Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

The 100 Latest Visitor Comments

1. Atheists. Why they don't believe - Interview with Russell Blackford

Comment #433609 by 601 on November 20, 2009 at 10:42 pm

Your interview was a nice soft sell, so I expect some curious or on-the-fence believers might pick up your book.

My copy just arrived yesterday, and I've only read the introduction. In some circles this qualifies me to review the entire book. So, in that spirit, I can say it was wonderful, insightful and a must read.

2. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433608 by Twatsworth on November 20, 2009 at 10:37 pm

You can't make up your minds on who to vote for. Looks like you need a top dog. I'm going to step up and proclaim myself that top dog. Everyone, change your votes to British Chiropractor Association.

3. Just say no to sharia law

Comment #433607 by bethe123 on November 20, 2009 at 10:21 pm

Islam and Sharia in particular is oppressive.

Nassa01:
"By saying the sharia law is "oppressive", one is saying, by extention, that the law of the Koran and Mohammed (pbuh)is oppressive, a clumsy blunder which does little to win over "hearts and/or minds"

Well, no. The blunder is believing in the mythology of Mohammed and the Koran in the first place.
However, realizing that the Koran is myth first starts with education. That is why the Taliban, for example, attempts to prevent schoolgirls from going to school.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,451941,00.html

The rally is a righteous event. I only wish I lived nearby so I could attend.

4. Evolution and history compulsory

Comment #433606 by hiraethog on November 20, 2009 at 10:04 pm

Comment 433592 by Esuther: 'big scary old dinosaurs evolved into lots of nifty smaller things, like chameleons and birds.'

Actually those big old scary things were wiped out 65 million years ago. It's the little nifty small scary things that survived then went on to evolve into things like Chamelaons and birds.

5. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433605 by robaylesbury on November 20, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Ray Comfort. Come on guys. Who doesn't love Ray Comfort. 180'000 copies of On The Origin Of Species with extra Crockaduck can't be wrong.

What's not to like? Free masterpiece and 50 extra pages of free bog roll.

6. Evolution and history compulsory

Comment #433604 by prolibertas on November 20, 2009 at 9:37 pm

Dan- 'I would greatly appreciate any tips on how to present the information in a way that engages such an easily distracted mind :)'

I find the Tree of Life image to be the most useful for teaching kids evolution. The Tree gives a poetic yet concrete image that is recognizable and memorable, and which easily demonstrates the concept of one species branching into two or more species, which in turn branch into two or more, with the reason they're branching being because they have to change to suit the different environments in which they find themselves. (The Tree image also prevents the common misconception of evolution as a ladder, of the type that makes people ask 'so why aren't all the monkeys evolving into humans?).

7. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433603 by Sciros on November 20, 2009 at 9:35 pm

flying goose,

My pleasure. If you are really interested in the matter, I invite you to look at all the arguments, both in favor of and against the historicity of Jesus. The most interesting debate is probably surrounding Q as well as the writings of the historian Josephus, and the authenticity (and subject) of his mentions of Jesus.

There are indeed people who are a little overzealous in their "Jesus myth" stance, at least from what I can tell, to the point that I would not be surprised if they fell prey to some confirmation bias in their analysis. A well-known example would be Frank Zindler, who I've spoken to in person (we worked in neighboring buildings before I changed jobs a year ago). He does, however, make what seems to be a very strong case and delves into details that I indeed do not have the knowledge to evaluate myself. But I consider him to be a little too crazy and agenda-driven.

Of course, the other side of the debate has religious people, so yeah...

Anyway I didn't mean to hijack the thread with this stuff, but then again these things interest me more than declaring frustration with morons intent on misunderstanding Richard, so if I said I were sorry I'd be politely lying ^_^

8. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433602 by Duff on November 20, 2009 at 9:33 pm

Rodthefarmer,
I was thinking the same thing. What is the matter with these paleos? Are they so out of touch they don't know about the crockoduck controversy? Duckcrock! Give me a break.

9. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433601 by saraswati on November 20, 2009 at 9:30 pm

Comment #433310 by Nunbeliever:

But, from a child's perspective. In which way is it damaging for the child to be labelled accordingly with their parents' faith? Could anyone give me some concrete examples.


I have seen an instance of labelling having a negative impact on a child (well, a teenager): I went to high school in a Muslim country, and there was a girl in my class who always wore a headscarf, long-sleeved shirt, and a vest on top (since white school uniform shirts are slightly transparent). But when it came to PE classes, she would wear short shorts, no headscarf, and roll up her sleeves so her shirt was effectively sleeveless. On "mufti days" when we didn't have to wear school uniform, she would come to school in a headscarf, take it off during the day, and put it back on before going home.

Fellow students, including myself, often talked of this girl as being a hypocrite who only pretended to follow her religion, and disregarded it whenever it suited her. It was only after I left school that I realised that just because she had a Muslim name and Muslim parents was no reason to assume that she herself held the same conservative Muslim beliefs. She was most likely forced by her parents to dress so conservatively, which if nothing else must have been physically uncomfortable (headscarf, long sleeves, and vest in a tropical country!); what right did the rest of us have to judge her for exercising freedom where she could?

10. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433600 by flying goose on November 20, 2009 at 9:22 pm

Sciros

I will look at the wiki site. Thanks for the link.

11. Just say no to sharia law

Comment #433599 by BeyondBelief on November 20, 2009 at 9:21 pm

@Tintern, Comment #15: Spot on! We may be a group of unherdable cats, but we had better start recognizing our common interests that (largely) lie in fostering a secular society, bound by a common law. Universal Human Rights.

Then, we'd better start standing up and fighting for them whenever a power seeker of any stripe tries to limit said rights.

@Barry Pearson... are you still maintaining the "Religions are Hobbies" web page? I got a bounce-back e-mail when attempting to write to you recently.

12. Computer Based on Insights From The Brain Moves Closer to Reality

Comment #433598 by Piero on November 20, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Bonzai (#32) and CrazyCharlie (#33):
Why should a computer emulation of human consciousness have any human motivations? We are mostly motivated by affections and bodily needs, which a disembodied consciousness would lack (probably sorely).

13. An interview with a Taliban Trained Suicide Bomber {With English S/T}

Comment #433597 by saraswati on November 20, 2009 at 8:56 pm

Comment #432416 by umer_khan

The root cause of the Bloodshed by Taliban & Extremist Mullahs is not the invasion of Afghanistan by USA. Although the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan & Palestine are acting as catalyst but the world must understand that these are NOT the ROOT CAUSES of the bloodshed by Mullahs. Rather the ROOT CAUSE of this cruel bloodshed is the very ideology of Mullahs that THEY HAVE TO CONQUER THE WORLD THROUGH SWORD.


Maybe so, but my point is that as long as moderate Muslims in countries such as Pakistan don't consider this a) true, or b) a problem, they will continue to oppose any efforts to combat it.

