101. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68659 by NMcC on September 8, 2007 at 3:02 am

JemyM

This is the first post I've seen you make on this website.

I HOPE IT'S THE LAST!

Your contribution is utter crap from beginning to end and you should go away and learn something about the subject before you condescend to tell the rest of us all about it.

A detailed reply would take fifty times the space you have taken and it would be a complete waste of time anyway.

Suffice to say, anyone who thinks that a child of Bill Gates (for example) and a child born to one of the 10s of millions living below the poverty line in the US is 'born equal' has their head so far up their backside that a JCB couldn't pull it out.

Your attempts at teaching the rest of us history are too pathetic even to respond to. You obviously haven't a clue what you are talking about.

102. Creationism raised as Ont. election issue

Comment #68374 by NMcC on September 7, 2007 at 3:10 am

Leaving aside the serious element of this article, I'm somewhat perturbed that there's a Conservative politician in Canada named 'Mr Tory'.

What do you call the headmaster of the local faith school? 'Mr Dopey?'

What do you call Mr Tory's son? 'Tory Boy?' - Harry Enfield, eat your heart out!

103. In God we doubt

Comment #67317 by NMcC on September 3, 2007 at 3:44 am

RICHARD

I HOPE YOU ARE GOING TO DEMAND THE RIGHT OF REPLY TO THIS NASTY PIECE

I read the Sunday Times version of this yesterday and I am still seething over it.

There are more false statements and non sequiturs in this article than any I have read for many a long year.

How to respond?

Richard Dawkins should demand the right to reply at equal length.

What's the point of sending a letter to the editor when the most that might get printed is a couple of truncated paragraphs?

104. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66940 by NMcC on September 1, 2007 at 3:48 am

EPEEIST

You beat me to it.

FLAGELLANT

Please change your avatar.

Some of us come to this site to get away from that type of f***ing moron!

105. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #66172 by NMcC on August 29, 2007 at 7:24 am

A bit late with this but, what the hell....

There was an ex-pastor named Haggard
A homophobe, just minus the placard
When first asked about meth
He went white as death
Then denied ever getting a fag hard.

Sorry about that...especially the 'fag' bit. It means 'cigarette' where I'm from anyway!

106. A Matter of Faith

Comment #65176 by NMcC on August 23, 2007 at 5:00 am

Well said YORKER.

Your defense of Chomsky is spot on. Much more could be said. Chomsky always has intelligent things to say politically. His views on the advertising industry (racket) are a case in point.

PEWKATCHOO

To describe Chomsky as 'a tired old communist hack' is a stupid thing to say. It's just about on a level with describing Dawkins as 'a bitter old God hater.'

107. Rational Atheism

Comment #64836 by NMcC on August 22, 2007 at 3:09 am

The more I read of Shermer and the more I read his writings, the more I believe that he's an idiot.

What on earth is his point in this article? As far as I can see, it is simply to say 'don't rock the boat. The more we realise that science cuts the ground from under religious claims, the more we should pretend that it doesn't'.

There isn't a single point listed in this article that isn't demonstrably false and even dishonest.

His dragging in Darwin, for example, is done in a completely dishonest way. Shermer's Darwin quote, as I recall, is part of Darwin's response to Edward Aveling's request to dedicate a pamphlet on atheism (the source of the ridiculous claim that Darwin turned down an offer from Karl Marx to dedicate to Darwin the first volume of his Capital) which Darwin politely declined for numerous reasons, some spoken and some unspoken.

What Shermer conveniently ignores is the people, place and time. As far as the people are concerned, Darwin was afraid of his own shadow and wasn't an atheist anyway, and Aveling was a disreputable cur. As to place and time, Victorian England wasn't exactly the open-minded society in matters religious as we have now in the UK and elsewhere.

Shermer's other points are equally dopey.

Was Martin Luther King not 'anti' racism? Shermer would have us believe that joining hands with those who would cherry-pick the 'nice' bits of ancient religious mumbo-jumbo and who give cover to the loons, is the best way to promote science and rationality.

Did Martin Luther King join hands with people who were only slightly racist and whose racism was expressed in the best possible taste?

I think not Shermer.

108. The Out Campaign

Comment #59906 by NMcC on July 31, 2007 at 4:06 am

RICHARD

Why on earth did you bother responding to that imbecile Robertson?

You've just given him exactly what he's been craving all this time - recognition from you.

109. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58524 by NMcC on July 25, 2007 at 5:13 am

Richard

What about this idea that the feminists have raised our consciousness?

"She's not the worst chairman I've heard..."

Obviously not in your case!

(Just kidding!)

110. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58140 by NMcC on July 23, 2007 at 4:20 pm

I'm not a big fan of Pinker having once heard him say that, when he was younger, he viewed the police as oppressors as he believed people were basically good and needed no coercion from the state authorities to behave well. This idealism of his, however, was shattered when the police in Toronto (I think it was there) went on strike for a day and loads of people used the opportunity to loot shops. Pinker was, apparently, amazed at the fact that poor people would take things from shops whenever the fear of arrest was removed, but he neglected to see any significance in the fact that rich people didn't feel the need to do likewise.

Now, he hands us this gem:

"Even if one has little sympathy for the cynical Marxist argument that ideas are always advanced to serve the interest of the ruling class...."

Really? This is a (cynical) 'Marxist' idea is it? It's the first I've heard of it. How on earth did the whole body of socialist ideas (most of which were in existence before Marx knew about them) get promulgated then, through mind reading?

