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)

Comments by fides_et_ratio


1. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #202280 by fides_et_ratio on July 1, 2008 at 7:56 am

54. Comment #202275 by epeeist on July 1, 2008 at 7:35 am

Epeeist,

Rather than giving evidence of the harm that faith schools do, you seem to be saying they will do harm in the future if they follow a path set down by the Guardian commentariate. Pass me one of those straws when you manage to grab hold of them please.

2. Faith schools undermined by 'Government witch hunt'

Comment #202253 by fides_et_ratio on July 1, 2008 at 6:28 am

I've always liked that saying, 'Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone's got one.' There's a lot of rhetoric flying about on this thread but very little evidence of any harm that faith schools do. There plenty of evidence of the good faith schools do, so surely on a site such as this, posters should use evidence rather than rhetoric to counter. In my local borough in East London there are two Catholic schools. Guess what schools achieve the highest science results year in, year out. Yes, those named after saints.

3. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188464 by fides_et_ratio on June 4, 2008 at 5:57 am

John Lennon wasn't even the second best Beatle.

4. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183168 by fides_et_ratio on May 21, 2008 at 1:30 pm

49. Comment #183154 by AllanW on May 21, 2008 at 1:14 pm



1. Are you really saying that a woman should 'learn to live with' the problems that late-onset complications in pregnancy can bring? You are a monster, if so.

2. Are you saying that 'alcohol and poor organisation' are the main reasons for abortions in late-term? Because if so, again, your religion is warping your judgement in a moral area that you plainly have no real knowledge about.



1. I didn't mention complications, nor was that up for discussion in the bill last night to my knowledge.

2. No I'm not saying that, nor have I at any point.

5. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183156 by fides_et_ratio on May 21, 2008 at 1:14 pm

48. Comment #183152 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 1:10 pm

That's a digression

6. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183151 by fides_et_ratio on May 21, 2008 at 1:05 pm

We are digressing though. Late term abortion is wrong.

7. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183149 by fides_et_ratio on May 21, 2008 at 1:04 pm

45. Comment #183143 by Auraboy on May 21, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Sex education in schools is not affected by cutbacks in sexual health funding, which in itself is a broad umbrella encompassing many aspects of sexual health. Sex education is taught in all state schools, it's a statutory requirement. I've taught in 3 Catholic schools, if any of our children have left not knowing how a baby is conceived it hasn't been the fault of the school. You're also predicating your idea of Catholic schools skewing sex-education on the premise that it is catholic teachers teaching sex education. In my experience it rarely is.

8. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183133 by fides_et_ratio on May 21, 2008 at 12:38 pm

35. Comment #183122 by epeeist on May 21, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Specifically I was talking about late term abortions, 22-24 weeks. I don't agree that more sex-education or greater access to contraception would significantly affect the number of abortions at this stage. I'm also not sure that there's much evidence to suggest that in Britain there is a shortage of contraception or a lack of sex education. Alcohol and poor organisation probably have more to do with unwanted pregnancies than anything else. In fact I think it's fair to say that as abortion has risen year on year in the UK, so has the availability of contraception and the emphasis on sex-education.

9. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183127 by fides_et_ratio on May 21, 2008 at 12:28 pm

31. Comment #183113 by al-rawandi on May 21, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Another pro-life hypocrite....


-Where were you hypocrites when sanctions starved Iraqi children to death at a rate of 4,500 per month?

-Where were you two faced bastards when genocide takes place under our noses in Darfur?

-Where are you of the forked tongue when it comes to malaria killing people daily in Africa, with no action from you?

-Where are you tartuffes when it is time to vote for funding of social programs to keep people alive in the United States?

-Where are you and the rest of the pharisees when the homeless freeze to death on the street.


1. Campaigning with Christian Voice (even Mark Thomas commended their work), and Amnesty.

2. Amnesty again.

3. Raising money for CAFOD.

4. I'm British.

5. Going on the soup-runs my Church runs on a nightly basis in London.

32. Comment #183114 by Peacebeuponme on May 21, 2008 at 12:08 pm

You said that,

the "right to life" this should not mean that somebody else has to commit to giving us life in the first place


Somebody always has to commit to giving us life in the first place, unless you know of an alternative?

10. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183110 by fides_et_ratio on May 21, 2008 at 11:57 am

When we talk about the "right to life" this should not mean that somebody else has to commit to giving us life in the first place.


Have you struck upon an alternative method?

11. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183095 by fides_et_ratio on May 21, 2008 at 11:36 am

Whilst I understand why people speak about the rights of a mother, I don't understand how they balance these with the rights of the unborn child (which at 22 weeks is a fair title I think), and having looked at the two sets of rights, I don't understand how the mother's right to non-motherhood overrules the child's right to life. I also agree with the poster who says that this needn't be a question of theist versus athiest, though I think it says much for Christians that they are willing to be so vociferous about it.

12. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178502 by fides_et_ratio on May 11, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Esuther, you forgot about abductive and fallacious reasoning. I'm not entirely sure what a troll is, I know it's not complementary, I am a long time visitor to this site who has learnt a lot from it. If Hitler's reasoning wasn't governing his actions, what was?

Epeeist, thanks for the link. I found this there.

Practical reason is the general human capacity for resolving, through reflection, the question of what one is to do.


Reasoning seems to depend on the capacity of the individual to reason. Whilst Hitler's reasoning may not be approved of, it's difficult to see how his actions weren't the result of his capacity for resolving, through reflection, the question of what he should do.

13. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178122 by fides_et_ratio on May 10, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Ok, I think it's clear there's no answer coming here today. Might be the afternon in America chaps but it's bedtime here and I need a kip.

Night night.

Oh and Diacanu that'd be yes.

14. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178119 by fides_et_ratio on May 10, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Yes I used my reasoning, well done. But what is reason? Presumably you claim to live your life by it and would suggest others live their life by it, what is it then?

Frankus, I'm sorry, I can't remember having a dialogue with you before. My apologies. Do you think reason is a constant?

15. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178114 by fides_et_ratio on May 10, 2008 at 2:21 pm

It's a conclusion based on you not being able to provide an answer to the question just a series of avoidance techniques and fallacies about my supposed name calling.

16. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178110 by fides_et_ratio on May 10, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Clearly you don't know, or can't explain what reason is. Incidentally, I've never called Paula a Totalitarian. I called one of her posts a Ford Totalitarian.

Do you know what reason is? If so, what is it? Can anyone help him?

17. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178104 by fides_et_ratio on May 10, 2008 at 1:52 pm

It's okay to admit you don't know Diacanu.

18. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178094 by fides_et_ratio on May 10, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Wow, Fellatio, if you have to ask at this late phase in the game, you might be beyond help.


Come on Diacanu, that's the sort of thing teacher's say when they don't know the answer. Seriously, let's assume for a second I'm not beyond it, what's the answer?

19. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178084 by fides_et_ratio on May 10, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Serious question Diacanu. What is reason? You're suggesting I base my life on it. What is it?

20. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178081 by fides_et_ratio on May 10, 2008 at 1:03 pm

This is fantastic, you'd struggle to make it up. Are you saying Richard that this is what the Cardinal should believe based on your reasoning. Of course, based on his reasoning (and his knowledge of his own faith), he doesn't believe it. As the man said in his interview, his faith is more reasonable than you give him credit for. How on earth is that 'a logial implication of what Catholics believe.'? Where's your... evidence?

21. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178073 by fides_et_ratio on May 10, 2008 at 12:26 pm

58. Comment #177964 by Richard Dawkins on May 10, 2008 at 4:33 am

He actually said that Hitler's regime was based on REASON, and he drew the conclusion that reason leads to terror and oppression.


You speak of reason as an absolute, a constant. Is this your position? Surely in a secular world, reason is dependant on the mind of the individual. Hitler's regime was perfectly reasonable to him. I'm sure in his mind it made complete sense. It would be surprising if his actions weren't based on his reasoned thoughts.

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

Comment #177937 by fides_et_ratio on May 10, 2008 at 2:41 am

I've got no problem with the Cardinal or his views being attacked. He's a public figure, I'm sure he can handle it. The problem is when Paula, I think giving an accurate portrayal of RD's view states;

Why was the Cardinal's lecture given such prominent billing on a national news programme AT ALL?


Clearly an admission that the Cardinal's response to Richard Dawkins et al should not be given a public forum. As I've said before, what is really being said is, I disagree with what you say, AND your right to say it.This has more than a hint of the totalitarian about it.

23. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177894 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 11:11 pm

It seems that there's a large proportion of posters on here who think that the article above is genuine. That's shocking. Granted it's not especially funny, but it is sufficiently ludicrous to reveal its true nature.

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

Comment #177750 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 3:38 pm

The five minutes that faith gets in a 3 hour current affairs programme caters to a large proportion of the nation. I guess that's why it's there. I suppose the leader of the BNP would get an interview if 5 million people voted for him too. I'm going to bed now, as I was driving to work listening to RD this morning asking John Humphries to treat Cardinal Cormac like a politician, whilst expecting John Humphries to treat him anything like a politician. It showed a peculiar grasp on logic from a slef-proclaimed champion of reason.

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

Comment #177746 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Paula, it's like trying to nail jelly to a wall. Will you address the points I've made or continue your avoidance? Was i correct when I posted;

So Paula, when you said 'Richard Dawkins was not given a public forum in which to criticise Christianity', what you meant to say was 'Richard Dawkins was given a public forum in which to criticise Christianity', because of course this is where the evidence leads us. Of course, there's a lot more than 3 programmes worth of evidence as I mentioned. I suppose it's as inconvenient to include these in your equation as it was to exclude the word 'not' from your previous sentence.

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

Comment #177742 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Mark Smith, it was Paula who said;

his opinion gets taken seriously by the national media


Of course, when she realised this was wrong she said;

We are talking about the interview on the BBC Today programme this morning.


and you said;

You are attempting to shift the argument on to whether there are programmes etc that are critical of religion


No I wasn't, someone was though.

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

Comment #177729 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Why was the Cardinal's lecture given such prominent billing on a national news programme AT ALL?


And that's where we come back to. The Cardinal (speaking on behalf of millions of people whose faith Dawkins has made lots of money criticising) should not be given a platform to respond. As I said, you disagree with what he says, and his right to say it. If your post was a car, it'd probably be called a Ford Totalitarian.

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

Comment #177726 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 2:54 pm

So Paula, when you said 'Richard Dawkins was not given a public forum in which to criticise Christianity', what you meant to say was 'Richard Dawkins was given a public forum in which to criticise Christianity', because of course this is where the evidence leads us. Of course, there's a lot more than 3 programmes worth of evidence as I mentioned. I suppose it's as inconvenient to include these in your equation as it was to exclude the word 'not' from your previous sentence.

Incidentally, what's RD's evidence for his views on Mendel?

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

Comment #177722 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Where is this world where the national media fail to criticise religious figures? HELLO, THERE'S A LINK ON THIS SITE TO A NATIONAL NEWSPAPER CRITICISING THE CARDINAL AND HIS LECTURE. In what seriousness can you possibly make the point that, on the one hand he is not criticised because he is a Cardinal, and on the same site have a link to a Guardian article that criticises him? Is this reason? By the way, this is not addressed to any specific follower but to all Dawkins' disciples who share Paula's view.

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

Comment #177708 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Richard Dawkins was not given a public forum in which to criticise Christianity.


What about 'The Root of All Evil' or even the countless invitations to discuss the subject on TV, the wireless, and in the print?

Where's your EVIDENCE? Why should we take any notice of you at all? Aren't you just indulging in wishful thinking here?"


Belief exists, it works, many share it, the Cardinal is a spokesman for a large number of believers. The evidence for his thoughts is well substantiated in the text with references to St. Paul, TS Eliot, de Lubac, Pope Benedict and stoic philosophy.

Incidentally, on the subject of evidence, is it right that Dawkins has claimed that Mendel was a priest because it enabled him to study biology?

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

Comment #177688 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Paula. We've both read the lecture. Can we agree that it is a response to Richard Dawkins et al? If so, as representative of the largest group of practising Christians in this country, shouldn't he be given a public forum to respond to the man who was given a public forum to criticise his beliefs? I guess what I'm saying is, should his response be covered by the national media and then subjected to the variety of opinions that the national media will provide (you seem to think the national media speak as one). Of course they should, then you and people like Terry Sanderson are free to treat his views with whatever disdain you can muster. Is there anything I've written here that you disagree with?

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

Comment #177672 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Hello Northern Bright, I thought you'd retired from the forum.

