101. Fleabytes

Comment #143383 by Incredulous on March 14, 2008 at 4:24 am

Scottishgeologist

What little respect I had for this guy has just evaporated. David, you just "pwned"yourself.

You mean you initially had respect for this guy's display of verbal belching?

Steve Zara

I wish I was not so naive as to hope that people like him could change; even just once shift opinion to face at least one bit of evidence that they are wrong about something.

In my own very short experience of bullies I have found they live in dread of being finally exposed. These people's views make the fabled emporer seem overdressed.

Steve Zara

It's laughable, but also sad that someone should work so hard to remain stuck in a cesspit of misunderstanding, petty-mindedness and vindictiveness of their own making.

Which is why I wonder why the good and the great on this site work so hard to refurbish their cognitive habitats. All opinions are valid, but they are not true; Beliefs need to be supported by evidence. That is all we say here. If they're not prepared to accept something so simple ....

Paula

So they now have a comprehensive account of just about all aspects of the event, straight from someone who has been part of the planning for it and therefore really knows what has and has not been said.

Conspiracy theories and paranoic mutterings are simply part of the same refusal to let reality guide belief these people allow to dominate their view of the universe and, well, life generally.

Bonzai

So while talking big talks in truth they actually believe in a God small enough to be like us in order to feel snuggly.

Simply shows me that god was created by man and not the other way around. A god so constantly in need of validation, worship and with such a healthy drive to control and wield power has to be human - the worst kind of human.

Ok the last bit is a little bit harsh, but I'm finding it difficult to hold back on my utter contempt for people who allow such infantile and bad ideas dominate them.

102. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143039 by Incredulous on March 13, 2008 at 11:40 am

"It is all about a lifestyle alien to the Christian tradition. There is a giant conspiracy against Christian values, an agenda here."

But they're not paranoid! When are faithheads going to realise that there are great swathes of the world who are simply not interested in them or their doctrines.

I would imagine homosexuals simply want these people to go away and leave them in peace.

Why would anyone be interested in someone else's sex/emotional life? Let alone accuse them of the most ludicrous transgressions as a result. How sick is that?

103. Fleabytes

Comment #142949 by Incredulous on March 13, 2008 at 8:49 am

we all have much, much too much time on our hands.

Disagree Paula, I can't get enough time for the people on this site.

I do agree that as the person behind this thread you have accomplished much here.

Cheers yourself.

[turns computer, mobile phone back on and dreams about a nice glass of wine. Oh well, it's a living - I do enjoy what I do mind]

104. Fleabytes

Comment #142776 by Incredulous on March 13, 2008 at 5:11 am

as far as I am aware it has not affected my behaviour to particular people I have known to be gay or to the gay community in general

I'm not quite like that, epeeist. I have gay friends, but will walk away if I see them get affectionate in a lovey dovey way towards each other. I'd rather they kept that hidden from me.

My best friend at university, introduced himself as a racist. Apparently, he had been watching me - scary I know - and the way I behaved and decided I was ok.

Strangely, I wasn't angry with him when he told me he had a real problem with black people. In fact, I was intrigued he didn't feel threatened by a possible bad reaction from me.

We got on well after that and even more strangely, I felt I could trust him more than friends I perhaps would feel more socially acceptable to.

He still has issues with certain kinds of black people - whatever that means - but has kind of learned to treat people more individually, without denying his feelings, fears and concerns.

Phone calls, emails, code testing and an appointment. Got to go.

105. Fleabytes

Comment #142759 by Incredulous on March 13, 2008 at 4:51 am

I would even go further, as private beliefs can have public effects. I would like to see even the purely personal beliefs of, say, racists and homophobes challenged.

I would go even further and suggest, in Sam Harris style (I too have a mancrush on Sam), that the whole private belief thing is a bit of a misnomer. As Steve suggests private beliefs can drive public actions on a personal and communal/administrative level.

This is why I challenge racists, homophobes, sexists and godbotherers.

I entirely concur with your clarified post. But don't expect me to hang around with a dickhead - wooter and robertson come to mind - who does not deserve my attention, care or concern merely to argue the toss.

I understand I am not going to get anywhere with those people and so wasting valuable glial cell power on them would be the next thing to criminal.

You're still my mentor, Steve.

106. Fleabytes

Comment #142728 by Incredulous on March 13, 2008 at 3:51 am

We should not expect answers to questions of evidence. It may not even be reasonable to expect them. What we can do is ask questions to try and understand these religious feelings.

Then why are we bothering to engage with them in the first place? From where I'm sitting the essential difference is simply that faith holds a different explanation of what everyone perceives to rationalists.

At best we can only hope that neuroscience and cognitive science provides the answer to where the ideas that drive these false attachments come from. At worst it means I still have to tiptoe around mere humans as though treading on eggshells.

This is the point, Steve, I'm fed up of deferring to these people, without any sign at all that they are prepared to do the same.

The difference IS evidence or no evidence for your beliefs. There is nothing else there. Theist and atheist observe and interact with the same reality, but we do not and cannot agree on its explanation, simply because I will demand evidence for what I believe and will act on and they do not.

