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

Comment #203531 by mixmastergaz on July 3, 2008 at 5:04 am

Much as I dislike the Daily fucking Mail (as right-thinking people naturally refer to it), I can't help thinking that they're right about this.

This is nonsense on stilts to use Bentham's memorable phrase. We are talking about a photograph of a cute puppy. If muslim shopkeepers don't wish to display the poster that's fine by me. They're under no obligation. But we can't allow such peculiar objections to dictate what is and is not acceptable in the public domain at large. If you don't like dogs then don't emigrate to a nation of dog-lovers, or learn to tolerate this aspect of the culture that has, on the whole, welcomed you, even bent over backwards to accommodate you.

2. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #203521 by mixmastergaz on July 3, 2008 at 4:30 am

I haven't seen Richard's cameo in Dr Who yet. I was away enjoying Glastonbury festival when this was broadcast but I'm looking forward to Friday's UK repeat. Thankfully no one has included any spoilers in the comments I've read so far! I can't wait to see this. I'm a life-long Dr Who fan and (obviously) have enjoyed reading Richard's books enormously.

I think I've said this before but surely 'clearmind' is a hoaxer (I speak as one who was briefly duped by someone calling themselves richard_dawkins). The posts certainly read like (admittedly not very good) parodies. If s/he's serious then s/he isn't worth debating. The posts contain nothing but wholly unfounded assertions and embarrassingly uninformed bluster maquerading as arguments, and quite frankly, if someone is so stupid as to fail to recognise the considerable extent of their ignorance, then debating is futile. Clearmind simply won't be able to understand others' counter-arguments. Paula rightly roasted me in a PM not too long ago for considering debating David Robertson, partly on the grounds that there is no point reasoning with someone who didn't arrive at their opinions by reason in the first place. Reason just won't do it for such people sadly.

3. The Flea Delusion

Comment #198510 by mixmastergaz on June 24, 2008 at 7:16 am

Wadsworth asks "How can he (Ward) be taken seriously?" Well, he is fairly well-respected in Christian Theological circles. I haven't yet read his book some I'm not going to criticise it for now. But on the general subject of 'flea' books I'd guess that the general strategy is "If we throw enough shit at the wall then some of it might stick."

Light act Mr Arse (anagram) at least had the honesty to remark in the foreword to his, ahem 'book' (more like a pamphlet), that he suspected that the majority of his readers wouldn't actually have read TGD, but would be wondering what to say to their friends who had. Very revealing...

4. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198505 by mixmastergaz on June 24, 2008 at 6:57 am

Alister McGrath is an anagram of "light act Mr Arse" which is probably insignificant but kept me amused for a minute.

5. The Flea Delusion

Comment #198029 by mixmastergaz on June 23, 2008 at 4:34 am

Dear mummy and daddy in the sky,

Since I 've been such a good boy this year I'd like lots of presents please...oops wrong letter.

I heard from that nasty man saying you aren't really there again. Please could you send some comforting words from as many of your loyal elves as possible? I doesn't matter to me if they all say the same things. I just need the comfort of knowing that some clever people have written some books that prove that that nasty man is telling fibs about you. I'm not going to read them, or even think about this for myself as you've told me that thinking for myself is naughty.

Oh there he is again on youtube.

I think I'l put my fingers in my ears.

La la la la, I can't hear you.

Yours etc. etc.

Terry Eagleton

6. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196086 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 9:26 am

mixmastegaz is also bored, sitting around in the staffroom waiting for a parents' evening to start. He enjoys killing time with sarcasm and talking about himself in the 3rd person.

Irate: You forgot to use 'the word'.

Bad Religion = Great band.

On the subject of U2 lyrics, Bono has written so many songs about faith in crisis it's possible he thinking of taking Oystein's route. But he's still an insufferably precious and self-righteous arsehole. The theists are welcome to him.

Right, here come the parents. B'bye for now.

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196067 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 9:07 am

"Maybe honesty is in there somewhere"!?

Maybe?!

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196060 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 9:03 am

Irate: 'Wake up dead man' is pretty good; I like the line about Christ crucified's hands "being full".

