201. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209015 by mixmastergaz on July 11, 2008 at 2:02 pm

This is all so disproportionate; I mean for fuck's sake..."additional security".

202. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209003 by mixmastergaz on July 11, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Greg: I'm sure you're right. I was under the impression Mr Cook is a graduate student making some sort of protest. I'm just saying he chose a bad method of protest. The absurd fuss this seems to have stirred-up does, once again, as it says above "epitomise all that is ridiculous in the religious mind." Yet again we see the unlovely spectacle of religious people responding in hysterical ways if certain well-known buttons of theirs are pushed, so to speak. But we already knew this all to well. It may even jeopardise the reputation and career of a distinguished academic; I hope you're right to be confident that he'll retain his post. But I wouldn't want to discourage others from writing in support of him.

203. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208987 by mixmastergaz on July 11, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Doc: You said "3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

(3) is to which I was referring, and I think it quite accurately describes the double standards on show. "

I don't see that Catholics expecting to be able to practise their religion without deceitful intrusion is a "belligerent demand...at the expense of justice or other principles." It seems fair enough to me.

If I'm following you correctly...?

204. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208940 by mixmastergaz on July 11, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Dr Doctor: I'm assuming that your earlier remark about "religious appeasers" (to return your pedantry in kind, I think you mean 'appeasers of the religious',) was aimed, to some extent, at me. I don't really consider myself to be, in anyway other than a very loose metaphorical sense, at war with the religious; it's not a very good metaphor and collapses entirely when extended.

Since I've failed to convince many here of my objections to Mr Cook's particular form of protest I thought I'd give it another go. Before I do, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not trying to make any excuses for the hysterical and even threatening responses that have followed his prank. Of course, I agree that it's intolerable that anyone should be on the receiving end of the dreadful things this action has provoked. This point was well made in P Z's original article and well supported in the subsequent thread; there's surely no need for me to reiterate it further, save only to spare myself from the same sort of hysterical and hyperbolic accusations that we're all so annoyed at the Catholics for indulging in, here on this "oasis of reason"! I am arguing for no 'right-not-to-be-offended' or anything of the sort. Neither are my objections to this really on the grounds that this was blasphemous or sacrilegious as such, though it certainly was from a Catholic point of view; it is hard to think of anything that could be more offensive to traditional Catholic sensibilities without actually committing a criminal offence.

No; my objections to this are on the admittedly shaky grounds of manners and decency. I would have no problem with someone staging a protest outside a religious service, act of worship or what-have-you. But this literally crossed the line. As a former Catholic I am aware that about five or ten minutes before Mr Cook obtained the host he would (if he was playing his part well) have had to reach out and shake hands with half a dozen or so of those seated around him, look them in the eye and say "peace be with you". To be present under false pretences, to look one's fellow human beings in the eye, shake their hands and cynically wish them well, seems to me to be a rotten thing to do. Then to go on and do what he did really does add insult to injury, so to speak. However you slice this, it's intrusive and deceitful. Not automatically respecting religious beliefs, as Richard and others have called for, need not, for me, entail going out of your way to disrespect them, and more importantly those who believe them.

I've written to Dr Bruinink in support of PZ. Although I think it unwise to fan the flames with rhetoric and over-statement whilst complaining that this is what the other lot are doing (as I think PZ's original article did), he had every right to do so, and crucially he did so in the correct arena, unlike Mr Cook. If we are engaged in a metaphorical war with religion, or a sort of war of ideas, then Mr Cook's actions were poor tactics and counter-productive. I think the recent unfolding events confirm this. If this was done in the name of atheism then I, for one, would like to dissociate myself from it. It's perfectly possible and reasonable to do so and still support Mr Cook's and P Z's rights to go about their business unhindered by threats and suchlike.

205. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208740 by mixmastergaz on July 11, 2008 at 7:47 am

Graeme: Because he's an arsehole.

206. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208728 by mixmastergaz on July 11, 2008 at 7:27 am

Although I deplored the needlessly invasive act that set these particular wheels in motion, and the hysterical, if predictable, responses to it (and to be frank didn't much care for the tone of P Z's article) there is no question that a distinguished academic's career should not be threatened by an uncouth loudmouth like Donohue, simply for expressing an opinion wholly unconnected to his role at the University. Richard's characterisation of Donohue's campaign is accurate; this is a witch-hunt.

