1. Do they really think the earth is flat?

Comment #224276 by Scott McMeekin on August 4, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Wow.

In the words of Adam Savage from Mythbusters,
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."

Some kind human being seek help for this poor fellow. I bet this guy votes, and would qualify for holding public office too.

Scott.

2. Group Asks for Divine Intervention to Ease Oil Prices

Comment #204180 by Scott McMeekin on July 4, 2008 at 10:01 am

Perhaps a better strategy, given the USA's history of selling anything to pretty much anyone with no tangible long-term thought to the ramifications of such transactions, might be to add an taxy duty to all of those large arms sales to Saudi Arabia to offset their higher oil prices.

Nope - that wouldn't work, cos then the Saudi's would just buy their bombs and fighter jets from the humane, progressive, ethical, forward-thinking British government (as long as we slip them a nice big bung in the process).

Gotta love democracy.

Scott.

3. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203660 by Scott McMeekin on July 3, 2008 at 10:30 am

richarddawkins.net "A Clear-thinking Oasis".

I'd agree - so PLEASE stop reprinting any old bullshit from the Daily Hate. The sooner this rag goes the way of the Dodo the better. Please, please stop giving them the publicity they crave.

A bit more "clear-thinking" required, methinks.

Scott.

4. Fleabytes

Comment #130324 by Scott McMeekin on February 20, 2008 at 10:25 am

Well done, Paula! I thoroughly enjoyed reading your article, in part due to your clear and concise language and grasp of the arguments, but also because you've done me the service of not having to wade through the books myself. I'm also in total agreement with Steve Zara, in that I think your article is good resource for this site, going forward.

Of course, now you're going to need to put your feet up, drink lots of hot chocolate and read a few good science books to sweep away the religious memes that now cloy up your neurons. Can I also suggest some Pink Floyd and the Universe DVD on mute in the background? Works for me...

Bravo!

Scott.

5. Blasphemy

Comment #122549 by Scott McMeekin on February 5, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Dennett is eloquent and concise as always. Fox could do well to examine his style for a proper definition of "fair and balanced". Honestly, the radical islamists remind me of the witch-hunting mob in Monty Python's "Holy Grail". It would be nothing more than an amusing parody if people didn't actually act like this in real life.

Lamentably however, my incredulity at people's capacity for a complete lack of common sense doesn't benefit the poor bugger for whom a beheading awaits. I firmly believe that if the people in these countries were better educated, and from a variety of books, rather than one particularly old one, then they would be less likely to be so credulous with the so called "scholars" initiating all this fire and brimstone.

Scott.

6. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #118965 by Scott McMeekin on January 31, 2008 at 8:14 am

Hippo Birdy, Josh! Thanks for all your hard work!

Scott.

7. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116664 by Scott McMeekin on January 27, 2008 at 2:17 am

@ rod-the-farmer

Hey Rod,

I just watched them all without issue. Maybe try em again now?

Scott

8. US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

Comment #115889 by Scott McMeekin on January 25, 2008 at 1:55 am

"We've seen a lot of hype from him. Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life," said Helen Wallace, a biologist and spokesperson for GeneWatch UK.

From http://www.genewatch.org/sub-396416

Dr Helen Wallace - Executive Director
Helen specialises in the ethics, risks and social implications of human genetics. She has a degree in physics from Bristol University and a PhD in applied mathematics from Exeter University. Helen has worked as an environmental scientist in academia and industry and as Senior Scientist at Greenpeace UK, where she was responsible for science and policy work on a range of issues.

9. Fish out of water: Your Inner Fish

Comment #111261 by Scott McMeekin on January 14, 2008 at 7:10 am

What a fascinating article!

Perhaps the Florida school boards would benefit from reading this kind of thing.

But of course, that would necessitate expanding their reading material to encompass more than one book. What are the chances...?

Scott.

10. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106834 by Scott McMeekin on January 3, 2008 at 2:38 pm

"There is no jawbone behind Chuck Norris' beard - only another fist."

Scott.

11. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101652 by Scott McMeekin on December 20, 2007 at 4:49 pm

*slaps forehead*

Scott.

12. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101648 by Scott McMeekin on December 20, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Is the Christian world ready for Mary the Holy Hermaphrodite, do you think? !!!!

13. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100918 by Scott McMeekin on December 19, 2007 at 3:33 pm

#54 @kevlaw

Alternatively - perhaps he has so much courage in his convictions that he feels comfortable having his children brought up as catholics that he know he won't make any difference.

As another atheist married to a catholic, I can attest that my children are quite immune to catholic teachings because they know that there is an alternative. I am quite comfortable letting them make up their own mind and don't feel the need to protect them from religious ideas.

14. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100904 by Scott McMeekin on December 19, 2007 at 3:01 pm

I'm sorry, I'm still confused.

How can you not believe in God, yet consent to subject your children to the church's indoctrination? How can you not believe in catholic dogma, yet allow priests to preach things like trans-substantiation as fact?

Seems to me that Mr Clegg is trying to be all things to all men, as with every two-bit snivelling politician we appear to be stuck with these days. Just ONCE I'd like to meet one with the guts to say:

"I don't believe in God, and I don't agree with children being indoctrinated. However, I will neither persecute religious people, nor marginalise them, in recognition of the beliefs of a section of the electorate I'm supposed to serve. Religion has an important part to play in the lives of some of the people in this country, and I believe that should be their choice once they have reached adulthood and can make an informed and consentual decision."

But of course, that kind of thing doesn't pander to the religious, whom have grown used to being molly-coddled.

Maybe the mere facade of secularism is enough for some of you. Sadly, I fear I'm past that point.

Scott.

15. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100696 by Scott McMeekin on December 19, 2007 at 6:13 am

Or...

"Oh come all ye faith-fools"

I'll get me coat.

Scott.

16. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100692 by Scott McMeekin on December 19, 2007 at 6:05 am

"E... Earth"
"Tap in the code..."
*burble burble whee click*
"Mostly Harmless"

Scott.

17. Jesus ad angers church groups

Comment #100689 by Scott McMeekin on December 19, 2007 at 5:58 am

Hmmm. "Tacky and offensive exploitation"- this from Catholic priests. Pot and kettle anyone?

Scott.

18. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99982 by Scott McMeekin on December 18, 2007 at 2:46 am

Honestly - what an infantile article. So Libby's point is that Richard is a hypocrite for not ostracising himself or others simply because he doesn't believe what they believe? How dare he have the temerity to see past his own views and act in a pluralist and tolerant manner.

Of course, it would take a religious mind to cut reason out entirely and go direct to taking offence mode, now wouldn't it?

Scott.

19. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99326 by Scott McMeekin on December 16, 2007 at 10:19 am

#33 @Roger

Quite franky, Jones looks to me to be a complete rank amateur who is well out of his depth. I could be wrong, though.

20. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99322 by Scott McMeekin on December 16, 2007 at 10:09 am

PJG makes a good point. I'm sorry, I don't agree with the view that this would be harmless as there's no call for it in the UK. It would seem to me that there are more and more wingnuts from the rich business elite who understand how the machine of government works, who sponsor things like this, together with other examples like the sending of creationist materials to Scottish high-schools, and in particular, with the sudden springing up of evangelical baptist churches all over the place. You can't swing a cat in Scotland these days without hitting yet another dewey-eyed, inanely grinning born-again. (Forgive the cat image - I have 3, and would never dream of using them to clobber a wingnut).

The observable fact is that the indoctrination, the mind-conditioning and the hubristic determination of these nutters has a cumulative effect if not challenged. The evangelical creationist movement in the US has gained great power precisely because several charismatic leaders stopped shouting at the rain, read a few law books and started using the system of government to further their agenda. It's that simple, and to deny that it's not happening in the UK (to a lesser extent perhaps) is just another facet of "the God Delusion". *Our* delusion is that "it can't happen here".

