251. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23839 by Luthien on March 3, 2007 at 6:36 am

"In a book of almost 400 pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false," Mr. Eagleton wrote. "The countless millions who have devoted their lives selflessly to the service of others in the name of Christ or Buddha or Allah are wiped from human history — and this by a self-appointed crusader against bigotry."

This reminds me of something the record companies do when they talk about the amount of money they lose through mp3 downloads. The assume that everyone who downloaded something for free would actually have gone out and bought it for £14 in the shops. In the above example, Mr Eagleton makes a similar unjustified assumption, namely that all the people doing "selfless acts" throughout the centuries would not have acted thus without the influence of a religion.

252. Research links some scriptures to hostile acts

Comment #23699 by Luthien on March 2, 2007 at 5:53 am

Taken by itself, a scriptural passage can wrongly rationalize negative behavior, he says.

Goodness, really??? You don't say!

Is their next study going to involve passages from the Koran and a flight simulator?

253. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23696 by Luthien on March 2, 2007 at 5:45 am

...the Cardinal said "the Antichrist presents himself as pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist

Al Gore is the Antichrist?

254. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23693 by Luthien on March 2, 2007 at 5:37 am

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

*wipes tears from eyes*

So if he thinks God is very simple, and God (being God) is superior to him, then he must be exceedingly simple indeed!

255. If God is talking to you, too, Mr Cameron - don't listen

Comment #23498 by Luthien on March 1, 2007 at 5:41 am

14. Comment #23479 by AbstractMonkey on March 1, 2007 at 3:21 am

I posted something about this to the comments section of the times website, but it never appeared. My point was along the lines that Portillo contradicts himself in the article:

He says, "I recognise that teaching religious belief may be a good way, perhaps the best way, to impart a sense of right and wrong to children and it is fundamental to our society's survival that most people should distinguish good from bad."
...
** If someone out there reading this has contact with that plonker Portillo, give him a kick in the ass for making such a mistake. Better still, get Andrew O'Neil on This Week to grill him about it! **

I sent him an email ang got the following response:

"I expected to be attcked by the religious community for my article but actually most of the criticism has come from those who like you are alarmed that during the course of the article I "copped out" over teaching etc. I accept that I did that and thanks for taking me to task."

256. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23358 by Luthien on February 28, 2007 at 5:44 am

8. Comment #23312 by Janus on February 27, 2007 at 6:52 pm

"I couldn't watch past the first minute. I'm sorry, but to say that labelling children is child abuse is such complete nonsense. What harm does mere _labelling_ do? "

Labelling children is child abuse.

I know, I'm from Northern Ireland!

Also, check out the Muslim Council's "advice" on how to "treat" so called Muslim children in state schools (both primary and secondary)...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6391271.stm?ls

"It calls for special considerations for Muslims in almost every aspect of school life: collective worship, PE, dance, swimming, exams, school meals, sex education and parents' evenings...

...Muslim children "should not be expected to participate in communal showering".

The compromise of allowing Muslim pupils to shower in bathing costumes is not acceptable either, says the guidance, because Islam also forbids being in the presence of nakedness.

Sports involving physical contact (basketball, for example) should happen only in single-gender groups.

Swimming is fraught with difficulties. Again schools are urged "to make every effort" to provide single-sex swimming lessons, as well as allowing Muslim girls to wear full leotards or leggings in the water.

During Ramadan, some pupils might wish to be excused swimming if they fear that swallowing water would break their fast.

There are many other areas in which Muslim pupils need special consideration:

they cannot take part in dance
school meals must include halal options
Islamic Studies should be offered to all Muslim pupils in RE at Key Stage 4 (GCSE level)
schools "should consider" offering Arabic to Muslim pupils.
The list is long: there are stipulations covering music, drama, art, school libraries, provision for prayers, school visits, and raffles."

