1. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #192249 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 12, 2008 at 3:26 pm

I've signed this petition because that was my experience as a child. Ruminating on hell and the devil taught to me as fact caused me and no doubt causes other children extreme psychological distress. This subject makes me really angry. If you never experienced such needless distress as a child or you do not have a profession which brings you into contact with such children you probably don't know what you're talking about.

I value evidence as much as the next person but I honestly think its pathetic for some people to insist on it so much in this case. Talk about lack of imagination! We're talking about children (I assume you may have met some) and telling them as a matter of fact that they could possibly suffer and burn for a longer time than they will ever live for, which for a child more than anybody is a very, very long time. How the fuck do you expect a sizeable proportion to react? Should I ask for the evidence that tells me its wrong to hate gays or wrong to stone people to death for infidelity? Please.

Even if a huge evidence based inquiry was mounted and found that only 2% of children suffered appreciable psychological distress as a result of hell teaching - to the people who disagree with this petition - would you say "oh fuck them, its only 2%" ? Some people are so full of shit! We're not talking about a few sleepless nights here. We're talking YEARS of sleepless nights and genuine distress in childhood. Who would do such a thing to a child? Probably the same group of people who would take a knife to children's genitalia. I assume all you naysayers would sign THAT petition. Fucking hypocrites. And in any case, so what about the effects? Even if it had no ill-effect whatsoever isn't it not plainly wrong to threaten them with such a thing in the first place?

You don't need science to make a moral judgement in every single case, some are just screamingly obvious to begin with. I sure even RD isn't after the "evidence" here. The fact that needlessly threatening anyone, LET ALONE CHILDREN, who do not posess a developed reasoning faculty, with eternal torture is morally wrong is an AXIOM. Try watching "Baby Bible Bashers" on youtube and just watch the cogs turn in that little blond boy's head.

2. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191115 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 10, 2008 at 8:45 am

Ugh. the longest and most boring joke I've ever read.

I don't believe this is a serious piece. It has to be satire.

3. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178310 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 11, 2008 at 6:54 am

Radio 4 is normally such a fine radio station with plenty to divert the inquiring mind.

But the bum-chummy attitude it has to religion really grates. "Thought" for the day" - 5 minutes given over to some platitudinous religious wanker of one description or another. It always leaves me with the conviction that these people think the world would be a better place if we all rocked back and and forth and gaped at the ceiling while we thought of our imaginary sky friend. Surely we have enough people doing that already?

The bum-chumminess is further evidenced by this cringe-worthy interview with Humphreys. Nearly 8 minutes in length by the way compared to RD's 3 mins 18 seconds. RD only needed 2 minutes to eviscerate O'Connor but that is not the point. I don't worry too much though; the cardinal can make 5000 words say nothing at all, apart from a lot about the diseased brain of its writer. Humphrey's and O'Connor giggling away over some falsely constructed pedantry or another made me want to puke. Dawkins is correct; if this were a politician he would've been treated completely differently and here is another example of how our society fails to prosecute religion fairly and by equal standards.

The very thought of a politician being interviewed with such nauseating defference is unconscionable and would probably be the subject of a disciplinary hearing at the BBC if it ever occurred.

4. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #174754 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 3, 2008 at 12:19 pm

The Professor on top form. A very enjoyable listen. I do not know where he gets his energy and patience from. I would've had a breakdown by now having to reply to the same questions ad infinitum. I can't fail to admire RD for this. What's bizarre is that most of these people have heard of RD and there's a veritable wealth of debate, lectures, t.v. and radio apperances online (not to mention TGD) all of which answer their questions and could save these people the cost of the phone call.

If they evidently care enough to question RD on the phone why don't they care enough to pick up a book or turn their computer on? Or is it the mere verbal repetition that does it for them??

5. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170349 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Comment #170343 by Bonzai

Ok last one for tonight.

Can you tell me where I said that religious belief "must" have a negative impact? I say that it DOES have a negative impact which is indisputable. You yourself alluded to this when you mentioned somebody having a nervous breakdrown brought on by religious belief. So you agree with me on that. AGAIN I contend that religion OVERALL has a negative impact on our species' advancment. I have provided examples.

Scientists motivated by God - so what?? Ballyhoo for them. What about the poor sods who'll never know better BECAUSE of religion. How many times Bonzai my dear fellow?

