Gods is the woman a simpleton?

Religious schools get better performing students out because they select only better performing students (or those from backgrounds likely to encourage better performance) to enter.

Well.. Im very much an anti-religionist (and yes, I am anti-religion not just an atheist) but the only objection Ive got here is if money is going to actual churches for church stuff.

If money has gone, in non-preferential proportion, to charities run by churches etc etc then I dont much care. I also think that 140 Million sounds like a vanishingly tiny proportion of the many billions in these stimulus packages.

Do we risk making much ado abuot nothing here?

Well that is a perfect illustration of the point I was trying to make, so thanks. :)

Shaun

The existence of homosexuality in the pool has to be a result of something that was or is adaptive, but that relationship can be extremely complex and non-linear, and in fact there is no reason at all that it should be directly adaptive.

It probably is though, it is amazing how often counter-intuitive things are.

I have no idea what percentage of people have a genetic makeup which inclines them to exclusive homosexuality, and I dont realy think anyone else knows. What is known is that SOME tendency towards homosexual behaviours is extremely prevalent, possibly even almost universal. There is a huge spectrum of tendencies, all filtered through the sieve of our conscious minds.. To expect some kind of crayon-simple chart that says 'x therefore y' about this or any other complex behaviour is stupid.

You seem obsessed with a distinction between kin and single organism selection, as if this was important.. It is not, and both of these are merely mechanisms for the actual selection which takes place at genetic level anyway.

Why do so many of BoltzmannBrain's posts include phrases such as "I cannot imagine how" and "I have a hard time seeing". You will use the argument from personal incredulity HERE?

The simple reality is that homosexuality does in fact exist in human, and non-human though that would not be necessary, populations as a strong factor in the makeup of a significant minority of people. If you wish (and I believe from your posts that it is a wish not a reasoned view) to view it as cultural then you will need to prove that point of view, not justa ssume it is the base state.

Just to comment on the apparent poverty of your imagination, I can in fact imagine many explanations for the emergence of this as a trait which favoured some kind of combination of supporting genetic material in the gene-pool. It is not in any way necessary for their to be a 'gene for homsexuality', it merely has to be the case that an advantage is conveyed to a population whos gene pool contains a tendency towards homsexuality in some manner. What about the, hardly arguable, fact that bonding of non-mating males is likely to improve the survival chances of those males in marginal situations? thats a foot in the genetic door for homsexual behaviour right there. In a species such as ours, with an asymetric mating pattern in the wild (most apes have dominant male-harem female patterns) the majority of males will not breed, and expression of sexual urges with other males both has direct benefits and could have countless indirect ones.

Its entirely possible that exclusive homsexuality is a 9and I mean no disrespect) a misfiring, a side-effect of non-exlusive homsexuality in earlier populations. That does not make it harmful, a choice, a defect etc.. it makes it part of our makeup. Part of ALL our makeup in fact, we are one genepool and we are all in it together.

My problem with him is mainly with this paragraph, as it is actually untrue and insulting:

"These are issues that the white "leadership" of the atheist and sceptic movements have largely ignored because they are not issues that concern them."

That just does not reflect the reality of what people like richard and others do and say.

It is clearly hard (and flat out dangerous in some cases) for people from some social and cultural backgrounds to embrace, and especially to openly espouse, atheist views. Thats something worth campaigning against, but those guilty of perpetuating it are the others in that group.. there is some wider guilt, but among those who push cultural relativism far too hard not among the New Atheists who are manifestly not such people.

On women however he is full of it.. Western women do not seem to lack for the oppportunity and willingness to say, write and publish their opinions.

Its the media that decides who their 'go to' people are for interviews, references, program-making etc, which is what defines how prominent someone comes to be in the wider public view. Therefore they, the gruanaid, the BBC, the lot of them, are the ones who can swallow the blame for not using more of the women who most certainly do write and publish and talk. They pigeonhole women as 'sensitive' and then decide that the religious side is the sensitive side and then use Mary sodding Midgeley. Again. Its patronising and insulting, but then thats the media is it not?

Marvellous news for common sense and decency

Was I the only one who felt a little pain for Tyson when he made, again, one of his trademark 'Im down with the kids' pop-culture references and Richard just looked/sounded bemused by what he was banging on about and immediately tried to revert to topic?

