51. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162168 by Jack Rawlinson on April 16, 2008 at 9:06 am

Harry Kroto is one of the good guys. I'm glad he's getting more directly involved in taking on the FlorID-iots.

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

Comment #162065 by Jack Rawlinson on April 16, 2008 at 5:30 am

Now this is interesting. I tried to go back to the blog version of this article today - the one where comments were allowed - and it seems to have disappeared. The only version of the article I can find is the one linked here - the one that doesn't allow comments and which features the unflattering picture of Richard.

I'm trying very hard to believe that The Guardian isn't really as deliberately anti-atheist as it has appeared to be these last couple of years, but things like this are stretching my credulity.

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

Comment #161049 by Jack Rawlinson on April 14, 2008 at 5:33 pm

last time when we left Russell was around the liitle pond fishing for amino acids with Darwin. Stll they are there. Of course Russell often goes to big art exhibition and screams that there is no artist for the paintings and each time he is sent out by the LOGIC SECURITY.

God help him. He is gonna wipe out or die out very soon because of his repeating himself in the exhibition art 'not enough evidence not enough evidence, there is no artist for these paintings, there is no artist, not enough evidence.? This is not healthy.

So writes "Clearmind". I believe the term here is "eponysterical".

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

Comment #160757 by Jack Rawlinson on April 14, 2008 at 11:21 am

I've been steaming about this lousy article all morning. The more I think about it, the more I think it's verging on the libellous and actually deserves a retraction and an apology. I just posted the following to The Guardian's comments page (and I see that someone called Telic has taken the same line. Perhaps we should push this?)

Mr. Ravenhill; CiF moderator.

The more I consider the disgraceful extent to which Richard Dawkins's views have been misrepresented in this piece, the more I feel that a retraction and an apology is in order.

Since "The God Delusion" was published I have become used to seeing gross, straw-man distortions of Dawkins's opinions and ideas being presented by religious apologists. It is one of several easy, lazy and thoroughly dishonest ways to respond to the criticisms the book levels at the beliefs they have or seek to defend. Other such tactics include the wholly unjustified repetition of the assertion that Dawkins's words are "shrill"; that Dawkins is a "fundamentalist"; that Dawkins has no right to criticise religion until he studies theology in depth (a demand we do not, strangely, see made about those who choose to *accept* religious belief rather than reject it).

But this regrettable piece shows such a profound ignorance of Dawkins's words that it can only have been written out of indolent malice or the sort of dirt-disturbing impulse more commonly referred to as "trolling". I think we have a right to expect better than this from The Guardian, although that opinion is, I admit, based on a memory of the fairness and integrity The Guardian used to display before it started what seems to be something of a "crusade" against atheists.

I say again: an apology is in order. Please go this small distance towards slowing my plummetting respect for the paper by having the decency to make it.

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

Comment #160578 by Jack Rawlinson on April 14, 2008 at 8:00 am

Charlie Brooker is brilliant. I laughed myself silly at this article when it appeared last week.

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

Comment #160575 by Jack Rawlinson on April 14, 2008 at 7:57 am

Ha! I thought I'd see a link here to this absurd piece of straw man drivel! Please everyone - go express your scorn over at the Guardian site. I have.

57. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #159398 by Jack Rawlinson on April 12, 2008 at 5:11 am

A moron creationist responds:

1. So where are the transitional forms that link the two-legged snake to the no-legged snake?

OR

2. That's not a transitional form. It's not a snake. Just a completely different animal that doesn't exist any more.

Genesis wins again!

58. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156518 by Jack Rawlinson on April 7, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Write, phone, email. This disgraceful bigot has to be held accountable for this. Seriously folks... do it. Let's generate a mass of protest about this: all media.

59. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154767 by Jack Rawlinson on April 3, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Gotta be careful taking the piss out of schizophrenics ladies. It makes us look dumb.

Whereas lazy sexism makes us look like smart guys, no doubt.

60. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154766 by Jack Rawlinson on April 3, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Shame he didn't succeed.

61. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153963 by Jack Rawlinson on April 2, 2008 at 9:18 am

Well, come on folks, he has a point. Atheists generally DO want to kill old people, right? Right?

Hmm. Just me then, is it? :-)

62. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153696 by Jack Rawlinson on April 1, 2008 at 8:57 pm

And so they should, the evil scum. I hope they get life sentences.

63. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152324 by Jack Rawlinson on March 30, 2008 at 5:26 pm

adam2z: absolutely. I thought the film was god-awful, button-pushing propaganda and about what I'd expect from a xenophobic right-wing arsehole like Wilders. It made Memri look fair and balanced. But by hell I will not tolerate the assault on freedom of speech which led to it being taken down. That's why I linked it again.

64. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152314 by Jack Rawlinson on March 30, 2008 at 5:04 pm

So let's link it again.

