151. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45491 by NMcC on May 28, 2007 at 2:43 am

pewkatchoo

Switched on.

Nope...can't see it....it mustn't be working. Maybe it's because it's petrol driven.

Perhaps one of those 'entrepeneurs' who, according to some, we're all so beholden to, will come up with an electric version?

Seriously, I knew you were being ironic. I just wanted to make another post in which I could call Bono Bonehead since I despise the hypocritical ***ker.

152. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #45487 by NMcC on May 28, 2007 at 2:24 am

Luthien

Fair enough. Though I think you should perhaps be a bit more circumspect before replying to posts.

Sorry to hear about your condition. I hope it isn't too debilitating for you.

153. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #45471 by NMcC on May 28, 2007 at 1:03 am

Scottishgeologist

Thanks for the clarification, though there was really no need. I did in fact post my comments in the way I suggested to 'Luthien' - tongue-in-cheek with, I suppose, a little bit of devils advocate thrown in.

Yes, I think the experiences of people in Scotland (especially Glasgow) are similar to those of people in Belfast and Northern Ireland in general. I believe the correct term is religious sectarianism. I think the football allegiance is only a consequence of the religious affiliation (which, in most cases, is purely nominal anyway as it's a consequence of being born into it), and the disgusting sectarian songs and chanting are a consequence of this in turn.

I was 'into' it all when I was a kid as that was the condition in which I was reared. I well remember as a fourteen year old travelling to Glasgow for the Orange march. I was lucky enough to be able to see through the nonsense at around age 17 or so, and have since looked upon the twin evils of nationalism and religion with utter contempt.

Funnily enough, I used to own a Bar which had Scottish loyalist visitors in July and my greatest joy was to discreetly slip on Dick Gaughan songs on the dukebox! Petty, or what! Well, we all have to do what gets us through the day. Luckily, our esteemed visitors were usually too stupid, or too drunk, or both to notice. For all their anti-catholicism, most of them couldn't tell the difference between a Chapel and an apple, and whenever I was asked whether I was in the Orange Order myself, I used to say, 'actually, I'm a militant atheist', whereupon I was invariably met with a blank, uncomprehending stare.

I think you're right about there being a general diminuition of the rabble rousing elements of the 'culture'. Even in Belfast, there is a general feeling that the whole hatred and opposing camps thing is bollocks. Of course, the most extreme representatives of the two factions are cosying up together as a career move, so hating each other is a bit unseemly at present.

Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly has just said in an article in the Belfast Telegraph that had he been born a protestant rather than a catholic, he'd, of course, hold completely different views. I've sent a letter to the newspaper pointing out that Kelly wasn't BORN anything, that he inherited the nonsense of the catholic religion from his parents who, in turn, had inherited from theirs and so on. I don't know if they'll publish it.

154. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #45423 by NMcC on May 27, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Luthien

Well, thanks for that.

Firstly, my post was tongue-in-cheek, as my reference to 'Gazza' makes obvious to anyone who can read.

Secondly, I don't consider myself to be from any 'tribe', religious or otherwise, as, indeed, any of my posts to this website will verify.

Thirdly, he does not 'know the words to the songs' since the correct words are 'Billy Boys', not 'Derry Boys' or 'Londonderry Boys'.

Fourthly, I do not need to take a look at my thought processes since I'm quite happy to report (not that it's any of your business) that despite my upbringing, I managed to overcome any religious indoctrination and have been a vociferous atheist all my adult life, certainly, unlike some, long before I ever heard of Dawkins.

And, finally, I'll be sticking around alright, but not to read any diatribes of yours - against catholics, or anyone else, even if the only alternative is to stick a fork in my eye. I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to you since you're obviously a pretentious, self-righteous arsehole who can't even spell properly.

155. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45415 by NMcC on May 27, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Pewkatchoo

Thanks for the detail.

That wasn't really the point of my post. You're right there though about it being more than a normal person would pay for a car. It doesn't surprise me that it's a great deal more than a normal person COULD pay for a car. But, of course, they're not meant for normal people.