Very different approaches to the wonder of science there.. Richard's belief that science itself can be wonderful for kids and that they do not need it to be linked to their ordinary lives or pop-culture to be fascinated by it, contrasted with Neil's more traditional mass-media 'Science is fun, look at things explode like in Star Wars' approach.

That said, Richard peppers his work with classical literature references, so it may merely be a matter of using ones familiar matter.

So accomodation then? could he not just say that?

I did their 15 question quiz, and expected to do badly as i dont consider myself especially knowledgeable. Apparently I am more knowledgable than 93% of people though which is shocking.

I couldnt really get past 'the wittily titled Dawkins Delusion'.

If that passes for wit among the chattering classes nowadays then it really is time for the grauniad to pack it in altogether.

Utter nonsense anyway, the previous government pretended to 'not do the god thing' to avoid scaring the public (who frankly want not a bean of it) but behind closed doors they handed the keys to education over to religion and pretty much caved on everything.

Behave in a kind and compassionate way at the time, and you will likely not find yourself wanting to lie anyway. There are plenty of times where shutting your mouth or avoiding an answer are acceptable/ideal behvaiours however, and they are not the same thing as lying. Also be sure you are clear about the rules and policies of the place where you are working.

Do not in any way proselytise (and clearly you do not intend to) against religion of course.. but thats obvious enough as doing so in a hospice would be pretty low, as low as the ones who do the opposite every single day.

Also it is imprtant to understand that while it is unethical to lie to (or even to avoid the truth) a patient about their care, your personal beliefs are not part of their care.

Tom Wright is quite, quite, mad. He believes in an extremely bizarre form of bodily resurrection of everyone (well the ones who get it anyway), and in the literal interpretation of the christ fables.

Obama's speech on this was a great relief to me and no doubt to millions of others who think the commitment to freedom regardless of personal opinion is one of the things that do make America a worthwhile place.

II. provides accurate information about its offer;

Forget all that science nonsense you learnt in the classroom. Everything you need to know is right in your hand (see point I)

Unfortunately the standard only apparently requires them to be telling the truth about their 'offer'. I take that to mean that their facilites, courses, staff etc are as described in their advertisiing materials.

Disgusting nonetheless.

I think the phrase 'Publicity stunt' is unfortunate, as it has such negative connotations. A publicity stunt is doing something that is in itself insincere, or of no relevance, in order to publicise yourself, a company, a cause etc. Doing something to make a point, even though you know it will not be acted upon, is not a publicity stunt if the point you are making is the thing that needs public exposure.

The green party in the UK knows they will not form the government and their policies will not, as stated, be implemented. Does this make their manifesto a publicity stunt? No it does not, because it is sincere statement of something they believe.

Richard in a chicken suit throwing eggs at the pope would be a publicity stunt. Selling pope hats with condoms attached would be a publicity stunt.

It is highly obvious, most certainly to Richard and his band of co-conspirators (yes that is a joke) that this would not come to pass. Their motive is very sincere however and the point being made is a deadly serious one.

review by 'co-author ofHandbook of Christian Apologetics'

Right.

Comment 1 by steve_r_w :

Mrs Haggard keeping a closer eye on things this time round. Well she knows just how comfortable life can be when people give to the church, and someone has to do the book keeping.

Dont worry about Mrs Haggard.. she has always known the deal, and the deal works both ways too, Mrs Haggard has her own little proclivities, its just that noone digs into it because the story about him looks better with her in the role of dutiful wife.

The writing in this article is just appalling, a bizarre combination of terrible jokes, puns and strange iconoclastic hero worship.

That apart, While he certainly has a point about the focus on arts and business to the exclusion of sciences and engineering in education, government and the media, his message that 'fantasy is bad' makes no sense and also fails to reflect the, in his stated view impossible, fact that takeup of fantasy and science fiction is absolutely at its highest among precisely those students and practitioners of science and other 'nerdy' subjects he thinks it drives away. Reality simply proves him wrong. that d&d club at the college? science and engineering students to a man. Why is that? A different question but the fact is is a question makes a lie of his claim.

Now Harry Potter specifically.. thats a different story. It has a saving grace in that it has perhaps made a LOT of children read who might not have, but frankly it is both qualitatively dismal and socially reprehensible.

