101. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173635 by PJG on May 1, 2008 at 2:36 am

"Hello, and welcome to the Atheists Answer Your Stupid Questions Hotline. Your call is important to us. If you want to spout nonsense about irreducible complexity, press 1. If you have a bee in your bonnet about Hitler and Stalin, press 2. If you think atheism is just another religion, press 3. If you need to bring up that tired old objective source of morality guff, press 4. If you just want to make crude ad hominems at Richard Dawkins until you feel better, press 5. Your call will be charged at normal network rates and may be monitored for staff training purposes. All proceeds go to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science..."

Lovely, just lovely!

Steve,
I know what you mean about educating people - I think we all try to do that. However, I DO find it depressing that it just doesn't get through to SO many people.

Incidentally, on the Stalin, Hitler thing...

When children are brought up by people who think babies are born sinful and have to be molded into goodness - and who are systematically brutalised during the "process", as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein and (just about) every despot has been - even Pol Pot (I think this is correct) went to a "faith school" and who knows what happened to HIM there and at home?!! - it doesn't do much to make for a nice, kind adult. (Understatement of the year)

102. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173220 by PJG on April 30, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Wouldn't it be nice if, one day, someone came up with a really sensible, original question?

If I hear one more person bring up Hitler, Stalin, "atheism is another faith", "How can anyone be moral without God?" or the f**king bacterial flagellum, I think I will scream.

Richard - you deserve a medal. At the start of your next interview, could you quickly deal with the above questions, just to get them out of the way? If nothing else, it would cut down the number of callers!

103. Science leads to killing people

Comment #173012 by PJG on April 30, 2008 at 8:29 am

Isn't it interesting how many "intelligent" creationists are lawyers - an occupation where, often, winning the argument is more important than exposing the truth?

104. Museums teach society lacking in science literacy

Comment #172983 by PJG on April 30, 2008 at 8:13 am

Pattern Seeker

I'm with your wife on this - save your money!

:o)

105. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172750 by PJG on April 30, 2008 at 3:32 am

There was an interesting mention of good manners earlier. My grandmother had a saying on manners in public;

"If you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all."

Bollocks!

;o)

Sorry, this was just crying out for a response like this!!!

106. Museums teach society lacking in science literacy

Comment #172736 by PJG on April 30, 2008 at 2:41 am

All good - but it depends on the museum

This from AiG article (see http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=43109 for the full text - and responses - including from Cali)...

"The Creation Museum is not lost on the really young. My 2-year-old son Elijah visited the museum (along with the rest of the family). Months later, he decided that he should pretend he is going to the Creation Museum. He lined up his [toy] dinosaurs, handed out tickets to us, and told us all the [dinosaur] names. . . . Our little boy (having not been to the Creation Museum in many months) described details of the museum�quot;the brachiosaurus in the lobby that moves his head 'like this' (as our son demonstrated with his hand), and the planetarium where our 'seats went back to look at the stars on the ceiling.'

"He loves creation, and especially all the kinds of dinosaurs God made."

The more we train generations in the truth right from the earliest age (even at 2), the more they'll easily distinguish truth from error. Yes, the truth that God created as the Bible states is so obvious, even a child gets it! We need such a generation of children to combat false teachings of "the children" of Dawkins and Kagin. Your children are really never too young to learn about creation.

You have to laugh that the writer had to point out that the child lined up his toy dinosaurs - as if anyone might think he lined up his real ones! :o)

107. Science leads to killing people

Comment #171879 by PJG on April 29, 2008 at 1:07 am

Those who like Thunderf00t's videos:

Check out Potholer54's and AronRa's too (though he - AronRa - sounds as if he is rushing through the information in a slightly manic way!) :o) and, of course, cdk007.

One of the wonderful things about the Internet is that every side of every story is available - for every Stein, there is a Thunderf00t.

108. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171485 by PJG on April 28, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Dogs think their owners are Gods
Cats think they (cats) are Gods

109. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170801 by PJG on April 28, 2008 at 3:20 am

As in "sides" of an argument. What is wrong with that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k

110. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170794 by PJG on April 28, 2008 at 3:06 am

V'Ger has a point. The more I have seen of Stein, the more insane and ranting he appears. I hope he continues to be interviewed as eventually, all but the most deluded (and there is no hope for them) will recognise that he is completely mad - as well as ignorant.

