301. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115076 by PJG on January 23, 2008 at 1:57 pm

al-rawandi

What about Jews and shellfish?

302. Banned From Church

Comment #115014 by PJG on January 23, 2008 at 12:27 pm

"Love thy neighbour"

I'm learning more every day - this is evidently yet another one where conditions apply!

In fact - maybe we could have a list:

"Jesus loves you"
"God loves you"
"Thou shalt not kill"
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman..." (unless the male is a minor and the Bishop is prepared to keep quiet)

The list just goes on and on!

303. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115005 by PJG on January 23, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Hmmmm - one for Pat Condell methinks!

304. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114848 by PJG on January 23, 2008 at 3:17 am

I'm a bit disturbed that most commenters on this thread, apart from Roger Stanyard, seem to underestimate Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis as some sort of joke. He is a total menace.

305. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114826 by PJG on January 23, 2008 at 1:08 am

If going along to these events is going to give them any publicity or credibility (because they can twist the attendance figures and claim that large numbers "support" them) then it is counter-productive from our point of view.

The only thing that DID cross my mind.... if a large enough number attended so that we could laugh (and encourage laughter) at all the ridiculous claims he makes, then maybe the meeting wouldn't go the way it was planned. I have seen the audiences in America, rapt concentration and awe on their faces (really scary!!!) but don't know how he (and his kind) go down in Britain. Would ridicule be possible? I don't see any other way of discouraging them.

If creationists found that their message was a source of entertainment rather than "education", maybe it would help? Rational discussion certainly doesn't work.

Of course I know they are not going to "just go away" - it was said tongue in cheek - but I AM at a loss. I don't want to see the creationists gaining ground here but feel rather powerless...

HELP!

306. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114776 by PJG on January 22, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Parklands Leisure Centre is about 15 miles from me and if I thought there was anything to be gained by going, I would go.

However, I wouldn't want to go to "protest", as that just gives them publicity. I certainly wouldn't want to pay to get in (is there a charge?), as that increases their revenue, and there would be no point in going in order to try to "educate" them, for the reasons we all know.

Is it best to just ignore them (as we would something like a Flat Earth Society) and hope they go away?

307. Vatican slams California firm's cloning experiments

Comment #114464 by PJG on January 22, 2008 at 8:51 am

The woman's role in the conception side of things is not at all unpleasant - it is the far end that is the nasty bit! Sadly, Nunnjosh, I don't think cloning using skin cells will remove the necessity of a womb for gestation and therefore (pain in) childbirth will stand for the foreseeable future!

308. Vatican slams California firm's cloning experiments

Comment #114307 by PJG on January 21, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Synchronium:
I think they only protest because, going by their infallible logic, they can't decide whether those embryos have souls.

If the soul is apparently created upon conception, this just leaves the Vatican with a headache.

309. Interview with Ian McEwan

Comment #114306 by PJG on January 21, 2008 at 8:51 pm

.
Hmmmm. I just wish his quote had been "Atheists CAN have as much conscience, possibly more, than people with deep religious convictions".

By saying "Atheists have as much conscience, possibly more, than people with deep religious convictions", it gives us two things we have to defend....

a) it suggests that atheism has a belief system attached to it which feeds the "atheism is just another religion" argument

b) There are some ghastly atheists with no conscience... just as there are ghastly theists with no conscience. Atheists do not believe in a god. There is no unity beyond that.

(Of course, I don't include the atheists on this site... every one of whom is intelligent, educated, highly ethical, kind and full of integrity with bags of common sense.... to say nothing of immensely good looking!!!!)

310. Honour Killings

Comment #114019 by PJG on January 21, 2008 at 8:15 am

Graham,

You are right, of course. It is just that when I read something like this - or other things that expose the sickness and/or ignorance of so many in society with so much of it mired in religious belief - I just feel so tired!

When I say that reason and education do not seem to be the answer, I just wonder if there is any way that we can begin to try something else (NOT WAR!!!) in a way that tackles the root of the problem - the emotional side.

If something isn't working, maybe we need to try something else ... and logic and reason clearly don't work against this sort of mental illness!

311. How Evolution REALLY Works

Comment #113959 by PJG on January 21, 2008 at 4:50 am

While this is a great video, I have a feeling it will only "preach to the converted". It demands a basic level of scientific and mathematical understanding, to say nothing of reading ability/vocabulary, that may be beyond many.

Personally, I think the Potholer54 videos are more useful if you want really basic stuff, particularly these......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

as they are simple enough to explain natural selection to a child (or even to a Creationist)..... OK, probably not to a creationist.... the videos aren't THAT simple!

312. Honour Killings

Comment #113932 by PJG on January 21, 2008 at 3:09 am

This is such a naive view of how to raise children. Anyone who thinks things can be improved by segregation and oppression is going to have quite a problem dealing with the consequences when the children start to think for themselves.

Radesq: Graham is of course right that it is left to the rational of this world to try to bring these fools into some semblance of a realistic view of the world and to convince them to drop their superstitious and (I would argue) inherently violent and imperial ways.