What Pinker means to say, I presume, is that the ideas of the ruling class, according to Marx, are the generally accepted ideas of a particular epoch since the class that has the material means of production at its disposal tends to have the major means of mental production at its disposal as well.

But that is nothing like what Pinker is here claiming.

111. Face to faith

Comment #58014 by NMcC on July 23, 2007 at 2:14 am

Logicel

As mentioned above, the quote is from A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. It was written in 1844. The best way to access the information to fix the Wikipedia entry is to go to the website Marxists.org. You can search Marx's writings here even by word or phrase. If you search 'opium of the people' it'll take you straight to the work in question at the right place in the text.

Speaking of Marx and philosophy, did you know that a recent poll of Radio 4's Today programme listeners returned Marx as 'Britain's favourite philosopher'!!

Yes, I agree, unfortunately, it's practically impossible to discuss Marx simply because of the (in my view) completely false association of his writings with the actions of Lenin and the Bolsheviks and the collection of loonies that followed their example in other countries.

Richard Dawkins himself is guilty of this when he asserts that the narcissistic psychopath Stalin was 'a kind of Marxist'. Of course, there isn't a single thing that Stalin (or any of the rest of them) ever did that could be genuinely reconciled with the views and writings of Marx.

In order to get an appreciation of what Marx himself was like and what his views were, the journalist Francis Wheen's biography (1999) is quite good. You'd probably pick it up for a couple of quid these days.

Regards.

112. Face to faith

Comment #58011 by NMcC on July 23, 2007 at 1:23 am

Logicel

I've looked out the quote for you. It's a bit long. It's a pity that all this usually gets truncated to 'Religion is the opium of the people'.

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."

Karl Marx

113. Face to faith

Comment #57902 by NMcC on July 22, 2007 at 5:29 am

Logicel

That quote from Marx is from his A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Marx wrote this when he was only 26 and it's the text immediately following the famous 'religion is the opium of the people' quote.

I have given the source for this quote before on this Forum somewhere and Hitchens uses it and discusses it in his book 'God is Not Great...'

114. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #56863 by NMcC on July 17, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Blimey, as a Northern Irish chap myself, (and now able to recognise the lilting stupidy of a certain professor), I thought I discerned the beginnings of an Alister McGrath 'streams of consciousness' flood.

Not the case! Excellent stuff.

115. Darwin or Design

Comment #56809 by NMcC on July 17, 2007 at 11:21 am

A lot of great posts on this thread, so nothing really needs added.

As far as the extraordinary evidence argument goes however, the claim by the Bishop that the recent floods in the UK were 'God's' judgement on us for our attitude to homosexuality is a kind of 'extraordinary evidence'. That is, it's evidence that someone can be looked up to and respected by so many in society whilst, at the same time, be so extraordinarily stupid?

Did I see, not so long ago, evidence that there's a massive, 300 year old storm raging on Jupiter?

I wonder what a Gay Pride march looks like on that planet!

116. God Hates the World

Comment #52076 by NMcC on June 26, 2007 at 5:22 am

Surely the most important question in regard to this video is: 'Is Michael Jackson recieving his royalties?' He might need them after his recent expenditure on legal fees.

I think the good folks at WBC should be applauded for two things:

1) Showing us what the bible really advocates in regard to homosexuality

2) Showing us what Elton John looks like without his wig.

117. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #49167 by NMcC on June 10, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Xenocratic

Some excellent posts you have contributed. I'd say probably amongst the best political contributions we've had to this site so far.

Your last post gives me pause for study.

A friend of mine attended a lecture Chomsky gave in England and was disgusted at the level of intelligence shown by the audience. My friend thought that Chomsky appeared to be a bit dismayed also. Apparently the audience had a fair smattering of idiotic Trotskyists which explains a lot.

It's not a very substantial point I'm making considering the length and depth of your post on the Middle East and elsewhere (quite incidentally really!) but I think you are factually incorrect concerning the ability of Oswald to get off enough rounds to account for all the shots fired at Kennedy. A recent programme I watched looked at this aspect of the assassination and showed conclusively that Oswald was the lone shooter. I had the programme on tape, but I might've overtaped it. If not I'll post the details.

I've printed your posts out and will be studying them with interest as I've no doubt I'll learn a few things I didn't know about the Middle East situation.

Thanks and regards.

118. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47627 by NMcC on June 5, 2007 at 5:04 am

In a previous response to Robertson I said that I would no longer be bothering with him since he's a Jesuitical, lying distorter. I'm afraid, however, that I can't let his last collection of lies and distortions go unchallenged.

"Of course, because if he was then he would become just like us! This of course is a classic example of open-minded tolerant thinking and not the sort of religious fundamentalism that we are complaining about!"

The idea that you could even formulate that sentence without, as I suspect, going red with embarrassment, speaks volumes for your real motivations. There have been numerous attempts to engage you in dialogue on this thread, indeed, on this site as well as your own. My experience based on your pretend responses to my own posts, is that your idea of 'engagement' and your notion of 'discussing' things with an open mind is simply to twist and turn in your attempts to show black is white, to lie outrageously and to ignore any question you can't answer. In short, the idea that you have an 'open-mind' is true only in the sense that your mind is so open that your brains have fallen out, and taken any sense of common honesty along with them.

"Brilliant thinking! Was there ever an eighth day?"