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196058 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 9:02 am

I realise you weren't asking me Sharon but I can't resist. A good religion is one you're born into. A bad one is the one those other folks follow. Ask David Robertson...

10. Charles Darwin: 'Is man an ape or an angel?'

Comment #196000 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 7:06 am

King of NH: "Humans act so ape" Brilliant!

Laurie F: We share a common ancestor surely?

Edit: I'm not surprised this was in the Torygraph. I don't much care for many of the (especially) political views espoused in the dear old Torygraph, but it has some decent coverage, is unafraid of challenging its readers' views and it's nothing like the Daily fucking Mail. I propose that all decent, humane persons from now on only ever speak of "The Daily Fucking Mail". Perhaps it has a better chance than 'Bright' (as a noun) of catching-on.

11. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #195944 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 4:56 am

Caution: Totally off-topic post

Ummagumma Disc one (the 'live' side) is great.

Disc two is bollocks, apart from 'Granchester Meadows'.

12. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195939 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 4:41 am

Urim: I concur with your interpretation of clearthinker's rhetorical question ("What kind of Christian were you?")

Clearthinker: Our new guest describes himself as a former liberal christian, as you know perfectly well. Your disingenuous claim not to know what that means did not, I notice, prevent you from subsequently using the phrase yourself.

In an earlier comment directed at me on the fabulously entertaining and insightful 'Fleabytes' thread clearthinker put it to me that I would never have lost my faith if only I'd been schooled in the right sort of Christianity, i.e. his sort(I'm paraphrasing here; I can't be bothered trawling through all those posts to find the exact quotation). I'm reminded of Hitchen's comment, "curious how insulting people can be when they're trying to be polite." Although, I don't think clearthinker was trying to be polite.

13. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195326 by mixmastergaz on June 18, 2008 at 4:25 am

Hi Loke and welcome!

Your comments about coming out to your family ring true with me. I'm so afraid of my folks' reaction to my lack of faith that I've not told them. It would cause them terrible distress to believe that their son was going to burn for all eternity. I have to hide my copies of New Humanist when they come to visit!

14. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #195314 by mixmastergaz on June 18, 2008 at 4:03 am

Atheist Jon: Surely Colbert's target isn't so much right-wingers as the media itself?

Edit: I can't get the link to work at the moment so I concede I could very easily be missing the point.

15. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #195303 by mixmastergaz on June 18, 2008 at 3:34 am

Wise words Steve (as ever). I think your comparison with a court-case is a very helpful way of thinking about the problem. So often I read your posts here and think "I wish I'd thought of that."

I'm sure you're right; there is plenty we can do.

It seems to me to be very revealing that David Robertson's position on such a central issue as creation is clouded in mystery, even to those who share his faith. What's he got to be so cagey about I wonder?

16. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195278 by mixmastergaz on June 18, 2008 at 2:12 am

Clearthinker

Your deconstruction of the term 'liberal Christian' seems a little disingenuous; I'm sure it's not the first time you've encountered the phrase (oxymoronic or not), I dare say you've even used it yourself and your questions regarding it sound like empty rhetoric since you already know perfectly well what it means. Think of someone like Rowan Williams; he's a liberal Christian (as you well know).

An another thing...

Oh sod it.

I really can't be bothered anymore.

God speed David.

17. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195065 by mixmastergaz on June 17, 2008 at 4:18 pm

So not all debates are useless eh?

I respect his honesty. The feelings he describes after his de-conversion remind me of how I felt after losing my faith.

Perhaps he could add a testimony to converts' corner...

18. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #195061 by mixmastergaz on June 17, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Steve Z I do take your point. I'm sure many potential witnesses to this now-not-happening debate wouldn't be able to hear or accept much of what I might've said because of an inner voice (possibly sounding like Woody Allen's impression of his parents) proclaiming "but he's a no-good atheist!" But I also wonder where we go from here. If we accept the depressing thought that there are people with whom we can't reason (and Ive certainly felt like this from time to time) then how can we hope to make any progress from this point? Ultimately, what else is there to do but take the argument to these people? It sounds like I'm changing my mind again; I'm not, but these are the questions I'm left asking myself, and now you chaps...

