1. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239099 by Ichneumonid on August 29, 2008 at 3:51 am

mmuray

Can't find it in Hansard, but I do remember that one of Hawke's greatest moments as PM was when a (white, WASP) Opposition member in Parliament ridiculed Aboriginal religious beliefs, he replied along the lines of ... and you honestly think that Christianity is any more reasonable a proposition...

2. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234904 by Ichneumonid on August 22, 2008 at 7:05 am

#194 Steve

I got that impression too! Jonathan, in his charmingly inoffensive way, probably brought out the vacuum at the core of Turner's theology better than a more aggressive interviewer might have done.

3. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234901 by Ichneumonid on August 22, 2008 at 7:00 am

#193 Steve

I guess its the old good cop/bad cop thing.

Bad cops: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens

Good cops: Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett.

Please add to as you see fit...

4. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234898 by Ichneumonid on August 22, 2008 at 6:56 am

Thanks Steve!

Age and alcohol prevented me remembering the link!

5. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234894 by Ichneumonid on August 22, 2008 at 6:51 am

Thanks Tyler for the transcripts

Rowan williams:

"I think there are moments when there is an opening in the world, whereby the underlying divine action comes through in a fresh way."

"Take the birth of Jesus... something fresh happens, which is not a suspension of the laws of nature, but nature itself opening up to its own depths."

Really, if either of my teenagers were to utter such drivel as part of an English essay, I'd be appalled. Please, Rowan, define 'fresh' "nature opening up' and 'its own depths'.

But Rowan Williams is an intellectual giant (as is Ratzinger) so we should RESPECT that.

Poppycock!

6. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234880 by Ichneumonid on August 22, 2008 at 6:25 am

Paula,

Steve Zara in another thread (HELP Steve!) linked recently to a discussion between Jonathon Miller and the (eminent?) theologian Denys Turner (part of the expanded "atheist tapes" series) where Turner was equally unimpressive as Rowan William. One wonders what these people actually do believe, and why you would waste your time doing it!

7. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234865 by Ichneumonid on August 22, 2008 at 5:56 am

Sargeist,

Agreed. Perhaps RD has already done that, as that interview in the third episode of the "Genius of Darwin" really did show the incredible vacuosness of Rowan Williams beliefs (if you could call them that).

8. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234858 by Ichneumonid on August 22, 2008 at 5:48 am

Brian,

At least that jumper wasn't of the vertical black and white striped variety. That would really have marked you as a hopeless, deluded believer!

Carn the Lions tomorrow night..

9. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234852 by Ichneumonid on August 22, 2008 at 5:39 am

Brian,

Actually, the only indecent thing I can see about you is that ridiculous avatar which marks you as an Essendon supporter. Enough said...

10. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234832 by Ichneumonid on August 22, 2008 at 5:05 am

Great stuff Sargeist and Steve - What a bunch of cynical bastards we are!

11. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234827 by Ichneumonid on August 22, 2008 at 4:54 am

Or try:

atheist...atrocities...God's will

Oh, hang on that would mean ... an own goal!

12. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234815 by Ichneumonid on August 22, 2008 at 4:28 am

Next bit of quote mining from Paula to appear on DR's publishers website:

...his book...I...really...believe.

13. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234807 by Ichneumonid on August 22, 2008 at 4:11 am

# 116 Philip

No worries.

I well realise that there were other issues at stake, but just couldn't let that DR comment about the Pope's (and his predecessor(s)) non-culpability for so much needless death and suffering in this world let slide.

I've seen something of the endless funerals that are happening in places like South Africa and that destroy so many lives needlessly not to care. And yet Western, first world leaders continue to kowtow to him as a 'man of peace' - what utter cowardice and bullshit! A few simple words from him could end so much of this...

14. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234752 by Ichneumonid on August 22, 2008 at 1:29 am

#68 David Robertson : Could you let us know the last person/persons that the Pope killed? I am sure the media would be interested (and Billy) - we could do him for murder...

David, you must be willfully ignorant not to get the point here.

How about the countless millions of nameless people in the third world (Africa in particular) indirectly killed by the position of the Catholic church on condom use as an AIDS prevention method, not to mention the millions of kids dying of starvation (or simply condemned to a lifetime of poverty) due to the Catholic church's teachings more generally on contraception. The Pope is the head of that organisation and so ultimately IS responsible for their deaths.

