151. God Is in the Dendrites

Comment #35427 by Ian on April 27, 2007 at 6:02 am

I had trouble reading this article at the beginning, but I'm glad I persevered for two reasons:

Firstly, in conjunction with an article in last week's New Scientist on violent imagery and behaviour, science is beginning to show a direct correllation between brain phsyiology and cognition, which is exactly as most of us have expected - and still fascinating.

The other reason is the superb balance the author has achieved. I think most journalists would have come down on one side - usually the 'mystical' one - or the other, but this guy is obviously a little better than that.

152. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34152 by Ian on April 23, 2007 at 11:22 am

I think the headline should read:

CHRISTMAS COMES EARLY FOR COMICS AS POPE ABOLISHES LIMBO

Of course, Benedict can only say he hopes God will find a place in heaven for all those little babies, so it seems they're still in Limbo to me.

153. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33816 by Ian on April 22, 2007 at 2:10 am

If you follow the link to the professor's blog, you'll find that Dinesh D'Souza is still spouting poison about this and the poor professor is responding to his crass behaviour.

The answer to D'Souza's original question is that atheists are rendered invisible at times like this because they're not so crass to exploit the siuation for publicity.

154. Street Evangelist Saves 300 Souls From Enjoying Park

Comment #33815 by Ian on April 22, 2007 at 1:50 am

What we should do is print this article up as a flyer and hand it to any street preachers we come across. By the time they have had about ten, they might get the point.

Congratulations Brian, on your video response. The fact that these people would invade upon people's grief really shows how sick - and deluded - they are.

155. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33661 by Ian on April 21, 2007 at 12:20 am

I'd like to add another to our list of musketeers: Ludovic Kennedy. I have almost finished reading his All in the Mind: A Farewell to God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludovic_Kennedy

156. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32449 by Ian on April 17, 2007 at 5:17 am

We appear to be dealing with a bumbling fool, for he stumbles upon atheist books and these collisions seem to have convinced him that there are becoming more strident in tone. Personally, I would have to have read them before I could claim such knowledge.

I did read his article and have to say that as well as being superficial, I found it quite strident and patronising.

Another reason to think this man a fool is the oft repeated assertion that without religion we'd have no morality - that without God 'Thall shalt not kill' would be just a suggestion with no power. (As if Christians haven't littered the Earth with the bodies the corpses of non and wrong believers.)

If the best that he can say is that atheists have murdered too, then he's just undermined religion's claim to moral superiority.

This gentleman's best contribution to religion would be silence.

157. Coming out as atheist: Noel Gallagher & Gabriel Byrne

Comment #31818 by Ian on April 14, 2007 at 12:34 pm

I'm sorry, but knowing Noel Gallagher agrees with me on one point, is not going to change my opinion of their 'music'.

The Gallaghers are and always will be The Dull Brothers to me. :)

158. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31496 by Ian on April 13, 2007 at 1:33 am

Mr Empirical,

I am not judging the pope as a person, but as pope. If he wants to be a librarian and have no more influence than a vote like any other citizen, then his membership of the Hitler Youth is irrelevant.

If he were going for head of human resources at British Petrolium, I'd be a little uneasy, but as long as he showed no anti-semitic tendencies and ran his post well, I'd have no huge objections.

However, we are not talking about a librarian, HR guru for BP or even head of Microsoft - we are talking about pope: reincarnation of StPeter and infallible head of hundreds of millions of catholic christians.

Infallible. How come anyone is talking about forgiving an infallible person their youth? Surely an infallible person will have nothing to forgive, so joining the Hitler Youth was a GOOD thing and we adults should be rushing around, herding our children into groups and giving them grenade practice. The new Crystal Nacht will be next Wednesday, okay?

Ridiculous, but that's the point: the situation as it stands really is ridiculous. We have mediocrity at he very apex of the pyramid, where only the excellent belong. Not a vacillating old fool whose poor choice of words has already got some of his own followers murdered.

For the very top of the pyramid, we need our brightest and our best: our most intelligent, most erudite, wisest and those who have shown most integrity. Not someone who cannot even spout rhetoric without glaring logical fallicies and who is a living reminder that the verb to pontificate is derogatory.

Forgive the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker, but not the candidates for the very top positions in organisations representing millions of people. They must be the best.

159. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31429 by Ian on April 12, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Hip Priest:

Ratzinger was a victim of circumstance. Membership in the Hitler Youth was a legal requirement not a choice. There is no evidence that he was a supporter of Nazism and this was hardly a political climate in which he could be a vocal critic.

If Ratzinger were a baker in Hamburg perhaps, but Pope? You sincerely take the position that the leader of millions should not be held up to the very highest scrutiny?

I'm not talking about punishing the man for his past, I'm saying he shouldn't be a world leader. A world leader should have had the integrity and the ingenuity to not be co-opted. He should have recognised the Nazi regime for what it was and resisted it. Oherwise, be a plumber with my blessing, but not head of the world's largest religious organisation.

160. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31425 by Ian on April 12, 2007 at 3:51 pm

An interesting article, as it appears to me to be saying 'hands off' and I like that.

There is a nasty tug of war going on over Einstein's memory; as if it would prove a side right if they could claim he agreed with them. In reality, he seems not to have wanted to be catagorised and I can respect that.

I sympathise too with his stance over the lawfulness of the universe - its intelligibility - but have to remind myself that in science lawful only means regular, not ordained.

161. The BBC Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction 2007

Comment #31421 by Ian on April 12, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Congratulations Prof, this one would be a major coup, but being considered is an achievement in itself.

I know nothing of the competition, so I won't say you deserve it, but you carry my best wishes, always.

(-: Ian :-)

162. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31419 by Ian on April 12, 2007 at 3:01 pm

I find it incredible that anyone is taking the line that we should forgive this pope his membership of the Hitler Youth.

We are talking about the head of the largest religious organisation on Earth. About a man with influence over millions of people.

Surely such a position demands the very best that humanity can produce, so why is anyone saying we should forgive him his mediocrity?

Medoicrity isn't appropriate in the leader of millions of people. The man can't even avoid basic logical falacies and talks from almost total ignorance.

The limits of science will be found by science, they are not the province of fools, even religious ones.

163. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31317 by Ian on April 12, 2007 at 2:31 am

There is only one reason to listen to this old fool: he has influence over so many.

However, even he seemingly cannot string together much when it comes to rationality; as someone else here has pointed out: 'random selection' is an oxymoron.

It seems the religious cannot at the same time represent Darwinism honestly and win. They have to misrepresent, pettifog or impose arbitrary boundries.

Catholics, do you really want to be influenced by a man who chose for himself the name Benedict? This man really thinks he's God's gift to Catholicism and all those cardinals think he's the best their hierachy has to offer. How foolish do people have to get before you abandon their leadership?

164. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31108 by Ian on April 11, 2007 at 3:15 am

I was of this 'demographic' and have been 'going through a phase' for about thirty years.

I think treating the young man with such condescension is inappropriate. He's just taken a momentous step in his life and has had the courage to be open about it.

It's a shame that his mum can't appreciate his candour and that all she can think of is a snitty remark about Christmas presents. Does she really think he's so mercenary?

165. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30280 by Ian on April 7, 2007 at 11:52 am

And yet the Dawkinses and Graylings, the Hitchenses and the Parrises, seem somehow to be missing the point. What they say is dry and unnourishing. I think one reason for this lies in their underlying conception of what it is to be human - they think that the highest quality is to be clever.

I think this has to be one of the starkest examples of intellectual onanism I've ever encountered.

It's also as exemplary case of sour grapes as one could possibly hope to see. After all, it shows how badly the religious are losing this dialogue that they are reduced to churlishness.

In answer: Intellect is the guiding light which helps compassion do good. If you're so ambivalent to the good that you can't be bothered to bend your brain, then the best thing you can do is stick your head back in the sand from which it came.

166. Growing Up in the Universe: 2-Disc DVD Set

Comment #29503 by Ian on April 3, 2007 at 6:48 am

Vadjong:

7. Comment #29184 by Ian :
What exactly are you going to do with your copy if you don't own a TV-set ? ;-)

:-D Hold it up to the window, while rubbing the jack plug from a set of headphones across top. It works quite well...

or I can play them on the same computer I typing this on. ;-)

167. Growing Up in the Universe: 2-Disc DVD Set

Comment #29184 by Ian on April 2, 2007 at 2:36 am

I have just ordered my copy.

I have not seen these excellent lectures since I discarded my TV and video many years ago.

I cannot say how much these lectures helped me establish myself and how much they helped me find my voice.

Thank you for arranging their release and for doing so at such a reasonable price.