I see an obligation simply to point out the facts of the matter, tactfully of course to anyone I hold a different view from, but pointed out succinctly, accurately and confidently.

In fact, the whole faith v evidence based argument is bound to be contentious simply by raising the question in the first place. You're hurting their feelings by existing and by questioning. This is simply a lose lose scenario and it has to change.

I am not responsible for a mature person's emotional responses. If he/she cannot fulfil my requirements for evidence then don't raise the subject at all, especially in public.

I do not see why I should hide my distaste of the believer impinging on my own internal landscape with his/her feelings of absent imaginary parents without me pointing out that I feel offended by those beliefs.

For me not to do this would be dishonest and suggests I value myself and my feelings less than the theists. No way!!

I am not sorry this person has an emotional relationship with a lie, I do not want to share it and I don't want to feel restricted or bullied by this person's 'finer sensibilities'.

I am not particularly interested in interacting with theists over tea and cakes for the sake of it. I engage simply because I am not happy with having people vomit their subjective nonsense all over me and expect me to be understanding.

Respect is mutual and if they can't do it then neither will I.

Clarity is good! Enough already! These are not personal relationships we're having with theists.

Sorry to be so strident, Steve, but I can't always agree with you.

107. Fleabytes

Comment #142310 by Incredulous on March 12, 2008 at 9:47 am

One of the reasons I like this site is that people say stuff and others try to understand. If what you say is palpably wrong then it is corrected.

I've had people tell me what I say is wrong and I have to accept if it is wrong then it is just wrong; maybe justifiable is a better word than wrong. It's not me that's wrong it is simply a bad or unworkable idea that needs to be changed.

I honestly believe that our actions are driven by what we believe; if I believe in ideas which cause suffering, penury and psychological harm then that is how I will act. Not good in my book.

I can't believe anyone here would deliberately harm anyone else; harm a ridiculous belief perhaps but not harm anyone. They would definitely destroy bad or unsubstantiated ideas, but that has to be a good thing.

Surely, a friend would not allow you to walk around believing 2 2= anything other than 4 without correcting you or asking you why you believe this patent falsehood.

Exploration follows and unjustifiable beliefs are replaced with justifiable and evidenced beliefs.

What I find disagreeable about you, Mr Robertson, is that I always feel as though you deliberately misrepresent everything everyone says on here and for what reason?

Because you don't need a reason?

I'm not happy at the way you dragged me into your discussion when I mentioned an inverse connection between intelligence and faith.

I bumble along saying inane and provocative things to help me understand stuff of interest to me. I'm busy most of the time so I can't contribute as much as I would like, but I get entertained and informed anyway.

The only motivations I know anything about are my own. How do you know what my motivations are?

I was addressing the forum not giving you ammunition to abuse people about areas of enquiry which have not yet been fully explored by any manner of means.

I ask questions to instigate processes to get answers, not so that you can bad mouth people who are simply asking for commonly experienced evidence for your seemingly strange beliefs.

You even misunderstood what I was trying to say, albeit in a hamfisted way, which is that I'm not happy with elitism - not as unhappy as I am with you and faith.

To comment on anything it is always better to state a credential to show you are not merely sucking sour grapes, hence the reference to Mensa.

I have never been wise in my life, but I've lived happier and longer than the wise man who told the fable about the fox and the sour grapes; a man who managed to get himself thrown off a cliff as punishment for not being wise enough to know when not to be wise. Check it out, Mr Robertson.

I can't speak for anyone else, but you are free to ignore me if you please. I'd rather deal with people who want to help rid me of my ignorance in a constructive and evidenced way, than someone who wants me to wallow in an imaginary eternity of blissful ignorance.

Mr Robertson, you and clear thinking in the same sentence is simply bad grammar. Luckily for you that is as angry as I get.

Have a nice day.

108. Fleabytes

Comment #141848 by Incredulous on March 11, 2008 at 9:38 am

my view would be that it is a good education that leads to atheism rather than just intelligence.

I hope this is true, as a good education can always be acquired, the jury is out on intelligence, whatever that is.

What do we mean by a good education? I know it's hard to believe, but I know many well educated people, many of them doctors, lawyers, etc, who believe. Have they not had a good education? Can they not think critically, creatively, independently?

I think we might need to educate, enlighten where we can - open people's minds for critical thinking

This is true and I'm sure this discussion has been had already. It just seems strange listening to equally well educated people discussing matters from completely different points of view and not even getting close to some kind of consensus.

In fact, one side of that argument, dispenses with the need for any kind of fact, or trained observational argument, preferring another, to me, obfuscating method of discussion.

Surely, western education is a childhood long exercise in the type of thinking which emphasises facts, observation, logical and critical thinking.

109. Fleabytes

Comment #141821 by Incredulous on March 11, 2008 at 8:58 am

For me, in the end, reason won, hands down. Don't forget that most people you guys speak to are not on your intellectual level, including education.

I find this interesting. In TGD, Richard suggests there may be a link between intelligence and atheistic tendencies, though this has no real researched evidence to back it.

I've been a Mensa for 20 blah years and I have to admit I have never come across a believer who has admitted to high intelligence as measured by these strange tests.