I couldn't have put it better myself in order to show the utter nonsense of your biblically inspired position in regard to the so-called 'creation'. Don't forget, genius, you are the one who is arguing from the basis of 'on the first day, God created….on the second day He made" (not intended as a direct quote, incidentally) etc etc. Unless you are arguing from an even more ridiculous position (if that's possible) by positing the notion that the first 'day' was 2 billion years long, whilst the second 'day' might have been 3 billion years long and so on, if we accepted your contorted interpretation of biblical nonsense we'd have to believe that the Sabbath has another 300 million years yet to run! You are the one who is trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, not me. I have no problem in accepting that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that it was bereft of life for about the first 2.5-3 billion years and so on. You are the one who has to try and fit these relatively recently discovered scientific facts into your holy screed of ancient myth. As an apologist for Christ inanity, it's little wonder that scientific fact, your 'open mind' notwithstanding, has merely caused you time and time again to fall on your intellectual backside when, if you had a shred of honesty, and were not imbued with, and motivated by, the most shameless Jesuitism, you'd do the decent thing and fall on your sword of biblical 'truth'.

"Of course. I realise that it is comforting for you to hold these beliefs about me and about other people, but if you really are the open-minded, tolerant and rational people that you claim to be, then perhaps you should stop projecting your thought patterns and your philosophies upon everyone else."

Don't flatter yourself, matey! The only 'beliefs' I hold about you, are those garnered from your writings and your pretend responses to your critics and they are far from 'comforting'. In fact, I am more than a little perturbed that an obviously intelligent man (relatively speaking, of course) could spout such tripe and could rely on such lies and distortions to make his 'case' whilst imagining himself to be in possession of the 'truth'. You are the one who needs comforting, and you receive this comfort through lying and by deliberately distorting your opponents views.

Far from simply 'projecting my thought patterns on to everyone else', I have experience of your lying, distorting evasiveness in relation to my own posts and I've visited your website to read your ignorant rants there against……well…against …..er….. everything that isn't your idea of 'Christian'.

"I like the example of your campaign against your local headmaster. Yes, this is the route that you are going. You will not engage in debate with people you just write letters claiming that you have been offended. In your campaign to obliterate religion you will continue to work in this fashion. It has nothing to do with reason and everything to do with intolerance and fundamentalist atheism."

What a joke that the Christian seeker after truth and fair play should jump to the defense of his fellow propagandist's unfettered 'right' to propagandize. How quaint that Robertson should take umbrage at a 'campaign' waged by me against a fellow humble follower of the lowly Nazarene carpenter's son who's only 'crime' is to meekly use his position as a supposed 'educator' to dishonestly push his private religious beliefs and to use kids for the purpose.

The words of the song 'Stand up, stand up for Judas' sung by your fellow Scot, Dick Gaughan, says more in answer to this piece of impertinence than ever I could:

"By sword and gun and crucifix Christ's gospel has been spread
Two thousand cruel years have shown the way that Jesus led"

Now that WAS a campaign.

As to this 'campaign' of mine, as you so dishonestly put it: If anyone has carried on a campaign, it's this headmaster. He's the one who, with breathtaking arrogance, flagrantly misused school materials, as well as his time, to propagate his private religious views – and had done so unchallenged and without a care in the world as to whether he had any business doing so for about the last TEN YEARS. In fact, it was my being an 'open-minded, tolerant and rational' person which enabled me to stomach his activities for as long as I did. Eventually, my patience was stretched to the limit when the headmaster, through his daily letter, asked the parents for donations to give to a 'charitable' Christian group who's preferred method of propagandizing was to go out onto the streets of Brazil to 'teach the street kids self-respect through bible stories'. At this stage, I merely, by phone, enquired of the headmaster if this was really an appropriate 'charitable' group to be supporting, adding that I could only hope this group's repertoire of 'bible stories' didn't include the edifying tale of Jephtha's daughter since the street kids may not be able to discern the uplifting and 'self-respecting' elements of that ghastly yarn.

My patience only came to an end when I (along with all the other parents, of course) was exhorted by this headmaster, at halloween, to remind my son that '…we believe in God, and that Halloween is only a bit of fun' etc. This was two years after my original contact with the headmaster, during which time he continued as before on his merry propagandizing way.

And what did my 'campaign' consist off? Another phone call, that's what Mr Robertson. And this phone call, as my previous post states, merely explained to the headmaster in polite terms why I found his actions to be offensive and inappropriate and requested him not to use my son for his propaganda exploits.

Guess what the worthy chap's response was, Mr Robertson? Did he defend his actions by reference to the 'truth' of the bible? Did he defend himself on the basis that he was within his rights to act the way he did? Not a bit of it! "Well", says he, "there are 284 families that my letter goes to, and you're the only one who has ever complained". "Is that a fact", says I, "and you think that's a reason for me to go along with your nonsense do you? You think that because a majority appears to acquiesce that that makes it alright? Are you aware that a majority voted for Hitler? Do you think that because a majority of Russians once thought that Stalin was the best thing that ever happened to them that that made Stalin's actions acceptable? Since when did we arrive at 'truth' or 'acceptable actions' based on a head count or people's indifference?"

Long story short….he hadn't a leg to stand on and couldn't muster a defense to save his life. And the result of the telephone call was to put an end to his propagandizing immediately. Not exactly a 'campaign', Mr Robertson. Incidently, I gave my permission for my son to take part in the nativity play that I mentioned in my last post, hardly an example of 'intolerance' or a 'fundamentalist atheist' as you so lyingly suggest.

Feel free to continue to spout your nonsense. I've no doubt that your time is fast running out and that more and more people only have to listen to the likes of you with your pathetic rubbish masquerading as 'arguments' to see through your ridiculous claims.

