51. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #84310 by Stuart Paul Wood on November 1, 2007 at 5:42 pm

I've just added my name to the petition, good luck Richard!

I always shoot a cursory glance over the other names on the list and was amazed to see the name of one of my favourite DJ's - the celebrated and well respected young house/breakbeat DJ/producer James Zabiela!!

Fair play to ya James!

52. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80297 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 21, 2007 at 7:39 am

Comment 306

Keith has just answered that proposition.

53. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80296 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 21, 2007 at 7:29 am

Riley,

hasn't Hitchens made his infamous challenge at every single debate that he has had for probably the last six months?

Doesn't this inform his position that he hasn't received a reply? I've watched a lot of his debates I cannot remember a reply from any theist either!

54. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79732 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 18, 2007 at 11:04 am

I'm a bit late but congratulations, Professor Dawkins, well deserved.

55. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #77082 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 8, 2007 at 11:56 am

Acleron,

The quote of me you used was actually me quoting blackhaw.

I would never say such a thing!

56. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76616 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 6, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Even a video tape can be misleading. The camera man dictates to us what we will watch and how it is presented to us is much like how a written record can display the motivation of the author. But movies/ video tapes are such a new invention that even if what you said was true it would not make a difference for most of history.

The modernity of video is not the point, the point is that video can count as evidence and such instances as September 11th where there were lots of independant recordings - very reliable evidence.

Your original point was -

(science) is not good for obtaining information on events that one cannot repeat or observe. For instance history.......

Now, I have demonstrated that history is both observed and can be "repeated" or re-obsevered and in this regard is on par with science in the field of human advancement. It is hardly dissimilar to science as both are based on observation and the quality and quantity of observation adds weight to both. In fact the more reliable the history the closer it is to science.

Like neither really answers the question about the existence of God. Man needs another method of gaining information for that type of question.

In other words because neither science or history has provided any evidence for God you refuse to be satisfied and insult both domains of learning by stating that they are effectively not good enough!

Come on blackhaw, you probably have a decent level of intellect. Do you honestly think science and history so usless on the god question?

57. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76610 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 6, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Blackhaw,

I tend to define those who tether themselves to an unalterable set of beliefs as fundamentalists, particularly when there is no evidence for those beliefs. The more closely you follow the instruction of the bible, the more of a fundamentalist you are. There is not, however, a christian monopoly in this regard as you know.

Blackhaw - which biblical instruction do you adhere to - the one regarding stoning those who work on the sabbath or "thou shalt not kill"?

Since the bible is the word of God and you cannot logically agree with both instructions how can you or (anybody else) be a true christian?

58. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76601 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 6, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Blackhaw,

Given your statement that historical events are tenuous due to the personal perceptions of those involved - do you find the gospels more or less reliable when you consider that they were not written by anybody involved in those events?

59. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76593 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 6, 2007 at 11:48 am

Blackhaw:

No. A record of an event is not the event itself. A historical document does not reproduce an event. It is gives us how someone pereived an event. For instance the gospels give a history of Jesus Christ as he is explained by some of his disciples. They do not bring back the event itself just by giving us the history of the event. (if the gospels are even trying to give us a history in the modern sense) History is History. It is not science.

But you said that you cannot observe history - which is obviously a false thing for you to say. History is constituted entirely of observations. Obviously you cannot watch the battle of hastings again but you can watch the events of September 11th 2001 or the assasination of JFK. Footage of these events prove that they did in fact happen.

The point is that History has a value because it contains information that was observed, as does science. You seem to suggest that there are better sources of reliable information that do not come from mere observation (such as theology) which is absurd.

60. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76590 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 6, 2007 at 11:38 am

Blackhaw:

This is interestign since many Christians have believed in the Bible for over a millenium before there were any fundamentalists

How can you say that they were not fundamentalists? If those people took the word of bible to their hearts for so long in spite of the lack of any evidence how could they be anything but fundamentalists? A quick browse through religious history will show you that the further you go back the more fundamental the actions of its adherents. This has waned over time due to the fact that large parts of the bible have become unacceptable to the religious in our collective modern society.

61. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76581 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 6, 2007 at 11:11 am

Blackhaw on the scientific method:

"It is not good for obtaining information on events that one cannot repeat or observe. For instance history is not a science"

Surely you can observe History? One can repeat the observation if the event was recorded. Can you suggest another method of gaining knowledge from the many that you apparently know of that is on-par with science?

62. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #74526 by Stuart Paul Wood on September 29, 2007 at 10:19 am

Stuart,

There seems to be an echo in here, it sounds like you didn't read my comment #22 because you're saying vitually the same stuff. Not to mention the comprehensive list by Veronique.

I didn't read all the comments. Shoot me.

63. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73534 by Stuart Paul Wood on September 25, 2007 at 7:55 am

"Now, This is Reality!" sounds fantastic to me.

For guests you could have figures from world of science, writers and intellectuals. How they came not to believe. Those who have suffered under religious persecution could do testimonials e.g. arranged marriages et al with the relevant helpline number at the end (good for the community, spark debate etc) - sorry - lapsing into an Alan Partridge moment. Features on the humanist movement - to show that atheism can have purposeful ethical motives, rather than simply being seen as antithetical to morality as the religious contend. That's the kind of thing that would win people over, the destruction of the idea that atheism has no moral identity - by demonstration of the intertwining of atheism and humanism.

It could be interesting or it could be a bag of shit. I'd watch it whichever it was. And moreover the other side would have to put up with it, as I do now.

64. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73518 by Stuart Paul Wood on September 25, 2007 at 7:16 am

Because atheism is a lack of belief, not a positive belief in anything

Thanks for the clarification mantaray, sort of. Wouldn't atheism not be a positive belief in the non-existence of God? Sounds positive to me! Anyway, I prefer to think of atheism as how a person thinks rather than one who merely exhibits a lack of belief, belief being overrated an all that....

I'm not surprised at some of the cynicism for a TV show for atheists, even from atheists. It reminds me of the sneer I sometimes get when I tell somebody that I'm an atheist - "Oh, so you believe in nothing". I'm not saying I have any ideas for such a show, I just like the idea in principle. I don't see the point in surrendering to a lack of imagination. Other people have made interesting suggestions. As we (us Brits) already have two shows on publically funded television for the religious, which I obviously pay for, I don't see why my opinions on such matters should not be equally represented.

65. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #72996 by Stuart Paul Wood on September 23, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Heaven and Earth has thankfully been cancelled

Yes I heard but I also heard that there is going to be something else on (religion) to replace it, again on sundays.

How annoying - there must be enough of us atheists to make it worthwhile to produce something for us. Having said that I haven't seen any programmes for gay people on the beeb either. I'd love to know how the BBC decide who gets what and why.

66. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #72986 by Stuart Paul Wood on September 23, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Superb as always. I'm becoming annoyed that there isn't a regular show for atheists on the BBC. There needs to be more RD on the TV.

The theists have "songs of praise" and "heaven and earth" so why can't we have our own programme? Anything to do with atheism is normally on BBC4 at hideous o'clock.

67. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65763 by Stuart Paul Wood on August 26, 2007 at 11:19 am

I implore everybody on here to go and checkout the Expelled website. I thought it rather funny and - best of all - there's loads of atheists already there making mincemeat of the film on Ben Stein's blog page.

Looks like these guys shot themselves in the foot by allowing people to post their own comments on there! - brilliant.

68. An Atheist Responds

Comment #57221 by Stuart Paul Wood on July 18, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Hitchens has his own literary style just as any decent author will.

Dawkin's approach is one of scientific efficiency and absolute clarity coupled with admonishing rhetoric and humour. Hitchen's is not too different but he is more playful linguistically he and will frame his sentences differently for effect. Dawkin's rhythm of language is easier to pick up but if you read enough of Hitchens you develop a better feel for what he's about to say which adds to the enjoyment of his work. Its good to have high standards and variety of language for the argument's sake, essential too, probably, when both of them get onto the same subject.

69. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55975 by Stuart Paul Wood on July 13, 2007 at 4:42 am

Hello people,

I must admit it is still pretty stunning to think that 28 pages of comments have been collected for one single thread, most of it taken up by Dianelos Georgoudis and those who refuted him.

I'm honestly mystified why anyone even bothered to grant him any particularly considered responses. It seems to have invited a quite spectacularly convolouted and cumbrous dialogue. You guys must be exhausted!

I'm not saying be rude to the guy but he asserted not just that God existed, indeed, he didn't have to make that point because he was already explaining the nature of God's character!! Quite frankly that is the moment intelligent discussion goes out of the window! It begs for a dose of humour.