Now there's a month's anticipation to endure. ;-)

168. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25155 by Ian on March 10, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Cheshirecat,

I sympathise with your position, as I have friends who are Christian, Moslem and Sikh.

Professor Dawkins' choice of words was not a failure, either of talent or tactic. Had The God Delusion not been so forthright, then it simply would not have had anything like the impact it has had. This is because the religious may be easy to offend, but there is no way you could claim they are considerate - not when it comes to respecting any religious grouping that has not got some sort of weaponry. - Look at the sudden change of attitude to Islam after the fatwa was declared against Salman Rushdie.

Unless they are given a wake up call, the religious will quite happily roll on their merry way - not only discriminating and deriding each other, but us as well.

Like a great many people, I'm very grateful to Professsor Dawkins for sticking his neck out as he has and for taking the ensuing flak - much of which has not merely been unfair, but downright dispicable.

169. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25137 by Ian on March 10, 2007 at 10:14 am

If Richard Dawkins is subtle then I am a Dutchman.

Cheshirecat, I'm sure the only thing stopping you from claiming such an honourable title is the population of Holland. ;-)

For your information, subtlety is not something you are, but something you do. The professor is very good at sublety and rather good at saying it as it is. That's why he's a world renound writer.

170. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24738 by Ian on March 8, 2007 at 9:18 am

Please forgive me Sir Professor Sunshinesthroughyourarse Dawkins (Well, we are supposed to be part of a cult of personality, aren't we?), but I voted for Terry Pratchett as well.

171. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24665 by Ian on March 8, 2007 at 12:55 am

Congratulations to Mr Hitchens and to Matty Two-Tone. One for standing up for Ayann Hirsi Ali and even more importantly, attacking the bogus equivalence between people like Ali and people who would ban free speech - people who have actually murdered people. This equivalence is obnoxious and completely unjust.

Matty's point is well made: that criticising Islam is not the same as racism. I work with a Moslem and he complains about East Europeans 'flooding' into 'our' country, so obviously this man is comfortable in th UK. Unfortunately, his racism is equally evident and I find myself defending Pole's etc, right to come to the UK against people who are after all, immigrants. He seems completely blind to his own hipocrasy.

Islam and Moslems can justly be criticised for their racism and on top of this, Islam - like Christianity - does have many sections of doctrine which are barbaric and are quite willing to use barbarism - like the murder of Theo Van Gogh - to further their goals.

It should be recognised that Europe's enlightenment philosophers achieved something quite extraordinary in seeding modern democracy - a precondition for both racial and sexual liberation, and religious freedom. We abandon this at our peril and should not allow fear of unjust accusations of racism to force us into sympathy with immigrant racists.

It is this recognition of enlightenment values and her courage in speaking up for them that makes Ayaan Hirsi Ali so admirable. Congratulations to her too.

172. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24507 by Ian on March 7, 2007 at 1:21 am

I'm sorry Jenny, but you're just going to have to take the congratulations that are coming to you for your passionate and articulate contribution.

I'm not willing to bend on this, I'm sorry, but you did choose to stick your head above the parapet. You could have chosen to lurk in safety, but you didn't, so here it comes:

Congratulations.

There, that wasn't so bad, was it? :-)

173. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24357 by Ian on March 6, 2007 at 6:36 am

Hello David(The Wee Flea) and thanks for responding to my post. I would like to make a few comments:

"You and I live in a very different mental world, one of the biggest differences being the image of Christians as nice, reasonable people, willing to argue rationally."

See - now you should really read what I have written before you post against things I have not said. I agree completely. There are lots of nasty professing Christians and lots of nice atheists.

I am afraid a single exception does not disqualify a generalisation, especially as part of my point is that one of the things Christians are deluded about is how nice they are.

"Do you have a record of an atheist's offensivness as long as the provenence of 14.1 gives us?"

Yep - go to the original thread on Dawkins letters you will find quite a few offensive remarks - my favourite being 'moronic retard with the intellectual ability of roadkill'! As for Ps 14:1 it too is one of the most misquoted verses in Scripture. It refers not to intellectual capacity but moral. To deny God is considered foolish.

I did not know the internet was that old. I probably confused you by using the word provenance, a term used by art collectors which means: "the place of origin or earliest known history." - OED

The contents of the Bible were finalised by the first council of Nicaea in 325AD, which means that this offensive phrase goes back at least 1680 years: that is a lot of provenence. By comparison harsh words by atheists on the internet cannot possibly be even 30 years old. To put it crudely: you started it.

