call a spade a spade - at least where religion is concerned. Is there no end to these lying bores?

422. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12202 by Jack Rawlinson on December 11, 2006 at 8:24 am

Some interesting - and disturbing - information on McIntosh can be found at the link below. Seems he's been associated with these Vardy faith schools. What a surprise...

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/AndyMcIntosh

423. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12197 by Jack Rawlinson on December 11, 2006 at 7:56 am

Thanks for the update, professor Dawkins. It's good to hear that you did get a chance to go for that outrageous nonsense about the second law, and it would certainly be rather worrying if the curtailed recording we have here is the one that went out on air. I think many of us last night were reacting with anger to the claim later in the program that you had "refused to answer" that point, which was patently false.

It's also just extremely hard to listen to over an hour of the sort of madness MacIntosh et al were spouting without becoming exasperated. I suspect you've had more practice at it than most of us, however - certainly recently!

424. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12132 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 5:47 pm

mdowe: absolutely. But I'm also appalled that Dawkins was basically wheeled on and then ignored in the latter part of the program. He wasn't given the opportunity to rebut his critics, or their credibility. The program was allowed to peter out into a mess of crazed bickering between exclusively religious people and religious apologists. They ended up talking about the precise way in which Adam caused human death, for example. Richard was allowed to say his piece, but not defend it against the many subsequent and wholly specious or fallacious attacks. This was a thinly disguised piece of pro-religious propaganda.

425. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12128 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 5:24 pm

mdowe: unfortunately it's worse than just giving air time to creationist nutters. This particular creationist nutter (MacIntosh) has a post at a large and highly-respected British university. He has a position of influence there. He can "teach". That is an outrage, and it needs to be dealt with.

426. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12127 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 5:18 pm

Yorker: yes, yes. Let's have a petition. Let's shine a light on this.

427. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12124 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 5:09 pm

Well, I've listened to the whole thing now. It's just shocking. This may be one of the most revealing links posted on this site and everyone should listen to it to realise what we're up against. As Rasco says, we're listening to educated, intelligent (or selectively intelligent) people abusing their intellectual abilities to push wild irrationality. Not only that, but to infiltrate our centres of learning in order to do so. It's an outrage. And it's here we need to concentrate our efforts. Crazies setting up creationist museums in the more benighted and ignorant regions of America is bad enough but crazies who attain recognized scientific qualifications and posts in respected universities is a far more dangerous thing.

I'm stunned.

428. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12120 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 4:42 pm

Rasco, I'm thinking of emailing a couple of my old professors - I went to the Physics/Astrophysics page and I see some names I recognise - and asking them what they think, and if there's some way action can be taken to get this idiot removed. I have no idea if - or how - that might be possible but damn, I feel polluted by his presence at Leeds University even twenty six years after I graduated.

429. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12118 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 4:29 pm

Rasco... yes, it has. It grieves me to say it, but it has.

I graduated in 1980. Back then someone like MacIntosh would only have found a place there as a babbling campus crazy. Appalling how quickly things can deteriorate.

430. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12115 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 4:21 pm

And by the way, professor Dawkins... if you happen to look in on this thread I'd be very interested to read your reactions to this show. It seems like they put you on there as some sort of atheist Aunt Sally up against a shocking shower of unscientific religious people, and didn't give you a fair crack of the whip in terms of letting you take them out. The initial tone of the presentation seemed to be "Richard Dawkins is the big no. 1 scary atheist so we're going to set him up on his own and throw irrational loonies at him." When they actually let you talk you did as marvellously as ever, but they did cut you off at crucial points and they did give the religious views much more time than they gave you. I wonder if that's how it seemed to you?

I'm still in shock that that...maniac is teaching at my old university. I'm beyond disgusted.

431. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12113 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 4:11 pm

Yorker: I live and work in New York now, and have done for the last five years. I'm shocked and disgusted by the way this... religious insanity seems to have gained a hold in my country. I used to smugly tell my American friends that Britain was functionally atheist. Twenty years ago that was true. And now the pendulum has swung back this far?

