201. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47593 by Flagellant on June 5, 2007 at 3:35 am

A suitable slogan/definition might be:

Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private

I'm having that on a tee-shirt.

202. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47572 by Flagellant on June 5, 2007 at 2:22 am

Dianelis Georgoudis (141)

I agree with Russell Blackford (123) that you are acquitting yourself rather better than Alister McGrath. While it isn't really possible to compare the two arenas, you have had to cope with a bevy of disputants who have joined the discussion here, whereas McGrath had only Dawkins and his producer to contend with. While I am not as dismissive of what you have written as, for example, USA_Limey (193) and Alovrin (195), (Hey Peeps, I think it behoves us to engage with visitors, rather than to dismiss what they (visitors) say outright. It is by such engagement that we can take issue with the visitors' expanded views in one way or the other *), you are beginning to wriggle.

Your attempt to broaden the discussion, just when I was trying to narrow it down and to get a better understanding of the special world to which you allude, is rather disingenuous. I would not claim that science has everything to offer, other than by way of discipline/method, to the business of ethics but it's getting there all the time, as you have accepted for other realms. Further, humanist ethics seems to be a more satisfactory way of finding answers to ethical questions than appeals to authority such as scripture. We know so much more now than we did when all these texts were synthesised.

The nub of your position is encapsulated in:

And to go back to the question of theism, I personally find that the best theistic worldview I can devise is much more successful in giving me this kind of overarching understanding than the best atheistic worldview.

Too personal; you have given no reasoning for preferring the best theistic world view to the best atheistic worldview: you haven't said why the one is better than the other and you don't tell us anything about the two views, either; you haven't even said that there is a difference. Without this, I'm not sure that what you are describing is a theistic world view, at all; I would suggest that it is non-theist, perhaps even atheistic.

Your answers are not quite what I had expected. I had hoped you would explain to me the nature of the world that the atheists are missing. You might, for example, have chosen ultra-violet instead of 'red' and explained that experiencing 'ultra-violet' by sight (never mind the feelings of warmth), requires special lenses. I have had similar experiences when putting on dark glasses and suddenly seeing cloud patterns not visible to the naked eye.

I so wanted you to describe your other way of thinking (e.g. intuiting) so that I could try it myself; I really want to recognise something that is different and from which I might learn something. However, so far all you have said, e.g. about red, love and beauty, are things that I recognise and can empathise with. There's not much difference there, then. However, what's this?

how it is to reach self-transcendence – these are all parts, even significant parts, of the human condition

What do you mean by 'self-transcendance'? Death or what? Or is this just being subsumed by community feeling – common humanity, in other words?

I think you have very ably demonstrated, at least in your discussion with me, that you cannot, or do not want to, explain the larger world to which you allude. From this, I suggest that such a world is illusory or that your arguments for it are circular.

Do you see what else you have done, here? You have talked about the world, and ways of seeing it, which almost any humanist would accept but you haven't, except by implication, included god. Now, I don't mind this because it means that you have a world view with 'god' just tacked on as an afterthought. Why not knock it off altogether?

Although you have mentioned god in dealing with other posters, in not mentioning god at all here, and positing your preference for an under-defined theistic view, you are allowing me to infer that you are not really happy about the concept of god; you are probably ashamed about it but you can't say so - yet. I applaud that because it means that you do not have the certainty of the in-your-face evangelical. You haven't come here to save some souls but to have your views tested in the same way that James has done. Doubt is good you say to him (182). Well it's good in your case, too; try engaging with the world without hocus pocus. You have ably demonstrated your potential for doing so.

* Lest it be thought that I do not have a 'horses for courses' approach, look for my posts to chamber. Lol.

203. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47126 by Flagellant on June 3, 2007 at 4:21 am

Thanks for that Danielos Georgoudis (114). I'm not sure that I can even agree with you about the problem, i.e. that

the theistic and atheistic worldviews disagree about what the "World" consists of

And when you say

According to all religious worldviews though our physical universe is only a part of much larger World.

are you saying that there is a realm of thought, this 'larger World' not open to (let us say) atheists. Why is this? Theists don't have a monopoly of theoretical thought; theoretical physicists, whom you acknowledge, postulate and calculate values for imaginary parallel universes (perhaps with a logical constant for Thor, LOL) and there are other ways in which people with a natural World view think theoretically. Why, some of them are even philosophers.

Given that you accept that science is successful in producing an understanding of the World as we experience it, do you therefore think that there is some artificial limit on what science can tell us? Or do you think that there is, almost by definition, something about the World – and perhaps we can think of things like consciousness, here - that is not open to understanding? We can only speculate about this, but we can do so inductively from the history of scientific successes. This is an interesting problem to which many people would not claim to know the answer. Is there a limit to scientific knowledge? Most would regard it as much more realistic to say 'I don't know', than to claim that there is a much larger world only susceptible to religious thought. Atheists don't seem to have preconceptions: all they say is 'Convince us, but what you've shown us so far isn't up to much.'

204. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47092 by Flagellant on June 3, 2007 at 2:11 am

Dianielos Georgoudis (98) suggests

One answer might be that these people [people with a naturalistic World view?] are particularly intelligent and knowledgeable and are therefore the first to recognize that belief in God is a delusion. Another answer might be that these people are over-specialized and miss the forest for studying the trees.

That might be 'another answer'; it isn't anywhere near correct, though.

If you learn science and the scientific approach, you see how the World can be understood; that understanding is being added to all the time. Ok, we have to backtrack a bit sometimes, but the approach is fruitful and the results are pretty consistent: the periodic table, for example.

When you have had this sort of education, your World view is not a matter of overspecialisation; it is a matter of recognising generally that we understand the World much better now. (And understanding it better is by no means to lose one's awe of the place.) We no longer think that disease is a plague from god and this gives us a way to seek to prevent it. The more we understand the World, the less room there is for a supernatural entity. This explains Dawkins's 6.9 on a scale of 7.0, rather than absolute certainty, that there is no god.

I am minded of the spat between Snow and Leavis, here. Leavis, an English professor, upbraided Snow for his (Snow's) students' ignorance of Shakespeare's plays. Leavis retorted that Leavis's students didn't know about the second law of thermodynamics.

This 'Two Cultures' argument is rearing its head again, here. While one can criticise the scientific approach from the philosophical viewpoint, as in the philosophy of science, it cannot be done in the way Dianelos Georgoudis suggests. As someone who has had a foot in both camps, I have concluded that philosophy has more to learn from science than vice versa.

205. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #47071 by Flagellant on June 3, 2007 at 12:42 am

chamberpot: don't play here. People will ask you silly questions like 'OK, who created the creator?' when you infer a creator simply by analogy.

206. Groundbreaking Research Has Scientists Talking With Apes

Comment #47069 by Flagellant on June 3, 2007 at 12:36 am

Yes, chamberpot, please attach the skeleton. My, hasn't the internet improved recently? And without my noticing, too...

207. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #47058 by Flagellant on June 3, 2007 at 12:11 am

Bloody hell, chamber, I see that, in your profile, you describe your occupation as 'THINKER', while your only interest is given as 'THINKING' [Your caps.]. Well, please do some thinking, otherwise, we might all be tempted to deduce that you're 'chamber' as in 'chamberpot'.

208. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46853 by Flagellant on June 2, 2007 at 1:07 am

Welcome james_the_doubter(65), (67), & (69). Good on you for expressing your doubts here. My personal experience may help you: I became an intellectual atheist in my teens. It took me another thirty years to shake off all the nonsense - respect for religion, the vague possibility that there might be some sort of deity, and the inability to discuss the subject - the indoctrination had been too thorough. You seem to be making the same sort of journey. Richard Dawkins has made being an atheist respectable. Perhaps you have become ashamed of your beliefs or there is too much social pressure on you not to recant. The realisation that you are rid of all the nonsense is truly liberating. Have a look at other parts of this site where ex-believers bare their souls explain.

As for what would convince an atheist to become a Christian, I suppose it might be serious evidence of a god, not just faith ('hope'). Not very likely...lol.

209. Why Do Some People Resist Science?

Comment #46740 by Flagellant on June 1, 2007 at 10:40 am

mmurray (44) posted the following link
http://environment.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/article2600308.ece

to an article in The Independent, one of the most serious, and generally responsible, of the UK's newspapers. The article is drivel from beginning to end: "naturopath", indeed... Thanks for that; The Independent is, I believe, Richard Dawkins's daily paper. Time for a strongly worded letter about the garbage, please.

[Edited to get link to work - oh bugger - still not working... but you can cut & paste it or click on mmurray's link on comment 44.]

210. Creationist Periodic Table of the Elements

Comment #46711 by Flagellant on June 1, 2007 at 8:30 am

The difficulty we have is that we don't all want/need to go to regular atheism classes to feel content with our natural World view. We are therefore limited to discussions on the net with like-minded people and 'debates' with the religiosi, when the opportunity arises. (But well done Billy for going to Brights meetings.) Personally, I never bring up the subject with friends, etc. but join in with gusto if the subject comes up. This is how Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, & co are making it easier to get the message across - the religiosi bring up their shameful beliefs more often and thus they are beginning to invite the debate if only by denigrating "the abrasive atheists".

Unfortunately, some of us live up to the "abrasive" bit: it's OK to refer to someone as a nitwit, or more strongly, or to ridicule them when talking/blogging in semi-private with like-minded fellows, as here - it is a form of shorthand; it is another thing entirely if we are trying to de-convert faithheads.

