1. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #181062 by Jack Rawlinson on May 16, 2008 at 11:21 am

Why do some people feel compelled to comment on the fact that they're making the first post on a thread? What is that? I mean, so what? Does it make you a better person? What do you want - a cookie?

I can't understand such quirks at all.

2. God seekers go public

Comment #179440 by Jack Rawlinson on May 13, 2008 at 8:48 am

What predictions does ID make? That they'll find a cell with a logo or "GodBrand Inc." on it? I guess something like that might persuade me.

Sadly, I suspect their idea of a "prediction" is more like, "We'll find a structure that's so clever, ooh, we just can't imagine it wasn't designed!"

Then it'll be Nobel prizes all round!

3. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178159 by Jack Rawlinson on May 10, 2008 at 4:16 pm

I hope the writer of this piece realises what huge offence he or she may have given to Hindus by referring to those who fly in "cattle class".

4. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177823 by Jack Rawlinson on May 9, 2008 at 7:27 pm

"I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle."

Another lazymind trots it out without offering the slightest justification for it. I'm so tired of the dishonesty of these people.

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

Comment #177561 by Jack Rawlinson on May 9, 2008 at 10:01 am

Humphreys? Pwned.

Well done there, Richard. You nailed him with that line about the difference in his approach to politicians. He said he wished he had more time at the end but you could tell he was glad he didn't!

I like Humphreys quite a lot but he does have a bit of a double standard where religion is concerned, sadly.

6. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177178 by Jack Rawlinson on May 8, 2008 at 5:40 pm

"Have you ever met anyone who believes what Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in?"

Sure. Hundreds of them. Especially here in the USA. You should get out more, O'Connor; you're showing your ignorance.

"I usually find that the God that is being rejected by such people is a God I don't believe in either. I simply don't recognise my faith in what is presented by these critics as Christian faith."

Uh-huh. So spell it out, O'Connor. We're familiar with this "That's not my god" tactic. We're so wearily familiar with it that we know full well that those who use it will never describe in precise detail the god they do believe in. We're also sufficiently familiar with it - and with Catholics - to know that you will prove to be no exception there.

Now run along, dress up in some nice fancy robes (much finer than any Jesus ever wore), wave the old censer about a bit and shove some wafers and wine down the wattled necks of your idiot congregation. If you feel optimistic maybe you can try to defend that sort of primitive ritualistic tripe as somehow being a rational response to the oh-so-very rational god you worship.

I won't hold my breath.

7. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176588 by Jack Rawlinson on May 7, 2008 at 4:48 pm

I read this article a couple of weeks back when it first came out. Brilliant. I always loved Matt Taibbi's stuff when he wrote for the New York Press and he's been one of my favourite journalists ever since.

This one is scary and hilarious. I defy anyone to keep a straight face when Taibbi describes his "wound".

8. The emerging moral psychology

Comment #175434 by Jack Rawlinson on May 5, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Interesting, although unsurprising. It's always seemed fairly clear to me that there is a "gut level" aspect behind at least some of our "moral reflexes", but that most of us make the additional effort to use reason to hone our morality into something more substantial, fair and justifiable. Refusing to refine "gut morality" in this way is no more admirable than refusing to hone "gut sexuality" ("I want that attractive person so I will take her/him, by force if necessary").

The questions about "killing one to save five" are also interesting. I remember doing some questionnaires which featured those questions and they certainly do give you pause. With reflection it's pretty easy to understand why it seems easier to sacrifice the single person when all you have to do is flick a switch and initiate a secondary series of events, rather than having to directly kill the person yourself. Similar "removal" makes it easier to be a meat-eater when you don't have to slaughter and prepare the animal yourself, or a supporter of war when you don't have to do the fighting yourself. There are countless other examples.

The "flick of a switch" example also powerfully illustrates one aspect of why guns are more dangerous weapons than, say, knives or baseball bats. To kill someone with a gun is not only much more physically simple, it can be done at one remove from the victim and it can be done with the minimum of effort. You do not have to get as up-close and personal with a gun as you do with a knife or a cudgel. You do not have to struggle. You do not have to face the possibility of having the bloody consequences of your action splashed all over your nice shirt, You don't have to look your victim in the eye and watch him die. And so on. It's no surprise that this factor in the gun control argument is usually overlooked or played down by gun control opponents.