Religion in what form? There are many forms no doubt but that doesn't mean you can't be aware of what certain religions say specifically about things such as evolution or abortion. You make seen as if religion is completely formless with no set ideas - which is exactly what it is - a set (or sets) of ideas. Do I have to list every single religious injunction that negatively affects human existence?

I didn't say truth was the highest goal! I said one of! And then I said it came higher than mere comfort. If you disagree fair enough but what a mad path that belief could potentially set you on!

The Star Trek thing.

1) Its fiction

2) Is it really so bad that people accept evolution, say, and lose part of their illusion? Its totally incomprable to your example of being awoken from an artificial dream only to find oneself totally emmaciated!

I'm not telling anybody anything!! I'm not totally insensitive! But I still (privately) doubt what they say about comfort - because I know as an ex-believer and from my conversations with others that this is a regular problem (of self-delusion) that causes real anguish for those with faith. In addition to the worry of what their God thinks of them. Mother Theresa.

Lastly - "I have asked some Rabbi". Are you serious? You're actually admitting that that is how you "know" that the Jews didn't take Genesis literally? You're prepared to say categorically (as that's you're buzzword) that they didn't? You're mad!

6. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170341 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 4:37 pm

I've waited more than 30 minutes for a reply from Bonzai so now I'm going to bed.

'twas better than watching T.V.

Goodnight all

7. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170323 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Comment #170299 by Bonzai

I agree it didn't stop Newton or Collins in their acceptance of their discoveries, good thing too. But can this be said for everybody? Wouldn't you agree that science (truth) has been heavily resisted by religion to the detriment of the whole of humanity? We don't believe that stuff but still negatively affects us as unbelievers Hasn't this hindered human development overall? So many people refuse to accept evolution because of religion, I think that this shows that religion is actually worse than useless. Again, I'm less interested in the individual believer and how they assimilate science or not. What concerns me is religion's powers of limiting the advancement of us as a species.

Truth isn't a mere "value judgement" to help one feel like one belongs to an elite. Knowledge of truth has very serious ramifications for the individual. Eg. don't walk in front of moving vehicle, by way of crass example. White lies in themselves do not change truth and in fact are an acknowledgment of truth. Religion would have that we did not know the truth in several cases, putting it beyond our acknoweldgement. As adults we must be prepared to confront truth. Truth doesn't alaways have to be a bad thing. Even if it is bad in instances we can prepare for it and therefore do something about it.

Fighting unfavourable odds is not the same as fighting impossible odds. The usefulness of goal would make it ultimately worthwhile.

I say I question what others say about comfort - I don't totally disbelieve them. If people want to say that it comforts, fine, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are being truthful even to themselves. Many people willfully delude themselves but they're not too stupid to recognise that feeling deep down that they're kidding themselves. That is another anguish in itself, over and above the worry about having an ever watching God perusing their every thought. But as I say I think the question relates to us as a whole species rather than the opinions of individuals.

How can you say that the Jews in x BC didn't really take the story of Genesis literally? That's slightly categorical of you is it not? Judging by the antics of the ID squad there's people who believe that stuff here and now in 2008 AD!

8. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170296 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Comment #170274 by Raiko

No, I didn't intend to insinuate that your argument was flawed. I'm in agreement with you. I just intended what I wrote as an add-on, just to make a devil's advocate case for religion's historic usefulness.

Its not so much that religion is necessary for history as history is history and we can't change it (unfortunately). Religion has prompted our development in that the debate with it has set us on a more enlightened path. In that sense religion was maybe necessary for our development. Intelligence is complex and greater intelligence more complex still and more complex things take time to evolve so I don't think the human race can be blamed for religion as such. What isn't acceptable is its dominance in the present day where we undoubtedly know better.

Appropo being coherent - I know what you mean its getting to that time for me as well!

9. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170286 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Comment #170259 by Bonzai

I see all supernatural belief as negative as it tends to hinder the realisation of certain truths. So in that sense it is obsolete as a vehicle for discovery of truth, which I hold to be one of, if not the highest, goals of mankind, just to be subjective for a minute!