It is an established theist's tactic to draw atheists into overlong and tautologous discussion with meaningless waffle masquerading as intelligent discussion. It cannot and will never bring anything of interest to light.

70. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55879 by Stuart Paul Wood on July 12, 2007 at 6:17 pm

In fact Dianelos Georgoudis, since I know that you have absolutely no idea whether there is a God, let alone whether it is good or not - I put it to you that if there is a God then it is more probable that it has the Earth set up as some kind of interstellar soap opera or "big brother", if you will, whereby it can watch us live, suffer and die for its own amusement.

This seems far more probable than your contention that God is good. If I were a good God I wouldn't make human beings and put them on some distant planet - I'd create other God entities for my Godly self to associate with. Or is God just anti-social? If so why create humans in such a way as to form social societies? Is God a masochist, toturing itself watching humans enjoy each others company? Maybe it gets its kicks watching these human bonds broken by death?

Its not hard to see how absurd a discussion one can make this as soon as somebody supposes the he knows that character of God. Lets establish that there is one first, eh?

71. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55873 by Stuart Paul Wood on July 12, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Oh my word!

That is a lot of comments for for one thread! Fair play to Richard as he absolutely destroys McGrath.

Dianelos Georgoudis:

What I said was: "God is what's good, we are made in the image of God, and therefore we have the capacity to decide what's good".

Why is God good? How are we made in the image of God? Have you seen God? If no then how do you know what he looks like? What evidence do you have that God even exists?

In other words - what are you talking about?

72. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #55871 by Stuart Paul Wood on July 12, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Thinking Christians would no more take every word of either Testament literally than they would offer up burnt offerings or take their moral teaching from Deuteronomy and stone adulterers to death.

Well then why bother? if it is so obviously nonsense that you can no longer read it in the way that it was intended why bother at all? If you know in you're own head not to make human sacrifice then what benefit can be had from repeatedly reading from the book that encourages you to do that very thing and other such madness?

Even the religious have outgrown religion save for the admission. Because their holy books are indefensibly vile, all they're left with are the rather bizarre and dubious emotive notions that exist solely in their own heads, which seems to me to be utterly dishonest and pointless!

73. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49953 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 14, 2007 at 8:33 am

I wish I could praise Hitchens without typing a disclaimer for the Iraq question but anyone who has read chapter three of Hitchens' "Letters to a Young Contrarian" knows that they should not let this tendency bother them in the slightest.

74. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #49504 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 12, 2007 at 7:33 am

Xenocratic

I'm happy to back you up where I can. The instances where our opinions differ is, I suspect, simply down to the fact that I am definately not as informed as you are on the subject. I'm wary not to commit myself beyond what I actually know to be fact. It is pleasing to find an ally on this issue at last.

As for Keith, I'm used to knee-jerk reactions. I find it absurd when people come across others discussing an unfamilliar issue only to immediately regard the conversation and statements therein with a crippling suspicion and ignorance. Its as if they feel cheated that they don't know the subject, and rather than acting on their ignorance to find out for themselves they decide to wade in anyway, disregarding the need for a tenable argument. I can't stand this attitude simply because its a trait that I've tried mercilessly to exorcise from myself in order that I don't bullshit others or waste my own time.

75. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #49140 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 10, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Keith, you say

And this is my gripe: there is no recognition of the fact that there is never a perfect solution to a situation and thus to dwell at too much length on the negative side while never mentioning the positive, is, quite frankly, unbalanced

And then...

As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, sometimes one side is totally right and the other side totally wrong.

Dawkins does tend to focus on the negative side of religion but by the reasoning of the first statement you would describe his opinion as unbalanced. The fact that Dawkin's view is "unbalanced" is irrelevant because his argument is a factual one.

Judging from your reply to Xenocratic you seem anxious to know more about the middle-east. Go ahead! This is the attitude we all need in general. Once you get into the subject you'll discover just the sort of absurdities you are used to observing with religion.

76. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #49129 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 10, 2007 at 1:22 pm

3legcat

"decide what is illegal and what is not those terms should be applied as neccessary with no exceptions"

i believe in the rule of law as do you, i want all parties to agree to terms and live by them, however when it comes to international conflicts each individual entity claims the high authority, and then these claims become infinitely regressive and worse they do not lend themselves well to compromise. the "real" authority here is what will lead to the longest term of peace, liberty, prosperity and self determination for the maximum number of people. that is the only authority i care about (at least in this instance).