I have noted how Richard Dawkins is incredibly emollient when talking to high profile people like Winston, Harries (Bish of Oxford,) and McGrath. He just doesn't say any more, in effect, than that they puzzle him, after he has dealt persuasively and rationally with every point they make. There would be no point in being abusive and it would be counter-productive. (It wouldn't surprise me to see a high profile convert or two within the next year or two.)

The occasional fleabag (oops) fundie is not open to reasonable discussion and, since s/he is as likely as not to start the abuse, there may be no good reason to hold back.

However, we are not out to win slanging matches; we are trying to get people to join us in our World view. And given the years the faithheads have had in the ascendant, with all the reinforcement they get, that is no easy task.

211. Creationist Periodic Table of the Elements

Comment #46333 by Flagellant on May 31, 2007 at 1:16 am

Hi Billy (22) Thanks for that. I'll try to comment in a bit more detail later (bizzy backsun). I love the table and I've sent it to all my chem & biochem friends & associates. I loved your (& epeeist's) spats with the flea, too.

212. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46006 by Flagellant on May 30, 2007 at 2:20 am

This didn't seem a good performance by Hitchens. He's usually so on top of his material but he is wrong about Berlin and Kennedy and Prager was right: Berlin was partitioned immediately after WWII (1945). The Berlin wall - and perhaps this is what Hitchens was thinking of - was built in 1961.

Agreed, though, that Prager was a good and interesting interviewer.

213. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45983 by Flagellant on May 30, 2007 at 12:56 am

Relevo (50), you have a point:

...Kettle is saying that...you must study [religious] technique to find what is it that keeps them ticking so successfully, then improve on that technique in such form that achieves the ethical secular scientifically honest society we all desire.

(I hope that my editing hasn't spoiled the point.)

The principal advantage that the religiosi have is their regular meetings for 'bonding'. This is one thing we cannot hope to emulate: I for one wouldn't want to go to such meetings and I suspect that the rest of our brethren here wouldn't want to, either. I suppose there's always the pub, especially now (1st July) that they're going smokeless...

I can't suggest how we could usefully copy the religiosi; however, we should campaign vigorously for the curbing of religion's dispensations and benefits: the reverence accorded to faith, tax advantages, bishops in the Lords, and the endorsement of faith schools, for example.

214. Dawkins at the Hay Festival

Comment #45978 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 11:41 pm

Me too: I thought that Richard was rowing back a little from the use of the word 'delusion' only in the specific cases of the theists he cites. After all, if you're looking for converts like Richard Harries, Rowan Williams, and Robert Winston, you want to allow them a bit of room for recantation, don't you?

215. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45843 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 11:42 am

I read this yesterday on the Grauniad website and, as expected, it got a pasting there.

[Dawkins] just doesn't get what makes people tick.

Oh yes he does, Martin, and a lot of it's delusional.

216. Tales of Hay-on-Wye

Comment #45803 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 10:25 am

Fire1974 puts it so much better than I had composed so I've deleted most of my comment. But to reiterate: saying that one doesn't know, doesn't validate any other view. Faithheads hold beliefs (i.e. hopes) that are inexplicable to people demanding evidence. We say that the religiosi are deluded because they just believe (i.e. hope) without justification. Perhaps it's just a strong sort of hope, modified by the possibility of appearing silly if one does a volte-face. But Richard's too polite to say this...

217. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #45794 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 9:45 am

Thanks for the link, Luthien (126) (I love your avatar, by the way). I followed a bit of the proceedings and found the speakers almost as disputatious as those here (LOL). I found this bit, by McCartney, interesting:

I believe that the fundamental nature of a democracy is that we must not use the institutions of the state to provide some sort of fire brigade or police force for delivering the moral, ethical or religious dictates of any religion. I fought against that in my criticism of successive Governments of the Republic of Ireland and their oppressive, Catholic theology in relation to social and economic matters. Equally, I am not prepared for some dark Protestant cloud of sabbatarianism to descend upon the Assembly.[My italics.]

A good sign this, I think, coming from a Unionist. If the Assembly can junk some of the idiotic tenets that identify each community, while accepting the neutral or good bits, bloody good show. But faith schools? Aaargh!

[Ed: spelling corrected.]

218. Jerry Falwell Deconverted on Deathbed!

Comment #45774 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 7:26 am

One of the best comments about Jerry Falwell was made by Christopher Hitchens: "If they'd given him an enema, he could have been buried in a matchbox". [Or something similar.]

219. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #45717 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 4:26 am

I'm really intrigued by this Scottish/Northern Ireland swing business. After all didn't Jesus say "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"? [Mark 2:27]

Perhaps he really meant "men", excluding kids. But then again, perhaps he meant everybody except Scottish piss-heads, but then again...

Oh dear, I do find interpreting the bible so tricky. LOL

[Punctuation (only) amended]

220. Creationist Periodic Table of the Elements

Comment #45693 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 1:59 am

On a very much more serious note, however, there is the matter of strategy raised by eximious (15) and discussed by Lant (16). There is always the problem that we could offend the persuadable theists and push them into reactionary positions where they will be even more difficult to convince. The thinking behind the Brights net http://www.the-brights.net/ is presumably that by adopting a name (cf. 'gay') and being a bit noisy, one can raise the consciousness of 'reasonable' people and they will come out. And unlike the gay crusade, we may even do some persuasion, too. There are several dangers here, not the least of which is the antagonism of the term 'Bright'.

There are those who feel that a confrontational attitude to all religious positions is the only route and I find myself in some sympathy with this view. However, the more pragmatic position is, perhaps, to be more emollient to potential converts; we aren't fighting a war: we are trying to educate and persuade. We also have to remember that we're opposing all cults of unreason, not just religion – there are other things to debunk: new age nonsense and astrology, for a start.

We lack the principal asset of the religiosi, though: their social centres where they meet and reinforce their faith. I can see no reason why atheists should meet formally by way of 'going to church', although net discussions are a useful start.

This is not the thread on which to expand this theme any more; there are probably several such discussions going on in the forum. Anyway, there's a lot going on on/in the Brights net. Why not join? http://www.the-brights.net/

221. Creationist Periodic Table of the Elements

Comment #45681 by Flagellant on May 29, 2007 at 1:03 am

Re comment 12 by visiblepulse, I was wondering about the 'real' creationist periodic table, too. I think they probably should have listed phlogiston and calx, instead of fire. Although, on second thoughts, perhaps that would be a bit too modern. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

222. Busted Halo

Comment #44295 by Flagellant on May 24, 2007 at 6:23 am

Deepak Chopra gets a good roasting in How mumbo jumbo conquered the World - a short history of modern delusions by Francis Wheen (London: Fourth Estate, 2004).

It's a good survey of cults of unreason, conspiracy theories, and new age nonsense, too.

223. Catholic Church Reconsiders Limbo

Comment #44289 by Flagellant on May 24, 2007 at 5:46 am

'Fate Of Soul Uncertain After Mid-Baptismal Drowning' [The Onion 23 May 2007]

Isn't it great to see The Onion continuing with its ridicule? Listen here: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/61872

224. The root of all evil?

Comment #43861 by Flagellant on May 23, 2007 at 2:24 am

During the UK's 2001 census, there was also the idea doing the rounds that, if enough people declared themselves as believers in 'Jedi', it would be recognised as a bona fide religion.

The census form asked for information about one's religion. A whole long list of beautiful, peace-loving, true religions was given in alphabetic order. A 'late' entry was 'None'. Now, I suppose that some thoughtful person had decided that it would be inappropriate to use the classifications 'Agnostic' or 'Atheist' instead of 'None'. These 'A' words would have put these abominations above all the true religions, ensuring a better score for the damned godless. It could, perhaps, for the purposes of the census, have defined 'Agnosticism' and 'Atheism' as religions.

Faced with such honourable, family-values, clever, skewing of the questions by the census designers, the godless amongst us could only convey their annoyance by throwing their forms away. I mean, if you were asked which brand of tooth fairy you believed in you'd have thought the exercise somewhat nonsensical, wouldn't you?

I don't remember seeing if 'Jedi' got anywhere, here. However, one thing that was reported in the statistics was the large number of uncounted people, deduced from the number of unreturned forms. Apparently, about one million people were 'missing'. All atheists? (Lol).

225. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43843 by Flagellant on May 23, 2007 at 12:30 am

I was wondering what Ann Coulter would have to say. Thanks for the link, windweaver.

Falwell was a perfected Christian.

Unbelievably well said, Ms Coulter. Lol.

226. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42428 by Flagellant on May 18, 2007 at 7:30 am

I have always thought that Hitchens' title should have been 'got is grot', from the British slang word 'grotty' = 1. unpleasant, nasty or unattractive; 2. of poor quality or in bad condition, unsatisfactory or useless.

However, this might not have been universally understood. What a shame.

Once, though, I did manage to shout "god is grot" at a group of Muslim demonstrators. They didn't get it, either. Probably a good thing in this case.

227. The stone is cast

Comment #41575 by Flagellant on May 16, 2007 at 10:30 am

Here, people, is an answer to the question of the nature of Falwell by contrasting his utterances with Dawkins's writing.