As for helping people get to sleep at night, I have to wonder whether it actually does. When my mind was infected with religious ideas in my youth I found it to be a great cause of anguish especially when I was trying to get to sleep. I remember not sleeping properly for two years (no exagerration!) after my cousin forced me to watch The Amityville Horror when I was nine years old. If it hadn't been for the vivid imagery of the devil taught to me as truth in school/church then I doubt the film would have affected me so badly. Let's say christianity helps a man get to sleep at night - useful. If the man's son is brought up a christian and has the same experience I had would the father still think christianity useful for providing comfort?

I think the true test of the usefulness of X is the ubiquity or otherwise of its usefulness. If it is only useful to a certain portion of people and only in a very limited regard is it truly useful? Like you say, however, it depends on the content of the belief. More often than not faith offers false consolation and I have to wonder; what is the real value/use of false consolation?

I think that truth is always a higher goal whether you believe or not. Certainly higher than comfort. The religious think they already have a truthful explanation which why I suppose they don't consider that they might be wrong. So IMO religion is just as obsolete for them without them acknolegding the fact. Sorry for the tautology.

I think the question was framed to question whether religion is obsolete for us overall as a species regardless of what a group of individuals may think. In this sense I would say that it is.

10. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170247 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Comment #170234 by Raiko

I suppose you could argue that religion has been useful in getting us to where we are in that the real advancements have come as a reaction to, or a disastifaction with, its explanations.

Of course that doesn't make it useful in of itself; being as it is unsatisfactory, useless and therefore obsolete. I suppose to find the right way it is necessary to have a wrong way to judge against. Example - slavery; condemmed to history but always useful, in fact necessary, to be aware of for the sake of human development.

11. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170226 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Comment #170218 by Corylus

Glad to hear it :-)

I happen to think the TF are being quite fair to use "obsolete". I find the word quite satisfying when used to describe religion. I haven't noticed any of the essayists taking issue with it. To the contrary.

Edit: maybe the TF are using the word because of the negative connotations it evidently has, to evoke an emotional response from the reader, I dunno. That could be seen as unfair I give you that. Doesn't change the proper definition of obsolete though, which is why I stress the importance of preserving the proper meaning of words.

12. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170214 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Comment #170209 by mrgoodjob

Ok, but just how useless does something have to get before we finally decide it is obsolete?

If science is a nail gun does religion really deserve to be thought as useful as a hammer? I don't think so.....that implies that religion can effectively do the same job, which it cannot.

If science is a nail gun religion is a ham sandwich (Fawlty Towers - "The Germans")

13. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170203 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Comment #170195 by Corylus

Sorry I added my name to that list. Hope I didn't offend.

I'm just a bit of a word purist and all the negative or other connotations that words aquire over time I am want to reject out of hand.

I just think it serves language and therefore discussion better if the definition of words are preserved and defended where possible. Hitchens gets uppity about "discrimination" for the same reason.

14. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170190 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Ok just read your updated post.Comment #170177 by Bonzai

I accept your point, I can find lots of evidence that backs it up. But the question is whether science makes belief obsolete.

Given the lack of evidence, continuing in belief would seem to many people, especially us, to be pointless. This agrees slightly with your post about utility being subjective.

My point is however is that because it possible to know better I as an atheist can see how belief is negative, counter-productive and useless for the actual believer even if they cannot.

What do you think?

15. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170181 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Comment #170175 by Bonzai

You may say so but if we agree that there is no evidence for God then how can belief in God be truly useful?

Sorry just seen other post will read now . . .

16. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170167 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Comment #170164 by Bonzai

Whatever reason people believe in God has no bearing on whether it is actually useful don't you think?

17. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170159 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 12:57 pm

76. Comment #170155 by Corylus

I respectfully disagree. I think obsolete is the perfect word, as meaning beyond serving any useful purpose. Superfluous and extranenous also fit the bill nicely.

18. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170139 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 27, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Belief in God has been observably obsolete in any useful sense for a very long time.

Consolation is the one thing believers cling on to, as its the only thing left, but better thinkers see no reward in false consolation.

In all other respects of explanation and truth belief is obsolete. Prior belief or prejudice as it should be termed is, by definition, a hinderence to truth. Faith qualifies for obsolescence in these simple and logical terms.

I also think the Templeton bods deserve credit for providing a relatively balanced presentation of the debate considering the inept and counter-productive efforts of the Cambridge website on atheism.

19. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169169 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm

No insults. None required.

Remnant: Flood?
TheTruthID: 5keptics ID question?

20. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169154 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 25, 2008 at 3:18 pm

DAMN

SPOKE TOO SOON!

hehe now the fools want to be taken seriously again.

So by way of solidarity:

Remnant: Flood?
TheTruthID: 5keptics ID question?

21. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169146 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 25, 2008 at 3:08 pm

4563. Comment #169143 by riandouglas

Haha. Either that or bed time.

Didn't get the flood story. Gutted.

22. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169141 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 25, 2008 at 3:02 pm

I think . . . . . . . wait . . . . . . . could it be? . . . . . . . . SILENCE?

23. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169132 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 25, 2008 at 2:56 pm

4548. Comment #169125 by Elli

Aww shucks!

24. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169124 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 25, 2008 at 2:53 pm

4540. Comment #169116 by SRWB

Ah.

What a pair of pricks.

25. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169103 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 25, 2008 at 2:45 pm

"TheTruthID" either you are very immature, stupid, or very immature and stupid.

And BLIND, if Elli doesn't mind me saying so.

Where did all these wankers suddenly come from??

26. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169029 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 25, 2008 at 2:18 pm

What's so nice about this website is that, if you like, you can just sit back and let lots of decent, logical people ridicule and publicly annihilate the daft rantings of idiots with agendas. Meaning you remnant.

I'm fucking desperate to hear about this flood.

27. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #168992 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 25, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Those who've said "I hope the back of it says 'kick me'"

Surely the front of it already says that.

Let him wear it, by all means!

28. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168957 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 25, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Comment 113 Steven Mading

I think I agree, the constant repitition of Hitler/Stalin, as if it was a point in their favour! It has been truthfully rebutted so many times now its quite obvious that they refuse to have this information stick in their minds. Hitler - simple, Roman Catholic. Supported by the church. Statements made by Hitler re. Jews/action neccessary/according to God's will. No contest.

Stalin - slightly more complex but blindingly obvious to those who've studied Russian history or anyone with a brain and a passing interest. The servitude of the population inculcated by centuries of religion and the god figure(and almost absolute power) of the Tsar. Stalin ushered in his own quasi-religious ideology - taking full advantage of the denuded populace. As Hitchens rightly says - you wouldn't be in the dictatorship business unless you had the sense to take advantage of such people.

How could anyone blame atheism for this tragic blend of stupidity, servility, ideology and evil?

29. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168866 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 25, 2008 at 12:11 pm

riverrun

Cheers for clearing that up for me. I thought I had Swinburne nailed but its always nice to be absolutely sure.

Couldn't agree more with your rebuttal to his filthy remark.

Stuart

30. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168555 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

From the "Atheist Arguments" page:

Active Atheist Arguments

The first arguments to consider are those that actively claim that the existence of God is impossible, very unlikely, or simply a meaningless claim to make. These arguments seek to attack religion itself without necessarily relying on naturalistic explanations or the placing of the burden of proof on the religious believer.

Impossible? No. Highly unlikely? Yes but why! If you're going call this page Atheist Argument then at least present the argument! This is the strongest of all arguments against God yet we only get fifty-odd words dedicated to it. Unforgivable.

On the existence of evil in a Godly world:

Thinkers such as Richard Swinburne have argued that many natural evils are inextricably involved in higher level goods, and most atheists find it easier to base their counter arguments on the huge quantities of apparently pointless suffering in the world rather than debating whether God's existence is logically incompatible with some very limited amount of suffering.

This is dishonesty. How does Richard Swinburne know that this is how most atheists base their arguments? He doesn't - he's a liar. Suffering is irrelevant. Either God exists or it does not. Swinburne has focussed on what has got to be the weakest "atheist" argument (believers struggle more with this question in my opinion) and ascribes it to be the majority atheist position. It has no bearing on the existence of god, as we know. What it does have a bearing on, however, is the religite's claims on the merciful, generous and empathetic personality of God. Swinburne is guilty of obsfucation. Oh, and I nearly forgot, this page is suppossed to be for our arguments!

How does Swinburne quantify a "very limited amount of suffering"? Not just "limited" but "very limited". He seems to be very convinced that he knows what he is talking about. Or rather he has gone for the maximum amount of bullshit in the minimum possible words.