Yes, I know both sides make claims of higher authority, which is the whole point of law as a method independent arbitration, as I have said. Why is it regressive to persue the decisions made by the UN with regard to Israel? You've already said that Israel should leave the occupied (illegal) territories. If there was no UN to decide what is illegal then you wouldn't even be making the point that they should leave, because it wouldn't be an issue. However, we live in a world, thankfully, where the UN thinks it is wrong when other countries take land that doesn't belong to them. It really is that simple. A lot of Palestinians would be very happy if Israel gave this land back, not just because of the land itself, but also for the gesture of acknowledging that they shouldn't have taken it in the first place. We have already seen Israel do this on a small scale in 2005 (with much protest from Zionists), why would they bother unless they thought it was morally and legally incumbent upon them to do so?

"Israel as you probably know would prefer to call the occupied teritories "the disputed territories". This is a key and unforgivable difference."

can't say that i have heard that term very often, usually i hear the term "occupied territories", i try not to get bogged down by pre bargaining table posturing of negotiators. certainly you have heard arab heads of state argue that the entire jewish state is illegal. which does have its logic too.

The term "disputed territories" is used by Zionists in Israel. It is a distinction that has dirty conotations in that it strips "occupied territories" of its true meaning and turns it into an idea that there is some basis for an argument as to who owns the land, when there is not. It belongs to the Palestinians. For me terms like "occupied" and "illegal" are not bankrupt. They help to tell the story as it is. As far as international law is concerned the state of Israel is not illegal, which is good enough for me.

"strongly influenced by the powerful Jewish lobby in that country"

honestly i think this power is often over estimated, eisenhower, carter and clinton have asked for and received concessions and return of parts of those territories and would have gotten a lot more with oslo.

We can argue about the influence of the Jewish lobby the facts are that America has done a great deal to help Israel become the power that it is. In my opinion it is not co-incidence that Israel has gotten away with ignoring the UN resolutions passed against it.

"International law has spoken, a long, long time ago (when UN resolutions were still in three digits) on this very matter and has defined the occupied territories and the settlements built upon them as illegal."

what do you think is stopping Israel from returning the occupied territories?

Well, for one thing it has thousands of its own citizens living on them! Israel is a democracy. There is not enough people in Israel who disapprove of the occupied territories for the government to say "right! everybody out! tough shit if that is your house" without another government (with more hardline views) being elected next time round. What we need to remember is that that land used to have Palestinian houses with Palestinian people living in them because it is, by rights, according to the UN, Palestinian land. While I don't approve of the "death to Israel" brigade it doesn't take a genius to see where they're coming from.

"I have no problem with Israel being able to defend itself"

good, we agree on that. palestine and its neighbors also have that right as well.

In that case you could argue that the Palestinians have the right to get the Israelis off their land.

"However, there can be no excuse, no reason for them to continue to occupy the extra land they seized in that war."

does it hurt that argument when rockets are fired at israel from gaza?

if my neighbor said he was going to kill me, i would probably ask for a
restraining order with a buffer zone.

Why are they firing the rockets in the first place? A couple of years ago when Israel decided to give back some of their ill-gotten land there was a feeling among some Palestinians that all the rockets and suicide bombing had got them somewhere. Of course it makes sense to have a buffer zone, but that is only a short term solution. The main issue is that there are great chunks of land that the Israelis shouldn't be on in the first place. If you remove the reason for Palestinians to hate you who is to say the rockets won't stop all together?. We keep coming back to this point. For me its as absurd (not you the point in general) as a rapist asking the raped – "why do you hate me". Yes religion does corrupt people but the political conditions offer them to be corrupted and it is inaccurate and to akin to comfort thinking to put all the blame on the mad rantings of Mullahs.

"Northern Ireland. Let us use that example as a bastion of hope"

do you think 911 made terrorism too distasteful for the various irish factions and hastened improvement there?

I hope it did. Also there was a political solution on offer that was acceptable to those that mattered. The middle-east needs its own political solution and I see no reason why the judgements of international law under the UN cannot be invoked to produce such a result.

Hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend Mr. Cat

Stuart

77. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #49113 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 10, 2007 at 11:46 am

Keith,

I wouldn't be so stupid as to claim Hitchens as one of my heroes if I hadn't read or heard his work. Did you read my first post?