I dunno. Faith-based initiatives (read prosetylising opportunities) funded by the general tax purse. Faith-based schools (read segregational, sectarian, anti-pluralist educational establishments where dogma is presented as fact). Bishops with free passes into government on the strength of neither aptitude, experience, qualification, or indeed, electorial mandate, an ex-prime minister who's now come out as a devout wingnut on tv, trotting out the old "appeal to sympathy". Oh and on a visit to my son's prospective high-school for next year, I find that while the standard comparative religion curriculum is used, it's taught by a couple of "true-believers", and christianity is used to frame the context of their studies on morality.

Stop the world, I want to get off.

Scott.

21. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98189 by Scott McMeekin on December 13, 2007 at 8:24 am

Ditto, Dr Benway. Succinct. Nuff said.

Scott.

22. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96323 by Scott McMeekin on December 10, 2007 at 11:00 am

Hrmm.

What I fail to understand is the insistence that children in particular should be subjected to this practice for traditional or religious reasons. I mean, if you're 18 and you're uncut and you want it done, then that's a decision based on adult, albeit arguably inexperienced reasoning. Is there something in the relevant holy book(s) that requires *children* to be subjected to this procedure? Would it really be that much of a compromise to modernity for people to leave it up to the person themselves, once they are capable of making an informed decision? Surely that would be a bit less morally bankrupt than forcing the procedure on a child who can neither approve or decline, and doesn't possess the faculty to either understand the reasoning, or indeed argue the point.

I suspect that the various faiths that espouse this kind of thing would survive just this one hat-tip to modern human and civil rights. Is it *really* worth preserving a tradition that mutilates children in the name of in-group conformity? And at the risk of raising a straw-man, I'm left wondering how many young parents have had their children mutilated, not for deep religious belief, but "it's what my parents would have wanted".

Bleh. It always amazes me what people consider "normal behaviour".

Scott.

23. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #93157 by Scott McMeekin on December 2, 2007 at 10:44 am

Just to annoy the no-humor naysayers, when I read this bit in TBW, it reminded me of using POKE 23609, 25 to extend the ZX Spectrum's keyboard blip length and make it funkier. This was in 1982. Interesting to muse why my brain would remember such a trivial little hack for so long.

Richard, geeks of the world divide by zero!

Scott.

24. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92544 by Scott McMeekin on November 30, 2007 at 6:22 pm

I won't bother exercising my disgust with this state of affairs. Instead, I'd like to point out the one salient positive point (as small as it is) in all this. Echoing Richard's sentiments on the matter, a child of 7 is no more a muslim than they are a jew, a christian, a hindu, or any other religious follower.

I wish Mrs Gibbons the best of luck, for in the absence of rational-thought, a fair and reasonable justice system, or a pluralist government, I fear that luck is what she needs most right now.

Scott.

25. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92336 by Scott McMeekin on November 30, 2007 at 10:09 am

I don't think the problem is terminology. With all this crap about the "theory" of evolution going on, and "atheism" being paralleled with "marxism" or "leftism" or "liberalism" I suspect that whatever term you use will be twisted about to mean whatever a certain group wants. Religion seems to be adept at defining "out-groups", and semantic arguments and obfuscation seem to be the popular tools these days.

I'd happily refer to myself as a "free-thinker", but then you'd get all this crap from wingnuts about spilling coffee or not spilling coffee, and how they're "free-thinkers" as well.

At the end of the day, you're either a rational person, or you're not.

Scott.

26. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92312 by Scott McMeekin on November 30, 2007 at 9:11 am

I'd never even heard of Pat's material until I saw it on onegoodmove the other day. Went to YTube and watched them one by one. Sometimes he tends to linger on the personal insults, but even taking that into account I didn't spot anything that he said that wasn't patently obvious to most of us, or was untrue.

It's good stuff. Stronger stuff than Richard, but as I said, none of it is wrong, unreasonable or untruthful. Well worth a look if you haven't. With the Sudan incident, I'm firmly of the opinion that we do need more people speaking plainly, concisely and openly in a similar style.

Scott.

Edit: Now that I think about it, a worthy exercise is to watch some of the response videos that Pat gets. If you want to get some idea of the mindset of a lot of young muslim men these days, they're an interesting watch.