I say we let the moderates first realise that a) Islamic fundamentalists do want to install an oppressive theocracy through violent means, and b) that this would be a very bad thing, and THEN help them if they want to be helped. Until this shift in perception occurs, it is an issue of loyalty: they find it easier to condemn non-Muslims (the US) who kill Muslims, than Muslims (the Taliban) who kill Muslims.

14. Debate - Hitchens, Harris, Dennett vs Boteach, D'Souza, Wright

Comment #433596 by madamX on November 20, 2009 at 8:54 pm

I was watching Rabbi Shmuley with the audio off when I was reminded of something

http://www.webtvhub.com/crazy-bird-mating-dance-video-birds-of-paradise-on-the-planet-earth-tv-series/

They are like: “hump me, hump me. Look at all this energy I can expend in feats of elaborate arm rituals and songs of gibberish.”

show offs

15. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433595 by Sciros on November 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm

flying goose, do me a favor and don't try to sound smart by admonishing me for not applying the scientific method as you know it to analysis of historical documents.

Even G A Wells the doyen of the 'non existence' hypothesis now admits to existence the man behind the Jesus myth.
He considers as evidence a hypothesized "Q" source which supposedly served as a common basis for some of the gospels. This document is theorized in order to account for similarities between gospels which are not in turn sourced from a preceding gospel. The document's existence is not a certainty, but if it's assumed, its age cannot be determined to be anything other than "before the gospels of Matthew and Luke", and is at the earliest placed around 50 CE. So 70 CE wasn't good enough for Wells, but 50 CE is? In any case, he's not dealing with any new evidence and I don't find his reasoning convincing.

You seem to have a hyothesis which you 'know' is correct and really it is only a matter time before the world of scholarship will come round to your point of view.
I've done my own research, and I have confidence in my own abilities in this matter. Whether you do or not is frankly of very little concern to me. Also, don't put words in my mouth regarding "the world of scholarship [coming] round". The majority view is that Jesus rose from the dead and flew around a bit, in any case.

Does not sound very scientific to me.
Look, if you don't want to do your own research then fair enough, go with the opinion of any historian(s) you judge to be most reliable. I did both -- I looked at the documents that are the focal points of debate, and I read many thorough expert interpretations. You may consider it a virtue to forego applying your own judgment and just go with the side with the most supporters on a debate, with your excuse being nothing more than an appeal to authority. I don't do that, and I find that habit frustrating and quite unconvincing. Otherwise I'd have to shrug my shoulders and convert to Catholicism, siding with the "majority view" which I dare not question.

You probably don't know what arguments the sides of the debate are using to make their case. I assume you also don't know that the debate is not between exclusively historians that are nonbelievers (and no-one should pretend that it is). Here's a link for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

I'm not linking you there so you can read the arguments for/against the historicity of Jesus. Those you can find from more direct sources if you wish. I want you to look at the last sentence of the final introductory paragraph -- the one that reads "The theory is essentially without supporters in academic circles, biblical historians and scholars being highly dismissive of it.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]". Those numbers are links to sources -- click on them and see what exactly that Wikipedia article cites. You will notice that the majority of arguments are actually coming from historians who are also believers in the divinity of Jesus. What a surprise.

To drive the point further home, scroll halfway down the article to a table that shows three columns: Conservative Christianity, Mainstream Scholarship, and Christ Myth theory. Since you're so intent on following mainstream scholarship, I invite you to do so. You will, however, find zero evidence for basically any of those views outside of the Bible, and that, my good sir, is an undeniable and simple fact.

If it is not yet clear, the point is that the "consensus" in this case takes into account the views of historians who are also believers, and they not only undermine the consensus view for obvious reasons, but also inflate how "overwhelming" it really is, from a standpoint of good evidence.

16. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433594 by righton on November 20, 2009 at 8:45 pm

Why not the United Nations?

17. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433593 by Rikitiki13 on November 20, 2009 at 8:42 pm

(okay, just couldn't help myself...)

Crocoduck
(sung to the tune of “Color TV” – originally sung by Janis Joplin, this one should be sung if possible in a Ray Comfort-voice)

Oh Lord, wanna thank you for the crocoduck
Atheists were skeptics, now they’re outta luck
Shows we were right and should generate more bucks
So Lord, wanna thank you for the crocoduck

Oh Lord, won’t ya buy me a spot on TV
Where we can exploit this new discovery
I’m sure Kirk and I can convince them to see
If you could just get us a spot on TV

Oh Lord, won’t ya give me a Darwin Award
I re-did his book so you’d not get ignored
I’ve heard they’re quite special, so please help me Lord
I’ll take any risk for a Darwin Award

18. Evolution and history compulsory

Comment #433592 by esuther on November 20, 2009 at 8:40 pm

I would greatly appreciate any tips on how to present the information in a way that engages such an easily distracted mind


It sounds like you are more intelligently engaged in her education than than the average person, so I am sure she will learn science and evolution as her brain becomes able to comprehend them.
For starters, no child can resist loving baby chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas, and I am sure she would be delighted to know that they are in fact her distant cousins.
If she goes through a dinosaur-loving phase, that might be a good time to inform her that big scary old dinosaurs evolved into lots of nifty smaller things, like chameleons and birds.
Have fun. Teaching children about nature is a joy.

19. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433591 by flying goose on November 20, 2009 at 8:38 pm

Sciros
Even G A Wells the doyen of the 'non existence' hypothesis now admits to existence the man behind the Jesus myth.

Making his (Jesus') non existence the central pillar of an attack on Christianity is unlikely to be effective simply because the sceptics have lost the argument on this one.

They have lost the arguement because they have not made a decent and peer reviewed case for their hypothesis.

I don't recall Robin Lane Fox being a particular friend of Christianity, and as I remember it he does not rate 'non existence' hypothesis either.

You seem to have a hyothesis which you 'know' is correct and really it is only a matter time before the world of scholarship will come round to your point of view.

Does not sound very scientific to me.

20. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433590 by righton on November 20, 2009 at 8:31 pm

Armstrong and Eagleton

21. Evolution and history compulsory

Comment #433589 by twistedgizzard on November 20, 2009 at 8:25 pm

I have recently been trying to teach my 6 year old about evolution but she just seems incredulous to most of what i have to say.
Does anybody think i'm jumping the gun a bit and think I should leave it another year or two?
I would greatly appreciate any tips on how to present the information in a way that engages such an easily distracted mind :)

Dan

22. Evolution and history compulsory

Comment #433588 by Gruff Mckenzie on November 20, 2009 at 8:14 pm

As a teacher you can get away with not teaching something or in your own way fairly easily, but this will increase the amount of teachers overtly teaching natural selection and evolution, getting the message through to more kids at an earlier age.
A great thing.