What I was getting at was the nauseating spectacle of Dawkins fawning over some rich parasite - albeit one who 'devised' the wonderful, socially necessary, we-can't-do-withoutable racket of yet another way of moving money about - while he travels about in his private jet talking about his concern for the environment. As my post above says, it reminds me of that despicable idiot Bonehead of U2.

156. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45375 by NMcC on May 27, 2007 at 12:56 pm

How wonderful to see those 'entrepeneurs' (whatever happened to the word 'capitalist'?) and their admirers discuss measures for protecting the environment as they fly about in their private jets. It'll be good to see those electric sports cars roll off the production line. Wonder how much they'll cost? I suppose if you have to ask, you probably can't afford one. I didn't see in the article Professor Dawkins mention the expected cost though, perhaps I just missed it. I wonder also how much of the environment will be left to protect by the time they are mass produced and affordable? What, with capitalists (sorry, entrepeneurs) flying about in their private jets and all that!

I almost forgot to mention how much Dawkins' diary entry reminded me to wonder (more wondering!) how Bonehead Bono is getting on.

Haven't heard much of this pop entrepeneur since he stopped berating Western governments about their spending tax revenues on the welfare of their own poverty stricken people and not sending the money instead to poor Africans long enough to move all his millions out of Ireland into an overseas tax haven.

157. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #45261 by NMcC on May 27, 2007 at 2:53 am

Scottishgeologist,

Hailing as I do from Belfast's Shankill Road (though I don't live there now), I note that all your references allude to the religious bigotry of the Rangers fans - the protestants, in other words. Why so one-sided? Celtic has been just as bad with its pandering to the bigotry of its catholic supporters.

PS - You forgot to mention the notorious intervention in the religious politics of Scotland by that well-known theologian and expert in matters divine, 'Gazza', when he pretended to be playing the flute in an orange band.

158. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #44881 by NMcC on May 25, 2007 at 12:48 pm

What on earth can 'Christian Sports Worker' possibly mean?

Surely it can only mean that a student on such a course organises, for example, a football match, and then, when all the players and supporters turn up, uses the opportunity simply to prosletyse on behalf of the Christian religion?

You can just hear the objections: 'I'm not coming to another match organised by you. The last time I went to one of your games there was not enough talk about penalty saves and too much talk about ***king Jesus saves'.

Perhaps I'm completely missing the point. I hope so.

159. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41451 by NMcC on May 16, 2007 at 6:18 am

"James Carroll's column appears regularly in The Boston Globe."

Why?

160. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41427 by NMcC on May 16, 2007 at 5:40 am

"Here are some unimportant questions for which a microscope is rather unhelpful in answering: Why are we here? Why is there something instead of nothing? What is the purpose of human existence?"

Blimey, he ran out of deep, meaningful questions very quickly, didn't he?

To which the only response can be:

1) Because our parents copulated.
2) Why should there be nothing rather than something? After all, how many ways are there for there to be nothing? One, I'd have thought. How many ways are there for there to be something? Limitless billions? More than that?
3) Why should there be a 'purpose'?

All in all, what do you expect from a pig but a grunt.

161. Christopher Hitchens Explains It All for You: Move over, Sam Harris; another atheist wants the pulpit

Comment #41012 by NMcC on May 15, 2007 at 10:40 am

Isn't it strange how many interviewers and reviewers heap on Hitchens all manner of praise in the beginning of their piece? As far as his writings, books, articles, intellect, debating skills, columns etc are concerned, they begin by asserting, he's spot on, only to finish with 'but he's wrong on this subject'.

He's a genius in all other respects, apparently, except when it comes to their faith, which they just know to be true and Hitchens is too stupid to even understand what it's all about.

In short, Hitchens is a prize-winning pupil in every other subject but he's a dunce in matters of religion.

I wonder is that because he's an opponent of religion and not an advocate of it!?

162. The Greatest Act of Human Hubris

Comment #40534 by NMcC on May 14, 2007 at 12:22 pm

'Logicel'

Point taken. I hadn't seen the 'previous' article before reading this one and didn't know who the person you named was. Naturally, I thought your term 'previous' referred to the article above since the posts normally do.

