Comments by j.mills

101. Paddy Power offers odds of 4-1 that God exists

Comment #278307 by j.mills on November 4, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Here's the bet:

http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action=go_event&category=SPECIALS&class_sort=--&ev_id=1254688&ev_class_id=45&ev_type_id=10629&force_racing_css=N

Scientific proof must emerge by 31st Dec 2009, to confirm his omnipresence in order for bets to be deemed winners.
There is a God 4 - 1
Russell Brand is God 500 - 1

No further details given. I don't see an option to bet against, unfortunately...

102. Quentin Letts ranks Dawkins 30th on list of 'people who have wrecked Britain'

Comment #278300 by j.mills on November 4, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Was trying to think what to say to this. Can't come up with anything but a heavy sigh...

103. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278287 by j.mills on November 4, 2008 at 3:05 pm

NB. Speaking of aspirational presidents, you know you can now get the entire "West Wing" for 50 British pounds? Wot a snip.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-West-Wing-Seasons-Disc/dp/B000I8OC08

104. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278279 by j.mills on November 4, 2008 at 2:43 pm

ggab7768 said:

I propose a new system of one vote per tooth.

Do you actually have to hand over the teeth? Now that would show political commitment...

105. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278274 by j.mills on November 4, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Ian said (on page 1 - I'm late to this party):

Who gets to have a go next purely on the grounds of their minority status' Lets make a list shall we and we can argue about the order later…

Hispanics
Lesbians
Gays
Women
Disabled
Asian

Woodrow Wilson ran the country from a wheelchair, n'est pas? Though IIRC he chose to conceal the fact as much as possible. Just saying the US is technically ahead of the game on that one. And Jed Bartlett got that second term too - or did I dream that?

106. Fred Phelps's son is an atheist: Running from hell

Comment #277444 by j.mills on November 3, 2008 at 8:09 pm

They believe God is punishing America for facilitating homosexuality, which, according to the church, ought to be a capital crime.

That is what the good book says, after all; so I guess the question is: why don't all christians call for the killing of (male) homosexuals? (Oh, and adulterers. And rebellious offspring, etc etc.)

Not clear why the Phelpses protest though. From this article, they don't sound that concerned about other people's well-being.

107. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #276931 by j.mills on November 2, 2008 at 7:29 pm

My lesbian housemate told me that lesbians must be God's favourite people because they don't do sodomy and wouldn't practise birth control or have abortion.

Lowest risk group of 'sexually-active' people for AIDS too. Anyone know of any biblical condemnation of lesbianism, as opposed to male homosexuality? There's some terrified spluttering by Paul in Romans 1:26, but it's indistinct:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature

God gave them up to it, eh? That whole free will thing is some house o' cards, ain' it?

108. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #276919 by j.mills on November 2, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Heh! Had me going for a second there, Bonzai. (Obama ad, #50.)

109. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #276865 by j.mills on November 2, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Typo correction: in my post #11 I meant: www.sorryeverybody.com. Just been looking through the 'random' gallery on there, and it's still heartening to see all those good folks wishing Dubya hadn't gotten in again.

110. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #276790 by j.mills on November 2, 2008 at 3:14 pm

There is no doubt in my mind that what happens on November 4th has been pre-ordained

So presumably he won't bother to vote, nor encourage anyone else to do so.

Roll on Tuesday! And let's hope they don't have to update www,sorryeverybody.com...

111. Swatting attacks on fruit flies and science

Comment #276676 by j.mills on November 2, 2008 at 11:51 am

hao said (#92):

how is any vote, never mind the 'majority', wasted in a first past the post system?