As for the proper meaning of Psalm 14.1, there is absolutely no evidence for either the moral or intellectual inferiority of atheists. In fact, if you look at the proprtion of of atheists in prison in comparison to the number in the general population, the evidence points in favour of non-believers. Therefore Psalm 14.1 is totally unjustified.

"Christians have NEVER been the kind, thoughtful people THEY say they are, so the representation that this is an open debate is a fiction of yours."

Just a wee bit over the top exaggeration, don't you think? I have met a couple of nice Christians.

Again, one or two exceptions do not disprove a generalisation, especially when it is of a population as large as the Christian one.

"You people are not nice: you are intolerant, ignorant of matters like Natural Selection - where you presume to interfere - and just plain arrogant and patronising in your attitude to anyone who disagrees."

And you think the above statement is not arrogant and patronising? Why do you assume that I am ignorant of natural selection?

Again, a single Christian who has knowledge of Natural Selection does not invalidate a generalisation. In fact several surveys have shown that Christians in the US have a very poor understanding of Natural Selection.

More evidence is supplied by the often repeated question: 'If we evolved from apes, how come there are still apes?'

You seriously believe that anybody who treats this question seriously understands Natural Selection? Yet it is commonly used to cast doubt upon Darwinism in the minds of the 'faithfull'.

"Take for instance the accusation that some atheists are fundamentalists. Exactly how?"

Because they behave in a way which means that they do not accept any contradiction of their position and never allow for the possibility that they might actually be wrong.

And the quintessential example of an atheist fundamentalist given by Christians is Professor Dawkins, whose chapter 4 of The God Delusion is entitled Why There is Almost Certainly No God. Neither that title or the chapter itself precludes the possibility that there may indeed be a god - allowing the for possibility that the professor could be wrong. So even allowing you to play fast and loose with language, the accusation of atheist fundamentalism just doesn't stand.

"Another term I have had foisted upon me is 'angry atheist' and can you wonder when Christians are so crass as to use such a term? Where is 'love thy neighbour as yourself' in this sort of behaviour?"

I'm struggling here to follow the logic. If you are an angry atheist what would be wrong or unloving in saying that you are? I don't get it.

Don't worry, you have already been thrown by the word provenance and proven wrong about the charge of atheist fundamentalist, even when you get to dictate terms. Given this evidence, I have no reason to expect you to follow a chain of logic.

The point is that by taking a patronising attitude to non-christians, you create the anger you complain about. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy and in this instance it's another piece of evidence pointing to poor behaviour by people who claim moral superiority through scripture.

" Where are the atheist suicide bombers?"

Sri Lanka.

Another piece of sloppy thinking: the assumption being the Tamil Tigers are Marxists and all Marxists are atheists, probably based on the famous 'opium of the people' quote. There are in fact significant numbers of Christians who are also Marxists, despite Marx's critique of religion. This invalidates the simple Marxist/atheist equation, as does the simple fact that most atheists - certainly in the West - are simply not left wing at all.

Before I started this response, I did a little research: Tamils tend to be Hindu.

" Like nigger, atheist is a derogatory term invented by people who wished to oppress a whole group of people. In this case, invented by believers who wanted to eradicate those who aren't convinced by doctrine."

Actually I think you should check your history. Atheist is a term which simply means 'no God'. It was not invented to oppress people.

Another confusion. I was not referring to the word's meaning, but it's history. This from Wikipedia:

"Originally simply used as a slur for "godlessness", atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe,..."

."For decades now the religious have likened people like me to Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin, solely on the similarity of a single belief. Except that Hitler was a Christian, so you zealots can't even get your facts straight."

Have a wee look at my letters and you will see the clear evidence that Hitler was not a Christian and that he in fact expounded very similar beliefs to many atheists. Which is not the same as saying that all atheists are like Hitler.

From http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/murphy_19_2.html:

"Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religio-political institution as an infant in Austria. He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church."

And Mein Kampf: "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."

Whether or not Hitler was the sort of Christian you'd approve of or not David, is irrelevent. He was clearly not atheist and so the claim that he was is a slander plain and simple. Could you Christians stop it please?

And so we come to the crux: While Christians agree among themselves about how nice they are, most of them have no scruples against villifying non-christians and so justifying non-christian's claim that Christians simply aren't very nice people, because you're not; not to people you don't approve of. As if goodness needs to be rationed or coralled, as if generosity is choosy about who it favours.