The exact point I made was that Hitchens does usually criticise Zionists but failed to in his discussion with Hedges. Why? This is the question. Hitchens is out for a confrontation and had decided to disagree with absolutely everything that Hedges said and in my opinion felt that mentioning his disapproval of Israeli Zionists when Hedges was expressing sympathy for the Palestinians would be to concede points to Hedges. It is not true that if you dislike Zionists you somehow approve of suicide bombers, or likewise, if you sympathise with the suffering of Palestinians. There's no need for Hitchens to be so paranoid that he doesn't repeat arguments he has previously made simply because his opponent has expressed sympathy for the Palestinians. He might think he's saving his own "face" but it isn't helping the general debate. That's all. I really thought that we here were above this kind of thing. And accusing me of not reading Hitchens!? try being a little less hypocritical and actually read my posts before criticising me.

As far as myself and Xenocratic being the same person I can only say that if that is your suspicion every time you happen across other people who hold similar opinions then you must find richarddawkins.net a truly mind-boggling experience!

I have made different points to Xenocratic, all of them perfectly reasonable, if you'd care to answer them rather than claim I'm not the person I say I am and label me an extremist you'd be doing us all a massive favour.

78. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48492 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 8, 2007 at 7:05 am

Xenocratic we share agreement on many a point here including our admiration of Pilger, however, I would hesitate to call myself a "radical" (although it sounds rather exiciting).

It would be slightly depressing for my views on this issue to be seen as radical as they merely infer that recourse to international law is a worthwhile principle. Support for this stance can be found throughout academia. One has to walk a very careful line of truth and while we may be indignant towards the aggressive behaviour of Israel over the past 40 years we must resist the language of hatred. As I have said there is evil on both sides.

In so far that I am eloquent I couldn't possibly comment!

79. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48430 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 7, 2007 at 11:39 pm

(Apologies to everyone else)

3legcat

this, i can agree with, though i would remove the legal/illegal language, i am much more interested in actual progress than assessing legality.

I'm afraid I disagree here 3legcat simply because the UN has defined the afore mentioned in such terms. If we are going to have rules and decide what is illegal and what is not those terms should be applied as neccessary with no exceptions. Israel as you probably know would prefer to call the occupied teritories "the disputed territories". This is a key and unforgivable difference. The "dispute" the Israeli's are refering to is that of the Jewish biblical (yes, biblical) claim to the land they occupy as being (part of) the so-called "promised land". It is another shameful example of the reliance on scripture as the only truth - "How do you know X to be true?" "Because it says so in this Holy book". Come on. Surely you don't accept that this vindicates any claim, whether about land or the existence of God. In actual fact, the full area the bible grants to the Jews, on God's say so, reaches far beyond the land they currently occupy and well into Iraq!!. Some, particularly among the Israeli settlement communities, support the expansion of territory until it encompasses such areas.

Now, just as wild and silly claims are made by sections of muslim communities in the region and we ought not to bend to those either. This underlines the only point I was trying to make that in such instances where spurious claims are made purely from the "authority" of scripture it is absolutely imperative that we have recourse to international law. International law has spoken, a long, long time ago (when UN resolutions were still in three digits) on this very matter and has defined the occupied territories and the settlements built upon them as illegal. I anticipate, 3legcat, that you are an intelligent human being and can understand why this is important. Israel has flouted the resolutions against it and has been allowed to do so by the politcal might of successive US governments, strongly influenced by the powerful Jewish lobby in that country. The UK is also far from guilt free on this issue. Israel recieves 2bn anually in aid from the US. Its army and airforce are supplied by the US. It has the atomic bomb. I have no problem with Israel being able to defend itself, indeed in the infancy of its existence Arab nations freely conspired to destroy it, resulting in the six-day war of 1967. However, there can be no excuse, no reason for them to continue to occupy the extra land they seized in that war. In addition, Israel has since made further "land grabs" - sending in the army to get rid of the locals, bulldozing the houses and establishing new Jewish settlements. This has been a continuing policy of the last 40 years and is wholly indefensible.

Therein lies the basis for the tragic and endless war suffered in the middle east. You have already intimated that you agree the Israelis should leave those areas, but please, it is important that people know the UN has found them to be illegal.