313. Honour Killings

Comment #113788 by PJG on January 20, 2008 at 2:55 pm

*Shakes head in a dispirited and hopeless way and searches for word or words adequate to express feelings on reading this email*

Finally, one comes to mind......

Whaaaaaaahhhh!!!

(Is that a "word"?)

Just read article about Charles too.... I DO have a word for him..... "Moron"

Edit:
Graham,
Of course there are things wrong with our society. The suggestion in the email is that a society based on Islamic teachings and values (especially, it seems, regarding women) makes for a better one with fewer problems.

I beg to differ.

314. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111931 by PJG on January 16, 2008 at 3:14 am

It looks to me as if Huckabee realises he has no chance of winning anything; so before he returns to obscurity, he is trying to set himself up with a nice little sinecure by identifying and ingratiating himself with the knuckle-draggers who support the Falwalls and Robertsons of this world

315. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111919 by PJG on January 16, 2008 at 2:30 am

I think we (the UK) should do a deal with the US.

We'll take all your not-worthy-of-being-called-American-citizen atheists and you can have all our deluded Bible/Koran-bashers. In this way, everyone could be happy and Britain would have some lovely buildings to convert into homes!

316. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111195 by PJG on January 14, 2008 at 1:55 am

Interesting discussion here.

It seems to me that the whole idea is based on self-esteem. Assuming you (one) has enough to live on, the differential between what you earn and what others earn is down to whether you feel the need to be "more than" those around you and what you think will give you either a feeling of self-worth and/or a feeling of superiority over your fellow man. After all, this really doesn't follow - money doesn't fill the self-worth void, most people just think it will....

Compensations never compensate.

I also think that the question should have been clear about the jobs being identical. If earning less than other people means that the job is seen as less valuable, then that also has implications for some people's self esteem.

Speaking personally, twelve years ago I was earning the same as I am now and I wouldn't go back for all the tea in China. There are only really two commodities, money and time. Time is life and that, to me, is more valuable than any amount of extra money. Plus I don't feel the need to earn more than others to feel OK about myself - but maybe I'm just arrogant!!!! :o)

317. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111100 by PJG on January 13, 2008 at 3:17 pm

There has been plenty of research on "happiness" and "wealth" that has found that all sorts of things are bound up not in absolute wealth (as in what you have) but in relative wealth (what you have in comparison to those around you). I haven't time to look it up now, but I am pretty sure that has been well known for years.

It is hardly irrational, the comparatively wealthy usually get the power and almost always get the girl(s).

318. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110923 by PJG on January 13, 2008 at 8:20 am

Yes, the quotes are needed. I think all that could be shown is that neurology explains why we have the feeling that certain views seem morally "right".

319. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110918 by PJG on January 13, 2008 at 8:13 am

I haven't read every comment so apologies if this has been said...

Morality has to be subjective - even if a social or legal morality is decided by consensus - and it is unlikely, imo, to ever be shown "scientifically".

Several people have talked about killing people being wrong. What about abortion and euthanasia?

My personal morality may say that the mother should have the right to choose - something many people find abhorrent. Many people (not just "eye for an eye" theists) are happy to send a criminal to the chair at the drop of a hat, something I find abhorrent. Is voluntary euthanasia wrong - or always wrong? I would say "no", the moral consensus,(in England) is that it is wrong - though the law may well be based on the reasoning that it so open to abuse as to make it untenable. Still, every law is a "slippery slope".

In view of the diametrically opposed views of morality, if certain views could be shown, neurologically, to be "moral", while laws may be made based on the neurological evidence and maybe the majority would abide by those laws... I doubt it would make people think differently, they would just think the law/society was wrong!

320. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110454 by PJG on January 11, 2008 at 8:00 am

A question for the atheist ex-JWs:

Do you feel your journey from theism to atheism was an emotional one or a scientific/educational one? Or maybe a bit of both?

321. Changing my Mind

Comment #110399 by PJG on January 11, 2008 at 5:46 am

AllanW

I agree with you. The problem is that if I am not convinced that something that works slowly and sporadically, if at all, should not be tried. If I thought there was anything that would make people question religious faith in that way I think I would feel it was worth a try!

I don't think scientific education is the answer on that front... because I think religion (and maybe pseudo-science is the same) works on an emotional level, not an intellectual one. This is evidenced by the highly intelligent and educated people, scientists included, who still believe in God. (Look at Francis Collins!)

322. Changing my Mind

Comment #110376 by PJG on January 11, 2008 at 4:22 am

I agree entirely that the best thing would be to have an emotionally stable, educated (especially scientifically) and all round well-balanced, rational population ... but we have to be realistic!!!! :o)

I'm not advocating use of the "accepted" alternative therapies like homeopathy etc. on the NHS. If the nonsense of these pseudo-sciences gets any support, there will always be a private market for them and that encourages more quack medicine and I think we should all be opposed to that.

I am just wondering whether a better way of dealing with the homeopaths et al of the world would be to use the placebo effect within conventional medicine where no conventional therapy is available (and cognitive therapy, even where it is useful, may be unavailable because of the cost). If patients were asked (by a doctor) if they would try a "new drug" (sugar pill), a percentage may respond - I think I read somewhere that the placebo effect can be as high as 15% but this may be wrong - either my memory or a faulty article! If that % are the people who will respond to the placebo effect, the ones going to "alternative" practitioners (because conventional medicine hadn't helped) would be less likely to be the "gullible" ones and so the whole industry would lose credence... maybe?

