51. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172189 by Dinah on April 29, 2008 at 10:21 am

I suspect Peter McKnight has allowed himself to be over-influenced by the negative comments and interpretations of TGD rather than assessing the book for himself. The religious-minded will continue to condemn the book for daring to question the legitimacy of their claims, but McKnight should have the courage of his own convictions - it does sound as though he's inclined our way rather than theirs.

52. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172173 by Dinah on April 29, 2008 at 10:01 am

Did Stalin execute religious figures specifically because they were religious, or because he saw them as representing an alternative kind of power and therefore a threat to his leadership? He did after all suffer from paranoia, and executed many people he imagined were plotting against him.

53. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #168902 by Dinah on April 25, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Re Comment #168857 by BigJohn

'There/their/they're' Yes, I agree. This is very basic grammar, and people should take the trouble to find out the difference if they don't know.

Another thing that annoys me is the frequent misspelling of the word 'atheist', usually as 'athiest'. How can atheists expect to be taken seriously if they can't even spell what they are supposed to be?

54. Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says

Comment #168696 by Dinah on April 25, 2008 at 9:46 am

REPENT! The end is, I mean was, nigh, I mean nearly was nigh, was nigh nearly, but wasn't really, oh never mind...

55. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167714 by Dinah on April 24, 2008 at 9:27 am

This is akin to vegetarians running a site about carnivores, or should that be the other way around? Anyway, it is highly unlikely that unbiased information will be obtained from such a source. If the people running this site are aiming to refute atheism, then they should say so. But as we know, theologians/god botherers/faithheads or whatever we wish to call them, are rarely honest about their motives, or indeed anything else.

56. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167685 by Dinah on April 24, 2008 at 9:07 am

'clearmind's' mind seems about as clear as thick oxtail soup or a mud-filled ditch. I have to confess that most of the time I have no idea what he is on about. Is this a common problem, or is it just me?

57. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167579 by Dinah on April 24, 2008 at 7:16 am

Re Comment #167553 by black wolf

Well, I can see what you mean. I have a friend who met and married a man with a beard, but post the nuptials she persuaded him to shave it off. She took one look at him clean-shaven and immediately commanded him to grow it again!

So there may be something after all in the belief that men with beards are hiding something...

58. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167517 by Dinah on April 24, 2008 at 6:04 am

I think Daniel Dennett is brilliant - he sums up the arguments against religion so well. Pity about his old-testament style beard, though. Why do some men think beards are attractive? Is it a case of 'I must be a man because I can grow all this disgusting wiry stuff over my face?' Or do they find them useful for storing their left-over chips? Couldn't his wife be persuaded to shave it off while he's asleep?

59. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162814 by Dinah on April 17, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Re Comment #162802 by Steve Zara
Whether it is 'reasonable' or 'acceptable' is surely not the issue; the point is whether or not it is true. I am not suggesting that everyone who is forced to repress their sexuality for whatever reason will revert to rape, but in certain circumstances it will happen. One only has to think what happens in war - for example, when Berlin was overrun at the end of WW2 many sex-starved allied soldiers raped every German female they could find aged from 8 to 80 plus. Catholic priests live unnatural lives in which they are required to deny themselves any kind of sexual gratification from normal relationships and some as a result will behave in ways which we would regard as 'unreasonable' and 'unacceptable'.

60. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162727 by Dinah on April 17, 2008 at 11:12 am

Re Comment #162687 by Steve Zara

It would not necessarily be possible for a priest to visit a prostitute - it would depend on the circumstances - on which country he lived in for example, or whether his parish was in a town or the country. My point is that suppressed sexuality can manifest itself in peculiar, peverted ways - some men have sex with vacuum cleaners when presumably they would prefer to have sex with a woman, were one available. Just because a person is not naturally a paedophile doesn't mean they would never have sex with a child if they were desperate enough and they felt they would not be found out.

61. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162685 by Dinah on April 17, 2008 at 8:39 am

Any organisation which imposes celibacy on its employees is asking for trouble. I believe the original reason for requiring Catholic priests to be celibate was to make sure they had no legitimate children who could inherit their property, thus making sure the property would go to the Church. This happened in the middle ages: prior to that time, priests were allowed to marry. The sexual drive in humans is extremely powerful and repressing it can lead to neuroses and mental illness, not to mention abnormal sexual behaviour. It should be obvious that a celibate priest with no other outlet for satisfying his sexual urges may seek out young children who are powerless and unable to protest. While it is not impossible for people to live fulfilled and successful lives as celibates, whether as a result of religious convictions or for other reasons, it is very rare, and usually such people have very low sex drives. As a way of life, celibacy should always be freely chosen, never enforced.

62. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #156165 by Dinah on April 7, 2008 at 1:52 am

Oh dear, how the unctuous David enjoys winding us all up. Then he sits back, waits for the explosion, whereupon he can feign hurt feelings, express his outrage, etc. and claim the moral high ground. How I wish we could ignore him, but I suspect we won't.

63. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155430 by Dinah on April 4, 2008 at 1:29 pm

The human population is likely to rise from about 6 billion now to 9 billion by the middle of the present century. It is hard to see how the earth's finite resources could sustain this number of people indefinitely, so it seems entirely possible that humans could become extinct, or, at the very least, suffer a cataclysmic population crash. Global warming could get completely out of control rendering large parts of the planet uninhabitable, there could be nuclear wars, pandemics, droughts and starvation on a massive scale. On a more hopeful note it is also entirely possible that human ingenuity and science will find a way out provided the forces of ignorance allow them to do so.

64. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155414 by Dinah on April 4, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Artful Dodger evidently has an infantile need to worship someone, so I suggest he switches his allegiance away from God and Jesus, and to Richard Dawkins for three reasons (1) Richard Dawkins exists (or if he doesn't I've been seriously misled) and (2) Richard Dawkins, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is a thoroughly nice bloke who, unlike God or Jesus, has never threatened anyone with the pains of hell for not obeying him, and (3) Richard Dawkins knows a lot more about the origins of life than God and Jesus, who both seem woefully ignorant about the topic. There are probably a lot more reasons that I can't bring to mind at the moment.

Of course, Artful Dodger would run the risk of being labelled 'sycophantic' and 'hero-worshipping' if he were to do this, but you can't have everything, can you?

65. BBC 'too scared to allow jokes about Islam'

Comment #154246 by Dinah on April 3, 2008 at 1:36 am

There is no point in abolishing the laws of blasphemy, or succeeding in watering down the religious hatred laws if people and organisations are simply going to use self-censorship to prevent satire, jokes and criticism of religion instead. In practice this self-censorship is more likely to apply to Islam because it is Muslims who take offence at any ridiculing of their faith more readily than adherents of other faiths, and express their outrage by rioting, waving placards and setting fire to things. For some reason, they believe this type of behaviour demonstrates what a wonderful religion Islam is and why we should all practice it.

It may well be true for all I know that many Muslims - perhaps even the majority - do not approve of this type of behaviour, but unfortunately it is not the more liberal-minded, Westernised Muslims who are calling the shots at the moment.

To label someone as 'rascist' for condemning the oppression of women under Islam is ridiculous, because Muslims are not a race any more than Christians are.

66. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153489 by Dinah on April 1, 2008 at 1:59 pm

I think there is a difference between 'killing old people' and not keeping people alive who are suffering unbearably. This is a difficult moral area, but we are often more compassionate to animals in this respect than to other human beings, being encouraged to put a pet out of its misery - sometimes risking prosecution for not doing so - but forbidden on pain of prosecution to do the same for our own kind. Of course, the religious lobby who believe life is bestowed and taken away by their god will always oppose any kind of euthanasia, no matter how much suffering this means for individuals.

Lord Joffe's Bill allowing voluntary euthanasia in very limited circumstances has been continually opposed by the religious in Parliament.