Imagine a safe seat in which Labour gets 40%, Tory 30%, LibDem 20% and other parties 10%. Situations like that can persist with little change for decades. 60% of voters in that borough could go out and vote in every election for their whole lives, and never see any representation as a result. Even the half of that 60% who are voting for the second most popular party are disenfranchised. The current Labour government was elected by less than a quarter of the electorate. Look what Enlightenme.. said:

I have not voted for 20 years due to living in a rock-solid since 1945 Labour constituency

We can do better than this. Larger, multi-member boroughs are one approach. Top-up seats are another. How can it be right if 5% of people vote Green - or BNP, come to that, they're entitled - and yet not 1 out of 600 MPs is their preferred flavour?

hao adds:

i think proportional representation is disadvantaged because, among other things, it often results in fractured governments.

Irrelevant. We're grown-ups, we can deal with problems like this, just as most other European countries do. The possibility is a price worth paying for an engaged, actively voting electorate, more of whom feel truly represented and like they matter. It might also mean, heaven forfend, that the parties have to win the argument for their legislation, not just railroad it through on numbers and whips. But that's irrelevant too: it's about making my vote count!

Harrumph.

112. Swatting attacks on fruit flies and science

Comment #276492 by j.mills on November 1, 2008 at 9:02 pm

hao said:

the first past the post system is probably more effective than most.

I absolutely disagree. First-past-the-post - which is effectively the system used to choose the entire electoral college for a US state, as well as to choose MPs for the UK - almost guarantees that the majority of votes cast will be wasted. As others here have pointed out, this is why many people in the States don't vote, just as here in the UK. If we really believe in democracy there can be no higher priority in our electoral system than maximising the number of votes cast that result in representation. Bugger the effect on governance and party interests - it's about making MY vote count!

In the UK we have systems of proportional representation for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Euro elections and in some places local mayors (eg. London). And pretty much every other country in Europe uses a form of PR. Why is it that the UK parliament alone is considered 'unsuitable' for a more representative system? Solely because it is against the interests of the two main parties, the only people likely ever to be in a position to implement one.

And while we're at it, the ballot paper should include a 'No Vote' option, rather than treating all protest votes (by citizens who clearly care enough to make the effort) as "spoilt ballots".

Makes my blood boil!

113. Swatting attacks on fruit flies and science

Comment #276120 by j.mills on November 1, 2008 at 11:03 am

hao said:

I don't think the electoral college system is as bad as some people seem to think it is. As someone else said, in the UK we also have 'marginal seats' where, supposedly, your vote matters more.

Just 'cos the UK system is crap too doesn't mitigate the US one being rubbish. (Although theirs is certainly more interesting...)

UK - Labour manifesto, 1997:

We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons.

Interesting how they used the word "committed" to mean "not at all committed".

I think Richard's suggestion wouldn't hold up. Where would accountability lie when things went wrong? With the President or with the electoral college delegates? Their public role would have ended at the election, so you couldn't even hold them to account. And it's bad enough assessing the character and policies of the main candidates, let alone learning all about umpteen local self-proclaimed wise wo/men!

A friend and I have discussed this at length and concluded that the best form of government is benign dictatorship by a wise and humane individual, so that the rest of us can stop worrying. Alas, it is also the most difficult to implement! :)

114. Swatting attacks on fruit flies and science

Comment #275896 by j.mills on October 31, 2008 at 7:19 pm

I just cured my hiccups by holding my breath and pinching my nose and sticking fingers in my ears. (Tricky, but manageable.)

Sorry, what was the question?

115. A slow but certain demise

Comment #275111 by j.mills on October 30, 2008 at 7:54 pm

I found some UK school figures from 2001. Interesting that the CoE schools are 'winning' at primary level but the Catholics at secondary. Suggests that the CoE have figured out where they should most efficiently target their efforts (whereas actual numbers of pupils in Catholic schools is about the same percentage at both levels).

