101. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #195061 by mixmastergaz on June 17, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Steve Z I do take your point. I'm sure many potential witnesses to this now-not-happening debate wouldn't be able to hear or accept much of what I might've said because of an inner voice (possibly sounding like Woody Allen's impression of his parents) proclaiming "but he's a no-good atheist!" But I also wonder where we go from here. If we accept the depressing thought that there are people with whom we can't reason (and Ive certainly felt like this from time to time) then how can we hope to make any progress from this point? Ultimately, what else is there to do but take the argument to these people? It sounds like I'm changing my mind again; I'm not, but these are the questions I'm left asking myself, and now you chaps...

Vaal Teaching Religious Studies is great! It's more like a philosophy of religion course really. You'll be unsurprised to hear that most students (though not all) who undertake such a course are religious believers of one sort or another. I get to introduce them to the cosmological argument, the argument from design (certain sections of 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'TGD' are set-texts on the course; the looks on some of my students' faces are priceless!), the ontological argument, the argument from personal experience and their various counter arguments and so forth. We look at Hume on miracles, William James on religious experience and Kant's categorical imperative. In the 'Root of all Evil' documentary (I think) Richard recommends that the headmaster of a creationist-school familiarises himself with the utilitarian ethical theory of Bentham and Mill. I get paid to do this! And I frequently get the opportunity to see 'lights going on'; to see young people thinking critically about religion for perhaps the first time in their lives. How could one not enjoy this?

Dave Lynch and Epeeist Not that it matters now of course, but when I first replied to the Christian together email address I made it clear I wasn't up for debating a young-Earth creationist, or discussing evolution. The chap there said he didn't know what David Robertson's position on this was either!

Hungarian Elephant Thanks.

102. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194615 by mixmastergaz on June 17, 2008 at 4:30 am

Further to my recent posts floating the idea of accepting Christians Together's invitation to debate David Robertson, I've decided to listen to my own reservations and the concerns expressed here and decline the offer ("changes his mind like his socks" I know…). A polite and seemingly friendly chap called Colin emailed me to say they had in mind an early autumn date. On a purely practical level this would have been a non-starter for me; I was really only able to take part if the date they had in mind was during my summer holidays. But this isn't the only reason I've reconsidered. On reflection, agreeing to this debate in order to avoid accusations of 'running scared' from a debate seems rather trivial, even vain, and those who wish to argue along those lines may do so whether or not I attend. Additionally, it's entirely possible that an experienced preacher like David Robertson may 'wipe the floor with me' using a lot appealing (to his side) rhetoric and preaching to the choir. Whatever others may think of him, he is clearly better read in theology than I am and this wouldn't be a match of equals. I'm also keen to avoid the appearance of speaking on behalf of others, especially someone as distinguished as Richard. Although, had I agreed, in my mind I would only be speaking for myself, the distinct possibility remains that others could take me to be a representative of Richard, or of atheists generally, an impression I'd very much like to avoid.

Finally, this has the potential to 'blow my cover' with my students. I'm a religious studies teacher and I choose, deliberately, to refuse to answer my students' repeated questions about my own beliefs, much to their chagrin. It doesn't stop them guessing! If footage of me arguing the case for atheism were to appear on this new-fangled interweb thingy then the cat would be out of the bag. I'd rather some of them continue to believe that I'm a Christian, Jew or Pagan (though curiously none of them realise I'm an atheist) so I can preserve my impartiality as their teacher.

I'm still not convinced that refusing the invitation is the best course of action (although I'm leaning in that direction), but I am convinced that I'm not the right person for this.

103. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194123 by mixmastergaz on June 16, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Well, I've read the comments, most of which seem to be discouraging me from agreeing to any sort of debate, but I refuse to accept that there can be no diplomatic relations with Christians. It's depressing to me think that we can't talk and discuss with those who don't share our views and so I've contacted the chap from 'Christians together' (I think that was the name but I can't be bothered skipping back a few pages to check) who posted earlier looking for someone up for a debate. It's been a few hours but no response so far. My email was non-committal; I asked if David Robertson was a young-Earth creationist (because I'm not going all the way to Scotland to argue about evolution) and for clarification on a couple of other things.

