151. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94097 by Jack Rawlinson on December 4, 2007 at 6:52 pm

I wish I was a nurse. I'd turn the beds to face the nearest pork butchers.

Idiots.

152. Evolution and Texas

Comment #94093 by Jack Rawlinson on December 4, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Damn. I just completely accidentally flagged the last post as offensive. My finger slipped! Is there a way to take it back? Sorry notsobad!

153. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94088 by Jack Rawlinson on December 4, 2007 at 6:31 pm

ANTI-SEMITE!

Sorry, just thought I'd anticipate the empty-headed moron response. :-)

154. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #93137 by Jack Rawlinson on December 2, 2007 at 9:50 am

On curiosity: there's absolutely nothing wrong with being curious. I'm all for it. I'm that way inclined myself. The reason I (and I suspect, others) are saying this person might have a little too much time on his hands is as a comment on what he chose to be curious about. Again - the actual value of the bit pattern was completely irrelevant to the point RD was using it to make. What would this person have said had he discovered that RD had just made up the codes? What would it have mattered? Not a jot. This is what's known as idle curiosity and yes, that can be distracting, but usually only for the person experiencing it. So I find the idea that this guy thinks it worth posting about... well, sort of geeky, to put it politely. Hence the "get a life" comment. No biggie, though. Just an observation. I should probably get a life. :-)

155. Double-checking Dawkins

Comment #92954 by Jack Rawlinson on December 1, 2007 at 8:19 pm

What Zaphod said. It wouldn't have made the slightest difference to RD's point had the bit pattern been made up.

This is cute, in a geeky sort of way, but I have to say that the words "Get", "A", and "Life" spring to mind.

156. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92452 by Jack Rawlinson on November 30, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Joly Bloger: well, I won't lose any respect for Islam over this. You know, since I didn't have any in the first place.

157. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92051 by Jack Rawlinson on November 29, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Pat just keeps getting better and better. This is totally where I come from.

158. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91215 by Jack Rawlinson on November 27, 2007 at 4:21 pm

eric711: Please pay attention. As I explained in my last post, I was responding to queen5102's suggestion that I was angry about Sam's AAI speech:

"I also attended Sam's AAI speech and there was nothing he said to get angry about."

My comments about being pissed off did not pertain to that. They pertained to the comment which is the subject of this thread. Clear?

You refer to Sam's remark as a "silly joke". Yes, it was. What you do not do is show any sign of having understood my explanations of why that silly joke pisses me off. Again: have you been following the reactions to Dawkins, Hitch's, and other "New Atheists" words over the last eighteen months or so? Have you been reading the Terry Eagletons, the Alistair McGraths, the Theo Hobsons, the Madeleine Buntings and their ilk? Has it entirely escaped your notice how ravenously eager these people have been to misrepresent atheist arguments, to take atheist ideas and statements out of context, to outright lie about what atheists say?

"Silly jokes" such as this one of Sam's are gifts to such people. You get the joke. So do I. So do all of us here. Maybe many of them get it too. But they also get an opportunity. They get something they can turn around and use against us. And that annoys me, and I think it's a tactical error. I really don't know why this is hard to understand.

159. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91118 by Jack Rawlinson on November 27, 2007 at 9:39 am

queen5102 writes:

"Jack, please stop with the Sam bashing. He was clearly saying that he thinks atheists are more moral than Christians"

That may have been his intent, but it was far from clear, in my view. His actual words were, "[Rick] may yet convince me that Christians are more moral and socially engaged than atheists"

Yes, that was probably intended as tongue-in-cheek irony, but do you seriously imagine that there won't be plenty of Christians and Christian apologists out there who will choose to take it literally? You have been staying abreast of the shocking degree to which these people have eagerly been taking quotes and ideas from Richard and Hitch wildly out of context, I assume? Quotes far, far less open to such abuse than this one of Sam's?

The danger with "jokes" such as these is that it is so very, very easy to have them twisted and wilfully abused; to simply choose to take them literally and overlook the humour. I find it ironic that one of Sam's central points at the AAI speech was precisely the danger of having our statements and words misinterpreted or dismissed. Sam thinks this danger is increased by simply calling ourselves atheists: I do not think it unreasonable to be concerned that the danger is also increased by having a prominent atheist suggest - even in jest - that Christians might be more generous than atheists.