Number of schools - Total / Primary / Secondary
C of E 4,700 / 4,509 / 191
Roman Catholic 2,104 / 1,747 / 357
Methodist 28 / 28 / 0
Other Christian 74 / 47 / 27
TOTAL CHRISTIAN 6,906 / 6,331 / 575
Jewish 31 / 26 / 5
Muslim 2 / 2 / 0
Sikh 2 / 1 / 1
Other religious 2 / 1 / 1
TOTAL RELIGIOUS 6,943 / 6,361 / 582
Not religious 14,607 / 11,708 / 2,899
TOTAL 21,550 / 18,069 / 3,481

116. A slow but certain demise

Comment #275101 by j.mills on October 30, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Article says:

It is also the reason that most Church of England schools are primary schools

Bad logic: most schools are primary schools, so it follows that most faith schools would be too. However, I just grabbed some figures and it looks like about 10% of UK state-funded secondary schools are faith schools, and over 30% of primaries. So he's right, as it happens. (Of course, the brain-dead Academies programme is increasing the number of faith secondaries.)

(Reminds me of the McDonald's marketing manual that was exposed during the McLibel trial, revealing that most of its two-billion-dollar marketing budget was deliberately targeted at the 2-5-year-olds - get 'em hooked early and they'll buy for life.)

As regards superstition, there's the (apocryphal?) story of Isaac Newton hanging a horseshoe on his door. Somebody said, "You, Isaac? I thought you didn't believe in superstitions?" Isaac replies, "I don't, but I'm told it works anyway."

117. Atheist Bus Campaign Comic

Comment #275090 by j.mills on October 30, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Private Eye is the cherished home of the puerile. It can be puerile and funny, or puerile and sharp, but basically any form of puerile will do. So not laughing at their cartoons is kinda par for the course. A very British institution.

118. Turek vs. Hitchens Debate: Does God Exist?

Comment #274275 by j.mills on October 29, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Yah, following up what Ex~ is saying (loved the Renoir analogy btw), a response to this "objective morality" claim would be to demand to know what is and isn't objectively moral. Slavery for instance, or homosexuality, are they moral? The bible's answers are either unclear, or where they are clear they nonetheless divide even Christians.

I haven't actually watched Hitch in full flow before and his lazy yet articulate sang-frois is very impressive and a cunning oratorical weapon. Felt a bit sorry for Turek, who struck me as honest but inexperienced.

119. Somalia: Rape Victim Executed

Comment #274202 by j.mills on October 29, 2008 at 6:08 pm

I thoroughly join in the condemnation of this barbarity, obviously.

But as to Western Muslims speaking out, the ordinary Muslim has no greater a voice than any other citizen. The media look to those famous 'community leaders' we hear so much about. We can't on the one hand complain that those 'leaders' aren't representative, and on the other assume that their apologetics are typical of the entire Muslim population. It's entirely possible that they are typical - I'm just saying you can't judge the opinions of millions of people with no special media access on the basis of the opinions of the self-appointed media-savvy handful who do get themselves heard.

Even so, I struggle to see how anyone, professional apologist or not, could offer any excuse for this vicious execution.

120. Richard Dawkins embarrassed after death and subsequent resurrection

Comment #273939 by j.mills on October 29, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Well, I thought it was funny, so there.

Ascaphus said:

What would each of us accept as evidence enough to make a believer out of us?

It's a non-problem really. If god wants to convince us, he can just make us convinced. Jus' like that. Nothing is difficult for god/s. Remember how he hardened Pharoah's heart and inspired Joshua? (If I've got the right god...)

Hey, I just noticed Richard has no reflection! Not just a zombie messiah, also a vampire! [Shiver.]

121. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #273933 by j.mills on October 29, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Dianelos, supposedly RD has stipulated, for the sake of argument, that a "serious case" can be made for deism. Please note that that's a far cry from what you want to say (my emphasis):

it is more probable that the ultimate origin of the universe is some kind of necessary and eternal intelligence

When people tried to see how this mechanism might look like they found out that it must be extremely well balanced itself, indeed must be even more fine-tuned itself than the fundamental constants of our universe.

Where does this come from please? Which "people" are you referring to, who reached this conclusion?

