1. Charles Darwin was not the father of atheism

Comment #201956 by Monty Burns on June 30, 2008 at 1:16 pm

The problem with Pitcher specifically and The Torygraph more generally is that religious faith has nothing to do with Christian values (just look at some of the downright nasty, misinformed, lying, vitriolic comments from the Christians in the original article, if you don't believe me). It's all about tradition, a defence of "Britishness" and a deep-seated fear of "Islamification". Basically, I think they're pretty bloody insecure.

Pitcher pops his head up and utters some rubbish every few weeks or so. It's usually low-grade sophistry rather than razor-sharp rhetoric, although I don't doubt he thinks he's really putting us atheists in their place.

Anyway, here's a challenge, George: refute the arguments, don't attack the people making them. Tell us why we should believe your superstitions rather than just repeating the same old rubbish in the hope that our brains stop working at some point and we "see the light". Go on. I dare you.

2. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #182777 by Monty Burns on May 21, 2008 at 12:50 am

Meanwhile, over at the Torygraph, the Revd George Pitcher is at it again:

[The Greeks] didn't have to worry about embryology, but they did establish that humans were made in the image of God, which spoke of superiority to the rest of creation, the quality of an immortal soul and the gift of reason. Above all, the idea was identified with free will; that every life is sacred and unique, a principle that has shone down the ages. It follows that such lives have their own purpose.

You can tell him what you think if you're minded to:
http://telegraph.decenturl.com/production-line-children

3. 16% of US science teachers are creationists

Comment #182576 by Monty Burns on May 20, 2008 at 2:48 pm

"16% of US science teachers are creationists"

Well, they might loosely be described as "science teachers" but they're clearly not scientists, because if they were they'd rely on the evidence rather than wishful thinking. I think they should be fired - it would be like learning a foreign language from a xenophobe.

"This may be because better-prepared teachers are more confident in dealing with students' questions about a sensitive subject"

It's not tricky: "So, you're a creationist. Where's the evidence? No, bible verses don't count. No, attacking evolution doesn't count - where's your theory? Where are your observations? No, that spooky feeling you get when you pray doesn't count either." Maybe I just missed my vocation here...

4. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175429 by Monty Burns on May 5, 2008 at 11:55 am

"Like all the ones asking what people thought of me...how the hell am I suppose to know what people think of me?"

Or those asking something like "I have a better than average knowledge of science", etc. How do I know what the average is?

Or "people value my advice". On computing, nearly always. Sex, relationships, career decisions, etc - nobody ever asked!

5. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175417 by Monty Burns on May 5, 2008 at 11:23 am

"It is unreasonable to believe that the earth is flat."

I'm not sure how to answer this: maybe that's deliberate but it might just be sloppy phrasing. To someone who knows nothing of science, it's perfectly reasonable to believe the earth is flat. For any educated person, it's unreasonable. Doesn't exactly lend itself to a yes/no kind of answer, does it? It's not even a "don't know" answer: I do know, but can't express it on the poxy form.

[Edit] And another one:

"The universe is filled with billions of stars."

There are billions of stars in the universe, but it is not filled with them.

6. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172132 by Monty Burns on April 29, 2008 at 8:57 am

I have to say I don't entirely understand Dawkins's thinking here -- how, after all, could the executions of religious figures not follow logically from the promotion of atheism?

Funny thing about thinking: you have to do it yourself to understand it. The writer seems to equate atheism to "lack of a moral code", which is an all-too-common fallacy. If Stalin had executed only religious people, there might be something in the observation, but he was fairly indiscriminate about it, so there isn't.