Vaal Teaching Religious Studies is great! It's more like a philosophy of religion course really. You'll be unsurprised to hear that most students (though not all) who undertake such a course are religious believers of one sort or another. I get to introduce them to the cosmological argument, the argument from design (certain sections of 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'TGD' are set-texts on the course; the looks on some of my students' faces are priceless!), the ontological argument, the argument from personal experience and their various counter arguments and so forth. We look at Hume on miracles, William James on religious experience and Kant's categorical imperative. In the 'Root of all Evil' documentary (I think) Richard recommends that the headmaster of a creationist-school familiarises himself with the utilitarian ethical theory of Bentham and Mill. I get paid to do this! And I frequently get the opportunity to see 'lights going on'; to see young people thinking critically about religion for perhaps the first time in their lives. How could one not enjoy this?

Dave Lynch and Epeeist Not that it matters now of course, but when I first replied to the Christian together email address I made it clear I wasn't up for debating a young-Earth creationist, or discussing evolution. The chap there said he didn't know what David Robertson's position on this was either!

Hungarian Elephant Thanks.

19. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194615 by mixmastergaz on June 17, 2008 at 4:30 am

Further to my recent posts floating the idea of accepting Christians Together's invitation to debate David Robertson, I've decided to listen to my own reservations and the concerns expressed here and decline the offer ("changes his mind like his socks" I know…). A polite and seemingly friendly chap called Colin emailed me to say they had in mind an early autumn date. On a purely practical level this would have been a non-starter for me; I was really only able to take part if the date they had in mind was during my summer holidays. But this isn't the only reason I've reconsidered. On reflection, agreeing to this debate in order to avoid accusations of 'running scared' from a debate seems rather trivial, even vain, and those who wish to argue along those lines may do so whether or not I attend. Additionally, it's entirely possible that an experienced preacher like David Robertson may 'wipe the floor with me' using a lot appealing (to his side) rhetoric and preaching to the choir. Whatever others may think of him, he is clearly better read in theology than I am and this wouldn't be a match of equals. I'm also keen to avoid the appearance of speaking on behalf of others, especially someone as distinguished as Richard. Although, had I agreed, in my mind I would only be speaking for myself, the distinct possibility remains that others could take me to be a representative of Richard, or of atheists generally, an impression I'd very much like to avoid.

Finally, this has the potential to 'blow my cover' with my students. I'm a religious studies teacher and I choose, deliberately, to refuse to answer my students' repeated questions about my own beliefs, much to their chagrin. It doesn't stop them guessing! If footage of me arguing the case for atheism were to appear on this new-fangled interweb thingy then the cat would be out of the bag. I'd rather some of them continue to believe that I'm a Christian, Jew or Pagan (though curiously none of them realise I'm an atheist) so I can preserve my impartiality as their teacher.

I'm still not convinced that refusing the invitation is the best course of action (although I'm leaning in that direction), but I am convinced that I'm not the right person for this.

20. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194123 by mixmastergaz on June 16, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Well, I've read the comments, most of which seem to be discouraging me from agreeing to any sort of debate, but I refuse to accept that there can be no diplomatic relations with Christians. It's depressing to me think that we can't talk and discuss with those who don't share our views and so I've contacted the chap from 'Christians together' (I think that was the name but I can't be bothered skipping back a few pages to check) who posted earlier looking for someone up for a debate. It's been a few hours but no response so far. My email was non-committal; I asked if David Robertson was a young-Earth creationist (because I'm not going all the way to Scotland to argue about evolution) and for clarification on a couple of other things.

Perhaps I'm being as naïve as some of you are suggesting; perhaps I've been "fooled" by their "stance", as someone else suggested. If I honestly reach the same conclusions later then I'll say so here and admit I was wrong. But I'm prepared to pick up the gauntlet that's been thrown down, provided it doesn't clash with any prior arrangements, which is a distinct possibility as I plan on going to quite a few festivals this summer. I'll update if I hear anything more from this.

(I'm anticipating lots of "on your own head be it" type remarks!)

21. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #193960 by mixmastergaz on June 16, 2008 at 8:44 am

Hmmm... The Illuminati. Isn't that the non-existent secretive organisation that David Icke believes to have been manipulating world events for hundreds of years? Aren't they supposed to be giant lizard-like aliens in human form? Sounds like this could be a shittastic film to me!

22. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192586 by mixmastergaz on June 13, 2008 at 1:16 pm

As flattering as Professor Lynn's assertion is, I don't buy this at all. I'm not convinced IQ is a a fair or accurate marker of intelligence, and it seems to me far more reasonable to suppose that the Royal Society fellows statistics referred to might suggest that people who are university-educated are more likely to be atheists, and only then within certain societies. Professor Lynn's claim is too bold.

23. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192508 by mixmastergaz on June 13, 2008 at 8:33 am

I hadn't realised David Robertson is a young Earth creationist. Perhaps I should reconsider.

24. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #192506 by mixmastergaz on June 13, 2008 at 8:26 am

Your guess is correct Cartomancer. I'm embarrassed to admit I was duped, but there it is. I had just spent the afternoon watching Paula's interview with Richard and was speed-reading through the threads to try and catch up when I read his phony (and slightly creepy) post. I should have spotted it (the impostor's tone was nothing like Richard's), but I fired-off the spontaneous post congratulating you on your (nonexistent) invitation above.

Pretty embarrassing that (as far as I can tell) the first contribution I've made to this website that has come to Richard's attention makes me look like a gullible ass, but such is life.

Apologies to both of you for the misunderstanding.

Gary

ps Happy Birthday Cartomancer!

25. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192495 by mixmastergaz on June 13, 2008 at 7:52 am

I'm hundreds of miles away from Scotland but I'd be willing to step forward to debate (providing the date doesn't clash with my hectic social schedule) if no one else in the vicinity does, if only because clearthinker will spin this as 'atheists too scared to debate with me'.

I think there are much better informed candidates than myself though...

26. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #192034 by mixmastergaz on June 12, 2008 at 11:02 am

Surely there must be some simple, two syllable word that could accurately describe 'characters' like our impostor above.

Perhaps Irate Atheist could think of a fitting neologism...

27. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #192030 by mixmastergaz on June 12, 2008 at 10:58 am

Oops!

I just left my pc a moment ago for a cup of tea and found myself thinking 'surely Richard Dawkins would use capital letters for his own name'...I see I've been deceived!

Apologies for the use of the word 'gig' Richard. It sometimes amuses me (if no one else) to use the patois of the music industry in entirely inappropriate contexts.

richard_dawkins (the impostor):-

you are a weirdo.

28. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #192022 by mixmastergaz on June 12, 2008 at 10:30 am

Wow Cartomancer, first on the bill at a Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris gig! I've got a friend in a band who once opened-up for Paul McCartney (here in Liverpool at a gig honouring the late George Harrison), but you've landed the better support-slot in my estimation!

Good luck and let us know how it goes.

29. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191986 by mixmastergaz on June 12, 2008 at 8:42 am

Forest Mist:-

No need to apologise; I enjoy the exchange of ideas!

Of course it's not reason enough to recommend something simply because it is atheist in character. It might still be awful. And no one is recommending exclusively watching/listening to atheist films or music. We leave that sort of exclusivity to people like the Christian you mention.

To be pedantic, it's not just Richard's books that have been recommended in the margins of this website. I've seen works by Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Aayan Hirsi Ali, Carl Sagan and others. I'm guessing that Richard, Josh or whoever put them there naturally thought that visitors to this site might reasonably be expected to be interested in these texts. But there's no reason to suppose that that's all they'd be interested in! I've read a few flea books that I only became aware of through this site and I doubt that I'm the only one.

I think our discussion here is based upon a misunderstanding. Hopefully this has cleared it up.

30. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191965 by mixmastergaz on June 12, 2008 at 7:42 am

The continued attepmts by believers to try and spin atheists' arguments against us would be amusing if they were not so mendacious. These attempts are unconvincing and reek of desperation. Declaring that atheism relies upon "tradition and authority" does not make it so. Atheism does not rely upon bogus arguments from personal experience or any sort of revelation. There are no holy books, no divine inspiration, no miraculous occurences to bedazzle the credulous. Nowhere in the atheistic writings that I have encountered is it ever argued that it is virtuous to believe without evidence. This latter point is made time and again in the sacred texts of religions. Its rejection is as characteristic of atheism as its acceptance is charcteristic of theism. No amount of pseudo-sophistry in religious apologetics can cause black to be white, or white to be black. Such absurd arguments are only persuasive to those who wish to believe them.

31. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191956 by mixmastergaz on June 12, 2008 at 7:20 am

Forest Mist:-

I'm guessing you probably don't object to the implicit recommendations for atheistic books in the margins of this website so I'm curious to know why you have reservations about recommendations of atheistic films or music. I'm sure few would argue with the open-mindedness you suggest when it comes to the appreciation of music or films. For the record, I too also appreciate many films/songs etc. that either espouse views contrary to my own or are produced by individuals whose religious views are the opposite of mine. No one is arguing that atheists should only watch films by other atheists, or listen to music produced by fellow atheists. But it is natural that we should take a particular interest in films or music of this sort. I don't see how this supports clearthinker's view that there is an "atheist creed" (which sounds more like an argument of convenience than of conviction). It simply confirms that atheists are interested in the creativity of other atheists (though not exclusively, or at the expense of theistic creative works).

Honestly, this seems like a non-issue to me, although reason and evidence may persuade me to believe otherwise.

32. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189348 by mixmastergaz on June 6, 2008 at 5:05 am

Caution: A Pedant Posts.

Steve8282: The pronoun you're looking for is 'their', although 'its' would be better still as the noun it's replacing is England. And I think you probably meant to say 'losing' not 'loosing' about your northern neighbours. I wouldn't normally pick on someone's spelling like this, but you did have to go and mention the war!

33. Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

Comment #189015 by mixmastergaz on June 5, 2008 at 8:01 am

SmartLX:-

Here in the UK one constantly hears talk of the, ahem, "unique British sense of fair-play".

No, it's not just Americans and Australians...

34. Kenya mob reportedly burns 11 'witches'

Comment #183461 by mixmastergaz on May 22, 2008 at 6:45 am

Difficult to know what to say when confronted by such lethal ignorance. Sadly Sam Harris's reports of the death of 'witchcraft' (or rather 'the belief in witchcraft') seem to have been optimistically exaggerated.

The less-cheery side of my personality cannot help but wonder how many of this mob really believed that their victims were witches/wizards, or to wonder if some of this really stems from malicious rumours spread by embittered and feuding neighbours.

35. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182861 by mixmastergaz on May 21, 2008 at 4:02 am

Whoever I criticised for using the phrase 'Londonistan', I take it all back; you were right and I was wrong to be so optimistic about common sense prevailing here in the UK.

Also, from what I've heard about Scientology, I'd like to add that the word 'cult' seems nicely to sum-up their activities; it's an entirely accurate description. This ought to be thrown out of court and hopefully it will be. I hope that somewhere lurking on this site is an individual with the proper legal training to be able to aid this young person.

Let me get this straight:

"Behead those who claim Islam is a violent religion" is ok, but "Scientology is not a religion it is a dangerous cult" isn't? This is nonsense on stilts.

36. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #182462 by mixmastergaz on May 20, 2008 at 7:33 am

Londonistan? Ok let's not over-react. I made a habit of "openly questioning" religions during my RE lessons at school (although I wasn't attending school in "Londonistan", wherever that is, does the UK count?); admittedly I sometimes got some pretty terse responses from my teachers, but on the whole I think even my most devout teachers could see the benefit of having someone play Devil's advocate.

Today, I'm a Religious Studies teacher myself and I'm delighted when a student "openly questions" or even forcefully challenges a religion or religious perspective in my lessons; it's how they are going to achieve marks on their final exams. I have no objections to 'Jerry Springer: The Opera' but how awful to restrict the students' exposure only to things that I happen to agree with. That's not education; it's indoctrination, whether or not I concur with the views being expressed. Religious Studies (the serious, impartial and objective study of religions) deserves its place within a broad curriculum. Religious Education (indoctrinating children from a young age into the faith and traditions of their parents and communities) does not.

37. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #182121 by mixmastergaz on May 19, 2008 at 8:50 am

Although I was fortunate not to suffer to the same extent the sort of abuses described above, much of it is very familiar. I too can recall the feelings of silent outrage at the hypocrisy, lack of charity, compassion and basic common decency exhibited by pious teachers. Invariably, those who had taken holy orders of some sort were the worst transgressors. It is not an exaggeration to say that it was this, as much as critical thinking and reflection on religion, that led to my becoming an atheist. I can also recall the distinct impression that the worst tormentors seemed positively and unashamedly to enjoy dishing out their excessively cruel punishments. I can't bring myself to believe that this isn't exactly how many of these perverts would behave if they managed to turn back the clock on the progress that has been made since their 'reign of terror' ended in this part of the world at least if not elsewhere.

38. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #182106 by mixmastergaz on May 19, 2008 at 8:19 am

Spinning for Jesus anyone?

The double-standard here is obvious and needs no elaboration. Of course, there'd be no problem of breaching pupils' "rights to freedom of thought, conscience and belief" if the faithful would give up their insistence on the supposed 'right' to indoctrinate young minds into one faith tradition. The problem only arises as a consequence of faith schools. I agree that pupils may well choose to opt-out for the wrong reasons, but if 'Religious Studies', as opposed to 'Religious Education', was the norm then there'd be no need to opt-out for anyone.

Describing the NSS as a "dreary ogre" and characterising those who take human rights seriously as "dim-wits" is just petty name-calling. And those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Sean Salvador: Yes most RE teachers are religious but not all. I teach 'A' level Religious Studies and am not in the least bit religious.

39. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180566 by mixmastergaz on May 15, 2008 at 8:09 am

Clearmind you are a hoaxer and I claim my five pounds(again).

40. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #180444 by mixmastergaz on May 15, 2008 at 1:16 am

I'm printing this off to read later when I have the time and am looking forward to it. It's nice to see something from the archives added here; hopefully there's more of this sort of thing lurking out there somewhere. Something doesn't need to be recently published in order to be relevant.

41. 85% of Americans Want a Presidential Debate on Science

Comment #180073 by mixmastergaz on May 14, 2008 at 7:17 am

I share Nova's incomprehension at the apparently self-contradictory responses to this poll. It reminds me of an episode of the West Wing:

"68% think we spend too much on foreign aid; 59% want it cut."

I agree with Rod; good and bad news here.

42. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179996 by mixmastergaz on May 14, 2008 at 4:30 am

If God is "the unknowable total of all there is" (whatever that's supposed to mean) then how can anyone claim to know that "God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at...moments [when people]...transcend boundaries and overflow with love", (whatever that's supposed to mean)?

This article is so full of holes it reminds me of Swiss cheese. The above quotations have 'holes' large enough to drive a convoy through. However it does a good job of sounding persuasive to those who wish to be persuaded.

43. A natural selection

Comment #179909 by mixmastergaz on May 14, 2008 at 1:32 am

I don't think you are being too picky Philip. This how/why thing gets on my nerves too. Also there seems to me to be something slightly self-congratulatory about this. Only fools boast about doing something that one ought to be doing anyway. It's like seeking praise for not being irrational, closed-minded arseholes. Of course, I'm pleased that this group are more open minded than most of their co-religionists but there's no need to champion them for it; it's what they ought to be doing anyway.

44. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178932 by mixmastergaz on May 12, 2008 at 8:46 am

I agree wholeheartedly with Paula's insightful posts. Regrettably, such small 'c' conservatives are, of course, not only to be found seated upon church pews (although this seems to me to be where the phenomenon is most pronounced). Maybe it's a British trait, but I've often thought that people are generally far too prone to a peculiar resistance to change. Debate with them and win the argument, and this will only harden their resolve to fly in the teeth of evidence and common sense.

And being asked if I'd prefer a 'praise band' or hymns played on the organ is like asking if I'd prefer a kick in the balls or a punch in the bollocks.

45. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177512 by mixmastergaz on May 9, 2008 at 8:06 am

I have mixed feelings about this. The optimistic part of me hopes, as others have noted, that 3rd, 4th and subsequent generations of the offspring of Hindu and Muslim parents will be less inclined toward their faith than their parents. The pessimistic part of me however recalls Hanif Kureishi's 'My son the fanatic'. Hopefully the increasing religiosity identified within Islam is a temporary aberration. I realise that personal experience is not a reliable guide to social trends, but the only British 'cultural Muslims' of my acquaintance are (almost) as secular as I am. Of course, this may well be because I'm unlikely to move in the same social circles as their more fervently religious counterparts. But the decline in Christian church attendance is encouraging.