Good luck in your lying for Jesus CAMPAIGN - you'll need it.

PS – I see in your post you mention that the likes of Billy Graham, the Pope and Ian Paisley all need a bodyguard to protect them from assassination. What a disgraceful lie (and you are well aware that it's a lie!) to infer that they need protection from atheists. Being from Northern Ireland, I laughed at your inference that Paisley requires a bodyguard to protect him from atheist attack. Yes, indeed, Paisley may well need a bodyguard to protect him from assassination – FROM OTHER CHRISTIANS!

119. The planet hunters

Comment #47292 by NMcC on June 4, 2007 at 2:06 am

I once read a Christian writer who was absolutely 100% certain that there couldn't be intelligent life on any other planet in the universe. If there were, he opined, "who would save them? Certainly not Jesus Christ."

The point this genius was making is that the Christian God, if the bible is to be believed, has only created life once, here on earth, and that it is only humans here on earth therefore that effected the 'fall from grace' with the consequent need for Jesus's suicide (well, pretend suicide).

Bizarro Dawkins is right. If life was found on another planet it wouldn't have the slightest effect on the faith of most religious people simply because nothing ever would. If God, any God, was to inscribe on the moon one morning the words 'Jesus's bones find at such and such a location' and if the bones of Jesus were, indeed, found at this location, the majority of Christians wouldn't bat an eyelid and it would have next to no effect on their faith.

120. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46905 by NMcC on June 2, 2007 at 6:22 am

Steve99

I agree with you. There's little point in pretending that people like Wee Flea are ever going to be influenced by facts and logic.

The thing that finally convinced me of this is the ease with which otherwise intelligent people have accepted the view that the 'creation' period of the bible really involves each 'day' lasting longer than the normal 24 hours. Whichever way you look at it, given that the universe is nearly 14 billion years old, this position, (which is entirely ad hoc, of course) automatically means that believers have to accept that each 'day' lasted for almost 2 billion years.

The likes of Wee Flea don't bat an eye at this preposterous idea. Despite the devastating consequences for their bible based belief, they have simply taken it in their stride, even to the extent of nonchantly convincing themselves that this was the accepted view of believers all along.

When you consider, for example, the effect of the 'day-age' theory is to make the Sabbath almost 2 billion years long, you can get a flavour of the mental gymnastics that people like Wee Flea engage in every day. But they're more than willing to do it, no matter how foolish their position. I suspect that if Jesus Christ himself came back and told Wee Flea that his religion was a lot of bollocks, he'd still lead exactly the same life and hold exactly the same views.

All we can do, I think, is to try and 'raise consciousness' as Dawkins suggests. This is certainly possible, and I think we should concentrate on preventing, were possible, religious freaks having a free run at indoctrinating kids.

There are any number of ways of doing this and small victories can be gained all the time.

A recent victory involving myself, for example, will illustrate this. Along with all the other pupils, my young son is given a letter to bring home with him from the headmaster of his school every day. This letter contains various information regarding school activities etc. Up until 2 years ago, these letters also used to contain advertisements for local church activities and, outrageously, for religious groups. The headmaster, as a Christian, wasn't remiss in putting in a frequent admonishment that the parents make sure their kids are regular God worshippers. He didn't say it in those words, of course, but that's certainly what he meant.

Anyway, I contacted the headmaster and explained to him that I found his actions to be offensive, that he was exceeding his remit and that he was not to use my son as a mule to carry his religious propaganda again. All said in the most polite way, naturally.

The end result is that for the last two years there hasn't been a SINGLE mention of religion, in any shape or form, in the headmaster's daily letter. Further, at Christmas time, my son's teacher even had the common courtesy of asking me beforehand if I minded my son taking the role of a shepherd in the school nativity play.

I think this is the best way forward, rather than interminable engagements with bigoted idiots like Wee Flea.

121. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46660 by NMcC on June 1, 2007 at 3:20 am

The Wee Flea

Please don't feel the need to 'reply' to this as I won't be bothering with you again.

See how the seeker of truth lies for Jesus:

My original post about his video -

"It was nothing but a mixture of advertisments for your book, special pleading on behalf of your religion and yourself and an insult to the intelligence of anyone with half a brain cell."

Robertson's reply -

"Given that you are writing for people with half a brain cell I can try and appreciate your point!

My reply to his insult -

"I don't know why you begin your remarks with a gratuitous insult, nor do I want to know."

Robertson's reply to me -

"I'm sorry but the half a brain cell comment was a reference to what you had already written."

In other words, I made a reference to the fact that anyone with half a brain cell could see through the spurious claims of his propaganda video, he then says that the people on this website only have half a brain cell anyway, I then challenge him on his gratuitous insult and his reply is that he was only following my lead.

Can there be a more obvious example of a lying, Jesuitical charlatan?

"If I go on to do other videos now will look at the nature of evil and its impact upon the world."

I doubt if anyone will be holding their breath in anticipation of a second installment of your propagandist lies and distortions.

"...and yes I do believe that the nature of evil has an impact upon the argument from design."

I've heard a fair number of the lying for Jesus brigade and their spurious and specious 'arguments', I doubt very much that you can add anything of interest or square any religious circle that others have failed miserably to do.

122. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46641 by NMcC on June 1, 2007 at 1:05 am

Philip1978

What about his instructions to '...give no thought for the morrow' and 'lay ye up no store on earth'? He doesn't have to say any more after that!