I will write in support of PZ, even though I didn't much care for the ill mannered, even indecent and certainly sacrilegious deed that set all this nonsense in motion. I don't doubt that some may view this as hypocritical on my part; to those I say you need to take a more nuanced view.

From start to finish there is nothing in any of this for atheists to celebrate.

207. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207858 by mixmastergaz on July 10, 2008 at 8:24 am

nickthelight: It's hard work maintaining belief in something as irrational as an organised religion, particularly if you're lucky enough to have friends and acquaintances who'll challenge your beliefs. What mental acrobatics it requires! Harder still if you've studied comparative religion and the origins of the scriptures. I honestly don't know how McGrath et al manage it unless they're wilful self-deceivers, more interested in what they'd like to be true than in what actually is. Maybe Mcgrath and co. opt to debate people like Richard as a means of dealing with their own doubts. This might explain why so many of them come across as smug and self-satisfied; they're just delighted to have found some of form of words that squares the circle to their satisfaction. Who cares if it really makes sense as long as it sounds convincing?

In the case of McGrath I think there's a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. His flea offering is terrible, and terribly written. It's very difficult to decipher his points and when you do finally get the drift he's usually saying something rather facile and obvious, but in grand-sounding terms. In that sense he reminds me of those awful post modernists; appalling writing seemingly designed to discourage counter arguments by means of the amount of effort it takes to understand his dreadful (and empty) prose.

208. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207630 by mixmastergaz on July 10, 2008 at 4:14 am

secondsoporano: My objection to this stunt wasn't really that it caused offence, that was an incidental point. By all means say as many offensive things about catholic beliefs as you like, you'll hear no complaint from me. This wasn't about words but rather an intrusive and deceptive deed. I'm not exhorting anyone to respect beliefs that they find objectionable, merely to respect one's fellow human beings and their right to practise their faith unmolested, irrespective (or "irregardless" as another poster put it!) of whether or not you happen to share it.

209. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207075 by mixmastergaz on July 9, 2008 at 6:47 am

Styrer: I make no excuses for the absurd over reactions, even threats, of some Catholics. I do not say that one should not criticise. By all means criticise in the strongest possible terms. But we are not discussing criticism. We are talking about deeds not words. This deed was extremely ill-judged, its consequences were entirely predictable. If Mr Cook were my neighbour in danger I'd offer him refuge in my own home, but I'd still think he was a rude idiot.

As I keep saying this wasn't "symbolic" for sincere Catholics; it's the holiest of holy. This implies none of the respect for the Catholic church's doctrines that you accuse me of. Merely courtesy and respect for my fellow human beings. Again, criticism is not "off limits". If I don't like my neighbour's taste in art I can criticise the prints he displays privately at home. But I don't have the right to set fire to them.

210. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207072 by mixmastergaz on July 9, 2008 at 6:32 am

Cartomancer: They weren't conducting their "silliness" in public. This was a private catholic mass and Mr Cook was a deceitful intruder who conducted himself appallingly. "Jovial ridiculer" doesn't do justice to the genuine hurt and offence this act has caused. I agree that some of the reactions to it are appallingly disproportionate. But there are better, more effective, less childish and discourteous ways of "stirring up the ennui" than trampling all over people's sincerely held beliefs in a manner calculated to cause a maximum of offence. When the wholly predictable fuss is stirred up it seems disingenuous to complain about it. What did he expect?

211. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207045 by mixmastergaz on July 9, 2008 at 5:50 am

Tyler: Yes the flag represents an entire country; certainly it is different (but not in the way you imply) as it is symbolic. The host is not symbolic for Catholics; it is the real and immediate presence of Christ. And I assume you wouldn't want to totally disregard the feelings of all the world's Roman Catholics, who are greater in number than the good people of the USA.

For ourselves as atheists this may be characterised as a storm in a tea cup. For Catholics it's rather more than that. But I don't want to argue all day about this. I've said my piece and I stand by it, but I can agree to differ.

212. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207035 by mixmastergaz on July 9, 2008 at 5:37 am

Tyler: Of course what some priests have done to some children is "nasty", but that's a totally different scenario you're bringing in (and a bit ad hominem to boot). Let's stick to the point shall we?

I'm not making excuses for the over-reactions of some Catholics to this. Merely pointing out that it was a tasteless thing to do, seemingly calculated to cause the maximum offence possible and completely unnecessary. I can't see that this action help to further whatever cause Mr Cook thought he was drawing attention to. On the contrary, I would imagine that this crass act only hardened opinion against someone who would be so deliberately discourteous.

213. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207029 by mixmastergaz on July 9, 2008 at 5:23 am

Tyler: You're free to call their beliefs horse-shit. This isn't about freedom of speech, it was a deceitful invasion of space achieved through dishonest means and it served no useful purpose. Mr Cook behaved like an exceptionally ill-mannered guest, presumably in the full knowledge of the hurt he would cause to his hosts. It crosses the line.

214. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207005 by mixmastergaz on July 9, 2008 at 4:58 am

It's worth giving some thought to what motivated Mr Cook to do this. If he genuinely didn't realise the (entirely predictable) offence this would cause then he's only an idiot. But I can't bring myself to believe he didn't know exactly WTF he was doing. This was a crass and pointless thing to do (if you disagree then perhaps you could tell me what purpose it served). It's also worth giving some thought to how it was achieved. In order to obtain a consecrated host Mr Cook would have had to attend mass and to play along as if he was a practising catholic. Immediately prior to receiving this "god damned cracker" (for Catholics, a God-blessed means of achieving communion with God Himself) he would have had to stand before a priest who said to him "the body of Christ". He would then have had to say "amen" (in this context that's effectively saying "it is the body of Christ; I agree") before the host was offered. However you slice this, it was a deceitful and deeply disrespectful thing to do.

For Non-Catholics it may be difficult to understand the offence caused. It may reasonably be compared with how a patriotic American, for example, might feel if someone burned the flag, except that it's much worse. Even the most patriotic American would concede that the flag is only a symbol, but for sincere Catholics there is nothing symbolic about the host. It is the holiest of holy, truly and materially present. However absurd others may find the doctrine of transubstantiation to be, it is none-the-less a central tenet of Catholicism. If Mr Cook knew all of this and still went ahead with his facile, attention-seeking stunt then he is seriously lacking in basic common courtesy. Good manners are not too much to ask from a neighbour with a different point of view, they are the very least one should expect as a pre-requisite for a civilised society. I consider this act to be gratuitous and pointless. Mr Cook is no better than a pathetic so-called modern artist who can only garner attention by childishly breaking taboos. Perhaps those who have posted in support of Mr Cook's dishonest actions might care to turn to their copies of 'God is not Great'. I seem to remember Hitchens dealing with this sort of needless crap with far greater eloquence than I can muster here.

I should declare a personal bias here as a lapsed Catholic. But I'd be just as annoyed if someone were to needlessly vandalise, say, a mosque or Sikh temple. Hitchens made the claim that we atheists leave that sort of thing to the faithful to enact upon each other. If Mr Cook is an atheist then I'm afraid Hitchens was to some extent mistaken on that point.

215. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206948 by mixmastergaz on July 9, 2008 at 2:25 am

Wow, this thread could almost remind me of 'fleabytes' (oh, remember those heady days) except of course that clearthinker did at least respond to other posts instead of bombing us with plagiarised horse shit. Plagiarised posts defending a plagiarised book; at least these people are consistent!

Great to see the copyright owner of the plagiarised photos wading in (sorry, couldn't resist!) Hello and welcome sir.