The conclusion is that in general the more removed we are from the consequences of our moral decisions, the easier it is to make them. In some ways this is a good thing - it allows us to get on with our lives without endless agonising over every ethical choice - but in a crucial sense it is a bad thing, especially where our moral decisions affect others. Examples featuring death or injury make the point most powerfully and I think everyone should try to consider what their difficult moral choices really mean at root. You may only be flicking a switch, but you're still killing a man.

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

Comment #174908 by Jack Rawlinson on May 3, 2008 at 7:35 pm

windfall: you're not the first to find that idea tempting....

http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/intro.html

This one is a great piss-take of the one I linked in my earlier post...

http://www.jhuger.com/tract/tyd/

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

Comment #174885 by Jack Rawlinson on May 3, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Teratornis: I should have excluded kids from that comment! I meant any adult that still takes Chick seriously isn't going to manage the whole growing up deal...

Kids will do all sorts of mad things if their elders tell them to...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/depressing_lunacy_presented_pa.php

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

Comment #174792 by Jack Rawlinson on May 3, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Ah, dear crazy old Jack Chick. He's not getting any saner, is he? This one is particularly batshit, even by his standards.

I was 18 when I first saw one of these insane tracts. It was 1977 and I was at Leeds University. There was a knock on my door. Two young men asked if they could come in and talk to me about Jesus. Turned out they were representing something called the "Campus Crusade for Christ". I was about two years into being a militant atheist so I gave them a warm smile, tried not to salivate, and invited them in.

One guy did all the talking; his mate was one of those silent, vacant-eyed drips who might as well have "personality-free cult victim" branded on their foreheads. Anyway, talkie-guy thrust a small leaflet into my hand and asked me to read it. It was this old favourite.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp

I read it. I was actually shocked. I was an atheist, sure, but in all the arguments I'd had with parents, priests and fellow churchgoers I'd never had to deal with anything this childishly deranged and almost freakishly unintelligent. I'd been all braced for a nice argument about Pascal and Anselm and Augustine... and this perfectly normal-looking, well-spoken guy was expecting me to take this sub-cretinous scribble seriously? I honestly couldn't believe it. Of course, it wasn't until later I discovered this drivel had originated from the lunatic fringe of American Christianity. In those pre-internet days England was largely spared that (barring the odd visit from Billy Graham and his ilk)

Anyway, I handed the tract back to the guy, looked him long in the eye and said "Please tell me this is a joke. Please tell me you don't take that ridiculous litle comic seriously"

He looked offended and assured me he did, and that if I didn't, I was going to hell. I just told him that if heaven meant being in the same place as the kinda of diseased brainstem who could react to Jack Chick with anything but huge derision, hell was just fine by me. And then I told him to get out and stop making such a goddamned fool of himself. As they left I tapped his companion on the shoulder and said, "I know you think this guy's the greatest, but please consider that he might in fact be a screwed-up twat who's feeding you bullshit by the bucketload. Please just consider that next time you think about this stuff on your own."

The other guy overheard, as I'd intended, yelled something like "You won't think you're so smart when you're frying in hell!" I just told him to fuck off and grow up. Sadly, my experiences since then have led me to the conclusion that the sort of person who can ever take a Jack Chick tract seriously isn't ever going to be able to grow up.

12. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172527 by Jack Rawlinson on April 29, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Condell's great; not because he's especially funny (although he is at times) but because he's uncompromising and accurate. And he's not in the least afraid to go after Islam hard - something we often get accused of being scared to do.

Those of you comparing him negatively with Lewis Black and George Carlin are being unfair. He's just an ex stand-up who was never big outside the London pub circuit (and not even that big on it)and who now makes entertaining, cutting anti-religious rants on YouTube. Comparing him with long-established, famous comics is as unfair as comparing OK Go with Radiohead. Cut the guy a break; he's a gem and an asset to our side.

13. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171740 by Jack Rawlinson on April 28, 2008 at 6:38 pm

I think they mean god is a figment of the human imagination. Religion, sadly, is all too real.

14. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167114 by Jack Rawlinson on April 23, 2008 at 4:19 pm

is there a... particular reason why The God Delusion is apparently the "most notorious" of them all? Why is The God Delusion so special?

I suspect it's the best-selling one, and I think Richard has probably toured and promoted it more heavily than the other guys did with theirs. I could be wrong, though.

I also think many people find him less easy to dismiss than, say, Hitch.

15. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165760 by Jack Rawlinson on April 22, 2008 at 8:53 am

This makes me very uncomfortable indeed. Any attempt to bind atheism to a statement of belief is playing right into the hands of those we stand against: the people who wrongly claim that atheism is just another belief, or just another religion.