The BBC in England is notorious for their shoddy reporting of this issue and I have no doubt the American media also avoids such facts. A couple of years ago a survey of English viewers showed that the vast majority didn't even know that the Israelis were the occupying force!. Subsequent investigations have criticised the BBC heavily for the ambiguity of their reports on Israel/Palestine. There is widespread ignorance of the issue. Interestingly, I have tried several times to make the above points (regarding the legality of the occupation) on BBC message forums and never, ever have I seen my post displayed after submission to a vetting process. Its no fucking wonder we find ourselves in the state we're in now with terrorism.

however, wasn't this the essence of the Olso Accords, passed by the knesset and fatah but shot down by islamic jihad and the popular front?

I have to accept your point if only to say that there are factions on either side who never want peace and who will attempt wherever possible to ruin any proposed solution. Both sides have elements that are as vile as their counterparts. 20 years ago we would be having a similar debate about Northern Ireland. Let us use that example as a bastion of hope in our desire to see a peaceful and permanent solution to the conflict in the middle east.

80. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48308 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 7, 2007 at 11:36 am

3legcat - "surrounded as they are, by governments that have publicly sworn to their complete destruction (genocide) for 60 years, what course of action do you suggest? should they leave?"

They should take down their illegal settlements and leave the occupied teritories in accordance with international law. In other words, play by the rules like everyone else.

81. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48274 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 7, 2007 at 9:16 am

I buy the Guardian almost every day but I never manage to get one featuring such rubbish as this, despite the long sad list of crappy articles I know they've had recently.

Not that I need to get any more wound up at work than I normally do.

And just for ad-hominem purposes - this guy looks like a twat.

82. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48268 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 7, 2007 at 8:47 am

Xenocratic - thankyou, sir.

I admire Pilger greatly and it is a great detriment to this particular issue that more are not aware of his work.

It is the very politics of the situation that drive so many in Palestine into the arms and teachings of religious nutcases. A political settlement would render such people redundant to some degree. Maybe then, it might be said, would their victims be in a better position to reject the Islamic belief.

And thankyou, I wasn't aware that Hamas was once funded by the Israelis. But "par for the course" as one might say. As usual, I'm only tempted to laugh.

83. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48258 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 7, 2007 at 7:59 am

HunterZolomon - I've defended Hitchen's before but I sort of agree with your post. Xenocratic also - well said.

I support Hitchens on religion but I'm afraid he is quite wrong to assert that the main reason (as he would have it) for Palestinian suicide bombing is religion. The Japanese used Kamikaze attacks during World War Two purely as an military tactic that was relatively successful. There is no difference in this respect between the Japanese and Palestinian use of this tactic because it is a wartime strategy. The Palestinians are at war with Israel and vice versa. In so far as Islam authorising the use of suicide bombing, this is a secondary consideration and one that we all, no doubt, deplore. Hedges was not seeking to excuse suicide bombing and nor do I. However, as Hedges points out the Palestinians have no army, no airforce and no means of delivering our western brand of sanitized violence to their enemy, unlike Israel. Airstrikes mean nothing to us but suicide bombing is somehow "real" and "scary". That said, what is the difference between killing Palestinian children and bombing Israeli civilians? If you're going to condemn one condemn the other too. Both are repugnant acts but for Hitchens to simply concentrate on one particular side and on the religion of that chosen side is wrong and stupid. Xenocratic is correct that Hitchens has chosen to completely ignore the political details of the situation.

The distinction that Hitchens seeks to make is that the Palestinians are primarily motivated by their religion, which isn't true (it is an additional motivator), but to have enlightened this issue further he should have said that the Israelis are similarly - if not to an even greater extent - motivated by the Zionist elements of the Jewish faith which have authorised the invasion and illegal settling of the occupied teritories for the last 40 years, contrary to international law. Let Hitchens scream about the numerous UN resolutions passed against Israel as much as he does about those passed against Iraq. Using his own arguments we would by now have invaded Israel and implemented regime change. Israeli flouting of internatonal law and the gross double standard brought to bear is the WHOLE basis for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and Hitchens knows this. Normally Hitchens gives a robust and hearty mention to Zionist nutters - and this proves HunterZolomon's point - Hitchens discredits himself, not through lack of civility but by his selective memory when it comes to his own arguments. Any logical person can see that there is no moral difference between the Islamists and the Zionists and to focus on one side is to misrepresent the facts. It seemed Hitchen's only tactic here was to disagree with everything Chris Hedges said. Hedges exploited this by drawing him into a debate about the middle east and made him look slightly silly. I got the impression that the same people applauding Hitchens on religion were applauding Hedges on the middle east. A little more digging please Mr Hitchens, at least until you find your previous arguments. Islamists and Zionists are as bad as each other.

