51. The art of the soluble

Comment #95769 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 7:24 am

From our present age, Lennox quotes Sir Ghillean Prance, former director of Kew: "All my studies have confirmed my faith."

I've heard this kind of claim a number of times, but normally from people who haven't pursued much study in the area of science, or who have done so from the premise that what lies behind it all is God and a determination not to be swayed from that view. I have yet to encounter anyone - though they might exist, I suppose – who started as a genuine agnostic, looked at the scientific evidence on its own merits and decided on the basis of the science that there must be a god.

Let's explore this remarkable claim, that scientific studies confirm the Christian faith.

Science has shown us that …
… the universe contains about a billion trillion stars in addition to our own, the Sun, dotted through an vast expanse which, because it is expanding, is currently something like 46.5 billion light years across. For those who prefer their distances in something more tangible, that's roughly 43,990,000,000,000,000,000,000 kms, give or take a few centimetres here or there ;-)
It is likely that a large proportion – quite possibly more than half - of those stars will have at least one planet. There is no reason to suppose that intelligent life could not have evolved on some of those trillions of planets, though equally, there is no reason to suppose that such life would in any way resemble us.
How exactly does that confirm the Christian view that the universe was made with a view to human existence?

Science has shown us that …
… it is possible to perform a laboratory experiment in which the kind of energy that would be found in a lightning strike is added to a mixture of gases such as are believed to have formed the Earth's atmosphere in the very earliest years of its existence, and for very basic proteins, such as would be the basis of life, to be created as a result.
How exactly does that confirm the Christian view that life required God in order to get started?

Science has shown us that …
… the Earth and the universe are about 4.5 bn and 14.5 bn years old, respectively.
How exactly does that confirm the Christian view that God created everything less than 10,000 years ago?

Science has shown us that …
… the Earth orbits the Sun, and is itself an orb. And that the Earth, far from being at the centre of the universe, is nowhere near even the centre of our own galaxy.
How exactly does that confirm the (original) Christian view that the Earth was at the centre of the universe, that the Sun orbited the Earth, and that the Earth was flat?

Science has shown us that …
… all living organisms – whether plant or animal – have evolved through a process of natural selection that spans billions of years. It shows that every living organism is ultimately, at the genetic level, related to every other living organism. It shows that humans are no different from any other organism in this.
How exactly does that confirm that Christian view that everything was created in its finished state in a single act of creation less than 10,000 years ago? And that humans occupy a very special place in creation? Made in God's image, in fact?

Science has shown us that …
… because of the long, slow, drawn-out process of evolution, there are all sorts of flaws in organisms of various kinds. These are some of the "design" flaws in humans, as suggested by Victor Stenger in God, The Failed Hypothesis: "Our bones lose minerals after age thirty, making them susceptible to fracture and osteoporosis. Our rib cage does not fully enclose and protect most internal organs. Our muscles atrophy. Our leg veins become enlarged and twisted, leading to varicose veins. Our joints wear out as their lubricants thin. Our retinas are prone to detachment. The male prostate enlarges, squeezing and obstructing urine flow. " A better design, he suggests (quoting Olshanky, Carnes and Butler) would be if we had "bigger ears, rewired eyes, a curved neck, a forward-tilting torso, shorter limbs and stature, extra padding around the joints, extra muscles and fat, thicker spinal disks, a reversed knee joint, and more."
How exactly does this confirm the Christian view that God made everything perfectly? How does it even confirm the modern, liberal Christian view that a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent god chose evolution as his means of creating us?

Science has shown us that ...
... prayer does not work and miracles do not happen. That dead people do not return to life. That humans do not ascend bodily into the heavens. That there is no evidence whatsoever for a non-material soul that survives us at the death of our bodies.
How exactly does that confirm the Christian faith, which asserts the contrary of all these findings?

Science has shown us that …
… no matter where we look, we simply find no evidence of a god. We clearly don't have all the answers as yet, but so far there is absolutely nothing to support the God hypothesis.
How exactly does this confirm that Christian view that there is a god? Let alone a god with the very specific characteristics of the Christian god?

Stenger also makes a strong case against the "fine tuning" argument, but too detailed and too complex for me to be able to condense it here: but science shows that even this stronghold for Christian apologists does not stand up to scrutiny.

To say that science confirms the Christian faith is to say something very silly indeed.

52. The art of the soluble

Comment #95764 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 7:01 am

First came across reviews of this book on Amazon. You all might like to see what your old chum David "Wee Flea" Robertson (banned from this site I believe?) has to say about it- (its on this Amazon page, second one down):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A17G1ZDVI3CXE1?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

Has he been banned? I thought I hadn't seen him around recently, but wasn't aware he'd been banned. Any particular reason or just trolling in general?

By the way, I found his 3rd Amazon review much more entertaining - the one where he's responding to what atheists have written in reviews of his own book. Something about how people should review what's actually written and should take a more balanced and thoughtful approach. Which, as we all know, is EXACTLY how he always approached what RD wrote in TGD. Oh no, wait ...

53. The art of the soluble

Comment #95751 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 5:29 am

So scientists can't bottom out the mysteries of the universe by empirical experiment and investigation, but the religious can do it by closing eyes, lighting candles and singing Kum By Ya? Who wouldn't be convinced by such a strong argument?

54. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #95739 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 4:46 am

I gave you my opinions, but all that I think I know is that in a very Darwinian selection process our parents and their parents for many thousands of years overwhelmingly chose religion as more 'fit' than atheism.

I think you may be very interested to read Daniel Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as Natural Phenomenon. It's easy to assume that the prevalence of religion in human history must mean that religion has been good for humans' survival. Dennett argues that it may just be a sign of RELIGION's success at survival and we may just be its unwitting hosts.

The analogy is of an ant that continually climbs to the top of a blade of grass, where it is far more likely to be eaten by a passing cow than if it stayed with its chums at ground level. How can such behaviour possibly be good for its survival? The answer is that we're asking the question from the wrong perspective - the ant's. The reason the ant behaves in this extraordinary way has nothing at all to do with what's good for the ant, and everything to do with the fact that it has been infected by a micro-organism which needs to reach the stomach of a cow before it can complete its life cycle. That micro-organism infests the ant's brain with the desire to climb to the top of blades of grass - where it gets eaten by a passing cow. This is terrific news for the micro-organism, but not for the ant.