Paula: You floated the idea that Yahya isn't necessarily being deliberately deceitful; that he (and others I suppose) may "see and not see". I've often wondered about that myself. I dare say you've read Hitchens' 'God is not Great'. In the chapter regarding the origins of Mormonism Hitchens declares this to be a fascinating and still open question. I'm sure, as you suggest, this would be a good topic for a student of the psychology of religion but I'm wondering if anyone out there knows of any research that has already been undertaken along similar lines. My guess would be that this trait, although not restricted to matters of faith, would be most pronounced in a religious context. Anecdotally, one non-religious example that springs to mind is the unwavering loyalty of passionate football fans, who will continue to insist, for example, that no foul has been committed even when confronted with irrefutable evidence close-up and in slow-motion. I used to think that only certain types of people would indulge themselves in this sort of behaviour but now I'm beginning to wonder whether we might all be capable of it given the right circumstances (e.g. "My wife/husband/daughter/son would never do such a thing.") Are there any lurking psychologists out there who could throw some light on my layperson's speculation?

216. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206182 by mixmastergaz on July 8, 2008 at 6:49 am

Quetz: You can't be the real thing because my inner convictions confirm to me that the real Quetzacoatl (tea be upon Him) would have no truck with coffee and bovril any more than He (and He is a He) would allow the ordination of dragons. The true Quetzacoatl speaks to me every night and rewards me with bright lights in my head.

Your blasphemous assertion that the Holy Book of Cyril is apocryphal can't possibly be true; it is a lie spread by liberal namby-pambies, mired as they are in their uncleanness with their ice-skating and bovril. Chapter 1 of the Holy Book of Cyril insists that the prophet Cyril was vouchsafed the true word and has dire warnings for any who question its claims. Have you forgotten the lesson of doubting Tony? REPENT NOW BEFORE YOU CONDEMN YOURSELF TO AN ETERNITY IN HULL.

217. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #206167 by mixmastergaz on July 8, 2008 at 6:35 am

Clod: Joking aside I'm pleased that a clear majority within the church has decisively turned its back on one of the most obvious manifestations of its misogyny. I'm not too worried about the conservatives; they and their objectionable attitudes have been marginalised by the majority church's decision. They'll huff and puff no doubt, but I doubt that they'll fly planes into the third little pig's house and blame it on the jews.

218. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206152 by mixmastergaz on July 8, 2008 at 6:20 am

Quetz (in reply to post 304):

I'm not saying that dragons are inferior you understand, just different, and therefore unfit for the priesthood. As for your soft spot for witches and warlocks, I believe the scriptures are totally unambiguous on this point. Does it not say in the Book Of Cyril:-

"...as for the witches and warlocks, they are an abomination. If any among you should harbour a witch or warlock then the smiting shall be as strong as...well it'll be pretty strong ok?!"

Cyril 23: 42

It couldn't be any clearer and yet there they are waving their wands in pews each Sunday! Some of them don't like tea and prefer coffee. I have even heard tell of some who are so lost to shame as to drink Bovril!

We in the United Reformed Church of Quetzacoatl won't put up with any of this liberal namby-pambying. WE WON'T STAND FOR IT!

219. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206095 by mixmastergaz on July 8, 2008 at 5:13 am

I have a problem with the traditional church of Quetzacoatl; they've allowed the ordination of dragons to the priesthood and they're pretty soft on witches and warlocks...

220. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206086 by mixmastergaz on July 8, 2008 at 4:55 am

unityisfact: Perhaps I've overlooked something but in comment 279 you seem to be calling upon natural selection as evidence in support of your (baseless) assertion that there's no such thing as natural selection...

"MATTER CANNOT THINK"

Speak for yourself.

(Hopefully) too stupid to be genuine. I'm guessing someone's having us on here...

221. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #206070 by mixmastergaz on July 8, 2008 at 4:29 am

Unease about this schism may be alleviated by the thought that it helps to further undermine the ridiculous theory of Apostolic Succession. A new church emerges but where are the transitional churches? There are twice as many gaps now surely?!

222. Degrees of religion

Comment #206064 by mixmastergaz on July 8, 2008 at 4:17 am

Layla: Of course you're quite right, giving up one's faith in an Islamic context is categorically different from my own abandonment of Christianity, and much harder, so I concede I may have spoken too harshly. But the frustration I feel about those who seem to be aware of their own hypocrisy is real. I suppose this serves to underline the point that reason is only useful up to a point in this context. If the professed beliefs were not arrived at through reason then reason will not suffice to overturn them. I find this frustrating because it's difficult to see a way forward from this point.

223. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #206025 by mixmastergaz on July 8, 2008 at 3:19 am

I agree with those who have pondered over what this says (to outsiders) about certain members of the church who have such a bee under their bonnet regarding the status of women and gay people in the Anglican Communion.

Just as was the case in the '90s with the ordination of women to the priesthood, there are many calling for concessions and "safeguards". I realise Anthony Wedgwood Benn cuts little ice with many posters here but something he said back in the '90s on this really rang true with me:-

"What kind of man needs a safeguard against a woman?"

224. Degrees of religion

Comment #206013 by mixmastergaz on July 8, 2008 at 3:05 am

I agree with Adrian; keep picking at the seams and the whole thing may eventually unravel. I experienced something similar when I lost my faith.

What I find frustrating about this article is the lack of intellectual integrity. The author seems to know perfectly well that her faith is untenable, that she is leading a double life and is guilty of self-confessed hypocrisy. Yet she insists that she must tolerate this in herself and in others, indeed she prescribes this as some sort of panacea for the world's problems. It annoys me to think of the number of well-meaning but deeply confused Guardian readers who will seize upon this article to find solace for their own cognitive dissonance.

Is it really so difficult to be honest with oneself; to cease swallowing camels whilst straining out gnats; to lift the bull's tail and look the facts in the face?

Apparently it is but I'm at a loss to understand why this is so. I experienced my own loss of faith as briefly painful, but ultimately it was profoundly liberating; no more circles to square, no more unanswerable questions, no more absurd guilt about having sexual desires, no more intellectual acrobatics in order to reconcile unsupportable beliefs with scientific fact.

Kia Abdullah, come on in, the water's fine!

225. Prayer refusal pupils 'disciplined'

Comment #205418 by mixmastergaz on July 7, 2008 at 8:54 am

Speaking as a Religious Studies teacher I'm absolutely apalled by this incident, but sadly not all that surprised. If I attend conferences of other RS teachers I often leave with the impression that the subject attracts more than its fair share of deluded, humourless, self-righteous half-wits. It's a shame we RS teachers aren't registered as, if this article is accurate, then this person deserves to be struck-off.

226. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203531 by mixmastergaz on July 3, 2008 at 5:04 am

Much as I dislike the Daily fucking Mail (as right-thinking people naturally refer to it), I can't help thinking that they're right about this.

This is nonsense on stilts to use Bentham's memorable phrase. We are talking about a photograph of a cute puppy. If muslim shopkeepers don't wish to display the poster that's fine by me. They're under no obligation. But we can't allow such peculiar objections to dictate what is and is not acceptable in the public domain at large. If you don't like dogs then don't emigrate to a nation of dog-lovers, or learn to tolerate this aspect of the culture that has, on the whole, welcomed you, even bent over backwards to accommodate you.

227. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #203521 by mixmastergaz on July 3, 2008 at 4:30 am

I haven't seen Richard's cameo in Dr Who yet. I was away enjoying Glastonbury festival when this was broadcast but I'm looking forward to Friday's UK repeat. Thankfully no one has included any spoilers in the comments I've read so far! I can't wait to see this. I'm a life-long Dr Who fan and (obviously) have enjoyed reading Richard's books enormously.

I think I've said this before but surely 'clearmind' is a hoaxer (I speak as one who was briefly duped by someone calling themselves richard_dawkins). The posts certainly read like (admittedly not very good) parodies. If s/he's serious then s/he isn't worth debating. The posts contain nothing but wholly unfounded assertions and embarrassingly uninformed bluster maquerading as arguments, and quite frankly, if someone is so stupid as to fail to recognise the considerable extent of their ignorance, then debating is futile. Clearmind simply won't be able to understand others' counter-arguments. Paula rightly roasted me in a PM not too long ago for considering debating David Robertson, partly on the grounds that there is no point reasoning with someone who didn't arrive at their opinions by reason in the first place. Reason just won't do it for such people sadly.

