101. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

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

Pieter: this is a direct quote from Ron Paul.

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

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

102. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

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

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

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

103. Islam in Europe

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

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

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

104. Interview with Ian McEwan

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

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

105. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

106. Britain cannot put its faith in religiously divided schools

Comment #113621 by Jack Rawlinson on January 20, 2008 at 7:48 am

Paula Kirby writes: "And there's clearly only one way to overcome the communication difficulties between men and women, and that's by ensuring that the 2 sexes never meet in school hours during their formative years."

Hey, that was the system I grew up in, and it worked fine for me! I never had any problems relating to girls as a a teenager! Oh wait... yes I did. Good point. Carry on. :-)

107. King Me!

Comment #113503 by Jack Rawlinson on January 19, 2008 at 7:56 pm

And of course, one tactic to use in this situation is to beat them at the change-the-rules game. The next frame of this cartoon should be the first guy hip-throwing the second and screaming IPPON, BIATCH! :-)

108. The New Theology

Comment #113155 by Jack Rawlinson on January 18, 2008 at 5:31 pm

Impressive, these religious folks, aren't they? Even the relatively smart ones take decades to realise they have to shift the god-goalposts yet again in order to be something other than a complete embarrassment within polite, educated society.

But the saddest thing is that even the smart ones aren't quite smart enough to make that final leap into the happy place which starts with, "Oh my god, I've been a complete asshat all my life for trying to maintain a belief in something that is intrinsically nonsensical. I need to stop doing that now."

109. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111487 by Jack Rawlinson on January 14, 2008 at 7:03 pm

All the best for a full and swift recovery, George. Your life story is inspiring, and we all appreciate your generosity to the RDFRS. Thanks!

110. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109803 by Jack Rawlinson on January 9, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Oh, and the ontological argument has more holes in it than a crate of Swiss cheese in a leaky boat. The only difficulty one is faced with in dealing with that piece of airheaded nonsense is deciding which of the many possible lines of attack to choose first. Only very low-IQ god-botherers even try to advance that one seriously these days.

111. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #109802 by Jack Rawlinson on January 9, 2008 at 6:36 pm

I'll be picking this one up. I'm not afraid of maths - I had to do plenty of scary-level maths at Uni - but I doubt there'll be much of that here. None of the "arguments" mentioned for God need any heavy maths in order to dispose of them.

112. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109273 by Jack Rawlinson on January 8, 2008 at 5:33 pm

I love it. Hitchens is the nice cop, RD is the nasty cop. I think Emily Condon has been smoking too much crack.

113. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109272 by Jack Rawlinson on January 8, 2008 at 5:31 pm

AshtonBlack - ha! I just saw that you did it too!

114. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109271 by Jack Rawlinson on January 8, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Okay, when he said "This is a dream, you prick", I actually splurted some of my drink over the keyboard.

Love this guy. Brilliant.

115. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109267 by Jack Rawlinson on January 8, 2008 at 5:23 pm

It wasn't a bad year for God, because God doesn't exist. It was a bad year for God-botherers.

I intend to do my best to give them many more bad years.

116. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107564 by Jack Rawlinson on January 4, 2008 at 6:51 pm

This is the Harris I like. He's such a good arguer.

117. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106222 by Jack Rawlinson on January 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm

The "wacky" comment was stupid and, of course, entirely unsupported. So was the suggestion that RD spends a huge amount of time here. It seems to me he drops in here and the forum occasionally to comment and that's about it. I imagine the articles of his which appear here are posted by Josh.

118. Changing my Mind

Comment #106220 by Jack Rawlinson on January 2, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Paula Kirby writes:

"And yet I don't agree with Sam Harris's objection to the use of the word "atheist" to describe ourselves. It's the underlying negative association you have to work to change, not the word - otherwise the negative association just attaches itself to whatever new word you find instead."

That perfectly sums up in two succinct sentences what it took me about two pages to argue when I criticised Harris's stance on the use of the word "atheist". :-)

119. Top Ten Stories of 2007

Comment #103734 by Jack Rawlinson on December 26, 2007 at 3:37 pm

BigJohn: you're such a moderate. Think how badly behaved teenagers are!

120. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102712 by Jack Rawlinson on December 23, 2007 at 1:00 pm

"Christians believe that the almighty God has visited us, not just through prophets, saints and humanitarian heroes, but through sending his son to be born of a virgin in Bethlehem...,"

Oh, right, but we nasty atheists better not make any "sky daddy" jibes because that doesn't reflect the reality of Christian belief, right? Riiiight.

121. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101929 by Jack Rawlinson on December 21, 2007 at 7:33 am

Who Would Jesus Bully?

Suffer the little children, indeed.

"If you sin, you better have the courage to bash Jesus' face in!"

Hmm. Yeah, I reckon I could take the scruffy hippie, actually. In fact, I could totally nail him.

122. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101687 by Jack Rawlinson on December 20, 2007 at 6:43 pm

That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.

Yuh! And the idea that flying saucers draw pretty circles in Farmer Giles's corn field just before abducting him and jamming an anal probe up his fundament is so bonkers it compels us to believe it!!

And they wonder why we disrespect them.

123. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101323 by Jack Rawlinson on December 20, 2007 at 8:25 am

So the guiding star tale is a myth because, "stars don't behave like that", but he believes in the virgin birth, even though human reproduction doesn't behave like that.

You have to marvel at how much cognitive dissonance a faith head's head can hold.

124. Abstinence Programs Face Rejection

Comment #100530 by Jack Rawlinson on December 18, 2007 at 8:06 pm

Also, random less-than-six-degrees-of-separation interesting fact! The lead author of that study mentioned in notsobad's Washington Post link is my partner's ex husband. Blimey!

125. Abstinence Programs Face Rejection

Comment #100528 by Jack Rawlinson on December 18, 2007 at 8:01 pm

As others have said, the key here is real, solid sex education at an early age - well before puberty. Most teenagers do get absurdly horny and will have some sex if they can. I don't blame them. I was the same. It's natural, for goodness sake. What you do with natural things that might have major consequences is educate kids about them: fully, accurately and with no silly squeamishness or prudery.

I consider myself very lucky to have been a pre-teen in early seventies Britain. At age 11 we were given the business: sex, what it is, how it's done, what the risks are, what's effective contraception and what isn't, STDs and how to avoid them, what to do about them if you get them... the only thing my sex ed was weak on was homosexuality, but life taught me about that pretty quickly.

I swear, people diss the seventies (and often for very sound reasons), but we had some good education back then.

126. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100514 by Jack Rawlinson on December 18, 2007 at 7:16 pm

Oh, grow a skin, you weak little pussies.

127. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99427 by Jack Rawlinson on December 16, 2007 at 4:10 pm

I'd just like to add my own little condemnation of the anti-smoking sparts. I've had it with those people, and I say that as a lifelong non-smoker (well... okay, just ignore that cigar I'm holding in the pic there...). Get a sense of proportion, for pity's sake. Don't dictate so. It's unbecoming.

128. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99425 by Jack Rawlinson on December 16, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Should renunciation of a claimed yet wholly unproven deity spiritual authority be a prerequisite for membership in a free society?

Fixed that for you. Oh, and the answer is "Yes, wherever the alleged dictates of the alleged deity conflict with the laws of that society. Or you go to jail. Don't like it? Then get the hell out of my society."

Clear enough? Good. Next!

129. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #98998 by Jack Rawlinson on December 15, 2007 at 6:31 am

"...the past scrumping offence of one non-existent man, Adam"

Oh, I like that. I'm going to have to steal that I'm afraid. :-)

130. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #98720 by Jack Rawlinson on December 14, 2007 at 6:11 am

Mr York, who was making dinner at the time, had a knife in his hand and stabbed Mr Boa in the chest during the brief altercation...

...He said York had no intention of harming Mr Boa at the time he was stabbed.

Woah. Just how stupid do you have to be to buy that? "Yeah, I stabbed him in the chest with a kitchen knife, but I had no intention of harming him."

Oh, okay then. We'll let you off with three years.

MADNESS.

131. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98469 by Jack Rawlinson on December 13, 2007 at 5:14 pm

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Hello? HELLO?

America: please take your country back.

132. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98193 by Jack Rawlinson on December 13, 2007 at 8:35 am

Damn, I can't watch this yet. I have a lot of time for Tim Garton Ash yet I also recognise he has disturbing 'soft liberal' tendencies. Similarly, I admire Hirsi Ali a lot for her brave and uncompromising anti-Islamic stance yet I have some distinct problems with some of her more fiercely right-edged politics so I'm particularly interested in this discussion. I guess I'll have to be patient.

133. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97085 by Jack Rawlinson on December 11, 2007 at 11:34 am

From where does Dawkins derive this faith in human freedom? Not from science. It comes from Christianity, which has always held that humans are different from all other animals in possessing free will.

Okay, that's a whole new level of stupid. That's double-concentrated stupid to the power of ten.That's a level of stupid several kilometres below whale shit.

This... utter IMBECILE... seriously thinks that:

a) Humans are the only animals that possess free will?
b) Christianity is the only belief or philosophy that accepts free will?

Dawkins derives his "faith" in human freedom the same place most of us do: simple observation of how humans actually behave.

This writer displays a level of unintelligence which leaves me gasping for air.

134. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97002 by Jack Rawlinson on December 11, 2007 at 8:45 am

...although having just read Durandal's comment about the film costing 180 mill, I guess 26.1 really is a bit of a downer after all! I had no idea they'd poured so much money into it.

I'm finding it hard to care too much about this really, since I can't stand fantasy stuff anyway. Well, apart from the Gormenghast trilogy, which is much more than just "Fantasy". :-)

135. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97000 by Jack Rawlinson on December 11, 2007 at 8:40 am

Hmm. From what I've gathered, the film hasn't done so well because... err... it isn't a very good film. Still, a little fact like that isn't going to stop the god-botherers clutching desperately at straws, I suppose. They're good at that.

On the other hand, 26.1 million in the first weekend is hardly a flop.

136. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96215 by Jack Rawlinson on December 10, 2007 at 7:08 am

I've been banging on about this for years because frankly it staggers me that this procedure - unless done for genuine medical reasons - hasn't been outlawed as child abuse. The discussions of whether or not it has "beneficial" or "detrimental" effects; whether or not it reduces the incidence of penile cancer or the transmission of HIV; whether or not it reduces penile sensitivity... these are all irrelevant. They're red herrings. The point that matters is that this is irreversible physical surgery done to a child unable to give consent. It is exactly as bad in principle as if a parent decided to tattoo, scar, brand or pierce their infant child. The only reason it gets a pass is because of long-standing and widespread cultural and religious practices.

It's outrageous, it's unjustifiable, and it should be outlawed.

137. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95846 by Jack Rawlinson on December 9, 2007 at 10:43 am

"...his Christian belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation."

Thereby proving he is not a scientist, does not respect scientific method or evidence, and is therefore wholly unsuited to being a science teacher.

Correct decision.

138. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #95096 by Jack Rawlinson on December 7, 2007 at 10:46 am

If that wasn't a joke, Fanusi, how nice that you spoke to them. Do you think you could do us all a favour and speak to them again, and suggest they start making some noise publicly? That they start protesting in the streets? Writing letters to newspapers? Demanding to appear on TV programs?

Because if they don't, we're going to keep giving them well-deserved shit for their craven lack of action. 'kay?

139. Let us kill all the teddy bears

Comment #95006 by Jack Rawlinson on December 7, 2007 at 6:36 am

This is the second article I've read recently by this guy Morford which has absolutely nailed it. I like him.

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

Comment #94637 by Jack Rawlinson on December 6, 2007 at 6:09 am

Good for Downey, I say. I can't watch the video yet, but it sounds like she handled this well.

This paranoid, desperate idea that this was "sabotage" of a Christian festival... how weak of them.

141. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94481 by Jack Rawlinson on December 5, 2007 at 6:25 pm

Out of that list, D'Souza. Ben Stein should have been there too, though.

142. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94097 by Jack Rawlinson on December 4, 2007 at 6:52 pm

I wish I was a nurse. I'd turn the beds to face the nearest pork butchers.

Idiots.

143. Evolution and Texas

Comment #94093 by Jack Rawlinson on December 4, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Damn. I just completely accidentally flagged the last post as offensive. My finger slipped! Is there a way to take it back? Sorry notsobad!

144. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94088 by Jack Rawlinson on December 4, 2007 at 6:31 pm

ANTI-SEMITE!