Perhaps I'm being as naïve as some of you are suggesting; perhaps I've been "fooled" by their "stance", as someone else suggested. If I honestly reach the same conclusions later then I'll say so here and admit I was wrong. But I'm prepared to pick up the gauntlet that's been thrown down, provided it doesn't clash with any prior arrangements, which is a distinct possibility as I plan on going to quite a few festivals this summer. I'll update if I hear anything more from this.

(I'm anticipating lots of "on your own head be it" type remarks!)

104. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #193960 by mixmastergaz on June 16, 2008 at 8:44 am

Hmmm... The Illuminati. Isn't that the non-existent secretive organisation that David Icke believes to have been manipulating world events for hundreds of years? Aren't they supposed to be giant lizard-like aliens in human form? Sounds like this could be a shittastic film to me!

105. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192586 by mixmastergaz on June 13, 2008 at 1:16 pm

As flattering as Professor Lynn's assertion is, I don't buy this at all. I'm not convinced IQ is a a fair or accurate marker of intelligence, and it seems to me far more reasonable to suppose that the Royal Society fellows statistics referred to might suggest that people who are university-educated are more likely to be atheists, and only then within certain societies. Professor Lynn's claim is too bold.

106. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192508 by mixmastergaz on June 13, 2008 at 8:33 am

I hadn't realised David Robertson is a young Earth creationist. Perhaps I should reconsider.

107. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #192506 by mixmastergaz on June 13, 2008 at 8:26 am

Your guess is correct Cartomancer. I'm embarrassed to admit I was duped, but there it is. I had just spent the afternoon watching Paula's interview with Richard and was speed-reading through the threads to try and catch up when I read his phony (and slightly creepy) post. I should have spotted it (the impostor's tone was nothing like Richard's), but I fired-off the spontaneous post congratulating you on your (nonexistent) invitation above.

Pretty embarrassing that (as far as I can tell) the first contribution I've made to this website that has come to Richard's attention makes me look like a gullible ass, but such is life.

Apologies to both of you for the misunderstanding.

Gary

ps Happy Birthday Cartomancer!

108. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192495 by mixmastergaz on June 13, 2008 at 7:52 am

I'm hundreds of miles away from Scotland but I'd be willing to step forward to debate (providing the date doesn't clash with my hectic social schedule) if no one else in the vicinity does, if only because clearthinker will spin this as 'atheists too scared to debate with me'.

I think there are much better informed candidates than myself though...

109. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #192034 by mixmastergaz on June 12, 2008 at 11:02 am

Surely there must be some simple, two syllable word that could accurately describe 'characters' like our impostor above.

Perhaps Irate Atheist could think of a fitting neologism...

110. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #192030 by mixmastergaz on June 12, 2008 at 10:58 am

Oops!

I just left my pc a moment ago for a cup of tea and found myself thinking 'surely Richard Dawkins would use capital letters for his own name'...I see I've been deceived!

Apologies for the use of the word 'gig' Richard. It sometimes amuses me (if no one else) to use the patois of the music industry in entirely inappropriate contexts.

richard_dawkins (the impostor):-

you are a weirdo.

111. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #192022 by mixmastergaz on June 12, 2008 at 10:30 am

Wow Cartomancer, first on the bill at a Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris gig! I've got a friend in a band who once opened-up for Paul McCartney (here in Liverpool at a gig honouring the late George Harrison), but you've landed the better support-slot in my estimation!

Good luck and let us know how it goes.

112. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191986 by mixmastergaz on June 12, 2008 at 8:42 am

Forest Mist:-

No need to apologise; I enjoy the exchange of ideas!

