Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by bamboospitfire


1. Susskind Quashes Hawking in Quarrel Over Quantum Quandary

Comment #207852 by bamboospitfire on July 10, 2008 at 8:15 am

Surely Susskind could have squeezed at least one more book plug into the interview...

2. Landlords protest after pub swearing ban gets them sacked

Comment #207011 by bamboospitfire on July 9, 2008 at 5:04 am

And what are the chances that the level of swearing in that pub has now gone significantly up? What a pair of utter morons.

On the landlord issue, the term is used to refer to the managers of pubs owned by breweries because historically the owner of the property would act as the pub manager and would also rent out rooms in the property. That is still the case in privately-owned pubs, but the terminology is also applied to the managers of brewery-owned pubs, not least because "bar manager" is a fucking hideous term.

3. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206005 by bamboospitfire on July 8, 2008 at 2:49 am

I have been to a lecture by John Lennox and met him afterwards, when I called him on his supposed scientific support by asking whether he would have been an atheist 100 years ago, given the absence at that time of the "evidence" on which he now relies. Needless to say, he didn't provide a straight answer. None of the comments above surprise me. You can read what I thought of the lecture here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=37542&p=709286&hilit=john lennox#p709286

4. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205334 by bamboospitfire on July 7, 2008 at 5:42 am

Religion and politics are both human phenomena...

Yes. Yes, they are...

5. Crack annoyance squad wanted

Comment #204037 by bamboospitfire on July 4, 2008 at 4:06 am

The Aussies don't need the Delorean. They've already managed to create 1984 here and now.

6. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202325 by bamboospitfire on July 1, 2008 at 9:56 am

My posted comment on the Indy site:


Sasha and Sean - the issue is whether a prospective employee's religion (or lack of it) affects their ability to undertake a certain sort of work. This is made clear in Johann's article with reference to Miss Great Britain, beauticians and staff employed in gay clubs.

Atheism does not prevent one from doing any job save those which require religious faith. The Church of England would be entitled to refuse employment to an outspoken atheist who wanted to join the clergy, although the very concept is obviously absurd. However, atheism does not disqualify one from any other type of employment and it would be wrong for a Christian employer to refuse to hire an atheist simply because of his or her atheism, just as it would have been wrong for the salon to refuse Ms Noah employment simply because she is a Muslim.

Importantly, the salon evidently did not refuse Ms Noah employment on religious grounds, but rather because she covers her hair - it just happens to be the case that Ms Noah covers her hair for religious reasons. That may be a fine distinction, but it is an important one which should be recognised. Ms Noah remains at liberty to uncover her hair but chooses not to do so, and thereby disqualifies herself from employment at that salon.

7. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196478 by bamboospitfire on June 20, 2008 at 2:57 am

Steve Zara makes a good point that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If only religious scholars can speak with authority on religion, surely only scientists can speak with authority on science. The existence of God as a real extant entity outside the minds of the faithful is clearly a scientific question. There is no evidence for such an entity. That's settled then.

8. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #196069 by bamboospitfire on June 19, 2008 at 9:10 am

Thanks for taking the time to provide a detailed response, Mike. It is the opposite of boring.

I followed everything apart from this:

Chose different axioms and allowed operations, and you get different results.

An example would be the difference between bivalent and paraconsistent logic, or between Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with and without the axiom of choice.

It doesn't help that the concepts you have identified mean nothing to me and my internet searching has just given me a headache. In a nutshell, is it possible for there to be contradictory but nevertheless correct axioms? For obvious reasons, I don't understand how that could be, which is why it seems absurd.

In any event, I agree that there is still the problem of getting from a mathematical structure to what we experience.

9. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #196021 by bamboospitfire on June 19, 2008 at 8:04 am

Well, I wasn't saying that mathematics is just names, but some of it involves putting names to properties or relationships. Extending these reveals other relationships.

I get the feeling that a lot of confusion arises from the fact that some people refer to mathematics as our way of describing those properties and relationships whilst others refer to mathematics as those properties and relationships themselves. (I take the latter view.)

I wonder how the incompleteness theorem will manifest itself in reality.