I also attended Sam's AAI speech and there was nothing he said to get angry about.

His speech didn't make me angry; I simply disagreed strongly with his central point and I think I made that clear elsewhere. I actually told him afterwards that I appreciated he was trying to challenge our thinking. It is only this latest (in my view) tactical blunder that has started to actually annoy me. As I say, from someone who claims to be concerned about atheists shooting ourselves in the feet, he's being a bit careless, to say the least.

He does not deny that he is an atheist, but wishes there was no need to be identified as such

And on that I agree with him, but he went further than that: he outright claimed that right now we should not be calling ourselves atheists. He suggested that we should "go under the radar" as of now. If you were at the speech, you know this.

eric711: I don't think what I've said here deserves to be called "nutty". You may disagree with me but if you're going to question my sanity I'd appreciate it if you'd back it the hell up, okay? Unless, of course, it's merely a flame war you're after, in which case, carry on.

160. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90932 by Jack Rawlinson on November 26, 2007 at 5:42 pm

Okay, I've been out of this thread for a while so apologies if this has been linked already but this is a lovely debunking of Davies' central position here using only elementary logic.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/11/physicists_on_science.php

161. 2006 Charles Simonyi Lecture: 'Can the Internet Save The Enlightenment?'

Comment #90928 by Jack Rawlinson on November 26, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Harry Kroto has long been one of my heroes. I look forward to listening to this, although sadly I won't have time until tomorrow night...

162. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90927 by Jack Rawlinson on November 26, 2007 at 5:09 pm

In fairness, folks, I think Sam was joking, and there is a certain layer of irony there.

Sam is smart enough to realise that "jokes" like this will be leapt upon by our enemies and turned right back in our faces. Yet he still makes them. He is smart enough to realise that many of our enemies are way, way beyond being able to get irony. Yet he still makes "ironic" comments.

No. I seriously wonder about his judgement and his motives with both this gaffe and his ill-justified attack on the use of the term "atheist" at the AAI convention. In both cases he has undermined our solidarity and given the religious something to use against us: "Oh look, they can't even agree what to call themselves. Oh look, even one of their main guys worries that the term "atheist" might be divisive. Oh look, now he's saying that maybe Christians are more generous and moral than atheists"

I had problems with the last part of "The End of Faith" when I first read it. I had major problems with Harris's AAI speech. He's now starting to actually piss me off. Which is sad.

163. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90815 by Jack Rawlinson on November 26, 2007 at 12:40 pm

"Rick," Harris jokes, "may yet convince me that Christians are more moral and socially engaged than atheists."

wednesdayguevara: it pisses me off too. It's almost as if Harris gets off on annoying his fellow atheists. And it is very disrespectful to the many atheists who are helping his fund here.

There's something up with that guy's psychology, I swear...

164. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90604 by Jack Rawlinson on November 25, 2007 at 6:20 pm

BMMcArdle: thanks for that. I was thinking about linking PZ Myers response, which broadly covers most (not all) of my objections to Davies' tired old nonsense, but I see it's included on your link.

As I implied in my initial response on this thread, after many years of doing so I now lack the energy to keep debunking Davies's transparently needy and weak-minded attempts to dignify religious belief. I'm glad others still have that energy.

165. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90555 by Jack Rawlinson on November 25, 2007 at 1:51 pm

steve99 writes:

Do you know any detail of Davies' thoughts and how they fit with the mutable law ideas of John Wheeler?

Yes. Please don't assume I'm being knee-jerk in my dismissiveness.

166. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90473 by Jack Rawlinson on November 25, 2007 at 8:52 am

Argh, not Davies again. I don't need to read more than the title to know what this piece will say.

167. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90472 by Jack Rawlinson on November 25, 2007 at 8:47 am

Peacebeuponme: yeah, it's that Chris Morris and I was saddened by this incoherent rant too. I commented on the Guardian page to that effect (my handle is "Jackanapes" there). Depressing.

