101. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65157 by bamboospitfire on August 23, 2007 at 3:40 am

Adrian, I don't see what is wrong with the first RD quotation - viewing the world scientifically is indeed incompatible with religious belief and all those who say otherwise are compartmentalising like fury. What is your concern about it? I agree that the second one looks very odd. Couldn't find it on the site though.

Why is Behe not listed amongst the "troublemakers"? I would have thought he'd be top of the list following his ostracision.

It seems that the point of the film is to "expose" science for ridiculing ID rather than allowing a serious debate in which proponents of ID can challenge Darwinism. I'm more than happy for them to challenge away and I look forward to reviewing their testable evidence.

Lastly, the great PZ Myers does not own a dinner jacket?! Surely some mistake!

102. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64853 by bamboospitfire on August 22, 2007 at 4:55 am

At least Prothero made the valid point that when the religious start sticking their beaks into everyone else's life, we atheists are duty-bound to tell them that they're talking absolute shite.

103. PZ Myers sued for a negative review in a blog post

Comment #64654 by bamboospitfire on August 21, 2007 at 6:57 am

I doubt PZ will be troubled by Pivar's claim for very long. Stating publicly that you think a book is rubbish doesn't equate to defamation of the author. For a start, I seriously doubt that anything in PZ's blogs is actually untrue.

Perhaps Pivar thinks he has a right to an unquestionable belief that his book is a seminal work of true genius...

104. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64458 by bamboospitfire on August 20, 2007 at 6:03 am

aodh - whilst I think everyone recognises the fact that there are many activities which are only undertaken by religious people, everything on that list is amoral (and arguably immoral). What's more, the actions themselves can be performed by atheists. It is what the religious believe they are doing that makes the difference (such as seeking god's assistance on behalf of a third party). In the absence of god, that is not something that they *can* do either. Being a theist makes you no more capable of communicating with god than any atheist.

105. Eight-million-year-old bug is alive and growing

Comment #62136 by bamboospitfire on August 8, 2007 at 9:52 am

"Whereas the young ice contained a variety of microorganisms, the researchers found only one type of bacterium in the 8-million-year-old sample. It also grew in the laboratory but much more slowly, doubling only every 70 days."

Despite my basic understanding of biology and genetics, this is the best bit, for me. Since we're looking at bacteria, I suppose one would expect to see less variety in the older ice. One would also expect the younger bacteria multiply more quickly since, everything else being equal, 7.9 million years of evolution will inevitably select for genes the organisms of which can replicate faster than others.

106. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61819 by bamboospitfire on August 7, 2007 at 2:35 am

Melanie Phillips, for all the reasons given above, you are a reckless idiot.

107. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60475 by bamboospitfire on August 2, 2007 at 3:00 am

Nice one, Adrian. Unfortunately, I think it's going to take more than Cat Stevens!

Hooper is a deluded maniac. Anyone who thinks that Muslims are willing to accept any criticism of Islam is holidaying on Fantasy Island. In my view, the answer is to keep criticising that disgusting ideology until they get used to it.

108. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60466 by bamboospitfire on August 2, 2007 at 2:34 am

With regard to both the Authorised Version and the open-mindedness of atheists, I think keith has got it spot-on.

109. The Out Campaign

Comment #59887 by bamboospitfire on July 31, 2007 at 3:00 am

The fact that atheists have countless varied topics to discuss is exhibited on the forums of this very site and many like it.

On the T-shirts, having given the matter more thought I am all for it. The effect of wearing one of the T-shirts is simply to identify the individual wearer as an atheist and in that respect I regard it as nothing more than an exercise of freedom of expression. Whether people like the design is irrelevant. You don't have to wear it. If you want to identify yourself as an atheist in some other way, you can. Or you can keep it to yourself. The fact that association with the campaign is entirely voluntary should confirm beyond doubt that this couldn't be further from a "religious" concept.