Do you think that would be an example of mathematics having "creative power"? (Not that I think mathematics has what could be called creative power, I think it is just the way things must be - although some might call that "creative power"!)

10. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195967 by bamboospitfire on June 19, 2008 at 6:13 am

I think Tegmark's views are attractive but the fact is that I am completely unqualified to make any meaningful statement on them. However, on a more straightforward point, I do find it odd when people suggest that we create or invent mathematics in order to model the way the universe is. I don't see how mathematics could be any different to what it is. To say that we invent it suggests that we have some control over how it works. That is manifestly absurd.

11. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194587 by bamboospitfire on June 17, 2008 at 2:55 am

On the issue of the size of rocky planets detected, I find it interesting that whilst we are finding lots of very large rocky planets with our current techniques, the Earth is the largest of the rocky planets orbiting our own star. If we combine the evidence of lots of large rocky planets in the Milky Way with the evidence of small rocky planets within our own solar system of a size which is currently undetectable elsewhere, there must be a strong suggestion that the Milky Way contains vast numbers of small rocky planets.

12. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193748 by bamboospitfire on June 16, 2008 at 1:59 am

However, George William Rutler, a New York-based priest who is close to the president, was quoted by the Washington Post earlier this year saying that Mr Bush "is not unaware of how evangelism, by comparison with Catholicism, may seem more limited both theologically and historically".


However, it seems that both Mr Bush and Herr Ratzinger are entirely unaware of how both Catholicism and evangelism are equally limited both empirically and morally...

13. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #190980 by bamboospitfire on June 10, 2008 at 3:16 am

I would be pleased if boys like Shakirullah Yasin Ali could be given a proper education and allowed to reach their own conclusions about the actions they were groomed to undertake. Perhaps if former potential suicide bombers spoke out against the practice, fewer boys and girls would be duped into it. It may be a vain hope, but if it might prevent just one suicide bombing I think it would be worthwhile.

14. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188341 by bamboospitfire on June 4, 2008 at 1:27 am

How odd. One can breach copyright for the purpose of criticising the material in question in accordance with the principle of free speech? I would ask why it is necessary to reproduce something in order to criticise it. In this context, Stein could simply have said "Remember that line from John Lennon's song 'Imagine', which suggests that it would be a good thing if religion didn't exist? Well I think that would make us all filthy commie bastards!" This law strikes me as bizarre in the extreme.

By the way, brainsys, the apostrophe after the "s" at the end of "Scientists'" makes it plural. The rest of the grammar and punctuation in that sentence is shocking though.

15. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187490 by bamboospitfire on June 2, 2008 at 8:32 am

40%?! *headdesk*

With respect to Professor Silvertown, the last time I checked I was 100% ape...

16. Put a Little Science in Your Life

Comment #187368 by bamboospitfire on June 2, 2008 at 4:14 am

Whilst I did enjoy studying chemistry at school and did reasonably well, the subject never really engaged me. Knowing what I have learned over the past year about the creation of elements within the cores of stars has given me a new appreciation of chemistry that I wish I had had when I was at school. I have explained to a few people the basics of nuclear fusion and how atoms are spread through the universe by supernovae, ultimately to coalesce into planets around new stars, potentially resulting in life. It has always come as a complete surprise to those people that this is how it all happens, but a fascinating surprise nonetheless. I really do not understand why chemistry teachers do not explain this process to their pupils on day one. If children realise that they are experimenting with the relationships between elements and the compounds of those elements which were necessarily produced in the cores of supermassive stars, they will understand that they are dealing with something greater than the contents of a test-tube. In my view, children should be told that whilst they may be studying a subject at an elementary level, the topics they are exploring form part of a much larger whole. That applies to all scientific and mathematical pursuits. Children tend to dismiss subjects which they cannot relate to their everyday lives. If they can be helped to understand how science is fundamental to existence and how the processes, relationships and equations they are studying relate to the way the universe works, perhaps that would change.