228. The Flea Delusion

Comment #198510 by mixmastergaz on June 24, 2008 at 7:16 am

Wadsworth asks "How can he (Ward) be taken seriously?" Well, he is fairly well-respected in Christian Theological circles. I haven't yet read his book some I'm not going to criticise it for now. But on the general subject of 'flea' books I'd guess that the general strategy is "If we throw enough shit at the wall then some of it might stick."

Light act Mr Arse (anagram) at least had the honesty to remark in the foreword to his, ahem 'book' (more like a pamphlet), that he suspected that the majority of his readers wouldn't actually have read TGD, but would be wondering what to say to their friends who had. Very revealing...

229. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #198505 by mixmastergaz on June 24, 2008 at 6:57 am

Alister McGrath is an anagram of "light act Mr Arse" which is probably insignificant but kept me amused for a minute.

230. The Flea Delusion

Comment #198029 by mixmastergaz on June 23, 2008 at 4:34 am

Dear mummy and daddy in the sky,

Since I 've been such a good boy this year I'd like lots of presents please...oops wrong letter.

I heard from that nasty man saying you aren't really there again. Please could you send some comforting words from as many of your loyal elves as possible? I doesn't matter to me if they all say the same things. I just need the comfort of knowing that some clever people have written some books that prove that that nasty man is telling fibs about you. I'm not going to read them, or even think about this for myself as you've told me that thinking for myself is naughty.

Oh there he is again on youtube.

I think I'l put my fingers in my ears.

La la la la, I can't hear you.

Yours etc. etc.

Terry Eagleton

231. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196086 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 9:26 am

mixmastegaz is also bored, sitting around in the staffroom waiting for a parents' evening to start. He enjoys killing time with sarcasm and talking about himself in the 3rd person.

Irate: You forgot to use 'the word'.

Bad Religion = Great band.

On the subject of U2 lyrics, Bono has written so many songs about faith in crisis it's possible he thinking of taking Oystein's route. But he's still an insufferably precious and self-righteous arsehole. The theists are welcome to him.

Right, here come the parents. B'bye for now.

232. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196067 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 9:07 am

"Maybe honesty is in there somewhere"!?

Maybe?!

233. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196060 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 9:03 am

Irate: 'Wake up dead man' is pretty good; I like the line about Christ crucified's hands "being full".

234. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196058 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 9:02 am

I realise you weren't asking me Sharon but I can't resist. A good religion is one you're born into. A bad one is the one those other folks follow. Ask David Robertson...

235. Charles Darwin: 'Is man an ape or an angel?'

Comment #196000 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 7:06 am

King of NH: "Humans act so ape" Brilliant!

Laurie F: We share a common ancestor surely?

Edit: I'm not surprised this was in the Torygraph. I don't much care for many of the (especially) political views espoused in the dear old Torygraph, but it has some decent coverage, is unafraid of challenging its readers' views and it's nothing like the Daily fucking Mail. I propose that all decent, humane persons from now on only ever speak of "The Daily Fucking Mail". Perhaps it has a better chance than 'Bright' (as a noun) of catching-on.

236. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #195944 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 4:56 am

Caution: Totally off-topic post

Ummagumma Disc one (the 'live' side) is great.

Disc two is bollocks, apart from 'Granchester Meadows'.

237. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195939 by mixmastergaz on June 19, 2008 at 4:41 am

Urim: I concur with your interpretation of clearthinker's rhetorical question ("What kind of Christian were you?")

Clearthinker: Our new guest describes himself as a former liberal christian, as you know perfectly well. Your disingenuous claim not to know what that means did not, I notice, prevent you from subsequently using the phrase yourself.

In an earlier comment directed at me on the fabulously entertaining and insightful 'Fleabytes' thread clearthinker put it to me that I would never have lost my faith if only I'd been schooled in the right sort of Christianity, i.e. his sort(I'm paraphrasing here; I can't be bothered trawling through all those posts to find the exact quotation). I'm reminded of Hitchen's comment, "curious how insulting people can be when they're trying to be polite." Although, I don't think clearthinker was trying to be polite.

238. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195326 by mixmastergaz on June 18, 2008 at 4:25 am

Hi Loke and welcome!