Falwell's notable quote, in the wake of 11 Sept 2001 appears in Wolfe's opening paragraph:

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'

In an article published on 15 September 2001, [here's the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html ] Dawkins gave his analysis of the causes of the demolition of the WTC in New York. As far as I can see, he did not heap abuse on any of the perpetrators or their co-religionists. Arguably the most objectionable part of his analysis was his conclusion:

To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.

A nice contrast, in the way of explaining an awful event, don't you think?

228. True faith is greater than the ranters

Comment #41331 by Flagellant on May 15, 2007 at 11:40 pm

"True faith...", eh? How do we distinguish that from "false faith"?

TedWak (19) gives an interesting link: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/05/21/070521crbo_books_gottlieb?currentPage=all

This New Yorker piece is probably the most carefully worked comment on the current atheist resurgence. It's certainly better than the Rees-Mogg piece. Gottlieb's New Yorker stuff on the Enlightenment may be a bit suspect (e.g. there isn't a proper treatment of Enlightenment [Voltaire's?] discussion of an all-loving, all-powerful god), but it deserves a thread of its own.

[Added: query on Voltaire.]

229. Christopher Hitchens - God is Not Great

Comment #40130 by Flagellant on May 13, 2007 at 8:38 am

Look here (12) Wee Wullie, Australia's secular constitution has nothing at all to do with the Queen except, for example, the following quotes from it

59. The Queen may disallow any law...

60. A proposed law reserved for the Queen's pleasure blah blah... not to mention

61. The executive power of the Commonwealth [of Australia] is vested in the Queen...blah blah...

the point being that H M the Q, has too much to do with Oz.

I'm sure she has too much to do with being head of the C of E and the Church of Scotland, as well. Or has she?

Anyway, I wasn't intending to muddy the waters, merely to pass some comments for our lovely Oz friends and I quite agree that the important objective is ecrasez l'infame. I have no intention of starting a republican thread but I think it might be worth having a thread where one can post useful "soundbites". My contribution is "Religion should only be allowed between consenting adults in private".

230. Christopher Hitchens - God is Not Great

Comment #40083 by Flagellant on May 13, 2007 at 3:32 am

Yes, IDHQ (#6) loose choice of "choose", I suppose, in

but look who the Brits are about to choose: a son of the manse

Very loosely, I have to point out that there is going to a be a choice among some electors (Labout MPs only)... LOl. "Foisted?" No, I think not. I should, of course, have said "...look who the Brits are about to get...). Much less controversial.

Now I'm just going out to buy a book called "The Ecumenicalism of Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams." While I'm at it, I'll get a life.

231. Unintelligent Design

Comment #40073 by Flagellant on May 13, 2007 at 2:25 am

Several posters have pointed out that the general thrust of this article is against "intelligent design" and that this is how we should view it, rather than as some sort of panegyric for religion or anything else. Let me join them. Atran gives anatomical examples of many mammalian structures that are less than perfect; an intelligent designer, if he'd been thinking about what he was doing, would have done a much better job.

One significant sentence:

parodies of science, like the so-called "theory" of intelligent design, only cripple science education.

Absolutely right. But his conclusion is even more trenchant:

Those who preach intelligent design would reintroduce intention into science and so reduce science's capacity to serve. For society, that is an unintelligent design.

This article is a pretty devastating critique of intelligent design and there's a lot in it to use against fundies, no matter where Atran is coming from.

May I suggest a more careful reading?

232. Christopher Hitchens - God is Not Great

Comment #39896 by Flagellant on May 12, 2007 at 8:03 am

Australia is so lovely: open-minded, tolerant and a really great place to be. The weather's fantastic, too. I am lucky enough to be able to spend several months there each year. Apart from the odd nutbag imam, comparing women to plates of meat, I haven't come across anything unsettling. However, I agree with Rtambree about the nature of religious leaders. In Oz's case, it never fails to puzzle me how they can put up with a man like John Howard (but look who the Brits are about to choose: a son of the manse). I'm even more puzzled that, although the Australian constitution is secular, they haven't dumped the Queen yet.

Back to the subject: this was an excellent interview, aired nationally, in case you didn't notice. It's a shame that it was conducted remotely: the phone detracts a lot from the dialogue. Overall, though, it was good to get such a long interview with lots of swingeing attacks on sacred cows. But then it's not difficult to find free-thinking interviewers Down Under.

233. Atheist offers to send letters post-Rapture

Comment #39616 by Flagellant on May 11, 2007 at 9:55 am

Congratulations postrapturepost (#45) on a superb idea.

Noting that you are slightly worried about the reactions of your family, I hope that Dawkins's TGD, and the various free-thinking books currently being promoted in the US, will have some effect in making atheism more acceptable; that's the general idea, anyway. Perhaps you'll even be able to discuss the nature of religious belief, in principle, with your family soon. Of course, you won't need to admit anything but you might be able to give us some idea if the message is getting across.