It made me sick to the guts to hear our PM, Kevin Rudd (an admitted godbotherer, but otherwise seemingly intelligent bloke) welcome the Pope to Australia as a "man of peace".

Pigs arse!

15. Richard Dawkins interviewed about 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #226955 by Ichneumonid on August 9, 2008 at 1:42 am

Excellent point RainDear!

I, too, prior to reading TGD would have said that (technically) I was agnostic, but reading that section tipped my hand. The term 'agnostic' actually becomes totally meaningless the more you think about it, since none of us can be 100% sure that there is or isn't a god(s). Being a (biological) scientist means that I deal with uncertainty all the time, so it didn't take much to tip me into a point where I was happy to say that god(s) nonexistence was well within my 95% confidence interval!

16. Father, son and holy toast

Comment #226947 by Ichneumonid on August 9, 2008 at 1:26 am

This kind of thing happens (or not) as well:

http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/38725/lifestyle/house-miracles

But just as a reminder, so does this:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/29/1091080366746.html?from=storylhs

Key quote "We still believe - the rest doesn't matter,"

17. Father, son and holy toast

Comment #226944 by Ichneumonid on August 9, 2008 at 1:15 am

Sorry to disrupt the off-thread nature of this thread, but we in Australia prefer to see our images of JC (or William Shakespeare, as the case may be) on railway station platforms and not eat them on toast.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21023886-5001021,00.html

18. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224559 by Ichneumonid on August 5, 2008 at 5:41 am

#120 Richard,

Not only is the catchup at Channel 4 limited to IE and Windoze, it is also restricted to residents of the UK and Ireland, so those of us downunder and in other places around the planet will just have to wait until Josh posts the Quicktime version here tomorrow. Sigh...

19. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222997 by Ichneumonid on August 1, 2008 at 8:03 am

128 Steve: Buddhism requires no God or Gods. But it is still a religion in almost all forms because it requires a believe in the supernatural.

The key word being 'almost', Steve. If you examine the very basics of Buddhism there is in fact no requirement for a belief in the supernatural. In its real and initial essence, Buddhism is a theory of the mind, the metaphysical stuff leaks into it from the religous cultures of the regions in which it became popular.

At the very least, it assumes no initial cause for the universe, unlike the Ahbrahamic faiths

20. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178234 by Ichneumonid on May 11, 2008 at 1:29 am

The penny drops...no wonder David Robertson has been so keen to portray himself as the fearless slayer of atheists on this site and elsewhere - his own constituency seems to be deserting him!

21. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173623 by Ichneumonid on May 1, 2008 at 1:23 am

MitchellGilks

I always find it funny that they refer to the christian god as "Kami-sama". I would think that god being omniscent and the creator of the universe would qualify as sensei, but I guess not.

Actually sama, is pretty much the standard honorific/respectful way of addressing somebody you don't know well or who is your superior - there's that hierarchy again! E.g. you'll have -sama attached to your name, say, if your name is called out in a medical clinic waiting queue in Japan. Sensei is much more specific - more usually used as 'teacher', or at least to refer to someone who has a similar realtionship to a teacher (admittedly the role of sensei in Japan is actually very god-like, such is the respect for the position!). From my experience, when Japanese refer to a specific god (as to a person) they attach -sama as an honorific, otherwise they are simply 'kami'. From memory, I think Jesus is specifically referred to as Iesu-sama.

Certainly the split between the natural and the supernatural is much fuzzier in Japan than in the West, and 'religion' has much more a cultural role - Budhism handles death, Shinto birth, marriage and procreation. Many Japanese, including a lot of scientists, accept these cultural roles without having any belief in the metaphysics.

22. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163308 by Ichneumonid on April 18, 2008 at 7:13 am

Clearmind

To understand something in English requires to study on Literature and semantics. You can understand my comments by reading Garfield. It is okay to use slandering and twisting; they are another sign of denial or trying to save evolution. You can just join dawkins. Now he is a politican; maybe he can run presidency for the states?

To understand something in English requires that something be written clearly so that it can be understood. I'm afraid if you wish to write in the postmodern style this is not the site for you. BTW I have no trouble understanding Garfield - what's your point?