Mind you, I'm not sure that you could describe that 'previous' long piece as 'bilge' either.

Some of his points were simply historical facts.

163. The Greatest Act of Human Hubris

Comment #40519 by NMcC on May 14, 2007 at 11:54 am

Doesn't read like 'bilge' to me. It reads like a description of some of the views of the numerous religions in the world with some statistics added.

How on earth can it be described as 'bilge'?

164. True faith is greater than the ranters

Comment #40298 by NMcC on May 14, 2007 at 5:10 am

I don't agree with everything Dawkins says myself but this type of 'criticism' is just boring now. Such a lot of words to say so little. Apparently, Dawkins picks on easy targets and is quite impolite whilst doing so...yawn yawn. Has Dawkins himself not answered these 'criticisms' time and again? Rees-Mogg is doing his usual party piece...puffing himself up as a prelude to delivering an elephant and then producing a mouse, and a rather feeble one at that.

Hearing the name Rees-Mogg again reminds me of the story told about him, if I recall properly, by Stephen Fry.

Rees-Mogg was once the editor of one of Rupert Murdoch's papers in Britain (I can't remember if it was the Times or Sunday Times, though I think it was the former) and was present at a dinner party attended also by the Dirty Digger.

'You know', says Rees-Mogg to the assembled throng, putting on his most plumy accent and his chest puffed out with self-importance, 'throughout my career I've known some 3 leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, 4 General Secretaries of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 4 Presidents of the United States of America and 5 British Prime Ministers, and, if truth be told, not one of them impressed me as having a first rate mind'.

'Really', retorted Murdoch, 'and did it ever occur to you William, that they all might have thought you were a bit of a dickhead?'

I hope it's true!

165. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #39873 by NMcC on May 12, 2007 at 6:54 am

Carter Maxwell, above, says that Kelly's voice was unbearable. I don't agree at all. It's not that easy to sit on a platform like that and be as calm and collected and strong-voiced as you would be if only speaking to a group of friends in the pub. She was probably nervous and this might have affected her delivery style - so what? I thought she did very well and congratulate her for having the courage to do it in the first place.

What about old Ray Comfort on the other hand? Not only does he have a name like one, but he sounds and looks exactly like a 70's porn star.

Or is that just me?!

The whole encounter was simply another example of the old adage that a fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer. The Jesus freaks were simply a couple of halfwits who showed no evidence of having understood the questions let alone of providing the answers.

The atheists won hands down - as usual.

Incidentally, what happened to the 100% proof of God's existence. Did I nod off at some point without realising it?

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

Comment #39325 by NMcC on May 10, 2007 at 10:17 am

I haven't read all the posts above so perhaps someone has already posed this question but.....

......ignoring all the other nonsense, is the bold Jack, who obviously considers himself an expert on the holy text (which, incidently, I suspect he is)..is he saying 'as it says in the Corinians'? Surely he means 'Corinthians'?

167. Street Evangelist Saves 300 Souls From Enjoying Park

Comment #33879 by NMcC on April 22, 2007 at 12:24 pm

For ****sake get a grip everyone. This magazine is obviously similar to Private Eye in Britain. Imagine getting apoplexy because of something 'reported' in Private Eye? Worse still, imagine Private Eye getting to hear about it - Dawkins would be a laughing stock for having such dopey supporters!

Do you all not think it's worthwhile giving a bit of thought to the article you're posting about before storming in and making total fools of yourselves like....er...well...braindead fundamentalists - like 'spinoza' above, for example?

168. Jesus and Mo: Dummy

Comment #30130 by NMcC on April 7, 2007 at 2:49 am

Logicel,

You're a filthy minded heathen. It's a beer pump!

169. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28977 by NMcC on April 1, 2007 at 2:16 am

Shane McKee

Hurried response:

Most Northern Irish people (those willingly so described, at any rate) already think the Second Coming has occurred - his name's David Healy!

170. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28918 by NMcC on March 31, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Shane McKee,

Yes, of course, for an all-knowing god, Jesus was a bit thick.