Naturalists were supposed to be cool rationalists who only believe the objective existence of something when there is clear and confirmed evidence for it. They are not supposed to be the kind of people who suggest the existence of ad-hoc, invisible, and implausible things with no evidence and no empirical verification whatsoever

Suggesting something is not the same as believing it. That's how hypotheses are developed for testing. There is no conflict between those two positions.

122. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #273539 by j.mills on October 28, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Fuller said:

f you can 'magic' the plot back together you can band-aid any incohesive story line. And where's the suspense, if a character has magic powers?

Well, generally it's gotta have an internal logic to it, as if it were a science. Genre fantasy usually does, creating opportunities for original but coherent plotting. Fairy tales notably don't have such logic, with the magic being strikingly random - though generally aiding the Good Guys.

In the Grimm's version (or maybe it's Perrault's) of Rumplestiltskin, for instance, our heroine is struggling to guess the villain's name whilst walking in the woods, when suddenly the ground opens up to reveal a kitchen in which his name is mentioned. The story offers no explanation whatsoever. I contend that kids, the target audience, don't care, or some kinda pretext for that incident would have found its way into the story. On the other hand, pursuing my claim that fairy tales have evolved to be what kids want to hear, they must have a taste for colourful grand guignol - in the Grimm's version, the furious Rumplestiltskin rips himself in half!

(Oddly, motifs like that don't make it into the Disney versions...)

123. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #273364 by j.mills on October 28, 2008 at 3:28 pm

I think maybe philosophy's problem is that whilst its rarefied ideas do have influence, that influence takes place at a 'high' level inside academia. Few philosophers make it to the public eye. For myself, I could name tons of philosophers, but I'd struggle to say what each of 'em achieved because their work doesn't lend itself to easy summary. Whereas with famous scientists, writers, composers, it's easy to attach them to their achievements.

124. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #273354 by j.mills on October 28, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Point of order, Quetz: Orcs was sh*te. A good idea absolutely p*ssed away. The plot was rambling and aimless, the characters rarely achieved two dimensions, let alone three, and the hilarity implied in the blurb never materialised. I read to the end in the desperate hope for something interesting so that I wouldn't have wasted my time, only to discover that the author's solution to inter-racial strife was self-imposed apartheid. The most disappointing thing I've read in years.

125. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #273208 by j.mills on October 28, 2008 at 10:08 am

I just posted on the Mary Midgeley thing. Didya know the software lets you click "Recommend" on your own comment?! :)

126. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #273194 by j.mills on October 28, 2008 at 9:26 am

I'm reading Harrison's Cosmology and he spends a lot of time early on explaining how the three 'cosmologies' we inherited from the Greek philosophers - Aristotelian, Stoic and Epicurean - had great influence on medieval and Enlightenment thinking, feeding in to the 'natural philosophy' that became modern science. They came up with the idea of the atom, elements, the round Earth, etc. They were speculating ahead of the science. It's not clear that that's useless, if it opens up lines of thought and research.

127. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #273176 by j.mills on October 28, 2008 at 9:06 am

Tut! Why go to see Peter Pan if you're not willing to suspend your disbelief? Funny as the "Die, bitch!" suggestion is, that kind of behaviour would justify the claim that atheists are killjoys.

Back to RD's research call: difficult to see, as others have pointed out, how quantitative results could be obtained. One approach, albeit imperfect, might be a large poll of adults to gather their own impressions of how fairy tales affected them - and that is kinda what we're doing here on this thread. Of course we're a self-selecting crowd of atheists, so it don't signify. But given the vortex of non-isolatable influences on children, there may be no better way of addressing this question than a touchy-feely one: we might have to posit that the plural of 'anecdote' is 'evidence' after all!

128. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272626 by j.mills on October 27, 2008 at 4:41 pm

As my mathematicianish friend would say, what is the law of averages?

129. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272624 by j.mills on October 27, 2008 at 4:39 pm

ukvillafan said:

Someone please give me a list on how the universe began!! Should I start with Hawking?

Go dig around in the Book Nook forum, ukvillafan, you'll find lots of recommendations:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=6

130. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #272599 by j.mills on October 27, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Did a module on fairy tales once. There was a book by psychoanalytic literary critic Bruno Bettelheim in circulation, in which (I think) he claimed therapeutic benefits to children from such tales; but I didn't read it.

I did, however, write an essay in which I claimed that fairy tales, specifically because they developed in an 'oral tradition', were analogous to evolving organisms.

Granny tells the kids a fireside story: they cheer at some points, go wide-eyed at others, get bored and fidget at others. Next time she tells the story she leaves out the boring bits, beefs up the colourful bits. Those kids repeat their half-remembered versions to their kids. Over generations, the stories are distilled and adapted to their environment of capricious children.

You have heredity (the story transmits much the same), mutation (changes to maximise appeal) and differential survival (the best stories/motifs get reused). It's a memetic evolution laboratory. Go read Grimm's - 201 tales featuring recurrent motifs. The maiden marries the king; the villain unwittingly devises his own punishment; the king (not the innocent heroine) inflicts the punishment, allowing the audience vicarious satisfaction at a gruesome comeuppance (the Grimm's tales are startlingly violent!) without dirtying the hero/ine's hands.

If I'm making a point, it's that fairy tales have evolved to be what children like. That much we can take as read.

EDIT: And incidentally, although there is black and white good and evil in fairy tales, they are strikingly empty of references to god/s!

Notwithstanding Richard's harrumphing, I'll add that I feel, anecdotally, without supporting evidence that supernatural stories are harmless to children, and that it is precisely the supernatural elements that attract them, thereby drawing them in to books and culture in general. Though I recognise that my opinion is entirely worthless! :)

131. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #272566 by j.mills on October 27, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Frankus1122 said:

Yes. Logic of vilence is the subpreme one for are god dawkins. Hollow be his name. Not only can wooter make joke funny but so can atheist. But atheist never answer question where does funny come from? Funny comes from God and Jesus! they are a couple of funny guys like the wooter. No? Yes. very funny istahtclear to you now.

I actually understood that, Frankus, which is quite worrying really! :)

Steve said:

Multiverses are more likely than individual universes

That's well clever that. Keep up the good work! :)

132. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #272411 by j.mills on October 27, 2008 at 11:14 am

isthatclear:

ET while has no logic and reasonm cannot appeal to logic and reason; it can be only a TOOL to logic to be mocked

Everybody here struggles even to understand your posts, isthatclear. Whatever "logic and reason" you think you are employing, it is impenetrable to the rest of us because of your bizarre use of language. Could you ask somebody with a better command of English to help you with your posts?

133. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #271828 by j.mills on October 26, 2008 at 3:56 pm

epeeist said:

I rushed back to see the new hypothesis that was going to replace the ToE.

You haven't heard? Apparently, goddidit!

134. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #271683 by j.mills on October 26, 2008 at 11:53 am

bluesingincat says:

Since evolution is just a theory

What work do you imagine the word "just" is doing in that sentence? Electromagnetism and quantum physics are "just" theories, but your computer seems to be working okay regardless. Do you not understand what the word "theory" means in science?

why would teaching your child there is a God be any worse than teaching them there isn't a God?

Why would teaching your child there are unicorns be any worse than teaching them there aren't unicorns? Why would teaching your child that s/he is inherently sinful and likely to burn for all eternity be any worse than teaching them the opposite? Why call something 'true' until there is reason to suppose it true? Why teach your children what you have no reason to regard as true? (Except as a game - Santa Claus...)

Surely those posters that recoil at the very mention of ID can't be serious when they also spout a devotion to free thinking and objective investigation regarding alternative theories?