And also Hitchens repeated supposed distinction between murder and SUICIDE MURDER(!) is lost on me. How is it any worse than normal murder?. Are we to suppose that pressing a nice clean "missile launch" button from a nice clean F-16 to deliver a nice clean missle into a Palestinian house is somehow more virtuous than somebody who gives his/her own life in the process of delivering exactly the same result? I don't agree that there's any moral difference. By drawing on his supreme distaste for the Islamist I feel Hitchens concedes points to Hedges, who, while being utterly wrong on religion, has a much less tainted view on the state of Middle Easten affairs.

Hitch is still a hero of mine but he sometimes isn't as reliable I wish he would be.

84. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47689 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 5, 2007 at 9:42 am

Bizarro said:

"I can shoot my civilianized AK (or, if you're Canadian/British, my 9mm handgun) in my backyard without having to worry about being arrested for owning a gun."

Your reference to the UK is untrue. May I refer you to - The Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which bans all handguns above .22 calibre and leaving only sporting shotguns and antique guns, either of which if you shoot in your backyard (unless you happen to be rich and inbred enough to own one of English aristocracies' sprawling estates) you will be arrested or, as likely, shot by the police.

Strangely, we haven't had a gun massacre since 1997. One of the few things Blair actually got right.

85. We'd be better off without Religion

Comment #45623 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 28, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Comment #31407 by samguzman on April 12, 2007 at 1:26 pm

C.S. Lewis said that if you are an atheist, you have to believe that every religion is entirely wrong; if you are a Christian, you only have to believe that the other religions are wrong, but not entirely. They may very well have a hint at the truth and still be wrong.

C.S. Lewis is full of shit when it comes to religion. I hate it when otherwise successful writers try to categorise people in absolute terms. I don't believe in God but there are some good moral teachings in the Bible. I don't call myself a christian because, other than my lack of belief in God, (among other things) I don't believe people should be stoned to death because they decide to work on the wrong day of the week.

Any man who can look at the immense complexity and underlying order of the universe and deny the existence of God is an arrogant fool, no matter how intelligent he may be. Every day I read science stories that proclaim excitedly "we figured out how this works!" They remind me of a little boy turning on the light switch in an immense factory and being excited that he discovered how to turn on the light. He's just scratching the surface. Humans are not as great as we make ourselves out to be. As much as we laud our own intellects, just spend 10 minutes reading the news headlines, filled with bloodshed and violence, and you will learn what happens when man denies his creator and acts like what you claim he is; nothing more than an animal.

Yawn. There's bloodshed and violence coming from those who don't deny God you cretin.

86. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45612 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 28, 2007 at 1:18 pm

alovrin : Well hasnt the dialogue been stopped at the" you cant say that" part of the conversation?

Precisely, which is why I think this soppy, sloppy way of "thinking" could be utterly humiliated by RD if there was a decent debate between the two.

I smell a cop-out here. If RD was available for a proper debate with Winston (being, as he was, at the Hay Festival) it wouldn't surprise me if Winston had said something like "Yeah I'll give you five minutes, on the phone" knowing full well RD would catch him out sooner rather than later. Winston would rather try and land sly digs in the press from a safe distance.

87. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45606 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 28, 2007 at 12:57 pm

(LAUGHS) nice one Rtambree

88. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45602 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 28, 2007 at 12:49 pm

"Dawkins and Winston need to stage a 15-Round Title Fight. I tip Dawkins with a K.O. by Round 9."

I totally agree, its almost as if Winston had a button he could press to end the debate as soon as he felt it was getting a bit sticky. This spat has got quite a bit of coverage in the press and it would have been a very good thing (for England in particular) if two of England's best known scientists were to debate religion/atheism through the prism of science. I'm really annoyed with the way it turned out.

I can't understand why the BBC or Channel 4 don't bring the two of them together with a studio audience for a proper one-off debate. With titles such as TGD and such like riding high, you simply can't tell me that there isn't enough public interest. What do we get for the licence fee instead? Tonnes and tonnes of talent-show SHITE.

AAAARRRRGGGHH

89. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45598 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 28, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Thanks Richard, glad to hear it. Though I wish you had had more of a chance to debate Winston given his recent comments in the papers.

90. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45594 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 28, 2007 at 11:46 am

Doh!!