Of course it's not reason enough to recommend something simply because it is atheist in character. It might still be awful. And no one is recommending exclusively watching/listening to atheist films or music. We leave that sort of exclusivity to people like the Christian you mention.

To be pedantic, it's not just Richard's books that have been recommended in the margins of this website. I've seen works by Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Aayan Hirsi Ali, Carl Sagan and others. I'm guessing that Richard, Josh or whoever put them there naturally thought that visitors to this site might reasonably be expected to be interested in these texts. But there's no reason to suppose that that's all they'd be interested in! I've read a few flea books that I only became aware of through this site and I doubt that I'm the only one.

I think our discussion here is based upon a misunderstanding. Hopefully this has cleared it up.

113. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191965 by mixmastergaz on June 12, 2008 at 7:42 am

The continued attepmts by believers to try and spin atheists' arguments against us would be amusing if they were not so mendacious. These attempts are unconvincing and reek of desperation. Declaring that atheism relies upon "tradition and authority" does not make it so. Atheism does not rely upon bogus arguments from personal experience or any sort of revelation. There are no holy books, no divine inspiration, no miraculous occurences to bedazzle the credulous. Nowhere in the atheistic writings that I have encountered is it ever argued that it is virtuous to believe without evidence. This latter point is made time and again in the sacred texts of religions. Its rejection is as characteristic of atheism as its acceptance is charcteristic of theism. No amount of pseudo-sophistry in religious apologetics can cause black to be white, or white to be black. Such absurd arguments are only persuasive to those who wish to believe them.

114. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191956 by mixmastergaz on June 12, 2008 at 7:20 am

Forest Mist:-

I'm guessing you probably don't object to the implicit recommendations for atheistic books in the margins of this website so I'm curious to know why you have reservations about recommendations of atheistic films or music. I'm sure few would argue with the open-mindedness you suggest when it comes to the appreciation of music or films. For the record, I too also appreciate many films/songs etc. that either espouse views contrary to my own or are produced by individuals whose religious views are the opposite of mine. No one is arguing that atheists should only watch films by other atheists, or listen to music produced by fellow atheists. But it is natural that we should take a particular interest in films or music of this sort. I don't see how this supports clearthinker's view that there is an "atheist creed" (which sounds more like an argument of convenience than of conviction). It simply confirms that atheists are interested in the creativity of other atheists (though not exclusively, or at the expense of theistic creative works).

Honestly, this seems like a non-issue to me, although reason and evidence may persuade me to believe otherwise.

115. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189348 by mixmastergaz on June 6, 2008 at 5:05 am

Caution: A Pedant Posts.

Steve8282: The pronoun you're looking for is 'their', although 'its' would be better still as the noun it's replacing is England. And I think you probably meant to say 'losing' not 'loosing' about your northern neighbours. I wouldn't normally pick on someone's spelling like this, but you did have to go and mention the war!

116. Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

Comment #189015 by mixmastergaz on June 5, 2008 at 8:01 am

SmartLX:-

Here in the UK one constantly hears talk of the, ahem, "unique British sense of fair-play".

No, it's not just Americans and Australians...

117. Kenya mob reportedly burns 11 'witches'

Comment #183461 by mixmastergaz on May 22, 2008 at 6:45 am

Difficult to know what to say when confronted by such lethal ignorance. Sadly Sam Harris's reports of the death of 'witchcraft' (or rather 'the belief in witchcraft') seem to have been optimistically exaggerated.

The less-cheery side of my personality cannot help but wonder how many of this mob really believed that their victims were witches/wizards, or to wonder if some of this really stems from malicious rumours spread by embittered and feuding neighbours.

118. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182861 by mixmastergaz on May 21, 2008 at 4:02 am

Whoever I criticised for using the phrase 'Londonistan', I take it all back; you were right and I was wrong to be so optimistic about common sense prevailing here in the UK.