Richard's approach is right, I think. We have to be assertive and even, occasionally, aggressive in our atheism and especially in our defence of reason. We live in sad, worrying times.

432. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12112 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 4:04 pm

Damn, he did, didn't he? That Leeds Uni lunatic fell for the old second law bullshit! And this guy is allowed to teach? At my old uni? And the sad thing is that this whole argument will be just so much gobbledygook to a lay audience.

Hell, this is a war. A war for rationality and proper science. What do we do about these trojans who infiltrate our places of learning? How can we stop it?

433. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12107 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 3:45 pm

Okay, I'm into Richard taking the bozo out now. And my God... this fundie maniac comes from Leeds University? I went to Leeds University. I got a degree in physics and astrophysics there. My tutors and lecturers were great, sound scientists. What the hell has happened to my old Uni that they'd employ lunatics?

434. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12099 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2006 at 3:20 pm

Okay, I managed twenty minutes or so before my blood pressure started going through the roof. I didn't get to Richard. That creationist nutcase just... had me screaming at the screen.

I might come back when I'm feeling strong again. But hey... does Richard actually engage with these guys? I thought he didn't debate creationists?

435. Book answers the atheists' prayers

Comment #12045 by Jack Rawlinson on December 9, 2006 at 2:47 pm

Like professor Dawkins, when I was first exposed to Anselm's ridiculous "argument" I was basically stunned into a state of intellectual shock. Not because it was any good; on the contrary, because I could scarcely believe someone was proposing such a silly thing as a serious argument for the existence of God.

There's so much that's absurd about it it's sometimes hard to know where to begin. For me, the most ridiculous thing is not the totally unjustified premise that the quality of existence is a necessary element of perfection (does a perfect circle necessarily exist somewhere? Are we back to Platonic forms, then?) but the crazy suggestion that it is, in any meaningful or complete sense, possible for a human being to hold the idea of an "absolutely perfect" entity in his or her head. What does that mean? If this argument were to have any weight at all it would have to involve a sort of mental checking off of every single element that contributes to making this entity perfect. Which, of course, a human mind simply cannot do. So it isn't true to say that a person can "hold the idea" of absolute perfection in his or her head! No: what people who buy this argument are holding in their head is merely a thought akin to, "I reckon I can accept the idea that there's something absolutely perfect. Whatever that involves. Oh yes, I definitely can. Honest."

Crazy. It's possible to satirise this sort of woolly-mindedness in all sorts of ways, some of which Dawkins mentioned in the book. I sometimes ask the person what they think the physical incarnation of the perfect idea looks like, since such a thing must obviously exist. When they ask why such a thing must exist I say, "well, because I can hold the idea of the most perfect idea in my head. But as Anselm says, actual physical existence is a necessary element of absolute perfection, so my perfect idea must exist in a physical sense, right? What do you think it looks like? Is it big? Egg-shaped? Slimy? Hmmm?"

If they try to wriggle out of this at all they usually try one of two tacks. One is to say that I can't insist that physical existence must be an attribute of an idea, since ideas are by definition non-physical. To which I reply, "so what if God is just an idea....?" The other tack is when they look hopeful and declare that my idea must look like God! To which, of course, I say "So you're saying that God is - by definition - just an idea?"

There are lots of similar ways to play with the inherently irrational aspects of the argument.

436. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #11842 by Jack Rawlinson on December 7, 2006 at 4:02 pm

I didn't read any further than the point at which this ignoramus described Dawkins' knowledge of evolutionary theory as, "a simple and touching faith in the scientific creed of Darwinism". That was more than enough to tell me what sort of ignorant dolt we're dealing with here.

437. A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

Comment #11520 by Jack Rawlinson on December 5, 2006 at 8:13 am

David Matthews writes:

"Atheists resort to the same shortcuts, prejudices, bigotry and emotional non-arguments as the Theists"

I've been browsing a few of your posts, David, and I have to say you are extremely fond of tossing out unsupported declarations and opinions as if they were facts. I'm afraid this serves no useful purpose: it certainly convinces no one of anything. Your latest such declaration needs supporting evidence if you expect it to be taken seriously. I would say that the evidence - on this site and elsewhere - does not support your declaration. Most active atheists are extremely interested in defending their position with logic, reason and evidence. Sure, we all make offhand observations here and there but when challenged, we will nearly always argue our case and defend or amend such observations. You can see that in the Dawkins and Harris books and you can see it here too if you look honestly.