17. Synthetic Copycat Of Living Cell Underway: Life, But Not As We Know It?

Comment #187340 by bamboospitfire on June 2, 2008 at 2:13 am

squinky - as I mentioned above, Tony Ryan has already used smart polymer vesicles to deliver DNA coding directly into cell nuclei and I understand he has won an OBE for his polymer work. It's certainly not fantasy, although the method by which the vesicles transport DNA strands through cell membranes and into the nuclei (based on the polymer's reaction to variations in pH) is so damn clever it almost seems too good to be true.

Here are some other useful links.

http://www.cbte.group.shef.ac.uk/research/mat9.html

http://www.shef.ac.uk/materials/staff/gbattaglia.html

18. Synthetic Copycat Of Living Cell Underway: Life, But Not As We Know It?

Comment #186273 by bamboospitfire on May 30, 2008 at 3:22 am

I don't think polymer vesicles are anything new. Tony Ryan at Sheffield university has been working on this stuff for years.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/staff/profiles/ryan.html

I attended a lecture at the Royal Institution on the very subject in March this year. As far as I can see, Ryan has already cracked the vesicle issue, including DNA delivery into cell nuclei, and has also found a way of propelling nano vesicles across solution gradients.

19. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172117 by bamboospitfire on April 29, 2008 at 8:46 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.

Oh dear. It's going to be like that, is it...?

But he offers that perhaps it's because Marxism itself acts something like a religion in its appeal to a higher power -- the Party, rather than God. And in this Dawkins may be absolutely right, though it reveals that an atheist philosophy can indeed operate as a religion, and therefore offer a logical pathway to evil deeds.

Does suicide bombing have to be religiously motivated? No, of course not - even though most of it is. It is conceivable that even an atheist could be driven to such desperation that he would undertake such an act. But, as anyone who gives the issue a moment's thought should realise, it would not be the person's atheism that drove him to commit that act. Instead, it would be the source of his desperation. Similar reasoning applies to Stalin's execution of priests. Obviously.

The root, strangely enough, is that which first made Dawkins famous -- evolution.

I do hope the intention is not to suggest that evolution should be dismissed because we are products of evolution and we sometimes do evil things. That would be truly moronic...

Lastly, wouldn't someone who had bothered to do some research on the subject know that Professor Dawkins did not choose or condone the "Root of All Evil" title? I can almost smell the indolence...

20. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163157 by bamboospitfire on April 18, 2008 at 3:18 am

Mitchell Gilks - on what basis do you say that the shape of the Earth is not round? I agree that it is not perfectly spherical, but if we're going to be pedantic let's get it right. ;-)

21. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163080 by bamboospitfire on April 18, 2008 at 12:59 am

I'm shocked and appalled that CPT (Cabbage Patch Theory) wasn't given even a single mention. It is plainly supported by an equal if not greater amount of hard, rigorously peer-reviewed scientific data as ATT. I'm going to write to my MP and the Daily Mail.

22. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162449 by bamboospitfire on April 17, 2008 at 1:56 am

What Bigorra said.

25 seconds of a song is a lot. I seem to recall Metallica successfully suing another band for using the chords E and F in a certain manner. Ono should take Expelled to the cleaners. I would be very disappointed if she doesn't. However, I agree that this may all be a ploy to make the producers of Expelled look like the victims that they claim to be. If so, I have rarely seen such despicable behaviour.

23. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162019 by bamboospitfire on April 16, 2008 at 2:20 am

Justin Chang of Variety wrote:

Stein does find some eloquent ID supporters in movement co-founder Stephen C. Meyer, Paris-based mathematician David Berlinski and Oxford professor Alister McGrath, who argue that scientists have become slaves to their own dogma, willingly misreading the evidence to support their claims. Pic is most compelling when it contrasts this level-headed reasoning with the vitriol of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, whose brief screen time constitutes a thorny, fascinating study of atheism taken to hateful extremes.


Is that so? I wonder what Professor Dawkins thinks of Chang's comments... I would be particularly interested to know whether the Professor even mentioned atheism during the clips of his interview. If not, it would leave Chang looking rather prejudiced...

24. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #160619 by bamboospitfire on April 14, 2008 at 8:35 am

Great article and highly amusing.

However...

What is going on at the Grauniad when on the one hand they publish wonderful work such as Brooker's article alongside utter bilge like this brainfart from Ravenhill? Is the editorial team smoking crack?

