51. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13793 by Diplo on December 19, 2006 at 1:13 pm

So how do you fill an hours worth of TV with problems about atheism when, actually, atheism only actually has one single tenet - the lack of belief in a deity? Well, if you are journeyman hack Rob Liddle the answer is easy : you take a few quotes from famous atheists out of context and construct an entire straw-man philosophy out of the results. You then string out the hour knocking down this straw man with all the grace of a lager-lout.

The way he went about the whole endeavour was despicably dishonest. For instance, to "prove" that atheists are dogmatic, he finds probably the one atheist in the whole world who marches outside churches with banners, as if to illustrate his 'point'. To "prove" that all atheists hold 'The Origin of the Species' as a sacred text he asks Richard Dawkins what inspired him as a youth. Well, the logic goes, if Dawkins likes Darwin then all atheists must worship him. Of course, he doesn't stop there, and like some horrible invocation of Godwin's Law, the TV screen is soon filled with marching Nazis....

Did everyone notice in all the interviews with prominent atheists that, as he asked questions, he was sat their smiling and nodding in sympathetic agreement with what they said? Yet what he actually did in the programme was to come up with some negative hypothesis about atheism and then use a few seconds clip from an interview, obviously out of context, to justify his previously made conclusions. Not once, though, did he let anyone respond to the accusations he was making in the voice-overs. The true sign of a hatchet job and really poor journalism. I have no problem with the programme being biased against atheism, but the arguments have to be fair. Liddle was hitting below the belt.

52. Talk in Class Turns to God, Setting Off Public Debate on Rights

Comment #13657 by Diplo on December 19, 2006 at 3:39 am

Will (#13652) said: "Surely, the daily 'Act of Workship' remains compulsory in all UK state schools, doesn't it?".

I'm not sure of the status of the law, but when I was at secondary school in England in the 1980's there was no daily act of worship, or any type of religious indoctrination (though there was at my primary school before that).

However, you may well be technically correct: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5194456.stm

53. Talk in Class Turns to God, Setting Off Public Debate on Rights

Comment #13648 by Diplo on December 19, 2006 at 2:02 am

Teaching about religion is compulsory in UK state schools, but certainly not being taught a religion. Giving children the facts about all the major religions is a useful exercise, as it helps breed tolerance and also helps children to think critically (after all, they will soon realise not all they myths are true, so are any?)

Regarding this specific case, it's awful, especially the death threats against Mathew. Religious indoctrination has no place in the classroom and any teacher should never be allowed to force their personal religious beliefs onto vulnerable and impressionable young people. It's an abuse of power.

54. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #13490 by Diplo on December 18, 2006 at 2:21 am

Wow, is there any subject that Dembski can't debase when he tries his hand at it? Satire can be a great tool, but the first rule is it has to be witty and not just embarrassingly childish. This just screams sore loser. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

55. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13389 by Diplo on December 17, 2006 at 11:28 am

Benn, sadly is getting old. It's quite clear, though, he doesn't actually believe in God and if he would take a minute to understand what Dawkins is saying (rather than his pre-prejudiced presumption of what he thinks Dawkins is saying) then he might find they are actually in agreement.

56. Intelligent Design packets

Comment #13230 by Diplo on December 16, 2006 at 9:49 am

Looking at that proponent of ID I'm reminded of what Bill Hicks once said:

"You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks like He rushed it."

57. Response to Richard Dawkins' Criticisms in The God Delusion

Comment #13227 by Diplo on December 16, 2006 at 9:38 am

"...it is a serious philosophical issue whether God can give humans free will to choose between good and evil and at the same time significant responsibility for ourselves and each other... Dawkins should enter that philosophical debate, and not try to win by shouting."

Why on Earth should Dawkins enter the debate given the whole premise pre-supposes there is a God? You can't enter a debate about whether God grants us free will if you don't believe there is a God.

Imagine I came up with the theory that the Iraq war came into being because of an intervention from beings form Jupiter. Further imagine I was then challenged on this idea by someone who strongly believed that it was, in fact, due to the machinations of the Venusians. If a third party came along and said, "You are both crazy", it wouldn't be rational to respond to them by saying, "But you can't say that, you have to enter into our debate or be quiet! Now, play nice and tell us which side you think was responsible...."

It amazes me how much time and effort some people waste jumping through theological hoops in their efforts to convince themselves that the God they worship really exists. Who are they really kidding here?

58. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12660 by Diplo on December 13, 2006 at 6:35 am

Why the reviewer needed to spend half the review talking about IVF, as if it was the subject of the book, rather than a tiny example of one small point, I don't know.

The reviewer himself seems to be fall in the category of, "I'm far too clever to believe myself, but religion is good for the proles as it keeps them happy". *sigh*

59. Book answers the atheists' prayers

Comment #12008 by Diplo on December 9, 2006 at 7:53 am

At last, here is a reviewer prepared to produce a review that, even in today's supposedly enlightened times, would brand him in the eyes of many editors as a heretic. Thank Goodness!

60. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #12007 by Diplo on December 9, 2006 at 7:49 am

What a disgusting, dishonest and lazy article that was. It's quite clear that Liddle has neither a grasp on science or ethics.