Why do all these theologian chaps hail from Northern Ireland, what have we ever done to the world?

Was CS Lewis a 'smart chap?' I can't take anyone seriously who says that the problem for the atheist is that he has to accept that he is wrong about the thing that the vast majority consider to be the most important thing in their lives, namely a belief in God. Can a smart chap really consider this a true statement?

Or, what about the infamous 'Lord, Lunatic or Liar' nonsense? Surely a smart chap could instantly see that Jesus might have been honestly mistaken or that others put words in his mouth (as, indeed, was the case)?

I don't think CS Lewis was a 'smart chap' at all. I believe that apart from his fiction (though I'm not a big fan), like McGrath, he was simply an intellectual poseur.

171. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28906 by NMcC on March 31, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Shane McKee

Are you sure about the virgin birth thing? I thought Dawkins specifically asked McGrath about this. Perhaps I'm wrong. I can't check at the minute as my young son is listening to The Lion King through the computer speakers. Anyway, it doesn't really matter.

Yes, I agree with you about the whole nonsensicality (is that a proper word!?) of the Christian religion. As Dawkins has pointed out, if 'god' wanted to forgive sins why didn't he just do so without all that ghastly, bloody rigmarole involving Jesus and miracles and all the rest of the codswallop.

I think someone on the Secular Web has listed about 10 or 12 attributes that any 'god-like saviour' worth his salt would necessarily have had to have in ancient times.

Needless-to-say, having a 'special' birth, rising from the dead and doing miracles etc figured prominently on the list.

172. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28896 by NMcC on March 31, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Shane McKee,

The day Alister McGrath gives any kind of 'careful explanation' about anything is the day I'll become a Christian myself!

McGrath's whole approach is to studiously avoid giving explanations so that he never has to support with any kind of evidence anything he says.

I believe the term 'unsubstantiated generalisation' was coined specifically for McGrath.

In his recent meeting (not really a 'debate') with Dawkins, for example, he was asked if he believed, as a scientist, in the virgin birth and replied 'yes' before immediately launching into a whole load of nonsense about this event really having significance only in the sense that it was something that points to something else - or words to that effect, my ears had almost melted by this stage!

I agree with you that he seems quite a nice chap compared to what you imagine he's like from his writing. I think he's such an imposter though that it could be that he's simply media-savvy and knows that to appear 'reasonable' and 'warm' is better than appearing 'intolerant' and 'arrogant'.

Either way, he doesn't half come out with a lot of tripe!

173. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28879 by NMcC on March 31, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Shane McKee,

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

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

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

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

Confused!? No wonder he is!

174. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28866 by NMcC on March 31, 2007 at 11:59 am

Apropo my above post,

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

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

Shane McKee's post above is spot on: McGrath wasn't an atheist at all, he was merely a teenager!

175. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #28862 by NMcC on March 31, 2007 at 11:08 am

Good point Shane McKee No. 28521

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone know if his claims add up in terms of his age and his views when he was 'growing up'?

176. Christian Socialists head for more radical Labour territory

Comment #28649 by NMcC on March 30, 2007 at 8:42 am

To 'epeeist'

Don't agree about Hegel. I think you're simply being pretentious and since you've blatantly refused to answer my questions and I don't see any point to your question, I'll move on.

177. Christian Socialists head for more radical Labour territory

Comment #28366 by NMcC on March 29, 2007 at 1:31 am

To 'epeeist'

Neither the ILP nor the British Labour Party have ever stood for the abolition of capitalism. They've stood for tinkering with capitalism whilst pretending that nationalisation of some industries (a policy the Tories have carried out as well, incidentally!) was 'socialism'. Nationalisation is not socialism it is capitalism run by the state.

Bakunin was a lunatic and his views can be safely ignored. Like Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin was an anarchist and was opposed to any authority - even that of majorities.

178. Christian Socialists head for more radical Labour territory

Comment #27848 by NMcC on March 27, 2007 at 3:42 am

Post by 'epeeist'

Why so aggressive? Because you would deign to inform Americans about a subject that you're clearly ignorant of yourself and because I'm fed up reading posts on this site from people who don't know what they are talking about in regard to socialism and the views of Karl Marx.