ID isn't a theory. It's a wilfully vague hypothesis designed to prevent its being tested. Since its proponents refuse to formulate their notion in such a way as to open it to falsification, it can never qualify as even a scientific hypothesis, let alone aspire to the high status of "theory".
________________________________

By the way, folks, as well as the Atheist Bus, this is worth your hard-earned too - BHA's campaign to lobby against faith schools:

http://www.justgiving.com/faithschools

135. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #271673 by j.mills on October 26, 2008 at 11:17 am

Why thank you, MaxD! We aim to please. (#271657)

ev-love (I too thought that was a clever pun by Elton) said:

Let's try God's Holy Book:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

(2Corinthians, 6:14)

How's that for 'strident'?

Quite apart from stridency, it also kind of undermines all these 'inter-faith forums' and marriages of convenience between religions in alliance against us meanie atheists!

pchilds80 said:

if we are not careful I think society will begin to be taken over by religious fanatics and it will start to effect our freedom.

Pardon my pedantry, but this is a good example of why it's important to differentiate between "affect" (which is what you meant) and "effect" (which in this context means the opposite of what you intended). :)

136. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #271499 by j.mills on October 25, 2008 at 6:44 pm

David A Robertson quoting, for some reason, Melanie Phillips:

[RD said he] did indeed believe that the first particle arose spontaneously from nothing, because the alternative explanation – God -- was more incredible. Later, he amplified this by saying that physics was coming up with theories to show how matter could spontaneously be created from nothing. But as far as I can see – and as Anthony Flew elaborates – these theories cannot answer the crucial question of how the purpose-carrying codes which gave rise to self–reproduction in life-forms arose out of matter from which any sense of purpose was totally absent.

(My emphases.) There is no connection whatsoever between these two ideas. Phillips is vaguely asserting that since the explanation for the first phenomenon does not fit the second (unconnected) phenomenon, there can be no explanation for either phenomenon, except god. I wonder for the umpteenth time why any responsible editor would publish such rubbish; she discredits The Spectator as much as herself.

Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet.

Hardly jaw-dropping if you have (a) read his book, or (b) ever thought about the matter at all.

is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?

In a word: no. It would be remarkable if he thought the opposite. People like Phillips appear to have no notion of what the concept of an omnipotent god implies. (And the 'little green men' aren't offered as an "explanation of the universe", but of the origin of life on earth - and only to highlight how much more unlikely is the theistic pseudo-explanation. She either knows all this and is dishonest, or she is uninformed on her repeated subject matter, or she is stupid. She leaves open no better alternatives.)

137. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #271420 by j.mills on October 25, 2008 at 3:29 pm

[RD said:] "I would say that when my academic career began there was probably just as much ignorance - but less active opposition [to science]. If you were to actually travel around schools and universities and listen in on lectures about evolution you might find a fairly substantial fraction of young people, without knowing what it is they disapprove of, think they disapprove of it, because they've been brought up to."

Thing is, the total number of believers can fall while the evangelical number rises. That would lead to more "active opposition" even if atheism was more widespread.

138. No-God squad climb aboard the atheist bus

Comment #270744 by j.mills on October 24, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Why $82? That seems rather srrange.

Just a conversion from £50.

139. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #270655 by j.mills on October 24, 2008 at 11:57 am

Hey, the Alpha bus page seems to have deleted some of the comments of the atheist joke-donors. That's kinda pathetic.

http://www.justgiving.com/alphaposters/

140. No-God squad climb aboard the atheist bus

Comment #270621 by j.mills on October 24, 2008 at 11:05 am

Times Online accepts comments on this one here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5003070.ece

141. Afghan student gets 20 years instead of death for blasphemy

Comment #270175 by j.mills on October 23, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Amnesty encourages contacting the Afghanistan representative in your own country. Background info (not including the latest development, the commutation to 20 years) is here:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA11/012/2008/en/45c9748b-898c-11dd-8e5e-43ea85d15a69/asa110122008en.html

And in the UK:

Embassy of Afghanistan in London, United Kingdom

31 Prince\'s Gate
SW7 1QU
London
United Kingdom
Phone:
44-20-7589-8891
44-20-7589-8892
Fax:
44-20-7584-4801
Email:
pa.afghanembassy@btinternet.com
info@afghanembassy.co.uk
Website URL:
www.afghanembassy.co.uk

142. NEW DVD: Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008

Comment #270163 by j.mills on October 23, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Clarification please: NTSC works in UK, or not?