Dennett's hypothesis is that religion itself - a meme - has become an extraordinarily good replicator, using humans as its hosts. The rituals we go through in its name are the consequences of our having been "infected" by religion - benefiting the replication of religion itself, not ourselves.

That's a very simple paraphrase of a full-length book so you'll appreciate that Dennett makes a far more comprehensive and sophisticated case than I have outlined here - but it might have whetted your appetite: it's a very interesting book.

If you cannot answer the question of why religious communities had stronger armies, more people and better economies then you cannot organize your system to do a better job than religion is doing and you have no business trying to replace it.

But in your first post you made the point that religion was ubiquitous. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the losing side in battles (or evonomies) was predominantly the side without religion - not least, because both sides would have had religion. The winners simply attributed their success to the gods being happy with them, and the losers to their gods being unhappy with them. I think you would be very hard pressed indeed to demonstrate a convincing causal link between religion and a strong army or victory in any other context!

55. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95725 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 3:49 am

181. Comment #95703 by krisking on December 9, 2007 at 2:26 am

I think Dawkins needs to decide whether he is just an animal, or something more than an animal.

What would "more than an animal" mean? There isn't a biological category for "more than an animal", so the question is meaningless.

Humans are quite clearly animals by every biological test known to us. We fit the description of "animal" whichever way you care to look at it. There is no argument: humans are animals.

From your questions on this thread you appear to think that if we are animals this must mean we are slaves to our instincts. This is not the case and you must surely realise it, since presumably you don't imagine yourself to be slave to your instincts with no control over them whatsoever?

If you have difficulty understanding where our ability to control our instincts comes from, then all I'll say now is "psychology", "neurology", "sociology", "anthropology". Add books from one or more of those subjects to your reading list, and you'll be a lot better informed at the end of it.

To answer your first point quite specifically, I am confident in speaking for Richard Dawkins on this point and saying that he thinks he is an animal that has evolved to the point where he is capable of not just acting purely on instinct.

If it's not our genes, then what does determine our moral behaviour?

In a nutshell, humans are social animals. We evolved in small groups, groups whose cohesion was absolutely essential to their survival. Entirely wanton, selfish behaviour is not conducive to group cohesion, consequently it is not conducive to the survival of any individual whose survival depends on the cohesion of their group. All supposedly "moral" rules can be reduced to the need for a certain degree of agreed types of behaviour that are required for the successful co-existence of groups of people. By the way, a number of different social animals display similar behaviours that we would be inclined to interpret as "moral" when displayed by humans.

This is a very simplified answer, krisking - if you're genuinely interested in this area, I'm sure that between us we could suggest more books to add to your reading list. But start with TGD. You'll find that that answers just about every question you've raised here.

But why is it important? If we are merely evolved animals like the rest then we are no more important than the extinct dinosaurs, or the fly that we crush because it is annoying us.

Why is it important that we don't destroy ourselves and the planet with us? Let me put that straight back at you, krisking. Why do YOU think it's important? Assuming you do? You're not truly suggesting that, without a god, we have no interest in our own survival, are you? I'm not dodging your question, and I am happy to answer it specifically after you have given your view on this. But I do want you to think about why you seem to be finding this a difficult concept. My guess is that it will be for theological reasons rather than for any other kind.

Surely we are simply part of the on-going evolutionary process, which will determine whether we go extinct or not in spite or any intervention on our part

No, no, no, no, no! There is NOTHING deterministic about evolution. Evolution simply explains how we have reached our present stage of complexity. It just so happens that we have evolved to SUCH a degree of complexity that we have the freedom to choose how to USE that complexity.

To a very large extent, our own choices and decisions will determine how well the human race continues to survive - or not. We certainly don't have complete control over it: there are a number of possible external events that could wipe us out that we have next to no control over at all - the impact of an asteroid of sufficient size, the simultaneous eruption of a number of super-volcanoes etc etc. It's even possible that a virus would mutate (another example of evolution in action) into something utterly deadly and incredibly fast-moving, that would wipe us out before we'd had time to find a way of immunising ourselves from it. So our survival is not entirely in our hands.

HOWEVER, for the most pressing and genuine threats, the answers do indeed lie in human hands. Whether or not we destroy the atmosphere that protects our planet and keeps it habitable is in our hands. Whether or not we unleash our nuclear arsenals is in our hands.

Evolution explains how we got to be complex enough to be in that situation. It doesn't determine what we do with that power.

Krisking, if you are genuine about seeking answers to questions like these, some very basic reading will supply them. TGD is an excellent place to start, and it's a bit perverse to keep posting questions like this when it is incredibly easy for you to gain your own access to the answers. Might I suggest you go away, read TGD and then come back and post your questions and objections based on just a little bit of knowledge? There is absolutely no point in your making claims about what evolution does or does not do, or whether evolution is or is not satisfactorily demonstrated, or what RD does or does not say in TGD, when those claims are based on a lack of knowledge that you could so easily rectify. If you don't want to buy the books, I'm sure your local library will have a copy.

56. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95569 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 3:46 pm

I swear, I'm not plagarising your posts!!!

My lawyer says that's alright then.
;-)))

57. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95567 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 3:42 pm

...and why does he say that he is in a morally difficult position, after all animals eat other animals....and why does he think he needs social courage to break out of eating meat? Plenty of people I know don't eat meat.

Last post from me for today.

To deal with your second question first, I don't know why RD says that, krisking, you'd need to ask him. I don't see it as being such a very big deal either.

Your first question is really very similar to one you asked earlier, and which Brian answered there - very well, I thought. This is what he said:

This is a common misconception. Evolution is not "holy writ". It merely explains how we got from simple to complex animals.