Your comments about coming out to your family ring true with me. I'm so afraid of my folks' reaction to my lack of faith that I've not told them. It would cause them terrible distress to believe that their son was going to burn for all eternity. I have to hide my copies of New Humanist when they come to visit!

239. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #195314 by mixmastergaz on June 18, 2008 at 4:03 am

Atheist Jon: Surely Colbert's target isn't so much right-wingers as the media itself?

Edit: I can't get the link to work at the moment so I concede I could very easily be missing the point.

240. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #195303 by mixmastergaz on June 18, 2008 at 3:34 am

Wise words Steve (as ever). I think your comparison with a court-case is a very helpful way of thinking about the problem. So often I read your posts here and think "I wish I'd thought of that."

I'm sure you're right; there is plenty we can do.

It seems to me to be very revealing that David Robertson's position on such a central issue as creation is clouded in mystery, even to those who share his faith. What's he got to be so cagey about I wonder?

241. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195278 by mixmastergaz on June 18, 2008 at 2:12 am

Clearthinker

Your deconstruction of the term 'liberal Christian' seems a little disingenuous; I'm sure it's not the first time you've encountered the phrase (oxymoronic or not), I dare say you've even used it yourself and your questions regarding it sound like empty rhetoric since you already know perfectly well what it means. Think of someone like Rowan Williams; he's a liberal Christian (as you well know).

An another thing...

Oh sod it.

I really can't be bothered anymore.

God speed David.

242. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195065 by mixmastergaz on June 17, 2008 at 4:18 pm

So not all debates are useless eh?

I respect his honesty. The feelings he describes after his de-conversion remind me of how I felt after losing my faith.

Perhaps he could add a testimony to converts' corner...

243. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #195061 by mixmastergaz on June 17, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Steve Z I do take your point. I'm sure many potential witnesses to this now-not-happening debate wouldn't be able to hear or accept much of what I might've said because of an inner voice (possibly sounding like Woody Allen's impression of his parents) proclaiming "but he's a no-good atheist!" But I also wonder where we go from here. If we accept the depressing thought that there are people with whom we can't reason (and Ive certainly felt like this from time to time) then how can we hope to make any progress from this point? Ultimately, what else is there to do but take the argument to these people? It sounds like I'm changing my mind again; I'm not, but these are the questions I'm left asking myself, and now you chaps...

Vaal Teaching Religious Studies is great! It's more like a philosophy of religion course really. You'll be unsurprised to hear that most students (though not all) who undertake such a course are religious believers of one sort or another. I get to introduce them to the cosmological argument, the argument from design (certain sections of 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'TGD' are set-texts on the course; the looks on some of my students' faces are priceless!), the ontological argument, the argument from personal experience and their various counter arguments and so forth. We look at Hume on miracles, William James on religious experience and Kant's categorical imperative. In the 'Root of all Evil' documentary (I think) Richard recommends that the headmaster of a creationist-school familiarises himself with the utilitarian ethical theory of Bentham and Mill. I get paid to do this! And I frequently get the opportunity to see 'lights going on'; to see young people thinking critically about religion for perhaps the first time in their lives. How could one not enjoy this?

Dave Lynch and Epeeist Not that it matters now of course, but when I first replied to the Christian together email address I made it clear I wasn't up for debating a young-Earth creationist, or discussing evolution. The chap there said he didn't know what David Robertson's position on this was either!

Hungarian Elephant Thanks.

244. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194615 by mixmastergaz on June 17, 2008 at 4:30 am

Further to my recent posts floating the idea of accepting Christians Together's invitation to debate David Robertson, I've decided to listen to my own reservations and the concerns expressed here and decline the offer ("changes his mind like his socks" I know…). A polite and seemingly friendly chap called Colin emailed me to say they had in mind an early autumn date. On a purely practical level this would have been a non-starter for me; I was really only able to take part if the date they had in mind was during my summer holidays. But this isn't the only reason I've reconsidered. On reflection, agreeing to this debate in order to avoid accusations of 'running scared' from a debate seems rather trivial, even vain, and those who wish to argue along those lines may do so whether or not I attend. Additionally, it's entirely possible that an experienced preacher like David Robertson may 'wipe the floor with me' using a lot appealing (to his side) rhetoric and preaching to the choir. Whatever others may think of him, he is clearly better read in theology than I am and this wouldn't be a match of equals. I'm also keen to avoid the appearance of speaking on behalf of others, especially someone as distinguished as Richard. Although, had I agreed, in my mind I would only be speaking for myself, the distinct possibility remains that others could take me to be a representative of Richard, or of atheists generally, an impression I'd very much like to avoid.