Not only does Swinburne fabricate his lies regarding popular atheist belief he (understandably) seemingly does so to divert the onus of attention away from his foul and evil take on the apparent glory of suffering. I'm reminded of the disgusting quip appropo the Holocaust that he made in debate with a Jewish adversary which RD included in The God Delusion. Unfortunatley I don't have my copy to hand at the moment otherwise I'd be more than happy to quote the exact phrase he used.

Its bad enough that the page that contends to represent Atheist opinion is partially given over to the religious. But for it to feature the obfuscations of a morally vile and loathesome creature such as Swinburne is especially irritating.

This website is something more than suspect.

31. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168159 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 24, 2008 at 4:10 pm

This seems to be a very sloppy site.

The "Atheism and Violence" page again dredges up the whole Hitler/Stalin "argument". Without getting into the Catholicism of Hitler or the psuedo-religious ideals of Stalin it should be quite obvious to any reasonable person that belief or lack of belief is not in itself sufficient in order to live by a decent moral code.

What is surely more probable is that in choosing to be atheist we (in numerous if not all cases) reject the morally repugnent aspects of religion, having been educated enough about it to make our choice.

The problem for the Jew, the Christian or the Muslim is that their doctrines specifically endorse and encourage the most disgusting and morally reprehensible behaviour! Anyone who claims to follow a monotheism could rightly be considered morally suspect on this basis. One can only be certain of their good intentions if they can be heard to denounce those specific aspects of their religion. And if they do - why on earth tether themselves to system of beliefs or practices they don't fully agree with in the first place! It amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

That is the key difference. At least with an atheist all you establish in the first instance is lack of belief in God. What follows is very much a blank page and requires free-thinking to develop other, unrelated opinions.

Its irritating that the continual inference is that atheists should explain themselves when clearly it needs to be the other way around.

32. MySpace: No place for Atheists?

Comment #122356 by Stuart Paul Wood on February 5, 2008 at 7:58 am

If they're not happy with atheists on there fine, let them wallow in their own shit.

Facebook is better anyway at least there's more REAL people!

33. MySpace: No place for Atheists?

Comment #122352 by Stuart Paul Wood on February 5, 2008 at 7:55 am

Myspace account cancelled.

Fucking slags.

34. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #102311 by Stuart Paul Wood on December 22, 2007 at 10:15 am

I agree with Steve - I personally wouldn't sing a hymn under any circumstances.

At the moment I can't help but think of the way that childlike melodies found in hymns and nursery ryhmes are often used in cinema very powerfully to suggest latent menace.

Christmas evokes the charming nature of the child molestor to me I'm afraid. It represents the only sweetener christanity can offer, given that the afterlife is bullshit. Every con has its charm wing and I refuse, literally, to lend my voice to it.

35. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94993 by Stuart Paul Wood on December 7, 2007 at 6:14 am

Got to be the Pope for me. He's had a stellar year of bigotry, ignorance and stupidity made all the worse by the fact that he actually governs a rather significant branch of fairy-worship and as such people are likely to take him seriously.

There's been a whole litany of nonsense from him - a search on this site will render among other things; abolishing limbo, the usual anti-birth control bullshit, insistance on the contemplation of hell (!), the hypocritical insult against other religions as being "backwards", hypocritical remarks made about drug dealers "trampling on human dignity", hypocritical and untrue remarks about science "not being able to explain creation" and most recently the head-banging offer of reduced time in pugatory - if you're a) A Catholic, and, b) you make a pligrimage to Lourdes. I'm not Catholic so guess I'm just damned to spending fucking ages in purgatory but what if I was Catholic but just couldn't afford to go? Its a shame that hundreds of old catholic women are now worrying themselves stupid because they haven't got the money for the trip and all because of that horrible, weasely, fraudulent, poisionous, hateful, withered old bastard.

Not just my winner but my favourite for next year as well.

36. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85608 by Stuart Paul Wood on November 6, 2007 at 11:53 am

What I detest is how they'll allow this idiot woman to effectively commit suicide and yet assisted suicide on medical grounds is forbidden, even with all the attendant ramifications such as slow, agnonising death. In order to get taken seriously you have to be willing to say that you subscribe to the most indefensibly brainless beliefs first.

Maybe this woman and her husband are victims of religion but surely it is one's duty as an adult to test one's beliefs especially when the outcomes of faith can evidently be that serious. And if they'd tested their beliefs properly how could they have possibly held onto them?