23. Evolution and history compulsory

Comment #433587 by twistedgizzard on November 20, 2009 at 8:06 pm

My 6 year old daughter attends a C of E primary school and her reception year was pretty much religion free.
Now she has started year 1 the hard sell is underway with every thing from reciting the lords payer, attending mock christenings and being expected to pray before she can get her hands on her lunch.
The picture bible was a stomach churning touch too.
However im delighted to say that as she is an intelligent young lady she thinks its all a load of old bollocks! (not exactly her words but she would do her dad proud if they were)
Im not sure if very many of the kids at her school will be convinced by it and remain so through into adulthood, but its the shocking waste of valuable education time that seems to be the biggest tragedy.

24. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433586 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2009 at 8:05 pm

I'm not sure about voting for Blair. At least he realised he had to listen to Alistair "We don't do God" Campbell. His government also pushed through some good human rights legislation against pressure from religious groups. Free from the responsibilities of government, he seems to have gone rather nutty though.

But I would certainly not rate him as anything like the Pope in terms of evilness.

However, as this poll seems light-hearted, I had to vote for Armstrong and Eagleton. Their vacuous nonsense is just so painful.

25. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433585 by cherryteresa on November 20, 2009 at 7:59 pm

Didn't Kirk and Ray also have an owl dog or something? The funny thing is, I think if god did exist, then we would see the owl dog and other random stuff all the time. God would just make random animals to be funny and because he could.

26. Interview - Richard Dawkins

Comment #433584 by Bonzai on November 20, 2009 at 7:51 pm

Actually, the more details you fill in the more gaps will appear. Say consider a one dimensional gap. If you insert a piece into the gap which almost fills it up but not quite, you will end up with two gaps at the end instead of just one. But the new gaps are much smaller than the original single gap.

It is not a big deal to have gaps even though those who don't think about it carefully may think it is.

27. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433583 by Sciros on November 20, 2009 at 7:51 pm

I am not a historian so there is no way for me to judge the merits of the fringe opinion. But didn't we (rd.net-ers)just have a long discussion over on the Bill Maher and vaccination thread which most people argue that it is reasonable to follow expert consensus if we don't have the facility to judge the alternatives?
Bonzai don't sell yourself short. As long as you are literate and can arrange events in your head in chronological order (most humans can), you have the facility to understand historical narrative. From there all you need is critical thinking in order to determine plausibility. Expert knowledge of the history of that time period is more than easily available on the internet or at any decent university (or for me, in my immediate family, and some of their colleagues) so the data's all there for you.

Yes. Except you have a hard time to establish that, given that the majority of experts are against you.

Why waste all the time and energy for a battle that you can't win
Whoa nelly, I'm gonna stop you right there, because that's the kind of stuff I'm liable to hear when someone is arguing in favor of the divinity of Jesus as well!

Frankly I don't care if the majority of historians who weigh in on the subject are in favor of one side or the other; one side is correct and the other isn't, and until we end up in a reality where the majority is always right, I'm going to apply my own mental faculties in understanding what I read.

get the argument buried in a smog of irrelevant details as any historical debate tends to lead to
The details are very relevant to the historical debate; that's pretty much all the debate hinges on, is the authenticity of some of the mentions of Jesus in historical documents. Certainly these are "details" when you look at how minor the mentions are in non-religious sources, but they are very relevant to those concerned with the question of the historicity of Jesus.

If you are aiming simply to make the argument that Christianity is nonsense, then these details are definitely less relevant, but they're not entirely irrelevant.

You may respond again with the idea that someone who is not a professional historian is in no position to grant those details significant relevance, but what if one is a historian? Then do they have relevance? My point here is that the relevance of any claim depends mostly on how strong a case for it you are able to make.

you can make your argument against magical claims of Christianity much cleaner and more compellingly
Honestly I don't find doing that to be the slightest bit interesting. Magical claims aren't worth my time. Genuine historical debates actually make me do research, think, comprehend, and learn. Telling people that "walking on water" is a scientific claim, yeah that's great, whatever. At least with regards to the existence of the Yeshua in question, we are talking about a debate between what are usually educated people.

Mind you, there are Christian historians out there (I don't have percentages but I assume it's greater than 0%, and probably greater than 25%). Guess which side of the debate they will invariably be on, and then think about how much their opinion is worth, even though they are "experts."

28. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433582 by lvpl78 on November 20, 2009 at 7:39 pm


How BORING that the Pope Ratzinger is notching up the most votes. I'm not sure who I'd vote for, but I'd surely choose a less obvious candidate than the pope


How about Oprah Winfrey for a controversial choice?

She did help elect Barack Obama, and we should thank her, but she's also peddled a huge amount of new earth, new age, psycho babble, clap trap nonsense on her show, which is the most watched talk show in the world's most powerful country.

I say vote Oprah!

Edit: Ok I just realised she's not on the shortlist. She should be though.

29. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433581 by Bonzai on November 20, 2009 at 7:39 pm

Sciros

Because based on everything I've researched, this "fringe" opinion is more likely to be correct.


I am not a historian so there is no way for me to judge the merits of the fringe opinion. But didn't we (rd.net-ers)just have a long discussion over on the Bill Maher and vaccination thread which most people argued that it is reasonable to follow expert consensus if we don't have the facility to judge the alternatives?

Hah, how can you say that with a straight face? If Jesus never existed, then Christianity's central axiom is gone altogether.


Yes. Except you will have a hard time trying to establish that, given that the majority of experts are against you.

Why waste all the time and energy for a battle that you can't win and get the argument buried in a smog of irrelevant details as any historical debate tends to lead to, while you can make your argument against magical claims of Christianity much cleaner and more compellingly?

30. Extract from Chapter One of The Greatest Show on Earth

Comment #433580 by Tahseen on November 20, 2009 at 7:36 pm

Richard, if you could read a brand new and revolutionary book "Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Amazing New Insights from Qur'an..." by Sayeedur Rahman online at (http://www.authonomy.com/ViewBook.aspx?bookid=11309), you will find much more and indeed very credible and convincing evidence from Qur'an too in this regard, which completely shatters the myth that Qur'an is in any way averse to biological or human evolution. A very great and illuminating book both on the aliens and the evolution, and much more indeed!

31. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433579 by Mr DArcy on November 20, 2009 at 7:33 pm

Bennys from Heaven for me. Just the sheer scale of ignorance propagated by the RCC, of which he's boss, is enough reason.

It's a shame we can't award a Lifetime's Achievement award for people like Alister McGrath or Dinesh D' Souza, for the art of saying nothing in 10,000 different ways.

32. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433578 by Sciros on November 20, 2009 at 7:33 pm

I found the people with more creativity than others are usually less religious than others as well. But the former is mostly subjective, and it's just my personal experience.

33. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433577 by Rikitiki13 on November 20, 2009 at 7:27 pm

Unfortunately, Comfort and company might just see this as confirmation: Look! The day after we do that Darwin book give-away, THIS comes out. The lord is giving us a SIGN - telling us we were right all along - WE came up with the Crocoduck (marca registrada, patent rights pending) FIRST!!