As for atheists being more intelligent than religious believers, well, it's debatable of course but there is some evidence to support it.

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

"Is it more logical to be a Christian? Is religion the natural choice of a smart person familiar with more of the evidence? Not according to a broad consensus of studies on IQ and religiosity. These studies have consistently found that the lower the IQ score, the more likely a person is to be religious"

438. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11516 by Jack Rawlinson on December 5, 2006 at 7:37 am

I'd be interested to read Richard's take on this.

I suspect that the sort of symbiotic relationship described here is actually not all that surprising from an evolutionary standpoint. I think there are lots of similar cases where a particular set of environmental conjunctions survive long enough for this sort of relationship to evolve. The fact that such conjunctions may consist of several crucial individual elements doesn't mean that they won't coexist for a long time.

Perhaps many such relationships were able to develop before man's recent, huge technological advances and hyperbolic population explosion caused such environmental upheavals. The side effects of this have caused all sorts of fragile interdependencies to be broken and many extinctions have resulted.

439. O Come All Ye Unfaithful

Comment #11156 by Jack Rawlinson on December 3, 2006 at 11:49 am

Very odd. In all the videos I've seen of Richard's tour he comes across as pretty unfailingly collected, patient and polite. I'm not in the least surprised he might have been a bit impatient offstage, by this point in the tour: it was quite clear that he'd had to spend hours and hours answering the same questions - many of them deeply silly - over and over again. That'd try the patience of a saint, never mind a rationalist!

440. A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

Comment #11151 by Jack Rawlinson on December 3, 2006 at 11:39 am

Oh yes, wouldn't you just love it if atheists stayed nice and quiet and polite and stopped being so... well, mean by challenging your stupid, world-damaging beliefs? Wouldn't you like that so very, very much? Wouldn't that make things so much easier for you?

Tough.

441. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7338 by Jack Rawlinson on November 18, 2006 at 9:12 am

Some dude: what? You think it's funny that scientists try to explain as much as they can? Wow. You must think it pretty hilarious that it's thanks to science you can tell so many people about it, eh? And I have no doubt that when one of your loved ones gets cured of a serious illness of injury you'll have a good old laugh at those funny scientists who made that possible, right?

As for "no one can explains how babies are born or what defines their genetics"... well, I'm just speechless in the face of a remark like that. Did you actually go to school?

442. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #6906 by Jack Rawlinson on November 16, 2006 at 6:37 am

Richard's right - I think teaching about religion is very valuable. The first part of the petition might give the impression that it's seeking total abolition of religious teaching: "...prohibit the teaching of creationism and other religious mythology". The qualification provided later is better: "Creationism and other religious myths should not be taught as fact..."

Still, I've signed it because I do think faith schools should be abolished.

443. Neanderthal DNA secrets unlocked

Comment #6904 by Jack Rawlinson on November 16, 2006 at 6:28 am

McGlashan, thanks for the wonderful memory... damn, "Absolutely" used to be hilarious. Must go see if I can find any Frank Hovis...

444. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6903 by Jack Rawlinson on November 16, 2006 at 6:18 am

Melisande: what's wrong with calling a fallacy by the correct name? The vast majority of the critics of The God Delusion have scattered so many... uhhh.... hay hombres about it's hard to avoid commenting on the fact.

445. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6793 by Jack Rawlinson on November 15, 2006 at 3:28 pm

A typically empty-headed "rebuttal" by one of our most infamous peddlers of spiritual snake oil. I won't waste any more time on this than Chopra evidently did actually reading Dawkins.

Science is the only valid way to gain knowledge.

Straw man, Dawkins didn't make this claim.

Nothing about God is needed to explain the world.