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/visualart/story/0,,2273469,00.html#article_continue

25. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160332 by bamboospitfire on April 14, 2008 at 12:51 am

Oh dear. You really are quite dim, aren't you, Mr Ravenhill?

First off, we have the bald assertion that "this perpetual state of agnosticism, this lack of commitment, must surely be corrosive. Those who are able to locate, and to explore intelligently, a system of belief, be that religious or political, are surely making a valuable contribution to our times." Is that so? Says who? I was hoping that the following paragraph might contain some evidence for this assertion. Perhaps unsurprisingly, none was forthcoming. Pathetic.

So Mr Ravenhill enjoyed Biblical stories as a child? Whoop-de-doo. The only reason that is the case is because he was taught the nice ones, rather than the stories of fire and brimstone and eternal damnation for questioning the divinity of Jesus. He goes on to argue that the Bible is a literary necessity. Indeed it is. None of this supports religion itself and Professor Dawkins has said time and again that he regards the Bible as an essential literary source. This section could have been written by the Professor himself: "The Bible - as literature, if nothing else - should be an essential part of every child's experience. And children should study the great Christian art of the past, too. We often have a revisionist view of this great legacy of paintings, music and literature. Of course, we can't help denying the beauty and resonance of the Sistine Chapel, Handel's Messiah, Milton's Paradise Lost or the York mystery plays."

As for humanist artists, who cares whether they believed or not? It doesn't make the myth true. And as for the Church commissioning new work, is there not sufficient art in any event? And would artists not paint religious scenes without commissions to do so - if they believed?

Anyway, to the point. That we are seeking to undermine art, literature and aesthetics in general. What libellous bullshit. I have heard of no-one who supports the work that Professor Dawkins has done with regard to religion claim that any such aim should be encouraged. For Ravenhill to argue otherwise is utterly disingenuous, flying in the face of everything Professor Dawkins has said on the topic. Ravenhill should be ashamed of himself. A lazy, pointless and downright wrong article.

26. Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement

Comment #158739 by bamboospitfire on April 11, 2008 at 1:58 am

Kaiserkriss - law suite? Is that like a really, really expensive hotel room?

ZekeCDN - if the Expelled producers press on without removing the clip, watch it turn 'financial' very quickly. ;-)

27. Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement

Comment #158226 by bamboospitfire on April 10, 2008 at 8:29 am

This just keeps getting better. Professors Myers and Dawkins must be laughing their socks off. You reap what you sow.

28. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156177 by bamboospitfire on April 7, 2008 at 2:52 am

With regard to John Lennox, whilst he may be an accomplished mathematician, he is slick but insubstantial and poorly reasoned on the god issue. I doubt his appearance at UHI will see anything new beyond the tripe he spouted at St Helen's, Bishopsgate recently. My comments on that lecture can be found here:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=37542&hilit= lennox

29. Thy will be done

Comment #154262 by bamboospitfire on April 3, 2008 at 2:13 am

I think having the prayer 10 minutes before the meeting is scheduled to start is fair enough since that is presumably time in which the councillors can do whatever they like. The prayers are therefore effectively private. What I do object to is council time being wasted on prayer when they have work to do, not least because they need to work damn hard if they are to stand any chance of justifying the exorbitant rates of Council Tax that we pay...

30. Supreme Court to consider Ten Commandments vs. 'Seven Aphorisms'

Comment #153741 by bamboospitfire on April 2, 2008 at 1:19 am

If the Supreme Court has any sense at all it will pull down all the monuments and save everyone a lot of time and trouble whilst simultaneously saving the Xtians a huge amount of embarrassment. Whilst it would be amusing to watch the Eight I'd Rather You Didn'ts go up alongside the Ten Commandments with equal status in law, which would have the theists foaming at the mouth, surely it would be better for the sensible, constitutional approach to be adopted from the word go. In any event, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster needs to get on this right now. Whatever happens, this opportunity is solid gold and should not be missed.

31. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153154 by bamboospitfire on April 1, 2008 at 6:05 am

Yes, but we are not talking about abstractions or religious history here.