And again, how can one possibly argue that religion is moral when two children will never know their mother, directly because of religion and for nothing more important than a woeful re-reading of a stupid obsolete text from antiquity?

You can't!

37. AAI 07

Comment #84500 by Stuart Paul Wood on November 2, 2007 at 7:25 am

Scooter,

Your ignorance is simply astounding for somebody who wants respect for their opinions. As I said, you don't know my friend, you don't her circumstances, I suppose if she was raped that would also be down to her "irresponsibility" in your view. First you "guarantee" at least one irresponsible choice was made on her part then in the next paragraph you say it was her irresponsible choices time and time again. I actually laughed at this. You criticised so called liberals earlier for reasoning like faith heads and yet you have attempted a character assasintion against somebody about whom you know nothing! Jerry Falwell would've been proud! It is YOU who have an opinion based soley on FAITH.

The facts of the matter are that she was let down by other people who are no longer in her life. I don't have to explain further other than saying that these are the facts and that if the facts were otherwise you may have an ally in me. But the facts are not otherwise and therefore I am not your ally. The choice you have to deal with as a rational adult(?) is whether as a society you are prepared to allow a mother and her young child to go homeless, without an income, or not.

You're always trying to blame people after the event. This achieves nothing! Even if my friend had been completely irresponsible with her life at the end of the day there is still an innocent child to be looked after and I'm afraid in a civillised society the child's interests come first (I can hear you now - "why didn't she think of her child's interests before the child was born....." gets you nowhere Scooter - as Morrissey said "the dream has gone but the baby is real") You can choose to lump it if you wish but you don't appear to be able to suggest anything realistic as an alternative to allowing a small but sufficient sum of money to feed and clothe the child and his mother. There are genuine cases for state support Scooter, get over it.

Before I forget - your idiotic comment "if you are so keen to help why don't you foot 100% of her welfare bill" - if I did then I would be the one in need of financial assistance, tithead.

And as far as ME insulting my friend, don't make me laugh! The plain fact is that she can't get by without state help, she can't fend for herself financially. Sacrifice priorities? like what? after she has paid for cheap food and cheap clothes for herself and her son there is nothing left, you mean sacrifice luxuries obviously - she doesn't have any!

I laugh at people like you Scooter. No, really. I have a friend who's twice as bigoted, misinformed and belligerent as you so this is really "water off a duck's back" for me, fella. However it does become boring after a while and so on that note I'll leave you to your apoplexy.

38. AAI 07

Comment #84332 by Stuart Paul Wood on November 1, 2007 at 6:39 pm

Scooter,

I agree the system should encourage her to work (as she wants to) and it doesn't as you have pointed out. What you don't appear to understand is that if you remove the system altogether then she is homeless and has no way of providing for herself or her son. Are you happy for that to happen?

Why is she irresponsible? As you have no idea how she came to be in the circumstances she finds herself in now how DARE you say that it was through her irresponsibility!

The problem with you is simply that you enjoy blame, you positively love to blame people in worse situations than yourself. You exhibit a complete failure of imagination when it comes to other people. You simply assume that there is a wilful intent to defraud taxpayers. You assume that a life on state handouts is fantastic. You don't value the contribution women make simply by raising their children to be future contributors to society. Her son is a very clever lad with a bright future, under your rule he would have no future. That is the difference between a just society and whatever type of hell it is you extoll.

Goodnight all.

39. AAI 07

Comment #84324 by Stuart Paul Wood on November 1, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Scooter,

I know a family on what you would call "welfare" and they genuinely need the money, and I am, as a taxpayer, happy to contribute.

If mother of the family went back to work (as she wants to) she would lose her welfare payments and incur transportation costs to and from work which would leave her far worse off than if she were to stay on welfare. Given that she has barely enough money to start with, only an idiot would choose to go back to work.

She gets state help because she is a single mother with nowhere else to go and if you could see the excellent job she is doing in raising her son and the overall value of that contribution to society then you'd be happy to contribute too.

Perhaps in your family money would be available for childcare costs and I'm sure you never have to think long and hard about how much it costs you to get to work and back. Be very thankful Scooter, that's all I can say!

40. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #84310 by Stuart Paul Wood on November 1, 2007 at 5:42 pm

I've just added my name to the petition, good luck Richard!

