1. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173065 by Charles Bradlaugh on April 30, 2008 at 9:47 am

I agree with Fighting Falcon for what it's worth. Although, for those of you who find Finkelstein too hardcore, Peter Novick's 'Collective Memory and the Holocaust' I can't recommend enough.

On a sidebar, can anyone explain why the expression 'self-hating Jew' sets my teeth on edge?

2. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156270 by Charles Bradlaugh on April 7, 2008 at 8:11 am

Black Wolf: i'm reminded of the scene in Donnie Darko where parents are criticising the Drew Barrymore character for teaching inappropriate literature.

Drew: Do you even know who Graham Greene is?
Parent: I think we've all seen 'Bonanza.'

3. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156248 by Charles Bradlaugh on April 7, 2008 at 7:33 am

Re the Niemoller quote: in fact he didn't say 'first they came for the Jews' he said, historically accurately, 'first they came for the communists.' (in terms of order of persecution after 1933.)

there is an interesting discussion in a book called 'the Holocaust and Collective Memory' by Robert Novick on how this quote has been 'adapted' to suit certain agendas- for example, in Boston 'then they came for the Catholics' has been added!

4. Dispatches: Holy Offensive

Comment #135901 by Charles Bradlaugh on February 29, 2008 at 10:37 am

Anyone visiting England must go to Northampton- the home town of the first atheist Member of Parliament and also Doctor Martens shoes. Kidding, it's rubbish.

Charles Bradlaugh was elected in 1880 but refused to swear the oath to god so they wouldn't let him in. He then said he'd swear the oath, cos, hey, he didn't believe in god so who cares, whereupon they decided they wouldn't let him do that either. he then tried to swear the oath to himself and got thrown out of Parliament. the people of northampton re-elected him four times and each time he wasn't allowed to swear the oath. finally, five years later, he was allowed in and got Parliament to pass an 'Affirmation Bill' so you didn't have to swear to god.

but seriously, come to Manchester.

5. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129507 by Charles Bradlaugh on February 19, 2008 at 8:33 am

This may be a bit of a tangent, but it reminds me of what i thought was the weakest part of TGD: the anthropic principle idea. i can see 'the universe is so big, the law of averages suggests there must be another world like this one somewhere' in a kind of phillip pullman way, but i didn't see how it fitted into 'therefore a god didn't create this one.'

if someone can explain, as simply as possible, i'd be really grateful. apologies if i'm wildly off-topic or being stupid.

6. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #110007 by Charles Bradlaugh on January 10, 2008 at 9:30 am

Ages ago on this thread (#37) someone mentioned the lack of non-scientific atheist commentary...

For me, I recommend any work of biblical criticism by the likes of Geza Vermes.

As a historian, I share with the scientists the feeling that reality is far more interesting than the religious version: once you start viewing scripture as a historical source like any other, and get into issues like why they wanted to tell the nativity this way, to me that's far more interesting than the fairy story.