No. Atheism is a lack of belief, and that is all it is.

Now, having said that, we must understand what drives people (including atheists themselves) to try to make it something more than that. Atheism tends to occur in people who are strongly rational, logical and skeptical. Of course it does, since its alternative - belief in god - is something wildly irrational and illogical, and it is something which requires a grotesque suspension of healthy skepticism.

From here it is easy to start ascribing actual beliefs - rational ones - to atheists, and then from there it is a short step to conflating atheism with those beliefs.

Error.

We must never lose sight of - nor allow others to lose sight of - the fact that while atheists ( because of the very traits which make them atheists) tend to share quite a number of opinions, atheism is not the holding of those opinions.

Atheists tend to be pro-science, but being pro-science is not atheism.
Atheists tend to be rational, but rationality is not atheism.

And so on. As I say, we need to be very careful here or we'll shoot ourselves in the foot.

16. Pope's Views on Science Invoke Spirited Debate

Comment #165506 by Jack Rawlinson on April 21, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Here's the "conversation between science and faith" I generally have.

"You're wrong, you idiot".

"No I'm not".

"And your evidence for that claim is...?"

"Err... well... YOU'RE ARROGANT!"

"And with good reason, you dunce."

I like to keep that particular conversation as succinct as it deserves to be. :-)

17. The Child Preachers

Comment #163654 by Jack Rawlinson on April 18, 2008 at 5:56 pm

See, this would work on me because whenever I need insight into the important issues of life, experience, reality and existence, an eight-year old child is definitely my first port of call.

18. Flea of the week

Comment #163479 by Jack Rawlinson on April 18, 2008 at 11:53 am

"The dilemma of atheism and probability"

Oh, I wonder what line THAT one is going to take. I do wish these people would bother to read the rebuttals to their tired, dogmatic pet "arguments".

19. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163471 by Jack Rawlinson on April 18, 2008 at 11:46 am

Janus writes:

Why? The relation between complexity and improbability is well supported empirically, but we're talking about things and beings outside of our universe, where this relation may not exist (or may exist in a weaker form).

Leaving aside the problem that "outside the universe" is a highly questionable proposition, you're describing a fudge factor, not anything we can make the slightest supported assertion about. This sort of argument is empty, because it's basically saying, "yes, we know about the things we can know about, but what about things we can't know about? We don't know about them, so maybe they're completely different! Maybe there's a god! Maybe Euclidian geometry doesn't apply and there are four-sided triangles! Woooo!"

Futile, and it gets us nowhere. With this line of thinking we can basically say anything might exist and it may or may not conform to some, all, or none of the rules and laws we know about.

There's nothing logically incoherent about an intelligent being that "just exists".

So, you make a declaration about the logical coherence of your out-of-universe, not-subject-to-what-we-know (including logic) fudge factor god? Kinda having your cake and eating it, there. :-)


We can't do that, because we have lots of evidence that flagellar motors (and life as a whole) have not always existed.

That's missing the point, I'm afraid. The point is that if a believer is going to claim - without evidence, of course - that there is a type of thing which might always have existed, we have every bit as much right to claim that is true for, say, the universe, or the matter and energy which went into its formation, or however far back you care to take it. If the believer is going to say there is a category of thing which needs no explanation... same thing.

The believer who makes such a claim is, of course, simply trying to create the ultimate, unreachable "gap" for his increasingly evidence-assailed "God of the Gaps". This behaviour is almost embarrassingly pathetic. Whenever I see a believer reduced to it I find myself imagining a tearful, utterly cornered child insisting that his imaginary friend is real, no he IS, but we'll never be able to see him no matter where or how hard we look because he JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! It seems such believers think that wholly unprovable postulates which are utterly lacking in evidence somehow become clinching arguments. When a person has sunk to that level you have to understand they are operating on nothing more than a crippling need to believe in a god of some sort, and they will move heaven, earth, the laws of physics, common sense, logic and every single thing we know about reality in order to do so. It's quite shockingly pitiful.

20. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162962 by Jack Rawlinson on April 17, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Well, I think the stork theory - or Inelegant Delivery, as I prefer to call it - makes a lot of sense. I mean, just how plausible is it that something as complex as a baby could could be formed over a period of months from nothing more than the chance collision of microscopic cells? We're supposed to take that seriously? Clearly babies are irreducibly complex and must somehow arrive fully formed. And that's exactly what Inelegant Delivery proposes. Oh, and obviously God created the storks, before you ask.

BIG SCIENCE FAILS AGAIN!

21. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162168 by Jack Rawlinson on April 16, 2008 at 9:06 am

Harry Kroto is one of the good guys. I'm glad he's getting more directly involved in taking on the FlorID-iots.

22. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #162065 by Jack Rawlinson on April 16, 2008 at 5:30 am

Now this is interesting. I tried to go back to the blog version of this article today - the one where comments were allowed - and it seems to have disappeared. The only version of the article I can find is the one linked here - the one that doesn't allow comments and which features the unflattering picture of Richard.

I'm trying very hard to believe that The Guardian isn't really as deliberately anti-atheist as it has appeared to be these last couple of years, but things like this are stretching my credulity.

23. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #161049 by Jack Rawlinson on April 14, 2008 at 5:33 pm

last time when we left Russell was around the liitle pond fishing for amino acids with Darwin. Stll they are there. Of course Russell often goes to big art exhibition and screams that there is no artist for the paintings and each time he is sent out by the LOGIC SECURITY.

God help him. He is gonna wipe out or die out very soon because of his repeating himself in the exhibition art 'not enough evidence not enough evidence, there is no artist for these paintings, there is no artist, not enough evidence.? This is not healthy.

So writes "Clearmind". I believe the term here is "eponysterical".

24. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160757 by Jack Rawlinson on April 14, 2008 at 11:21 am

I've been steaming about this lousy article all morning. The more I think about it, the more I think it's verging on the libellous and actually deserves a retraction and an apology. I just posted the following to The Guardian's comments page (and I see that someone called Telic has taken the same line. Perhaps we should push this?)

Mr. Ravenhill; CiF moderator.

The more I consider the disgraceful extent to which Richard Dawkins's views have been misrepresented in this piece, the more I feel that a retraction and an apology is in order.

Since "The God Delusion" was published I have become used to seeing gross, straw-man distortions of Dawkins's opinions and ideas being presented by religious apologists. It is one of several easy, lazy and thoroughly dishonest ways to respond to the criticisms the book levels at the beliefs they have or seek to defend. Other such tactics include the wholly unjustified repetition of the assertion that Dawkins's words are "shrill"; that Dawkins is a "fundamentalist"; that Dawkins has no right to criticise religion until he studies theology in depth (a demand we do not, strangely, see made about those who choose to *accept* religious belief rather than reject it).

But this regrettable piece shows such a profound ignorance of Dawkins's words that it can only have been written out of indolent malice or the sort of dirt-disturbing impulse more commonly referred to as "trolling". I think we have a right to expect better than this from The Guardian, although that opinion is, I admit, based on a memory of the fairness and integrity The Guardian used to display before it started what seems to be something of a "crusade" against atheists.

I say again: an apology is in order. Please go this small distance towards slowing my plummetting respect for the paper by having the decency to make it.

25. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #160578 by Jack Rawlinson on April 14, 2008 at 8:00 am

Charlie Brooker is brilliant. I laughed myself silly at this article when it appeared last week.

26. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160575 by Jack Rawlinson on April 14, 2008 at 7:57 am

Ha! I thought I'd see a link here to this absurd piece of straw man drivel! Please everyone - go express your scorn over at the Guardian site. I have.

27. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #159398 by Jack Rawlinson on April 12, 2008 at 5:11 am

A moron creationist responds:

1. So where are the transitional forms that link the two-legged snake to the no-legged snake?

OR

2. That's not a transitional form. It's not a snake. Just a completely different animal that doesn't exist any more.

Genesis wins again!

28. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156518 by Jack Rawlinson on April 7, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Write, phone, email. This disgraceful bigot has to be held accountable for this. Seriously folks... do it. Let's generate a mass of protest about this: all media.

29. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154767 by Jack Rawlinson on April 3, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Gotta be careful taking the piss out of schizophrenics ladies. It makes us look dumb.

Whereas lazy sexism makes us look like smart guys, no doubt.

30. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154766 by Jack Rawlinson on April 3, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Shame he didn't succeed.

31. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153963 by Jack Rawlinson on April 2, 2008 at 9:18 am

Well, come on folks, he has a point. Atheists generally DO want to kill old people, right? Right?

Hmm. Just me then, is it? :-)

32. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153696 by Jack Rawlinson on April 1, 2008 at 8:57 pm

And so they should, the evil scum. I hope they get life sentences.

33. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152324 by Jack Rawlinson on March 30, 2008 at 5:26 pm

adam2z: absolutely. I thought the film was god-awful, button-pushing propaganda and about what I'd expect from a xenophobic right-wing arsehole like Wilders. It made Memri look fair and balanced. But by hell I will not tolerate the assault on freedom of speech which led to it being taken down. That's why I linked it again.

34. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152314 by Jack Rawlinson on March 30, 2008 at 5:04 pm

So let's link it again.

These idiots really don't get the web, do they?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410

35. Beware the Believers

Comment #151936 by Jack Rawlinson on March 29, 2008 at 5:19 pm

What Rhino said. The lyrics are very sharp and funny. They feature a lot of beautifully observed rap stylings and cliches. The hand gestures the characters use are hilarious. There are some gang sign references there, there's Darwin doing the "raising the roof" thing at the end... priceless. Dan Dennet in a pimp suit? Sam Harris with a grill? Come on. This is smart, well-observed comedy, but you need to be familiar with the source genre to get it.

36. Beware the Believers

Comment #151928 by Jack Rawlinson on March 29, 2008 at 5:10 pm

I have to say to the people who think this is pro-ID and anti-atheist: please develop a sense of what irony and satire is. Because you're embarrassing yourselves.

Unbelievable.

37. Beware the Believers

Comment #151821 by Jack Rawlinson on March 29, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Well I thought it was smart, sharp, well observed and obviously on "our side". And I had no problem understanding the words. And I'm 48 years old. :-)

38. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151799 by Jack Rawlinson on March 29, 2008 at 12:27 pm

By the way, that hilarious video Barry Pearson linked is obviously on our side. I can't believe the number of people who don't get that. I guess some folk have a missing satire/irony gland... :-)

39. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151663 by Jack Rawlinson on March 29, 2008 at 6:42 am

PZ's been on a roll lately. I really enjoyed this little satire of the whole Evolution = Nazism nonsense (see link below).

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/why_we_need_academic_freedomto.php

40. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150237 by Jack Rawlinson on March 26, 2008 at 3:47 pm

"...a frightening phenomenon that all religions must confront and vanquish."

Excellent. We've definitely got them rattled. Bring it on, I say.

41. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149870 by Jack Rawlinson on March 26, 2008 at 10:05 am

I believe this is manslaughter through negligence, and charges should be brought.

42. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148743 by Jack Rawlinson on March 23, 2008 at 6:31 pm

While I sympathize with Richard's anger, this form of sarcastic ridicule is perhaps not the best way to react to "Expelled."

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree there, sport. These pitiful lying asshats deserve nothing but sarcasm, mockery and ridicule. They're not worth anything else. They're mendacious morons and to give them the slightest respect is to unjustifiably dignify their bullshit and thus help perpetuate it. Wise up.

43. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148741 by Jack Rawlinson on March 23, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Ah, I've been waiting for this all weekend. What a lovely snort of derision in the face of these increasingly desperate and absurd buffoons.

It may have been unplanned and inadvertent, but you and PZ scored a huge hit against these asses. It'll continue to be hilarious watching them try to spin their way out of this unbelievable gaffe.

44. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148544 by Jack Rawlinson on March 23, 2008 at 9:20 am

The unfortunately-surnamed Mr. Hume seems to think his personal experience of the place of religion extends across the entire globe. He also seems to be entirely unconcerned about the shocking and undeniable rise of "faith schools" in Britain, and the effect that will have on future generations.

Wow. A blinkered, narrow-minded Marxist. What will they think of next?

45. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148122 by Jack Rawlinson on March 22, 2008 at 6:33 am

Ian: I remember the very wonderful "The Day Today" running a sketch like that. If I find it on YouTube I'll link it.

46. No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film

Comment #148036 by Jack Rawlinson on March 21, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Don't we stand to end up looking like Fleas through all of this?

47. EXPELLED!

Comment #147689 by Jack Rawlinson on March 21, 2008 at 6:10 am

Priceless. Almost too good to be true. I know RD is busy at the moment but I do hope he finds time to publicly eviscerate this garbage.

48. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147053 by Jack Rawlinson on March 19, 2008 at 6:01 pm

"Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise)."

Wow. Somebody needs to broaden his reading list. And his mind.

49. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146619 by Jack Rawlinson on March 19, 2008 at 8:24 am

Respect. A great mind and a great imagination. Can't argue with 90 years, though. That's a good innings.

50. The atheist delusion

Comment #144361 by Jack Rawlinson on March 15, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Good old PZ Myers has gone to work on Gray's garbage with his usual style and thoroughness...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/the_delusions_of_john_gray.php