These idiots really don't get the web, do they?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410

65. Beware the Believers

Comment #151936 by Jack Rawlinson on March 29, 2008 at 5:19 pm

What Rhino said. The lyrics are very sharp and funny. They feature a lot of beautifully observed rap stylings and cliches. The hand gestures the characters use are hilarious. There are some gang sign references there, there's Darwin doing the "raising the roof" thing at the end... priceless. Dan Dennet in a pimp suit? Sam Harris with a grill? Come on. This is smart, well-observed comedy, but you need to be familiar with the source genre to get it.

66. Beware the Believers

Comment #151928 by Jack Rawlinson on March 29, 2008 at 5:10 pm

I have to say to the people who think this is pro-ID and anti-atheist: please develop a sense of what irony and satire is. Because you're embarrassing yourselves.

Unbelievable.

67. Beware the Believers

Comment #151821 by Jack Rawlinson on March 29, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Well I thought it was smart, sharp, well observed and obviously on "our side". And I had no problem understanding the words. And I'm 48 years old. :-)

68. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151799 by Jack Rawlinson on March 29, 2008 at 12:27 pm

By the way, that hilarious video Barry Pearson linked is obviously on our side. I can't believe the number of people who don't get that. I guess some folk have a missing satire/irony gland... :-)

69. I always aim to misbehave

Comment #151663 by Jack Rawlinson on March 29, 2008 at 6:42 am

PZ's been on a roll lately. I really enjoyed this little satire of the whole Evolution = Nazism nonsense (see link below).

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/why_we_need_academic_freedomto.php

70. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150237 by Jack Rawlinson on March 26, 2008 at 3:47 pm

"...a frightening phenomenon that all religions must confront and vanquish."

Excellent. We've definitely got them rattled. Bring it on, I say.

71. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149870 by Jack Rawlinson on March 26, 2008 at 10:05 am

I believe this is manslaughter through negligence, and charges should be brought.

72. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148743 by Jack Rawlinson on March 23, 2008 at 6:31 pm

While I sympathize with Richard's anger, this form of sarcastic ridicule is perhaps not the best way to react to "Expelled."

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree there, sport. These pitiful lying asshats deserve nothing but sarcasm, mockery and ridicule. They're not worth anything else. They're mendacious morons and to give them the slightest respect is to unjustifiably dignify their bullshit and thus help perpetuate it. Wise up.

73. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148741 by Jack Rawlinson on March 23, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Ah, I've been waiting for this all weekend. What a lovely snort of derision in the face of these increasingly desperate and absurd buffoons.

It may have been unplanned and inadvertent, but you and PZ scored a huge hit against these asses. It'll continue to be hilarious watching them try to spin their way out of this unbelievable gaffe.

74. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148544 by Jack Rawlinson on March 23, 2008 at 9:20 am

The unfortunately-surnamed Mr. Hume seems to think his personal experience of the place of religion extends across the entire globe. He also seems to be entirely unconcerned about the shocking and undeniable rise of "faith schools" in Britain, and the effect that will have on future generations.

Wow. A blinkered, narrow-minded Marxist. What will they think of next?

75. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148122 by Jack Rawlinson on March 22, 2008 at 6:33 am

Ian: I remember the very wonderful "The Day Today" running a sketch like that. If I find it on YouTube I'll link it.

76. No Admission for Evolutionary Biologist at Creationist Film

Comment #148036 by Jack Rawlinson on March 21, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Don't we stand to end up looking like Fleas through all of this?

77. EXPELLED!

Comment #147689 by Jack Rawlinson on March 21, 2008 at 6:10 am

Priceless. Almost too good to be true. I know RD is busy at the moment but I do hope he finds time to publicly eviscerate this garbage.

78. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147053 by Jack Rawlinson on March 19, 2008 at 6:01 pm

"Secular liberalism is slave morality (Christianity in disguise)."

Wow. Somebody needs to broaden his reading list. And his mind.

79. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146619 by Jack Rawlinson on March 19, 2008 at 8:24 am

Respect. A great mind and a great imagination. Can't argue with 90 years, though. That's a good innings.

80. The atheist delusion

Comment #144361 by Jack Rawlinson on March 15, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Good old PZ Myers has gone to work on Gray's garbage with his usual style and thoroughness...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/the_delusions_of_john_gray.php

81. The atheist delusion

Comment #144112 by Jack Rawlinson on March 15, 2008 at 5:47 am

Okay, that's it. The Guardian was the only newspaper I could tolerate for many years but I've had it with these constant, highly unbalanced attacks on atheism and rationalism. Not only that, the general quality of the paper has been declining. There are too many tabloid-style pieces about pop culture nobodies and superficial non-news. I'm not reading the fucking atrocity any more, and I'm writing to let them know why. It disgusts me that the paper I used to recommend as the best British news source has become possibly the most prolific outlet for anti-atheist propaganda. I hope their circulation goes to hell. It's certainly going to be reduced by at least one, as from now.

82. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #143912 by Jack Rawlinson on March 14, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Man, it's hard listening to some of those callers. The woman who was banging on about god injecting a soul into man... how can they not see the giddying a priori assumptions in such a statement? What's a "soul"? Why is it necessary that a soul needs a god to inject it? And so on. These people, sadly, are simply not very bright. Not at all competent at thinking.

83. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143600 by Jack Rawlinson on March 14, 2008 at 8:35 am

Chris Hedges explains why New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens are as dangerous as Christian fundamentalists.

I'm glad that was at the top of the article. Knowing exactly what type of atheist-bashing imbecile Hedges is saved me wasting my time reading it.

84. Two More Fleas

Comment #142510 by Jack Rawlinson on March 12, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Didn't take this one long to get to the direct shameless lie, did it?

85. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141528 by Jack Rawlinson on March 10, 2008 at 3:01 pm

These idiotic rules need to be taken down by making them work against themselves. This one needs some smart student to start claiming protection under the rule for his firm religious conviction that Jews are blood-drinking Christ killers.

That ought to put this nonsense to bed pretty sharpish.

86. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #140378 by Jack Rawlinson on March 7, 2008 at 8:19 am

wooter: "How do you overcome this fear of being gone forever?"

The first thing you need to accept, wooter, is that finding something frightening doesn't mean it's less likely to be true, neither does finding something comforting mean it is more likely to be true. Your feelings have absolutely no bearing on how reality is. Clinging to a belief simply - or even partly - because it comforts your fears is the human equivalent of the ostrich burying its head in the sand when threatened or afraid. It is spiritual cowardice, and it is ironic that it is those who consider themselves most spiritual - the religious - who are most prone to this form of cowardice.

Conversely, it is a sign of courage, honesty and self-respect to be better than that; to assess our fears (and sources of comfort) on the basis of hard evidence and reasoned consideration. Atheists have done so, and recognised that the evidence and the reason both point to a lack of gods and a lack of any sort of afterlife. Some atheists find this frightening, some do not. But all have the courage, honesty and objectivity to recognise it is true irrespective of how it makes them feel.

But to answer your question: it is a case of trying to be philosophical about the way things actually are. Ask yourself: why are you afraid of being "gone forever"? What is it about that which frightens you? Why do you find that more frightening than being "sentenced" to never being gone? Never, ever being allowed to step off the wheel of existence, and consciousness. Have you never considered that for anything resembling a human consciousness - even one transported magically to an afterlife - eternal anything would, sooner or later, be torture. It would be hell. Even heaven would be hell.

That's one thing that helped me overcome my fear of death. The other is considering that death is nothing. Fear, anxiety, pain, worry, regret, longing... these are things you can only feel if you are alive. When you are dead... you cannot fear. You can no more be afraid or in pain - or anything - than you were before you were born. Were you unhappy then? Of course not. You return to the state of nothingness. No consciousness. If you really meditate on this deeply you will experience a great sense of liberation. Almost like the Buddhist's nirvana ;-).

It is rational to fear the process of dying because that can be distressing. Even religious people fear that. But there is nothing to fear from being dead. Literally nothing.

"I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free."

- Nikos Kazantzakis' epitaph.

87. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #118944 by Jack Rawlinson on January 31, 2008 at 7:47 am

Happy Birthday, Josh!

The traffic increase says it all... this site has become one of the best both for discussion and for keeping track of relevant news about atheism, evolution, science and all sorts of tangentially related things. It's certainly my favourite atheistically-inclined online community.

88. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118005 by Jack Rawlinson on January 30, 2008 at 7:51 am

Atheism and Violence:

http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/addiscartoon.jpg

89. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117828 by Jack Rawlinson on January 29, 2008 at 6:29 pm

But their arguments are shopworn, stale hand-me-downs and threadbare heirlooms...

Unlike, of course, the "arguments" of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism.

These people really need to re-read that old biblical verse about logs and motes, don't they?

90. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117826 by Jack Rawlinson on January 29, 2008 at 6:27 pm

I would just like to say that I despise Ann Widdecombe with a passion that transcends all human understanding. On the other hand, she looked like an intellectual giant compared to whoever the hell that first speaker was.

91. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116903 by Jack Rawlinson on January 27, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Oh God, dlitt... let this NOT lead to a debate on chiropractic. Because while I fully accept that the "theory" behind it is utter arse... it works on me. I have a recurrent back problem that only a good back-cracking alleviates with any efficacy. And yes, I have tried "proper" treatments.

