Comments by Matt7895

Comment #119063 by Matt7895 on January 31, 2008 at 9:43 am

Happy Birthday, really well designed site, with frequent updates!

152. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117990 by Matt7895 on January 30, 2008 at 6:46 am

althoughe no one has been executed for ages in Britain i heard that there are a fiew ancient laws that have not yet been recinded, these capital offenses include: high treason against Her Majesty the Queen or a member of her household, piracy with violence (for all you pastafarians out there), and if you are an Englishman you may fire a crossbow at a Welshman provided you are standing on top of the Cardiff city wall and the Welshman is outside said wall.

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 abolished the offence of arson in royal dockyards.

The Armed Forces Act 1981 abolished the death penalty for espionage.

Under a House of Lords amendment to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the death penalty was abolished for treason and piracy with violence, replacing it with a discretionary maximum sentence of life imprisonment. These were the last civilian offences punishable with death.

On May 20, 1998, the House of Commons voted to ratify the 6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibiting capital punishment except "in time of war or imminent threat of war." The last remaining provisions for the death penalty under military jurisdiction (including in wartime) were removed when section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 9 November 1998.

The UK later in 2003 acceded to the 13th Protocol, which prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances, so that the UK may no longer legislate to restore the death penalty while it is subject to the Convention.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom#Final_abolition

153. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117981 by Matt7895 on January 30, 2008 at 5:56 am

well, don't get too encouraged, america has far worse laws which have religious subtexts: laws against gay marriage (and even practicing gay sex), the right to die, to be able to buy alcohol on sunday, prostitution, etc. ad nauseum!

Yeah I was about to say the same thing myself, but being British I didn't want to seem to come off as arrogant or anti-American. At least in Britain you can be gay and in a physical relationship, and be 'married'. Not being gay that doesn't really affect me anyway, but a law against alcohol certainly would! I hear there are some areas of the US where you can't drink even as an adult! Relics of prohibition, I suppose. And then of course there's the death penalty... I'm glad we abolished it in the sixties.

154. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117814 by Matt7895 on January 29, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Ricey: Surely that comment is best suited for the other comment thread for 'The Big Questions'. That was the programme Nicky Campbell was presenting.

I'm about half-way through 'The Big Debate' right now and it is somewhat different. There are some interesting points being made, especially by the Humanist representative who in my view hits the nail directly on the head when it comes to religious education in schools.

155. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117795 by Matt7895 on January 29, 2008 at 4:53 pm

I know how MPhil feels! I didn't get a headache, but I did taste bile in my mouth... I feel the need to clean my teeth!

156. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117789 by Matt7895 on January 29, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Watching this at the moment. It seems to me that Richard is the only atheist in the room! It appears to be full of religious people. Though I suppose it would be arrogant to say there isn't maybe one or two non-believers among them. Damn Christian Voice, they have their heads up their backsides.

157. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117779 by Matt7895 on January 29, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I might be wrong, but i think this has been on youtube before.
Here is a link for the playlist:

The Big Questions - BBC Live Debate

Nope this is something different, but it still has Dawkins in it so thank you for the link

158. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117762 by Matt7895 on January 29, 2008 at 2:44 pm

I remember this being advertised, but I was out that evening. Thanks for the heads up.

159. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117384 by Matt7895 on January 28, 2008 at 6:04 pm

I just did a symbolic middle-finger gesture at my monitor. That is all I have to say to this 'book'.

160. Belief in Belief

Comment #117322 by Matt7895 on January 28, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Wow, great article by Christopher, and those are two great videos too, I'll pass them on to my theistic friends :)

161. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116724 by Matt7895 on January 27, 2008 at 8:49 am

Did that guy seriously say at the end that Professor Dawkins is the biggest fool on the planet? Haha, oh that is priceless!

162. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116289 by Matt7895 on January 26, 2008 at 7:13 am

I think that may be true, actually. It brings even more meaning to the word we use to describe god; 'Imaginary friend'. But also I think suffering a bereavement could also induce such beliefs. Sure, it can also swing both ways, Darwin himself reportedly lost his faith when his daughter died. But a lot of the people I know have picked up some kind of faith system after a loved one's death because they want to believe something is there, after death, where they can all be re-united. It's a shame, really.

163. US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

Comment #115775 by Matt7895 on January 24, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Awesome.

164. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #115225 by Matt7895 on January 23, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Wow, what a ghastly conference. I don't know what I've just watched.... just a load of pretentious old snobs patting each other on the back and hissing at anyone who dares speak different. Did you hear the questions from the audience? Self-satisfied, self-righteous philosophers who think they know it all when it comes to religion. The way they spoke down to the talkers was disgraceful.

This Scott Atran guy seems the worst. I actually shuddered when he put down Sam Harris like that at the end of Sam's talk. It was rude and childish. I agree with what some others have said here - put him in a room with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and lets see if he still rigidly clings to his claim that jihadism isn't the cause of suicide bombings. Though perhaps its unfair to target solely Atran. It seemed they were all leaping for each other's throats. How can they expect to be taken seriously as public intellectuals when they treat each other with such open disdain?

165. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115010 by Matt7895 on January 23, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Haha, this is one for Daily Mail and Daily Express readers to splurt out their tea over. Islamification! Sharia, jihad, burqa!

Seriously though it is quite worrying, political correctness. People worrying about offending other people... it's quite pathetic really.

166. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114579 by Matt7895 on January 22, 2008 at 12:34 pm

'Truth, Lies and Science Education'

Great, are they finally admitting that they are a bunch of pricks then?

167. Gay Jesus play blasted by bishop

Comment #114118 by Matt7895 on January 21, 2008 at 11:52 am

DON'T INSULT MY IMAGINARY FRIEND! WAAAAAH!

168. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113590 by Matt7895 on January 20, 2008 at 6:24 am

Ah the Daily Mail, top quality journalism you can trust.

169. King Me!

Comment #113372 by Matt7895 on January 19, 2008 at 12:51 pm

This is especially true when arguing with creationists. I have seen many science advocates preparing lengthy, evidence and logic-based arguments and have all their work ignored in the response from the creationist, who usually recites Bible verses or uses the faith card.

170. Gigantic fossil rodent discovered

Comment #112610 by Matt7895 on January 17, 2008 at 2:30 pm

2-4 million years ago? The devil is lying to you. The earth is only 6000 years old.

Seriously though, a one-tonne rodent? Hard to imagine! Interesting find, though.

171. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111340 by Matt7895 on January 14, 2008 at 11:53 am

I checked my local Waterstones for a copy today.

They had a hardcover edition, which was on sale for £10.00. I declined to buy it.

They had also run out of 'The Portable Atheist', something I've been wanting to buy since it was first released. They assured me they would be receiving new stock soon. All the while, flea books still sit on the shelves next to Bibles and Qur'ans.

172. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111339 by Matt7895 on January 14, 2008 at 11:50 am

I have nothing but respect for our war veterans. I have great admiration for what they did in defense of our culture and its values. I wish George all the best, and hope the operation goes ok. Happy New Year to you George, let's hope 2008 brings you good health.

173. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111168 by Matt7895 on January 13, 2008 at 8:53 pm

AT LAST! I was holding off on buying this until it came out in paperback (the local bookshops charge extortionate prices for the hardback version of this). I liked The End of Faith, I love Sam's lectures and debates, I've always wanted to read this. I trust it will also be released in the UK?

174. The Group Delusion

Comment #110247 by Matt7895 on January 10, 2008 at 5:22 pm

I've become so accustomed to Richard writing about faith and religion recently that I can't help but be surprised every time he goes back to what he's primarily known and respected for: his work in evolutionary science. I don't presume to understand everything he writes about (especially in this particular article), but I'm learning. I recently bought 'The Ancestor's Tale'. Being an arts based person, I didn't take Biology at A-level (though I could well have been able to, with my GCSE results). I am starting to regret that decision, but hopefully I'll gain a good enough understanding of evolution and other natural sciences by reading Richard's works.

175. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #110005 by Matt7895 on January 10, 2008 at 9:27 am

I am reading Dr. Harris speech now. My heart swelled when he mentioned the good Professor as one of the signatories of the Telegraph letter:

"Professor Richard Dawkins, who is well known and admired by many of us"

Shine on Harris, you legend.

176. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #109703 by Matt7895 on January 9, 2008 at 2:19 pm

The government have delayed the bill until they make their own amendment, which will still get rid of the blasphemy law, but they want to do it on their terms. I've already emailed my MP (Caroline Spelman, Chairman of the Conservative Party) regarding the issue and have asked for her support. I am yet to receive a reply.

177. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109454 by Matt7895 on January 9, 2008 at 5:11 am

Richard Dawkins as a scientist, has to keep an open mind and cares deeply about what is true.---the implication being that Hitchens, as a respected journalist, doesn't? What cavil and nonsense. Whatever you may believe or think about Mr. Hitchens' politics, do not accuse him of not respecting truth. Or, hold him in that regard any different from Professor Dawkins. Indeed, that steely-eyed preference for truth over personal preference is what I respect most about both men, however much they might differ about follows from said truth.

No, I was only going on what Richard has said himself on the issue. He hasn't come out as a blatant anti-theist, to do so of course would hold an extraordinary bias when contemplating the existence of god, and as a scientist it would be inappropriate for him to hold such a bias. Hitchens, on the other hand, as a political journalist, is very much influenced by his own opinions on the matter. Politics isn't about what's true, and to think so would be dreadfully naive. You can't compare the operations of politics to the operations of science. That is all I was saying. The two men are different, with Dawkins being the more moderate on the issue. DON'T throw a straw man into the argument that I'm trying to insult Hitchens here, or that I think he's a liar. I was only writing what I think are the two major differences between the two men.

178. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109277 by Matt7895 on January 8, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Thats the thing, Christopher Hitchens has always seemed to me to be the bad cop. His take on religion is always to focus on its moral aspects, and its role in history. He loathes the idea of a god. Whereas Richard Dawkins, as a scientist, has to keep an open mind and cares deeply about what is true. His critique of religion is very much science based. To me, he seems the more reasonable of the pair. I too dislike Hitchens for some of his politics (mostly his anti-monarchism), but I still like his views on religious matters... I just consider Dawkins to be more moderate.

179. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109274 by Matt7895 on January 8, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Oh wow! This video really is brilliant. The best one Pat's come up with. Concise and funny, very effective I would think.

180. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #109007 by Matt7895 on January 8, 2008 at 6:36 am

I saw Huckabee on the Colbert Report (soft 't' on the end), and he said, and I quote, "Evolution says we were once monkeys and now we're human." I was dumbfounded at the idea that someone could be so stupid and ignorant. I don't think he's fuzzing the facts. I actually think this is how that 47% of the U.S. understands (loose term) evolution. What is it about common ancestry that is so hard to understand? What he said, to me, is like saying I was once my grandfather, but then I turned into myself, and that doesn't make sense, so I don't believe in genealogy.

It's called evolution by Coulterist natural selection.

181. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108814 by Matt7895 on January 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm

I live in Sheffield too, we even have a rather wonderful humanist society you should partake in if you are forced to move. Though we (the uni atheist society) had a few problems with the Christian Union the other week. We were doing a screening of the 'Is Religion the Root of All Evil?' documentary, so to publicise it we had put up posters around the uni with a picture of Dawkins with showtimes etc. Anyway, whilst my friend was putting them up in some of the uni halls, a member of the CU came over, ripped it down and told him to "Fuck Off".

We then noticed that a lot of the posters were being torn down shortly after we had put them up. One particularly clever christian had ripped everything off apart from the picture of Dawkins and the word 'evil' which i thought was quite funny.

Not much surprise there. Christian Unions are like that in every university in the country. They especially get a thrill out of saying 'fuck off'. I remember about 18 months ago when Dawkins was starting to get famous for TGD, everyone I knew in my university hall who happened to be in the CU immediately rushed to join the Facebook group, 'Richard Dawkins can fuck off'.

Sadly, one atheist did too. She was 'an atheist but'.

182. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108693 by Matt7895 on January 7, 2008 at 12:32 pm

I've seen polls where many Americans couldn't find the UK on a world map, and they thought the Queen still ruled over us.... I can't bring myself to accept that, though. So I prefer just to think stupid people happen to be surveyed, and the intelligent majority have better things to do with their time.

183. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108610 by Matt7895 on January 7, 2008 at 10:42 am

I tell you what though, it's damn nice to see scientists come out in support of evolution for a change. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong circles but from what I see these days it seems like only atheists are holding creationism to task.

Annabanana: Come to the UK, the water is warm (figuratively).

184. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108370 by Matt7895 on January 6, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Steve Wrathall, I advise you read up a bit on global warming.

185. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108144 by Matt7895 on January 6, 2008 at 5:27 am

I'm so surprised to see all these positive comments about Wolpe. He didn't have a single competent argument for believing in god. In fact, he said the atheist arguments are flawed because god does not require evidence to be proven. Surely saying just that alone is contemptible?

If that was not enough, he came close to D'Souza-like shouting down his opponent and was nearing personal attacks on Sam Harris by the end.

186. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108016 by Matt7895 on January 5, 2008 at 8:29 pm

One does not need any reasons to be an atheist.
However, one needs many reasons to find theism more rational.

187. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107762 by Matt7895 on January 5, 2008 at 8:42 am

Guys, guys, guys! We're better than this.

In the words of the RRS... 'Stay rational'....

188. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107761 by Matt7895 on January 5, 2008 at 8:39 am

This guy has apparently written a book called 'Why Be Jewish'... well, he didn't explain to us why be Jewish in this debate, he didn't even use the Hebrew Bible as as a reference to how we should live today. All he did was try to explain the benefits of religion... when he was asked 'Why is your religion more right' he danced around the question....

189. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107758 by Matt7895 on January 5, 2008 at 8:21 am

the New Jersey state constitution declares that "no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience."

The use of 'Almighty God' in that constitution is well and truly terrifying, especially as it's not even the constitution of a Bible Belt state. The founding fathers got it right when writing the federal constitution, but whoever wrote this must have been theocratic.

190. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107441 by Matt7895 on January 4, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Yes, his attempt at repudiating the teapot argument was quite funny. Theists don't seem to get it. They think we are talking about an actual real teapot orbiting the sun. If that were the case, of course we'd eventually be able to detect it by scientific means. But we don't say that. We say, try to detect it, and you can't. It's all powerful, it can make itself disappear, there is no way you can possibly see it or get to it without it wanting you to. And that is what the theists say god is.

191. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107343 by Matt7895 on January 4, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Ah, superb.

192. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106923 by Matt7895 on January 3, 2008 at 5:25 pm

It is interesting a few of the members here happen to be gay. My own gay friends are all Christians... I regularly ask them about religious persecution of their lifestyle choice and they admitted they cherry-pick... I could never carry the conversation onward from there, though. I am yet to meet an outed gay atheist in my own life, though I must have met a few who didn't feel comfortable voicing it openly. They happen to have stepped out of one closet, but stayed in another. A pity.

193. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106364 by Matt7895 on January 2, 2008 at 6:17 pm

I suppose they thought it was awfully clever, refusing to call Richard by his proper title of 'Professor'. At the very least they should have referred to him as Dr.

And since when did Christians have to 'come out'? It's all part of this myth of persecution. The truth is people these days are tired of their bullshit, society is becoming increasingly secular, and so all the Christians can do is whine.

194. The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply

Comment #106281 by Matt7895 on January 2, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Decadent Europe eh? Ignorant.

195. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105610 by Matt7895 on January 1, 2008 at 8:09 am

Happy New Year, Richard. I enjoyed reading that.

196. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105333 by Matt7895 on December 31, 2007 at 9:36 am

What a relief that most of the callers were asking intelligent questions.

What were you watching?

197. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104998 by Matt7895 on December 30, 2007 at 9:54 am

Can an admin please delete that long post by rafael184? There's a big difference between contributing to the discussion by giving an opposing view, and spamming the discussion by posting creationist bullshit.

198. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104972 by Matt7895 on December 30, 2007 at 8:07 am

I very much like and respect Lord Harries, but I disagree with his views that atheists ultimately get their morals through Christian heritage. That really doesn't explain how people living in Kuwait or Thailand can be moral, unless you go on to say all religions pass on moral teachings. Which is patently false... as he himself said! There is a real evolutionary advantage for moral actions. So why does he go and bring Christian heritage in at the end?

It may have been Christians who introduced the moral framework that British society is now built on, but that was in spite of their religion, not because of it.

199. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #104816 by Matt7895 on December 29, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Ah, thank you for the reposting of this. I think Richard did rather well, but then again most of the questions were the same old claptrap.

200. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104402 by Matt7895 on December 28, 2007 at 12:38 pm

I just hate how he uses the word 'creation' repeatedly. Of course he's not referring to creationism, ie. literal story of creation, dinosaurs with men etc, but it is quite misleading, some could misunderstand his meaning.