One is tamed by secularism the other isn't. That makes a huge difference. Until either Islam is dragged screaming and kicking into, well, at least the 19th century or the RC Church has devolved into its old way there is no equivalence between the two in the way they are practised in the real world.

A poodle used to be a wolf, but it would make little sense to say they are the same thing because they used to be.

I don't disagree with your general point, although for the avoidance of doubt I did not say that Catholicism and Islam are the same. However, when comparing untamed Islam with tamed Catholicism, we should strenuously avoid permitting the Catholics to seize any moral high ground because their current position only enjoys an air of acceptability thanks to the secular values that Catholicism has been forced to adopt. Catholics will assert that their abandonment of violence was the result of internal processes for which they can claim all the credit. In fact, that awful woman Catherine Pepinster tried to do a similar thing last week on Thought For The Day when she claimed that Englightenment values are actually just a reflection of Christianity and Catholicism in particular.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20080328.shtml

This is entirely disingenuous and it should not be allowed to go unchecked. But as noted above I agree with the main point that different religions pose different threats and right now Islam is the most dangerous of the lot by some margin.

32. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153081 by bamboospitfire on April 1, 2008 at 2:37 am

Not all religions are the same. Islam is definitely much worse than Catholicism, which is merely stupid but not murderous.

Whilst supporting Hobbit's point about AIDS, it is also worth pointing out that Catholicism certainly used to be murderous in the strict sense of the term and it is only as a result of the effects of science and the Enlightenment that it is no longer just as bad if not worse than Islam is today. But for the progress of secular society - progress made despite the interference of the Catholic church - the Inquisitors would still be burning people at the stake. Catholicism would be just as bad as Islam if we allowed it to be so. Both systems are equally abhorrent in their untamed form.

33. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150491 by bamboospitfire on March 27, 2008 at 2:10 am

As per the forum thread, many happy returns, Professor.

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149083 by bamboospitfire on March 25, 2008 at 5:17 am

Presumably the tone of this article from Professor Dawkins is intended to prove that his supposedly "offensive" remarks about religion are far more gently worded than they could be.

35. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144890 by bamboospitfire on March 17, 2008 at 1:32 am

Ordered it last week. I fear that it will leapfrog the other unopened books on my shelf...

36. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142689 by bamboospitfire on March 13, 2008 at 2:56 am

oriole has hit the nail on the head. The whole question is moot, at least in the context of the Templeton Foundation, because if you don't say that your research indicates that God exists, they won't give you the money. In order for anyone to accept the prize, that person has to be offered it, and that means that he or she has already sold out.

37. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141071 by bamboospitfire on March 10, 2008 at 1:45 am

Sally Kerns is an evil, evil woman. However, I had to chuckle when she began speaking about indoctrination of children being a bad thing. Replace the word "homosexuality" with "Christianity" and I couldn't agree with her more.

38. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #140136 by bamboospitfire on March 7, 2008 at 2:00 am

What a great victory for democracy and human rights. I shall have to read the debate in full, although I am surprised at the comments of those Lords who didn't seem to understand that the main reason blasphemy has to be decriminalised is that it is an affront to the concept of free speech. Anyone, no matter what their religious view, should be able to see that and agree with it. It seems that when it comes to matters of religion, even the minds of the Lords can become clouded.

As some have already said, now for the removal of the Bishops and the disestablishment of the Church of England. That institution and its officers have no place meddling in matters of state or being recognised as part of our government.

For those who believe that the UK is anachronistic, our systems may occasionally appear dated because we have history going back more than 300 years. If blasphemy had become a recognised crime in the UK in 1787 rather than back in the 16th century, you may have had a point.

39. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127414 by bamboospitfire on February 15, 2008 at 8:52 am

All the best to Hall and Weinstein in their efforts.

It always makes me laugh when fundies in the US assert that Catholics are not Christians. It just goes to show how spectacularly stupid these people are.

One could understand if it was "us" (Christians) against "them" (Muslims), but these people seem determined to cause divisions within their own ranks. Extraordinary.

And Bruce Fister?! You couldn't make it up!

40. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125294 by bamboospitfire on February 11, 2008 at 7:51 am

annabanana wrote:

I wish that E.O. Wilson weren't too old for the post or I'd nominate him.