Five minutes of debate?? I was really looking forward to a big showdown between RD and Winston after all the sniping in the press. One reason for having that hope was my suspicion that Winston was going to evade the debate as he duly did so here and got off very lightly indeed. This was a big let down but no fault of RD.

Richard, did they really invite you all the way to the Hay Festival just for that?

91. Group Threatens to Sue Pentagon Over Military Role in Evangelical Festival

Comment #45592 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 28, 2007 at 11:30 am

Does nobody else find it bizarre that "Christian" groups seek to affliate themselves with the military? - Thou shalt not kill anybody?

The same thought struck me when I watched the Archbishop of Canterbury "bless" the troops before the Iraq war.

92. God help us all - The No. 2 book on Amazon right now is a

Comment #45162 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 26, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Hang on a minute.

While I understand that there was tiny evidence for Iraq's threat, and that to tell Iran that they can't have nuclear power when the rest of us have it smacks of double standards, I do think Iran is a cause for concern.

Iran, like North Korea, is taking full advantage of the impotence of America and Britain following the disaster of the second gulf war. Taking hostages is essentially an act of war and Iran did this knowing no military reprisals would follow and at the same time enhanced the popularity of their leadership among Iranians. freeurmind says there is no hard evidence against Iran, well you're wrong. The IAEA stated the day before yesterday that Iran is very close to industrial scale production of uranium. Compare that to the evidence against Iraq. Bomb making capability will not be far away for the Iranians before too long.

Now, I've no problem with anybody having nuclear power. However, when the president of a country repeatedly calls for another country to be "wiped from the map" and is simutaneously developing the technology that will eventually provide the means to do just that - then I think its time we pay close attention to that situation. The stakes are far too high when you're talking about nuclear weapons to just assume that somebody who declares that he wants to see another country destroyed would never actually press the button himself. America and Britain are in no mood for another war so I'm afraid the people who say that we're being lied to for the sake of instigating military action are banging on an unskinned drum as far as I'm concerned. I shouldn't find it bizarre that illogic was so central to the pro-Iraq-war argument and has now, absurdly, swapped allegiances in the case of Iran.

Iran is potentially a serious threat. The time to act is now. Hopefully diplomacy and sanctions will work. I was against the last war but I've no problem with bombing Iran's nuclear installations if need be. None whatsoever, for reasons I've already stated. If Iran gets nuclear weapons the first we may know about it could be some explosions over Israel visible from space. Following that Iran will definitely be annhilated and vitually everybody in those two countries will be dead. Not to mention the unprecedented inernational crisis that will follow that. These are big "Ifs" but on one side of the "Ifs" millions upon millions of people are dead.

93. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #45139 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 26, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Devolved - now you're playing the role of "victim" - how do you expect to be treated when you post articles that carry such spurious insuations as your comment no.30?

Credit to USALimey for the way he responded. You may have been offended by his language but you offend others by insulting their intelligence. You got caught out fair and square and everybody knows it. Then you whinge that people treat you unfairly.

You are a broken record. All you do is mither on about nothing or post "science" articles from creationist websites. People who think the Earth is 6,000 years old. How do you expect to be treated by people with an average level of intelligence?

I'm no "man of science" but you test my patience. I can only imagine how qualified people such as epeeist and Billy Sands must feel reading your nonsense.

94. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #45120 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 26, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Ha ha ha!

Score one for Hitchens! I love it when apologists end up in a foaming personal attack ala Sean Hannity.

What's worse? Hitchen's arguments or chopping young boy's willies? huh? huh?

95. Comic in US 'hate speech' row

Comment #44693 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 25, 2007 at 7:29 am

ditto Prime Numbers well said

96. Gay flamingos pick up chick

Comment #44672 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 25, 2007 at 7:01 am

Gay flamingos are the work of Satan!!

97. Italian TV urged to scrap BBC film accusing Pope of abuse cover-up

Comment #44669 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 25, 2007 at 6:56 am

Again, religion sows the seeds of its own defeat.

On we go.

98. Baby's 'miracle' recovery in British hospital to give Malta its first saint

Comment #44659 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 25, 2007 at 6:41 am

How good of God to let 90% of children with this disease perish.

His awesome power should never be questioned!

99. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44655 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 25, 2007 at 6:35 am

Fantastic.

100. Adam and Eve in the Land of the Dinosaurs

Comment #44648 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 25, 2007 at 6:23 am

discipline - I agree

Frankly this makes christianity look even more silly. Its stuff like this that acts as a catalyst for a bigger force than religion.