Christians are not the only people who suffer from this delusion; it's common to nearly all religious groupings and so we have the root cause of much of the conflict in this world. What's more, this narrow-mindedness even applies to different types of believer within the same 'faith', as evidenced in Northern Ireland between Protestant and Catholic, and much of the Islamic world, between Shiite and Sunni.

The whole use of the word faith itself is a cynical rethorical ploy to imply that non-believers are not trustworthy, despite the fact that divorce rates among atheists are lower than in fundamentalist Christian denominations and the fact that atheists are a much smaller proportion of the prison population than they are of the population as a whole. This means that not only is the claim that atheists are untrustworthy unjustified, it seems to be misleading.

So when are Christians going to stop these slanders?

174. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24196 by Ian on March 5, 2007 at 8:09 am

Hello David(The Wee Flea),

You and I live in a very different mental world, one of the biggest differences being the image of Christians as nice, reasonable people, willing to argue rationally.

In my experiance, this is a total fantasy. If I had a pound for evey time I've had to read Psalms 14.1, I would be able to give up work and write my own contribution to this 'debate'. What exactly is calling someone a fool, if not abuse? Do you have a record of an atheist's offensivness as long as the provenence of 14.1 gives us?

Christians have NEVER been the kind, thoughtful people THEY say they are, so the representation that this is an open debate is a fiction of yours. Look around you at how the religious behave and take the criticism. You people are not nice: you are intolerant, ignorant of matters like Natural Selection - where you presume to interfere - and just plain arrogant and patronising in your attitude to anyone who disagrees.

Take for instance the accusation that some atheists are fundamentalists. Exactly how? There is no body of doctrine for atheists for to sift through and decide that some parts are more important than others, so the term atheist fundamentalist is a genuine oxymoron - not in a metaphorical sense, but a literal one. Yet the religious still propagate this lie.

Do you think acting in such blatant bad faith is justified?

Another term I have had foisted upon me is 'angry atheist' and can you wonder when Christians are so crass as to use such a term? Where is 'love thy neighbour as yourself' in this sort of behaviour?

You may say that atheists are just as bad and some are, but we are not united by a body of scripture which is supposed to govern our behaviour. An atheist's bad behaviour is just a personal failure, Christians' poor behaviour seems to be endemic and quite shameless.

Let's return to the term atheist fundamentalist. You religious zealots seriously expect to take the position that it is right to label civilised if critical people the same way as people who have deliberately murdered? Where is the atheist fatwa against you and Alistair McGrath? Where are the atheist suicide bombers? There are neither of these things, because we atheists are too civilised. Be told: drawing an equivelance between us and religious zealots is disgusting, as well as just plain false. You people have lost your sense of proportion.

And yet, you religious people have the audacity to act like the injured party, just because some people who don't believe the same as you do, point out that some of your beliefs are irrational.

For centuries you religious people have vilified atheists, even going to the point of summary execution. Like nigger, atheist is a derogatory term invented by people who wished to oppress a whole group of people. In this case, invented by believers who wanted to eradicate those who aren't convinced by doctrine.

For decades now the religious have likened people like me to Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin, solely on the similarity of a single belief. Except that Hitler was a Christian, so you zealots can't even get your facts straight.

The religious have never shown due respect, even to each other, so please don't whine when you face criticism, because when it comes to bad faith, you have been handing it out in spades.

175. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #24012 by Ian on March 4, 2007 at 6:50 am

...there's no way you could prove that the universe was not created, say, five minutes ago....

I am currently reading Hume's Dialogues on Natural Religion and so would like to repeat Hume's answer to anyone who would entertain such extreme scepticism: that William Lane Craig is welcome to leave all rooms he finds himself in by the window and not the door...

...should be good from 13 floors up.

Actually, I have no problem with this man's extreme scepticism. After all there is a thing called the many clocks problem, which postulates that what appears to be cause and effect is an illusion.

When a billiard ball strikes another, the second ball does not move because there has been a transfer of momentum, but because it was always going to move at that moment; just as all clocks in a house will strike the hour simlutaneously. Clocks are independent mechanisms, no one believes that clocks exchange particles to maintain their synchronicity; so why should billiard balls have to swap momentum? Have any of you ever seen a momentum?