27. In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim's tale

Comment #91687 by Scott McMeekin on November 29, 2007 at 1:33 am

*sigh*

There's just no way possible to strike a concilatory note anywhere in this whole sorry debacle. Rape is wrong - full stop. I presume that for all of Saudi Arabia's wealth, they are unequipped with crime scene investigators or rape kits, DNA analysis facilities that would have at least proved that these men were all party to the violation. Regardless of whether or not rape was proved, they would all have been proved (and therefore condemned) guilty under their own laws of having sex with someone they weren't married to. I also presume, that had the male been processed similarly, these same men would have been convicted (and executed) for sodomy under these same laws.

As long as the judicial system is biased against one group or another, and the authorities are ill-equipped or ill-educated to deal methodically with the situation, this kind of thing will continue to happen.

Scott.

28. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #91674 by Scott McMeekin on November 29, 2007 at 12:33 am

Seems to be a lot of Daily Mail readers commenting. Utterly knee-jerk reactionary piffle.

So, you're condemning the Muslim Council for coming out in unequivocable support of the teacher - and I suspect the same people would be condeming them for NOT coming out in support of her. Get a grip guys.

Anyone with a reasonable amount of intellect will see that no malice was ever intended, and this is simply reactionary and paranoid BS from the "scholars". Now we wait and see if the UK and Sudanese governments can get their finger out to rectify a situation that should never have arisen to the level of international politics.

In difference to the rest of you, I take it as a positive sign that the Muslim Council stood up immediately to condemn the charges, and are no doubt using whatever influence they can muster to bring pressure to bear on the Sudanese authorities.

Scott.

29. Megachurches Add Local Economy to Their Mission

Comment #91500 by Scott McMeekin on November 28, 2007 at 1:12 pm

@USA_Limey - I agree. I have never given credence to the argument that churches charity work justifies tax-exempt status. Many businesses regularly donate to and work with charities, yet do not garner the same privilege. I personally would see it as an indication from the religious institutions that they would be willing to rejoin society (instead of hovering piously above it somewhere) and contribute back into the economy at large, benefiting everyone instead of just themselves and those they deem fit to receive their charity. Maybe it's a cheap shot, but us godless citizens pay taxes, and are forced to contribute to faith-based initiatives for example.

Such a gesture would reassure me that people care about the society in which, in reality at least, they enjoy their freedoms and services and infrastructure at the behest of the men and women around them, as opposed to their chosen deity. Tithies have to be the biggest tax-avoidance pyramid scheme of all time.

Scott.

30. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91132 by Scott McMeekin on November 27, 2007 at 11:36 am

Seems reasonable to me that a candidate for running the country should be unafraid about answering questions about any part of his life. But then, I kinda thought it seemed reasonable to require candidates for running the country to be in some way qualified or have some relevant experience for the role, as well - but that doesn't appear to be the case either now does it?

Ho hum.

Scott.

31. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90439 by Scott McMeekin on November 25, 2007 at 6:48 am

Another good example of a man railing against his own ignorance of complex subjects. "I don't understand science. I've met lots of scientists who weren't able to explain complex subjects in simple terms that I could understand. Scientists appear to exhibit "belief" that we will eventually understand the universe. Ergo, both are belief systems."

The way I see it, science works towards understanding the universe, and therefore contributes to humanity's quest to drag itself out of the dark. I've never met anyone in my entire life that was able to put the case that any religion does the same.

Thanks, but I'll stick with science for now.

Scott.

32. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90436 by Scott McMeekin on November 25, 2007 at 6:22 am

It's the "God will judge me" line that always makes me sick to my stomach. One could argue that since "God" never actually appears to strike evil people down with lightning bolts as the result of their evil deeds, that this in fact gives believers a free-pass to do whatever they like. As long as they can convince themselves that they are right in any given situation then they can do whatever they like.

Hubris anyone?

Sickening.

Scott.

33. Malaysia firm's 'Muslim car' plan

Comment #87631 by Scott McMeekin on November 12, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Why wait for Proton's attempt?! For anyone interested, I have access to a wide range of Muslim cars I could sell to you for a premium! All come with a glove er... Quran compartment, and adequate scarf space in any of the four dookets er... "hijab" holders, one for each door!