234. Sam's Flea!

Comment #39581 by Flagellant on May 11, 2007 at 7:52 am

As someone who lives in the "anarchic" UK, I'm not sure that I recognise the picture that Rob Slane (346) paints. On one point of fact, gun crime has remained remarkably steady for the last fifty years, so it is hardly "out of control". Perhaps looking at reputable sources might be in order. Gun crime gets reported because it is relatively rare, not because we are a faithless country.

I am 66. I have no fear of going out; I have never been attacked apart from on one occasion when I was accosted, harangued, and manhandled by a fundamentalist evangelical. That was in the days before it was respectable to call the religious "deluded" and he didn't like it.

However, the main point is that we are suffering from a growing menace: that of faith as a virtue, something encouraged by our crackpot Dauphin and God-driven, soon to be replaced, PM. Mohammedans clearly believe that the Koran is the inerrant word of God, so the Bible can't possibly be correct, can it? Whether either of these works is valid in any way at all, other than as an interesting historical document on the same level as the Lascaux cave paintings, at least 13,000 years old ("Oh, that's what they used to think/do then, is it?"), some people believe that at least one of them entitles jihadis to blow people up to bring about a Caliphate (or "The Kingdom of God on Earth" as the other lot might say). How wrong, pray, were the London suicide bombers?

One could perhaps argue that the Islamists are sent by God to try us. It's far more likely to be because we have given the delusional too much encouragement.

235. Londonistan Calling

Comment #39156 by Flagellant on May 10, 2007 at 5:23 am

Dead right, PrimeNumbers (#21). However, perhaps I could propose the following: Religion should only be allowed between consenting adults in private as a slogan for free-thinkers.

236. Fortune-telling no longer in the cards in Philly

Comment #39138 by Flagellant on May 10, 2007 at 4:36 am

If this state law continues to work, I'll never, ever, repeat the old saying: "One day, I spent a week in Philadelphia."

237. Hamas 'Mickey Mouse' calls for Muslim domination on kids' show

Comment #39110 by Flagellant on May 10, 2007 at 2:45 am

I may be in danger of starting a troll thread here, but Iowa Guy (#6) should really learn some history.

Israel was created, after WWII, in a country called Palestine where the majority of the people were Arab. Israel has expanded and occupied yet more land. Many Jews cite God as their authority for this expansion/occupation.

For a more nuanced view, look at Wikipedia. Try "Balfour Declaration" for one of the causes of the current Middle East imbroglio (it's the damn Brits, again). For a new slant on terrorism, try "King David Hotel bombing". And for a detailed history, there is, of course "Israel".

It would be tempting to ask "Who's the moron, really?" but it is more important to get the message across that religious belief has an awful lot to answer for. I hold no brief for Hamas, nor for religious views of any sort, other than "Stamp it out!", as Voltaire almost said.

238. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38732 by Flagellant on May 9, 2007 at 4:35 am

My pleasure, Bouwe. What a lovely place Oz is - seriously - apart from your otherwise impeccable constitution that allows the Queen to override your legislation. Perhaps she could intervene in the controversy you cite. Lol.

Interestingly, there's another thread, "Better god-fearing than sneering" by Stephanie [no] Merritt on this site (I can't make the link work, sorry) dealing with something similar to the Bunting article. Articles like this do far more to stimulate free-thinking than to advance the cause(s) of the religiosi.

239. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38727 by Flagellant on May 9, 2007 at 4:17 am

I don't think one should object if the Guardian publishes articles of this type (actually, it's the Observer, the Guardian's sister Sunday paper). This article is clearly one of a pair, the other being that by Madeleine Bunting http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2074075,00.html . Have a look at this site. The replies from Guardianistas are overwhelmingly critical, right from the beginning, even before another thread on the Dawkins site http://richarddawkins.net/article,993,The-New-Atheists-loathe-religion-far-too-much-to-plausibly-challenge-it,Madeleine-Bunting got hold of it. The comments read every bit as critical, and well-thought out, as stuff on this site. The Guardian's readership, and to a lesser extent that of the Observer, is pretty free-thinking. That a paper publishes articles like this is not a sign that it endorses the contents; far from it: one should see the policy as tacit support for Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens (C not P), and others. It is a matter of consciousness-raising.

240. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38634 by Flagellant on May 8, 2007 at 9:22 pm

To save you looking them up, here are the Guardian letters in response to Madeleine Bunting's article [slightly edited, only for appearance's sake]:

Atheists v believers: the progressive way forward

Wednesday May 9, 2007

Madeleine Bunting calls the new atheists lots of names and says that because of the way they critique the faith position they're doomed to failure (Comment, May 7). Well, Dawkins is my poster boy. He doesn't have to be nice. He's clever and he makes an unanswerable intellectual case on belief in the supernatural. Madeleine rests her defence of belief on its durability and that it cheers people up. Those are important points, and we do have to address how secular organisations can do the many good works done by religious groups in the past.

