1. Charles Darwin was not the father of atheism

Comment #201935 by Not the Messiah on June 30, 2008 at 12:48 pm

I find it quite ironic that the Reverend Pitcher chooses to mock Messrs. Dawkins and Hitchens by dressing them up in religious trappings..

"Disciples! Ho-Ho! Forgiveness of sins, rapture, sacred texts, how silly do they now appear!"

..uh, you're a curate??

I'm reminded of the scene in Pulp Fiction when the two main characters have to change out of their bloodstained suits into T-shirts and shorts:

WOLF: You guys look like... what do they look like, Jimmie?

JIMMIE: Dorks. They look like a couple of dorks!

The Wolf and Jimmie laugh.

JULES: Ha ha ha. They're your clothes, motherfucker.

2. Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

Comment #98450 by Not the Messiah on December 13, 2007 at 3:55 pm

The fault in this argument comes from equating the word worldview (or philosophy) with religion. Worldviews are often unique to an individual, and can be open to change. When a worldview gets written down and shared by enough people it's called a religion, and certain problems become all but inevitable. Even the most seemingly benign philosophy can justify the most evil acts once it makes the leap to Dogma.

Any religion, along with many political ideologies, can lead to barbarism because they enshrine certain concepts as being more important than the life and well-being of a single individual.

All religions (including Buddhism) share at least some common traits that can have negative social consequences, including: the rise of a privileged priest-class, the demand for large amounts of people's time and money with little social benefit, and the proscribing of genuinely beneficial social activities because they contradict some article of faith.

Adherence to a religion also creates one more group-label whereby people can indulge the natural human tendency towards tribalism. Creating divisions between neighbours who otherwise have everything in common.

In short, it is almost irrelevant how noble or innocuous the central tenets of a religion are. By implicitly rejecting the yardsticks of rationality and utilitarian ethics, believers can quickly turn them into weapons of oppression.

3. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #89056 by Not the Messiah on November 19, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Christopher has previously stated that he also takes his shoes off when entering a mosque, and he always makes a point of thanking his hosts when a debate has been organised by a religious interest group.
This is just an example of his good manners - when you're a guest in someone's house, you respect their rules..

4. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #82016 by Not the Messiah on October 25, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Most people are genial, emotionally stable and contribute positively to society, whether religious or not, so this is no great claim for the merits of religion. Sociopaths tend to be a minority amongst any arbitrary group of human beings.

(As an aside, I find it disconcerting when Christians, faced with a list of atrocities committed in the name of their faith, effectively respond with the defence "At least we're not as bad as Stalin or Hitler!" Can anyone think of a weaker boast?)

The point is that when you promote the idea that moral guidance can be found in ambiguous and contradictory texts written hundreds of years ago; or worse, that the man in the funny hat speaks with the full authority of God, then you create a framework wherein any action, no matter how despicable, may be morally justified in the minds of the perpetrators.

There is no dividing line between moderates and extremists, only a slippery slope.

.

5. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #81993 by Not the Messiah on October 25, 2007 at 2:03 pm

I'm not sure the argument is one to take offence at.

Ideally, the Atheist position results from having a cautious, skeptical worldview - which might be characterised as "Try not to suppose more than is absolutely necessary".

So while the original statement is rather exaggerated, it might be fair to say that rational atheists, as a rule, do try to keep their "beliefs" to a minimum, and subject to change, and this is no bad thing.

The argument is muddied by confusing the phrase "to believe in something" with "to value something", at which point it descends into the argument that "atheists have no morals/capacity for love/appreciation of art" ..or whatever.

.

6. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62722 by Not the Messiah on August 11, 2007 at 2:42 am

For all those (non-british/under 25) to whom the reference to Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss was completely meaningless, enlightenment is available:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=70kUVZWokm4

Professor Yaffle is the "very distinguished old woodpecker" who makes his entrance at the 2 minute 30 mark. They don't make TV like that anymore..

Prof. Yaffle's standout quote from this episode? "Delightful story! Absolute rubbish, every word of it, but quite delightful!"

..Perhaps the comparison is quite apt after all!