Once a child is labeled, it seems they are practically the "property" of that religion, and is open to the above abuse. Once you are labeled they can say they are doing anything on your behalf. What sort of sick people put out "guidelines" to reinforce the SUPPRESSION of little girls, to the point that they can't dance, swim, or play football? How do you think the boys labeled "Muslim" will treat little girls in their class who do not cover themselves? How will they react to girls that insist on playing foorball with them???

257. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23295 by Luthien on February 27, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Body of Christ?

... we could have communion wafers made from GM wheat containing genuine "Jesus genes"...


o.O

258. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23286 by Luthien on February 27, 2007 at 2:38 pm

2. Comment #23285 by DaveT439 on February 27, 2007 at 2:06 pm
"2. Can you really get viable DNA out of 2000 year old bones?"

"If the scientific backbone of Jurrasic Park (the novel) has any truth to it, then even old dinosaur bones have fragementary DNA (the DNA leap in JP was the finding of complete dino DNA in the belly's of insects encased in amber)..."

OMG, we could have "Jerusalem Park", with thousands of Jesus clones on display... but then a Fundie wants to steal his own personal saivour. So he steals a sample of Jesus eggs from the freezer and knocks out the electricity grid to make his escape, inadvertantly releaseing a Jesus plague on the southern states...

259. Pope speaks out against 'designer babies'

Comment #23179 by Luthien on February 26, 2007 at 4:07 pm

3. Comment #23128 by cassdenata on February 26, 2007 at 1:17 pm
"...but with improvements in genetic detection of the probability of getting diseases, cancer, etc. It seems like a dangerous slippery slope."

and

0. Comment #23171 by BaronOchs on February 26, 2007 at 3:33 pm
"...although i find the possibilty of designer babies along the lines of "doctor we want a blond-haired violinist" worrying though I haven't looked at the issue in any detail, if anyone can offer a good breakdown I'd be grateful."

DNA just doesn't work like this. We can screen for serious genetic disorders, but it would be impossible to remove all the "cancer" genes. This is because these are the very same genes that give us our vitality and fertility when we are in our prime, which is why natural selection has favoured them so strongly. The most we can do is warn the person about their potential predispositions, and in the future we will probably be able to give some sort of corrective therapy to help our immune system detect rogue cancer cells.

Something like musical talent will be the result of a subtle combination of environment and a host of different genes, I suspect that predicting the effects of genetic "tweaking" will be as difficult and error prone as trying to predict the weather (since they are both subject to chaos).

260. Atheists come in last

Comment #22938 by Luthien on February 24, 2007 at 6:35 pm

82. Comment #22935 by steveroot on February 24, 2007 at 5:58 pm
"both documents evolved under the influence of a "common ancestor", human ethics."

hehe, brilliant ;-)

261. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #22934 by Luthien on February 24, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Hey, remember how people said the "Hobbits" could not have made and used the tools that were found with them, because their brain size was closer to that of a chimp's? Kind of challenges that idea!

When will people accept that animals other than humans are not "dumb"?

262. Is America Too Damn Religious?

Comment #22616 by Luthien on February 20, 2007 at 3:22 am

Hmmm... Well, after reading the "stationary earth" people's website... *sigh*

263. Kansas science standards evolve again, becoming pro-Darwin

Comment #22363 by Luthien on February 15, 2007 at 4:56 am

7. Comment #22312 by abilard on February 14, 2007 at 4:33 am

Does this mean they won't be teaching about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? :-(

You evil celestial teapot infidel! You will spend eternity in the great saucer below for believing in your false noodly gods.

264. Guinness 'Evolution' Ad

Comment #22140 by Luthien on February 13, 2007 at 3:21 am

4. Comment #22122 by scottishgeologist on February 13, 2007 at 12:56 am

LOL - good one - that should upset a few fundies. Guinness ads have often been good and thought provoking.

Actually, I *think* it was Guinness he was talking about, or it may just have been alchol generally, but that loveable cuddly preacher from Northern Ireland, the Rev Ian Paisley once referred to it as the "Devils buttermilk"

:-)

LOL I think you are right.