Intelligence and godlessness seem to have a bacon and eggs kind of relationship.

I enjoy reading stuff by Steve and MPhil et al., because I am that way made, but others outside this website may feel a little intimidated or put off.

Are we in danger of intellectualising atheism and therefore turning it into a mere tool for sharpening the wits of the well educated?

No-one likes a smart arse after all.

Do we need to dumb down? Become more accessible? Maybe we could get Richard onto a celebrity reality show.

I wonder if atheism will simply become intellectual bling.

I know more people are turning into atheists, but are our arguments to esoteric to reach those people who perhaps need to hear them most?

Just a random thought that came into my head.

110. Fleabytes

Comment #141787 by Incredulous on March 11, 2008 at 7:58 am

I find that a bit tiresome, and everything seems to work just as well if you leave it off.

Not to mention probably not true. I take your point though, Steve, but you know I'm simply not going to go there without good reason and I don't think I can ever find good reason to entertain a deity.

Don't get me wrong I've tried to see this faith thing, but for some reason I simply cannot find one single reason why I should believe in this supernatural entity bs.

Unfortunately, the instructions he is supposed to have left in his books - OT and NT, etc - don't help matters much either.

I don't think I'd want to spend much time in the company of such a character as jehwah or his alternative personas, let alone a whole eternity - that's a long time to be in an unhappy relationship thing,you know.

Oh, I don't know why we bother shouting at our theist companions to get sane.

They are always going to believe goddidit and have him hijack the work of the scientists. The lazy man's guide to power; have someone else do the work and you take credit when it works and kick his head in if he gets it wrong. Classic bullying that's all.

Reading the arguments is a bit like watching like two teenagers having their first slow dance - simply going round and round in circles until the music stops and our hormones can run wild.

111. Fleabytes

Comment #141775 by Incredulous on March 11, 2008 at 7:31 am

Yes Philip1978, I saw it last night as well. Stephen Hawking is an amazing scientist and man. I really hope his theories are borne out by those particle collision experiments. I would really like him to win a Nobel Prize. In any case, at least he's helped us humans get closer to something like a reasonable truth about our origins.

The theory got a bit woolly and a bit like guess work at the end of the programme; but that's science - it doesn't pretend to know it all and is prepared to put up ideas which may get knocked down.

We've been spoilt over the last few years: we've had Richard Feynmann, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkings et al. All of them excellent popular science writers.

I'm not prepared to trade that in for Mr Robertson's interesting but substanceless preaching.

112. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141663 by Incredulous on March 11, 2008 at 3:33 am

The wooter virus has mutated but its effects are still as sickening. I'm not sure banning is the right option, but I can see that questions have to be asked as to whether wooter is actually benefitting himself or others by putrifying the site with his ill considered and ill mannered nonsense.

Anyway I am done with you and with your Evolution theory

It would have been nice of you to start by trying to understand it!

I remember when I was a child and me and some friends used to watch David Nixon the magician.
We were awestruck.

The thing is we were so awestruck that we wanted know how he did the tricks. We tried to learn about what he was doing and found out about a couple.

We were even more awestruck, but this time by the trick and, even more so, by our ability to replicate the trick.

David Nixon stopped being a god like magician and became what he was, a damn good and very popular human magician.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you, wooter, are happy to be awestruck by the illusion, while I am awestruck by how the illusion is carried out.

I'm really lost as to what you could possibly want with us on this site. You're like a child gobsmacked by a fairy tale with little more substance than hansel and gretel.

113. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141260 by Incredulous on March 10, 2008 at 8:03 am

FOR THE SAKE OF LOGIC
Creator and creation cannot be the same kind. It is the same funny thing that YOU ARE LOOKING FOR LEONARDA DA VINCI INSIDE HIS PAINTING MONA LISA

wtf!!! Please explain this quote to a dull evolutionist.

Surely by now you should be aware that logic is not your strongpoint. Many of us on this site have had to study logic at some length as part of university education. Much of what you say has absolutely no logical basis at all. I'm not even going to challenge the ludicrous assumptions you make; not one of them has any basis in observed reality.

You perpetrate bad ideas in bad English, though that may be because English may not be your first language, which is perfectly understandable and therefore excusable.

114. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141157 by Incredulous on March 10, 2008 at 6:15 am

What is really scary about this is that it is just as simple to teach the acientific truth, providing all of the evidence, etc, as it is to simply state that anything goes, as these people are doing.

These people are simply retarding the kiddies and that simply is not fair. Not only that it is robbing future human society of the most important resource of all, trained, thoughtful, enquiring and rational minds.

And why? I have no real idea what the benefit can possibly be in teaching our young people that evidence doesn't matter.

For me, this is real child abuse.

115. Fleabytes

Comment #138240 by Incredulous on March 4, 2008 at 5:08 am

Wow! You guys move fast. I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread. I'm quite busy -travelling up and down England - so I have to catch up when I can.

Reverend, Paula, the link to Sam Harris is fantastic. I've just finished reading the End of Faith and while I'm not sure about what he actually means by Spirituality, the logic of the book is tight and wonderful.