Imagine Billy Bunter style public school irrelevance meets heinlein 'special rules for special people' elitism meets famous five level characterisation. All layered with the worst naming and descriptive work seen outside third rate bodice rippers and deus ex machina plots which indicate a writer out of her depth in a paddling pool.

It is possible that the reason these things are so secretive (I promise most New Zealanders have been completely oblivious to their existence) is because we are such a secular nation. People who are complete whackjobs (religious ones anyway, we are woo central unfortunately) are perhaps aware of how much the things they do will elicit negative community response that they tend to form closed communities.

The thinly spread population helps them here also, its pretty easy to do things and not have people be aware of whats happening.

Just cutting funding is no solution, as funding isnt the problem, the problem is what's happening to the children. That wont be solved as long as we have government that essentially panders to religions at any available point, and especially panders to schools which achieve ostensibly good results.

I do think however that the minister is a fool and misled, as the government most certainly is able to set minimum education standards for private schools or home schooling. They perhaps just do not wish to do so?

I think that these catholic operatives (the author is no random chap off the street by the way, but a spokesman for opus dei in the UK) just dont get a central point when they defend the pope with much talk about how its not HIS fault that he was tied up by the church's procedures etc etc. We are supposed to accept that it just took forever to do things because those were the rules. They think doctrine, the chruches traditions, roles and structures are important in law.

Noone outside cares a damn for your procedures, your heirarchies, your trumped up trials and other nonsense. They see a man who, in a position of vast influence, did not do what is right and what anyone not in the church would be required to do. They seem to want to make it sound as if he was some poor clerk fighting against the strictures of the law (they actually think church law is a real law) but unable to do it till he got the big hat. Rubbish.

He was, of all things, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The man responsible for making sure the church behaves itself. His JOB was even to stop priest committing sexual misconduct. There is no damned way he could not do whatever he thought was right and in keeping with what he believed to be the true teachings of his church.

"I have expressed elsewhere that I am amazed that there has not been some kind of grass root revolt from the ordinary Catholics."

Lots of people (even phil plait who should know better by now) seem to cling to this.. But the body of the faithful simply cannot do this. They are incapable, their lives revolve around the idea of the church as holy and of priests as gods shepherds. For most of them its just too late to see the truth.

The only way they could do it from the inside is for a 'heretic prophet' character to arise inside the church. Someone of at least bishop level who would stand up and declare the whole shebang of the heirarchy to be tainted and heretical and start a turf war. And that hasnt shown any sign of happening, perhaps because of the effectiveness of the inquisition under roland ratz of shutting down any 'impurity'

"Hence the ‘hoax’ in the Sarfati book’s title; CMI of course does not claim that people teach and promote evolution while disbelieving it."

lol. please please please dont sue us!

The point, that having lots of people make the case for reason in their different ways is best, is I would think an obvious one, yet is really not often made.Instead we have people with the same aim in mind preferring to demand that those who take a different approach than they should change or shut up.

Ah no doubt he was too wrapped up in theological debate to find time for mere earthly reading of things before signing them. The letter was probably written by an underling who is imppossible to identify. So thats okay.

It gets worse and worse for them.. and I feel no sadness at their inevitable passing.

"shortcomings and errors". child rape is a shortcoming or an error?

I cant actualy rant at this point. Im so fucking angry.

No letoff on insufficient proof grounds now. Last week yes, now no. The idea that someone in authority can just say 'underlings answered all my mail, I never saw letters from priests' or 'Oh I never noticed anything that happened in my area for 20 years' or even 'Oh well I left the room while my enforcer told people so shut up and take the cash' Is not going to absolve one of the responsibility, the MORAL responsibility. Someone who considers morality to the be basis of their existence cannot fall back on technicalities to cover their clear moral failings. Like the filthy stains on the Turin shroud, it wont wash.

Comment #473756 by Paul Pelosi

Think of the Bible and the Gospels as a genetic code, a collection of selfish genes whose only purpose is to survive. These selfish genes have over the last 2000 years created a machine for survival in much the same way as our own selfish genes have created our bodies as machines for survival.

"Many of the claims of religion are underpinned by various scientific disciplines – the central claim that all things known and unknown in our Universe originate from the purposive actions of a Creator is, we believe, totally consistent with what we know about the Universe"

This statement alone is so outrageously incorrect and dishonest that any genuine scientist prepared to sign this letter has made a grave error of judgement.