Evolution doesn't need to be 'saved', facts seldom do. When you actually, really UNDERSTAND the concept (its really quite simple) please come back and tell us. I'd suggest that you read Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" if you need to come at it from a religious perspective - the first several chapters debunking creationism/ID are superb.

I'm afraid that Richard Dawkins is excluded from running for President for the same reason that Arnie is. Still, he's head and shoulders above the mob that actually are running for that office..

23. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163196 by Ichneumonid on April 18, 2008 at 4:09 am

I just ran the first paragraph of clearmind's comment #163137 through the babelfish translator English->Japanese->French->Dutch->Spanish->Italian->English

The very noticeable discussion type that gets more and more participants and more popular is criticizing that is based on proud or 'my pride hurts' screaming. Indeed criticizing that means to find out the good and bad sides, compare the one that is supposed to be and the existing one is to lead ourselves to the ideal. Criticizing positively and be open to criticizing is a scientific way, but this calls for a very mild and appropriate way to make it happen. First of all the one who criticize must be fair and sane and his critique should be based on finding out the truth and proving it rather than trying to save his PRIDE.

with the result

The type much sensitive one of the argument that obtains more and more that it participates and more popular critic who is based to trust itself or ' my pride has hurt the griterío.' Of fact the critic that one the means in order to discover to the bonds and bad you sides, compares what she is supposed for being and to exist must be municipal to the ideal. The critic positively and that is opened the critic is a scientific way, but this calls because a way much smooth one and adapted face that arrives. Initially all that criticizes they must be right and healthy and of its critic it must be based to discover the truth and to try it rather than to try to save its PRIDE.

I don't know about you, but the latter version seems to make as much sense as the original.

Forgive me - I've had one of those Friday's...

24. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155081 by Ichneumonid on April 4, 2008 at 6:30 am

Congratulations Paula! - glad to hear that it all seemed to go so well.

I presume that 'clearthinker' didn't actually show up at the event, although he certainly seemed to be briefing as many media outlets as possible (see posts above), and his minions were obviously active outside with their placards and handouts!

see: http://www.christianstogether.net/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=110603

25. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155004 by Ichneumonid on April 4, 2008 at 4:15 am

Another review from Inverness here:

http://theviewfromthepond.blogspot.com/2008/04/dawkins-in-inverness.html

26. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #154995 by Ichneumonid on April 4, 2008 at 3:48 am

Oh, and why do there never seem to be 'outspoken Christianists' giving lectures? There do seem to be quite a few of them about the place you know!

27. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #154990 by Ichneumonid on April 4, 2008 at 3:43 am

Derick Gillies, of the Free Church of Scotland, said there was an unbalanced debate between those believing in creationism and those believing in evolution.

This would have to be the funniest quote I've seen for quite a while! Atheists publish a handful of well-selling (I'm not even going to say 'best selling' - Rick Warren's christian apologist book "The purpose driven life" alone has outsold TGD by about 20-fold) books over a span of 3 or 4 years and suddenly the 'debate' becomes unbalanced? Haven't we just endured 2,000 years of a virtual monopoly by the Christian Churches in the West over people's thoughts, behaviours, and moral and ethical standards and they have the gall to say now that they're not getting a fair go!? You must be effing joking!! Unhinged would be a better description of Derick's statement, I would have thought...

28. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101773 by Ichneumonid on December 21, 2007 at 12:46 am

What has amazed me more than the Archbishop's comments is the reaction to them by other church figures (Catholic and Anglican). ABC radio here in Australia has given this story quite a run today on its current affairs shows. Its as if none of these people (the clergy and the reporters, both) has ever actually read the bible or any critical commentary on it! The following is an excerpt of this rot...

GEORGE PELL (Catholic Cardinal of Sydney): It's absolutely central to Christian belief that Christ is the son of God, not just another prophet or teacher, so I think that to the extent that he's, he has questioned the Virgin, well, I think it's unfortunate.

SIMON LAUDER (reporter): Some of the strongest criticism of Dr Williams' comments comes from within his own Church. For Anglican Archdeacon Terry Dein, the comments come at a bad time.

TERRY DEIN: One could say what better timing in the sense it's when everybody's talking about Christmas the events surrounding Christmas. In another sense, it's a pity it arises at that time because it places a bit of a shadow over the celebrations and raises questions at a time when perhaps it would be better if it was discussed academically in another environment.