Sheesh. If I get someone to trail round after me with a camera all year, can I flog a DVD for $20 too? Thought not... :)

143. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #270110 by j.mills on October 23, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Many of these online articles on media sites permit comments, which is another opportunity to get the message across. I've added a few comments here and there - if we all do the same it beefs up the publicity that bit more.

144. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #269230 by j.mills on October 22, 2008 at 6:49 pm

At www.atheistcampaign.org there are links to all the media coverage. Some of those articles have comments entered, and man, are they weary!

* Theists taking refuge in calling us 'confused' because we only think there's "probably" no god/s.

* Other theists ignoring the "probably" and asking (rhetorically, uninterestedly) how we can "know" there is no god.

* Theists bringing up Pascal's Wager, incapable of seeing either the piss-poor logic or the moral vacuity.

* Theists "outraged" that this could happen in "a Christian country".

* Theists claiming we wouldn't dare say this to Muslims - evidently under the impression that only Jehovah is covered by the word "god".

* Theists complaining that RD's comment that "thinking is anathema to religion" is insulting to religious people, unable to separate the believers from the belief.

* Theists (and, sadly, atheists) saying we should just 'live and let live' - not "force" our views on others. ("Force"?!?)

* Theists saying we should spend the money on good deeds, without saying if that's what they do with their money, or even if they'd say the same to the advertisers of the Alpha course. "But what can you expect from atheists?"

* Theists claiming that RD doesn't seem like someone 'enjoying life'.

You could have written all these witless responses down a month in advance. At least theists never disappoint...

145. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268304 by j.mills on October 21, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Some more:

Pray if you must. But not in front of the children.

You only need faith when you don't have reasons.

They f*ck you up, your mum and dad...

Well, all right, perhaps not that one...

146. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268288 by j.mills on October 21, 2008 at 4:26 pm

RD said:

PS What's wrong with the pound sign. It works OK on first showing. Then the first time it is refreshed, it turns into Australian dollars.

Credit crunch...

All right, if we're arguing the toss, I offer:

Why does god behave exactly as if he didn't exist?

Belief - Reason = Faith

God schmod! Think for yourself!

What's missing from CH--CH? God.

What did the gods ever do for us?

Phil's idea is good (#123). Churches often have clever little word-play posters outside, and we're supposed to be at least as bright as them! :)

147. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268196 by j.mills on October 21, 2008 at 1:58 pm

From the Beeb's article on this:

Spirituality and discipleship officer Rev Jenny Ellis said: "This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life."

She added: "Christianity is for people who aren't afraid to think about life and meaning."

Darn, guys, looks like it's backfired entirely! How do I get my £££s back?

40k!!! And rising.

148. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268162 by j.mills on October 21, 2008 at 1:25 pm

As the dumb American, may I ask what the "A-circumflex" means in front of your pound currency symbol means?

It's an artefact of the website, it doesn't handle special symbols well.

We could all quibble about the slogan's phrasing, but how refreshing to have a positive thread!

149. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268153 by j.mills on October 21, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Oolon Colluphid is on there - his comment was "Who is this God person anyway?" Love it!

150. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #268142 by j.mills on October 21, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Bunged 'em GBP100. Delighted to see that someone donated GBP666! :)

I love it that you just hit 'Refresh' and the total goes up! And the donor's names and comments are fun, such as the one from God: "Just to show I can suffer criticism!"