I've decided to do a Masters in Neuroscience - Computer Science and AI was my first degree - to get a handle on what the Harris is talking about when he bangs on about spirituality.

more follows...

116. Fleabytes

Comment #137505 by Incredulous on March 3, 2008 at 2:36 am

Paula:

What a pity I will not be able to get up to Scotland for this. It would have been great to finally meet my mentor Steve Zara - if he decides to go - and, of course, your good self.

I'm sure the evening will be a tremendous success with lots of interesting and pertinent questions for Richard.

117. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134193 by Incredulous on February 27, 2008 at 11:36 am

Richard asks for evidence and she says 'Excuse me I am talking!' in a rather brash manner

Yes, I heard this and was completely annoyed at her for not simply providing the evidence and then getting off the line. Typical of these time wasting windbags.

I loved his response to some guys version of pascal's wager. There are so many of these god things out there, how would you know which one was giving you a hard time.

Isn't Richard fed up with having to trot out the same replies to the same dreary questions every time he speaks?

Having said that I guess America is a big place and many would probably not have heard his many lectures and interviews.

118. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #133863 by Incredulous on February 27, 2008 at 1:43 am

Richard M,

I like your music. It even distracted me from the subject of the audios. May not be a good thing but you certainly make a pleasant sound.

119. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132867 by Incredulous on February 25, 2008 at 10:25 am

Suppose an angel of the Lord were to appear before Dawkins, even as he was delivering another lecture on the delusion that God exists. Would such an experience change Dawkins' views?

I guess Richard would do what most of us on this site would do: make sure first and foremost that the experience was a shared experience. I would imagine if only he could see it in a crowded room, he would have to question the experience, after sharing the experience and subjecting it to rigorous rational examination in a peer environment and using many different tests and opinions on himself and the perceived angel.

I really can't imagine Richard or anyone else on this site for that matter getting mixed up between the reality of a subjective experience and the truth of an objective experience.

Richard seems scrupulously honest in his professional dealings and as such would naturally question what he was seeing as part of the rationalising process. He would, like most of us here, hold his hand up and call a delusion a delusion and we can then all move on.

Not like some mendacious writers I could mention(Paul Campos?)

120. Fleabytes

Comment #130637 by Incredulous on February 21, 2008 at 3:58 am

I have never believed, but I feel my atheism has strengthened from the time I have been deliberately challenging my lack of belief and openly committing to reasoning on what is evidenced.

I would imagine that for someone who was brought up in an environment where submission to authoritarian faith nonsense, in spite of silently whispered doubts, getting to the kind of place Paula has finally got to and kind of taken us along with her, happens gradually. The whisper becomes a roar which cannot and will not be denied.

For me, my strengthening atheism simply means I have found nothing anywhere but support for my evidence based beliefs and there is absolutely no way I can be bullshitted out of this by weak, illogical and uncorroborated testimony.

I really do need extraordinary evidence and not waffle and wind to even contemplate accommodating unsubstantiated ideas about invisible and therefore non-existent supernatural forces creating the universe I live in and thus negating the perfectly valid and evidenced theory of evolution.

Interesting comments, Richard.

121. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130350 by Incredulous on February 20, 2008 at 11:47 am

It takes a proper bloke to admit he's wrong; and that is what he seems to be doing here. The misery and suffering angle is just one of many that the deluded need to be assisted in seeing through.

I'm just reading Sam Harris's End of Faith - I love his writing, and I hope we can get more of people like this to help wean people, especially, it seems people of the muslim faith off destructive primitive beliefs.

Thank goodness I'm only human.

122. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130187 by Incredulous on February 20, 2008 at 6:57 am

Don't knock masturbation; it's sex with someone I love. - Woody Allen

Bashing the bishop is not always fun; especially when the bishop is a fucktard.

** Bashing the bishop is a quaint British term for masturbation (Male obviously!).

That's enough lowering the tone from me today, I think.

123. Fleabytes

Comment #130064 by Incredulous on February 20, 2008 at 2:35 am

The problem for many is that Dawkins has a talent for making good writing look easy (a talent Paula clearly shares)... He is actually a wonderful true science writer whose work happens to be accessible to the masses.

And you Paula, have made much of what I believe and understand accessible in much the same way with this set of reviews.

I'm proud to know you. I have to admire your diligence and strong stomach. More than one of these books was quietly closed never to be reopened after I had read the first few pages.

This really is a great achievement and a very useful resource.

Outstanding.

124. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129407 by Incredulous on February 19, 2008 at 4:18 am

from Skeptics Annotated Bible (always good for a laugh on a damp Tuesday!)

Nice one PJG. It's the first time I've had a look at this site.

I guess many of the people on this site wouldn't need to read the annotations from this site, but I can't help but feel we'd all be better off if the faithful had to read some of the humorous musings on injustice, cruelty and violence whenever they read their religion's monumental ode to insanity.

I am assuming the believers does actually open the pages of this the oldest of all fictions. If they don't then maybe they should so that they can see what a vile character they wish existed.

125. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129360 by Incredulous on February 19, 2008 at 2:40 am

As a man of faith, Bishop Hanson still has a key question for those who don't believe in God.

