The difference between childhood myths and fairytales is that we stop pretending (in many cases never even start) that they are in any way based on reality or fact.

Even Santa, once figured out, is acknowledge as a myth.

The danger comes when we refuse to accept myth and fairytales as such; which is where religion comes in.

I was planning to pre-order this game.

I've changed my mind though since I learned that EA are going to use SecuROM DRM for the game. Given the fiasco that caused with Bioshock and Mass Effect and the fact that quite a few anti-virus organisations have categorised SecuROM as malware given how invasive and strict it is.

Don't take my word for it... google around, the official Spore forums are EA are a good place to start. (http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/spore-game-discussion/329962-spore-securom-death.html) A quick google will find thousands of posts about it.

Or look on wikipedia for the effects of secuRom on your computer.

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I happen to agree with the review. I thought it myself when I was watching the series.

I'd much rather have had RD making a very clear and unequivocal case for evolution by natural selection and letting people come to their own conclusions vis-a-vis god. Just getting everyone accepting and understanding evolution is actually a very big step towards eliminating religion entirely.

He threw away a good chance of getting the loonies to listen to the evidence and possibly start them thinking maybe even start them questioning their beliefs, or at least some of them. Instead by bringing god into the presentation as blatantly as he did, he just turned them off and turned them against him and anything else he might say however profound.

There's a time for small steps with potentially far-reaching impact and this series could have been it.

RD was on Doctor who because the producer, Russel T Davis, is a huge fan of Dawkins and not the only one, it seems.

Davis Remarked: "People were falling at his feet ... We've had Kylie Minogue on that set, but it was Dawkins people were worshipping."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/russell-t-davies-return-of-the-tea-time-lord-805255.html

Now both RD and his wife have had parts in Doctor Who I still prefer Lalla though. :)

She still does the occasional Big Finish Doctor Who audio play and she's great in those to.

Having recently read Viktor Frankl's book (Man's Search for Meaning) I drew the conclusion that he was either agnostic/atheist or possibly a deist, despite his Jewish heritage.

The message he made about survival in the camp though was one more about needing something to cling to, something to keep one going. In Victor Frankl's case he says it wasn't spirituality, but his desire to see his wife again and his burning ambition to rewrite the book whose pages the Nazi's destroyed.

Let's cut the guy some slack. He's openly admitted he has no idea what's happening and he's asking scientists to find out what's going on.

I think this is the best approach and I think he's at least bright enough to realise that you don't get something for nothing; and there's nothing wrong with him hoping though.

If it turns out that he's managed to discover a technique for getting electric motors to be a lot more efficient then that's a damn good accomplishment.

Lots of things have been discovered by accident; Vulcanisation, Penicillin to name just two.

The BBC's today programme just had a small bit about Nick Clegg's comment.

The debate interestingly enough (American politicians take note) had nothing to do with whether his belief was good/right or not.

It had to do with whether giving an honest direct answer to a straightforward question was wrong or not.

Interestingly enough the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (not interviewed), was on Nick's side, saying he preferred open honesty, regardless of religious views.

The worst that was said about Nick was that he was "Honest, but reckless" and that he should have avoided answering the question and kept quiet about his religious views, one way or another.

There was of course the obligatory dig at American politicians and their idiot tendency to bring religion into everything.

The LibDems are the only party I know of in UK politics that are determined to bring about a truly secular country.

They're on record as wanting to disestablish the church and they're opposed to faith schools.

See the last couple of minutes (08:20) of this leadership hustings video (I wonder who sent in that question... ho hum... :P )

http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x877x_libdem_leadership-ehustings-2007/video/x3kmm7_personal-values_news

Poor Sudanese government.

On the one hand the they've got the entire civilized world crying foul and their stupid adherence to a barbaric system and its diktats is highlighted to the world for the iron-age system it is.

On the other hand they've got the Islamic loony-hooligan-terrorists in their own country that will probably lynch them all and arise in insurrection if they don't come down on this teacher like a tonne of bricks.