"...never mind provide us with a template for 2,000 years.
If the template religion had provided for us was actually any good then we wouldn't be looking back on 2,000 years of wars, killing, murder and, yes, religious conflict. The so-called 'Holy' texts that provide us with religious templates are so pliable that they can accommodate anyone from Torquemada to pacifists like Rowan Williams.

If this template were any good then surely the litmus test would be that our moral compass would not have budged over the 2,000 years? Well, thankfully, it has - we no longer widely approve of religious crusades to wipe out heathens, burning old women alive at the stake, torturing heretics, stoning to death adulterers, beheading people for not observing the Sabbath etc.

61. Ministers to ban creationist teaching aids in science lessons

Comment #11785 by Diplo on December 7, 2006 at 10:49 am

Very welcome news indeed! This (almost) restores my faith in the Blair government.

Now, if they could only see that City Academies and Faith Schools are also another means by which proponents of 'Intelligent Design' can try to slip in Creationism via the back-door. This battle may have been won but the war is only beginning. The ID fundies are well organised and well funded and won't stop trying.

We shall defend our Reason, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight in the classrooms, we shall fight in the parliament, we shall fight in the pulpits and in the streets, we shall fight in the media; we shall never surrender.... (with apologies to Churchill!)

62. BBC Radio 4 In Our Time

Comment #10911 by Diplo on December 1, 2006 at 11:50 am

The link should be:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20061123.shtml

63. The faithful have departed

Comment #10829 by Diplo on November 29, 2006 at 10:52 am

It's definitely encouraging, but also still worrying that 38% of Brits must disagree with the statement: "science and evidence provide the best understanding of the universe".

So why don't we hear more of them? Because humanists don't join "communities" with other humanists

People often criticise Richard [Dawkins] for being too "in your face" about atheism and for actively challenging religion and the "god delusion". However, as this shows, if we simply sit back and are respectful and tolerant then the hardcore religious minorities will dictate the tune. They have no qualms about being "in your face" or lobbying their MPs or banding together and raising funds to promote what they want. The idea of evangelism comes naturally to the fundamentalists which is why their voices are so often heard.

We atheists have, for far too long, sat back and allowed religious pressure groups to wield a hugely disproportionate amount of power. Our tolerance and our distaste for being organised have simply led us to a place where we have no voice. This is why we need people like Richard to "raise consciousness" and give us that voice back".

64. Doubters do it from the pulpit

Comment #9894 by Diplo on November 26, 2006 at 10:46 am

[i]"I may be wrong' is not a phrase one ever associates with Richard Dawkins"[/i]

Maybe it's a phrase Giles Fraser doesn't associate with Dawkins but that's probably because Fraser has only ever read one book by Dawkins, which he was already clearly prejudiced against before even beginning.

I have just finished reading the 30th Anniversary edition of Dawkin's first book, 'The Selfish' gene, and the Endnotes to each chapter added in this edition are totally honest when it comes to admitting things he got wrong or changed his mind about since the book was originally published.

It's a shame the authors of The Bible or The Koran are not around to write new editions where they correct all the mistakes, but I suspect (if they were honest) that the Addendum would be longer than the book...

65. Take a leaf out of their books/Books of the Year 2006/Guardian UK

Comment #9862 by Diplo on November 26, 2006 at 8:36 am

I must also point out that Julian Barnes is a brilliant writer. Anyone worth their salt should read 'A History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters', which is a brilliant book and, from an atheist point of view, makes very interesting reading.

66. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7278 by Diplo on November 18, 2006 at 3:31 am

" I'm an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you!"

This is, sadly, an argument you hear often and one that is unduly pessimistic in it's outlook. I'm sure many people would have said the same thing about dictatorial Communism, going back as little as 20 years ago (Soviet-style Communism, by the way, is a political ideology that shares many traits with that of organised religion). If people hadn't believed it was possible to find another way then how much of Eastern Europe would still be living in a dictatorship?

The world can change, and can do so in a non-violent way, simply through the dissemination of ideas that have the weight of truth behind them. Communism may have seemed solid and dominant across half the globe, but it was contrary to what many people deep down knew they wanted. Likewise, religion is ingrained but many people are uncertain and have doubts. People like Richard articulate these doubts and, just as importantly, provide a rational alternative that is just as moral (I'd say even more so) and even more wonderful (a spiral galaxy or the workings of DNA are far more awe inspiring than any religious dogma). Raising consciousness is the first step toward change and I applaud the actions of men and women like Richard for helping to do so.

67. E-Petition: Abolish Faith Schools

Comment #6954 by Diplo on November 16, 2006 at 10:33 am

I think there are really three separate issues here:

1. Faith Schools. Simply, they should be banned, for the obvious reason that they exacerbate and, indeed, cause social division, bigotry and intolerance. They shouldn't exist simply to allow parents a convenient way of indoctrinating their children by proxy.

2. Religious Education. Teaching about religion is fine and, in fact, is necessary. Until such time as people stop believing in gods then children should be given a dispassionate overview of the beliefs of all major religions. Enlightened discussion about the existence of God, morality and ethics should be encouraged.