Orders on a postcard to the usual address.

We all know that sex sells anything world-wide. Are we now saying that where it won't, religion will do the same? Praise be to the profit margin!

Scott.

34. Exorcism death shocks archdeacon

Comment #87624 by Scott McMeekin on November 12, 2007 at 4:00 pm

@Shuggy

No, murder requires the intent to kill. That was the last thing they wanted.

35. Pentagon Sued Over Mandatory Christianity

Comment #72005 by Scott McMeekin on September 20, 2007 at 5:35 am

@Munky82 (#10)
I can see where you are coming from, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Why *shouldn't* we start pushing back on these people. If you're in a restaurant, and the guy across the way from you starts talking to his imaginary friend "Bill", you may not get up and walk out, but I'm willing to bet you'd be keeping "half and eye" on him at very least.

Why is it that just because the general consensus thinks this kind of behaviour is ok, that you think we should all conform, or keep our rational silent? This kind of mentality simply does not work, especially when the people in power not only believe in "Bill", but have a holy book that advocates (nay, demands) that everyone else in the whole world must believe in him too!

It's only really in the last hundred years(ish) that people can now stand up and say "You're full of it", without the clear and present danger of being dragged outside and lynched/burned/tortured etc etc. I can sympathise with the sentiment of trying to get along with people, but dammit, isn't there a part of your being that is secretly screaming for you to just come out and call a spade a spade?

"One should know when to keep one's atheism to oneself". Ok. For the sake of argument, let's say that's a reasonable statement. Now replace the word "atheism" with "religion" and see how reasonable you consider these people are, by your own words.

Scott.
[edit] Dammit Scooternyc! You type too fast =D

36. Faith schools should not be tax-funded, and here's why

Comment #71698 by Scott McMeekin on September 19, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Quite apart from the feminist angle, and please don't think I'm in any way diminishing the very valid points made in the article, I don't believe faith schools have any right to be funded by the taxpayer.

I'm afraid I'm ignorant on the subject of local government laws with regard to this sort of thing, but exactly how does funding denominational schools benefit the public at large? Considering that in the UK for example, the religious cults are in the minority, but now we're going to fund them out of the general public purse? Where the hell does Ed Balls get off channeling millions of pounds into these institutions?

The final insult being, there's probably 6 schools within 5 miles of my house, yet my understanding is that my son could very well fail to be admitted, or at very least, be de-prioritised for a place at 4 of them simply because he has had a secular upbringing? And I'm paying for THAT?

Give me a break. Time these people smelled what they're shoveling.

Scott.

37. Radical Christians in Iraq

Comment #71646 by Scott McMeekin on September 19, 2007 at 11:57 am

Oh and why is it that Dubya can go on TV any time he likes and spout about God and Jesus, when the constitution expressly forbids him, in his capacity as leader of the country, from doing so? Isn't ANYONE over there awake?

Scott.

38. Radical Christians in Iraq

Comment #71643 by Scott McMeekin on September 19, 2007 at 11:55 am

It's the brain-washed hubris of it all. Both sides.

I have to admit that my initial thoughts of the "Religion poisons everything" subtitle to Hitch's latest was sensationalist - I was utterly wrong.

Scott.

39. God Talk on 'The View'

Comment #71636 by Scott McMeekin on September 19, 2007 at 11:40 am

@ Mike O'Risal
To be fair, Mike, you didn't vote in Dubya - the supreme court did.

@Lana
Unfortunately, the reason why so many people here are so upset, is precisely because she is *utterly* typical of a good portion of the population of the US. It's simply astounding.

@All
I would respectfully venture that it is a little unfair to shoot at this target. It's just too easy, and apart from anything else she's just some poor woman shoved on a daytime TV program armed with a clearly substandard education and only the response "Goddidit" to wield. I feel sorry for her (and her kids, I might add) for being so woefully bereft of even a basic understanding of the world she lives in.