Oh wait... you did say let this not lead to a debate of chiropractic... :-)

92. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116743 by Jack Rawlinson on January 27, 2008 at 10:21 am

It's appalling that circumcision without consent is still legal. It should be classed as child abuse every bit as much as infant tattooing or branding would be. And for exactly the same reasons.

93. US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

Comment #116028 by Jack Rawlinson on January 25, 2008 at 10:18 am

Cue a rash of hysterical, "Evil Frankenstein Scientists!" features from the usual suspects....

94. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116026 by Jack Rawlinson on January 25, 2008 at 10:16 am

I've seen this before. It made me laugh... until I remembered that some poor sods will actually worry about it.

What a nasty sort of "Christian" it is that does this stuff. Their god is the ultimate terrorist and they are his eager helpers. Sickening individuals.

95. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115238 by Jack Rawlinson on January 23, 2008 at 7:20 pm

What MPhil said. The truth is the truth is the truth, and the fact that you may not like it, or what it implies, or what it might lead to, does not stop it from being the truth. Only weak minds struggle with this incontrovertible fact.

That said, when was the last time you heard someone convincingly use Darwinism or evolution as an argument for racism? On the rare occasions I've seen or heard that attempted, the idiot who tries it always ends up a sad and sorry heap of an out-argued, out-flamed corpse lying dead amidst the fallen remnants of his or her shattered fallacies. Those who try to appeal to the bogeymen of racism end eugenics as an attack on Darwinism are cowardly or cunningly disingenuous.

96. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114903 by Jack Rawlinson on January 23, 2008 at 6:43 am

Pieter: this is a direct quote from Ron Paul.

Well, first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And I think it's a theory: The Theory of Evolution. And I don't accept it, you know, as a theory. — Ron Paul on evolution, December 1, 2007

That's Ron Paul saying he doesn't accept the theory of evolution. I'd like to see any "context" you can give that makes that go away.

97. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114902 by Jack Rawlinson on January 23, 2008 at 6:39 am

Using your own personal political leanings in a piece like this? Even jokingly? Not a good idea. Shame.

Also, Ron Paul is an evolution-denying nutcase and libertarianism is just anarchy for people with money. I seriously do not get the cult of Paul.

98. Islam in Europe

Comment #114901 by Jack Rawlinson on January 23, 2008 at 6:34 am

I don't think Pat was even trying to be funny in this one. He's right, though. As usual. He'll be accused of only talking about the extreme end of Islam, of course, but sorry, until I hear the much-mentioned (but little heard) "moderate" Muslims start attacking that extreme and standing up for the liberal values of the countries they live in, Pat's absolutely justified in concentrating on the extremists. They're the problem to be faced. And I for one have no respect for any "moderate" wing of a religion or ideology that does not firmly stand up to and stand against extremists who commit evil in its name.

I *am* Islamophobic, because I am "religiophobic". I think those are rational, moral things to be.

99. Interview with Ian McEwan

Comment #114261 by Jack Rawlinson on January 21, 2008 at 4:40 pm

McEwan's long been one of my favourite authors. This is good.

100. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #113993 by Jack Rawlinson on January 21, 2008 at 7:13 am

Good to hear Richard standing up for the term "atheist"; I'm right with him on that. The key problems with Sam's position:

- it assumes a situation which isn't here yet: the "Utopia" where it isn't necessary to say we don't believe in gods. We're not there yet. When we are, we can stop calling ourselves atheists.

- it mistakenly asserts that no other group identifies themselves by what they are against, or don't believe in. As I've pointed out before, this simply isn't true, and I've listed numerous examples of organisations and groups who do indeed identify themselves in this way.

- it asserts that it is inherently bad to identify yourself by what you stand against, yet never advances a sound argument for why this is so. I have no problem identifying myself as an anti-Nazi and I'd be interested to hear someone tell me why I should have a problem with it.

- it is essentially advocating surrender or evasiveness in the face of criticism (valid or distorted) from the religious (and, sadly, others). It says that because the word can give negative impressions we should simply give it up rather than correct those impressions. I do not find this impressive or palatable. "Atheist" correctly, succinctly and accurately describes what we are, and the fact that some people attach false or negative associations to it should only encourage us to put them straight, not to run cravenly from the word they have misappropriated.

- it won't help. It is naive in the extreme to imagine that simply not using the word "atheist" will magically remove the negative connotations of disbelief, or stop believers criticising us, attacking us, or misrepresenting us. The only thing that will stop that is if we keep our mouths shut, crawl back into the closet of meek, silent disbelief and return to the weak (and dangerous) attitude of, "I will publicly respect your belief no matter how idiotic I privately consider it". The reality is that as soon as we criticise belief or start using rational argument to dismantle it, we will be pegged as atheists or we will be subject to fallacious attacks whether we, or those we criticise, actually call ourselves atheists or not. To imagine that a mere change of identifier will remove or alleviate this innate problem is, as I say, absurdly naive.