Have you read the full text of the Cardinal's lecture, Fides? It is full of unsubstantiated declarations - statements for which there is no foundation whatsoever,


Some substantiated excerpts to be getting on with.

'the tradition of Catholicism is that Christianity is profoundly social.'

'There are social currents today that want to isolate religion from other forms of knowledge and experience in order to marginalise it. One of the things which I challenge is the desire to separate Christianity from rational inquiry.'

'Our faith is not founded on the conclusions of reason'

'Pope Benedict has drawn our attention to this in the early Christian centuries when he said that the 'inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance' for world history.2 This can be seen even in the New Testament where St Paul is not afraid to draw upon ideas from Stoic philosophy which he weaves into his Biblical, Jewish and Christian themes. He says that Christians should keep a right mind, practising a discernment to choose the better, aiming at the right end, seeking contentment (in Greek: autarkeia) in their state of life, with joy even when suffering, because they live in a commonwealth (in Greek: politeuma).'


The Cardinal's lecture is in large part a response to RD and other modern athiest writers. You seem to be suggesting that only Richard's view should be covered in the national media, and not the response of those he attacks. If this is your stance or an accurate portrayal of RD's stance, I think it adds more substance to the Cardinal's idea of how athiesm can lead to Hitler/Stalin figures. Those who will brook no debate. Not only do you not agree with what he says (fair enough), but you profoundly disagree with his right to say it.

33. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177658 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 12:40 pm

It's a strange logical progression that suggests truth can be equated to the calm with which someone speaks. I know lots of very calm monks, should they be treated deferentially on account of their serenity.

Using Hitler to offend a Jew really is low whatever way you do it. Why not apologise in a calm tone instead of attempting to justify a reprehensible action.

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

Comment #177656 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 12:27 pm

RD is lucky Humph didn't treat him like a politician, he certainly wouldn't tolerate a junior minister questioning him.

Is Dawkins saying that the Cardinal's views are treated deferentially because of his faith, in which case is he unaware of the criticism his views on, for example, family life and abortion receive in the media. Or is he criticising the fact that his views are given coverage solely on the basis of his position as a man of faith?

35. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175138 by fides_et_ratio on May 4, 2008 at 2:51 pm

63. Comment #175109 by Peacebeuponme on May 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm

I did suggest one, no news on it being posted yet. The range isn't as wide as you think either, in fact it's carefully targeted.

64. Comment #175111 by Peacebeuponme on May 4, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Not everyone on this site is an athiest. Not all athiests on this site think as one. I've been reminded on a couple of occasions that the only thing all athiests share is exactly that, their athiesm. The plural was inaccurate.

36. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175108 by fides_et_ratio on May 4, 2008 at 12:45 pm

47. Comment #175039 by Cartomancer on May 4, 2008 at 8:34 am

By 'we're' you mean 'you' presumably, in which case 'I'm' is probably more appropriate.

37. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175029 by fides_et_ratio on May 4, 2008 at 8:09 am

27. Comment #174889 by Frankus1122 on May 3, 2008 at 6:24 pm

A much more balanced approach is taken by many Christians. These approaches don't seem to gain much coverage in the athiest world. I suspect this is because it doesn't suit your purpose. The nonsensical cartoon above enables many athiests to indulge in an orgy of self-righteousness, justified anger, and various other methods of ego inflating exercises. Shame that.

38. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174740 by fides_et_ratio on May 3, 2008 at 11:46 am

Obvious nonsense. Any chance of posting a sensible commentary on the interaction of Christianity and science Josh?

39. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174303 by fides_et_ratio on May 2, 2008 at 4:12 am

369. Comment #174299 by Corylus on May 2, 2008 at 3:23 am

Haven't been on for a while. Work, family, life etc...

Would've certainly got involved if I'd been here. I like this site and don't appreciate headstrong ignorance. Seems I missed all the excitement.

40. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174295 by fides_et_ratio on May 2, 2008 at 3:11 am

Where's Steve?

I wonder if it would be possible for the Prof to revise future prints of his book to make them more representative of his views, now that he's had the opportunity to be more informed about the issues covered in them.

41. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166408 by fides_et_ratio on April 23, 2008 at 8:20 am

A couple of obvious ones from this page. I left out the more subtle ones.