Apropo the pigs. The story says that they ran down a steep hill before throwing themselves over a cliff into the sea. One writer I read worked out that the place where Jesus supposedly did this ridulous act was about 20 miles from the sea - so that pinky and perky would have had to run almost a marathon before graciously committing suicide just to show what a great chap Jesus was.

123. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46496 by NMcC on May 31, 2007 at 1:16 pm

I've said this before on another thread, but I think it's worth repeating: I don't know about McGrath being deluded in his belief about God, I genuinely believe that he is deluded about his own biography.

Once again he claims here in the first few seconds that he was an atheist, a Marxist, and influenced to view religion negatively by the Northern Ireland troubles etc.

Below is excerpts from the other thread in which myself and a fellow Northern Irishman discussed this. The debate mentioned is the one McGrath did with Peter Atkins.

"Whenever I hear McGrath claim that he was once an atheist (which he does every time he writes or speaks) I just laugh now.

I genuinely think he suffers from some form of 'false memory syndrome'. Either that or he's talked that much bollocks in his life that he's confused himself.

In this debate he mentions that 'I grew up in the fifties', yet, at the same time his atheism, at least in part, and according to him, was informed by how religion in Northern Ireland led to the Troubles. Since the Troubles in Northern Ireland didn't really get started big time until around the early seventies (as far as I can remember, although nominally protestant, my family was still living in a predominantly catholic area until then anyway), McGrath's claims would seem to be self-refuting. If he gave up his alleged atheism at the age of 18, and he grew up in the fifties, surely he would have become a theist before the Troubles in Northern Ireland even started.

Incidentally, the claim that the Troubles in Northern Ireland were to any great degree caused by religion in the first place is simply not true. Even if it was the case however, how on earth could such a situation have the slightest influence on any thinking person in terms of the existence or non-existence of the Christian God? What has rioting mobs on the Falls Road or Shankill Road in Belfast got to do with the argument from first cause, or a 13.7 billion year old universe or the lack of evidence for the supposed divinity (or even historicity) of Jesus? What has the actions of an Irish nationalist terrorist in planting a bomb in a Belfast pub got to do with whether or not Darwinian natural selection means there is no requirement for a supernatural creator? And so on...

When we bear in mind McGrath's latest claims in this debate that when he was young he was a bit of an astronomer, I think his real biography might throw up a few surprises."

"I've just discovered that McGrath would have been 18 years old in January 1971.

Given that the Troubles in Northern Ireland had barely started at that point, surely McGrath's more truthful claim should be that he was an 'atheist' until he witnessed all those Christians in Northern Ireland murdering each other whereupon he became a Christian too!

I'd forgotten that McGrath has claimed that he was a teenage Marxist into the bargain.

Blimey! The only thing he wasn't, then, was a teenage warewolf apparently.

What annoys me even more about McGrath now is that I would bet my life he wasn't even a Marxist but was some kind of vague, dopey Leninist who never read a word of anything Karl Marx himself ever wrote.

So, let's sum up: McGrath as a 13 year old was an atheist (but was really a religion hater influenced by the Northern Ireland Troubles which had yet to begin), a Marxist (but really a stroppy Leninist), an astronomer (who thought the mind boggling wonders of the universe were bleak and discomforting) and became a Christian through studying for his degree (although he had become a Christian 7 years before that).

Confused!? No wonder he is!"

124. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46424 by NMcC on May 31, 2007 at 7:05 am

epeeist

Who can honestly say what the 'Christian position' is on anything. Afterall, you can be a Christian and believe absolutely anything that takes your fancy. You can be pro-abortion or violently opposed to it and, 'as a Christian' be 100% certain that your stance is the only genuinely 'Christian' stance.: ditto death penalty, homosexuality, sex before marriage and so on ad nauseam.

In regard to Robertson's view on what you suggest, i.e. that because of 'original sin' we are living out a punishment on a cursed planet, why is he using the old "look how lovely the world is, it's a veritable garden of Eden, God must have made it" argument?

Edited addition

Speaking of design, on page 77 of Hitchens' book, he writes in regard to William Paley: 'in his book Natural Philosophy'. Should this book not be called Natural Theology? Did Paley write another book that I've never heard off?

125. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46403 by NMcC on May 31, 2007 at 6:05 am

The Wee Flea

"Given that you are writing for people with half a brain cell I can try and appreciate your point! They were not PowerPoint visuals and yes I would have been extremely happy to include the likes of hurricanes landslides and so on. If I go on to do one on the nature of evil and the effects it has on the world then doubtless you will see them."

Thank you for again responding to my post.

I note that you have chosen to ignore my pointing out to you how your 'reply' to my previous post was wholly inadequate.

I don't know why you begin your remarks with a gratuitous insult, nor do I want to know.

This 'reply' of yours to my second post, much as it might pain you to contemplate given your religious allegiances, borders on the Jesuitical.

I say the above simply because it is hard not to believe that you have deliberately misunderstood the point of the question posed in my response to your video.

Here it is again:

Part of your video is given over to making the assertion: of course there is a (Christian) God, look how the natural world proves this. And, in order to illustrate this assertion, you included stills of baby lambs, rolling hills, scenic pastures etc. You know, and I know, that you were presenting here nothing less than the wholly exploded and fallacious argument from design.

Well, my question to you was: why didn't you include stills of earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, landslides etc. In other words, why did you leave out the vastly more convincing evidence of non-design? And, I suggested, your video was in fact nothing but dishonest propaganda.

Far from giving any reasonable answer to my question, the best you can do is to say: "I would have been extremely happy to include the likes of hurricanes landslides and so on."