Why did I get a hollow feeling inside when I typed the above?

111. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170757 by PJG on April 28, 2008 at 12:38 am

Thunderf00t's videos are wonderful.

What is so depressing though is that they seem to be getting progressively "darker" as time goes on.

The insane rantings of VenomFangX, analysed and shown to be nonsense, fit very well with the question "Why do people laugh at creationists?" and his following statement, "Only creationists don't understand why." I am not sure that this ending is apt for this sickening video - or the one immediately preceding it (also about Ben Stein). There is nothing to laugh at about Ben Stein - even less so those who, like the interviewer, seem to agree with him.

I find myself wondering whether this shift in the sense of ridicule in his videos is because Thunderf00t's attitude is changing or if his source material is getting more sinister because the lunatics are taking over the asylum.

112. Yoko Ono sues over use of John Lennon videos

Comment #168812 by PJG on April 25, 2008 at 11:20 am

Ah well, I'm sure this is all planned for under the "publicity to be gained from being shown to be crooks" part of the budget for the film.

113. Judge orders La. school district to stop Bible giveaways

Comment #168286 by PJG on April 24, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Yes, pwl, a friend told me about an 11 year old Christian child in the UK who started screaming and hitting his own ears when his teacher started talking to the children about Darwin.

I was talking to some Muslim men on Sunday evening - they didn't actually scream and hit their own ears - but they may as well have done.

Don't think the problem of creationism and religious fundamentalism isn't coming here.

114. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168283 by PJG on April 24, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Do they understand what "atheist" means and distort it to mislead people who don't, or do they simply not understand?

If it is the first, they are "Lying for Jesus". If the second, what makes them think they have the knowledge necessary to teach others about atheism - as if it is a complex subject?

Atheism is not complex, it is the most simple thing to understand... ATHEISTS DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD.

115. Judge orders La. school district to stop Bible giveaways

Comment #167364 by PJG on April 24, 2008 at 12:52 am

I still have the Bible I was given at school for R.E. (Religious Education). I find it useful for tormenting Jehovah's Witnesses. They often don't know as much about what they are supposed to believe as I do and thanks to that book and all the tabs and references I have written in it, I am able to inform them of this!

The book also makes a good door-stop.

[sarcasm]I don't think there is any problem giving out copies of The Bible in schools - so long as The Qu'ran and other works of fiction are handed out too. [/sarcasm]

Personally, I think a really good book of famous quotations (which includes some good quotes from scripture anyway) or a Thesaurus would be better - or The Complete Works of Shakespeare.

116. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #164128 by PJG on April 19, 2008 at 3:22 pm

A little off topic....

I remember years ago, a colleague telling me about her very sheltered (Catholic) upbringing. When she was 11, she met a very "worldly wise" sixteen year old who told her two "facts". One was that all girls have to have their nipples pierced on their sixteenth birthday. The other was how babies were made. The eleven year old decided that these were both completely preposterous, but that of the two, the nipple piercing seemed the most plausible. As it turned out, she said, the "making babies" description turned out to be true. :o)

117. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163097 by PJG on April 18, 2008 at 1:48 am

So sex IS just for fun! That's great.

So long as we can keep that bloody over-sized heron away. Hmmm, I need a good scarecrow.... is Ben Stein available to stand in front of our house with his arms outstretched, sort of, well, crucifiction style?? :oD

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

Comment #162436 by PJG on April 17, 2008 at 1:18 am

If this, along with ripping off Harvard's "Inner Life of the Cell", is a deliberate ploy to get publicity for the film, then it simply shows them up as being doubly dishonest and can be seen to be a deliberate theft (with a motive), not a "mistake".

I asked on another thread: Does anyone know if there any law that would make it illegal for cinemas to show a film that is sub-judice? If Harvard, or Yoko Ono, were to serve a writ (if that is the term) could the film be put on general release before the matter is resolved?

Please don't get me wrong, I don't want to censor this film. I think it should be shown everywhere... with an "equal time" rebuttal. I want a worldwide TV airing of it being taken apart, scene by scene, lie by lie. Give them the publicity they crave, and show up for the ignorant and mendacious crowd they are.

119. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162276 by PJG on April 16, 2008 at 1:42 pm

That would be a great idea to end it once and for all.

Dream on phatbat, dream on! :o)

120. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162181 by PJG on April 16, 2008 at 9:29 am

What this all needs is for someone who was denied an education in evolution to sue their school.

Any lawyers out there prepared to put together a case for someone like akado? There may be someone like akado who would have become a famous biologist had they been inspired by Darwin whilst at school.

121. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162178 by PJG on April 16, 2008 at 9:21 am

I wonder if teachers who would like to teach "alternative theories" would be prepared to simplify the creation argument into one sentence...

"Human beings came into existence by magic".

That way, they could give a true account of creationists claims without mentioning God or religion and therefore they would not be violating the First Amendment.

I wonder how many teachers (or parents or politicians) would feel comfortable with this?

122. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162037 by PJG on April 16, 2008 at 3:10 am

How about this being shown after every showing of "Expelled" - or better still, after every trailer, advert or mention of his film?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg

Edit - yes, I know there is a slight inaccuracy or two - "evolution" wasn't first proposed by Darwin - but you get the point of the video!

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

Comment #160495 by PJG on April 14, 2008 at 6:52 am

It gets worse. A sensible lady of my acquaintance told me how the children at her teacher friend's school were doing "Brain Gym" for about half an hour during their PE (Physical Education) lessons. The teacher found it easier to control the children because they "seemed to enjoy it".

So there you have it folks, we will have kids with fat bodies AND fat heads.

Ahhh, the future of humankind! At least when homo sapiens finally goes extinct, there will be a possibility that a really intelligent species will evolve to fill the available space!

124. A New Flea

Comment #160353 by PJG on April 14, 2008 at 1:37 am

I am waiting for a book that supports the notion that there are ALMOST certainly such things as fairies. I expect it would be just as convincing as this one. I very much doubt there would be anything in it that would make me live my life as if there WERE fairies.

Isn't it just simpler to assume there is no God and have done with it? It makes for a very happy and fulfilled life to be good to other people because it is a nice thing to do and to live life to the full just in case this really is all we get? (A sort of reverse Pascal's Wager).

I think it is EXTREMELY unlikely that there is a god (or fairies) so I make it irrelevant. If I am wrong, and there is a God, and there is a day of judgment... be assured of one thing... God won't be the only one asking questions!!!! :o)

125. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #159702 by PJG on April 12, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Comment #159627 by The Truth, the light

I posted the article on a Christian Forum and here's the intelligent creationist response

OMG LMAO, are you serious !?

that little thing a leg ? it looks to me like the already existing little claws that modern snakes have and use for mating,, its just one bone sticking out either side, and its supposed to be a remnant of a leg ?

just picture that a snake with only 2 legs in the back, half slither half walk, ? lol get real, stop being so desperate its embarrassing.

*Sigh *

126. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159298 by PJG on April 11, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Apologies if this is a very stupid question...

Is there any law that would make it illegal for a cinema to show a film which was sub judice?

127. Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement

Comment #158008 by PJG on April 10, 2008 at 1:08 am

This is just great!

There is a God after all !!!!!! :o)

128. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #157366 by PJG on April 9, 2008 at 1:58 am

Beeline

Spot on

Do we want (emotionally) two-year-olds holding office anywhere in the world?

129. Rep. Davis: The Worst Person in the World

Comment #157365 by PJG on April 9, 2008 at 1:54 am

What worried me far more than Ms. Davis's vitriol was the applause and support she got from others in the room - listen to the man who called out support when she said he (Mr. Sherman) had no right to be there.

That is REALLY scary. One nutter isn't really THAT worrying so long as the insanity is recognised. Also, Mr. Sherman was accusing her of being involved in the misappropriation of $1M and ad hominem attacks by the (allegedly) guilty are not unheard of!

130. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156650 by PJG on April 8, 2008 at 5:33 am

Thanks Barry Pearson

I had a feeling there might be SOMETHING that excluded atheists!