How humans construct their societies is a completely distinct question. Our consciousness frees us from the evolutionary imperative. We are conscious and reasoning, and can thus decide that rape, war and cannibalism (for example) are bad choices for a complex society. Being "true" to some ideal outcome for our evolutionary heritage is neither here nor there. My genes can bite me, I'm still going to use a condom:-)

Just because we are animals and just because some other animals eat animals doesn't mean there's no scope for humans to see a moral dilemma in whether or not to eat meat. Unlike pure carnivores, we have a choice as to whether to eat meat or not: our survival and health do not depend upon it.

We are also able to step back and analyse our own actions and the consequences of those actions both for ourselves and others in a way that has not been shown to exist to the same extent in other animals.

Brian's last comment about the condom perfectly illustrates the point that our actions are not solely constrained by evolutionary imperatives. Indeed, it is more or less the punchline of The Selfish Gene that there is an irony in the fact that humans have evolved to such a degree that we are now conscious of evolutionary impulses and able to resist them.

58. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95561 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 3:29 pm

Well, I've listened to Dawkins talk now. Did I hear right? Is he serious he would like to create a hybrid homo sapiens with a chimpanzee? Is this possible?

No, it's not possible. Humans and chimps cannot interbreed. RD was speaking hypothetically of what might have been possible had all the beings at the intermediate stages between us and the animal that was the common ancestor of both us and the chimpanzees not become extinct. But they did, so you needn't worry!

He did say he'd like to write a science fiction book on the topic though, exploring the various implications of such a cross-breed.

59. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95558 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly sure that he has said that children taught by religious parents about their religion are in fact abused and should be taken away from their parents.

No, krisking, you are categorically wrong on that point, although I'm not surprised you've got that impression if you haven't read TGD, since so many of its critics have been at pains to give it.

There is absolutely no suggestion in anything RD writes that children should be taken away from their parents if those parent try to teach them religion. Absolutely not. Please put all thought of that out of your mind. In fact, even better, please do read TGD and see for yourself that this is a gross distortion of what RD has written.

Nor, incidentally, has RD suggested that children shouldn't be taught ABOUT religion. What he HAS said is twofold:

1. It is absurd to label a child by the religion of its parents, when it simply isn't old enough to be able to make up its own mind on the subject. The absurdity is immediately apparent if you think of a 4-year old being referred to as a Marxist child or a Tory child or a Keynesian child.

2. To instil a child with the fear of hell - with images of themselves or someone they love on fire for all eternity - is an abusive thing to do. Do you think that's controversial? I don't. I remember my childhood nightmares even without having had that image put in my brain. I dread to think what mental and emotional agonies I'd have gone through if I'd had that to process as well.

A friend of mine who used to teach reception class at a primary school in Birmingham was appalled to learn that one the 5-year olds in her class had been permitted by his parents to watch Reservoir Dogs late one night. I think most of us can see that this is an outrageously irresponsible and, yes, abusive thing to do to a small child. Yet the images of hell are even worse, because they are applied to the child him or her self, and to his or her friends and other people the child cares about. No one should terrorise a small child - not even in the name of their religion.

The plea in TGD is to parents simply not to do it. NOT to the state to take their children away from them if they do!

60. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95551 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 3:10 pm

I'm quite sure there are other reasons to oppose it, but you will have to agree that the "specialness" of the human fetus is a pretty good one (supposing that it is true of course - which I believe it to be).

You're wise to add your caveat, ADH, since all the evidence is that the only thing at all special about humans is that we have evolved to a (so far as we know) unique degree of cognitive ability. Our genetic similarity to chimpanzees is breathtakingly strong - in DNA terms we are more than 99% identical. And the amount of genetic material we share even with something as humble as a dandelion might surprise you! No, arguments from the specialness of human beings are weak arguments from the start.

The second part of your post was aimed at Brian, but what makes you think that there's anything called "the" rational view, any more than there's something called "the" atheist view? A view is rational if it has been arrived at through a process of rational consideration and assessment of the evidence. There's no reason why 2 people can't approach a question equally rationally and still come to 2 different conclusions. What WOULDN'T be rational would be to reach that conclusion on purely emotional grounds, or through reference to authority, or through reference to the supernatural, or through deliberate disregard of available evidence.

Again, I can only suggest you take another look at almost any thread on this website selected at random, and see whether you can see signs of a universal atheist position or universal rationalist position on any topic whatsoever other than the non-existence of gods. I suspect you won't find many statements of opinion that aren't almost immediately challenged by another atheist.

61. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95539 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 2:47 pm

By the way, krisking, TGD's well worth reading, but if it's a simple introduction to the evolutionary perspective and science in general you're looking for, I'd recommend either A Devil's Chaplain or Unweaving the Rainbow. Well, I'd recommend both actually! Other books by RD go into more scientific detail than either of these, but these 2 are a great place to start.

62. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95536 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Does anyone have a copy of the God Delusion they have finished with?

You'd think that Dawkins would give them out free, if he wants to eradicate religion from the world

Cheapskate! :-)

63. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95534 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 2:37 pm

But this issue in itself is just one aspect of the definition of humanness. This implies a common position on abortion (for theists the fetus is already a human being with all that that implies in terms of being already an object of God's love), bioethics (I suspect that there is a common position on embryonic stem cell research). Although my own position on these issues can be deduced from what I have just said, I have no interest in starting up a debate on either of them here. I just wanted to point out, in response to your question, that a position on the existence of God will necessarily imply other positions.

This is an argument that's often put forward by theists, but a quick look at any of the threads on this website where, for instance, abortion has been discussed will suffice to show you that, in fact, it's just not true. If you want to check that out for yourself, I'd refer you to a thread a couple of months back: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1582,Teresa-Bright-and-Dark,Christopher-Hitchens-Newsweek

I think this assumption can only come from the fact that Christianity teaches that, say, abortion is wrong, and you (I don't mean you personally) agree with that, so you assume that the reason you view abortion as you do is that Christianity teaches it. I can only put to you the possibility that, even if you hadn't had your dislike of, say, abortion reinforced by your religion, you could still have held it anyway.

All atheism does with respect to, say, abortion is to strip away the argument that it's wrong because humans are special. Are you suggesting that there aren't any other reasons to oppose it? Or, indeed, that there are no Christians who support it?

64. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95518 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 1:53 pm

..and therefore how can we know the truth?

About what? Paleoanthropology? Or evolution?

65. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95515 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 1:45 pm

I actually beg to differ about you not having common positions except with regard to the non-existence of God. It seems to me that common positions are emerging over a range of issues.

Could you identify a few more examples, ADH? You've suggested a non-speciesist approach to humans and other animals. Any others?

(By the way, I'm also interested to know whether other atheists here agree with ADH on the non-speciesist bit. After all, it would be possible to be speciesist simply based on the human capacity to reason, talk, create complex technology, do science, learn other people's languages etc - rather than from a belief that humans are made in God's image.)

66. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95494 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Can someone tell me whether the atheist position on "speciesism" rules out slaughtering animals for food?

Your question is based on a misunderstanding, ADH. There simply isn't an atheist position on anything other than the non-existence of gods. In fact, I'm rather surprised at your even asking the question if you've been following this thread at all, since it is surely perfectly apparent that the atheists who have contributed to it hold highly divergent views on this question.

You could hold discussions on the questions you've raised here in any House Group of any church in any country and get a range of mutually contradictory responses; and each respondent would presumably believe their stance to be consistent with their Christianity.

Now you could argue that Christians actually should have a consistent stance on these matters, since they claim to have access to divine revelation. There is absolutely no reason why atheists should be expected to share any views on anything beyond that which makes them atheists: lack of belief in gods.

67. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95480 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 12:26 pm

I've never gotten a decent answer from a vegetarian of why lions, and tigers, and wolves, and jackals all get a pass on devouring flesh, but not humans.

Have you ever tasted a vegetable lasagne made by a jackal? I'm telling you, if you cooked as badly as they do, you'd want a diet of raw meat too ;-)

68. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95477 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 12:24 pm

If it is "immoral" to kill a cow for meat how about a chicken, a fish or a lobster?

Heaven forfend I should come across as a proseletysing vegetarian - I certainly have no wish to be that, but nevertheless I do see the decision about what we eat as having an ethical dimension.

The ethical dimension of food goes beyond whether or not to kill animals. Many people these days prefer to avoid buying food that isn't organic; or food that has incurred high food miles (unfortunately following ethical ideal #1 often involves breaching ethical ideal #2 and vice versa). Others might feel it's unethical to indulge in gross gluttony when so many people don't have enough to eat. And others prefer to avoid buying food that entails the killing of a sentient animal. On one level, these are indeed all lifestyle choices, but why should that mean that they can't be arrived at for ethical reasons?

Bonzai is right that the ethics are not clear-cut; but then, ethics so rarely are. To my mind it is no more ethical to kill a chicken, fish or lobster than it is to kill a cow, and I can't for the life of me see why it should be. I can see why people might say it's perfectly ethical to kill any of them, but not why they would discriminate between animal species.

Of course if it were a question of cockroach infestation, I would get the bug-zappers in. To me it is a question of necessary vs unnecessary killing. It isn't necessary to kill animals in order to eat food that is nutritious and tasty, therefore I normally prefer to be veggie.

The only reason I posted on the topic in the first place was that I'd detected a suggestion that atheists should automatically be vegetarians because they don't (or shouldn't, if consistent) recognise any meaningul difference between humans and other animals, and I wanted to make the point that the arguments in favour of vegetarianism stand alone and are not dependent on either theism or atheism.

69. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #95466 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 12:03 pm

103. Comment #95406 by skipjack on December 8, 2007 at 9:35 am
Hi skipjack and welcome to RD.net :-) Glad you stumbled on us - your post was thought-provoking.

That said, I'm about to disagree with it! (Don't take it personally - if you hang around, which I hope you will, you'll see it happens all the time...)

You seem to be saying that atheism is alright for the clever bods who are also rational and articulate enough to be able to handle its implications, but that it would be a social disaster if unleashed on Mr Average.

The implication of this seems to be that Mr Average, if not held in thrall to some post-death showdown with the Almighty, would inevitably descend into drunkenness, debauchery and dissolute living.

Forgive me, but isn't this just a tad patronising?

I entirely take your point about the early societies you dig up all over the world having found the need for religion, but I see this more as an expression of the human thirst for knowledge and understanding than anything else.

In primitive societies there simply were no naturalistic ways of accounting for apparently astonishing natural phenomena such as earthquakes, volcanoes, droughts, famines, even day and night, summer and winter. Given their state of scientific knowledge at that time, the only possible explanations were supernatural explanations.

Now, I don't doubt that such explanations were hijacked by each society's rulers in order to reinforce their rule and impose some kind of order. But where would this concept of rules and order come from? Isn't it reasonable to suppose that even primitive people would be able to work out that certain types of behaviour were helpful to themselves and the rest of the group, whereas other kinds were not? We now know that a sense of "morality" on this basic level is not unknown amongst a number of different animals, so is far from being an exclusively human phenomenon.

I would also point out that being clever in an academic sense offers only limited protection against having no common sense whatsoever. Don't know whether you've encountered this website's favourite bugbear Alister McGrath yet or not, but he's a perfect example of a highly educated man who doesn't have the sense he was born with.

And conversely, just because someone isn't educated doesn't mean they can't have any common sense or that their baloney-detector doesn't work.

Suppose that your proposition - that the masses need religion in order to stop them being a nuisance to the rest of us - had any truth in it. There are two options: leave them in their ignorance and laugh up our sleeve at them, or enlighten them, educate them, give them the self-esteem that comes through education and that is ultimately even MORE effective as a disincentive to antisocial behaviour than the education itself. I know which of the two I'm more in favour of.

70. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95441 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 10:47 am

Anyway, I am sorry.

So far as I'm concerned you have nothing to apologise for AT ALL, steve99. To my mind your posts are always stimulating, reasonable and interesting. Lack of politeness is not a virtue, nor does it add anything to the quality of the debate. PLEASE don't change the way you post.

71. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95437 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 10:43 am

The forums are there for such atheists to go the full hog with theists if they so desire.