On the issue of whether increased atheistic openness will result in a theistic reaction, I think the theists have already got the pedal to the metal. What is important is raising the profile of rationality.

110. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59690 by bamboospitfire on July 30, 2007 at 8:12 am

My only problem with it is the size of the logo. Give me the option of a polo shirt with a smaller, embroidered logo towards the top left and I'll buy one.

111. Fewer Muslims 'back suicide bombs'

Comment #58818 by bamboospitfire on July 26, 2007 at 8:25 am

To echo the sentiment expressed by Nails, I'm pleased that there has been an overall improvement, but the fact that anyone thinks suicide bombing (against civilians, no less) is ever justifiable is still absolutely unacceptable.

jonecc - two wrongs don't make a right.

112. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58771 by bamboospitfire on July 26, 2007 at 4:17 am

It seemed to me that Sackur was being deliberately obtuse, adopting a stance which was diametrically opposed to RD just for the sake of causing friction. As a result, he came across as unnecessarily aggressive and very dense. A poor interview overall which took the debate no further forward.

When Sackur mentioned Mao and Stalin I thought RD was going to laugh in his face. This man obviously hasn't read TGD or, if he has, he is either dishonest or demented.

On the labelling issue, labelling a child by reference to its parents' religion is wicked because it simply cannot be true but its consequences are potentially grotesque. Look at Northern Ireland. Look at the Middle East. This is what happens when children are tarred with the same brush as their parents. At best it presupposes and imposes a complete worldview and stifles a child's ability to think for itself. At worst it creates mindless armies of death.

Seeking to equate religious views with behavioural characteristics in this context is just pathetic.

113. Ditching God: Emboldened Atheists Are Finding Purpose In Coming Out Of The Closet

Comment #58042 by bamboospitfire on July 23, 2007 at 5:30 am

"There is a kitchen in the back to cook the occasional mass spaghetti dinner."

Is this the FSM equivalent of the Eucharist? Presumably it is accompanied by a nice Chianti.

114. Is there an Artificial God?

Comment #57368 by bamboospitfire on July 19, 2007 at 3:23 am

Isn't any reference to "early man" going to be archaic by definition?

115. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57365 by bamboospitfire on July 19, 2007 at 3:16 am

Wow. What makes this article so amazing is that Williams actually recognises the flaw in his argument but doesn't realise that his rationale for fixing that flaw applies even more strongly to the militant atheism that he's attacking. "It's wrong to tell people what to think," he says, "but I can still write this article because I'm not saying that you have to agree with me." Right. How about applying that logic to the rest of us atheists? Are any of us putting guns to the heads of the faithful and ordering them to reject their gods, or else? Are we telling people that unless they agree with us they'll burn in hell for all eternity? Are we throwing acid in the faces of women who refuse to cover themselves? Are we ostracising people merely because they disagree with our perspective? Dawkins has said time and again that we are only using words and we are fundamentally entitled to do so. What are people like Williams so scared of?

Furthermore, I doubt many of us need Williams's lesson in persuasion. It is painfully obvious that trying to force someone to abandon their beliefs isn't going to work in a month of Sundays. I always find it incredibly sad when someone suffers from irrational theistic belief but unless it comes up in conversation naturally then I don't make a point of offering my point of view. When such a conversation does arise, however, I'm always sure to approach the subject openly and reasonably because I know that by doing so I will increase the possibility of the believer taking my points to heart and slowly dismantling their faith from within. If that doesn't happen then (as long as the person's faith is not likely to find some more harmful manifestation) so be it.

116. Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World

Comment #56989 by bamboospitfire on July 18, 2007 at 4:12 am

"Creatures living today are just like creatures that lived in the fossil past. Ergo, Mr. Yahya writes, evolution must be impossible."

That is really quite funny. How about all the creatures alive today that *aren't* found in the fossil record? Yahya is plumbing new depths of idiocy.

