1. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #98806 by Mercer on December 14, 2007 at 11:50 am

I'm with SharrieG. You can't just say 'this person has two views I disagree with, the two must be part of the same thing. More evidence is needed for that.

Also, it's worth pointing out that plenty of non-religious people have the same stupid attitude to MMR. It's just ignorance.

It's also worth noting (particularly if we want to combat it rather than just complaining) that the resistance to vaccines in a lot of non-European countries is based on a huge public distrust, because of dishonestly presented or forced government sterilisation programs etc. It's not just a random religious thing, there's a genuine fear. As in Britain there's a genuine fear because people are aware that the 'powers that be' misled over other health concerns: and they don't necessarily trust doctors, sometimes for fairly good reason.

We need to build trust in medical groups, rather than attack Phillips (fun and no doubt justified though that always is).

@Cartomancer: 'I still think that the best description of the Daily Mail was the one given on British satirical panel show Mock the Week. "The ideal Daily Mail headline - illegal immigrants carry a new kind of AIDS that lowers house prices".'

That's awesome: I missed that. It hasn't done the rounds as much as 'how to confuse a daily mail reader? Tell them that asylum seekers are the natural predators of paedophiles'

2. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #94187 by Mercer on December 5, 2007 at 1:37 am

@notsobad: Don't pretend that 'flea' isn't intended and understood as an insult. Playing naive doesn't count as an argument.

@steve99Of course not. The parasitic nature comes from attempting to make use of the success of the original.

Non-parasitic: "Why Christianity is a jolly good thing"
Parasitic: "Why I think best-selling author RICHARD DAWKINS is wrong about Christianity"

I explicitly referred to books 'discussing or criticising' other authors. So 'why Christianity is a jolly good thing' doesn't really work. If you have an author who seems to be expressing a certain part of the Zeitgeist, if as a religious thinker, everyone asks you 'have you read Richard Dawkins', as if they think that he's caused some sort of intellectual revolution, then it's entirely reasonable to address books at him.

3. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #92622 by Mercer on December 1, 2007 at 1:33 am

The idea it's OK to call someone a flea because they wouldn't have published the book if it wasn't for someone else is ridiculous. Are all the people who write books discussing or criticising the works of any scientist, philsopher, social theorist, novellist etc. a 'flea'?

The sight of people trying to insult opponents for simply daring to respond critically is hardly one that encourages an image of intellectual honesty.

On the cover issue: is there any evidence that Hubble, or those who made his telescope were atheists? And if so, would this be theft: because then as atheists, we'd have to deprive ourselves from a lot produced by Christians.

4. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91788 by Mercer on November 29, 2007 at 9:49 am

59: I don't understand the Turks. The founder of modern Turkey was militantly anti theistic (literally).

Setting up a militantly anti-theistic state is a good way to encourage extremes in theism. But I think that given the context of their censorship of books accusing them of genocide etc. this is more about stability than principles.

5. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #90518 by Mercer on November 25, 2007 at 12:16 pm

I think Dalrymple puts his finger on three central points worth discussing.

The first is pretty undeniable, though no real accusation, as he says. The most powerful philosopher of the atheist movement is Dennett, and he explictly passes by the philosophical questions of God's existence. Dawkins gestures at them, but I suspect more for sense of completeness and rhetorical purposes.

The second is important: and when there is an active claim made that religion is evil (poisons everything), criticisms to the myopia of this can't be fended off by saying that religion doing good doesn't prove it's true. The question at this point is one of consequences.

The third is interesting, and I would say the jury's still out: people tend to find it hard to see other worldviews as being as satisfying as their own.

6. Stem cell breakthrough

Comment #90515 by Mercer on November 25, 2007 at 12:00 pm

This is excellent. It will be interesting to see whether the built up resentment of 'stem cells' will mean that developments purely based on these adult developments will be seen as dubious by campaigners whose original problem was with the embryo issue.

7. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53608 by Mercer on July 2, 2007 at 8:31 am

I'm not really sure what this proves. If we assume that religion is ridiculous and disproven, and that God is best treated as an object, then we can hardly be surprised at what the conclusions are.

To think you can convince people they're wrong by assuming it's ridiculous and undeniable that they are is hardly going to be effective. This is just self-congratulatary preaching to the choir.