168. Holy communion

Comment #90250 by Jack Rawlinson on November 23, 2007 at 7:18 pm

The only problem I have with that cartoon is the sandals. Why are the armies of atheism wearing sandals? Rowson (who I generally love, by the way) seems to be implying we're all sort of beardy/sandal-wearing liberals or something. Outrageous!

Seriously: I think, as others here have observed, there may be a bit of a UK/US disconnect going on here. Brits are used to this sort of cartoon lampooning style and we have a long tradition of it. It's a tradition I enjoy, even if I'm on the receiving end of it. That's probably because we all like being beaten, too. :-)

169. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89420 by Jack Rawlinson on November 20, 2007 at 4:24 pm

I swear Hitch is best when he's had a few. Thankfully, that's often. :-)

170. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88558 by Jack Rawlinson on November 17, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Just watched this. What a joy to see those mendacious, devious creeps take such a solid kicking. But the warning at the end is important: there are lots of them out there and they won't go away. So it's vital we stay prepared and ready to take on whatever variation of their pet superstition they come crawling back with next time. This is a war that will last until the innate spiritual cowardice of the religiously-inclined dies out. And that will take a long, long time. Warn your children.

171. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88343 by Jack Rawlinson on November 16, 2007 at 5:20 am

"clearthinker"? Comedy gold.

And no, I'm not going to waste any time actually responding to your witless post.

172. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88274 by Jack Rawlinson on November 15, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Stein? You're an actor, right?

Show us the science or shut up, you self-aggrandizing gobshite tit.

173. Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...and the AAI conference doesn't make atheism a movement, either.

Comment #88255 by Jack Rawlinson on November 15, 2007 at 3:43 pm

See, one of the reasons I was so irritated by Sam Harris's speech was I just knew it would get used like this. Ah well, I don't want to re-hash that argument again.

Good summation and dispatching of the latest round of bullshit from one of the desperate defenders of the faith.

174. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #86152 by Jack Rawlinson on November 8, 2007 at 12:25 pm

I am becoming increasingly irked by a certain group of tiresome, snotty contributors here who cannot restrain themselves from criticising every damned thing the RRS does and from sneering at every damned thing they write. This was NOT a badly written piece at all. Janus et al: yes, you don't like the RRS's style. We get it already. Plenty of other people do. And even more, like me, appreciate it even if it does not match our own. Can you please lay the hell off for a while and comment on the content of what they say rather than the way they say it? Or preferably, find the restraint to keep your snide remarks to yourself for once and maybe direct your energies to the rather more challenging task of posting or doing something constructive of your own for the cause?

Kelly, Sapient et al: don't let these pompous nose-wrinklers bug you, and if I were you I wouldn't even waste your time responding to them at any length. That time would be far better spent keeping up the good work.

175. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83927 by Jack Rawlinson on October 31, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Williams? PWN3D!

176. AAI 07

Comment #82753 by Jack Rawlinson on October 27, 2007 at 1:20 pm

I agree that when we're promoting atheism, left/right political alignment is irrelevant. There isn't the slightest reason why you can't be an atheist and a liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian or anarchist. Like other Brits on this board though (and like Chapman) I find myself utterly baffled by the number of Americans who seem to recoil from the word "socialism" with.. well, the same sort of instinctive (and to my mind, equally ill-considered), knee-jerk revulsion that certain other people recoil from the word "atheism".

The quantity of thoughtless selfishness contained in an appalling, uncivilised statement like, "Pay your own damned way. If you can't afford it - you can't have it." leaves me breathless. Quite apart from the jaw-dropping callousness of such remarks, does this person seriously imagine that every single thing he has access to and enjoys in his life are entirely funded by himself alone?

It's like a total blind spot with some Americans: this utter inability to imagine a single circumstance in which a perfectly decent person might fall into a position where they simply cannot afford health care - especially at the astronomical cost it comes in America. One can only surmise such people are either heartless, ignorant or severely lacking in life experience. Horrible.

177. AAI 07

Comment #82574 by Jack Rawlinson on October 26, 2007 at 7:06 pm

I loved Chapman's talk. And I loved the way he hit the bar afterwards and stayed until they threw us out. True Brit!