Also, from what I've heard about Scientology, I'd like to add that the word 'cult' seems nicely to sum-up their activities; it's an entirely accurate description. This ought to be thrown out of court and hopefully it will be. I hope that somewhere lurking on this site is an individual with the proper legal training to be able to aid this young person.

Let me get this straight:

"Behead those who claim Islam is a violent religion" is ok, but "Scientology is not a religion it is a dangerous cult" isn't? This is nonsense on stilts.

119. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #182462 by mixmastergaz on May 20, 2008 at 7:33 am

Londonistan? Ok let's not over-react. I made a habit of "openly questioning" religions during my RE lessons at school (although I wasn't attending school in "Londonistan", wherever that is, does the UK count?); admittedly I sometimes got some pretty terse responses from my teachers, but on the whole I think even my most devout teachers could see the benefit of having someone play Devil's advocate.

Today, I'm a Religious Studies teacher myself and I'm delighted when a student "openly questions" or even forcefully challenges a religion or religious perspective in my lessons; it's how they are going to achieve marks on their final exams. I have no objections to 'Jerry Springer: The Opera' but how awful to restrict the students' exposure only to things that I happen to agree with. That's not education; it's indoctrination, whether or not I concur with the views being expressed. Religious Studies (the serious, impartial and objective study of religions) deserves its place within a broad curriculum. Religious Education (indoctrinating children from a young age into the faith and traditions of their parents and communities) does not.

120. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #182121 by mixmastergaz on May 19, 2008 at 8:50 am

Although I was fortunate not to suffer to the same extent the sort of abuses described above, much of it is very familiar. I too can recall the feelings of silent outrage at the hypocrisy, lack of charity, compassion and basic common decency exhibited by pious teachers. Invariably, those who had taken holy orders of some sort were the worst transgressors. It is not an exaggeration to say that it was this, as much as critical thinking and reflection on religion, that led to my becoming an atheist. I can also recall the distinct impression that the worst tormentors seemed positively and unashamedly to enjoy dishing out their excessively cruel punishments. I can't bring myself to believe that this isn't exactly how many of these perverts would behave if they managed to turn back the clock on the progress that has been made since their 'reign of terror' ended in this part of the world at least if not elsewhere.

121. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #182106 by mixmastergaz on May 19, 2008 at 8:19 am

Spinning for Jesus anyone?

The double-standard here is obvious and needs no elaboration. Of course, there'd be no problem of breaching pupils' "rights to freedom of thought, conscience and belief" if the faithful would give up their insistence on the supposed 'right' to indoctrinate young minds into one faith tradition. The problem only arises as a consequence of faith schools. I agree that pupils may well choose to opt-out for the wrong reasons, but if 'Religious Studies', as opposed to 'Religious Education', was the norm then there'd be no need to opt-out for anyone.

Describing the NSS as a "dreary ogre" and characterising those who take human rights seriously as "dim-wits" is just petty name-calling. And those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Sean Salvador: Yes most RE teachers are religious but not all. I teach 'A' level Religious Studies and am not in the least bit religious.

122. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180566 by mixmastergaz on May 15, 2008 at 8:09 am

Clearmind you are a hoaxer and I claim my five pounds(again).

123. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #180444 by mixmastergaz on May 15, 2008 at 1:16 am

I'm printing this off to read later when I have the time and am looking forward to it. It's nice to see something from the archives added here; hopefully there's more of this sort of thing lurking out there somewhere. Something doesn't need to be recently published in order to be relevant.

124. 85% of Americans Want a Presidential Debate on Science

Comment #180073 by mixmastergaz on May 14, 2008 at 7:17 am

I share Nova's incomprehension at the apparently self-contradictory responses to this poll. It reminds me of an episode of the West Wing:

"68% think we spend too much on foreign aid; 59% want it cut."

I agree with Rod; good and bad news here.

125. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179996 by mixmastergaz on May 14, 2008 at 4:30 am

If God is "the unknowable total of all there is" (whatever that's supposed to mean) then how can anyone claim to know that "God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at...moments [when people]...transcend boundaries and overflow with love", (whatever that's supposed to mean)?