117. Insurance for Sex Abuse: A policy tailor-made for the Catholic church

Comment #56980 by bamboospitfire on July 18, 2007 at 3:06 am

Although I felt some concern that, without this insurance being in place, some victims of priestly sexual assualt or rape might not be adequately compensated, it seems to me that every diocese which is bankrupted as a result of this issue means one less capable of perpetrating more of these nauseating crimes. Accordingly, I think this sort of insurance should be prohibited because, although it enables victims to be compensated, it perpetuates the culture in which more such victims could be created.

118. Found: the giant lion-eating chimps of the magic forest

Comment #56530 by bamboospitfire on July 16, 2007 at 6:38 am

On the lion-killing point.

"...according to local legend, kill lions..."

So, the killing of lions is just a local legend. The article says that the chimps have "a taste for big cat flesh" based on the discovery of a chimp "feasting on the carcass of a leopard". Whilst this "lends credence to the apes' lion-eating reputation", neither the article nor Mr Hicks ever suggests or seeks to suggest that lion-killing (or even leopard-killing) has been proven.

119. American Taliban on the warpath against evolution

Comment #56525 by bamboospitfire on July 16, 2007 at 5:41 am

"In addition, the New Testament states clearly that Adam and Eve were our original parents and that Noah's Flood was an historical reality."

Given the presence of such fundamental errors on the part of the author at Boulder, does anyone else get the feeling that this might just be a wind-up?

120. Before the New Atheists: Confessions of a Lonely Atheist

Comment #56502 by bamboospitfire on July 16, 2007 at 4:36 am

My copy of The Canon is expected to arrive on Wednesday. If it's as good as this article, I cannot wait.

A couple of points which made me wince:-

"My older sister is rearing her two kids as semiobservant Jews,"

WTF does "semiobservant" mean? Is that like half believing in God? Again, the poverty of religious moderation is exposed.

"My children's religious beliefs are their own," says Florence Haseltine, a scientist and advocate for women's health. "And as long as those beliefs do not require you to kill your parents, they're O.K. with me."

And if those beliefs require your children to kill someone else? Presumably Mrs Haseltine's comments were said in jest, but they are more illuminating that I expect was intended.

121. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #54909 by bamboospitfire on July 9, 2007 at 9:43 am

"Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but ... the attackers are always Muslim. Why? The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

"What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny...

"Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent..."

"The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam."

Er, so in fact it has everything to do with Islam then?

How did these people manage to obtain doctorates? Their article is bunkum.

122. Pakistan Mosque Leader Vows a Fight to the Death

Comment #54906 by bamboospitfire on July 9, 2007 at 9:34 am

The fact that we have on the one hand a group of militant lunatics holed up in a mosque trying to impose their reading of God's law on their fellow contrymen whilst on the other a girl asks her father to pray to the same God to save her from said lunatics just goes to show what a farce this is.

123. For Muslim Extremists, Religion Matters

Comment #54285 by bamboospitfire on July 6, 2007 at 9:13 am

I would prefer apostates to reformers, but that is probably wishful thinking. It took long enough to moderate/reform Christianity and Judaism. I don't see why Islam should be any different, but it is still worrying that the process is likely to be painfully slow if it is to happen at all.

However, good on Manji for highlighting the problems with "moderate" Muslims and the political correctness that surrounds this issue.

124. God not out of the question for most Canadians

Comment #54207 by bamboospitfire on July 6, 2007 at 2:58 am

At least the results suggest a higher degree of rationalism than the US.

I don't know why the analysis looks for correlations between religious beliefs to political views expecting to find them or why surprise is expressed that the results do not match those assumptions. Assuming that Christians are politically conservative is like assuming that atheists are communists. I get the impression that the continuation of this false connection has a lot to do with the US government's apparent reliance on Christianity as a vaccine against communism. Even if it's impossible to be a communist if you hold some other religious belief, that doesn't mean that because you're not a Christian you *must* be a communist. Regrettably, it does seem as though that is the sort of skewed logic is responsible for the way in which many Christians in America view atheists.

125. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53736 by bamboospitfire on July 3, 2007 at 1:25 am

An excellent article which reveals the Bishop's pronouncement for what it was - an outrage. Imagine if the airport terrorist had succeeded in killing a boy and a man - both presumably innocent - as the flooding did. Would the Bishop have said "This is a strong and definite judgement because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation. Of course, the problem with suicide bombing is that it is indiscriminate,"? I don't see why that would be any worse than what he did in fact say.

126. Nato accuses Taliban of using children in suicide missions

Comment #53562 by bamboospitfire on July 2, 2007 at 4:22 am

Utterly abhorrent. It reminds me of the old chestnut that "peace will come only when Palestinians love their children more than they hate Jews." Regrettably, I fear that this analysis fails to take Islam into account. The only "justification" for suicide bombing is religious - the belief that death in the service of Islam guarantees an immediate place in heaven. If the people involved in acts such as those detailed in the article really believe that - and they keep telling us that they do - then the Palestinians' love for their children is irrelevant. What greater good could a mother do for her child than to allow him to obliterate himself in order to massacre the enemies of Islam? I'm afraid that peace will only be possible once Islam (and indeed any belief system which sanctions the killing of non-believers) has been abandoned entirely.

127. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52858 by bamboospitfire on June 28, 2007 at 8:51 am

Nefrubyr - I had assumed that Gordon Brown was joking. Unless the poster is in fact the UK's new PM, in which case that sort of circular clap-trap is to be expected.

128. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52553 by bamboospitfire on June 27, 2007 at 9:09 am

Latest craze? A fad? Hello! This isn't f**king yo-yos!

I see that we are employing the old "God is beyond science so scientists can't comment on God" chestnut, although it's put across so badly that it is barely comprehensible.

Damn straight Father Jonathan has "no interest in confronting" atheists, presumably because he knows he'd get torn a new one in the process. Much better to make bald assertions in an environment which precludes any challenge.

The eye?! Jebus wept. This proves that the man either hasn't read TGD or is monumentally stupid.

The "miracle of pregnancy" surely should change some people's minds - in favour of atheism. So much for intelligent design. I don't need to comment further on the disgraceful bias of at least one of the interviewers.

129. In the name of the Father

Comment #52071 by bamboospitfire on June 26, 2007 at 5:00 am

Crikey. I am embarrassed that my alma mater made this man an honourary professor if that is the best he can come up with.

I found his comment that "even if religion did disappear, which of course it won't, we human beings would still be here" particularly backwards. Surely the point is that if religion does not disappear, we human beings may well do so instead.

130. Call for 'post-9/11' RE teaching

Comment #50360 by bamboospitfire on June 17, 2007 at 7:24 am

Regardless of the intentions of those responsible for this proposed change to the teaching of RE in schools (i.e. whether they are trying to promote religion itself or not), I think the effect is likely to be that more children will recognise religion for what it really is, regardless of whether they have had a religious upbringing. If the idea is to encourage theological debate and consideration of the effects of religion and the interaction between different religions, surely any child with half a brain will put two and two together and come up with four. This approach to teaching the subject will inevitably lead students to ask questions, which is lethal to religion.

I see that there is no national curriculum for RE but the people at Ofsted seem to think that there should be one. Is this not an opportunity for someone like RD to influence its creation and direction? As the most prominent British atheist, I would have thought he should be involved in this. After all, the biggest question for any student of religion is whether there is a god in the first place.

131. Scopes Two

Comment #48538 by bamboospitfire on June 8, 2007 at 10:03 am

"You don't believe in [evolution]? So you're a neanderthal."

Priceless.

I don't think anyone was necessarily trying to make these men appear primitive of mind. They are quite capable of doing that all by themselves.