178. What's Good About Religion?

Comment #82554 by Jack Rawlinson on October 26, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Oh, and I'd add that I particularly appreciate Condell's willingness to go after Islam. That's something I do share with him. We're often accused of only "picking on" Christianity because it's safe. Not Condell. He goes right for the arse-waving Mohammedan morons too. I think that's necessary. When people try to intimidate you into silence, shout louder.

179. What's Good About Religion?

Comment #82551 by Jack Rawlinson on October 26, 2007 at 5:15 pm

I like Condell a lot. I have a few minor quibbles with what he says but they're nothing compared to how much I support and agree with his general approach. Kinda like the RRS: they don't always take the same line of attack I would, but I'm canny enough to realise that's probably a good thing. Condell, like the RRS, will reach people my tactics might miss. And vice versa. I like the fact that we atheists are coming at the enemy from all sorts of different angles.

180. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82549 by Jack Rawlinson on October 26, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Ah, the "This is not my god" line coupled with the "They're fundamentalists" bullshit.

How very tiresome.

181. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #82340 by Jack Rawlinson on October 26, 2007 at 5:25 am

It takes a big person - or a good scientist - to admit they were wrong. Respect to Dr. J.

This is one of many reasons why science is better than religion for getting at truth: if a scientific idea doesn't stand up, it falls. Sooner or later. And then we know more than we used to.

182. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #82106 by Jack Rawlinson on October 25, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Ophelia, you made a typo which is actually a great rebuttal to the "You can't say God doesn't exist if you don't know theology" line.

You said:

"You can't just say God exists without dealing with all those sophisticated arguments, you know."

And that's the rebuttal. If we can't say God *doesn't* exist without knowing the complex theological arguments in his favour, how come believers can say God *does* exist without being subject to the same restriction?

183. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #82103 by Jack Rawlinson on October 25, 2007 at 5:12 pm

"I don't believe in fairies but I don't go writing a book about it!"

Of course you don't. Because not many people believe in fairies, and those who do don't tend to go around oppressing women and homosexuals, trying to impose their beliefs on others, trying to infiltrate school lessons and considering that their belief should be especially favoured and protected by law. Etcetera.

D'Souza's arguments are those of an absolute goddamned simpleton.

184. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #82088 by Jack Rawlinson on October 25, 2007 at 4:53 pm

The RRS-bashing has been done elsewhere, yes? Can we refrain from wrecking this thread with it too, please?

185. A Rational Universe Implies a Creator, Science points towards Theism

Comment #81364 by Jack Rawlinson on October 24, 2007 at 4:16 pm

"...a Universe that follows "laws" implies a "law giver", and our ability to comprehend those laws is further evidence of the divine purpose of the Universe."

This old chestnut is a classic example of the fallacy of equivocation, in which different meanings of the same word are conflated in order to confuse. The word in this case is "law". The equivocation should be blown apart as follows:

The first use of "laws" in this statement refers to the concept of observed regularities. The second use refers to the concept of authoritative command or rules. Two different meanings of the word "law" are being fallaciously conflated, therefore the argument is invalid.

186. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81268 by Jack Rawlinson on October 24, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Well, there are the common big ones like the many varieties of argument from design, first cause etc.

There's also the problem of evil - something I've debated at some depth.

"Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists"

"That's not my God you're criticising"

"Why do you care about something you claim not to believe in?"

187. Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam: U.N.

Comment #80954 by Jack Rawlinson on October 23, 2007 at 4:51 pm

In other news... banging your head repeatedly against a wall hurts. Pictures at 11.

188. Prejudicial concerns

Comment #80953 by Jack Rawlinson on October 23, 2007 at 4:48 pm

The more Grayling I read, the more I like him.

189. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #80952 by Jack Rawlinson on October 23, 2007 at 4:41 pm

ChrisMcL, your obvious trolling is tiresome. Your avatar would also be better if it wasn't a cartoon.

I attended Tabash's speech and I found it compelling and disturbing.

190. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80704 by Jack Rawlinson on October 22, 2007 at 5:27 pm

To all those British out there who disagree on principle with Richard getting knighted but supports his work, please sign the petition anyway.