Correct, have a cracker. However, the choice of words - "nothing about God" - suggests the existence of god is a given, which has not been established. Shoddy logic.

Eventually science will uncover all mysteries.

Straw man, Dawkins didn't make this claim.

Those that it can't explain don't exist.

Straw man, Dawkins didn't make this claim.

Bring on the next shamelessly distorting religious idiot.

446. Is Apple Computer Insulting Islam?

Comment #6626 by Jack Rawlinson on November 15, 2006 at 6:46 am

MEMRI is a Zionist propaganda machine. They cherry-pick their sources to a quite disgraceful degree. Actually, it isn't so much cherry-picking as turd-picking. As someone else says, pretty much anything they pump out can be ignored.

447. Science vs religion

Comment #6624 by Jack Rawlinson on November 15, 2006 at 6:41 am

I am convinced that most of you have come to the conclusions that you have because you are trying to be cool and cosmopolitan in this so called "post modern age.

You say that like you think being cool and cosmopolitan is a bad thing!

448. Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" come to America

Comment #6621 by Jack Rawlinson on November 15, 2006 at 6:38 am

"We must be prepared to give an answer. Don't be quiet about your faith."

Yep. Bring it on! :-)

449. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5649 by Jack Rawlinson on November 10, 2006 at 8:59 am

I don't think it is productive to refer to such people as stupid.

I agree. It isn't "productive" at all. Sadly, I also think it happens to be true, though. The sheer inability of people like this to comprehend simple explanations and basic logic does, I'm afraid, lead me to conclude they're a bit lacking in the old noddle. Productive? What could we possibly achieve with someone who thinks that they know something simply because they feel it really, really strongly? I've spent something like 35 years arguing and discussing religion with people like this and I think I've become very good at spotting the tell-tale signs of the hopeless case. And unlike you, I think Charlene is such. I would dearly love to be proved wrong, but that ain't the way I'll be betting, I'm afraid.

I think that where a person approaches for looking for an open dialogue on the subject of religion then it is not right to disparage them in this manner.

Charlene entered this thread with a pair of totally false statements about atheism which not only illustrate a profound depth of ignorance but also that she hasn't even bothered to read either RD's book or much of anything on this site. Such behaviour does not predispose me towards patience. Further, I don't agree that a person who makes statements such as the following is too interested in open dialogue:

" I have said all there is to say."

"I know God exists. My life has completely changed because of Him and the personal relationship I have with Him. That is the evidence. "

"If you don't really care wether He exists or not then I guess you are blindly rejecting Him."

As for disparaging such people, I agree with RD. Respect where it's due: nowhere else. If someone says stupid things, I say so.

450. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5647 by Jack Rawlinson on November 10, 2006 at 8:56 am

I don't think it is productive to refer to such people as stupid.

I agree. It isn't "productive" at all. Sadly, I also think it happens to be true, though. The sheer inability of people like this to comprehend simple explanations and basic logic does, I'm afraid, lead me to conclude they're a bit lacking in the old noddle. Productive? What could we possibly achieve with someone who thinks that they know something simply because they feel it really, really strongly? I've spent something like 35 years arguing and discussing religion with all sorts of people and I think I've become very good at spotting the tell-tale signs of the hopeless case. And unlike you, I think Charlene is such. I would dearly love to be proved wrong, but that ain't the way I'll be betting, I'm afraid.

I think that where a person approaches for looking for an open dialogue on the subject of religion then it is not right to disparage them in this manner.

Charlene entered this thread with a pair of totally false statements about atheism which not only illustrate a profound depth of ignorance but also that she hasn't even bothered to read either RD's book or much of anything on this site. Such behaviour does not predispose me towards patience. Further, I don't agree that a person who makes statements such as the following is too interested in open dialogue:

" I have said all there is to say."

"I know God exists. My life has completely changed because of Him and the personal relationship I have with Him. That is the evidence. "

"If you don't really care wether He exists or not then I guess you are blindly rejecting Him."

As for disparaging such people, I agree with RD. Respect where it's due: nowhere else. If someone says stupid things, I say so.