34. Vote for secular nonprofit organizations on Facebook

Comment #433576 by V1ktor on November 20, 2009 at 7:27 pm

I've voted for those ones, but I'm in Australia and don't know any US organizations. More suggestions please.


Just enter words like atheist, secular, freethought and it will provide you with a list of good nonprofits to support. There's many of them, most are local.

35. Just say no to sharia law

Comment #433575 by Sandra S on November 20, 2009 at 7:27 pm

19. Comment #433570 by Barry Pearson

(1990):
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm

So much for progress, I'm pretty sure they just made it worse.

36. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433574 by Bonzai on November 20, 2009 at 7:25 pm

55. Comment #433412 by flying goose

I agree that it is over the top to try to turn every child into hard nose rationalists. There is room for make believes and imagination.

Except perhaps in some extreme situations of child abuse like Jesus camp or being raised in a cult compound, the child would sort out the real and imaginary later in life. In the case of those extreme situations, you would have more to worry about than adults making silly claims about fairies.

I don't believe in the theory that a child is just a passive receptor for indoctrinations. I think this Skinnerian view has been thoroughly debunked since the 1960's. Why would a leading biologist still throwing it out as if it is self evident is beyond me.

People like to talk about science here, but let me just say that great science (as oppose to just competent science) is not the result of just cranking out results logically and following the data, it is an act of creativity that involves a lot of insights and imaginations. Art and science converge at a high level. Feynman was not called a magician for no reason.

Now having said that I don't think religion is particularly helpful in developing the child's imaginations. While it is true that religion talks about fairy tales, but it also encourages blind obedience to authority, dogmaticsm and in general cultivates a lazy thinking habit. These features would do a lot to kill creativity and imaginations.

Fairy tales that demand you to obey and worship the fairies without questions are not just any fairy tale.

The people who look at religion primarily as just truth claims tend to miss this.

37. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433573 by Sciros on November 20, 2009 at 7:14 pm

Bonzai

If I am not mistaken the consensus of historians is that the guy did exist so why embrace a fringe opinion while we can make equally sound arguments against Christianity without it?
Because based on everything I've researched, this "fringe" opinion is more likely to be correct. I find that historians who conclude that the particular Yeshua referred to in the epistles and gospels likely existed, to be essentially a little handout to Christians to make them feel better. It's a little less popular to be on the "Jesus myth" side of the historical debate, but it's a genuine debate and I submit that the side arguing against Jesus the man has far better arguments on their side.

we can make equally sound arguments against Christianity without it
Hah, how can you say that with a straight face? If Jesus never existed, then Christianity's central axiom is gone altogether. You can make sound-enough arguments against Christianity whether or not he existed, but if he didn't then your work is done!

flying goose
This is an example of heading towards the fringe. At a lecture by John Spong I attended a few weeks ago he said that no biblical historian in the world of any repute, believes in the Virgin Birth. The same is true of the fringe in the historical study of JC.
You are being ambiguous. Please clarify your point. If you're saying that "no historian of any repute" believes that the particular Yeshua in question never existed, then you're misinformed.

EDIT: I would present the various arguments here and now, but they are very easy to find using Google if you search for "historical Jesus" and "mythical Jesus" and compare the rather thorough arguments and analysis of evidence from both sides.

38. Evolution and history compulsory

Comment #433572 by sillygirl on November 20, 2009 at 7:05 pm

I wonder what will be sacrificed in order to include actual education in the curriculum. I'm betting that religious studies is not being removed.

39. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433571 by Bonzai on November 20, 2009 at 6:52 pm

fide

As a child I enjoyed going to Mass in part, and gained a great deal from prayer. I believed that God loved me. I was a Catholic child.


Maybe you have mistaken a priest's love as God's. :)

I was a Catholic Child too, always hated going to Church though. My mother said when I was 6 years old I asked her after Sunday mass how did the Priest know about Jesus and Moses while he wasn't there to see it.

Going to confession was horrible. I didn't like to tell the Priest about my thought and deeds, so I just made up a list of 'sins' like hitting my brothers to get it over with.

I always dislike the pleading for mercy and self denigration (like labeling ourselves as unworthy sinners) in Catholic homilies.

In many ways Catholicism is still a primitive cult despite its appearance of sophistication. What do you call the morbid spectacle of displaying the bones of dead 'saints' for hysterical Catholics to admire?

The crucifix (not just the cross!) always strikes me as grotesque and somewhat obscene. Why do we allow it to be displayed in Churches and schools where there are small children is beyond me, given that we are almost hysterical in trying to shield children from unpleasant things on TV and the internet.

40. Just say no to sharia law

Comment #433570 by Barry Pearson on November 20, 2009 at 6:50 pm

#433478 by Sandra S:
The "Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights" is a mighty interesting and revealing read.
That was an earlier version (1981):
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_universal.htm

The version that is accepted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference is "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam" (1990):
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam_cairo.htm

They are, of course, both bad. Basically "obey Sharia Law and perform these duties".

#433507 by Absinthius:
@ Comment #433478 by Sandra S
Indeed, a slight difference in the semantics of these kind of sentences changes their meaning so drastically.
Slight? They simply give Sharia Law a total override:

"the term 'Law' denotes the Shari'ah, i.e. the totality of ordinances derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah and any other laws that are deduced from these two sources by methods considered valid in Islamic jurisprudence."

"Each one of the Human Rights enunciated in this declaration carries a corresponding duty."

"All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah."

"The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration."

41. Interview - Richard Dawkins

Comment #433569 by RightWingAtheist on November 20, 2009 at 6:40 pm

In answering the second question, Dawkins says there is "a little gap in Theory A", representing evolution.

Creationists often point at gaps in historical record, but that isn't the same as having a gap in the theory. It seems like too much of a concession to say it that way.

42. Debate - Hitchens, Harris, Dennett vs Boteach, D'Souza, Taleb

Comment #433568 by Stafford Gordon on November 20, 2009 at 6:38 pm

Nassim Taleb can be seen and heard on the net; how does he imagine this is possible?

SCIENCE! - SCIENCE! - SCIENCE!

Give me a fucking break.

43. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433567 by abesilberstein on November 20, 2009 at 6:36 pm

"How BORING that the Pope Ratzinger is notching up the most votes. I'm not sure who I'd vote for, but I'd surely choose a less obvious candidate than the pope."


I think the condoms comment did it. I voted for Oktar though. At least the Pope is not trying to silence speech.

44. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433566 by DamnDirtyApe on November 20, 2009 at 6:35 pm

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/056-0817112155-benedict_xvi-769613.jpg

As much as I wish Blair - Yes.

45. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433565 by flying goose on November 20, 2009 at 6:31 pm

Bonzai

If I am not mistaken the consensus of historians is that the guy did exist so why embrace a fringe opinion while we can make equally sound arguments against Christianity without it?


You make my point much more succinctly.

Sciros
copies of copies of documents written well after his supposed existence


This is an example of heading towards the fringe. At a lecture by John Spong I attended a few weeks ago he said that no biblical historian in the world of any repute, believes in the Virgin Birth. The same is true of the fringe in the historical study of JC.

46. Evolution and history compulsory

Comment #433564 by godlezz on November 20, 2009 at 6:22 pm

About time! Another step in Reason...

47. Just say no to sharia law

Comment #433563 by Bonzai on November 20, 2009 at 6:21 pm

peace

Of course a contract is only 'binding' in the first instance if there is some legal force to back it up, but no-one is suggesting that we restrict the ability to form contracts, so why restrict the manner in which contracts are resolved?


Well this would be a different argument from the Libertarian position you commented from earlier. If you are against the state intruding into private affairs, why would you expect the state to back up your private agreements?

There is a contradiction.

To take a family matter: the Government does not say a wedding cannot take place under the banner of Islam, but you are saying that the divorce proceedings cannot. That seems a bit backward to me.


The government shouldn't recognize religious weddings either if I have my way. But law is not made based on pure logic. It seems that Islamic wedding doesn't raise as many issues as Islamic divorce, rightly or wrongly, we can only tackle one issue at a time.

I suggested that there should be a responsibility for all arbiters to ensure those coming before them are not coerced. In cases of Sharia there should be extra care taken to assess whether any females have been unduly influenced.


But how do you ensure that? In the end you would need some kind of state oversight in monitoring the arbitration anyway (and government will intrude into private affairs by your argument) so why not just cut out the middle man?

48. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433562 by TIKI AL on November 20, 2009 at 6:17 pm

I believe Richard's tie has just gone way up in value. It can predict the past.

49. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433561 by Crazycharlie on November 20, 2009 at 6:13 pm

I voted for Eagleton & Armstrong.

Pope Ratzi is to easy a target.

50. Just say no to sharia law

Comment #433560 by Naser01 on November 20, 2009 at 6:12 pm

I always wonder why if these people are so concerned about Human rights in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, why do they principly attack sharia and by doing so isolate those who they want to save? Sharia is defined as the code of law derived from the Koran and from the teachings and example of Mohammed (pbuh). By saying the sharia law is "oppressive", one is saying, by extention, that the law of the Koran and Mohammed (pbuh)is oppressive, a clumsy blunder which does little to win over "hearts and/or minds". We may disagree over the humanity of "true" sharia (sounds like a cop out already, but the majority of Muslims do not accept the interpretation of sharia in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia etc and in fact shout out against these countries in Islamic terms rather than Secular English ones), but at least agree with me that by attacking the most fundamental core principles of a Muslim's heart is not the best way to achieve his/her support for a march like this.

51. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433559 by RightWingAtheist on November 20, 2009 at 6:11 pm

Since the criteria is contributing to unreason, I picked Eagleton/Armstrong.

The others are all either stupid or evil, which are great qualifications, but they are at least pretending to be reasonable. These two, by doing the lame kiss-up when they themselves know better than to believe it, are almost saying that it is good to be stupid. That seems worse than merely being stupid on your own.

52. Just say no to sharia law

Comment #433558 by Enlightenme.. on November 20, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Dammit, I'd really like to go to this, notwithstanding the possible appearance of EDL, BNP or Geert Wilders fans.

Can't afford the travel.

53. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433557 by Bonzai on November 20, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Speaking of the Pope I had a dream last night that he kicked the bucket. Seriously.

54. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433556 by Bonzai on November 20, 2009 at 6:08 pm

I think it is a distraction to debate whether Jesus actually existed. Even if he did, this doesn't make him magical.

If I am not mistaken the consensus of historians is that the guy did exist so why embrace a fringe opinion while we can make equally sound arguments against Christianity without it?

Myths often need a kernel of factual truth to build upon. There was probably some historical truth in Homer, it doesn't follow that Zeus was real.

55. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433555 by Stafford Gordon on November 20, 2009 at 6:05 pm

Me thinks the lady complains too much.

56. Debate - Hitchens, Harris, Dennett vs Boteach, D'Souza, Wright

Comment #433554 by Bludwine2309 on November 20, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Does Dinesh really not know the difference between "knowledge" and "belief?" In the words of Keyshawn Johnson...Come On Man!

57. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433553 by Stonyground on November 20, 2009 at 5:52 pm

I voted for Eagleton and Armstrong, As Spinoza said they should know better. Also they are so full of crap, inventing their own brand of etherial wispy religion and then panning us for bashing the real thing.

58. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433552 by TIKI AL on November 20, 2009 at 5:52 pm

Sorry Richard, but I have to go Pope all the way.
Selfish reasons. He makes my many Catholic neighbors behave like idiots, and they in turn drive me crazy. (One has a glass jar with a saint's picture in it hanging from a tree to try to bring it back to life. I suggested putting the tree in a cave and sealing it with a large rock.)

PS Thanks (Richard Dawkins @ 1) for avoiding the seemingly irresistible urge for some bloggers to type "I'M FIRST POST! I'M FIRST POST!"

59. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433551 by glenister_m on November 20, 2009 at 5:51 pm

So can we claim Harun Yahya's trillion dollar prize now£

60. Debate - Hitchens, Harris, Dennett vs Boteach, D'Souza, Wright

Comment #433550 by Bonzai on November 20, 2009 at 5:50 pm

Hi keith

If Scott Atran is so far above the topic of God that he refuses to write anything about it, that's up to him. However, as Sam Harris has pointed out, people tend to act on their beliefs and it is precisely for this reason that we need to worry when people hold beliefs that can lead them to crash planes into buildings or to stop stem cell research.


This is exactly what I called simplistic thinking.

C'mon, do you truly, honestly think that those terrorists flew their planes into buildings because they haven't heard about evolution and a good, solid science lecture would have changed their minds?

I would agree that some people oppose to stem cell research because the Church says so, but how many American believers stop using contraceptions because of the Church?

I think for many people there is an unease at the gut level about new biotechnologies such as stem cells and cloning because they conjure up a kind of brave new worldish images in their minds. Religion may just happen to have a vocabulary to articulate their anxieties.

If religious people are just robots doing what their religions tell them you will find roughly the same people opposing Sunday shopping as there are against abortion. This is clearly not the case.

(By the way I am sure you know that there is no biblical basis of equating abortion with murder either. In the OT murder carried the death penalty while causing a miscarriage was only punishable by a fine. In Jewish tradition even a new born is not considered a full person, the soul enters later, so there is no full Jewish funeral when a baby of less than 30day(?) old dies.)