Sorry: no, I won't. Absolutely not. I am an anti-monarchist. I will not support a vile, exploitative institution founded on hereditary privilege and oppression; nor will I support the distribution of stale breadcrumbs from its big, fat table which it attempts to dignify with the term "honours".

I suspect you need to actually live under a monarchy to understand this. And if you happen to be American, look to your history and feel shame for trying to support or justify the trappings of the very system your country quite rightly rejected at its founding.

191. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80397 by Jack Rawlinson on October 21, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Nah. I don't believe in that nonsense either.

192. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79575 by Jack Rawlinson on October 17, 2007 at 7:45 pm

Dear Coral Ridge Ministries,

I am proud to be a scary evangelical atheist. I know where you live and I am coming for your children. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

193. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79283 by Jack Rawlinson on October 16, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Of course, this was ridicule of ideas, not people.

Of course, no good reason whatsoever why it shouldn't apply to people too, if they promulgate ridiculous ideas.

194. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78908 by Jack Rawlinson on October 15, 2007 at 10:51 am

I have never heard of Deschner nor Bruno

I guess "philos" isn't short for "philosophy", eh?

We're not going to "move on", philos, until the religious manage that feat too. I suggest you stop wasting your time trolling this site.

195. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78759 by Jack Rawlinson on October 14, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Damn, that was good.

196. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78672 by Jack Rawlinson on October 14, 2007 at 8:24 am

Wow Jack, you sound a little angry..

Probably because I am, Keith. Angry and impatient with this endless line of goddamned religious fools spouting their empty mantras and barfing their infantile religious pablum all over my computer screen, my newspapers, and my whole world. Not one of these whiners will find the courage to stand up and define exactly what they believe in, yet they mewl and whinny interminably about how misunderstood they are, how wrong and facile our criticisms of what many of them certainly seem to believe are... I'm sick of the whole revolting, spineless pack of them and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

Ah, the day of rest. Always such a balm to the troubled soul. :-)

197. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78605 by Jack Rawlinson on October 13, 2007 at 6:51 pm

"Don't distract us from the real arguments by assuming that religion is an eccentric survival strategy or irrational form of explanation,"

Okay, now you're going to explain what the "real arguments" are, and how your religion is not an "irrational form of explanation", right, Williams? Can't wait.

*Wind howls across a dustblown prairie*

"When believers pick up Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, we may feel as we turn the pages: 'This is not it. Whatever the religion being attacked here, it's not actually what I believe in,'"

Okay, now you're going to explain what "it" is; what you actually believe in, right, Williams?

*A distant bell tolls mournfully*

"He urged atheist writers to better understand religion."

Okay, and now you're going to explain it better to us, so that we may better understand, right, Williams?

*Tumbleweed rolls*

You've got nothing, Williams. You, Eagleton, the whole pathetic lot of you. You whine and whine that your beliefs are misunderstood and misrepresented but never - NOT ONCE - do any of you take the time to explain carefully and precisely what they are. Because you've got nothing. You know damned well that the second you tried to do that we'd tear whatever it is you defined right down along with the invisible sky pixie God, the Judeo-Christian Old testament God, Allah, Ganesh and the rest. The truth is you either look silly by explaining your belief or you look silly by refusing to explain your belief; by falling back on the obvious cowardly device of grandly declaring that your god is, and must remain, beyond clear apprehension.

Williams, you and your ilk are contemptible spiritual weaklings. Go pray to your shapeshifting fuzzy cloud of a deity, you silly old fool. Come back if you ever manage to find the guts to define your god and hold it up for examination.

198. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77218 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Hmm. I just noticed the quotes around 'atheists' in the title of this piece.

Damn, it really looks like Harris is ashamed of the word, doesn't it?

199. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77217 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 7:35 pm

philos: you want to actually criticise some of PZ's points, rather than just insulting him? Or would that not meet your idea of "gentlemanly discourse"?

If you're going to troll, smarten your bloody ideas up a bit, eh?

200. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77202 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 6:25 pm

By the way, PZ's reply (linked by Janus, above) is great, as always.

I'm embarrassed for Harris, I truly am.