132. Atheists: Get off of our country!

Comment #44704 by bamboospitfire on May 25, 2007 at 7:40 am

I noticed that sentence as well, CJ22. The Clarion can only be right if being religious is a human's default setting and one has to reject religion to become an atheist. That obviously isn't the case, although I can see why the mistake has been made (religious indoctrination of children remains an accepted and widespread practice) and the fact that the mistake has been made is troubling.

Whilst it is probably true to say that more atheists have actually thought about their position with regard to religion than the religious themselves have, that does not mean that it is any more acceptable to attack atheists based on our lack of faith than it is to attack theists (as opposed to theism) based on their faith.

133. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44572 by bamboospitfire on May 25, 2007 at 4:53 am

Liveliest Crib, comment 44533, said:

"How could even a conceptual mathematical model that keeps the earth at a fixed point in three dimensions get "sunrise" and "sunset" without having the earth rotate? What's the sun doing according to this article? Going around the earth daily?"

Sun comes up, sun goes down...

134. Atheists: Get off of our country!

Comment #44562 by bamboospitfire on May 25, 2007 at 4:39 am

Here's the response that was printed.

"I read with interest and concern Ms. Shannon's letter of Jan. 29. While I do not believe Ms. Shannon's extreme views are in the majority, I hasten to note that atheists are still the least-understood and most-feared minority in the United States today.

"With Protestant Christianity our cultural religion, many Americans are raised, and indeed spend their whole lives, without meeting or getting to know even one atheist. Lack of experiential knowledge breeds fear, which in turn gives rise to resent and hatred. This is the source of Ms. Shannon's sentiment, and that of those like her.

"We Americans can see the ultimate destination of such caustic, unnecessary, and ill-informed beliefs in the Middle East today: the jihad fundamentalist Islam wages on the United States is bred in ignorance of the average American, permitting those who hate us to stereotype us, thus making the murder of innocent Americans far easier.

"In the end, it is ignorance of atheism and atheists that lies at the source of Ms. Shannon's beliefs. I hope she meets an atheist at some time in her life and realizes just how wrong she is: that it is quite possible to befriend, and indeed love, as Christ would have it, someone whose beliefs are different from her own."

Neal Coleman

Muncie, Ind.

135. Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Comment #44520 by bamboospitfire on May 25, 2007 at 3:35 am

"However, for both moral and theological reasons, we should always bear in mind that the Earth does not move. If it moved, we would feel it moving. That's called empiricism, the experience of the senses. Don't take my word for it, or the evidence of your own senses, Copernicans. There's also the Word of the Lord."

And then I stopped reading.

Two words: coriolis effect.

Damn, these people are stupid.

136. Lightning damages Jesus statue

Comment #44492 by bamboospitfire on May 25, 2007 at 1:38 am

Bonzai beat me to it on the Zeus thing. All this idolatry of false gods is clearly winding him up.

Has anyone else voted on the Denver Post poll? ("Do you think there is any religious symbolism in the lightning that struck and be-handed the 22' marble Jesus statue in Golden?") At present, the figures look like this:-

No 52.48%
Not really 4.251%
Maybe 4.604%
Yes, a little 3.526%
Yes 30.52%
I don't know 4.604%

Seems to me that both atheists and Christians are likely to say no, whilst the people saying yes are likely to be non-Christian theists.

Finally, is it just me or does that "white marble" look more like painted concrete? White elephant, more like...

137. Hubble Finds Ring of Dark Matter

Comment #43230 by bamboospitfire on May 21, 2007 at 1:37 am

On the time/distance issue, perhaps the truth is that the collision occurred 1-2 billion years before the scenario that we're currently observing, which would actually make it 6-7 billion years ago given the distance of 5 billion light years. It could just be an ambiguity in the text.

Either way, this is just mind-blowing. The detail in the large image is incredible. Star clusters are one thing, but galaxy clusters like this defy language. I couldn't agree more with NJS's comments.

138. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42304 by bamboospitfire on May 18, 2007 at 3:50 am

I think Wolpert is in danger of tying himself in knots. At several points in the interview he repeats how important evidence is ("I'm terribly sorry, evidence matters") but he seems to think that religion is a good thing from the point of view of natural selection ("In general, religious people are somewhat healthier than people who don't have religious beliefs") which seems to me to be precisely what Wolpert would call a "nice set of ideas", like qi energy fields. Religion makes one better for selection? Ask all the suicide bombers whether religion has improved their chances of passing on their genes. He seems to be talking absolute guff, identified as such by his own tests. He needs to ask whether the benefits which *appear* to be bestowed on the religious are direct benefits of *religion itself* or whether they are benefits which arise from a particular approach to the world/life/philosophy etc which can easily be replicated in an atheistic environment. If they're benefits which come with acceptance of our place in the universe and inner peace, why should that be the preserve of religion? Where is his control?

I also find his dismissal of attempts to deal with questions about religion on a cross-specialisation basis as Dennett (a philosopher moving into biology) and Dawkins (a biologist moving into theology) seek to do ("So for Daniel Dennett -- who's a philosopher, after all -- to get involved with memes, the moment he does that, I just stop reading him") to be rather short-sighted to say the least. Is Wolpert the sort of man who would deny anyone the right to study religion to those who don't believe in God? We need these mixed-discipline studies to enhance our understanding.

Lastly, this comment is just bizarre: "First of all, I don't like any other philosopher. I think philosophers are terribly clever but have absolutely nothing useful to say whatsoever. I avoid philosophy like mad. But David Hume does say such interesting and important things. He's very good on religion, for example. I like him for that." Philosophy is either interesting and important or it ain't, Lewis! Make up your mind!

139. In God, Distrust

Comment #40329 by bamboospitfire on May 14, 2007 at 6:20 am

I like this idea of coining new, unbecoming phrases to apply to religious belief with a view to undermining its authority. I shall be using "god-worship" from now on.

140. Atheism in America

Comment #40321 by bamboospitfire on May 14, 2007 at 5:53 am

It never ceases to amaze me how the small-minded are able to equate atheism with devil-worship... The people responsible for running that school should be ashamed of themselves.

I hope everything turns out well for the family involved. Given Professor Dawkins's involvement in the piece, I assume they are fully aware of his support and that must be worth a lot.

141. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39289 by bamboospitfire on May 10, 2007 at 9:07 am

Roxella's voice has the extraordinary effect of making me contemplate murder and suicide simulataneously, whilst the mental image of Jack Van Impe in longjohns made me faint as well...

What a bunch of balony? My thoughts exactly, Jack.

142. Cataloguing every species on earth

Comment #39273 by bamboospitfire on May 10, 2007 at 8:49 am

Exciting is the word.

I will be particularly interested to see the entry for homo sapiens...

143. God . . . in other words

Comment #39089 by bamboospitfire on May 10, 2007 at 1:03 am

The difference of opinion seems to be summed up in the last three words: "words have power". RD is sophisticated enough to consider a variety of meanings for words while RG seems only capable of adopting one and, if RD can find a specific definition of a word that RG wants to apply to belief in God, she appears keen to hold on tightly and transpose her meaning to RD because he is willing to use the same words (under certain circumstances). I don't think she succeeds - the meanings of words have power, not the words themselves. I would also not be surprised if she is currently undergoing a severe crisis of faith. If so, good for her.

144. Intellectual Diversity or Intellectual Insult?

Comment #39079 by bamboospitfire on May 10, 2007 at 12:18 am

I'm surprised that the people behind this bill refer to their aim as "intellectual diversity" since it implies different levels of intellect to evolutionists and creationists. One might argue that such an implication is well founded, since belief in a doctrine which is unsubstantiated by any evidence and for which there is a rational and almost certainly true alternative suggests a particular feebleness of mind. But I find it hard to believe that such an implication was intended. Unless they think creationism is the intellectual perspective...