This article is so full of holes it reminds me of Swiss cheese. The above quotations have 'holes' large enough to drive a convoy through. However it does a good job of sounding persuasive to those who wish to be persuaded.

126. A natural selection

Comment #179909 by mixmastergaz on May 14, 2008 at 1:32 am

I don't think you are being too picky Philip. This how/why thing gets on my nerves too. Also there seems to me to be something slightly self-congratulatory about this. Only fools boast about doing something that one ought to be doing anyway. It's like seeking praise for not being irrational, closed-minded arseholes. Of course, I'm pleased that this group are more open minded than most of their co-religionists but there's no need to champion them for it; it's what they ought to be doing anyway.

127. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178932 by mixmastergaz on May 12, 2008 at 8:46 am

I agree wholeheartedly with Paula's insightful posts. Regrettably, such small 'c' conservatives are, of course, not only to be found seated upon church pews (although this seems to me to be where the phenomenon is most pronounced). Maybe it's a British trait, but I've often thought that people are generally far too prone to a peculiar resistance to change. Debate with them and win the argument, and this will only harden their resolve to fly in the teeth of evidence and common sense.

And being asked if I'd prefer a 'praise band' or hymns played on the organ is like asking if I'd prefer a kick in the balls or a punch in the bollocks.

128. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177512 by mixmastergaz on May 9, 2008 at 8:06 am

I have mixed feelings about this. The optimistic part of me hopes, as others have noted, that 3rd, 4th and subsequent generations of the offspring of Hindu and Muslim parents will be less inclined toward their faith than their parents. The pessimistic part of me however recalls Hanif Kureishi's 'My son the fanatic'. Hopefully the increasing religiosity identified within Islam is a temporary aberration. I realise that personal experience is not a reliable guide to social trends, but the only British 'cultural Muslims' of my acquaintance are (almost) as secular as I am. Of course, this may well be because I'm unlikely to move in the same social circles as their more fervently religious counterparts. But the decline in Christian church attendance is encouraging.

Another poster asked 'Why is Islam on the increase?' (or words to that effect). The answer must surely be, in part, attributable to immigration and the tendency of Muslims to have larger families than native UK residents. I think this site is one of the few places where I can express this opinion without fear of being accused of racism (fingers crossed). Al-Rawandi, posting on another thread, referred to muslims "breeding like rabbits"; I must confess that, although I understand his point, I don't much care for the way he chose to express it. There's no point in making the religious apologists' job easy for them, or for needlessly causing offence, when the same point can be expressed in less abrasive terms. Humans do not "breed"; we procreate. And likening people to animals (even cute, fluffy animals) is unnecessarily harsh. I was surprised that his comment wasn't picked-up on by others. I was in a rush when I read it and didn't have the time to respond, and now I can't remember whereabouts it is. Al, if you're reading this, would you care to re-phrase your comment?

129. The detail in the Devil

Comment #175933 by mixmastergaz on May 6, 2008 at 8:55 am

"Demonology", "fairyology", "theology" etc. Putting an '...ology' after it doesn't make it a respectable area of research. It just makes it sound as if it is to a moron.

Unfortunately there's no shortage of morons in this world, even morons with PhDs. 'Morons' become 'dangerous fools' when people start taking them seriously. This also put me in mind of 'The Crucible'.

130. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #172939 by mixmastergaz on April 30, 2008 at 7:35 am

Q: What do you call the useless bit of skin that remains after completion of a circumcision?

A: Ben Stein.

131. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170830 by mixmastergaz on April 28, 2008 at 4:42 am

Actually I'd recommend Ben Stein does take a peek a the 'worst poetry in the universe' Philip. Remember what happened to Grunthos the flatulent when he began a recitation? His own intestines crawled up through his throat and throttled his brain! Result!