This isn't just a US row. The punters here are voting with their feet and church attendance is in decline. But we still have the absurdity of faith on the state: bishops in the Lords, enforced worship in schools, religious schools paid for from our taxes, religious extremists allowed to take over local comprehensives, blasphemy laws and the government attempting to introduce new proposals to protect religious sensitivities. All that and the rise of Islamic extremism. I'm not suprised Dawkins et al are cross.
Jane Golinski
Manchester

There are many practising "people of faith" who understand what drives Dawkins and Harris, because they fully recognise the fruits of Enlightenment thought and the evidence for evolution. They are also deeply critical of the growing fundamentalist dominance in Christianity and Islam. Leading authors in the field include Jack Spong, former Bishop of Newark, whose book, Jesus for the Non-Religious, is a tour de force explaining the basis for a radical review of the historicity of the New Testament.
It is perfectly possible, with full intellectual rigour, to reach a position in which God can be defined beyond traditional theism - as source of life and ground of being - with faith seen as living out our full humanity. In this rethinking, Jesus is also redefined, not as the divine son of first-century mythology, but by his freedom to challenge both religious and state oppression, his courage, his way of living and the contagious quality of his love.
There are active movements to reassert this liberal and open approach to faith, including the Progressive Christianity Network Britain (pcnbritain.org.uk) and Free to Believe (freetobelieve.org.uk). There is a choice.
Rev John Hetherington
Kendal, Cumbria

So believers live longer, are happier etc. These benefits may be real, but they have nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of their beliefs. It is more likely to be due to their way of life - more sociable and supportive communities, less alcohol, better diet, more stable family life and so on. I'm sure atheists will in time develop a way of life which brings equivalent benefits - but without the irrationality, oppressive social control and aggressive expansionism of religion.
Tony Johnson
Lifton, Devon

There's also a letter, under another heading (Don't divide school children by religion), critical of faith schools:

Wednesday May 9, 2007

The idea that "twinning" schools from different religions somehow creates "cohesion" (Report, May 8) was shown to be deluded in a study by Professor Irene Bruegel of London South Bank University. She found that special sessions mixing children from different primary schools did not have anything like the same effect that day-to-day contact did in helping them form friendships with people from other backgrounds and cultures. When efforts were made to bring children from monocultural schools into contact with those from other cultures, the results were actually counterproductive. White children still referred to the children they met as "coming from the brown school" and could not remember their names, as "too difficult".

Professor Bruegel's study also found that primary school children rarely referred to people by their ethnicity - in fact, they seemed unaware of the differences. Minority ethnic children are also far more likely to make and retain inter-ethnic relationships where they are not in a majority in their primary schools. The latest government initiative seems to be the first acknowledgment that faith schools are indeed divisive. But the solution they have come up with could actually make the problem worse. It is time to face the facts: faith schools are a menace to community cohesion.
Terry Sanderson
President, National Secular Society

One should still regard the Guardian as being (I was going to put "on the side of the angels") on the freethinking wing, despite Ms Bunting's contribution.

241. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38491 by Flagellant on May 8, 2007 at 10:28 am

The Guardian is normally a pretty free-thinking newspaper so I have no doubt that Madeleine Bunting will receive a pasting in the letters columns tomorrow. You have only to follow the respomses to her article; many of them were posted before the article appeared on this site. A study of the postings to the Guardian shows a preponderance of criticism, as I would expect. Have a look for yourselves: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2074075,00.html

As for the time constraints on posting to the Guardian CiF thread, these are administrative: the initial ten minutes gives you time to correct typos etc. I have never had any trouble, except for heavy traffic, particularly in this case. The Guardian does not have it in for atheists but it sometimes prints provocative things to leaven apathy.

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

Comment #37912 by Flagellant on May 6, 2007 at 8:31 am

Hi justme, When one is debating in this way, the objective is to appeal to the massive audience, not to change the fundies' minds. The more ridiculous the things they have to claim (or the more times they simply say "God") the more an open-minded audience is likely to see the threadbare nature of the fundy position. It's difficult when there's limited time but it can be done from the right knowledge base. We have to remember that there is but a handful of fundies in the studio, but there are presumably millions of generally interested viewers open to serious argument. So at and for whom should the argument be framed?

It remains to be seen what the net result of this exercise, as carried out, will be. I'm not sure that it will be positive.