You cannot prove the Many Clocks Problem wrong, but that is no reason to believe it, because it does not explain why the ball moved. On the other hand, the transfer of momentum idea explains why the ball moved then and not before, and also accounts for the ball's speed and direction.

Similarly, you cannot prove that the universe was not created by a god, but the god hypothesis cannot explain why the universe is as it is. If the world were nothing but clouds hanging in a blue sky, the god hypothesis would be just as valid.

The Big Bang hypothesis on the other hand explains why all the other galaxies in the sky are receeding from us at a rate proportional to their distance. It would not work in a world of nothing but blue sky. That is why it is more rational to favour the Big Bang hypothesis, because it tells us more about the world as we find it.

You do not have to disprove the God hypothesis to discount it, because it explains nothing and so is not worth the runtime.

176. Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Comment #23653 by Ian on March 2, 2007 at 12:52 am

"You can use scripture to justify anything you're looking for," Judd said.

I think that is just about proof positive that scripture is not devine. After all, the opposite claim is to say that an omniscient god cannot even - or perhaps, chose not to - make things clear.

As for the results of the research: as has already been pointed out, this is really rather obvious. Why should violence in scripture be any different to violence on screen?

Except that at the end of Reservior Dogs all the gun-toting thieves are dead. In the Bible those murdering, raping and thieving Isrealites get to live in the promised land.

177. Faith

Comment #23224 by Ian on February 27, 2007 at 2:29 am

Thanks to Russell and Stewart for their comments about my post.

In my view, by equating Professor Dawkins with the 9/11 or 7/7 murderers, they are - by implication - saying he is worse than the Yorkshire Ripper. After all, Peter Sutcliffe only killed 13(!?!).

See what happens when you don't stop and think before you flap your jaw? Before you allow your intolerance to feed a spurious sense of grievance and unbalance you?

I reiterate my earlier point: There never was such a thing as religious tolerance, only denial of inherent barbarity. The religious never were mature enough to perform real tolerance. They don't have the integrity to allow for real introspection, which is why they fear criticism: They fear that something really nasty will be uncovered...

...and they call themselves spiritual?

178. Faith

Comment #23217 by Ian on February 27, 2007 at 1:12 am

Ridelo:

"Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation."

From http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

Thanks for making me look it up. :-)

179. Faith

Comment #23165 by Ian on February 26, 2007 at 3:21 pm

It is a pity that religious people, faced with criticism, could not have said to themselves: 'Could this be true?' A pity that people who wax so lyrical about spirituality, should care so little for the introspection which would facilitate self knowledge and spiritual growth.

Unfortunately, it may be a pity, but it is entirely consistent with past behaviour for the religious to become defensive in the face of critique and there is a reason for it: Religious tolerance is a myth and always has been.

After all, what is not being open to critique, if not intolerant? What is it to want to deny gays and women equality, if not intolerance? What is it to want to deny children a proper science education, if not intolerant?

And now here is another really telling peice of intolerance:

I have followed professor Dawkins as a noteworthy character for about twenty years: reading his books, reading interviews and reviews, and never in that time has he threatened anybody with violence, or said that anybody should be shunned or imprisoned for any act which was not actually illegal under British law. Never, in all that time, has he tried to outlaw any form of religious worship or indoctrination.

Yet here we are with the professor being equated with people who conspired to fly aircraft full of passengers into buildings full of workers, killing nearly 3000 people in a day.

What clearer sign of intolerance can there be, than when supposedly rational people equate a peaceful if forthright man with fanatics who deliberately murder 3000 people?

What clearer sign of the total failure of religious people's sense of proportion, than to equate people who have been openly critical, with people who have been openly murderous?

Where is the atheist equivalent of the destruction of the Bamiyan statues? Where is the athiest fatwa against Alistair MacGrath? Where are the people, like Ayaan Hirsi, who live in fear of Atheist death squads?

There are none of these things, because atheists are too civilised. This is why the equation of Professor Dawkins with religious fundamentalists is complelely and utterly unjust. It is a disgrace of so-called 'people of faith' and a sign of their complete failure of tolerance.

There can be no clearer sign of the failure of faith, than to slander and villify people the way 'people of faith' have chosen to attack Professor Dawkins - someone who has done no harm to anyone.

The religious need to wake up to this demon in thier hearts and face it down, because it is they who will slaughter innocents, just as they always have. It is they who will face the shame that their barbarity will inevitably bring upon them.

180. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20005 by Ian on January 31, 2007 at 3:45 am

Well this was a typical biased piece of journalism, though at least they didn't try and hide it.

Btw, I renounce the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Onward and upward! :-)

181. No exemption from gay rights law

Comment #19813 by Ian on January 30, 2007 at 3:44 am

I'm very encouraged by this outcome, not just for this instance, but for the general message: Everyone must live according to the law.

If the decision had gone the other way, then what exceptions would other religious groups have demanded? This way everyone knows where they stand, including the authorities who may have to prosecute those who won't comply.

I think a little credit for this goes to Professor Dawkins. By speaking out himself, he helped create a climate where religious privilege is harder to tolerate - you only need to read the BBC forum to see that the change in tenor is country - perhaps even world - wide.

182. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19672 by Ian on January 29, 2007 at 7:40 am

I know it is sarcastic, but when Kasich climed many people give up their lives for religion, I immediately thought: "Yeah, like on 9/11."

Congratulations to Brian Flemming. Keep banging that drum!

183. CNN Sylvia Browne Fraud

Comment #19545 by Ian on January 28, 2007 at 7:09 am

I agree with you Katana, except for one thing: It isn't unfortunate that these parents are desperate enough to listen, it's perfectly natural and that's why we all have a moral duty to protect them from con artists and charlatans.

That moral duty extends to any agent, including the media companys, so they must shoulder some of the responsibility for giving these 'psychics' air time.

What are Julia Brown, the producers of The Montel Williams Show and the TV companies who run the show going to give in recompense to these couples for thier grief and heartache?

Nothing of course: they will just take the money from the advertising revenue. That is how they benefit from the distress they cause and that is why they disgust me as well.

184. She told them the boy was dead

Comment #19430 by Ian on January 27, 2007 at 6:34 am

What stuck me as most shameful about this debacle is her reation. Not: 'I'm sorry for all the heartache I've caused.', but: 'I never said I was God.'

What a shameless, disgusting person. What a narcissistic disgraceful excuse for humanity. Never mind that she's a fraud, she's a parasite of the first order.

185. Ruth Kelly, her hard-line church and a devout PM wrestling with his conscience

Comment #18483 by Ian on January 21, 2007 at 7:07 am

I'm fully in favour of the Catholic Church closing down all their adoption agencies. After all, they have already proven themselves not up to caring for children by their handing of the peadophilia issue.

More importantly, same sex couples are not promoting homosexuality. They are caring for children and giving them a stable home. As pointed out in the article, same sex couples tend to be more willing to take difficult cases and so the Catholic Church is also discriminating against difficult children.

No, we can easily find the extra money for local authority adoption agencies and so don't have to tolerate Catholic bigotry.

186. Deliver us from the god delusion that imperils our humanity

Comment #18243 by Ian on January 19, 2007 at 5:35 am

Sane1 posted:

"Anyhow, please write us an excellent book on the dangers of capitalist greed. I'll read it."

Such a book already exists, it's called Das Kapital and you can listen to a programme about it here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20050714.shtml

187. Radical cleric sparks fury in Australia

Comment #18239 by Ian on January 19, 2007 at 5:12 am

Reading these comments and knowing what has happened here in the UK, I am coming to agree with people who blame 'moderates' for the growth of these fanatics.

By failing to condemn these fanatics in the strongest possible terms, these moderates allow the fiction that Moslems stand as a martyred 'race' against the rest of us and are creating a sense of paranoia among the Islamic community.

The truth is that there should be no Islamic community; Moslems should be integrating with the rest of us and learning less narrow-minded ways of thinking.

Instead, Moslems are allowed to think they are purer than the rest of us and that learning other philosophies and faith traditions is contamination.

The solution as usual is learning. Learning about all the theories and beliefs in the world: for, once these people have a standard for comparison, they'll see there's nothing special about their own beliefs.

I think there should be compulsory comparitive religion.

188. You come up here and say that, Dawkins!

Comment #17332 by Ian on January 13, 2007 at 12:58 am

'God's bald. You would have thought he'd give himself more hair. :D'

No, this is proof positive that balding is devine. Get your razors out guys and gals.

189. Richard Dawkins' Report Card

Comment #17133 by Ian on January 11, 2007 at 4:18 am

Thanks professor, for clearing up the confusion. Like Will in Aus, I couldn't see the point of this if it were a spoof.