He also thinks Cinemas are evil, and sing hymns on the podium when they are reading out the election results *sigh*

265. The God Delusion

Comment #21727 by Luthien on February 10, 2007 at 7:44 pm

"The first is that the mere fact that a book is intended for a broad audience doesn't mean its author can ignore the best thinking on a subject."

Hehe, I suspect that he would ignore the "best thinking" of Fairyologists when dismissing the existence of fairies. You can think about things all you want, it doesn't make them real (if it did, I would never have to phone for a pizza delivery).

266. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21527 by Luthien on February 9, 2007 at 7:23 pm

83. Comment #21480 by debaser71 on February 9, 2007 at 11:47 am
The way I see it is that these parodies do little other than compare Dawkins to God. I don't know how religionist / anti-Dawkins types think this is going to somehow help them.

/boggle

/nerd

:-P

267. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21321 by Luthien on February 8, 2007 at 4:19 pm

16. Comment #21316 by Bremas on February 8, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Just reread the top and a couple of links.
Now I'm a bit embarrassed by the fact that I found it funny.
I guess that's what happens when you tend not to take things personally.
I take that back, I still found it a little funny. :)

Hehehe I read that bit before watching it and still found it funny.

Though we should remember that all children are born Adawkinists, and it is only through the repetition of the Dawkins myth that children grow up to assume he actually exists. :-P

268. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21314 by Luthien on February 8, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Hehe. Richard, I'm not sure if you exist any more, and even 2 forum comments just isn't convincing...

Let's meet in person :-P

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

Comment #20960 by Luthien on February 7, 2007 at 5:59 am

37. Comment #20933 by Student Grant on February 7, 2007 at 3:37 am

This interviewer is pretty typical of the local press in Northern Ireland. Despite thirty years of sectarian slaughter, the churches and their spokespeople invariably get an easy ride when presenting their mythology. Sadly, religious belief is still seen as the default setting for a 'normal' worldview, and rationalism is perceived as being weird, and potentially dangerous - again, despite approximately three thousand deaths in religious conflict. This is hardly surprising when you consider the influence that the churches still have on education here - practically all children are taught in sectarian schools and exposed to an inordinate amount of religious indoctrination. Though the virus didn't get us all, it still makes me EMBARRASSED TO COME FROM NORTHERN IRELAND.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I'm going to write a letter to the Belfast Telegraph, I suggest you do the same :-)

Last month The Derry Journal published a story about a woman who claimed that she had consumed no food or liquids for the past 8 years, other than Catholic communion wafers, and that God had kept her alive as some sort of miracle. The "journalist" doing the interview was all sympathy, and conducted the interview with the default assumption that what she claimed was true. (This woman was promoting a book.)

270. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20755 by Luthien on February 6, 2007 at 9:36 am

38. Comment #20746 by Riley on February 6, 2007 at 9:01 am

Even if feasible, can you not also see how easy it would be for the religious-minded majority or an authoritarian group to co-opt the intent of such laws to oppress minority and counter-culture groups? For example, how hard would it be for them to expand the definiton of 'hate' to include calling God a delusion?

I clearly didn't say "hate", I said "telling children that they should commit acts that violate the human rights of another person". This is a clear definition (in the law as well as in common sense), and if it is seen as oppressing a minority then we clearly have a minority that we need to worry about. Someone told those young men to blow up the tube, someone got to them while they were still vulnerable and ruined many lives in the process. Whoever they are, they should not have been allowed access to children.

271. Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion

Comment #20753 by Luthien on February 6, 2007 at 9:25 am

"Reason itself is an act of faith; it is an act of faith to suppose that our thoughts have any bearing on reality at all."

LOL

Can someone tell him that Reason is not to suppose our thoughts have any bearing on reality, it is to allow reality to have a bearing on your thoughts.