3. Teaching Religion as Scientific Fact. This should never, ever happen. This kind of wilful indoctrination of children with fallacious views is, as Richard recognises, tantamount to child abuse. It is also counterproductive to the government's supposed aim of promoting science in the UK and counterproductive to society as a whole.

68. Humphrys In Search of God

Comment #4828 by Diplo on November 6, 2006 at 12:32 pm

If Rowan Williams was the head of any other major global corporation he would have long been sacked given his very unconvincing defense of his "company" product range. No wonder Christianity relies on a mix of indoctrination and the sword to spread the message because rational discussion too quickly reveals it as a horrible mess of contradictions, uncertainty and plain fantasy.

69. The God Conundrum

Comment #3582 by Diplo on October 30, 2006 at 12:23 pm

Brilliant deconstruction of Eagleton's review and also an enlightening and intelligent summation of the atheist position. I've always thought that Theology, whilst an interesting springboard for philosophical discussion, is ultimately a sham; a none-subject. Or, to use a horribly mixed metaphor topped off with a light helping of Biblical analogy, it's a house of cards built on shifting sand :)

70. Sermons and straw men

Comment #3203 by Diplo on October 26, 2006 at 10:21 am

"I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but I am not particularly proud of it. Indeed, I am rarely, if ever, proud of not believing in things."

Luckily people are not crashing planes into skyscrapers in the name of Santa or holding back scientific and moral advances because of their belief in Santa. Perhaps if they were then it would be time to stand up and proclaim, with pride, that you don't believe what they believe?

71. Beyond Belief

Comment #3096 by Diplo on October 25, 2006 at 1:52 pm

Yet another reviewer succumbing to the idea that somehow religious views have to always be treated with respect when they are "sincerely held". Why is that? I'm sure Hitler was sincere in his hatred for the Jews, but does that mean we have to respect his ideology? No. So why are religious views so special and "sacred" (the fact that language reserves special words such as "sacred" and "blasphemy" for criticising religion hints at how widely spread this indoctrination is).

We should show no more, or less, respect for people who believe in God than for people who believe in the tooth fairy. Why is it OK to laugh at the latter and yet we have to walk on egg-shells dealing with the former? And how much do the religious types show of respect to people who don't share their views? You'll find there's nothing quite as intolerant or unmoving as a religious bigot. Respect is something that is earned, not a "God given" right.

72. God knows why faith is thriving

Comment #3094 by Diplo on October 25, 2006 at 1:32 pm

"Remarkably, Christianity will soon become a non-Western religion with a minority presence among Europeans."

I never knew that Christianity started in the West :)

73. Danger ahead - there are good reasons why God created atheists

Comment #2439 by Diplo on October 21, 2006 at 9:17 am

I guess God also created child rapists to remind us how dirty sex is? And Tsunamis and earthquakes are a gentle reminder of who is boss, no doubt?

It's kind of funny for a Rabbi not to wonder what the world would have been like without the religious persecution of his people ('the Christ killers'), which has gone on for thousands of years? Or to wonder whether the persecution now committed by his people against the people of another religion would be going on now if it wasn't for religion? Or whether those peope persecuted by his people would feel justification in blowing themselves and others up, if it wasn't for religion?

74. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2426 by Diplo on October 21, 2006 at 8:28 am

The idea that you have to be an expert in Theology before you can criticise religion is as ridiculous as stating you have to have a PhD in Faerology before you can debunk fairies and pixies.

75. Huw Edwards Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #1213 by Diplo on October 10, 2006 at 3:05 pm

"I am always wary of this kind of ‘I’am right and ‘you’ are wrong attitude"

And so you should be, Garry, if that view is not supported by any evidence. However, if the attitude is backed up strong evidence for it, then what is there to be wary of? You can simply evaluate the evidence and come to your own conclusion based upon reason and logic. It's the message you should be wary of, not the conviction. After all, are you wary of Maths teachers who teach Pythagoras? Are they arrogant in their unswerving belief or is their conviction based upon the desire to educate and enlighten?

Really, it's religion that has the core message of, "This is right and you must believe it" and hides behind the concept of "faith" to avoid having to justify those beliefs. Richard might have strong opinions but he can always logically explain them, as he does so well in this interview.

"But not all of us find joy in the same way. For one person, it may be looking down a microscope, for another it is, perhaps, making a pilgrimage to Mecca."

And for another it might be blowing themselves up in crowded market-place as a short-cut to paradise. If joy is all you seek in life then take drugs or watch soap operas. I'd contend, though, that deep joy can only be obtained through truth, not delusion.

"The argument that Richard Dawkins makes that because a person subscribes to a doctrine of faith they are in some way contributing to promulgation of religious extremism is spurious."
Not everyone who subscribes to a religious belief will become an extremist - that is true. However, the path to extremism starts with an unwavering belief in the truth and a disregard for one's earthly existence, both propagated by mainstream religious teachings. Any creed that teaches that "death is not the end" creates a dangerous foundation that can be built on and exploited.