"Where do you place your trust in times of need? Where do you place your hope in the time of a crisis of confidence?" Hanson said.

I know one place where I wouldn't place it! Certainly not without evidence to support my decision.

126. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129351 by Incredulous on February 19, 2008 at 2:19 am

I saw this on British television and have never felt so disgusted by the behaviour and attitudes of some of my fellow adult humans. What happens when these kids start to want to develop their own points of view? Any lunatic can bully small children into deranged beliefs before they develop the necessary abilities to think for themselves.

127. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #128971 by Incredulous on February 18, 2008 at 11:41 am

It's always a pleasure to listen to someone who is nice and makes sense and listening to Susan Jacoby was a wonderful pleasure.

128. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127446 by Incredulous on February 15, 2008 at 9:49 am

And the Crusades.

Ohhhh, the times they are a changin'...

hahahaha! This just tickled me ... well I thought it was funny, anyway.

129. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126514 by Incredulous on February 13, 2008 at 11:44 am

Styrer,

I'm sorry not to have replied to your curt and probably true reply to my post, but I tend to log off in the early evening and so tend to leave after trying my best to stir up some trouble.

I'm not a nice bloke and I do not support moderate muslims or any kind of religious expression for that matter.

You flatter me by having me believe I have any kind of organised approach, let alone a softly softly one, to what you appear believe is the murderous intent of all muslims, and not just the obviously murderous extremists and fundamentalists.

Inadvertently, you seem to have justified the point I was making about the kind of polarised view that is encouraged by ranting, whether it is intelligent, humourous and accurate.

The vast majority of muslims I have talked to do not support the imposition of sharia law or the administering of anything other than good old English precedent based legal processes and I like that.

The archbishop messed up and I really can't see any particular faction taking over this green and pleasant land any time soon, muslim, christian or atheist.

I'm sorry but I have to row tonight, so I'm off, but thanks for this interesting, though a little distressing, set of comments. I'm looking forward to tomorrow's developments, if there are any.

130. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126328 by Incredulous on February 13, 2008 at 1:53 am

Having read through many of the comments made on this thread, I've decided why Pat Condell could never be a true spokesman, though a significant contributor, for the rationalist movement.

I don't believe for any one minute that Mr Condell is anything other than an irate evidence based reasoner, who articulartly and sometimes with humour, makes many salient points.

His delivery can be misconstrued and appears to sometimes lead to the kind of ill-considered response which dilutes the type of considered discussion needed, in order to resolve some very sensitive and possibly inflammatory issues.

For me, the most important thing about the Sharia law fiasco, is not the fact that muslim customs should not be taken into account in OUR society; of course they should just like any other groups' needs should not be ignored by those who make decisions.

The real issue is that NO religious group should be allowed to interfere with the quasi universal nature of administering legal or any other social institutions.

Encouraging people to piss off because of difference opinion - and I believe the nature of the archbishop's rightly condemned comments was simply to assert religious opinion of all kinds in a - thank goodness - increasingly secular world - reminds me of the kind of attitude my family had to endure, and still attempt to flourish mind, in the 1960's, 70's and 80's.

I'm sure the more reasonable among us would prefer intelligent, sane and healthy conversation on this topic. Hopefully, the archbishop will engage brain before opening mouth about these issues in future.

131. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #125909 by Incredulous on February 12, 2008 at 8:43 am

... a campaign to train more exorcists ... have accelerated under Pope Benedict XVI. A Catholic university in Rome began offering courses in exorcism in 2005 and has drawn students from around the globe.

To think this geriatric lunatic is considered to be one of the world's most powerful and influential leaders! Scary!

More often, however, priests perform what some of them refer to as "soft exorcisms," using prayer to rid people of evil influences that control their lives.

What is the point of reasoning with these people? How can you take someone seriously who believes spirits flit in and out of your brain influencing behaviour?

What ridiculous, pernicuous, infantile, WRONG nonsense.
I think we all know the evil influence wishing to control lives.

At the same time, they said, conventional medical therapy often neglects spiritual ailments.

Neglects is not the appropriate prescriptive phrase here; I'm more inclined to say 'Does not acknowledge spiritual ailments'. I hope they are not masking psychological illnesses or abuse with this very vague catch-all term.

At the risk of being offensive, a real ailment is a pathological and diagnosable disease, not the deluded effects of fictional bad-boy Lucifer taking over a human for a spot of joy riding.

Oh please! Enough already!!

132. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125822 by Incredulous on February 12, 2008 at 5:46 am

I've just wasted an hour and a half of my life listening to Boteach talk contentless rot. To compensate, I spent a very fruitful hour and a half listening to Christopher Hitchens debate brilliantly and factually that Boteach talks contentless rot.

133. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125291 by Incredulous on February 11, 2008 at 7:45 am

The US is still behind the UK in its treatment of homsexuals I think.

And obviously we still have a way to go in our treatment of homosexuals here, it seems.

I could state the obvious and say someone's personal preferences have nothing to do with anyone but the individual and in the same way that everyone and anyone can believe what they like, anyone and everyone has a right to their own private sex life and preference.