272. Give us back our bones, pagans tell museums

Comment #20752 by Luthien on February 6, 2007 at 9:18 am

5. Comment #20728 by alfonso on February 6, 2007 at 6:57 am

Drown Witches

Erm, if they are witches they float, like ducks, so let's see if they weigh the same as a duck :-P

273. Give us back our bones, pagans tell museums

Comment #20716 by Luthien on February 6, 2007 at 6:07 am

"We think that there is actually an intellectual argument for pagan claims to be taken seriously," said Prof Bienkowski, "It is a different world view which, actually, like the scientific world view can be neither proved nor disproved. It is actually our responsibility to take those views into account." What right, he asks, do scientists have to speak for the bones either?

*sigh* Not another one!

*rolls eyes*

274. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20711 by Luthien on February 6, 2007 at 4:36 am

33. Comment #20705 by opposablethumbs on February 6, 2007 at 4:02 am

...and it really is that simple to improve the behaviour and results of students. I hope this gets introduced throughout the UK :-)

Pupils were more aware of their own and the feelings of others and classroom behaviour improved, the research said.

This also shows that the rational conclusion of critical thinking is to work well with others, and treat them as you wish to be treated.

Thanks for that link :-)

275. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20700 by Luthien on February 6, 2007 at 1:51 am

31. Comment #20690 by John Phillips on February 5, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Riley: We already have school inspectors who check on both the competence of teachers and how the subjects taught relate to the agreed curriculum. What difference would there be in having such inspectors for religious teachers and institutes, whether religious schools or religious establishments in general. Any that promulgated what are considered anathema to human rights can easily be dealt with under existing law. Of course, this doesn't prevent or interfere with what parents do in their own homes but would limit what could be taught in religious establishments. Of course, one problem is that it is likely to garner ridiculous headlines from the right wing press about curtailing general religious freedom as it would have to apply to all religions and not simply islam. But I would consider this a major step forward for our society.

If the policy was clearly promoted so people understood that they were only being vetted to ensure they were not teaching children that it is acceptable to violate another person's human rights, I don't see how any religion (or newspaper) could object. They all claim to teach "peace and love", so if they have a problem with their instructors being vetted to ensure they are not teaching violence, then they are going to look very bad indeed. Essentially they would be publicly saying that they wanted the right to tell children to harm their fellow human beings.

28. Comment #20657 by Riley on February 5, 2007 at 2:27 pm

There's a difference between checking someone's criminal history as a means of qualifying that someone before hiring, and intruding upon private day to day activities. The latter, which does sound like what you're suggesting, amounts to treating everyone as if they were a criminal suspect without probable cause and perhaps even would shift the burden of proof onto the accused.

Riley, this is not assuming people are guilty, this is a child protection issue. If someone wants to set up an institution teaching children, they will simply have to prove that they meet certain standards. The curriculum of study should be looked at, and any guest speakers vetted. If are found to be telling children that it is a Husband's "right" to beat his wife, or something else that is clearly illegal and a violation of human rights, then their right to have access to children in a teaching environment will be revoked.

276. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20652 by Luthien on February 5, 2007 at 1:10 pm

26. Comment #20648 by Riley on February 5, 2007 at 11:53 am
avatar

Luthien wrote:We could require the "Sunday schools" (or whatever the equivalent is for that particular religion) to be vetted on what they are teaching / exposing children to.



For much the same reason I would not want my government to interfere with daily family activities, I would also not want my government requiring families and organizations that cater to families to report on private matters.

However, what I think society and government can do for the sake of children is insist that all children receive the basics of education. It's common to think of reading, writing and arithemetic as the basics of education (that part of education that is considered the right of every child) . To deprive a child of these basics is considered criminal neglect in many places.