Why don't you answer the questions I posed?

When was the British Labour Party a socialist party as opposed to a party which gave support now and then to certain small sections of British capitalism being run by the state i.e. state capitalism?

And, where in all the 52 volumes of the collected works of Marx and his co-worker and collaborator Engels does it state that these two early socialists were opposed to democratic politics?

As a matter of fact, the British Labour Party has never been a socialist organisation and Karl Marx was a supporter of the interests of the majority which is why, even in his early days as a socialist, he wrote in the Communist Manifesto that the task of the working class was to 'win the battle of democracy'. This as early as 1847-48 into the bargain.

179. Christian Socialists head for more radical Labour territory

Comment #27777 by NMcC on March 26, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Comment by 'epeeist'

'And the Labour party was (and no longer is) socialist and not Marxist. Contrary to what most Americans think, there is a difference.'

The British Labour Party 'was' socialist but no longer is? There is a difference between socialism and the views and ideas of Karl Marx.
Really, genius? Why don't you explain to us what, exactly, those two statements mean?

180. Free Speech

Comment #25769 by NMcC on March 15, 2007 at 4:44 am

To 'Apemanblues'

Ah!...the above post was to your last post which has just disappeared...

181. Free Speech

Comment #25767 by NMcC on March 15, 2007 at 4:38 am

To 'Apemanblues'

Nice one. Let's leave it there.

Though, I'd make one last remark. I live in Northern Ireland, and have therefore lived with unctuous 'rationalisations' of war and violence all my life. That's one of the reasons why I deplore the likes of an obviously intelligent man like Hitchens giving any kind of succour to the moronic 'war, war' brigade.

Regards

182. Free Speech

Comment #25758 by NMcC on March 15, 2007 at 3:33 am

To 'Apemanblues'

So, your 'I agree with every word' was a 'flippant remark'. Fair enough.

I was just warming to you there with your 'I commend your passion' then you went and spoilt it with 'have fun with your crusade.'

Ah, well! What you gain on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts.

Incidently, far from 'hating' Hitchens, I don't even know him. What I do hate, however, is someone like him (given his history of support for various codswallop) pontificating about how 'necessary' it is that other people's children had (have) to die for nothing more than some dubious abstract 'principle' about freedom and democracy as elucidated by a religious lunatic like Bush.

To 'MorituriMax'

'Apemanblues' has already put you straight. All I would say is that, one thing's for sure, we will hardly follow your 'logic' since you can't even follow who's saying what.

In regard to the 'infantile argument' concerning how easy it is to support a war when it's someone else's kids being slaughtered and maimed, it's neither infantile nor an 'argument.' I would have thought it comes under the heading 'accepted fact.'

183. Free Speech

Comment #25662 by NMcC on March 14, 2007 at 3:18 pm

To 'Keith'

Thanks for your response.

Quite a long post, so I'll leave it until tomorrow before I respond as I'm going to the land of nod in a minute.

184. Free Speech

Comment #25644 by NMcC on March 14, 2007 at 1:17 pm

To 'Apemanblues'

Actually, I get 'it' quite easily. For example, I get it (the hump, that is) when somone like you praises someone like Hitchens with the phrase 'I agree with every word'. What, even the bit about 'the First World War was a sanguinary conflict that America was dragged into'? And this from a man who, as far as I'm aware, opposed the Veitnam war as imperialist thuggery on the part of America whilst a follower of Leon Trotsky, but who, today, supports the war in Iraq as some great liberation struggle.

Your final comment was too stupid to comment on, so I won't - even though I just have!

185. Mrs Darwin's diaries go online

Comment #25621 by NMcC on March 14, 2007 at 10:41 am

To 'Jiten':

Of course Marx never advocated any of the lethal nonsense espoused by people like Stalin. The problem lies in the fact that people believe that he did. And when Richard Dawkins constantly 'informs' people that Stalin was a Marxist (of whatever hue, loony or otherwise) he is merely reinforcing this misconception.