Anyone worried about being kept alive against their wishes should make a Living Will. There is no guarantee its instructions will be followed, but it is better than doing nothing.

67. Beware the Believers

Comment #153446 by Dinah on April 1, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Another not-very-good poem which is nonetheless strangely compelling is Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Raven', that begins:

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary
Over a many quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door
'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, 'tapping at my chamber door-
Only this and nothing more'...

The first ever example of rap lyrics?

Then of course there is William McGonagall of 'Tay Bridge Disaster' fame, but as far as I am aware, he was not into rap…

68. Beware the Believers

Comment #153258 by Dinah on April 1, 2008 at 9:50 am

Well I'm so Sick to the Wick of this DVD
It's making no sense, it's gone all Over TT

69. Beware the Believers

Comment #151835 by Dinah on March 29, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Having seen the film, I don't think I'll bother with the book or the tee-shirt...

70. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150180 by Dinah on March 26, 2008 at 2:29 pm

The majority of atheists, being rational affirmers of life, would not be willing to die for the atheist cause, and probably no atheist would kill anyone for opposing atheism. Some fundamentalist religious types are prepared to die for their religion, and many more to kill those who don't subscribe to their version of the supernatural. (Suicide bombers of course both kill themselves and others in the name of religion.) Does this mean in the end the forces of unreason will always defeat the voices of reason?

71. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150156 by Dinah on March 26, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Happy Birthday! (And a huge THANK YOU for your relentless hard work in the cause of atheism, and for having the courage to stand up to the champions of irrationality, superstition and the supernatural.)

72. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #150111 by Dinah on March 26, 2008 at 1:11 pm

I have no idea what the collective noun for Ancient Male Virgins in Frocks is (a Pontification perhaps?) but we've certainly been subjected to much ranting and hand-wringing from a Proliferation of them over the past week or so. As we have come to expect, it's been the usual triumph of dogma and irrationality over compassion and humanity. Evidently, a few cells in a Petrie dish with no consciousness or nervous system have more value than adult human beings in the throes of MS, Parkinson's or Motor Neurone Disease, conditions which might be alleviated if this research were allowed to go ahead.

Of course, we can be certain if any of these holier-than-thous end up with fatal conditions themselves, they will eschew any curative treatments gleaned from embryo research, preferring instead to choke to death or drown in their own secretions. 'No, no!' they will sob, pushing the proffered medicine away, 'Think how many poor little embryos went into one tablet! And besides (gasp) suffering is so ennobling! What a fine example we are setting to (gnash of teeth) healthy people, reminding them about all the ennoblement they are missing out on, not having the opportunity to suffer like us!'

73. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148493 by Dinah on March 23, 2008 at 7:55 am

'Only someone with the brain of an Easter egg could seriously believe that the influence of religion over our lives is on the rise today'

Only someone with the brain of an Easter bunny could have failed to notice the rise and rise of Islamic fundamentalism over the last few decades.

74. EXPELLED!

Comment #147932 by Dinah on March 21, 2008 at 4:02 pm

It is hardly surprising that a bunch of ID aficionados failed to recognise Richard Dawkins, since they have devoted their lives to evading reality, and are thus particularly well-qualified in the art of not seeing what is staring them in the face.

As for the references to Nazism, etc in the film - I do not know whether the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism, but if the discovery of a scientific fact leads to unpleasant outcomes that doesn't turn the fact into fiction. Or, as Richard Dawkins far more eloquently expresses it, 'a disagreeable consequence cannot undermine the truth of a premise'.

75. Jesus saves

Comment #147198 by Dinah on March 20, 2008 at 3:06 am

Re Comment #147047 'I'd rather see that money spent on research to find out why people eat Brussel's Sprouts.'

To get the wind up? (Or down?)

76. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146324 by Dinah on March 19, 2008 at 12:43 am

Life can be sad, hard and difficult. Being unhappy at times is a natural response to some of the things which happen to us. Some Christians will not allow themselves to admit this: they think being unhappy is a sin, a kind of affront to their god. They end up living a lie, hiding behind a facade of relentless false optimism. Sometimes, and I have seen this for myself, the facade cracks and they end up being treated for depression and other psychiatric disorders.

77. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146132 by Dinah on March 18, 2008 at 4:45 pm

In my experience, religion is far more likely to screw people up than make them happy. Happy people who turn out to be happy because they have dedicated their lives to a delusion should be pitied or despised rather than envied.

78. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #146126 by Dinah on March 18, 2008 at 4:32 pm

'the Inquisition claimed 2,000 lives over three and a half centuries'

Even these numbers WERE correct they are hardly something Christians should be boasting about given that their religion is supposed to be about peace, love and forgiveness. Logically, they ought to be downright ashamed and apologetic, but the majority of them remain in complete denial (or even ignorance) about Christianity's blood-splattered past, and indeed cry foul if anyone dares to mention it.

79. The atheist delusion

Comment #144490 by Dinah on March 16, 2008 at 8:06 am

Re Comment #144406 'I don't think he's a religious man'

I heard John Gray speak at a local literary festival recently. He declared himself a 'sceptic' without any religious faith. Following his profoundly pessimistic talk (during which he took a passing swipe at 'The Selfish Gene') someone asked him why any of us should bother getting up in the morning. He replied the best thing to do was to choose the set of religious myths we were most comfortable with, and use these as a way of getting through life. Another person who evidently thinks religion is good for everyone other than himself.

80. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144413 by Dinah on March 16, 2008 at 2:56 am

Re Comment #144292 by Damien Trotter - "What I would like to know is where the good professor gets all his energy from! Book tours, lectures, writing, compiling (the above), TV programs and radio, personal appearances, world travel."

Good genes perhaps?

81. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140503 by Dinah on March 7, 2008 at 2:58 pm

It is great news that the Blasphemy laws have been abolished, but one reason many believers were in favour of its abolition was that it only applied to Christianity and not to other faiths. As noted in the Guardian article, there is a religious hatred law on the statute books, albeit in a watered-down form from what was originally intended. The danger now is that the religious will demand the powers of this Act should be extended and strengthened on a quid pro quo basis. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and all that…

82. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #138958 by Dinah on March 5, 2008 at 1:44 am

Beware the Man in Frock my son!
The jaws that cite, the laws that catch!
Beware the Bearded Face and shun
The numinous Wafflehatch!

(with apologies to Lewis Carroll)

83. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126154 by Dinah on February 12, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Perhaps this could make the Arch B of C reconsider his position. Or perhaps not.

84. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #125750 by Dinah on February 12, 2008 at 1:37 am

Charlie is my Darwin, my Darwin, my Darwin...

85. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #125727 by Dinah on February 11, 2008 at 11:43 pm

What is truly shocking about this is that there will be many mentally ill and disturbed people classified as 'possessed' and denied the drugs and psychiatric treatment they need.

86. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125317 by Dinah on February 11, 2008 at 8:20 am

As another member of 'you lot' I would like to wish the Prof - sorry, Richard - a very long, happy, healthy and wealthy retirement. When I first saw the title of this piece, I imagined him riding off into the sunset on his trusty steed Reason towards his own Faith-Free zone. Fortunately, these fears were not realised, and I hope he will stay around to raise our collective consciousnesses for many years to come. Thanks to his influence, I have been transformed from a faint-hearted atheist into a proud and happy one.

87. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124259 by Dinah on February 8, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Many Muslims came to this country to get away from Sharia law. The Archbishop's idea that you can cherry-pick the bits that are acceptable and ignore the rest is naïve and dangerous.

88. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124073 by Dinah on February 8, 2008 at 9:42 am

Re: Comment #124029 "No one is suggesting introducing stoning for adulterers and gays, or forcing women to wear the veil, or any of that nonsense."

Excuse me, but I believe some hard-line clerics in mosques in Britain are suggesting exactly that 'kind of nonsense'. And if certain aspects of Sharia law were to be introduced, there would soon be pressure to introduce others. What may appear to be unimaginable today may not be a few decades into the future if this idea of the Arch B’s is not rejected firmly enough now.

89. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123916 by Dinah on February 8, 2008 at 1:52 am

NO NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO.

It is a fundamental principle in democratic countries that people are equal before the law. Sharia law is a medieval law designed for Muslim men by Muslim men which does not recognise women and non-Muslims as being equal. If this happens, it will be a betrayal of the Enlightenment and of those who have fought (and sometimes died) in the name of freedom of conscience, human rights and female equality. It would create a state within a state - I cannot think of anything which would be more divisive. Unfortunately, it is the natural outcome of multiculturalism, the uncritical championing of 'culture' 'faith' and 'difference' above any kind of common humanity or the need for shared values.

90. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121527 by Dinah on February 3, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Re Comments #121374 and #121388

Thank you Sturmundrang for this information. I am now more confused than ever. Along with AfraidToDie I do not understand the tactics behind behind Simmons' denials that he's a Christian and a Creationist and what advantages these denials are supposed to confer. While he may well feel they give his arguments more credibility among the uncommitted it doesn’t say a lot for his Christianity and Creationism if he is isn't prepared to own up to them and defend them and certainly won't endear him to his fellow Cs and Cs. Plus he risks being labelled untrustworthy by people whatever their views on this issue. Perhaps he's just a pathological liar.

91. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121347 by Dinah on February 3, 2008 at 9:27 am

I am confused (not an unusual state of affairs). This bloke Simmons doesn't believe in evolution, but stated he wasn't a Christian, didn't believe in the biblical account of creation, and wasn't an Intelligent Designer. So according to him how did we get here? He spent the whole time trying (unsuccessfully) to rubbish the arguments of PZ Myers but never actually spelt this out. Or did I miss something?

92. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #119944 by Dinah on February 1, 2008 at 3:33 am

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read words to the effect ‘The battle for women’s rights has been won.’ Maybe in the West it has but in countries like Afghanistan it has barely begun. Women like Mary Wollstancraft, the Suffragettes, the feminists of the twentieth century and beyond fought for women’s rights and female equality in this country. British Muslim women who are so keen to tell us that wearing the veil is their ‘choice’ are betraying the cause of female equality, and colluding in the suffering of women in Moslem states because whether they like it or not the veil is a symbol of female oppression the world over. Perhaps they would care to reflect that in some countries if they had ‘chosen’ the other way they would risk ostracism, injury and even death.

As for the case of the young man sentenced to death in Afghanistan, I agree there should be no equivocation on this one; if Karzai refuses to drop the charges and free him, then all troops should come out of his country, because he is supporting behaviour no better than that of the Taliban. It is analogous to the concluding part of ‘Animal Farm’ when the animals realise there is no difference between the pigs and the humans.

93. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #119359 by Dinah on January 31, 2008 at 2:21 pm

What I liked about this programme was that for once the Professor was not the sole voice of reason pitched against the massed ranks of crazed clerics, fulminating fundies, mad mullahs and rabbiting rabbis, not to mention the compulsory Wet Windbag Bishop. The skilful chairmanship of Jonathan Dimbleby ensured the opposing sides had their say (though of course there never is enough time in programmes of this type) and the contributions from the other rationalists were on the whole thoughtful and well-argued – the comments from the ex-Muslim being particularly impressive. When the Professor came head to head with the ghastly Dr Mukadam (who was on his own a good enough justification for the abolition of faith schools) the result was a resounding Faith 0, Reason 10. The Professor is a naturally courteous man, not prepared to shout down his opponents, which is why he doesn't always get the time he deserves to develop his case. But he is in a no-win situation here because if he did become more aggressive he would lay himself open to accusations of being 'militant' and 'strident'. Furthermore, I would guess that he doesn't appear on these programmes principally for the benefit of existing atheists but to put forward the case for reason, rationality and atheism to people who may never have considered these things before, could be wavering in their faith, or for any number of reasons be prepared to listen to what he has to say, and possibly as a result become new converts to atheism. Therefore, he should not be criticised for repeating arguments we may have heard from him before.