The belief in belief is very strong. It is why no matter how accommodating we are, how much moderate theists value the same things that we do, there will never be sufficient common ground between believers and non-believers to make for good relationships.

The idea that we can all "officially" unite against the religious fundamentalists is nonsense. Atheists are seen by many moderates as being fundamentalists. In a way, they are right as it isn't possible to not-believe-in-something "moderately".

131. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156615 by PJG on April 8, 2008 at 4:01 am

In the UK we have a few new laws which make "inciting religious hatred" into a criminal offence. Does anyone know if atheists covered by these? Are there similar laws in the US? Would Mr. Sherman be able to sue this ghastly woman on these grounds or could he sue her under constitutional laws which give him the right to be heard? Ms. Davis clearly denied him that right. The evidence is there. At least, with a criminal record, I assume she would never be able to stand for public office again.

132. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #156164 by PJG on April 7, 2008 at 1:47 am

Been away - busy last night - Steve,

OK, I won't agree to disagree in future if that's no fun!!

:o)

133. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155932 by PJG on April 6, 2008 at 10:46 am

Steve,

I think I am talking about a different time scale. However, if we are looking at relatively short term, we need to get our act together pretty quickly if we are going to start mining on Titan - we need to have enough fuel to get there (and set up all the things we need in order to mine there). If we find a (safe) source of fuel that would make it unnecessary to use hydrocarbons to get there, we probably wouldn't need to go there for hydrocarbons! :o)

Anyway, I really was talking about very, very long term. Humans will die when our planet dies, when our sun dies, if not before. One day, I believe, homo sapiens will be extinct. I just don't believe we have the time/fuel to develop or discover a fuel source that will enable us to colonise, or utilise the resources of, other planets.

Maybe we just have to agree to disagree! ;o)

134. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155916 by PJG on April 6, 2008 at 9:55 am

Steve,

Maybe you are right - I do hope so. However, we don't know what may cause a mass extinction - possible that nothing beyond (let's say) deep sea creatures and a few arthropods (and bacteria etc., of course!) may survive regardless of our abilities.

Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that we (even in what we so patronisingly call "The Third World") are now so dependent on technology - and I mean that in the broadest possible sense as referring to just about everything we can't make or adapt ourselves, personally - that not only would most people probably die if they weren't helped, but if they didn't starve, they would kill other humans (the ones who COULD cope!)to get what they needed - and that leads to pretty short term gain.

I am playing Devil's Advocate a bit, I know, but I do think that unless we control the population, SOMETHING will have to give. Even basic things in this Western civilisation of ours could lead to big problems if we suddenly had to live without most of the modern luxuries we enjoy now. Just one example: women with small pelvises (too small to allow normal birth) rarely die in childhood in the west, neither do their children, which could mean big problems if Caesarean sections became impossible or rare.

There is a great bit at the end of "Three days of the Condor" (film with Robert Redford) where the guy from the CIA (I think) says something like, "When people who have never been cold and never been hungry suddenly can't get enough to eat and can't get fuel, they don't want you to ask them how they want you to manage it, they just want you to get it for them." I am fairly sure that is right, and the ones who are able to get their act together in such a crisis, I think, are in the minority and the breakdown of civilisation could be much more rapid than we may predict from our comfortable homes with food in our cupboards and water in our taps.

I know I a cynic (or realist?) and none of us will ever know what the Earth will be like in a million years from now (or even 100!) but we CAN be sure there will be no oil, and I would place good money on a bet that there will be fewer human beings around than there are now.

135. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155888 by PJG on April 6, 2008 at 8:47 am

there's a fair chance we could remain essentially the same, due to our adapting environments to suit us rather than all other species being adapted by environment.

The trouble is, that is assuming two things:

that there are no "mass extinctions" for all the time that our planet is capable of sustaining life - and that if there is, humans are able to come through it relatively unscathed.

Secondly, it assumes that we will continue to flourish, whatever the environment throws at us. I suspect there will come a time, as resources run out (oil, water, land, food), that man will fight wars that will destroy much technology (certainly prevent new technology from developing, maybe other than weapons of mass destruction!) and the pockets of surviving humans will be reduced to living simple lives again where evolution will play a big part. Survival will be the most important thing again, maybe for a couple of million years while the population recovers. By the time they start classifying living things again, they will be very different. I'm not saying it will happen that way, but it could. A space of two or three million years would be enough for our descendants to decide that we, as homo sapiens, are different enough from them to be classed as a different species. This wouldn't happen if education and classification continued uninterrupted, of course, but a big enough gap would, I am sure, mean that we would be classified as different species.