The thing that infuriates me is that when being interviewed on British TV, Dawkins wasn't shy about pulling out of his pocket some quotes from Hitler proving that Hitler was a Christian. The same attitude should apply across the board. In other words, there are any number of quotes that can be gleaned from Marx's writings to show that he held diametrically opposed views to those of Stalin, so why does Dawkins so nonchantly tar Marx with the Stalin brush?

Funnily enough, this is being written on the 124th anniversary of Marx's death.

186. Free Speech

Comment #25612 by NMcC on March 14, 2007 at 10:16 am

To 'Apemanblues'

You are the drama queen. 'Oh mister Hitchens, you are so funny and witty and...and..I agree with EVERY word you say!' You are easily impressed (and amused), is all I can say.

To 'SegueZen':

Well, that's Ok then, as long as Hitchens only supports the war 'in principle'. That's the thing about people who support wars 'in principle' they never feel the need to go and support them in person. Just like Hitchens, they normally cheer from the safe distance of another country.

What do you mean by Hitchens not supporting the incompetent way in which the war has been executed? Surely you can only be accused of 'executing' (bit of an unfortunate phrase that in the context) a war 'incompetently' if you fail to kill enough people! In this regard, it hasn't been for the want of trying.

To 'Keith'

What utter tripe! If the invasion of Iraq was to save those poor people who were being abused and tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein why hasn't Russia been invaded for what they are doing in Chechnya? Why hasn't China been invaded for its atrocities in Tibet? Why wasn't Rwanda invaded? I could continue this list indefinitely. The fact is that there is numerous countries were people are suffering the same or to a worse degree than those who suffered under Saddam Hussein. In the case of China, the last time I looked, the British police were kicking protesters off the streets so that Blair could welcome its murderous leader to Downing Street for a cosy chat. Not much concern for death and torture there.

The simple fact is that Bush (and Blair following behind like the little fawning creep he is) lied about Iraq and has created a situation that is a million times worse than previously.

Whether the invasion was for oil, to revenge a past perceived insult to daddy, as a consequence of religious nuttery or whatever, one thing's for sure, it wasn't to help the Iraqis who were being persecuted by Saddam. After all, there wasn't much said about his victims when the governments of the west were falling over themselves to arm him in the first place.

187. Free Speech

Comment #25533 by NMcC on March 14, 2007 at 2:52 am

Hitchens is '...the kind of hard drinking, cursing, pissed off atheist that really makes you smile' says 'Apemanblues'.

Yea, I'm sure the 100,000s of dead and maimed in the Iraq carnage, which Hitchens supports, are dying with laughter...well...dying anyway.

188. Mrs Darwin's diaries go online

Comment #25489 by NMcC on March 13, 2007 at 4:58 pm

The biography of Karl Marx by Francis Wheen isn't that recent, it was written about 8-9 years ago. It does give a good idea of what Marx was really like. Though it has to be said that all the information in it was always available in other books written over the years since Marx's death.

Indeed, Marx 'wasn't such a bad guy'. But then, who ever said he was? Religious freaks who rail against 'godless communism' and airheads who know absolutely nothing about him nor read a word Marx ever wrote, that's who.

Oh, and people like Richard Dawkins. It's an utter disgrace that Dawkins should constantly malign Marx's reputation by referring to the likes of Stalin as a 'Marxist'. I'd challenge anyone to point to a single thing Stalin did that can be supported on the basis of the writings of Karl Marx. I certainly can't remember reading in Marx that 'my ideas can only be put into practice in a backward, pre-capitalist peasant country by a self-appointed, self-regarding murderous lunatic'. Quite the contrary in fact.

189. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21779 by NMcC on February 11, 2007 at 4:32 am

I thought there was an equally funny remark made in a post above (can't locate it at the moment so I'm paraphrasing) where the question 'What is life about' is answered with the retort 'It isn't 'about' anything. If you spend your life arseing about, then that's what your life is about'.

190. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21492 by NMcC on February 9, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Surely it was William Hague, the failed ex-Tory leader, taking the piss.