Since the question of whether or not we should debate with theists has nothing to do with the thread topic of Science and the New Atheism, perhaps those who instigated it should have done so in the Forums instead? ;-)

72. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95432 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 10:33 am

53. Comment #95431 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:28 am
So it's really the issue of order, discipline and neatness that's bothering you? Are you sure? Forgive me, it just seems that tidiness is an odd thing to provoke such strong feelings.

73. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95429 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 10:18 am

And any 'debating' with theists can be done off the front page and in the forums which are set up for off-thread discussions.

You've lost me, Logicel. Why should debating with people who hold opposing views be off-thread in ANY thread?

74. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95427 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 10:12 am

36. Comment #95410 by coretemprising on December 8, 2007 at 9:42 am
Actually, I have a lot of sympathy with you, the way you've expressed your feelings here. There is something rather wonderful about being able to retreat from a world which is full of supernatural, superstitious beliefs and assumptions, and simply relishing being in the company of people who share our naturalistic, rationalistic approach to life. It comes as very welcome relief.

I also take your point that the arguments of the theists do tend to take a very predictable form. It's rare - well, it's never happened, so far as I can see! - that they come up with something really new, something that we genuinely haven't ever heard or considered before. And too many of them think that just repeating their dogmas and their Bible verses will be likely to convince us of the error of our ways. Such encounters are not very enlivening, it's true.

At the same time, I don't see any way of preventing theists from expressing their views here and nor, to be honest, can I see that it would be good to do it even if we could. Even with our Christian visitors, this forum is still more of a "clear-thinking oasis" than I've ever found anywhere else. And I do still think it's good to be challenged sometimes ...

75. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95416 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 9:49 am

Sigh. I thought giving up that religion stuff would allow me to live exactly as I pleased with no regrets. So this morality business is independent of religion. Who knew?

There are a lot of people who find it's in their interests to keep this a well-kept secret, BCWC ;-)

...eating mammals strikes me as a kind of cannibalism, but I still do it because I have yet to have explained to me why eating humans (who have consented to it) is "wrong". The only coherent case that can be made against it is based on health issues, rather than morality.

I agree in that I find it hard to justify treating non-human animals by different standards than we apply to human ones. But that leads to two possible approaches: one, that we should treat both equally badly (i.e. no reason why we shouldn't kill and eat both) and the other, that we should treat both equally kindly (i.e. no reason why we should kill and eat EITHER of them).

76. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95399 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 9:21 am

...and then there's always the point about it being unlikely that a human brain could have evolved without meat-eating ancestors.

Interesting point! Even if it's true, though (and sorry, I'm not intentionally doubting you - I just genuinely don't have the knowledge on this score), wouldn't that still leave the question of whether meat-eating is ethical NOW?

Also, I can well imagine that meat would have been required at earlier stages of our evolutionary development, not least because our ancestors wouldn't have had the access to the wide range of vegetables, fruits and grains that we have these days. Meat is undoubtedly a very concentrated source of all kinds of essential nutrients, so "back then" it was probably an excellent solution. But whether it would still have been essential if they'd had the array of alternatives we have today is perhaps another question.

I suspect I'm sounding more hardline on this question than I actually am - I occasionally eat meat and fish myself. But I do see vegetarianism as the preferable option, for the reasons I gave before. Even if most of us just made a point of eating less meat and avoiding buying the factory-farmed stuff, there'd be a big reduction in animal suffering and extravagant use of resources.

EDIT: OK, in the interests of scrupulous honesty, I have to acknowledge that there may be an element of post-rationalisation in what I've written: I do think vegetarianism is the more ethical option ... but that's not actually the reason I choose to eat veggie food most of the time: it's simply that I prefer it! And I also find having lumps of dead animal in my fridge rather nauseating.

77. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95384 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 8:19 am

Some of us just enjoy the debate, coretemprising! What a dull place RD.net would be if we all just sat around agreeing with each other. I have yet to read a post by steve99 that I have found boring, and there haven't been many of them that I haven't learned something from either so Steve, please keep them coming.

I do agree that very few people are likely to change their minds about anything by reading what other people write - but don't you find that the very process of gathering your own thoughts to respond to someone else makes you question and challenge them, identify areas of them that aren't strong and that you therefore need to explore more deeply?

As an example, if I hadn't started engaging in debates with theists on a different forum about a year ago, I doubt very much whether I'd have felt the need to understand evolution better, or cosmology. Has my learning more about evolution and cosmology in the last year transformed those theists' views in any way? No, of course not. But it has transformed and strengthened mine and opened up whole new areas of interest to me. If I'd just decided those theists weren't worth debating with and walked away, they wouldn't be any the poorer now. But I would be.

78. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95379 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 7:49 am

I think there's a strong ethical case for vegetarianism regardless of your religious views, or lack of them.

It avoids the taking of life on an enormous scale, it avoids the hideousness of intensive farming methods and the horrors of the slaughterhouse, it is dramatically less extravagant with limited resources such as land and water and, when pursued with a modicum of attention to nutrition, can be healthier than a non-vegetarian diet, leading to less human suffering too.

And despite Richard's remark in the interview, veggie food can be absolutely delightful - though I do agree with him that a horrible number of chefs haven't cottoned on to this yet!

Christianity gives meat-eaters some wiggle-room, of course, by claiming that man has dominion over the rest of the animal kingdom. Not one of Christianity's finest pronouncements. But there's no obvious reason why it should outweigh the ethical considerations I've suggested above. The case for vegetarianism is strong on its own merits - no need to bring religion into it either way.

79. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95142 by Northern Bright on December 7, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Thanks for that, USA_Limey - scary though.

Mind you, pretty well all the candidates strike me as pretty scary, one way or another.

80. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95132 by Northern Bright on December 7, 2007 at 12:18 pm

What's the view in the US about the likelihood of this guy getting the Republican nomination?

Who's the front runner at the moment?

81. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94722 by Northern Bright on December 6, 2007 at 10:38 am

This is the message from the slave of Allah to all the athiests.