Finally, this has the potential to 'blow my cover' with my students. I'm a religious studies teacher and I choose, deliberately, to refuse to answer my students' repeated questions about my own beliefs, much to their chagrin. It doesn't stop them guessing! If footage of me arguing the case for atheism were to appear on this new-fangled interweb thingy then the cat would be out of the bag. I'd rather some of them continue to believe that I'm a Christian, Jew or Pagan (though curiously none of them realise I'm an atheist) so I can preserve my impartiality as their teacher.

I'm still not convinced that refusing the invitation is the best course of action (although I'm leaning in that direction), but I am convinced that I'm not the right person for this.

245. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194123 by mixmastergaz on June 16, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Well, I've read the comments, most of which seem to be discouraging me from agreeing to any sort of debate, but I refuse to accept that there can be no diplomatic relations with Christians. It's depressing to me think that we can't talk and discuss with those who don't share our views and so I've contacted the chap from 'Christians together' (I think that was the name but I can't be bothered skipping back a few pages to check) who posted earlier looking for someone up for a debate. It's been a few hours but no response so far. My email was non-committal; I asked if David Robertson was a young-Earth creationist (because I'm not going all the way to Scotland to argue about evolution) and for clarification on a couple of other things.

Perhaps I'm being as naïve as some of you are suggesting; perhaps I've been "fooled" by their "stance", as someone else suggested. If I honestly reach the same conclusions later then I'll say so here and admit I was wrong. But I'm prepared to pick up the gauntlet that's been thrown down, provided it doesn't clash with any prior arrangements, which is a distinct possibility as I plan on going to quite a few festivals this summer. I'll update if I hear anything more from this.

(I'm anticipating lots of "on your own head be it" type remarks!)

246. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #193960 by mixmastergaz on June 16, 2008 at 8:44 am

Hmmm... The Illuminati. Isn't that the non-existent secretive organisation that David Icke believes to have been manipulating world events for hundreds of years? Aren't they supposed to be giant lizard-like aliens in human form? Sounds like this could be a shittastic film to me!

247. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192586 by mixmastergaz on June 13, 2008 at 1:16 pm

As flattering as Professor Lynn's assertion is, I don't buy this at all. I'm not convinced IQ is a a fair or accurate marker of intelligence, and it seems to me far more reasonable to suppose that the Royal Society fellows statistics referred to might suggest that people who are university-educated are more likely to be atheists, and only then within certain societies. Professor Lynn's claim is too bold.

248. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192508 by mixmastergaz on June 13, 2008 at 8:33 am

I hadn't realised David Robertson is a young Earth creationist. Perhaps I should reconsider.

249. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #192506 by mixmastergaz on June 13, 2008 at 8:26 am

Your guess is correct Cartomancer. I'm embarrassed to admit I was duped, but there it is. I had just spent the afternoon watching Paula's interview with Richard and was speed-reading through the threads to try and catch up when I read his phony (and slightly creepy) post. I should have spotted it (the impostor's tone was nothing like Richard's), but I fired-off the spontaneous post congratulating you on your (nonexistent) invitation above.

Pretty embarrassing that (as far as I can tell) the first contribution I've made to this website that has come to Richard's attention makes me look like a gullible ass, but such is life.

Apologies to both of you for the misunderstanding.

Gary

ps Happy Birthday Cartomancer!

250. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192495 by mixmastergaz on June 13, 2008 at 7:52 am

I'm hundreds of miles away from Scotland but I'd be willing to step forward to debate (providing the date doesn't clash with my hectic social schedule) if no one else in the vicinity does, if only because clearthinker will spin this as 'atheists too scared to debate with me'.

I think there are much better informed candidates than myself though...