They probably had no choice but to punish her. If they'd dismissed the charges the country would be in flames now.

As usual the religious loonies influence policy as they always have throughout history; with violence and the threat of violence.

It's well known that in the Koran Mohammed took a nine-year-old girl as his wife (one of many) and in our society today that would make him a paedophile. Does that mean Mr. Bunglawala refuses to condemn paedophilia and child abuse as it would be "asking [him] to condemn [his] prophet"?

Oh.. as to the article... maybe it's just me... but it seemed very skewed towards Christianity and the theists.

Lennox wasn't criticised at all whereas Dawkins was infamous, provocative and picking an example of humour that implies RD was evading.

From what I understand of the US system a professor is anyone that teaches and hence seems to hold little respect.

In the UK a professor is an academic "rank" that ranks higher than Doctor. It's awarded to academics who have contributed significantly to their university. Where I studied Engineering, the head of the department position (of about 35 Phds) rotated biannually through only 4 professors.

I could, of course, be wrong, maybe it's even one of those state-to-state issues.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

I both agree and disagree with Sam (does that make me an agnostic? :P ).

I think the term atheist is not overly helpful. The problem as I see it though is that we've tried reason and reasoning. It's called the enlightenment and for the past 200 years we opposed ignorance with reason and see where that got us.

jaytee_555 on September 23, 2007 at 12:59am Wrote:

Does anyone have any good ideas about how we could actively support this brave headteacher?

Join the NSS (national secular society) a lobby group in the UK whose aim is to make Britain secular. www.secularism.org.uk

I personally think all atheists should be members; it's the only way to stop the government discriminating against us.

I actually think this is a good article, but not for the reasons that Skinner might like.

I'm all for encouraging the religious to examine just what it is they believe in, that they really must read Dawkins and come to grips with what he says.

When the religious start examining the god they believe in and then compare it to the god the theological debating society envisages they'll discover that the two are nothing alike.

This will turn the fundies against the theologians, which will only be bad for religion and hence good for atheism. But it will also get many religious to really examine just what it is they believe. When they note all the contradictions between their long held beliefs and the convoluted, mind-boggling, spaghetti arguments used by theologians to rationalise something that doesn't actually exist, it might bring many of them to their senses.

In the end... anyone that gets religious people to read dawkins has my support. The more people read TGD the more people have a chance to examine their views in a different light and maybe break free of their religious shakles.

Richard Skinner is his own worst enemy. He doesn't realise that most religious people believe in the "Straw God", and not in his god. And getting those people to take RD seriously is a win for rationalism and atheism.

I have to admit that I recognise a lot of myself in Humphrey's description of atheists.

Unfortunately he suffers, at least in my case, from the delusion that I treat ALL Christians that way. I have to admit, to start with I did, but then I looked at myself and decided I didn't like the person I was becoming. I was becoming the enemy. The irony is, that by not being fond of the way I was behaving, I'd actually won a victory against the religious loonies. I'd shown that morality and decency does not come from the bible, indeed my very distaste for the behaviour of those claiming that argument for themselves is why I disliked seeing it in myself.

I still think of many Christians in just those terms though, but I reserve my scorn for the biblical literalists, and the creationists who John himself buries in scorn and contempt. How then is he any different to me? Just which parts of his list don't apply to him when he thinks of creationists, evangelicals and insane, megalomaniac mullahs?

Indeed, how is Giles Fraser any different to me? He also has "scorn (if not contempt) for the more traditional approach". As do I. The "traditional" approach leads to fundamentalism, the crusades, inquisitions, the oppression of science, the abuse of women and the mess in the middle east.

In many ways I see Fraser as no different to Sam Harris. Sam sees himself as a spiritual person and appreciates Jainism, Fraser is exactly the same, but instead of Jainism, he's chosen to label his spirituality Christianity.

The irony is that a couple of "traditional" Christians I know refuse to consider what Fraser believes to be Christian at all. They want nothing to do with the Anglican church, they hold it in contempt because it's not really Christian any more. Anyone who doesn't believe the resurrection really happened cannot be a Christian.