88. Comment #166375 by MrPickwick on April 23, 2008 at 7:50 am


According to his way of reasoning I bet this lordy is an "Avian Transportation Theory" proponent.


68. Comment #166305 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 5:39 am

You'd be stuck with Lord Winston and the like carping on in a whiny voice "weeee told you sooooooo" for all eternity... OK OK I believe!! ;o)


And a glimpse of athiest-induced violence, festering away in the dangerous certainty that Winston exposes.

64. Comment #166288 by Sargeist on April 23, 2008 at 5:07 am

And just constant constant bullshit about faith this and faith that, and faith coming out of my fucking ears. Raaaa! It is all I can do sometimes not to smack their overly fucking smug faces in.

42. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166385 by fides_et_ratio on April 23, 2008 at 7:59 am

I must say that the Winston-bashing is uninformed and unappealing. Furthermore, it adds weight to his notion of certainty, and undermines the credibility of Dennett's campaign to label athiests as brights.

43. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166378 by fides_et_ratio on April 23, 2008 at 7:54 am

Haven't read all the posts. Can someone shed some light on Lord Winston's comment that, '...Eva Jablonka in support of his views on memes. He forgets that she challenges the very essence of Dawkins's view of evolution - a view Dennett obviously passionately supports.'

Just curious.

44. A New Flea

Comment #160324 by fides_et_ratio on April 14, 2008 at 12:26 am

There's many books in this realm I wouldn't bother with too much, having just glanced at this chap's career though, I find it sad that people who claim reason so firmly as their standard, dismiss him so quickly, seemingly without investigation. To someone of faith, it's this attitude which seems most at odds with the supposedly rational claims of athiests. It's a close minded position and begs the question why won't athiests engage with intelligent faith rather than loons on the fringe. The answer seems to be that it can't, hence this continual concentration on evolution, even though most people of faith I know have no problem with it.

45. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157752 by fides_et_ratio on April 9, 2008 at 1:57 pm

One thing that irks me is his Polpotisation of God, his totalitarian theory. I agree with Hitchens that God knows everything I've ever done, everything I've ever said and everything I've ever thought. Our paths diverge at this point. I am taught and believe that God loves and accepts me in full knowledge of me. I work towards accepting myself in the same way.

46. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157708 by fides_et_ratio on April 9, 2008 at 12:50 pm

If the god Hitchens the elder so poetically demolishes was the God that any thinking Christian believed, in they'd have to convert to athiesm in an instant. I would.

47. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155988 by fides_et_ratio on April 6, 2008 at 1:10 pm

fides is just dragging out some antsy nuance in something some bloke said that he does not agree with. This because he cann't ever admit to the big fat elephant in the room, that is : it's stupid to be a believer (in anything) and it can become dangerous fairly quickly.
By making some convoluted point about grammar and semantics from a piece of quote mining, he thinks he wins the overall argument.


I disagree with a point RD was reported to have made. I made a rebuttal against a substantive point, certainly not on the grounds of grammar or semantic. I think that's clear from the point I've made. I don't think it has any bearing on the unspecified (is it the existence of God, the 'evil' of religion or...)overall argument you speak of, because I don't know what that overall argument is. This site would be pretty dul if we didn't discuss specific points people made.

48. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155978 by fides_et_ratio on April 6, 2008 at 1:02 pm

That's that sorted then, I need to learn more about all this. There was a good article in The Times today about it but it didn't address the black hole issue in any detail, thanks Steve. A group is applying for a court order to have the experiment banned on this basis.

49. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155973 by fides_et_ratio on April 6, 2008 at 12:59 pm

My roommate told me he saw something on the internet which claims that there is a chance that scientists may accidentally create a black hole with their new super collider and bring an end to us all, and probably the solar system as well. If that happens at least we can say we go out with a (big) bang literally.. Imagine we meet our demise not because of WWIII, climate change or a gigantic meteorite but a black hole that we create. Science will speak the last word, literally..Way to go.


I read today that it will create small black holes. How do they know these wont spread?

50. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155965 by fides_et_ratio on April 6, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Sorry to come over all Paxmanesque, but your use of the term '...much less of a problem' implies that you, like me, disagree with the Prof. Is that correct, and if so, do you think it's a case of being mistaken or is it willfully mendacious?

More Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | Next