132. Investigating Atheism

Comment #170828 by mixmastergaz on April 28, 2008 at 4:25 am

Layla: Of course you're correct; it is an earlier lecture. I mistakenly assumed the later lecture was the one that's now available online. My comments are about Ricahrd's 2nd Liverpool lecture . I didn't watch it online as I was in attendance (or at least I thought I was!) I assumed it was the 2nd lecture online because of the presence of cameras. They must have filmed both gigs!

I doubt that the 2nd lecture will be made available online because Richard made a point of saying that he was repeating his previous lecture (and cheekily asked those who attended both to leave before the start!)

Nevertheless, I still recommend the original link and I'm going to watch the Q and A session to see if the first audience had any better challenges than "chimpanzees eat their own young so therefore evolution can't be true". Sorry for any confusion.

133. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168627 by mixmastergaz on April 25, 2008 at 8:41 am

Completely off-topic post alert but...

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else on this site so here's a plug for Richard's lecture here in Liverpool earlier this week. It's available to watch online @:-

http://www.liv.ac.uk/08/webcast/dawkins_webcast.html


I imagine there's not much in it that will be new to regulars on this site, but for those who've never seen Richard lecture it's more than worth a watch.

From the length of the video I'd guess that the Q and A session isn't included which is a shame. Some crank from the local Christian Union was foolish enough to argue that "evolution can't possibly be true" because "chimpanzees eat their own young". Richard's response was most amusing. I mean, where does one begin with that sort of question?

Another challenger accused Richard of arrogance for claiming to know what happens after death, before claiming privileged knowledge of the "afterlife" herself! She refused to elaborate on her insights but offered to write to Richard with more details. He graciously thanked her for this, but didn't quite manage to conceal the irony in his tone of voice. The last challenger seemed to think that the growth of Christianity in China somehow proved the existence of God (although he was rather sketchy on the details). I was disappointed by the poverty of counter-arguments put to Richard. If they were representative of the best that Christians in Liverpool can come up with then Hope Street (the road connecting Liverpool's Anglican and Catholic cathedrals) must be simply teeming with halfwits on Sundays.

134. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168600 by mixmastergaz on April 25, 2008 at 8:24 am

Thanks for the suggestions epeeist! Some of them made me laugh out loud. On reflection I concur; there's no need to restrict oneself to two syllables.

'Grouthead gnat-snappers' would've been a good one to use to describe David Robertson.

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

Comment #168548 by mixmastergaz on April 25, 2008 at 7:43 am

How long before some halfwit or other contrives an argument from improbability from this story?

edit: ...oh and another version of the teleological argument!

136. Yoko Ono sues over use of John Lennon videos

Comment #168540 by mixmastergaz on April 25, 2008 at 7:37 am

I'm glad Yoko Ono is suing these liars for Yahweh.

Additionally, I can't help thinking that the stuff about John Lennon wondering if he should spike Nixon's tea is reported inaccurately here. I can imagine Lennon saying this as a joke, but I can't bring myself to believe he really intended to do it, whether or not he was smoking cannabis.
This reminds me of Hitchens' comment that the "literal mind cannot comprehend the ironic mind."

137. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168343 by mixmastergaz on April 25, 2008 at 4:16 am

riverrun:

Do please let us know if you get a reply to your email.

Irate: I agree with Ian. Surely there must be a simple word that can be coined to describe those who would employ such underhand tactics. I think two syllables ought to do it, but I can't seem to think of the right word. Can you think of any Irate?

138. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165686 by mixmastergaz on April 22, 2008 at 3:35 am

I'm just trying to imagine what an 'atheist church' service would be like. Who would officiate and what would qualify them? What would those in attendance do? Sing atheist songs? Listen to readings from the TGD et al?

I have no problem with atheist weddings and funerals etc. but gathering once a week (or whatever) seems pretty pointless. Maybe a political pressure group would be a better model than a church for providing a space for atheists to socialise and work towards common goals.