Sorry, just thought I'd anticipate the empty-headed moron response. :-)

145. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #93137 by Jack Rawlinson on December 2, 2007 at 9:50 am

On curiosity: there's absolutely nothing wrong with being curious. I'm all for it. I'm that way inclined myself. The reason I (and I suspect, others) are saying this person might have a little too much time on his hands is as a comment on what he chose to be curious about. Again - the actual value of the bit pattern was completely irrelevant to the point RD was using it to make. What would this person have said had he discovered that RD had just made up the codes? What would it have mattered? Not a jot. This is what's known as idle curiosity and yes, that can be distracting, but usually only for the person experiencing it. So I find the idea that this guy thinks it worth posting about... well, sort of geeky, to put it politely. Hence the "get a life" comment. No biggie, though. Just an observation. I should probably get a life. :-)

146. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #92954 by Jack Rawlinson on December 1, 2007 at 8:19 pm

What Zaphod said. It wouldn't have made the slightest difference to RD's point had the bit pattern been made up.

This is cute, in a geeky sort of way, but I have to say that the words "Get", "A", and "Life" spring to mind.

147. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92452 by Jack Rawlinson on November 30, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Joly Bloger: well, I won't lose any respect for Islam over this. You know, since I didn't have any in the first place.

148. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92051 by Jack Rawlinson on November 29, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Pat just keeps getting better and better. This is totally where I come from.

149. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91215 by Jack Rawlinson on November 27, 2007 at 4:21 pm

eric711: Please pay attention. As I explained in my last post, I was responding to queen5102's suggestion that I was angry about Sam's AAI speech:

"I also attended Sam's AAI speech and there was nothing he said to get angry about."

My comments about being pissed off did not pertain to that. They pertained to the comment which is the subject of this thread. Clear?

You refer to Sam's remark as a "silly joke". Yes, it was. What you do not do is show any sign of having understood my explanations of why that silly joke pisses me off. Again: have you been following the reactions to Dawkins, Hitch's, and other "New Atheists" words over the last eighteen months or so? Have you been reading the Terry Eagletons, the Alistair McGraths, the Theo Hobsons, the Madeleine Buntings and their ilk? Has it entirely escaped your notice how ravenously eager these people have been to misrepresent atheist arguments, to take atheist ideas and statements out of context, to outright lie about what atheists say?

"Silly jokes" such as this one of Sam's are gifts to such people. You get the joke. So do I. So do all of us here. Maybe many of them get it too. But they also get an opportunity. They get something they can turn around and use against us. And that annoys me, and I think it's a tactical error. I really don't know why this is hard to understand.

150. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91118 by Jack Rawlinson on November 27, 2007 at 9:39 am

queen5102 writes:

"Jack, please stop with the Sam bashing. He was clearly saying that he thinks atheists are more moral than Christians"

That may have been his intent, but it was far from clear, in my view. His actual words were, "[Rick] may yet convince me that Christians are more moral and socially engaged than atheists"

Yes, that was probably intended as tongue-in-cheek irony, but do you seriously imagine that there won't be plenty of Christians and Christian apologists out there who will choose to take it literally? You have been staying abreast of the shocking degree to which these people have eagerly been taking quotes and ideas from Richard and Hitch wildly out of context, I assume? Quotes far, far less open to such abuse than this one of Sam's?

The danger with "jokes" such as these is that it is so very, very easy to have them twisted and wilfully abused; to simply choose to take them literally and overlook the humour. I find it ironic that one of Sam's central points at the AAI speech was precisely the danger of having our statements and words misinterpreted or dismissed. Sam thinks this danger is increased by simply calling ourselves atheists: I do not think it unreasonable to be concerned that the danger is also increased by having a prominent atheist suggest - even in jest - that Christians might be more generous than atheists.

I also attended Sam's AAI speech and there was nothing he said to get angry about.

His speech didn't make me angry; I simply disagreed strongly with his central point and I think I made that clear elsewhere. I actually told him afterwards that I appreciated he was trying to challenge our thinking. It is only this latest (in my view) tactical blunder that has started to actually annoy me. As I say, from someone who claims to be concerned about atheists shooting ourselves in the feet, he's being a bit careless, to say the least.

He does not deny that he is an atheist, but wishes there was no need to be identified as such

And on that I agree with him, but he went further than that: he outright claimed that right now we should not be calling ourselves atheists. He suggested that we should "go under the radar" as of now. If you were at the speech, you know this.

eric711: I don't think what I've said here deserves to be called "nutty". You may disagree with me but if you're going to question my sanity I'd appreciate it if you'd back it the hell up, okay? Unless, of course, it's merely a flame war you're after, in which case, carry on.