Another poster asked 'Why is Islam on the increase?' (or words to that effect). The answer must surely be, in part, attributable to immigration and the tendency of Muslims to have larger families than native UK residents. I think this site is one of the few places where I can express this opinion without fear of being accused of racism (fingers crossed). Al-Rawandi, posting on another thread, referred to muslims "breeding like rabbits"; I must confess that, although I understand his point, I don't much care for the way he chose to express it. There's no point in making the religious apologists' job easy for them, or for needlessly causing offence, when the same point can be expressed in less abrasive terms. Humans do not "breed"; we procreate. And likening people to animals (even cute, fluffy animals) is unnecessarily harsh. I was surprised that his comment wasn't picked-up on by others. I was in a rush when I read it and didn't have the time to respond, and now I can't remember whereabouts it is. Al, if you're reading this, would you care to re-phrase your comment?

46. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175933 by mixmastergaz on May 6, 2008 at 8:55 am

"Demonology", "fairyology", "theology" etc. Putting an '...ology' after it doesn't make it a respectable area of research. It just makes it sound as if it is to a moron.

Unfortunately there's no shortage of morons in this world, even morons with PhDs. 'Morons' become 'dangerous fools' when people start taking them seriously. This also put me in mind of 'The Crucible'.

47. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #172939 by mixmastergaz on April 30, 2008 at 7:35 am

Q: What do you call the useless bit of skin that remains after completion of a circumcision?

A: Ben Stein.

48. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170830 by mixmastergaz on April 28, 2008 at 4:42 am

Actually I'd recommend Ben Stein does take a peek a the 'worst poetry in the universe' Philip. Remember what happened to Grunthos the flatulent when he began a recitation? His own intestines crawled up through his throat and throttled his brain! Result!

49. Investigating Atheism

Comment #170828 by mixmastergaz on April 28, 2008 at 4:25 am

Layla: Of course you're correct; it is an earlier lecture. I mistakenly assumed the later lecture was the one that's now available online. My comments are about Ricahrd's 2nd Liverpool lecture . I didn't watch it online as I was in attendance (or at least I thought I was!) I assumed it was the 2nd lecture online because of the presence of cameras. They must have filmed both gigs!

I doubt that the 2nd lecture will be made available online because Richard made a point of saying that he was repeating his previous lecture (and cheekily asked those who attended both to leave before the start!)

Nevertheless, I still recommend the original link and I'm going to watch the Q and A session to see if the first audience had any better challenges than "chimpanzees eat their own young so therefore evolution can't be true". Sorry for any confusion.

50. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168627 by mixmastergaz on April 25, 2008 at 8:41 am

Completely off-topic post alert but...

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else on this site so here's a plug for Richard's lecture here in Liverpool earlier this week. It's available to watch online @:-

http://www.liv.ac.uk/08/webcast/dawkins_webcast.html


I imagine there's not much in it that will be new to regulars on this site, but for those who've never seen Richard lecture it's more than worth a watch.

From the length of the video I'd guess that the Q and A session isn't included which is a shame. Some crank from the local Christian Union was foolish enough to argue that "evolution can't possibly be true" because "chimpanzees eat their own young". Richard's response was most amusing. I mean, where does one begin with that sort of question?

Another challenger accused Richard of arrogance for claiming to know what happens after death, before claiming privileged knowledge of the "afterlife" herself! She refused to elaborate on her insights but offered to write to Richard with more details. He graciously thanked her for this, but didn't quite manage to conceal the irony in his tone of voice. The last challenger seemed to think that the growth of Christianity in China somehow proved the existence of God (although he was rather sketchy on the details). I was disappointed by the poverty of counter-arguments put to Richard. If they were representative of the best that Christians in Liverpool can come up with then Hope Street (the road connecting Liverpool's Anglican and Catholic cathedrals) must be simply teeming with halfwits on Sundays.