The Sun won't last for ever, in any case and I very much doubt we will ever colonise other planets, possible, but unlikely, and so I am as certain that we will one day be extinct as I can be of anything. Not in my lifetime, and possibly not for millions of years, but one day.

136. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155870 by PJG on April 6, 2008 at 7:31 am

I can't see any reason why augmented humans of some kind should not survive for a very long time indeed.

I agree it could be "a very long time", but if we are looking at eternity, our existence is the blink of an eye.

We may survive another million years, it could be 10M. Yes, we are ingenious and, yes, we have developed ways of surviving in many environments to which we are not naturally adapted, but think about natural catastrophes, mass extinction events. What happens when the Yellowstone caldera blows, or a meteor hits in a few hundred thousand years? Earth is not likely NEVER to be hit. Even if some catastrophic event should take place and leave a (relatively) small population, that population would have to adapt, and evolve.

Homo sapiens WILL change over time, maybe we will evolve into homo (insert Latin name in here) and they will be our direct descendants, or the species homo sapiens will turn out to be a dead-end. I am amazed that you, as an evolutionist, would think that homo sapiens will remain the same for eternity and that the descendants of our generation will be the same species in, say, three million years as it is now. We are likely to be as different from them as Australopithecus is to us.

137. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155857 by PJG on April 6, 2008 at 5:21 am

Steve,

Of course there is something special about humans, and each one of us - we are unique! That is not quite what I meant!

I meant there is nothing special "in the scheme of things" and there is likely to be as much time "post-homo sapiens" as ever there was "pre-homo sapiens", maybe more! We will leave our mark, certainly, and maybe future intelligent lifeforms will marvel at our ingenuity. They may even say, "My, they were very special - what a pity they died out"!

138. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155841 by PJG on April 6, 2008 at 4:13 am

Late to this thread and haven't read the other posts (so sorry if this has already been said).

I have never been in any doubt that homo sapiens would become extinct. Surely it has always been a question of "when" not "if"?

It is sad, yes, but this is part of our acceptance of evolution. There is nothing "special" about homo sapiens, we will either evolve (into something else?) or die out - or, most likely, bring about our own extinction.

One day, we will surely be one of the 99% of all living things that have become extinct and it could be cockroach descendants that will rule the world. One day, we will even be one of the 100%!

139. Sean Carroll on the Today Program

Comment #154376 by PJG on April 3, 2008 at 6:41 am

One of the most enjoyable books I've read for many years. Brilliant.

Fossil genes must be such a problem for creationists - why on earth would God give us the genetic potential for something and then diminish it? (E.g. about 50% of the genes humans carry for olfaction are now non-functioning having apparently been "side-lined" in favour of selection for our full colour vision)

This is such a good interview - shame it wasn't a one hour programme... or two hours... or three!!!

140. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #153241 by PJG on April 1, 2008 at 9:20 am

"Children are dying from a lack of medical care in dozens of faith-healing churches in the United States, according to Dr. Seth Asser, who co-wrote a national study on faith-healing child deaths published in the April edition of Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics."

At the risk of being inappropriately lighthearted about this awful situation..... maybe there should be a "Darwin Award by Proxy"?

141. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151044 by PJG on March 28, 2008 at 4:20 am

These parents are deluded - and if they were as deluded about anything other than their faith, I suspect the other children would be taken away from them. They are clearly selfish too - as some posters have pointed out.

However, I am surprised at the posts on this thread that suggest the parents should be put to death for their ignorance, mental illness, or whatever drove them to behave in this way. Their behaviour supports the idea that religion is a form of mental illness and I doubt anyone here would be calling for the blood of the mentally ill. We shouldn't be blinded by being "anti-dogma", any more than they are by being taken in by it.

Fine, let's have a court case which decides if prayer alone = negligence, but let's not punish these people for being selfish and deluded. If anyone should be punished, it is the peddlers of this crap, not the "users".

142. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149767 by PJG on March 26, 2008 at 8:09 am

It will be very interesting to see what happens here.

If these parents "did nothing" at all, and allowed their child to die, I suspect they would be charged (maybe manslaughter or wilful neglect?) I wonder if they will be treated differently because they "did nothing" by praying.

A test case for just what sort of a "pass" faith gets?

143. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #149191 by PJG on March 25, 2008 at 8:48 am

This needs to be combated because, for all their talk of conscience, what Dr Wright and Cardinal O'Brien really seem to want is to tell the rest of us how to live.

Isn't this what all religions aim to do - and have always done?

144. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #147976 by PJG on March 21, 2008 at 5:29 pm

It IS laughable, and probably good as an expose of the hypocrisy and dishonesty (and fear!) of the whole creationist movement.

However, I wonder if the positive (to us!) influence of this ironic situation will be as great as the negative influence of the film itself on an ignorant, and largely atheist-hating, public ?

145. EXPELLED!

Comment #147612 by PJG on March 21, 2008 at 1:23 am

Like most creationism, this is comic for the first few minutes until you realise how serious it is and that there are probably more people who think it is reasonable than who think it is funny.

This is not a healthy sign.

146. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147428 by PJG on March 20, 2008 at 11:34 am

al,

I agree.

I wasn't wanting to censor either, and I expect Enlightenme.. was making a serious point rather than intending to shock.

I once heard an audio tape of a little girl who was being mutilated (no anaesthetic) and I can still hear her screams. It must have been over 20 years ago. Probably because of that, I have a visceral reaction to FGM.

147. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147408 by PJG on March 20, 2008 at 10:01 am

Enlightenme..

I understand the point you are making with your avatar. However, I do not expect your intention was to make some of the females on this site wince - as I did - and there could even be some visitors who have had that particular barbarism carried out on them and who may not wish to be reminded of it or its consequences. I wonder how some of you chaps would feel if a similar diagram of the equivalent procedure was posted - and I don't just mean circumcision. Don't forget that, in most countries, FGM is carried out without anaesthetic, often by people with no medical training and not always on babies who may not remember the experience. Not nice.

148. Sci-fi guru Clarke to have secular funeral

Comment #147175 by PJG on March 20, 2008 at 1:43 am

Rod the Farmer

Next of kin have the right to over-turn the wishes of a person who donates their body to science. (I believe this is true in the UK at least, though I filled in the forms some years ago and things may have changed).

I think this is right. As things stand at the moment, my husband is in agreement that I should be able to donate my body. However, depending on the age I am, and the circumstances of my death (assuming he outlives me) I would want my husband to have the final say so that he can cope with his bereavement in the best way for him at the time. (He is my priority).

Driver

I have requested to have my body donated to the local Health Sciences Center. My very religious mother refuses to do so. I tried to compromise by agreeing to a religious funeral.

I assume it is possible to register someone other than a mother as next of kin, someone who will abide by your wishes to benefit living people after your death. What is the difference between donating organs and donating the whole body? Does your mother oppose the donation of organs? It may be a way to talk to her if she doesn't mind you giving your corneas, heart, lungs etc. away. Maybe you could ask her which bits God wants and which bits can go to benefit other (living) humans!

149. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147162 by PJG on March 20, 2008 at 1:20 am

It can be argued that, far from it being impossible to be moral without God, if you NEED God (or any external motivation) to be moral then, by definition, you have not progressed to the highest level of moral maturity.

It is easy to see how useful God can be when controlling the behaviour of people in the Expedient (no internalised morality - feel bad only if they are caught!) and Conforming stages (no internalised morality - go with the group) and it may be true that many people need that external control... but to pretend that one can't be moral without it actually reveals a level of immaturity which society would do well to try to leave behind.

150. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145705 by PJG on March 18, 2008 at 2:57 am

The reason why CREATIONISM should and MUST be taught in sceince classe's is everything in our phenomenelogical world has a creator. But EVERYTHING. Why should existeance be any different?

OK, this is too pathetic even for the most moronic creationist autodidact!

Come on - you are busted... come out now! :o)