94. Belief in Belief

Comment #117598 by Dinah on January 29, 2008 at 7:57 am

T S Eliot said (in the Four Quartets) that 'Human kind/Cannot bear very much reality.' This (I think) is what Bigginhillbilly is talking about. And yes the reality is that our bodies are subject to decay, damage, disease, death and decomposition, we are doomed to non-existence, we live in a cold and indifferent universe and life has no ultimate meaning or purpose. Many, if not most, of us spend our lives trying to evade that reality. Some refuse to think about it at all, some take drugs or alcohol, some take refuge in the arts and music, some indulge in hedonism to the exclusion of everything else, and others turn to religion. Religion is the ultimate way to evade reality. It is the biggest lie ever invented.

95. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117477 by Dinah on January 28, 2008 at 11:21 pm

This article can be summed up as 'I have no real arguments to refute atheism, so instead I will insult and defame several famous atheists. This will show what a clever, thinking reasonable chap I am and prove beyond doubt my invisible magic friend exists, and loves me.'

96. Belief in Belief

Comment #117473 by Dinah on January 28, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Atheist Mermaid – One of the reasons why Christianity and Islam have lasted so long is that they have promised their adherents an afterlife provided they toe the line and obey the instructions of their respective clerics and holy books. It is one of the (if not the) greatest cons ever inflicted on the human race. Hard though it may be, in order to become adults in the true sense of the word we have to shed the infantile beliefs that we have a special place in the universe, that we are loved and matter to an invisible being, and that we will survive the death of our own bodies. It is probably even harder to accept that the people we have loved and who have died now only exist in our memories, but I personally would rather accept this than exist in a state of perpetual delusion.

97. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116688 by Dinah on January 27, 2008 at 5:57 am

I think the premise lying behind the 'atheists in foxholes' saying is that when anyone finds themself in a life-threatening situation (sinking ship, losing side of battle, earthquake, etc.) they will ask whichever deity they were brought up to believe in to save them. Even if this is true, it does not prove the existence of that particular deity, because if it did, all deities ever prayed to in such circumstances would therefore exist. I read somewhere that the majority of people when faced with the prospect of sudden death cry out for their mothers to help them (regardless of whether the females in question are in a position to render assistance or are even alive). Never having had the misfortune to be under such a threat I am unable to say whether this is the case or not.

98. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115087 by Dinah on January 23, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Not only do we have to put up with Muslims being offended about trivia, we also have to put up with non-Muslims being offended about trivia on behalf of Muslims. Where will it all end? (Sigh)

99. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111917 by Dinah on January 16, 2008 at 2:21 am

People who want 'God' to be brought into their Constitution or politics evidently know nothing about history. God was inseparable from politics in Europe for centuries, resulting in wars, persecution, repression of women and the suppression of scientific ideas to name but a few. Not content with persecuting people of other faiths, Christians then turned on each other – Catholic against Protestant, Protestant against Catholic, Catholics and Protestants against Puritans and other dissenters. And this is the point – which version of God would be the accepted one in this new theocracy? You can bet your life it wouldn't be long before Christians pursuing the 'wrong' kind of Christianity would soon find themselves on the wrong side of the law along with the atheists, Jews, Muslims, et al.

100. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #111641 by Dinah on January 15, 2008 at 9:28 am

I saw this programme when it was first transmitted and found it so awful it was embarrassing to watch. Marcus Brigstocke, unusually for him, was desperately unfunny, the jokes and sketches puerile, even the laughter of the studio audience sounded forced and hollow. The Professor looked extremely uncomfortable to be part of such dire proceedings, and who could blame him? Evidently he feels it is a necessary part of his role as Professor of Public Understanding of Science to leave his comfort zone in order to get his message across to more people, but admirable though this may be, I still think it is a shame for one of the world's greatest scientists to be subjected to this kind of thing.