But this is not so obvious to those who wish to influence and dominate us even in our private, tender and most personal moments.

It must be difficult for this guy to be committed so strongly to something which would destroy him.

It must be difficulf, for you al-rawandi, to simply stand by not knowing what to do to at least take away the pain.

Yah! Religion, keep it; if this is the kind of choices it forces people to make I want nothing to do with it. It's perpetrators obviously don't think very much of humans if they must try to destroy people ... for what?

I'm angry, though I know this anger cannot even compare to the feelings you and your muslim friend have. al-rawandi.

134. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125284 by Incredulous on February 11, 2008 at 7:29 am

For the first time in a long time, someone has begun a sensitive and yet honest conversation about multiculturalism.

It has become a feel-good doctrine mindlessly celebrating "difference", without looking at what that difference actually means.

The writer goes on to describe a process I have always associated with the more emphatic and vocal proponents of the multicultural society:

"By creating different laws and judicial systems for each ethnic group, we are not fighting racism. In fact, we are institutionalising it."

Whether this is a hysterical statement is open to debate, but nothing in my mind has contributed to the kind of ghettoisation of many parts of Britain, especially inner city Britain, than the nonsensical belief that you are celebrating difference by continually accentuating racial, religious and cultural differences.

I probably mistakenly treat everyone has an individual and give them an opportunity to tell me who they are; how does this help us create the liberal, and dareIsayit, secular society which seems to spring naturally from this welcome critique.

135. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125279 by Incredulous on February 11, 2008 at 7:16 am

It feels like the end of an era to me, and yet, there isn't any good reason for me to believe that something sad has happened.

It's not like Richard - I'm assuming you don't mind me including myself as part of the you lot who can address you thus - is going to stop broadcasting and, more importantly, stop writing books enabling dunderheads like me to sound vaguely knowledgeable and intelligent when talking about things biological.

I suppose I've associated Richard with the Charles Simonyi professorship for ever. Anyway, his retirement from the chair gives me an excuse to re-read all of his books.

I wonder if Richard has any ideas about who he would like as his successor; having said that he'll be a hard act to follow, given Richard's important and valuable use of the professorship to publicise both science and atheism.

I say Steve Zara should take over the chair simply because he's done much to educate this idiot - me - in many scientific matters. Just joking about you taking over the chair, Steve.

136. BREAK THE SCIENCE BARRIER - Available Now on DVD

Comment #123986 by Incredulous on February 8, 2008 at 4:50 am

I really will have to buy this for my nephews and nieces. No-one explains science and the dangers behind mumbo jumbo or slavish dogmatic non-thinking better than RD.

Even the Guardian seems amenable to presenting the evolutionary biologist's view:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.dawkins

137. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122259 by Incredulous on February 5, 2008 at 2:57 am

But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature at this time.

Priceless.

Not only priceless, not only hypocritical and not only worryingly intolerant, but cowardly and dishonest.

I thought logic and integrity underpinned the process of education. How wrong could I be!!

Disgusting!

138. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121940 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 11:39 am

Sorry Al-rawandi

I was saying that I actually agree with your evidence based approach.

There is a lot of evidence to say that Saddam Hussain was indeed SadandInsane, but for me a lie is a lie is a lie.

For me there was enough evidence to support regime change, simply because the SadandInsane was a Grade A ****.

There was no evidence for WMD and this was the pretext for the invasion and subsequent mess created as a result.

There are other madmen running murderous and incompetent regimes and I doubt whether anyone woould lose sleep if these men simply disappeared and people could once again aspire to fulfilling lives.

But I am one of those who believed the spiel about WMD and find it hard to trust motives I have no evidence to support. If regime change is the motivation, or if the need is to more closely manage the volatile and strategically important Middle East and its resources, then why not simply say that.

Winning a war was easy, but surely winning the peace has been made difficult quite simply because of the mistrust bred by the lies which prompted the war.

Politics and politicians, whilst essential, do my head in.

139. God the psycho

Comment #121929 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 11:28 am

I think it would dilute the power of this site as a place of reason and thinking.

This is the clinching point for me. It is important to accept all viewpoints, but be careful about who actually speaks on your behalf.

I'll buy this, as I think we all agree that Pat Condell is often pertinent and valuable.

140. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121917 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 11:02 am

I am not worried about being in a minority, or that much about what people think of me. But, I am concerned about being right.

Do I need to add to this?

I am also concerned with that. I never hold opinions in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

Or this?

Nuff said!

141. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #121914 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 10:54 am

I don't teach Newton in my physics class. I teach mechanics! I don't teach Einstein, I teach relativity. And if I were teaching biology, I would not teach Darwin ...

Sometimes I feel we get so dominated by the great men, that we forget that it is the great idea that really matters. A big up for this poster. Evolution should be taught because the evidence shows that it is true, not because Darwin says it is.

It would also get rid of any ridiculous idea that scientific truth is revealed to us like theist falsehood.

Darwin got things wrong sometimes and even now there are probably facts about evolution that we have not unearthed or have got wrong.

He was a great visionary and huge intellect whose idea has led us on the right observable path, but we are still finding things out.

Was it Newton who said: "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants" or something like that. Humble and true.