And like Hague himself, it was neither funny nor clever.

If the point was somehow to suggest that God's invisibility is comparable to a non-existent Dawkins, I'm sure Dawkins' wife and daughter will verify his existence. Though, to my knowledge, no one has ever verified the existence of God - not even His son.

191. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #21210 by NMcC on February 8, 2007 at 3:35 am

The comment by LOVE58 points to the biggest single thing that makes me laugh about McGrath's rubbish. McGrath claims that he was an atheist 'for some years' before he became a Christian ....at the ripe old age of 18.

At what age was he able to articulate the many arguments for atheism? At four years of age? Nine years of age? 15 years of age? What on earth was the extent of his knowledge at such a young age. What fields of knowledge had he really studied?

This claim of McGrath always makes me think of the words of science writer Natalie Angier (I believe it was her) when she wrote that the field of study of most teenage boys is the bra outline of the girl sitting in front of them in class.

Another claim that McGrath has made in his Belfast Telegraph interview which now makes me chuckle (as someone who hails from Northern Ireland) is that he had to go to London in order to meet an articulate Christian. What an insult to the Christians of Northern Ireland!

192. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #21044 by NMcC on February 7, 2007 at 11:54 am

I have sent the following letter to the Belfast Telegraph. Keep in mind that a letter to a newspaper has to be short and to the point, so not a great deal can be included.

Letters Editor
Belfast Telegraph

Dear Editor,

If the interview published in the Belfast Telegraph (6 February) is anything to go by, I don't think we atheists who applaud Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion have anything to fear from Alister McGrath's forthcoming book. McGrath's interview consisted entirely of his usual stock-in-trade: one over-blown, question-begging claim after another.

Let's hope McGrath's new book is better than his previous efforts. His The Twilight of Atheism, for example, had as its main (only) thesis the ridiculous claim that everyone living in Eastern Europe was an atheist until the Berlin Wall came down, whereupon they all promptly became Christians. This is the level of genius exhibited by theologians like McGrath. Little wonder that Dawkins doubts that theology is even a subject, let alone a subject worth debating.

Just like his hero, CS Lewis, McGrath has no answer to the criticisms made of religion by sober-minded atheists. The best McGrath can come up with is: most people believe there is a God, so there must be.

Grow up McGrath

193. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #20912 by NMcC on February 7, 2007 at 2:25 am

Comment #20814 by Roland Deschain on February 6, 2007 at 5:17 pm

'Overshadowing this whole article is Nigel McCullough never stating why he actually believes in God. True to form, he takes the theological shortcut, quoting some non-nonsensical Lewis metaphor and moves'.


Er....just for the record folks, I'm the Nigel McCullough referred to and should point out that I'm responsible only for sending the Link to Josh. I'm not the interviewer. This honour belongs to journalist Judith Cole.

Also, for the record again, I don't believe there is a God(s) and have been a vociferous atheist all my adult life.

194. Dawkins thinks atheism will save us

Comment #3680 by NMcC on October 31, 2006 at 6:07 am

Kevin,

Yes, I've got the book you mention. It's the only biography of Darwin I've read in fact. That sounds bad, I think?!

It's probably where I got my impressions of Darwin's character from as, speaking from memory, the book begins by relating how society was in turmoil etc..etc.. French revolution in living memory...Chartist agitation..and so on.

You've gave me a shove, and I'll revisit it.

I've heard James Moore speaking on Darwin in a contribution to the BBC's 'Evolution week (end)' some time ago. I've got it on video tape somewhere.

I take your point about RD having other things on his mind as he's obviously going great guns in America promoting the book.

I do think though that this does not excuse him constantly making statements that aren't true.

I know any number of people who have spent their lives debunking all the nonsense surrounding the view that Russia was a communist society, that Stalin (and Lenin) were Marxists who instigated and run a full-blown 'socialist/communist' society etc and it ill-behoves someone like RD to besmirch the writings of people like Marx and Engels and others by perpetuating the myth that the embodiment of these people's writings resulted in all the horrors of the Gulag. Especially, as I would claim that it's factually untrue.