I think the best way to counteract the impact of faith-schooling is to expand the basics of education to include "critical thinking". Using the scientific method as the benchmark for "critical thinking", government could require all children to demonstrate at least an adequate ability to evaluate evidence and apply the scientific method. Such a test could be conducted much the same way that tests evaluating reading, writing, and mathematic capability are conducted with the goal of ensuring that every child is receiving an adequate education. Also, if a perochial school or "home school" is not providing adequate critical thinking skills, then such schools can be shut down for much the same reason they would be shut down if not providing adequate reading and writing skills.

It's the attempt to isolate children that I think is the biggest threat. "Sunday school" is less likely to cause too much harm if students manage at the same time to get adequate exposure to better alternatives.

You make a good point about making sure that children are not isolated, but I still think there is a good case for vetting religious education centres aimed at children. If they have a religious education program, I think the state has a duty to make sure they are not telling young boys that it is ok to beat your wife, and other such things that are a blatent infringement of human rights. In the same way that people who work with children are vetted to ensure they do not have a criminal record, people who are teaching children should be vetted to ensure they are not telling them that it is ok to commit acts that, if acted upon, would violate another person's human rights. If I were to set up a school teaching young children "joyriding" or burglary, I am quite sure someone from the state would be very quick to shut me down (and quite right too), so if a Muslim is telling children that it is a Husband's "right" to beat his wife, or that women who are not covered from head to toe are inviting sexual assult, then I do not think the state is intervening in "private matters".

277. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20630 by Luthien on February 5, 2007 at 8:47 am

10. Comment #20604 by matlot on February 5, 2007 at 2:37 am

Response to: 9. Comment #20601 by Luthien on February 5, 2007 at 12:53 am

I am tempted to agree with you, but, upon deeper deliberation - and thinking generally - you are replacing the autonomy of parents with state control. Even with noble intentions, saying that the state should have the authority to ban parents from taking their children to religious services is, on reflection, ludicrous. What's next, all children should not be allowed to watch advertisments (brainwashing); Children should not be taught ettiquette, and other social programming practises (brainwashing). When talking about removing liberties, even those that we do not like, we must tread with care. You may respond by saying, "What about the children's rights to freedom from parental control?" But, you are merely replacing parental control with a, potentially, more draconian state control.

Yes, you are right that a ban would be dangerous from the point of view of giving the state power over how parents raise their children.

What do you think of the following idea:

We could require the "Sunday schools" (or whatever the equivalent is for that particular religion) to be vetted on what they are teaching / exposing children to. Any that are teaching children things that, if acted upon, are in violation of another person's rights should be refused permission to teach children, and if they teach children without being vetted, or in spite of a negative report, they are guilty of a criminal offence.

You can't stop parents from imparting violent ideas to their children, but you can stop extremists from gaining access to vulnerable children in a religious instruction / Sunday school type setting.

278. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20601 by Luthien on February 5, 2007 at 12:53 am

8. Comment #20599 by matlot on February 5, 2007 at 12:04 am
I saw the channel 4 dispatches program and it tested my JS Mill inspired liberalism to the limit. Freedom of religion is an absolute right proclaimed in the European Consensus on Human Rights and is contained in the same article as freedom of thought, but I'm almost tempted to give up this right just to be rid of Islam.
I say almost because, on reflection, we have to let these medieval twats retain the freedom of speech that they march incessantly to refute.

We should consider a ban on minors attending religious services (brainwashing). You would have to enforce the ban on all religions though, and I think that they would make a lot of noise about their "rights" being trampled on (but what about the child's right to decide for themselves?).

Perhaps we should consider a kind of "false advertising" legislation for religions. If your teachings contain anything that is (if acted upon) in breach of someone elses human rights, you cannot force them upon children, or gain charitable status for "spreading the word" of whatever god you believe in. This would be the intelectual equivalent of a ban on junk food ads during children's television.

Of course anyone who is an adult is free to believe what they want, and give money to whomever they wish, but if they want to teach it to children, or gain charitable status just for being a religion, they have to risk their teachings / holy book being dragged into the open (warts and all) and examined in detail by a court of law.

279. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20586 by Luthien on February 4, 2007 at 3:10 pm

There is only one way to break the extremist's hold, and that is to educate and protect women, and make sure that children get an education instead of religious brainwashing.

280. Taking the fight to Islam

Comment #20583 by Luthien on February 4, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Someone needed to say it, and she has. A very brave woman.

'The veil,' she says, 'is to show that women are responsible for the sexual self-control of men.'

What an accurate assesment of the situation, I'm going to make an effort to remember it.

281. The Chronicles of Kearnya, or, Principles of Evolution Observed in the Field at Kearny High School

Comment #20569 by Luthien on February 4, 2007 at 10:54 am

In the UK it would be illegal to stop students from taping a teacher. This is to allow students that have a disability, who may be too slow at taking notes / unable to take notes, to record the teaching for later study.

282. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #20465 by Luthien on February 2, 2007 at 5:57 pm

from the news article:

"I am not a tax protester and never have been," Kent Hovind told Rodgers. "The laws are just fine. It is just that some are enforcing laws that are not there."

Classic stuff ;-)

283. [Warning: Graphic] Children's foreheads slashed in Muslim saint's name

Comment #20462 by Luthien on February 2, 2007 at 5:40 pm

56. Comment #20441 by whisper on February 2, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I have to agree with Squiddity.

Sensationalism is a problem in the media.

Nobody is disputing the "facts" so much as the way they were delivered, and from a North American perspective.

I'm not saying that this 'ritual' is right or should be tolerated... but there are better angles for an arguement than appealing to the masses emotions... this type of approach is what really perpetuates these problems. We know it's wrong, bad, horrific... but let's not sit and argue the same arguements over and over again... let's try something else.

The responses I've been reading sound more like they are from people of 'faith' than people of reason.

You say that people know this is "wrong, bad, horrific", obviously this is not the case. Obviously these people think that this is a "good" thing to do to their children.

Taking a knife to a young child is wrong. We have evolved a "gut" reaction to things like this for a reason, so an emotional response is unavoidable. Do I need to give a logical and reasoned argument for why we don't eat our own shit? No, because everyone has an automatic reaction of disgust that does not require a detailed explanation (though we are perfectly capable of giving one anyway).

I think you are just argueing for the sake of it... Look, a black crow :-P

284. God and gorillas

Comment #20413 by Luthien on February 2, 2007 at 9:18 am

8. Comment #20267 by Riley on February 1, 2007 at 11:25 am
Hey Luthien, I've often thought that this term "respect" was very loaded. Is "worship and fear" the same as "respect"? I think that early civilizations feared nature, then anthropomorphized it as a means of coping with this fear, and then took to worshipping/appeasing the powerful personalities they saw in nature. Modern religion (for all its ills) was really a positive step forward. Because modern religions did not embue nature with supernatural human-like emotional needs and motivations, but instead regarded nature as an impersonal phenomena, people from such religions were more apt to study and master nature. It was a step in the right direction toward a more scientific thinking. It's only in our contemporary context (last few hundred years) that overcoming our fear of nature has become a particularly dangerous and destructive thing.


I suppose that "respect" can have an element of fear too. I know that people like "storm chasers", mountain climbers, vulcanologists, and animal handlers often speak of having "respect" for storms, mountains, volcanoes, and big animals. In saying this they mean that they are aware of the dangerous and unpredictable nature of these things, but extend them a kind of "professional courtesy" in not taking it personally if something goes wrong.

I'm sure that there was an element of "worship and fear" in these early humans, but the "respect" that I was particularly referring to, seen in many shamanistic cultures, is extended to animals in a way that asks forgiveness for the death of the animal. I think this is more to do with our capacity for compassion than fear of the unknown.

285. Sextuplet parents take B.C. to court over baby seizures

Comment #20373 by Luthien on February 2, 2007 at 4:13 am

Any belief that infringes upon another person's rights is (or should be) illegal to act upon.