Having said that, this person is entirely and legally entitled to vote, and run for public office. Indeed, I have no doubt, based on reams of evidence from opinion polls and studies that she would be lauded for her beliefs by the majority of the electorate.

This person could be employed in a medical insurance company who decides whether or not to pay for your medical treatment - how many of those use their faith in these decisions? This kind of person may be making decisions that impact on *your* life, and those of your children.

Why is it that in a secular society, with a secular constitution that one of the conditions of office is not that all decisions MUST be based on secular reasoning? I'm not saying exclude people with invisible friends who think the earth is flat and 6000 years old, but I would think it should be a given that the laws would be framed in such a way (with appropriate oversight) that these people could not inject society with their tainted influence.

Incredible.

Scott.

40. Oxford's Christian colleges 'are not suitable for school-leavers'

Comment #71548 by Scott McMeekin on September 19, 2007 at 2:34 am

By all means, teach the history of the major religions. Discuss the effect of civilisation drawing supposed moral-guidance from the various scriptures. But teaching this stuff as fact is simply and plainly dishonest. There simply isn't a single person on the planet who can reasonably argue otherwise, so why is this still going on?

My personal feeling is that the history of religion should be a compulsory subject in the context of a well-rounded and comprehensive education. How else will future diplomats, politicians, business leaders etc be able to relate and communicate effectively with so-called "people of faith"?

Scott.

41. RELIGULOUS: A Conversation with Bill Maher and Larry Charles

Comment #69928 by Scott McMeekin on September 13, 2007 at 7:49 am

With regard to the vaccines point, is his problem with the concept of vaccination in general (what's to like about polio?), or does he take issue with this big pharma game plan about selling 300 million doses of FUD flu vaccine at a massive premium to certain countries whose decision makers no doubt have a nice cosy future jobs with those same companies waiting? If that's his issue, then I think it's a valid point, at very least, worthy of more open discussion.

Conspiracy theory? After Bush, nothing surprises me anymore.

Scott.

42. Diamonds unlock secrets of early Earth

Comment #65264 by Scott McMeekin on August 23, 2007 at 11:51 am

Cool. I wonder how much more irrefutable evidence will be required until wingnuts stop claiming that the earth is circa 6000 years old.

Scott.

43. Religion is Hard

Comment #59666 by Scott McMeekin on July 30, 2007 at 4:47 am

Can I get a "Huuuuu-Men"!

Great clip.

Scott.

44. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57363 by Scott McMeekin on July 19, 2007 at 3:11 am

I'll leave the inevitable disection to those better motivated today. Nothing new in this article. Another "shut up and be wrong" piece from a wingnut. One question does spring to mind, however.

Is there an english class for EVANGELICALS somewhere where people LEARN to CAPITALISE words for EMPHASIS every so OFTEN, as if the ENGLISH language wasn't well equipped ENOUGH to enable people to do that through the PROPER use of STYLE and SENTENCE STRUCTURE? This is OBVIOUSLY a PEDANTIC point, but HONESTLY - how ANNOYING is THIS?

More coffee please...

Scott.

45. Darwin or Design

Comment #56741 by Scott McMeekin on July 17, 2007 at 4:47 am

I've only had a chance to listen to the PZ Myers interview (I'm at work and it's lunchtime!), but I thought it was quite a good interview. In difference to any number of aggressively biased ID/faith-based interviewers (Sun go up, sun go down - I'm still talking, and why did I invite you on this program?), Jason at least gave PZ the opportunity to say his piece.

As a newly invigorated atheist myself (I simply didn't think about it before tbh), I always find it a little uncomfortable when ID proponents actually come across as attentive and reasonable (at least in the cordial sense, if not in the content of their discourse) because I can't help waiting for the other shoe to drop. Where's the banana theory? Where's the "a-HA!" moment where they shoot off at some spurious tangent arguing about the definition or context of a word, or suddenly claiming victory where quite the opposite is painfully apparent to everyone else. This didn't happen here, and that's a good thing in my view.