Well, then, why didn't you? Could it be because you are only too well aware that, had you done so, YOU'D HAVE DESTROYED YOUR OWN ARGUMENT?

In order to try and give the appearance of dealing with the point at issue, you say that if you do another video on evil you'll deal with my point in that. Are you really so dishonest (or stupid) to pretend that the question of the existence of evil has any bearing whatsoever on the argument from design. More to the point, do you think I'm that stupid?

The only possible bearing that the existence of 'evil' can have on the question at issue, is if, in this future video, you intend arguing that the movement of the tectonic plates under the sea, which, in turn, gives rise to a tsunami, is caused, ultimately, by man's 'fall' in the ridiculous Garden of Eden fable. In the final analysis, you will be forced to admit that tsunamis are caused either by evil spirits or God's divine retribution.

Do you really, honestly believe that this should satisfy me, or anyone else for that matter, as far as my original question about your propagandist, dishonest video is concerned?

David, you're a grown man with a modicum of intelligence. Why on earth do you waste what you have, as well as your time, trying to defend the indefensible and bolster that which should be left to fall into oblivion?

126. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #46361 by NMcC on May 31, 2007 at 3:10 am

Perhaps someone has already asked this? Apologies if so.

On page 77 Hitchens refers to the title of William Paley's book as Natural Philosophy. Surely he means Natural Theology?

127. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #46074 by NMcC on May 30, 2007 at 6:26 am

doodinthemood

Fair enough post, for the most part.

Must say though that your comment about Marx devising 'models' of 'communist cities' was so bizarre that it made me splutter...

128. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46061 by NMcC on May 30, 2007 at 5:26 am

The Wee Flea

I, too, did you the courtesy of watching your Youtube video and, painful as it was, right through to the end as well.

Excuse the language as there is no pun intended, but, God almighty! Are you serious? It was nothing but a mixture of advertisments for your book, special pleading on behalf of your religion and yourself and an insult to the intelligence of anyone with half a brain cell.

Just one example: in your haste to knock up your Powerpoint visuals of lovely sunsets, baby lambs (ahh!) and rolling hills, did you forget your slides on earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, landslides and the like? I'm curious. Well, actually, I'm not. I've no doubt whatever why your presentation was so one-sided - it was pure propaganda. Sergei Eisenstein, eat your heart out!

Give us a break! Are you really so unaware that it's precisely the kind of spurious and specious rubbish that comprises your video that makes the views of atheists even more sound? Do you really not percieve that, to anyone who 'opens their eyes', or, to be more precise, uses their brains, it's this intellectual junk that confirms that your Christian religion is simply a racket just like the rest?

I know it's not the response you were hoping for, but I'm afraid your silver screen debut made me roar with laughter too. Which is a shame (from your point of view anyway) since it wasn't supposed to be a comedy - more of a thriller.

I'm not sure which classification the British Film Censorship Board (if there still is such a body) would give your efforts. I give it the classification 'O' - as in 'Oh Dear!'.

129. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #46042 by NMcC on May 30, 2007 at 4:16 am

Robert Maynard

Thanks for your reply.

I must say it's new to me to be told that the problem with 'communism' is that it argues for the 'dismantling of all centalised institutions, like businesses and churches'. It's usually argued the other way round; that the problem with 'communism' is that it centralises everything, especially in the hands of the state. Congratulations on coming up with such a novel view.

Of course, 'communism' doesn't argue anything at all, much less what you claim. Individuals, like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao etc have claimed that their actions were derived from the writings of Karl Marx and millions believed (and believe) that this is so. Millions more have argued to the opposite effect. For example, the Bolshevik coup was denounced as anti-Marxist by numerous people at the time. Not only did Marxists in Russia (Martov, and the like) say this but the earliest advowedly Marxist organisation in Britain (the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB)) is on record as denouncing the so-called socialist revolution in Russia as nothing more than a minority coup - and pointed out that this was a policy that Marx (as a supporter of democracy) himself was decidedly hostile to.

Anyway, it's a big subject. The least I'd expect from people like Richard Dawkins is that they don't make comments about Marx and Marxists in the same breath as mentioning Stalin, unless they can back up their views with facts. I have argued on this website that Dawkins referring to Stalin as a 'Marxist' is tantamount to believing that the former 'German Democratic Republic' was a German, democratic republic simply on its own say so. Or is tantamount to believing that Hitler was an atheist simply because theists dishonestly claim that he was. On one British TV programme, Dawkins even pulled from his pocket quotes from Hitler that he'd brought with him specifically to dispute the charge that Hitler was an atheist. I could do the same and disprove the view, which Dawkins is always peddling, that Stalin was a Marxist. Why is it right to do this in relation to Hitler but not in relation to Stalin?

130. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46016 by NMcC on May 30, 2007 at 2:56 am

The Wee Flea

Thanks for your reply.

Unfortunately, it was wholly evasive. The point of me posting your two contradictory statements was to show that you are both advocating your listeners and readers buy the Dawkins book in order to read for themselves and make their own minds up, whilst, at the same time, or, rather, at a different time, you are openly discouraging them from buying it and are thereby saying 'don't bother buying it yourself, take it from me, it's rubbish'.

Your 'reply' merely reiterated the 'fair-minded' quote that I posted, and ignored the other one. Needless to say, I'm not surprised, as this simply demonstrates that you will say anything to make yourself look good - even if it's obviously dishonest to do so.

PS - Who's 'Neil'?