I wonder if you realise how utterly alienating the concept of slavery is to anyone whose mind has not been corrupted by religion, Abdullah. To be a slave is the worst thing that can happen to you - you are stripped of your liberty, your dignity, your individuality and in effect your life. To have that imposed on you by brute force is appalling. To choose it voluntarily and then to boast of it is shocking beyond belief.

You wish us the peace of Allah - I wish you the liberation and the dignity of recognising that there is no god and that the responsiblity for what you do with your life rests entirely with you.

I would like to congratulate for saying that there is no god. Do you know why?
Because you have just accepted the first part of "shahada" which says, "there is no god, but Allah and Mohammad is the prophet of Allah".

But we put the full stop earlier in that sentence than you do, Abdullah. There is no god. Full stop. Even if there WERE a god, Allah is only one of thousands of allegedly supernatural entities competing for our allegiance. There is no more reason to give credence to him than to any of the others.

It just so happens (I'm guessing - you can tell me if I'm wrong) that you were brought up to associate your emotions with religion and to associate that religion with Islam. Had you been brought up in a Christian home, you would have associated those feelings with Christianity. Ditto Hinduism, Buddhism, paganism - the lot.

Now coming to the problem of nurses being told to turn beds to Mecca.
I think its not correct to object this for the following reasons:
1 Muslims are living in Dewsbury, and therefore they have the right of getting some help from the government because the tax money is not just deducted from non-muslims.

I absolutely agree with you that taxpaying Muslims are entitled to the same treatment as any other taxpayer. The question is not whether Muslims should be entitled to have nursing staff pander to their religious beliefs, but whether ANYONE should be. And the answer is no. Just because someone pays tax does not mean that the state is obliged to do whatever they want.

2 If you are so much concerned about the tax-payers money being used improperly then Mr Richard Dawkins you better protest about 18bn pounds being on alcohol related problem. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4226438.stm
This BBC website will testify that.

I don't dispute for a minute that alcohol abuse costs the state a great deal of money, or that that is a problem. But when you think about it, all sorts of things end up causing health problems that then cost the state money: driving your car (if you crash); painting your ceiling (if you fall off the ladder); walking your dog (if an attacker hits you over the head); exercising (it always amuses me that A&E depts are full of people whose intention was to get themselves fit); breathing (if you happen to be close to a chemical leak). There is evidence that alchohol in moderation can actually have health benefits.

However, the issue here is not about the pros and cons of alcohol, but about the truth or otherwise of any religion and whether state nursing staff should have to accommodate it. Even if alcohol could be categorically shown to be harmful in all cases, that would only be an argument for not drinking alcohol - not for believing in any god, whether calling himself Allah or any other name.

Complaining against religion would not give you people any peace of mind. You people are all lost in a world of chaos.

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. You're fortunate to live in a secular society that permits the expression of all kinds of views on the subject of religion - if we atheists were to write an equivalent thought publicly in Saudi Arabia - that all Muslims are kidding themselves and are lost in a world of superstitious delusion, for instance - I suspect we'd meet with a less tolerant response.

However, I would just point out to you that your opinion is just that - opinion. Moreover, it is based on what you wish to believe is true rather than any possible way of knowing whether it is true or not. After all, you haven't met any of us. And you have no way of comparing our relative peace of mind before and after giving up our religious beliefs.

You won't believe me but that doesn't alter the fact that my life has improved enormously since I abandoned belief in a god. I have a sense of release, of freedom, and of intellectual questing that I never had before. I apologise if that sounds a bit pompous, but it does sum up how I feel about it. My peace of mind hasn't suffered in any way at all.

That still begs the question though: even if I DID now have less peace of mind than before, how would that prove the existence of god? I can well imagine how genuine belief in something might give someone a sense of comfort, a sense of purpose, and yes, peace of mind. But that's just due to psychology - it tells us absolutely nothing about the truth or otherwise of the belief.

When you think about it, what I'm saying MUST be true: since Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, pagans, [insert any other religion you care to mention] ALL report that their religion gives them peace of mind, and yet they are all worshipping very different, for the most part mutually incompatible gods. Or do you believe that ALL these religions are true? I suspect you don't.

So what makes you so utterly confident that yours, out of all the 1000s of religions available, is the only one that is true? After all, virtually any religion worth the name can conjure up a "holy" book that claims to be the ultimate and inerrant revelation from god. And any religion can create the illusion of peace of mind, answered prayer, hope, purpose etc etc etc. And the other religions - certainly the Abrahamic ones - are as convinced that the only reason you believe your religion to be the true one is that the devil has corrupted you, as you may be of the reverse.

The fact is, there is no evidence whatsover for the truth of ANY religion.

Devil has made you see religion as a set of beliefs worth only of insult.

No - since the devil doesn't exist either. It's not just gods that there is no evidence for, but the supernatural of any kind: devils, hobgoblins, witches, ghosts ...

And I think our aims here are to challenge religion, rather than to insult it. To challenge its hold on people's minds and, even more importantly, in our public lives. And that's why the issue of moving beds in Dewsbury matters: if patients want to pursue their religion then that really is a private matter, entirely down to them. No one is going to prevent them doing that - but that doesn't mean the state has to go out of its way to help them. No one is going to prevent me learning the bagpipes, but that doesn't mean the state has to pay to provide either the instrument or the lessons. Or the soundproofing ;-) It's a personal choice, and a personal responsibility.

I ask Allah to give u peace of mind and would encourage you to read Quran.

Thank you for your good wishes, Abdullah. In return, my wish for you would be that you actively and objectively (inasmuch as it's within the power of any of us to be totally objective) scrutinise just what the evidence for your beliefs is and, if you find it isn't convincing, that you will have the courage to act accordingly. Remember, a book isn't "holy" just because people say it is. If it were, the world would be full of genuinely holy books, all saying different things and painting a different picture of god. And religious experiences are ten a penny, for people of all religions.

What really makes you think Islam is the only true one out of all of them? What is your evidence for thinking that? And in what way is the evidence you think YOU have stronger than the evidence that every Christian / Hindu / Jew in the world think that THEY have?

May peace be upon those who follow the religion of truth which is Islam.