Science is wonderful because we always move towards the truth, it is not something that we are born knowing; or something handed down from the sky to someone having some temporal lobe epileptic seizure.

It is something that belongs to all of us; should be made available to all of us, but must be learned, thought about and worked towards.

142. God the psycho

Comment #121910 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 10:36 am

I believe in challenging people's views vigorously but politely, but sometimes it can get frustrating and there is a real temptation to say "you are a moron!" and give up!

I think there is a point where emotionally you kind of stop taking the RD approach and Pete Condell takes over. I don't think Pete would bother with niceties, though, and the temptation simply becomes an invitation.

I'm really frightened to think that there are people who will harm other people physically, emotionally and intellectually, simply because of their arrogantly held beliefs.

The tragedy is to be mainly found in their ability to displace or project their ignorance, prejudice, arrogance and superstition, which to my way of thinking can only end in ... well, I don't want to think about where it will end, suffice it to say it always ends there.

Thanks for helping to clear my mind on this, Steve. I've been bothered by this for a little while.

You're a gent.

143. God the psycho

Comment #121897 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 10:02 am

It is deeply rewarding to me when people talk to me and then then say that I have changed their mind about atheists - that they can be moral and pleasant.

This is why the discussion about approach is important to me. In the end, it seems to me that we have to convince our enemies that they are wrong about us and maybe I understand more clearly why you are concerned at Pete's approach, which can be interpreted as aggressive and threatening; especially to those obviously abused by God, through mankind.

Just one last point. My only concern with the bad cop/good cop approach, as well as the other creative possibilities in between, is based around my own experience.

A bad experience with the bad cop, can make the good cop's job a little more difficult, whereas the good cop's effect can last only for a little while ... until a suitable bad cop comes along to confirm our fears, suspicions and prejudices about cops.

I'm in this ride for the duration or until evidence tells me otherwise, however, my experience tells me that changing perceptions and raising awareness can be quite thankless and gains easily reversed.

144. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121887 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 9:51 am

The biggest troublemakers do seem to be immigrants, particularly in the form of clerics and self-styled community leaders.

You could also say the biggest scapegoats are immigrants, gays, etc.

In this instance, though, I think Dr Benway's point about ensuring patients are not harmed is pretty moot.

Sometimes, we can get bogged down in clever answers, when the response is as simple as what is your professional duty and are you DOING that to the best of your ability, irrespective of your personal or subjective beliefs, opinions, ideologies, etc.

145. God the psycho

Comment #121876 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 9:35 am

Steve:

I agree many approaches are needed, but Pete's approach is just one. My interpretation of Pete's statement about polite self-indulgence is based around efficacy. Like all of us, I think he simply wanted to maybe make us aware of factors affecting our own effectiveness.

I am black and whilst growing up, in the sixties and seventies, there were some people who would villify in the most beastial way any non-white person who engaged with the, then enemy.

This approach proved stronger for those who maybe needed a stronger identity to lead them forward into more productive ways of living. So it's not a question of right or wrong. Just exploring ways of change and rolling with the punches when someone on your own side disagrees or maybe says something a little inconsiderate and possibly wrong. Pat may simply have been looking for an effect which focuses us on the effective.

The civil rights movement in America turned from non-violent to confrontational, with violent undercurrents; from Martin Luther King to Malcolm X, to be simplistic. Both paths contradicted each other but were of equal importance and effect.

Socially, the less threatening way has been rewarded; but was it really the most effective in effecting change in American society?

The feminist movement has, in the mind of some females, been hampered by those uncompromising women who took no prisoners in their fight for equality.

The more amenable route does not necessarily have to be the most effective, though we would like to believe it was the softness and charm which has led to women challenging for all the top spots in the western world.


One or two homosexual friends, male and female, refuse to acknowledge the existence of heterosexual people, believing us to be egocentric in our behaviour.

A jaundiced opinion, in my view,, but perfectly understandable, and a very potent tool in the fight for respect for gays over the years.

I do agree that Pat Condell is a conversation stopper, but along with the smooth and sugary techniques of atheism's main spokesmen, surely he has a prominent part to play - if only as a totem pole for many of our intellectual frustrations with theists.

You will have to forgive me for not being as incisive as yourself, but, for me, this question of approach is quite important.

Many of the ideas, attitudes, behaviours and approaches I have are formed by this site and one other atheist site.

The ideas submitted by ALL the members here have a value as they DO affect the way I engage with people different to myself.

146. God the psycho

Comment #121856 by Incredulous on February 4, 2008 at 9:02 am

or who prefer polite debate rather than sarcastic rant... who don't accept that a broad range of strategies are possible in the fight for reason.

Steve, let me apologise for the length of this post, which is not a rebuttal of what you say, but more a way of clearing my mind on Pete Condell and his place in my mind.

There is a place for sarcastic rant, Steve, and, while I agree that he should not be one of the main reps for reason, his is an important and clear tool in our box of tricks.

His rants do not lack value and even illustrate the truth and the strength behind his own values, but, I can see that his style would make him a sitting target for those who won't engage with us anyway. This is why I agree he should not be a representative in the same way as Richard Dawkins et al.