243. Interview with Pierre Rehov

Comment #37893 by Flagellant on May 6, 2007 at 6:22 am

Not necessarily Damien - I think the general idea is to live in paradise forever, not simply to die from a surfeit of pleasure...

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

Comment #37889 by Flagellant on May 6, 2007 at 5:47 am

That fundies are people that can't deal with facts well is beyond dispute but they frequently blindly ignore the logic of fossil evidence. The transitional forms are there, but where are the rabbits in the precambrian? I agree that "They demand excessive evidence where there is plenty to draw conclusions from while at the same time they assert perfect proof comes from a single reference book..." but to push them into saying "The bible tells us x..." (especially when the bible is officially off limits) when there are no precambrian rabbits, puts them in a hole, I think.

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

Comment #37881 by Flagellant on May 6, 2007 at 5:10 am

Hi Logicel - many thanks for the sneak preview. Not as bad as I had feared but I'll look at it more closely. A detailed knowledge of hominid fossil evidence for evolution might have been useful.

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

Comment #37865 by Flagellant on May 6, 2007 at 4:03 am

Is there any news of this debate? It has now taken place and, presumably, it's embargoed until ABC posts it on 9th May. I think one or two posters to this thread were actually there... Can they tell us anything?

Personally, I'd like to be proved wrong, but I don't have high hopes; Richard Dawkins avoids "debates" of this sort because, no matter what the result, the very engagement somehow legitimises junk positions. Talking to Richard Harries (Bishop of Oxford) is, of course, a different matter.

247. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37861 by Flagellant on May 6, 2007 at 3:41 am

Voltaire's argument was that God cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful with respect to evil: either he is all-loving and impotent or all-powerful and malevolent. Various forms of sophistry are used by the religiosi (e.g. it's all to test us) but the point is a strong one.

The second thing is that God, in his revealed word(s) has never told us anything that science later discovered by rational enquiry. So he's not up to much, is he?

[Sorry - this is a repost from another thread but it seems to generalise some specific and relevant points.]

248. The kiss that brought immorality debate to a head

Comment #37846 by Flagellant on May 6, 2007 at 1:56 am

Perhaps we could look at the French solution to religious stuff: no visible religious signs in the classroom, for a start. (I don't know how this is going, across La Manche.) This includes veils, skullcaps, and crucifixes. On balance, this appears sensible. We have several difficulties, though: an administration that generally thinks faith schools "a good thing" and a race-relations act. Unfortunately, the RRA allowed several religions (e.g. Judaism & Sikhism) to conflate the notions of race and religion. (The RRA needs overhaul in this respect.) This conflation permits some religiosi to hide behind the confusion, and others, principally Moslems, to argue that this is unfair and they want their anti-religious discrimination law, too.

It seems we've got into a mess by having been too acquiescent to the believers in the past; now, any measure will create outrage somewhere.

249. My response to the GOP evolution question

Comment #37771 by Flagellant on May 5, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Nails (#37741) makes two points that are worth following up. Firstly, Voltaire's argument that God cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful with respect to evil: either he is all-loving and impotent or all-powerful and malevolent. Various forms of sophistry are used by the religiosi (e.g. it's all to test us) but the point is a strong one.

The second thing is that God, in his revealed word(s) has never told us anything that science later discovered by rational enquiry. So he's a bit of a shitbag, eh? Or perhaps even an ignorant shitbag...

250. For Motherly X Chromosome, Gender Is Only the Beginning

Comment #37580 by Flagellant on May 5, 2007 at 5:14 am

The sexist, self-satisfied nature of this article encourages me to append the following:

Here is my highly subjective report on supermarket checkout behaviour. Firstly women: they seem to be quite efficient at sorting and packing the produce, but the problem comes afterwards, when the bill is presented. If they haven't finished packing, they ignore the bill until the packing is finished. Invariably, this is what they do next: take shoulder bag off shoulder; open main compartment; remove purse; rummage through purse, getting nothing out. Open another compartment in shoulder bag; rummage in there for ages; try another compartment without success; revert to purse; take card or cash out and present it to the cashier. You get the picture?

Not only does such inconsiderate behaviour delay and inconvenience the cashier, it holds up the rest of us. What are the silly moos playing at? Is it a demonstration to the world at large that they don't know where their money is themselves so there's no point in mugging them? Or is it an unconscious expression of contempt for everyone else in the queue? In my mostly feminist moments, I had thought of women as the more considerate sex and that they were better at multi-tasking. Should I reconsider?

Contrast this with male behaviour: produce payment instrument before starting to pack. What's wrong with that? Honestly, the solution evades me. Have I been very unlucky or is this difference in behaviour truly a tertiary sexual characteristic?

I offer this analysis only in the interest of "balance". Popular scientific articles, such as this by Angier, do no favours to their subject matter.