Another sentence that starts well but goes wrong. Might I suggest an alternative: May peace be upon everyone. No conditions, no caveats. No addition of words to the effect of "provided they believe what I believe". If the world is to have any peace, there must be an end to divisive thinking of this sort.

82. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94643 by Northern Bright on December 6, 2007 at 6:34 am

And all played out against a soundtrack of ghastly embarassing Christmas carols "we three "kings" for example and that awful "away in a manger" Note the line "no crying he makes"

The line that really rouses my ire is

"Christian children all must be
Mild, obedient, good as he."

Not ever so subtle, is it?

As an (accidental) antidote, when I first went to infants school the assumption was made that we new starters couldn't read. So we just had to pick up the words of the hymns in assembly by listening to the others singing them.

There's a children's hymn that starts, "Crown him, crown him, all the little children ....", which seemed to be a particular favourite at my school, since we ended up singing it quite often. As a result of the school's no-hymnbooks policy, though, I spent my first year at school singing at the top of my lungs, "Drown him, drown him, all the little children ...."

I was obviously destined to be an atheist from a tender age.

83. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #94636 by Northern Bright on December 6, 2007 at 6:06 am

Northern Bright (in her first posting here) remarked that:

"in the UK it would be considered unseemly for a politician to bang on about his or her faith".

But consider this: how many party leaders in Britain have made it clear that they were Rationalists. The only two I can think of – Foot and Kinnock – weren't elected. The Jewish Michael Howard didn't make it to No 10 either. In the US, it is perfectly clear that no Rationalist will reach the White House in the foreseeable future. In Britain, it is (of course) more subtle but the prejudice remains. Which politician will declare that she stands with us and still expects to become prime minister? Who's up for it?

I agree with you, WSteG. You won't get British politicians going there either. I think the whole thing - whether approached from the religious or rationalist angle - is generally considered to be a private matter and not a topic for polite conversation unless you are 100% confident that the other participants share your views.

In a way, you can see the sense of it from a politician's point of view. Every time they open their mouths during an election campaign they're going to alienate someone. So why open their mouths on a subject that very few people consider to be central? The risk is too high, whichever side of the fence they sit on.

Maybe it's time we started making the question more central. As a result of the Tony Blair story I for one intend to start asking candidates what role religion plays in their decision-making when they knock on my door asking for my vote. I suspect they will automatically assume that I'm a fundie Christian and will probably talk up their religious leanings ... which will then give me the chance to make the point that this, in my view, disqualifies them from getting my vote. Maybe if enough of us do the same, over time we'll begin to break down the prevailing assumption that religiosity is generally seen as a sign of a good character.

I'm sure that this prevailing assumption is another reason why politicians won't speak out against the influence of religion - too many people associate being anti-religion with being anti-morality or anti-compassion or anti-decency. British attitudes to religion are fairly complex, when you start thinking about it. As a nation we "believe in belief". But we're suspicious of individuals who go on about it too much in public. Even when it comes to the clergy, we prefer them to be opening fetes and judging the best Victoria Sandwich rather than spouting on about religion too much, unless it is from the pulpit on a Sunday morning, in which case it is deemed appropriate, provided they don't go on too long.

84. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94610 by Northern Bright on December 6, 2007 at 3:52 am

Yeah, because the slaughter of children is just one of those things that slips through the cracks, isn't it? Not likely.

No, not very likely at all! It's hard to imagine anything that would leave a populace more traumatised than a whole generation of their offspring being wiped out at the command of their ruler. It is unthinkable that neither of the two historians who wrote the most critical accounts of Herod would omit to mention it.

I've described it elsewhere as being the equivalent of 2 modern day historians writing extremely critical accounts of the US/UK invasion of Iraq, and omitting to mention that they didn't find any WMD when they got there.

85. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94603 by Northern Bright on December 6, 2007 at 3:30 am

By using astronomical planetarium type software, you can plot all the conjunctions going back 1000s of years - there certainly werent any "two planets appearing as one" type events anywhere near the dates in question.

The speaker at the event I was at had done just this, using Starry Night - but she had indeed found a number of instances of planets in conjunction.

It's no skin off my nose either way - whether or not there was exciting stuff going on in the heavens at around the right time (and the speaker I heard categorically stated that there was and backed this up using the kind of software you refer to), it's clear to me that it has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of the nativity story.

Mind you, the speaker I heard also made the reference to Luke - and now you've challenged it I've looked it up and you're absolutely right. I should have known that myself.

By the way - and moving on to a different part of the nativity story - Victor Stenger makes a good case for the "slaughter of the innocents" being a complete fabrication too. Apparently there were a couple of first century historians who wrote very critical accounts of Herod, dwelling on his murderous ways, and neither of them so much as mentions the alleged slaughter of the firstborn. Which would be odd, if it had really happened, wouldn't it?

86. Fox: 'Atheist Outrage' over holiday 'Tree of Knowledge'

Comment #94590 by Northern Bright on December 6, 2007 at 3:01 am

I hope there are no apples on this "Tree of Knowledge".

Lest we forget the fate of Adam and Eve.

Hmmm. I can't help feeling it's no coincidence that, in the eyes of the Abrahamic religions, it was the desire for knowledge that brought all the trouble into the world. They always have favoured keeping people in ignorance.

87. Fox: 'Atheist Outrage' over holiday 'Tree of Knowledge'

Comment #94585 by Northern Bright on December 6, 2007 at 2:48 am

It's rather telling, isn't it, that Christians should see the promotion of knowledge as an outrage against their religion.

As it happens, I was reading The Varieties of Scientific Experience by Carl Sagan just this morning, and there's a lovely bit in that, which seems particularly apt in the context of this article:

We have Ten Commandments in the West. Why is there no commandment exhorting us to learn? "Thou shalt understand the world. Figure things out." There's nothing like that. And very few religions urge us to enhance our understanding of the natural world. I think it is striking how poorly religions, by and large, have accommodated to the astonishing truths that have emerged in the last few centuries.

88. Springer opera court fight fails

Comment #94349 by Northern Bright on December 5, 2007 at 12:16 pm

The outright dismissal of this case is still a good sign and sends out a clear message.