286. God and gorillas

Comment #20254 by Luthien on February 1, 2007 at 9:47 am

I thought this was an interesting article. It always fascinates me to hear how complicated apes really are. I remember hearing about a group of chimps where the dominant male has hurt his leg and suffered from a bad limp. After the leg was healed, the other chimps would all mimic the limp while his back was turned, and stop doing it when he turned around to look.

As for religion, I think there is a strong distinction between religion as Dawkins sees it, and the kind of spirituality that our ancestors may have developed. Spiritual "religions" along the lines of polytheistic / shamenistic traditions are strongly rooted in having a deep respect for the environment and the creatures in it, even an empathy for animals who have to be killed and eaten (nor did they seem to make the assumption that humans are the only animals that can "think"). There is a sharp contrast between this way of thinking and the "big three" monotheistic religions, where the emphasis is on us being "special" and seperate from the environment, and having the right to exploit the planet (and all those intelligent, beautiful creatures we share it with) as we see fit. It appears that our ancestors probably had a deep respect for their surroundings because their very survival depended on that respect, whereas modern religion is disconnected from this.

287. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20221 by Luthien on February 1, 2007 at 5:53 am

Well, I think the Blasphemy Challenge is just great. The more I watch these videos, the more hope I have for the world.

As I teen I wanted to scream to the world that these people are crazy, but was stuck in an oppressively religious situation (thankfully my parents are now atheists too, so reason can win through). This is a great way to vent your anger and frustration, so you can feel free and true to yourself.

288. Just 'Evolution in Action'

Comment #20002 by Luthien on January 31, 2007 at 3:32 am

The more rational resist vaccines for perhaps three reasons: the long-term genetic, immune, and nervous system effects are unknown; those predisposed to hypersensitivity to the genetically-altered cells, adjuvants and preservatives in vaccines (delivered directly into the bloodstream) are not screened out; and because there are, plainly, very little justification for almost all of the widely-used vaccines, making the risk-benefit analysis quite clear.

Ooh, I'll bet you hate the MMR jab too (in spite of the media hysteria, the studies showing its safety are very conclusive).

Perhaps you should be lobbying for the compulsory registration of ALL studies; at present they only publish the favourable ones.

289. The Ego and the ID

Comment #19992 by Luthien on January 31, 2007 at 2:45 am

15. Comment #19988 by cheshirecat on January 31, 2007 at 2:14 am

Ok so maybe I was being stupid. I just don't like it when Dawkins says things like 'religion is child abuse'. That is a prime example of something for which there is no evidence.

No evidence? You HAVE lived a sheltered life.

290. [Warning: Graphic] Children's foreheads slashed in Muslim saint's name

Comment #19989 by Luthien on January 31, 2007 at 2:32 am

4. Comment #19982 by Squiddity on January 31, 2007 at 1:36 am

"This is an argument from prejudicial language and is therefore invalid.

If you accept that the Muslim (Shi'ite) faith is correct and true, then this behaviour is acceptable.
If you do not think it is true, then this behaviour may well not be.
It is not acceptable to me because I do not accept the Muslim faith and my personal morality tells me it is wrong.

However, using it as an example of how those heathen types are so evil plays to our idea of morality and deliberately tries to pluck at our heartstrings by overplaying the graphic and sensationalist elements of the story.
It avoids having to make a valid or reasoned argument by using prejudicial and sensational language.

This is what I would expect from our local mass market tabloid papers - it is not what I expect from this site.
I have come to expect better, I do not think this story, in this form, should have been proprogated here."

Sensational language? How else can you describe taking a knife to young children and cutting them? What is not "valid and reasoned" about the article, it's not like you need to quote academic sources to prove that this is child abuse?

291. Atheists in Jail

Comment #19817 by Luthien on January 30, 2007 at 4:15 am

Lazy???