Also (perhaps more so in the States than here in the UK) there is the danger of atheism/humanism being treated under the law as a quasi-religion. And I'll stick my neck out a bit and add that being associated with religion or religious practices demeans atheism/humanism.

139. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163362 by mixmastergaz on April 18, 2008 at 8:40 am

I wouldn't need to be bribed to go and see this film! What a shame it's a spoof; it would probably have more intellectual rigour than 'Expelled'. Actually that's not saying a great deal; 'Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang' probably has more intellectual rigour than 'expelled'...

140. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162564 by mixmastergaz on April 17, 2008 at 4:30 am

Scooternyc: In answer to your question above, I'm a religious studies teacher here in the UK. The curriculum my students and I follow requires us to look at 'the six major world faiths; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism'.

Although I'm not religious, so you aren't directing your questions at me really, I'd have no objections to your proposal at all. In fact, I'd endorse it.

141. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162562 by mixmastergaz on April 17, 2008 at 4:24 am

Clearmind: Are you taking the mickey? Others are conversing with you as if you're serious, but your posts so far read like hoaxes to me. I apologise for saying this if they aren't hoaxes, but would suggest that you consider proofreading your posts as it's difficult to follow what you're trying to say when you miss out words or misuse them.

Your analogy concerning light (or "LIGHT" if you prefer) can be spun right back at you. As an atheist I consider that I have 'seen the light', as opposed to being blinded by it.

edit: "pretending God". What do you mean?

142. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162438 by mixmastergaz on April 17, 2008 at 1:24 am

Perhaps they could replace "Imagine" in the soundtrack with the sound of a barrel being scraped?

143. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162135 by mixmastergaz on April 16, 2008 at 8:10 am

Of course the complicity of the church authorities in covering up these cases is apalling. What's hardly ever mentioned is the complicity of the faithful themselves.

I'm a former catholic. The first priest I can remember in my old parish (a pleasant enough chap of whom I was quite fond) just disappeared one day and a conspiracy of silence amongst the parishioners ensued. I received so many stern glances and unexplained rebukes for asking, with a child's innocence, where Father Kelly was that I was afraid to broach the subject even with my own parents. Years later, as I teenager, I discovered that apparently he'd fallen in love with a widowed parishioner and left the priesthood. The perceived 'guilt' and 'shame' of this incident seemed to be shared by the faithful. I don't suppose anyone ever actually said "let's all keep quiet about this"; it just 'goes without saying'. I realise that this isn't comparable with child-rape. I only draw the parallel between the reactions of the faithful. In the case of Father Kelly and his partner, I'm happy for them both and see nothing in this that merits the sort of response it caused in my old parish. But if this is the response to something as inocuous as the events I describe above, how are the faithful likely to react to something that really is shameful and apalling? Probably not in a way that is helpful in terms of making sure nothing like it could happen again. And all this Catholic guilt can't be helping the victims of abuse much either.

Religion equips people to become experts in denial and self-deception, and when that fails folks just pretend nothing's wrong. Once you've seen through the smokescreen you can't help but feel infuriated by those who will go to great lengths to avoid lifting the bull's tail and looking the facts in the face.

144. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #162118 by mixmastergaz on April 16, 2008 at 7:32 am

The mention of promiscuity is disingenuous, and a deliberate smokescreen. The elephants in the high school classroom are promiscuity and soaring STD rates. Obviously this is a rhetorical question, but how many straight and promiscuous students were denied access to the ball?

145. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #161402 by mixmastergaz on April 15, 2008 at 8:53 am

When I was undertaking initial teacher training we (my fellow trainees and I) were 'treated' to a guest lecture on 'brain gyms' and encouraged to lead our classes in these fatuous exercises at the start of every lesson. I thought it was a load of foundationless crap at the time (and said so) but most of those attending the lecture disagreed and many of those pledged to begin their classes in this ridiculous fashion. What I was most struck by at the time was how easily persuaded these people were. I would guess that none (or few) of them had ever even heard of a 'brain gym' before attending the lecture. All it took was someone to vouch for their effectiveness and pass around a poorly-photocopied handout and most were 'converted'. I weep for the state of education in my country! Perhaps compulsory lessons in critical thinking would be more beneficial (actually, there's no 'perhaps' about it; encouraging students to examine the contents of their nostrils would have more educational merit than this garbage).