However, his comments do help to focus things and lead to inevitable discussions on the value of prolonged, continued and possibly time consuming polite chit chat with people who simply believe in supernatural beings who created the universe and interfere in human affairs.

Pat has made it clear he has no wish to engage with the faithful simply because they aren't listening and probably never will.

Simply put, authority-led faith based reasoning does not want to be questioned on the truth value of their beliefs and Pete does not stand on ceremony in letting people know this in very straightforward, simple English.

Theists can be like horny young men caught masturbating; they hate to admit the pointlessness of their solitary activities and embarrassment at their own humanness. Something, rational human beings accept without question.

We live in proselytising hope we can change their minds, but if evidence can't change that, how can we?

Do we have tools of influence they don't already have and use expertly to bemuse the gullible into believing baseless rhetoric is in fact substantial knowledge.

I like Pat Condell's style because it is just as uncompromising in its own way as the theist's own stance. He is fighting fire with fire and while he may burn some bridges reduces to ashes many of their cherished ideas.

Let's not kid ourselves that polite conversation is going to turn many theist's heads, or, change the mind of those dominated by superstitious, pernicious, dangerous and plain wrong ideas.

Theists think any questioning of their beliefs and attitudes are rude, ignorant and arrogant, because there can be no questioning the validity of empty, vacuous faith, in their hypersensitive opinion.

They will think even someone as polite, charming and erudite as Sam Harris, or even Daniel Dennett for that matter, impolite for simply asking why they believe what they believe. they know there is no reason to; at all.

A mild approach seems to lead to theist's actually believing their irrationality and their unreasonable, unevidenced views actually have a merit, and therefore, can be considered on the same level as those views which are backed by well backed, supported and logically tight evidence.

Steve, you and I know their views have no merit at all. Pete is simply stating what we all feel, that we can forget about their ideas for the simple and universally understandable reasons he outlines in his videos.

The way forward for this movement is not, it seems by counter evangelising, but by simply encouraging those who are not too deeply immersed in nonsense to reclaim their own brains and to ensure they have the tools to question and then decide.

I think Pete has a very important part to play in that, simply because he speaks in a common tongue which will make the ditherers sit up and listen.

The true theist will love us wasting our time giving credibility to ideas they are not going to change their mind about anyway.

Your view is as valuable as ever.

147. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120148 by Incredulous on February 1, 2008 at 9:43 am

This makes depressing reading. It is so obvious that he doesn't care that science is probably the most ethically bound and regulated activity on the planet, so wrapped up is he in his role as paternal protector of the universe and all its contents. If his beliefs were subject to the same kind of scrutiny as science then maybe he would appreciate the process of finding out the truth a little better rather than have us mistakenly believe he is the chosen messenger of the eternal truth. Wtf. His hysterical reaction to embryonic stem cell research is laughable when you consider that he really does believe that 64 cells constitutes a dynamic, living, sentient human presence. I probably swat more complex and living beings when I'm bored or irritable. Not only that, but isn't it better to accept the inevitable and accept embryonic stem cell research is going to happen eventually, why not accept i needs to happen now? He really does believe that sex invokes a divine presence which interjects at the point of conception, to create a human soul. Oh please! The man's a bloody idiot and a controlling bloody idiot at that!

On Monday he warned against the "seductive" powers of science, saying it was important that science did not become the sole criteria for goodness.

No-one ever said it wanted to do that, but it's just about the only human activity to consistently deliver what we need. Maybe religion should learn a few lessons and learn to tell the truth and offer real solutions not artificial obfuscation. Maybe he realises religion doesn't have such a great part to play in mankind's future?

148. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #117681 by Incredulous on January 29, 2008 at 11:23 am

I think Josh deserves yet another pat on the back for creating such a usable and popular website.

I wonder how many hits the site gets a day. Considering its popularity, I am quite surprised the theists haven't made more comments and been more challenging.

I wonder how many of those people who quietly flick through these pages have made the transition over to evidence based reasoning?

Shows that RD has made a huge impact and isn't this lone voice of sanity, lost in cyberspace. He's an allround media presence, which is good.

149. Belief in Belief

Comment #117529 by Incredulous on January 29, 2008 at 4:00 am

I know there are a number of people who do not like Christopher Hitchen's style and some of the things he says appear on the surface a little contentious or contradictory, but I think he is a very perceptive and creative writer on all subjects.

This article is great!

150. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115928 by Incredulous on January 25, 2008 at 4:15 am

Would anyone want to spend ANY time in a place which is full of people who trot out sick rubbish like this?

Is xianity so unattractive it must literally scare and retard people into believing - or at least give the outward expression of believing - this psychotic and disturbing bullshit?

We all know and understand the reasons for not believing in such fiction, so I don't need to bore you with the same old rational, sane objections to the sky bully and his mythological presence.

However, this stuff troubles me, because it probably is very effective in causing unhappiness and hurt in those people least able to laugh this incredible nonsense off - children.

I can't believe these people aren't guilty of some crime, somewhere in some statute; so we can throw them out of society and keep them out.

Living creatures need to be protected from these nutjobs.