145. Atheists go on the political offensive in God-fearing US

Comment #38477 by bamboospitfire on May 8, 2007 at 8:59 am

Regarding comment #38002 by mandrellian, RD called for militant atheism in his TED lecture. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with that.

However, I'm not sure that 1-866-HERETIC was the best choice of number, although I haven't thought of a suitable alternative with sufficient numbers/letters yet (REASON is one short). I think atheism needs to be shown to be *part of* a rational, sensible, moral way of life which has all of the real-world benefits of religion (appreciation, respect, support) without any of the drawbacks (suicide bombers, honour killings, deception, bigotry). If people can be shown that atheism and secularism can make their lives better (by removing their guilt and providing them with the ambition to take responsibility for themselves and make the most of their lives) then they will see sense more readily. Until then, I expect most of them will cling on to the empty promises of eternal salvation because that's pretty much all they have.

146. The torture of the grave Islam and the afterlife

Comment #38471 by bamboospitfire on May 8, 2007 at 8:17 am

Concerning comment #38010 by mbcraig11, since it's so painfully easy to answer the questions posed by Nakir and Munkar you have to wonder what that chump they exhumed had been doing to mess it up...

147. Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Comment #37359 by bamboospitfire on May 4, 2007 at 7:25 am

I'd agree with comment #36885 by ftvt - the only basis on which Sharia courts can be allowed is if they deal with purely civil matters and are purely voluntary.

I acknowledge the possiblity as identified by others that these courts may already be overstepping those boundaries.

148. Science and fiction

Comment #37340 by bamboospitfire on May 4, 2007 at 6:10 am

To my mind there are more important issues to consider than the teaching of creationism when deciding whether or for whom one should vote, but this remains a problem which needs to be stamped out quickly nevertheless. Creationism is not science because there is no evidence for it. End of story.

I'm happy for creationism to be taught in religious studies lessons on a level with other current religious beliefs and ancient religions. However, I look forward to the day when all religion is taught in schools by people who can provide a truly unbiased view of all religions (presumably atheists or agnostics), even going so far as to seek to explain its prevalence through a study of Dawkins memetics and perhaps even combine this with lessons in morality and philosophy. Such an approach would probably be a lot more interesting than the usual method of teaching what each religion is about in isolation. If people really wish to be taught a religion as the truth, they should go to their local Church, Mosque or Synangogue for example. Schools are obviously not the place for such indoctrination.

It also troubles me greatly that children are exposed to religious studies teachers of the kind to which I was subjected at school. The man denied the veracity of the Apollo moon landings because (naturally) one has to go through heaven to get to the moon... My classmates and I used to have serious arguments with him about the existence of God, although he did his cause no favours by being so intractable, since that only served to stir up rebellion in his classes. I am pleased to confirm that he no longer teaches at my old school. The guy was a fundamentalist maniac. However, in different circumstances he could have caused significant damage. Imagine that approach in a school full of children already softened up by their parents' religiosity.

149. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37284 by bamboospitfire on May 4, 2007 at 1:45 am

Comfort and Cameron's suggestion that "atheists don't exist" is risible and should be disposed of in short order by the RRS.

I would be amused if B&K explain to C&C that, if C&C do indeed prove the existence of God as they claim to be able, He will simply disappear in a puff of logic, presumably taking us with Him.

Finally, does Banksy know something we don't? Apologies if the full link doesn't work properly and requires a quick copy and paste job.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23393309-details/Why+Banksy's+fans+are+going+bananas/article.do

150. Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Comment #36749 by bamboospitfire on May 2, 2007 at 6:56 am

I think you're missing the point, genius2687. The only people submitting themselves to Sharia law are Muslims, and that's in addition to the UK law to which they are already inevitably subject (even if they don't like it). The rest of us are not accepting Sharia law or compromising our values just to appease the Muslims.