131. Dawkins at the Hay Festival

Comment #46010 by NMcC on May 30, 2007 at 2:37 am

Rtambree

Again, excellent points. In regard to the sactions under the Clinton administration I have a little twinge of guilt myself as I remember agreeing that there was little point sending aid to, or lifting sanctions on, a country when the (unelected) leader of which would only use this to his own nefarious advantage. I suspect I was influenced by Sunday Times reports of how Saddam sold the aid previously sent and used the funds to buy weapons (obviously not of mass destruction!). Now I'm ashamed of myself for not looking into the matter with more interest. I think your comparison with the two death tolls is spot on.

As to the lack of conscience. One of the things that makes me want to put my boot through the TV when Blair is on is remembering the story of the little 9-10 year old Iraqi boy who had his arms blown off. Do you remember that? How the media slobbered over the fact that he was brought to Britain for 'new' arms etc - with a grinning Blair playing it for all it was worth. I wonder does Blair even remember the wee lad's name? Or given him a single thought since?

It's an interesting question as you say; how do they deal with it psychologically? Well, Blair, at least, has already indicated how...God will sort it all out in the end and God knows he was one of the good guys. As for Bush, I suspect the way he deals with it is that he doesn't even accept that it has anything to do with him; that it's all part of a game called 'protecting freedom' and, when it's all over, everyone will come back to life again and have their limbs and mental state restored.

132. Dawkins at the Hay Festival

Comment #45997 by NMcC on May 30, 2007 at 1:48 am

Rtambree

Excellent post, as I've come to expect from you.

One quibble though: 'tens of thousands of deaths'? Up to a couple of years ago, was it the British Medical Journal, Lancet, or an investigation by an American human rights team, that reported some 650,000 Iraqi dead? Some say it's anything up to 1,000,000 deaths now that the little worm Blair has on his conscience. Never mind though, as you say, it's OK since he 'thought he was doing the right thing'.

Hitler, as we all know, was racked with doubt.

133. Christopher Hitchens at Politics and Prose

Comment #45986 by NMcC on May 30, 2007 at 1:00 am

kwhitefoot

I put quotation marks around the word beautiful because I was indicating the word was spoken by the person I was speaking off, as is normal. As I did, in fact, with other quoted words in my post.

I certainly didn't mean to disparage the words of Marx himself on religion as I am only too well aware that some of it is beautiful writing.

Incidently, if anyone is interested, the words Hitchens was quoting are from Marx's A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, which he wrote at the age of about 26.

In regard to Hitchens saying he is no longer a Socialist, I don't believe that he ever was a Socialist since as a Trotskyist he was an advocate of capitalism run by the state, state-capitalism, in other words - and run by a dictatorship at that! Also, as to his present views, I have heard him say recently that he is still a Socialist as well as that he is no longer a Socialist - typical Hitchens in other words.

Was the small (it was a small venue) audience not representative of Americans as a whole? Perhaps not. Can you ever really have an audience which is representative of the much vaunted 'melting pot' of American society? Not unless you go out into the street and do a poll of people's views and then force into your venue those who you want to comprise your 'representative' audience.

134. Christopher Hitchens at Politics and Prose

Comment #45934 by NMcC on May 29, 2007 at 4:46 pm

The usual curate's egg from Hitchens - good in parts.

Quite astonishing that he should quote the 'beautiful' words of Karl Marx on religion to an American audience and get a round of applause. OK, so it might have been because it was the end of the meeting, but it sounded if they would have applauded anyway.

I'm nonplussed at the attitude that the woman in the audience who made a public avowal of her atheism was jarring. I thought that's what we were supposed to be encouraging - Americans to stand up and say religion is bullshit. This is exactly what this woman did, and did it very passionately at that. I got the impression that she was relieved to be able to say in public that she was once enslaved to catholicism and a big time Jesus freak, but then freed herself from it when she realised it was a lot of bollocks.

I'm tempted to say 'typical'; atheists moan about the religiosity of (especially) Americans, and then moan when one proclaims her atheism. Hitchens even stooped to a smarmy comment about not being able to choose your friends in response to her contribution. Christ, as an atheist, I'd say the same about him!

Hitchens might be right about the Dr Johnson quote concerning patriotism and scoundrels when he said Dr Johnson was referring to 'The Patriot Party' and not patriotism per se. According to Hitchens, Dr Johnson 'as a Tory' wouldn't have described patriotism as such. He would have had he meant (as I've always thought), that scoundrels use patriotism as an excuse for their misdeeds.

I think Hitchen's rendering of the Steve Weinberg quote is too convoluted. He should stick to Weinberg's own words which are far clearer and pack a much bigger punch because of their simplicity.

Did Hitchens describe Weinberg as a 'biologist'? I thought he was a physicist.

135. Christopher Hitchens at Politics and Prose

Comment #45881 by NMcC on May 29, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Interesting take that Hitchens now has on the Iraq invasion. His view is that if the Americans pull out with their tails between their legs, as Hitchens reckons they will, the chaos and violence left behind will be the fault of all the peace-mongers who opposed the war in the first place.

136. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #45839 by NMcC on May 29, 2007 at 11:32 am

jimbob

I'm always intrigued when people like you attribute the murders of the Stalinist regime to 'Marxists'. I've read quite a lot of the writings of Marx and I can't remember reading anything he wrote that would give the slightest encouragement to anyone to engage in mass murder.

Maybe I just missed that bit. I was wondering if you could tell me where in Marx's writings this is to be found. I'd be grateful.

137. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45790 by NMcC on May 29, 2007 at 9:34 am

Benjamin,

I too am surprised that there is a concept of a heavenly afterlife in Judaism. I always thought Jews believed much like the entire book of Ecclesiastes says, we live, we die, and that's just about it.

138. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45725 by NMcC on May 29, 2007 at 4:54 am

The Wee Flea

Mr Robertson,

I have not bothered replying to anything you have written in the past because I consider you to be simply a religious huckster. I couldn't resist this though.

FROM YOUR 'REPLY' TO ALOVRIN ABOVE:

"Your mind is made up so why confuse it with facts?! And you have clearly not read them or you would realise that my aim was not to warn people about TGD. In fact when I speak at book stores etc I always insist that they put TGD and other books on the table beside mine for selling. I have actually sold a good number of TGD - and that's as it should be. How can you engage with something if you are not prepared to look at it?"

FROM YOUR WEBSITE:

"Obviously The God Delusion is the book I am interacting with. If you already have the book then you will know what I am referring to. If you don't, I cannot honestly recommend that you should get it. It really is as bad as I have tried to demonstrate and I would be reluctant to put any more money into it!"

139. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #45704 by NMcC on May 29, 2007 at 3:12 am

the great teapot

Well, thanks, genius, for getting right to the substance of the thing.

Read my last post again.

140. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #45685 by NMcC on May 29, 2007 at 1:20 am

the great teapot

Really? Go back to the very beginning of the exchange and see who was impolite then. I think you'll find that an innocuous post by me to 'scottishgeologist' was attacked by someone who didn't know what she was talking about (which she subsequently admitted) in regard to the content yet assumed the most aggressive attitude at the outset. An attitude which, incidently, I would hazard a guess is based on nothing more than a catholic upbringing and latent religious bigotry. But, it's only a guess.

Follow the thread through and the one under 'Dawkins Observer Diary' and let me know your honest opinion.

You are attempting to be sarcastic in your last line; has it occurred to you that I've never mentioned anything about spelling to you, have no idea who you are, that the 'conversation' had nothing whatever to do with you and yet, you presume to jump in and make comments against me on the basis of two selective, out of context quotes?

141. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #45547 by NMcC on May 28, 2007 at 5:28 am

Last post on this thread.

Just for the record, Luthien has removed all of her (I think Luthien is female) posts which were between mine immediately above.

Make your own minds up as to why.

142. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45541 by NMcC on May 28, 2007 at 5:16 am

leodavinci

Luthien

I think his name's Bonehead.

Well, I'm pleased to see that I've brought two like-minded people together. All's well that ends well. Don't forget to invite me to the wedding. I'm not too far from Belfast and can easily make it.

I'm moving on...so.....all the best to both of you. One last point though, for God's sake don't have any kids.

143. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45535 by NMcC on May 28, 2007 at 4:54 am

Blimey, they're ganging up on me! And after I was so nice to you Luthien as well on the other thread.

leodavinci

No I don't 'remember' since it was someone else who made the comment stacks of brains.

The day I get removed from this website as a Troll in order to leave the likes of you two halfwits to spout your ignorant, illiterate tripe, is the day I'll volunteer to leave and go join Bonehead in his alliance with the pope to save the world.

144. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #45533 by NMcC on May 28, 2007 at 4:42 am

Luthien

I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of your last post, nor can I discern the reason for the attitude behind your comments.

Time to move on. All the best, anyway.

145. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45527 by NMcC on May 28, 2007 at 4:23 am

leodavinci

I think the 'criticism' started off referring to Bonehead, to which you replied along the lines of 'oh...let our hero alone, his heart's in the right place even if his ideals aren't' or words to that contradictory effect; it's too painful to go back and look at it.

Another poster showed you up for the sycophantic idiot you are, not me. It was you who then started getting personal since you can't defend Bonehead in any sensible way.

As to your 'supposed illiteracy' - there's nothing supposed about it. Look for yourself.

146. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #45523 by NMcC on May 28, 2007 at 4:10 am

Luthien

No, I don't agree. If you consider the matter again, I think you'll realise that the second comment from me in your post above is based on not knowing you had a reading impairment, nor, indeed, could I have known.

Your original comments against me, however, where based on your ignorance of something that you could easily be expected to know, even if it took a little thinking and/or research.

See the difference!?

Incidently, I was being genuinely conciliatory and empathetic in my last post but one. Obviously, it didn't read that way to you.

147. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45518 by NMcC on May 28, 2007 at 3:57 am

leodavinci

No, don't mind at all. Perhaps you used the opportunity to learn how to construct sentences correctly or to learn how to spell.

Judging by your last effort, obviously not.

I have no interest whatever in engaging in an 'argument' with you since you are obviously incapable of mustering one. Not one that makes any sense anyway.

No. I'd stick to kissing pope-fawning, 'I'll save all those African children's lives as soon as I get my hat back' Bonehead's backside if I was you.

148. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45512 by NMcC on May 28, 2007 at 3:37 am

leodavinci

I'll reply to you as soon as I can find someone to translate your illiterate rubbish into intelligible English.

PS - For Christ's sake choose another non de plume (pen name, to you. Er...on second thoughts.... name you use other than your real one), the man's spinning in his grave.

149. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #45509 by NMcC on May 28, 2007 at 3:27 am

Luthien

In case you've posted without including any text in error, I'll wait a while.

In case I forget to come back, or lose interest, and you haven't posted by mistake: Your point being?

150. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45500 by NMcC on May 28, 2007 at 3:05 am

leodavinci

I'm afraid your post is too stupid to reply to.

Perhaps pewkatchoo can be bothered?