Just so you don't feel picked on, here is the report from my French teacher, from when I was about twelve:

"Ian's work has been less good recently, his writing is still poor, and he takes a long time to organize himself and start work in class."

"However, when he is present regularlarly(sic :-) he keeps pace with the class quite well."

"His exam mark is reasonably good, but I expect him to do better." 43%

My French never did get any better.

190. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #16049 by Ian on January 4, 2007 at 9:23 am

"Is there anything like a nuclear attack that isn't actually a nuclear attack?"

An unclear one? :-)

191. Letter From America: Atheists throw down the gauntlet

Comment #15969 by Ian on January 4, 2007 at 2:43 am

I hope this reporter doesn't consider himself an ace political analyst. Apart from missing Christian violence and power fantasies, he fails to realise that the rise of the atheist voice marks a sea-change in American politics and politics across the globe.

Up to now, religion has dominated political discourse by waging a cynical hate campaign against the unbeliever and those who have found the claims of religion absurd have had to accept political disenfranchisement.

The rise of the atheist voice is marking theists' cards: that disenfranchisement is coming to a close. The politician who sees the sales of The God Delusion now knows that there are millions of people who agree and are willing to put their money where their mouths are. The age of religious despotism is coming to a close.

Our ace political analyst also misses the distinction between activism and militantism. No atheist has ever threatened violence against the religious, or even that religious right of worship be truncated.

There are no training camps for atheist the equivelent of Brown Shirts. We have only opened up avenues where the religious might be criticised and if that criticism has beeen harsh, it is only because the religious have had it all their own barbaric way for far too long.

Rationalism may not deliver a political paradise, but we would have to be astoundingly incompetent to do as badly as the religious. The secular Clinton helped bring peace to Northern Ireland, the Christian Bush has wasted thousands upon thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. How stark does the difference have to be before journalists see it as it is?

192. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #15956 by Ian on January 4, 2007 at 1:46 am

I'm reminded of something T.H.Huxley said about clairvoyants:

"If it were true that our poor souls, instead of retiring into their rest after the weary fight of this world, were to be at the beck and call of every tobacco-squirting 'loafer' who chose to constitue himself a medium, would not those of us who have any self-respect sooner become dogs, and perish with our bodies?"

If this god is so wonderful, why does He speak through narrow-minded, cynical fools?

193. Do galaxies follow Darwinian evolution?

Comment #15783 by Ian on January 3, 2007 at 12:32 am

I'd like to agree with people who have criticised this report. This analogy is deeply misleading, as is labeling pre-galactic material genetic.

Working this analogy backwards would mean that a portion of everything a mother ate during gestation would count as genetic material affecting the growth of the foetus, whereas a portion of the same material would just be nutrient helping the mother.

Genetic has a specific definition, as does Darwinian and for the sake of clarity, these meanings should not be allowed to become nebulous.

194. William Crawley, BBC Belfast, names Richard Dawkins as Person of the Year 2006

Comment #15661 by Ian on January 1, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Congratulations Professor Dawkins.

I knew you were special about twenty years ago when I first read this:

"They (leaders who forbid contraception) express a preference for 'natural' methods of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation." - The Selfish Gene, Chapter 7

I'm glad the rest of the country has caught up! :-)

195. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2619 by Ian on October 22, 2006 at 7:18 am

Brian, in reference to the N. Irish conflict, you said --

"Religion is the gloss on this, not the cause."

But religion does play a starring role in the N. Irish situation. Yes, politics is mixed in there and it is very difficult to disentangle religious from political influences in this long and divisive tribal struggle. This is particularly the case when defenders of one or other religious use politics as their vehicle, and politicians use religion as their vehicle. It is complex. But religious rivalry is deeply embedded and has contributed to the deep and abiding distrust and suspicion shown on both sides. Religion is not just a gloss. It is not just something that accompanies the political rivalries either. In this as in other cases, the religious hatreds strongly intensify and indeed underwrite to a large extent the political divisions. The reason that the tribes of the North are so bitterly opposed politically is because relgious belief has separated them at a very basic level ever since the post reformation religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. Northern Ireland is a by product of these religious wars. The British government encouraged Protestants to settle in the North and to take land from the native Catholics. This political move came in the midst of an era of religious wars. Even though this can be seen as a political move though, it was a case in which politicians used the fervour of religion to further their cause. In so doing they sewed the seeds of hundreds of years of religious fueled hatred.