The problem with Humphrey is that he focuses too much on the British religious, epitomised by the Anglican church. A form of Christianity that is so watered down, and mostly harmless, that it's all but impotent; the very reason many "Christians" reject it and seek faith along more "traditional" lines.

Does Humphrey consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali an atheist militant? The woman who quite correctly points out the in the middle east millions of women live the lives of slaves or cattle at the hand of "traditional" religion, and all she wants is freedom for herself and her gender that the impotent Christians already have? And she wants those people to be vary of becoming more like her "traditional" former countrymen.

Humphrey may have spoken to many religious people, but he doesn't seem to have spoken to any of the evangelicals and the "undoubtedly stupid (witness the creationists)". Yet it those "undoubtedly stupid" people that the atheists he mislabels as "militant" are opposed to.

People like Giles Fraser, the man Humphrey seems to hold up as the argument against the atheists, are pretty much the vision of a religious man that these "militant" atheists are striving to achieve. People that believe, but believe intelligently, and sensibly.

Over 50% of Americans believe God created the Earth and humans fully formed in a matter of days; they are the "undoubtedly stupid" as Humphrey calls them. They are the target of atheist arguments and opposition and indeed fear.

It's a shame that Humphrey's exploration of the religious seems to be limited to those he's comfortable with, instead of focusing on those he, like the atheist "militants", holds in contempt.

I feel sorry that she was trapped.. but the really sick bit for me is that her "close friend" not only doesn't destroy her letters as she asked, he goes and makes them available to the entire world.

The reason? He's a priest and he's pushing her sainthood as a coup for the catholic church. After all the catholic church hasn't been covered in roses recently and it needs a new hero to distract the disillusioned masses from all the child molesting priests.

Catholic Church Uber Alles, and the wishes of their victim be damned.

Given that this is now the third atheist site that I've seen reporting this poll, I'm not surprised.

Let's hope it stirs some debate, although there's not much hope. The site quite correctly points out that "this is not a scientific poll".

This issue again highlights just how divisive faith schools are to a community and by extension to this country. This four year old, who has no notion of what a god or religion even is, will either lose her friends because she is not officially of their religion and hence will be rejected by the new school, or will have a different label forced upon her so that she can keep her friends. This change of label though may well ostracise her in her local community because her parents, and by extension she herself, have turned traitor to their "faith".

This girl reminds me of a piece of beef during the BSE crisis. If it has the wrong label no one will touch it.

I cannot believe that I am being forced to pay for this nonsense with my taxes.

Yes, the information is out there; the problem is that people just don't give a rats arse.

They'd rather read toilet paper like The Sun and be fed nonsense than read a newspaper with articles that actually cut to the heart of the matter.

The fact that nonsense like religion is given so much respect doesn't help either. If the superstitious nonsense religion comes up with is acceptable then why not all the other idiocy like astrology, tarot cards and so forth; it's all the same stuff after all.

People are raised to be stupid and placid (and I don't think it's a conspiracy, just a failing). People leave education bored to tears with it and unable and certainly unwilling to learn anything. They forget the primary rule that learning is fun, or more likely have have it bored out of them by government targets and incompetent teachers. If we paid teachers more, we'd actually attract more competent ones, instead of rejects that can't get jobs in industry or take on the role to push (brainwash) a political or religious agenda (yes, there some genuine, dedicated, convinced and excellent teachers out there, but I consider them the minority).

The result is that people would rather just "feel" their way through life than think their way through life.

Is this decadence or modernity? I have seen jealous men fighting in bars over other men and women killing one another over love for other women. Where will the children come from? Will the idea of natural fathers and natural mothers ever exist again in the West?

I've seen men killing men over women. I've seen women killing women over men. When will the killing stop and the loving begin?

He's either extremely naive, or deliberately set himself the task of scaremongering.

I'd like to point out that the massive influx of homosexuals he sees have always been there, the only difference is that unlike his native country we don't discriminate against them to the point where they are in fear of their lives and must hide in shadows.