I therefore hope that the next time a bomb goes off in London or another Shiite kills a Sunni in Iraq that Scott feels comfortable in his rather Olympian attitude that 'the existence of God'


IIRC the terrorists who put bomb in London rambled on about Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine when they were caught. They didn't expound on theological questions concerning God's existence as you seem to expect. Besides, if you are right there should be a lot more bombings because there are many more Muslims in the U.K and according to you they are all puppets reading the same books.

Just to be clear, I don't think a democracy should allow its policies to be dictated by terrorists and 'foreign policy' may just be an excuse as well for some crazies to act out.

As for the Shiite v.s Sunnis violence in Iraq. Are you serious?

Where in the Quran or the Haddith mention about Sunnis and Shiite? Right from the beginning the Sunni Shiite schism was over succession and power rather than theology. In Iraq the sectarian violence is the results of unequal access to resources, tribalism and vendetta not unlike Northern Ireland, albeit in larger scale.

However, there are many people in the world who have very little sense (or education) and this is the problem that the world faces. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are at least making an effort to counter this (sometimes dangerous) madness, which hordes of poorly educated people the world over still adhere to.


How many poorly educated people in the developing world are reading the four horsemen? I want to know, really.

A problem I have with Harris and Dawkins' line of argument that people act on their religious belief is that on one hand they rightly point out that it is irrational to hold those beliefs, yet at the same breath they insist that these irrational people are consistent in their irrationality in the way of a master logician. I don't find that convincing. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

How many people do you know who actually become religious because they are convinced by classical arguments for God's existence? How many are even aware of these arguments? I don't know any.

Now there may be a few theologians and philosophers who did just that, but these are probably not the people you need to worry about. Besides, there is a difference between believing as a result of logical force of arguments and using arguments as a way to rationalize prior beliefs.

Since few people become religious as a result of theological 'proofs' why do you think that they will give up religion as a result of counter arguments?

I grant you that arguments against God's existence may sway those who are not committed to their beliefs or those who are already having doubts, just as arguments for God's existence may nudge those who are already so inclined over the edge.

That's why I did acknowledge that Dawkins' and Harris' polemics do serve a useful purpose. Hey, I did give out TGD as Christmas gifts for my religious relatives in the hope that it would plant some seeds of doubts,--or at least to piss them off.

But still, arguments and logic are not the main reasons why people believe in God. If you actually read Atran instead of letting your prejudice get in the way you would know.

61. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433549 by mordacious1 on November 20, 2009 at 5:47 pm

I'd like a write-in choice, I can think of a couple...although they may not be well known in the UK. Maybe a special Psycho-religious award for Fred Phelps, et al.

Sorry to disagree with Richard, but out of the list the obvious choice is the one I'd have to go with. Currently the catholics are sticking their obnoxious noses into the Health Care Reform Bill in the U.S. According to them, there should be no health care for the poor, if it includes provisions for abortion. Since when is an abortion not related to your health?

My vote goes for the Ratz.

62. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433548 by Sciros on November 20, 2009 at 5:45 pm

There more than likley was a man called Jesus from the Galilee living in the first century CE. Who probably did teach and collect a following.
Yeshua was a common name so yes indeed there likely was a man called Yeshua living there in the first century CE. I am willing to bet that there's man named Bob living in Buffalo, NY in the twenty-first century CE.

Whether he taught and collected a following is claimed only in what is now considered "holy scripture" (copies of copies of documents written well after his supposed existence) and documents that came even later than that and appear to be based on that scripture. In other words, the evidence for a Yeshua that did anything meaningful at all during that time is on the same exact level as the evidence for Hercules.

63. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433547 by stptrck75 on November 20, 2009 at 5:41 pm

I voted for Ratzinger. He and his flock of robed goons are hurting so many people through their lies.

A great many people take him seriously and consequently will not use condoms, and end up spreading diseases and having unwanted children.

That alone is just abhorrent and despicable of him.

64. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433546 by zengardener on November 20, 2009 at 5:41 pm

I really wanted to vote for Adnan Oktar, aka Harun Yahya, but in the end I thought that he would be a more appropriate candidate for the "bad Science Award"

All hail, Darth Ratzinger!!!

65. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433545 by stptrck75 on November 20, 2009 at 5:34 pm

I can't believe someone (John Locke @ #21) mentioned Karl Pilkington on RD.net. I love it.
Karl has finally broken through.

Karl's understanding of the evolution of Homo sapiens:

"bacteria...fish...mermaid...man"

Brilliant.
I also like Mr. Garrison's (South Park) explanation of evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8asQkegV_wk&feature=related

66. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433544 by bucketchemist on November 20, 2009 at 5:27 pm

#26 Brilliant

67. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433543 by Enlightenme.. on November 20, 2009 at 5:25 pm

"Preceded by 'Bizarre Dinosaurs' for anyone else interested in Dinos."

Who isn't?
Why do you think Liars for [divine lawgivers] pay so much mind to them?

They know that dinos plant the seeds of atheism in their kid's still open minds.

68. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433542 by Rosbif on November 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm

I'd vote for anyone who is religious.
By provding both financial and moral support they are providing credibilty for the their leaders to seek profit (financial, glorific, notorific, etc) from their fact denying, unreasoned behaviour.

Without the supporters, there would be no reason to continue the myths.
Without 1.2bn catholics, the Pope would just be a silly old man, without creationists Mr Comfort would just be the village idiot, without crackpot, pint sized actors, Xanu would just be a fictional character in a book .. oh, wait, he is ......

69. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #433541 by aristopus on November 20, 2009 at 5:21 pm

Yea, right. Of course, atheism is a religion also. May the Void be with you.

70. Interview - Richard Dawkins

Comment #433540 by debridement on November 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm

2. Comment #433480 by God fearing Atheist

Ha! You're right. Satire/sarcasm are usually lost on me.

71. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433539 by effymeral on November 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm

armstrong and eagleton. their ignorance was more headache-inducing than laughable

72. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433538 by flying goose on November 20, 2009 at 5:12 pm

Allan

Thank you for that, I have bookmarked it for later.

John Locke

the trouble is religion and its fables are passed off as truth and are not something we are told to grow out of should we not do so on our own accord.


Trouble is that some of the myths in Christian scripture do have their basis in historical events.

The maccabean war did happen. There was an exile in Babylon.

There more than likley was a man called Jesus from the Galilee living in the first century CE. Who probably did teach and collect a following.

The mythology and dogma form a kind of overlay, which the the trowel of historical criticism can scrape away.

If you insist that there is no truth in the stories you falls into the danger of historical truth being found in and under them.

Whereas if you acknowledge the possibilty of some genuine historicity in the stories you avoid own goals.

Far better to teach children that the stories are worthy of historcal study which in turn might reveal a truth that is other than the dogma taught by religion.

Sorry if thats a bit long winded.

73. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433537 by DocWebster on November 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm

As a colonist here in the America's I would have to go with Damian Thompson. Anyone who would wish harm, even in effigy, on Stephen Fry deserves whatever hell he purports to believe in.

74. Evolution and history compulsory

Comment #433536 by mitch_486 on November 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm

6. Comment #433483 by Sandra S on November 20, 2009 at 2:48 pm

In my experience, as a former CofE school child, it was simply the abundance of scripture related activities. Children are swept into the vast room of mirrors that is religion so early, and so much, that a bit of evo wouldn't phase them one bit. I'd say that (again, in my experience) for every one hour devoted to evolution per day, there would be two to three devoted to scripture. It's a case of majority rules I suppose, but obviously, it does spark interest. A shame that so much time is wasted.

75. Just say no to sharia law

Comment #433535 by Tintern on November 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm

"‘silent majority’ do not see themselves primarily through the lens of their religious standpoint"
A very interesting point and it does seem to be the almost hidden reason for lack of unity. Awareness is hard to raise. However, we'd better do it soon, for our own sake and the many people living under religious oppression who, quite frankly, want out. We need to rescue them and ourselves, thereby rescuing western secular society. It ain't perfect but it's worth rescuing! I believe it tends to be against things like stoning women to death for having sex or being a rape victim. Also, it allows women to walk around themselves without a male family member's permission. How strange. Sounds like some weird all-inclusive thingy where being a citizen gives you equal rights. I know it ain't fully functioning yet but dammit, it's on the right path.

76. Just say no to sharia law

Comment #433534 by Peacebeuponme on November 20, 2009 at 5:07 pm

LWS

wrong - you don't seem to know much about law in Ontario by that remark. Arbitration is a key aspect of civil disputes.
Ok, fine. That I don't know much about Ontario law is correct regardless of my remark being true or false!

However, arbitration being a key aspect of civil disputes, are citizens able to choose their preferred method of resolution?

Bonzai
This only says when there are disputes, they should be settled in real courts in order that the settlements be binding.
Of course a contract is only 'binding' in the first instance if there is some legal force to back it up, but no-one is suggesting that we restrict the ability to form contracts, so why restrict the manner in which contracts are resolved?

To take a family matter: the Government does not say a wedding cannot take place under the banner of Islam, but you are saying that the divorce proceedings cannot. That seems a bit backward to me.
It is not 'freedom' if you are coerced into participating in these kangaroo 'courts'.
Completely agree. A while ago I suggested that there should be a responsibility for all arbiters to ensure those coming before them are not coerced. In cases of Sharia there should be extra care taken to assess whether any females have been unduly influenced.

77. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433533 by KRKBAB on November 20, 2009 at 5:05 pm

I have to agree with R.D.- this website's namesake- this is something more for fun than seriousness. The pope (small "p") is too boring a choice. I go for the tag team of Eagleton/Armstrong. I'm sorry, but "Loving the universe into existence " is way too funny to pass up. Would it in any way involve a trajectory ejaculation by God himself of proportions even way beyond the biblical?

78. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433532 by icantlogoff on November 20, 2009 at 5:04 pm

Way of the Master [Version 1.0]
Copyright (c) 2000 Way of the Master. All rights reserved.


c:\
c:\dir
Volume in Drive c is COMFORT
Volume Serial Number is 10124050

Directory of C:

11/08/2009 08:54 PM

14,828 10 .darwinforward
06/24/2009 10:49 PM 3,736 09 movegoalposts.exe
06/09/2009 12:45 PM 4,020 10 godbanana.exe
08/08/2009 11:34 AM 3,901 08 richarddawkins.html

c:\ run movegoalposts.exe

can't run movegoalposts.exe (already running)

c:\ kill movegoalposts.exe | run truth.exe

movegoalposts.exe killed
can not find truth.exe

c:\ movegoalposts.exe

running movegoalpost.exe

c:\ net send Kirk Crap, not again - does the lord not like us?

Sent

c:\ run newposition.exe

newposition.exe not found

c:\ run divineinspiration.exe

divineinspiration.exe not found

c:\ run randomcombinationofanimals.exe

randomconbinationofanimals.exe - running

79. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433531 by cherryteresa on November 20, 2009 at 4:57 pm

24. Comment #433525 by Ygern on November 20, 2009 at 4:42 pm

I doubt it. They didn't back down after the banana thing. Their beliefs are based on faith and not evidence. But I'm interested to see what Kirk and Ray's response will be, if they do respond.

80. Hard Evidence

Comment #433530 by lastgreekstanding on November 20, 2009 at 4:51 pm

For example, I don't get it that there are people on this site who would buy every atheist book that comes to the market. There isn't really that much new on the God debate, is it?


I agree. There really has not been anything "new on the God debate"---not since the 1952 publication of Homer W. Smith's most excellent book Man and His Gods (foreword by Albert Einstein). I was disappointed that it was not listed in The God Delusion bibliography. The book's copyright has expired and it's free online, btw.

81. Just say no to sharia law

Comment #433529 by DeusExNihilum on November 20, 2009 at 4:51 pm

I whole heartedly agree with the article and the damning of Sharia law and the injustices it brings upon the world and those subjected to it...Although I viruently disagree with some of the implications in this article that to deplore Islam is racist.

82. Interview - Richard Dawkins

Comment #433528 by Steven Mading on November 20, 2009 at 4:48 pm

There may be a lot of Poe's in the comments for this one, because they are comments by readers of The Onion and a lot of those readers might be trying to be Onion-like and failing at it. (I consider it a failure when satire is mistaken for the real thing. A good satirist wants people to realize he doesn't mean it. If that satirist really did want people to think he really does mean it and considers it a success when that happens, then that's not satire. It's trolling.)

But a distressing number of the comments are of the "I agree with him but he's arrogant" variety, which I don't think are Poe's. They're just more evidence of the problem that people don't allow religious ideas to be criticised to the same degree as any other ideas - even those who themselves don't subscribe to those ideas still subscribe to the idea that religious ideas deserve to be treated with paranoid delicacy.

83. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433527 by Corylus on November 20, 2009 at 4:44 pm

I was torn between several, but remembering this pushed me over the edge on Tony Blair.

84. Just say no to sharia law

Comment #433526 by Linda Ward Selbie on November 20, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Peacebeuponme - wrong - you don't seem to know much about law in Ontario by that remark. Arbitration is a key aspect of civil disputes.

85. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433525 by Ygern on November 20, 2009 at 4:42 pm

Hehe, I guess this means that Ray Comfort & Harun Yahya will concede defeat now?

Or not...

86. Evolution and history compulsory

Comment #433524 by DocWebster on November 20, 2009 at 4:38 pm

I was lucky in my education. Even the most religious parents of my schoolmates had an interest in seeing that their children got a good education and not get their little heads filled with mush. It probably helped that the parents were Doctors, lawyers, a judge, and numerous loggers and woodworkers, all of whom were educated in a time when religion held more sway in primary schools so they got to see first-hand how bankrupt such a system of learning was. I'll never forget my mom telling me about class prayers and getting an F for the day if you didn't participate in a manner pleasing to the teacher, Consequently she failed many students.

87. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433523 by cherryteresa on November 20, 2009 at 4:29 pm

Wondering if someone will say that these scientists are satan in human form and so their findings are not to be trusted. This is god's way of testing our faith.

88. Just say no to sharia law

Comment #433522 by Bonzai on November 20, 2009 at 4:22 pm

peace

That maybe true, but it means everybody is inconvenienced now. There is less freedom for everybody to arbitrate in their own way and at low cost, and I assume more government interference in private matters.


You can always enter into private contracts. This only says when there are disputes, they should be settled in real courts in order that the settlements be binding.

So, the government doesn't really intrude into your private affairs. It just wouldn't recognize arbitration by private courts, but it wouldn't put you in jail for doing that.

How is that an infringement of your personal freedom? Let's get it straight, you are saying that your *private* whims should be recognized by *public* institutions. It is you who wants government to interfere in private business, not the other way around.

In the same way, you can have a private agreement with someone to become his slave, just don't expect the government to recognize it or enforce the contract if you decide to run off. What can be more free?

Edited The law exists to protect the right of all citizens. It is not 'freedom' if you are coerced into participating in these kangaroo 'courts'. It may be inconvenient for some, but a little inconvenience is a price worth paying for when the stake is the rights for all citizens.

89. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433521 by blakjack on November 20, 2009 at 4:22 pm

Not on the voting paper I know, but Mark Thompson, BBC Director General would be a good each-way bet if he were.

Jack

90. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433520 by John Locke on November 20, 2009 at 4:22 pm

black wolf:

too right - i strongly believe that one of the greatest struggles of mankind is to distinguish between the truth and what it wants to believe it is the truth.

its our inability at times (and some people more than others) to do this that creates a whole host of problems.

91. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433519 by God fearing Atheist on November 20, 2009 at 4:15 pm

18. Comment #433504 by rod-the-farmer


Rod (or Fuzzy Duck) could you check if you have closed "bold" in your html please. Its screwing "100 latest comments" even if "Supreme Boeing" has fixed it on this page.

92. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433518 by black wolf on November 20, 2009 at 4:13 pm

63. Comment #433489 by phasmagigas on November 20, 2009 at 3:02 pm

On another forum, a friend told me about how he talked to a Christian friend of his. He remarked that he didn't believe because there was no proper evidence for the existence of God etc.
She came back to him with a (probably copypasted) list of ten evidences, including moronic stuff like 'laughing children'.
When he told her that this was ridiculous, she teared up. As a friend and compassionate man, he backpedalled.

It's this emotional blackmail that makes it so hard for nonbelievers - especially scientists - to hold their own in a discussion. No matter how good the refutation is, there's always people who will see only cold-heartedness and cruelty.

93. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433517 by black wolf on November 20, 2009 at 4:05 pm

What is so hard to understand?

We can freely educate children about science. Yet we don't call them scientists, no matter how well they score or for how many years they've been learning.

When it comes to religion, the media and the public sphere in general, except for us conscious and conscientious objectors, don't think twice about calling a five-year old Christian, legislating policy to make sure it gets into a Christian kindergarten and preparing a spot at a well-financed Christian school (UK). Sure, it's the parents's right to send their child to a Christian school if they believe that only that will make sure the child grows up with Christian MoralityTM. It's not nice, but there's nothing anyone can do about it in a free society. What is not ok is that the taxpayer finances worldview-restricted schools in numbers that are easily double of the proportionate interest group in the population, further exacerbating the problem in regions where of course no reasonable alternative non-worldview-restricted school is made available.

94. Just say no to sharia law

Comment #433516 by God fearing Atheist on November 20, 2009 at 4:04 pm

4. Comment #433456 by weavehole


Interesting article. It was well worth reading. I recommend it. It does need confirmation from other sources (of course). Thanks for linking.

95. Vaccination:A Conversation Worth Having

Comment #433515 by dwnstream on November 20, 2009 at 4:01 pm

hungarianelephant, some more really interesting thoughts. I think I would actually tend to agree with you about the problems with doctor issued prescriptions, but I still think I feel the same way about the pharmaceutical ads seeming exploitative. Perhaps banning them is an extreme measure (although to me a world without any advertising at all would be a nice place). But the ads are at least additional evidence to me that we should use increased skepticism when dealing with these corporations, because they have demonstrated a willingness to use exploitative and manipulative business practices in the interest of profit. I agree that I think we've said all that can be said on this so I'll leave it at that and wish you an awesome weekend!

96. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433514 by John Locke on November 20, 2009 at 3:59 pm

carl pilkington of ricky gervais fame said something similar.... :D

97. When a child dies, faith is no defense

Comment #433513 by chewedbarber on November 20, 2009 at 3:57 pm

It's immoral because we say so.

Sure we don't have an absolute standard by which to form our morality, but the actions of these parents so obviously cuts through the full width of our moral web that I want to ask, what isn't immoral about what they did? What is left of your sense of morality if you allow that something like this is moral or neutral?

The fact that they sincerely believed what they were doing was right is an interesting topic for study I'm sure, and we can study them all we like while they're safely tucked away in their prison cells. Except, they aren't going to prison, hmm.

98. Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

Comment #433512 by John Locke on November 20, 2009 at 3:56 pm

fides:

as a child you can gain much from fantasy for example- it can stimulate your imagination and provide endless hours of joy etc.

the trouble is society positively encourages us (if it is needed) to shed these thoughts as we grow older and mature. it is not that fantasy and imagination are not welcome - just that genuinely believing in orcs and goblins is not conducive to leading a normal life.

the same principle can be extended to religion. whilst many a happy childhood thought memory or experience could have been experienced through religion, it is slightly off topic.

the trouble is religion and its fables are passed off as truth and are not something we are told to grow out of should we not do so on our own accord.

naturally i am assuming (as it is my belief) that religion is as nonsense as middle earth, but the principle i'm getting at is that just because something is comforting doesn't make it true. and by extension it is wrong to tell a child that one particular religion is the truth.

and that is my slightly roundabout explanation of the above

come on you irons!

99. Bad Faith Awards 2009: the polls are open

Comment #433511 by Spinoza on November 20, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Eagleton and Armstrong... they should know better.

100. Two articles on the real-life ''CrocoDuck''

Comment #433510 by Supreme Boeing on November 20, 2009 at 3:55 pm

On the CrocoDuck / DuckCroc controversy, this quote from Futurama just had to be posted here:

Fry: "Why couldn’t she be the other type of mermaid, with the fish part on top and the lady part on the bottom?!"

[edit] prepended a closing tag, because the forum software doesn't close all open tags automatically. C'mon, this isn't rocket surgery!