I always shoot a cursory glance over the other names on the list and was amazed to see the name of one of my favourite DJ's - the celebrated and well respected young house/breakbeat DJ/producer James Zabiela!!

Fair play to ya James!

41. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80297 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 21, 2007 at 7:39 am

Comment 306

Keith has just answered that proposition.

42. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80296 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 21, 2007 at 7:29 am

Riley,

hasn't Hitchens made his infamous challenge at every single debate that he has had for probably the last six months?

Doesn't this inform his position that he hasn't received a reply? I've watched a lot of his debates I cannot remember a reply from any theist either!

43. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79732 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 18, 2007 at 11:04 am

I'm a bit late but congratulations, Professor Dawkins, well deserved.

44. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #77082 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 8, 2007 at 11:56 am

Acleron,

The quote of me you used was actually me quoting blackhaw.

I would never say such a thing!

45. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76616 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 6, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Even a video tape can be misleading. The camera man dictates to us what we will watch and how it is presented to us is much like how a written record can display the motivation of the author. But movies/ video tapes are such a new invention that even if what you said was true it would not make a difference for most of history.

The modernity of video is not the point, the point is that video can count as evidence and such instances as September 11th where there were lots of independant recordings - very reliable evidence.

Your original point was -

(science) is not good for obtaining information on events that one cannot repeat or observe. For instance history.......

Now, I have demonstrated that history is both observed and can be "repeated" or re-obsevered and in this regard is on par with science in the field of human advancement. It is hardly dissimilar to science as both are based on observation and the quality and quantity of observation adds weight to both. In fact the more reliable the history the closer it is to science.

Like neither really answers the question about the existence of God. Man needs another method of gaining information for that type of question.

In other words because neither science or history has provided any evidence for God you refuse to be satisfied and insult both domains of learning by stating that they are effectively not good enough!

Come on blackhaw, you probably have a decent level of intellect. Do you honestly think science and history so usless on the god question?

46. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76610 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 6, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Blackhaw,

I tend to define those who tether themselves to an unalterable set of beliefs as fundamentalists, particularly when there is no evidence for those beliefs. The more closely you follow the instruction of the bible, the more of a fundamentalist you are. There is not, however, a christian monopoly in this regard as you know.

Blackhaw - which biblical instruction do you adhere to - the one regarding stoning those who work on the sabbath or "thou shalt not kill"?

Since the bible is the word of God and you cannot logically agree with both instructions how can you or (anybody else) be a true christian?

47. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76601 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 6, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Blackhaw,

Given your statement that historical events are tenuous due to the personal perceptions of those involved - do you find the gospels more or less reliable when you consider that they were not written by anybody involved in those events?

48. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76593 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 6, 2007 at 11:48 am

Blackhaw:

No. A record of an event is not the event itself. A historical document does not reproduce an event. It is gives us how someone pereived an event. For instance the gospels give a history of Jesus Christ as he is explained by some of his disciples. They do not bring back the event itself just by giving us the history of the event. (if the gospels are even trying to give us a history in the modern sense) History is History. It is not science.

But you said that you cannot observe history - which is obviously a false thing for you to say. History is constituted entirely of observations. Obviously you cannot watch the battle of hastings again but you can watch the events of September 11th 2001 or the assasination of JFK. Footage of these events prove that they did in fact happen.

The point is that History has a value because it contains information that was observed, as does science. You seem to suggest that there are better sources of reliable information that do not come from mere observation (such as theology) which is absurd.

49. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76590 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 6, 2007 at 11:38 am

Blackhaw:

This is interestign since many Christians have believed in the Bible for over a millenium before there were any fundamentalists

How can you say that they were not fundamentalists? If those people took the word of bible to their hearts for so long in spite of the lack of any evidence how could they be anything but fundamentalists? A quick browse through religious history will show you that the further you go back the more fundamental the actions of its adherents. This has waned over time due to the fact that large parts of the bible have become unacceptable to the religious in our collective modern society.

50. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76581 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 6, 2007 at 11:11 am

Blackhaw on the scientific method:

"It is not good for obtaining information on events that one cannot repeat or observe. For instance history is not a science"

Surely you can observe History? One can repeat the observation if the event was recorded. Can you suggest another method of gaining knowledge from the many that you apparently know of that is on-par with science?