Wouldn't it be a outrageously funny if it turned out that Jesus never married because he was gay, and that his disciples (all men) were really his harem? All that talk about marriage was just a major smoke screen. I'm sure that stone tablet is just out there waiting to be found.

Homosexuality was such an epidemic and insidious thing in biblical times that the religious dedicated large passages to vilifying them.

The irony is, that despite rampant religious anti-homosexual scare-mongering there are more people living now in just one of the world's largest cities than inhabited the entire planet in biblical times. Somehow I don't think the human race is doomed.

Now I live in Florida where the God Business is one of the biggest earners in the area. On the road to my house you have to pass four or five mega-churches, each one bigger and more predatory than the others. I can't seem to get away from these simple people.

Ahh.. but isn't Florida called the retirement state.. or the national retirement home or something?

When all the religious fraudsters (sorry, ministers, no sorry fraudsters) have had their fill of preaching to the ignorant masses they must head off to Florida to retire. Maybe the odd side-show sermon to earn a bit of pool-side money.

What do you except when you allow faith schools?

Christian schools are no better, the only difference is that current Christianity doesn't aim for suicide bombings and terrorists. If Christianity did, you'd find the same effect in your local Christian faith school. In the end, a faith school is all that that mosque is.

When the laws move outside the goldilocks zone "life as we know it" isn't possible.

What about life that we don't know?

Who says that an alternate universe with different constants can't bring forth life in a totally different way?

In my view presuming that our constants are the only valid constants is a tad arrogant and rather full of hubris.

Maybe we should be talking about "constants of the gaps" or "multiverses of the gaps".

It's nice to see Christopher echoing my own blog post of a couple of days ago (http://blog.martinsgill.co.uk/archives/53).

While all I have to work with are my principles, Chris can lend considerably more weight to his words simply by virtue of the fact that he has been there, and seen what it's really like.

I like Hitchens (C) mostly because he just refuses to pull his punches.

I don't actually disagree too with him on the War in Iraq either.

I opposed the war because all the reasons given were wrong. We went to Iraq because of a personal grudge of Bush, not because Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and needed to be removed.

The religious civil war that's raging in Iraq now is a direct result of our intervention and I think far too few people take responsibilities for their actions nowadays, preferring to blame someone else.

Well, we (as a country) made this mistake, and we are all responsible for fixing it, and running away sends entirely the wrong message. Unfortunately the thing Iraq needs is the one thing that the current crop of politicians will never give it, a true secular state with full freedoms even at the expense of local religious "imperatives".

Religious symbols have no place in school full stop.

You are there to learn and be educated, not to proliferate your belief system. If you want to show your god how devout you are you should spend more time in church, and less time in the courts of law wasting everyone's money.

When religion rules the country, science suffers.

Will the US-ian Golden Age of science go the same way as the Arabic Golden Age? Trodden to rubble under the heels of religious doctrine and bigoted stone-age mentalities.

...the Earth does not move. If it moved, we would feel it moving. That's called empiricism, the experience of the senses.

He's got a point you know. I've said all along that trains and aeroplanes don't move, they move the earth instead.

Aside from the acceleration at take-off, banks and turbulence, an aircraft flight is perfectly smooth, you can't feel it moving so obviously it isn't, that's called empiricism, the experience of the senses, as brownback quite rightly pointed out.

The feelings you get when you start a flight or change direction are just the resistance put up by the earth against our attempts to shift it. The earth, being rather large does not like being moved by our small our aircraft, so it resists, causing turbulence.

Ah, but you ask, what about all the people one the ground that see the plane move? Well, that's simple enough, the aircraft I am on also has to move them, or the entire universe would just get knocked of centre, so they "see" the plane move, when in reality, it is they that are moving.

Thanks for the link BaronOchs. I'd actually read that before but forgot about it.

I think the important point is:

Mary being a mammal, whether she reproduced by cloning or by selfing, the result could only be a daughter. Jesus either had an earthly father, or Jesus was a woman.

Wouldn't that upset the christians?