Assuming that some of those who attended the lecture did incorporate 'brain gyms' into their lessons regularly, it's a sobering thought to consider how much time all those 'five minutes at the start' would add up to across an academic year, and what might otherwise have been learned in that time.

146. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161388 by mixmastergaz on April 15, 2008 at 8:30 am

I'm glad to see this reprinted here as it's one of my favourite parts of TGD and arguably one of the most overlooked, I suspect deliberately, because it doesn't sit well with the misrepresentative charicature of Richard's work that we've become accustomed to from the religious apologists.

When I'm not to be found behind the decks mixing and scratching I'm a religious studies teacher. I keep my personal opinions on religion private from my students, but I've found the above part of TGD to be most helpful when trying to explain to exasperated (usually theist) colleagues why an atheist would choose to teach religious studies.

Goatboy (Bill Hicks fan?):

I don't think the Grauniad does have a particular axe to grind with Richard. Most of its regular contributors are atheists or agnostics and Polly Toynbee is a distinguished member of the BHA. Perhaps the handful of recent articles critical of Richard and the so-called 'new atheists' is just a blip.

Philip: Two sugars in mine (with due reverence and a moment's reflection on the tealeological argument and ontealogical argument if you please!)

147. A New Flea

Comment #160428 by mixmastergaz on April 14, 2008 at 4:53 am

Bloody hell, yet another one!

How cheap of the designer of the Mclean cover to leave the "£4 off" sticker on TGD.

As a personal aside, I saw Keith Ward give a lecture some years ago when I was an undergraduate. When the time for questions arrived (mercifully, as it was a spectacularly dull lecture) I suspected that some attendees had been 'planted' to ask easy questions because they were of the following sort:-

"Could I trouble you to give us a brief reminder of your latest triumphs?"

Anyway, finally some bright, young undergraduate tore his argument to pieces with a few brief remarks and an unanswerable question. It was followed by an uncomfortable silence whilst the majority theist audience tut-tutted to themselves at the impertinence of someone pointing out that Ward's argument had more holes than a lump of Swiss cheese. I'll get his book from the library (I'm not lining the guy's pockets), but I'm not expecting much based on past experience.

148. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160423 by mixmastergaz on April 14, 2008 at 4:39 am

Another lazy journalist who hasn't done his research properly.

Bamiyan statues anybody?

149. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #158962 by mixmastergaz on April 11, 2008 at 8:53 am

Surely Hitler's irrational hatred of the Jews (and therefore, to some extent the holocaust) is accounted for more credibly by his catholicism, with its attendant charge of 'deicide' and its appaling history of anti-semitism, than by so called 'social Darwinism'.

The dishonesty of our opponents on this issue seems to know no bounds. Perhaps they're thinking:
"If we throw enough shit at the wall then some of it will stick."

150. Fleabytes

Comment #158811 by mixmastergaz on April 11, 2008 at 4:17 am

The 'godless mix' I've been shamelessly plugging on this thread airs this afternoon (UK time) 3 - 4 pm, about two and three quarter hours from now.

Thanks to everyone who made requests; listen out for your dedications (and listen out for cameo appearances from Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Adams, Carl Sagan and T. S. Eliot, amongst others).

You can listen online at:-

kcclive.com (sorry, still don't know how to add a proper link!)

Email me during the broadcast (studio@kcclive.com) and maybe I'll dedicate a song to you.

Normal service will now be resumed...

ps Steve, in your new T shirt you remind me a little of the late, great John Peel!