Kind regards,

195. Dawkins thinks atheism will save us

Comment #3572 by NMcC on October 30, 2006 at 10:02 am

To Kevin Ronayne

Kevin,

Thanks for the reply, which, although I have been able to only skim through it, appears to be very well argued. I'm pleased that it is free from the previous petulant tone and, what I considered, abuse. Especially pleased since I think we're on the same side.

As soon as I get some time to re-read your post I'll reply more fully.

Kind regards,

NMcC

196. What I want for Christmas is...an anti-religion rant

Comment #1593 by NMcC on October 14, 2006 at 1:33 am

Is there any point to commenting on such a waste of paper and ink as this 'review' represents? I don't think so.

In paragraph two Professor Dawkins' book is an 'atheistic rant' and one paragraph later, a best selling 'science book'.

This 'reviewer' obviously isn't qualified to critique the book, but then she's only the 'religion correspondent' for The Times.

One worrying point though; Steve Jones is quoted as saying that he is unconcerned if people burn his books as long as they purchase them first.

Surely tongue in cheek, but, given the world religious climate, more than a little inappropriate?

197. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1365 by NMcC on October 11, 2006 at 5:12 pm

Well, Douglas J. Bender has certainly put us all straight then! I, at least, will be able to sleep contentedly tonight.

Any other pearls Mr Bender?

198. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1311 by NMcC on October 11, 2006 at 9:30 am

Is this the best that Albert Mohler, 'President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary' no less, can do? Approximately 26 Paragraphs of text and not a single refutation of any of Professor Dawkin's arguments. Indeed, not even an attempt at a refutation!

And then to have the cheek to state 'His book represents nothing fundamentally new--just the same old arguments repeated over and over again'.

If this is the case, why then didn't the good President use at least part of his review to enlighten us by refuting at least one of these '...same old arguments'?

Could it be that he doesn't know how to? Could it be that he is a perfect example of the true meaning of the term 'fundamentalist' and is incapable of changing his mind no matter what the evidence or argument leads to?

I found the review to be bordering on the ridiculous. After all, surely the President of a Baptist Theological Seminary is supposed to be able to refute the arguments of atheists - not simply reiterate them whilst all the time pretending that his snide and dismissive tone is good enough to refute them.

199. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1310 by NMcC on October 11, 2006 at 9:28 am

Is this the best that Albert Mohler, 'President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary' no less, can do? Approximately 26 Paragraphs of text and not a single refutation of any of Professor Dawkin's arguments. Indeed, not even an attempt at a refutation!

And then to have the cheek to state 'His book represents nothing fundamentally new--just the same old arguments repeated over and over again'.

If this is the case, why then didn't the good President use at least part of his review to enlighten us by refuting at least one of these '...same old arguments'?

Could it be that he doesn't know how to? Could it be that he is a perfect example of the true meaning of the term 'fundamentalist' and is incapable of changing his mind no matter what the evidence or argument leads to?

I found the review to be bordering on the ridiculous. After all, surely the President of a Baptist Theological Seminary is supposed to be able to refute the arguments of atheists - not simply reiterate them whilst all the time pretending that his snide and dismissive tone is good enough to refute them.

200. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1309 by NMcC on October 11, 2006 at 9:27 am

Is this the best that Albert Mohler, 'President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary' no less, can do? Approximately 26 Paragraphs of text and not a single refutation of any of Professor Dawkin's arguments. Indeed, not even an attempt at a refutation!

And then to have the cheek to state 'His book represents nothing fundamentally new--just the same old arguments repeated over and over again'.

If this is the case, why then didn't the good President use at least part of his review to enlighten us by refuting at least one of these '...same old arguments'?

Could it be that he doesn't know how to? Could it be that he is a perfect example of the true meaning of the term 'fundamentalist' and is incapable of changing his mind no matter what the evidence or argument leads to?

I found the review to be bordering on the ridiculous. After all, surely the President of a Baptist Theological Seminary is supposed to be able to refute the arguments of atheists - not simply reiterate them whilst all the time pretending that his snide and dismissive tone is good enough to refute them.