Nah, I just ain't been caught yet ;-)

Perhaps most of us don't get caught (we are supposed to be cleverer)? Do the statistics on unsolved crime match the size of the unaccounted for atheist population? :-P

292. Young, British Muslims 'getting more radical'

Comment #19654 by Luthien on January 29, 2007 at 5:45 am

TheCodeCrack, as many here have said, that will just make the problem worse.

I think the issue here is "faith schools", they are the institutions we should be banning.

293. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19651 by Luthien on January 29, 2007 at 5:29 am

The expressions on Brian's face were priceless! I'm glad he got his point across so well (in spite of an interviewer who wouldn't let his interviewee speak).

I just got a webcam for christmas, think I will go do the challenge now :-)

294. Church of England still valid as state religion?

Comment #19590 by Luthien on January 28, 2007 at 5:37 pm

The real question is:

Given the CofEs blatent support for the so called 'right' to discriminate against homosexual couples, should they still receive state funding, tax benefits and automatic seats in the House of Lords?

295. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19059 by Luthien on January 24, 2007 at 3:02 pm

5. Comment #19020 by jonathan espalin on January 24, 2007 at 12:05 pm
'Athiest and 'Bright' are both unfortunate terms. Athiest has, by definition, a negative meaning, and 'Bright' is not only confusing, but rather friilous-sounding. Whatever happened to the word "Naturalist," or "Naturalism.

LOL, if I went round telling people in Belfast that I was a 'naturalist', they would think that I was in the habit of walking round the house in my one button birthday suit.

I prefer Atheist, because I prefer to say "So what if I am?"

296. Do You Believe in Magic?

Comment #18870 by Luthien on January 23, 2007 at 10:31 am

Perhaps our ancestors instinctively recreated all the conditions present when something went well (like a hunt, or finding food), because they did not have the knowledge of the world that we have, and it was more beneficial to carry out "pointless" actions than to risk leaving them out and fail? This would explain their need to worship the elements of the environment that had the most impact in their lives (the sun, moon, or particular animals).

297. Neither intellect nor faith will save humanity

Comment #18814 by Luthien on January 23, 2007 at 4:07 am

38. Comment #18710 by Thad on January 22, 2007 at 3:00 pm


*Sigh*

298. Ruth Kelly, her hard-line church and a devout PM wrestling with his conscience

Comment #18809 by Luthien on January 23, 2007 at 3:58 am

24. Comment #18699 by Filistyn on January 22, 2007 at 2:03 pm

I am not a biologist or scientist, but I cannot see how homosexuality can be regarded as "good" natural selection. Surely it must be seen as some kind of physical aberration and a gene or two gone wrong.

If it did not have some benefit, the tendency would have died out. In actual fact, there were studies done that showed a link between homosexual men and "super fertile" women:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained.html

One can also see how it would be helpful from a survival point of view for women with an excess of children to have close relatives who will not have children of their own (but still have the desire to look after them).

Also, check out this study showing how lesbians raise "well adjusted" teenagers:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6670-lesbian-couples-raise-welladjusted-teenagers.html

299. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #18798 by Luthien on January 23, 2007 at 3:32 am

9. Comment #18718 by seals on January 22, 2007 at 4:03 pm
... (IMO) and the hands are way too small!

Hehe, my first thought as well!

300. Britons unconvinced on evolution

Comment #18796 by Luthien on January 23, 2007 at 3:25 am

12. Comment #18768 by robives on January 22, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Out of interest; does anyone in the UK know anyone who believes in creationism?

Sadly I know 2 people, one whom I have had long discussions with on the issue (because I enjoy a challenge :-P).

On the bright side, many people in work have asked to borrow "The God Delusion" from me, and every person who reads it recommends it to someone else. My sister is reading it, I bought the audio book for my dad, my mum is going to read it too. My partner bought it for his mum who loved it, now his dad is reading it and his brother has gone out and bought it too. My dad says that there is a guy where he works that is lending it out to people too.