Really? He would be one of the last people I'd suggest, for reasons set out on the page at this link:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2121,The-Group-Delusion,Richard-Dawkins

41. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125170 by bamboospitfire on February 11, 2008 at 3:25 am

What shoes to fill; what an act to follow. I shall look forward to confirmation of the new appointment with interest. Professor Dawkins's successor has his/her work cut out!

42. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #123382 by bamboospitfire on February 7, 2008 at 4:22 am

RD said:

"The God Delusion is an advocacy of the belief that there is no god..."

I thought it was an advocacy of the view that belief in gods is irrational. Admittedly it's been a while since I read it. Does TGD actually contain any positive statement that there is no god? The opening line of the video seems very odd to me.

43. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #118855 by bamboospitfire on January 31, 2008 at 4:44 am

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the correct approach to this situation is to let the boy decide for himself when he reaches the age of 18, which is exactly as it should be for all boys, no matter what their parents think. The problem for the Jews in this case is that it is inconceivable that a 12 year old boy should be held down against his will whilst a priest (or anyone else) mutilates his penis. A moment's reflection reveals that the same logic must apply to babies.

The wishes of a 12 year old boy are indeed irrelevant in this context. He should be left until he is older before he makes this choice, but it is a choice for him and him alone. I understand that in the UK you have to be 16 before you can legally have a tattoo (at least without parental consent). I doubt it is legal to forcibly tattoo babies or anyone for that matter without consent.

For those of you interested in the origin of this vile practice, you will be unsurprised to learn that you need look no further than the book of Genesis. I have copied in the relevant verses below. It is noteworthy that Abraham was 99 years old when he was circumcised. If it mattered that one must be circumcised at 8 days old, no-one would be able to convert in later life.


17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

44. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #118799 by bamboospitfire on January 31, 2008 at 2:06 am

The Greek democracy was not first because it was not a democracy. It was a strict class state where slaves and women barely had human status.

Communist - there is a difference between democracy (which is what notsobad is focussing on) and universal suffrage (which is what you are focussing on). Just because some demographics were not enfranchised under the original Greek system doesn't stop it being a democracy.

45. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #118075 by bamboospitfire on January 30, 2008 at 9:44 am

I have now managed to watch all of the clips. I can recommend the fifth segment, in which RD manages to put his point across with some force that labelling children is in fact child abuse. There is apparent support from the audience, and (moving into the sixth segment) several audience members make valid points about the inability of young children to understand the issues involved and the fact that operations such as Jesus Camp are certainly examples of abuse of young minds, which are all to susceptible to misdirection in a supernatural context.

I found some of segment six rather disturbing, not least thanks to the condescension of Widdecombe, who believes that religion should not be the reserve of adults since it would effectively segregate children within their own families. Nonesense. It is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that their children are included in family life whilst allowing them the freedom to consider their own potential religiosity when they are ready to do so. Does Widdecombe seriously think that anyone would recommend chidren being shooed from the dinner table whilst the adults say grace? What has the woman been smoking? Furthermore, Jesus Camp and other such schemes are quite obviously nothing to do with family life. They are mendacious vehicles of mass indoctrination far outside any normal family context.

By the end of the debate I thought the chap from Ekklesia had acquitted himself well. Whether his children grow up to be Christians or not, I very much doubt they will be nasty, intolerant, condescending, fundamentalist bigots of any stripe.

Carey is way off the mark when he says there is a form of secular indoctrination going on. He is also wrong to argue that faith should be valued. Respect for faith is the one thing that needs to be eradicated.

Finally, Nicky Clarke is an appallingly rude man, having interrupted almost everyone he spoke to.

46. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117958 by bamboospitfire on January 30, 2008 at 4:24 am

Darwin's shitsu - that's what I thought as well.

47. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117957 by bamboospitfire on January 30, 2008 at 4:23 am

Very interesting to note that all of the people who called or emailed the show in relation to blasphemy as quoted in the second segment said that criminal blasphemy was an affront to demoncracy, civilised society, freedom of speech and good sense. Good on them. Perhaps that could be said to be more representative of the general population? Did the show get any calls from viewers with the opposite opinion?!

48. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117931 by bamboospitfire on January 30, 2008 at 2:33 am

I'm not sure if I can be bothered to watch all of this because the first section plumbs new depths of inanity. However, with regard to that section, here are my comments.

God is not the lawgiver for our nation. That is Parliament, on the authority of the people. The Christian woman displays her ignorance proudly from the get-go.

The problem with blasphemy as a crime is that whilst it may be possible to prove mens rea, it is not possible to prove the actus reus quite simply because it is not possible to prove (certainly not beyond reasonable doubt!) that a God exists to blaspheme. In other words, blasphemy cannot be a crime. More fundamentally, it cannot even be an action!

King Alfred reigned from 871 to 899. How is that man's theological interpretation of our legal framework relevant in 2007? In any event, if it is relevant, it appears that King Alfred, not God, is the lawgiver for our nation, according to that woman.

What if she had not been from Wantage? Another accident of birth issue, perchance?

The representative of Ekklesia immediately begins referring to "my God" as if it makes a difference what one believes. This just underlines how inane the whole debate is. Even the Christians can't agree on whether there should be a blasphemy law, so why should one be imposed on everyone else?

As for blasphemy "striking at the core of society" - hardly. God is not Britain. How dare that woman conflate the two. Fairness stems from a rejection of hypocrisy - the principle that no-one should deny anyone such rights as he would claim for himself. Nothing to do with God. Was Calvary fair? The woman is a screaming banshee of hypocrisy.

The fact that the Queen is Head of State as well as Head of the Church of England is a constitutional abomination, not a cause for maintaining the blasphemy law.

So, we have to base out society on something? Absolutely. America and France have managed it without God, to name only two. Let's try Liberty, Equality and Humanity for starters. Fuck your God.

I see Widdecombe decided to turn up wearing a crucifix and a fish. Obviously one or the other is insufficient to convey her zeal for the Lord. Her blathering was, regrettably, entirely vacuous.

Our man with the homosexual website is a politically correct coward who throws in an unwarranted barb against "militant atheism" to appear balanced. A good way to lose any respect I might have had for him.

Good on RD for sketching a faint outline of the allegation of hypocrisy that should be levelled at all defenders of this awful law.

Muslim talking about atheistic arrogance... Hmmm...

49. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #117594 by bamboospitfire on January 29, 2008 at 7:48 am

Matter doesn't follow the expansion of space. It is held together by the nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity. The expansion of space acts like a very, very weak force tending to push things apart, and is insignificant even on the scale of clusters of galaxies.

Sorry, Steve - I've been ambiguous. I saw that you already commented on the other forces causing matter to retain its form in opposition to the expansion of space. My only point was that even if we expanded along with space (even at a slower rate), assuming that the expansion was uniform, it wouldn't affect our perception of scale or time. Having said that, it might affect the way matter behaved. Hmmm. I think you should ignore this particular ramble! ;-)

Basically, yes.

Thanks. This concept seems relatively easy to handle.

yes.

Haha! Brilliant. This just blows my mind. Thanks for yor time, Steve.

50. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #117049 by bamboospitfire on January 28, 2008 at 6:48 am

Steve said:

The reason why everything on Earth isn't expanding is interesting... matter isn't "glued" to space. Space can expand without dragging matter along with it. Matter can, and does, resist this drag with all kinds of forces, including gravity. But, the expansion of space does have an effect... you are just a fraction taller because the expansion of space is "pulling" your head and feet apart.


I was wondering what effect the expansion of space might have on matter. It occurred to me that even if we were expanding with space we might not notice it since everything on Earth would remain the same relative size if the expansion was uniform, and redshifting of light would mean that our perception of time wouldn't change either.

As for the LHC, I think that when they turn it on it will be the most exciting event since the launch of Hubble.

One other point on the expansion of space, hopefully without meandering too far off topic. The galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field appear quite tightly packed together, I assume because we are seeing them up to around 13 billion years ago when the universe was young and space had not expanded so much. Is it true to say that one would see uniformly increasing density of galaxies in every direction?

P.S. How excited is Dr Cox?!

More Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Next