The whole "You're dogmatic. No, you're dogmatic. No, YOU'RE dogmatic" thing lends nothing to the argument, and is simply an exercise in playground chest-beating. The simply fact is that noone can say for sure whether there is or is not a god or gods - I concede that point. As RD has often stated, the fact that we cannot prove or disprove something doesn't make that thing any more probable on its own. I defer to Ockham's razor. Given what we already know and understand about the world and indeed, the universe, is it really within the realms of probability that there is a grand puppet master behind the curtain?

At this point I'm content to sit in the "No" camp, but that's not to say that I wouldn't be astounded if a team of ID scientists published their findings to peer-review, and were lauded on discovering the first solid evidence of divine intervention (or anything divine really - let's face it).

If ID wants to gain any credibility outside of the US method of simply repeating the same tired old debunked arguments, then let them risk exposure in front of peer-review like every scientist on the planet. Prove it.

To put it indelicately, Put up or shut up.

Scott.

46. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56011 by Scott McMeekin on July 13, 2007 at 8:33 am

What a good interview. Hitchen's depth and breadth of knowledge is really something in todays environment of so-called "sound-byte" discourse. I look forward to the Atheist Alliance conference. Hopefully there will be plenty of coverage in the way of video and or audio of the proceedings.

Now if we can just make sure that some ignorant wingnut doesn't blow it up...

Scott.

47. Rival to evolution may enter schools

Comment #52862 by Scott McMeekin on June 28, 2007 at 9:14 am

RE: #52850 (Jamougha)

Ah yes, all hail Google, the small-god of the internet.

Thankyou - I consider myself roundly chastised.

My point, however, was that more often than not statistics like these are trotted out by all and sundry with no citation, and less dedicated people as yourself either do not think to look them up (case in point - me), or simply take them at face-value.

Personally I didn't think it was a "dumb" question. I'd rather you simply answered it graciously, and left it at that. It's people like you that cause people like me never to ask questions in public forums like these.

However, I was duly impressed by your obviously superior intellect, and the ease with which you used your razor-like wit to tear me down.

Scott.

[edit]

In other news, Mr Friendly here actually proved my point, at least in my mind. Here's the prep information given by the interviewer:

a) The "evolution theory" says that human kind has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

b)The "creationism theory" says that God created human kind pretty much in his/her present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.

c)The "intelligent design theory" says that certain features of living things are best explained by the intervention of a supernatural being, e.g. God.

All described as "theories", with apparent equal weighting. No advisory note casually mentioning, say, that only one of these is actually this other thing known as a "scientific theory" as opposed to the popular definition of a "theory". No mention that only one of the options actually has any supporting evidence, and no mention of the fact that in specific terms, only one of them can actually be defined as "science".

48. Rival to evolution may enter schools

Comment #52778 by Scott McMeekin on June 28, 2007 at 4:10 am

A 2006 UK-wide Mori poll suggested 41% believed intelligent design should be taught as part of science education.

49. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51116 by Scott McMeekin on June 21, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Profound apologies for swinging wildly off topic at a tangent, but there's no time to post to design@richarddawkins.net.

Apparently Christopher Hitchens and his brother (?) will be on Question Time tonight at 10:35pm (21Jun07) on BBC1. Should anyone have the ability to record it and upload it to Youtube (or Josh T. - I dunno if he actually hosts video here), I'm sure the viewing public would appreciate it.

Cheers,

Scott.

PS - I just caught a quick promo for it, so if it turns out to be some other C.H, then sorry! =D

50. The courage of their convictions

Comment #51052 by Scott McMeekin on June 21, 2007 at 9:49 am

...Wow.

These people are undoubtedly putting themselves and their families in clear and present danger by this wonderfully potent (and I have to say, utterly unexpected) act. I honestly didn't think I'd see something like this in my lifetime.

My only regret is that this will undoubtedly set off another round of rioting, flag-burning, disgusting hateful and ignorant speeches by Middle-eastern politicians, and probably a good number of senseless mob killings as well.

*sigh*

That aside, this is the first time in a good while I actually have reason to feel proud to be a part of the human race. I hope they receive all the support and endorsement they undoubtedly deserve.

Scott.