I'm inclined to agree with Friend Giskard and the NSS on this one. Even though this verdict sends out a clear message about the stupidity of the blasphemy law, mightn't it have been better to have a verdict that could ultimately have led to its repeal?

89. Springer opera court fight fails

Comment #94342 by Northern Bright on December 5, 2007 at 11:36 am

Yet what's the betting that a substantial proportion of these "Christian Voice" people thought the Sudanese response to the teddy-bear-called-Mohammed incident a ludicrous overreaction and were praying like mad for the teacher's early and safe release?

90. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94333 by Northern Bright on December 5, 2007 at 10:46 am

Steve99:

Its ideal storyline would be "Gay immigrants in Diana conspiracy".

Oh my god! They weren't, were they?

By the way, don't you mean "Gay atheist immigrants in Diana conspiracy"?

;-)

91. Springer opera court fight fails

Comment #94330 by Northern Bright on December 5, 2007 at 10:39 am

The blasphemy law should be abolished altogether. If God's offended by something someone's said or written, let him sue on the grounds of slander or libel, like anyone else.

92. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94320 by Northern Bright on December 5, 2007 at 9:31 am

Yes, I fail to see why a planetary conjunction, even a close one, would look like a particularly bright new star.
Wouldn't two planets still look like two planets? And the conjunction wouldn't exactly come as a complete surprise. What little astronomy there is in the Bible at least recognises Venus. ('the evening star')

I don't have a problem with that, mjwemdee. I can easily imagine that 2 planets aligned in just the right way would present something unfamiliar in the sky and could be mistaken for a new star. And whilst it's true that astronomers back then wouldn't have been flummoxed by a planetary conjunction, it doesn't follow that the ordinary Gospel-writer-in-the-street would know what it was or that it had been expected.

Astronomical events were seen as portents of momentous events on Earth - which is why the gospel writers (actually only Matthew and Luke) include a bright star as part of their narrative. It's a kind of shorthand for "Jesus was divine." Much like the virgin birth. And the resurrection.

I absolutely agree we don't need to identify "the" astronomical event concerned, since what it's being linked with is an unproven and highly unlikely story anyway. But that's not to say that people at that time wouldn't have expected an unusual occurrence in the sky to be accompanied by an unusual event on Earth - and it does seem that there were quite a few unusual things going on in the sky during the last 5 years BC.

So you can see how the star story might have taken root in people's minds, and why it could be turned to good effect in the gospels.

93. Highway to hysteria

Comment #94213 by Northern Bright on December 5, 2007 at 3:14 am

43. Comment #94211 by Mysturji on December 5, 2007 at 3:10 am
Mysturji, that is seriously good! :-) Thanks for the laugh!

94. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94197 by Northern Bright on December 5, 2007 at 2:28 am

Everybody knows, furthermore, that there was no moving star in the east

As it happens, I was at a talk at our local Astonomy Society just last night, about "The Christmas Star".

I was too irritated by the speaker's uncritical acceptance of the nativity story to pay great attention to the detail, but it seems that there were a number of conjunctions of planets between about 5BC and 1BC that would have created the illusion of a particularly bright new star - and, of course, the planets do move.

"Everybody knows" that sentences beginning with the words "Everybody knows" have a tendency to be rather suspect.

95. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #94194 by Northern Bright on December 5, 2007 at 1:55 am

Jason P

Lyra is one of the great heroines of fiction - to call her vile, or a brat, is to be incredibly shallow and curmudgeonly. Rather the same goes for those who found the idea of daemons uncompelling or unattractive.

I found the idea of daemons more than just uncompelling or unattractive - I found it truly hideous. I realise that many of you won't relate to this at all, but altogether I found NL a seriously nightmarish book. My feelings went far beyond dislike.

Shallow? No, I'm definitely not that.

Curmudgeonly? Hmmm, may have to plead guilty on that one :-)

96. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94190 by Northern Bright on December 5, 2007 at 1:43 am

Thanks for that, Veronique. I should have known better than to put my trust in the Express. Though it was on the BBC news website too - honestly, is nothing sacred? ;-)

It sounds as if the workshops to improve cultural understanding are voluntary - in which case, fair enough. Though I have to add that the Muslim Moulana might like to consider running some workshops to improve Muslims' cultural understanding of Britain and traditional British values whilst they're at it.

The Trust's reply still leaves open the possibility that nursing staff will move beds to face Mecca if requested by the patient though. So if I was gravely ill and felt my mental and emotional wellbeing would be enhanced by having the Berlin Philharmonic come in to give me a live performance of Mozart's Clarinet Concerto, no doubt they'd do that too if I requested it. No? Ah well.

Prime Numbers - re your idea about the magnets. You are clearly a very bad person. And very funny indeed. :-)

97. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #93984 by Northern Bright on December 4, 2007 at 2:23 pm

The time, money and sheer energy that are spent pandering to these ridiculous beliefs - what an almighty waste.

It's time we all got serious about insisting that religion is a purely personal matter, and that if people want to pursue it, then they must do so with their own resources - like any other interest or hobby - and not at the expense or other inconvenience of the taxpayer.

98. Highway to hysteria

Comment #93917 by Northern Bright on December 4, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Somebody pleeeeeeeease tell me that's not real.

OMG, imagine if they were right: can you imagine what an eternity in heaven would be like, surrounded by people like this? Just doesn't bear thinking about, does it?

99. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93835 by Northern Bright on December 4, 2007 at 9:29 am

How dare you say Lyra is vile! You deserve 40 lashes or a prison term. If I ever see you in the street I will behead you myself!

Oh come on!! Lets not loose perspective. This is clearly not a beheading offence. Maybe 20 lashes.

But do I at least get to keep the teddy bear?

100. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93818 by Northern Bright on December 4, 2007 at 9:02 am

On a scale of 1 to 5 rate your agreement with the following statements. Where 1 is totally agree, and 5 totally disagree.

I loved "his dark materials".
I have almost always considered myself an atheist.
I used to be an enthusiastic fundamentalist theist.

5
4
3