SIMON LAUDER: Do you think it's confusing for Church goers?

TERRY DEIN: Oh, yes, I think it is confusing. I agree.

SIMON LAUDER: He says a belief in the miraculous conception of Jesus is inherent to the meaning of Christ and all that Christianity represents.

TERRY DEIN: Well, I think that to strike of the deity of the birth of Jesus is to strike at his very nature and strikes at the heart of the Christian faith.

If you want a laugh, the full transcript is at:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s2125304.htm

Don't you just love the tones of condescension in the "it could be confusing for churchgoers comment"?

And here we are living in the 21st century...

29. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #63420 by Ichneumonid on August 14, 2007 at 5:28 am

When stuck in a motel room without my own reading material I often turn to the kindly supplied Gideon's bible - as a soporific!

30. Kennedy lectures on challenges facing K-12 science education

Comment #35388 by Ichneumonid on April 27, 2007 at 3:43 am

Veronique

Brilliant! I do disagree slightly though. We have plenty enough economists, just not enough informed economists that see the world the way that you and I do (i.e. as it really is as opposed to how their textbooks say it is!).

As a scientist I can say we still desperately need more scientists and a more scientifically literate public (and that especially includes politicians and economists) - a better education system where science is compulsory throughout would help.

Hear, hear to the demise of Howard, Abbott and Costello (those two just have to go together!) and Turnbull!

31. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34756 by Ichneumonid on April 25, 2007 at 5:47 am

Ben Hope said

In a recent documentary on UK TV, Winston confused being uncertain about something with the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics

Yes, this series just ran on ABC here in Australia and I thought that up until that point (and a preceding interview with Dawkins)that it had been a fairly balance view on the challenge of science to religious beliefs. As I recall, the conclusion was something like 'there is something fundamentally weird at the heart of the universe and science and religion are tow ways of approaching that mystery'. In other words, Winston is a NOMA supporter. Interestingly, in the TGD, Dawkins suggests that Winston is Jewish for the culture, not as a believer in the Jewish God, something that came across reasonably clearly in this series.

The three part TV series is called "The story of God". Bits of it may be on YouTube if you search.

32. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34008 by Ichneumonid on April 23, 2007 at 3:08 am

Just can't wait to hear what the ruling from the church is now as to what happens to all those millions of babies that HAVE been unhappily consigned to limbo for the last several centuries! As the new ruling is not yet 'dogma', perhaps they will have to wait until heaven can get some more infrastucture built that is capable of housing them all. Sounds as logical as the deliberations of the theological commission must have been!

What a load of old cobblers!

33. In the beginning

Comment #33968 by Ichneumonid on April 22, 2007 at 11:21 pm

Rtambree

Chin up. At least Copernicus & Galileo aren't being challenged yet.

Unfortunately not - for a laugh go to:

http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html

34. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #18348 by Ichneumonid on January 20, 2007 at 12:37 am

Ditto OZE2. I don't think I have ever been so embarrassed to be an Australian!

Feuerbach (Comment #18258) there is a discussion thread about the show here:

http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Board.aspx?b=51

To date, most comment has been similar to that expressed in this discussion thread.

It is plainly apparent that none of the panel had actually read the book and the ABC should have known better than to have Germaine Greer on the panel. Shrill indeed, and worse still irrelevantly shrill! Interesting towrd the end that, though still professing to be an atheist, she kept on saying 'they' have to come up with something to replace religion. Most disappointing was Jennifer Byrne's antagonistic attitude as host - I thought she was better than that.

Still, the book continues at No. 2 in the bestseller list and is devlishly difficult to get a hold of a copy (no pun intended!)

35. Radical cleric sparks fury in Australia

Comment #18198 by Ichneumonid on January 19, 2007 at 1:09 am

See today's "The Australian" newspaper for more comment.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21082716-2702,00.html

The sheikh, as seems to be usual in these cases claims that he is misquoted.

Having just watched the video of what he actually said, and the manner in which he said it (in plain Australian English) as referred to by pholt it is hard to believe he meant anything other than what he said.

Instructive that he seems quite keen to sacrifice the young and innocent while retaining his own exalted position. Just like leaders anywhere in times of conflict...cannon fodder is inexpensive when it is other lives at risk.