323. Changing my Mind

Comment #110360 by PJG on January 11, 2008 at 3:45 am

AllanW.

Thanks.

But if it was "faulty perception of cause and effect" that caused the problem in the first place, and if a medical practitioner doesn't know the cause of the faulty perception (e.g., psychological trauma in childhood manifesting as headaches in later life) or has no other means at his disposal, could there be no value in getting rid of the headaches by whatever means are available?

I think the reason I feel uncomfortable about it is that I am torn between the ethical problems of giving "sugar pills" and the possible (sometimes life changing) benefit to the individual of using their delusions in order to make them physically feel better.

Is it MORE ethical to let someone suffer from illusory physical illness than it is to cure them using illusory medicine? I truly do not know and would like input.

EDIT: I don't feel this would be as dangerous as religion (we don't know the faulty perception that causes this either!!) unless people advocated ONLY using the placebo effect to treat illness - on all illnesses - and not teaching about real medicine in schools!

324. Changing my Mind

Comment #110338 by PJG on January 11, 2008 at 2:37 am

I am interested. Why is the placebo effect seen as the same as "no cure" by some people on here?

In light of the previous misinterpretation of my posts, I do want to re-iterate that I do not support the use of homeopathy/crystal healing etc.

However, I don't think the placebo effect should be dismissed. Certainly, there appears to be no commercial benefit to be had by investigating the causes of recovery based on the placebo effect, that doesn't mean it has no value to the individuals who benefit.

I know, as I said before, that this may be equated to the "usefulness of religion" argument. In truth it is one of the few things that Sam Harris says that make me feel uncomfortable. Intellectually, I know we should remove dogma from society - and anything based of delusion - but emotionally, I don't feel comfortable with removing things that people need without giving them the tools to deal with the hole left.

Is this patronising, as Sam Harris suggests?

I know some people need insulin injections, I don't. It wouldn't be seen as patronising to say that, but it would be seen as cruel to say "because I do not need insulin, I'm going to take yours away". Maybe (to paraphrase Marx) religion is the insulin of the people".

I don't know.... I would be interested in people's views on this. I have never had any religious belief so I am not sure why I feel uncomfortable about this. I would be interested in the wise comments from you guys. :o)

325. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110314 by PJG on January 11, 2008 at 1:11 am

Yes, truly inspirational stories on here. Just wonderful.

However, (and slightly off topic, I know) one or two put me in mind of something that I have noticed creeping into the arguments of Christian apologists lately (it seems to be replacing the irrelevant "Atheist Dictator" argument), that any morality/altruism shown by atheists comes from the "Christian tradition/culture".

It is a totally one-way argument, of course, because whereas they will use the idea that famous atheists like Mother Teresa (heh heh!!), even if they did not feel the presence of God, still did the good things they did because of their former faith (I'm not saying MT did good things, yes, I have read The Missionary Position, but the perception of most is that she did good things), they NEVER suggest that atheists like Stalin (or, as they claim he was an atheist, Hitler) did the terrible things they did because of their "former" faith.

326. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110003 by PJG on January 10, 2008 at 9:19 am

Re my post at 2.

I was joking! Maybe I am not using the correct method of showing this... I thought lots of exclamation marks would convey this. Should I have used :o) instead? (I am fairly new to this)

If, on the other hand, what I posted was seen to be a joke but thought to be in bad taste, then I would like to apologise for the offence and then say I think it is great when people embrace reason and I expect it is at once liberating and terrifying. I commend them fully and admire them when they leave their religion knowing they will pay a price in losing family and friends (in some cases, like JWs) or more extreme reactions in others (like Islam). To the JWs on this thread, good luck to you.

Fire1974 I do just what you describe. It isn't a waste of time as there are some who are more open than others and I really enjoy the "sport" (Joke!). Last time, one even took down the details of "Misquoting Jesus". Though I doubt she will read it, I felt it was a start.

Slowly, slowly.

327. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #109873 by PJG on January 10, 2008 at 1:38 am

Good for them!

I do have one concern though, and maybe this is an "unforeseen consequence" of getting people to question their religions...

With all these people afraid of what their religions/organisations might do to them because of their apostasy, are we going to have to fund hoards of security guards a la AHA? It could get rather expensive!!!!

328. Changing my Mind

Comment #109162 by PJG on January 8, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Oh dear, I have been misunderstood if you thought I was supporting homeopathy or any other "alternative" medicine.

I am not supporting any of this nonsense and of course it would be better if everyone was educated out of silly beliefs of every kind.

I was being facetious and suggesting that the fact that these things just don't work (my reference to Darwin Awards) beyond the placebo level (I don't think there is evidence that they are LESS effective than placebo is there?) might filter through eventually.

However, there are many, many problems with drugs which come out of the "well regulated" pharma industry (my husband is a researcher in this industry) and there are plenty of tested, approved drugs which do a great deal more harm, physically, than the water that is sold as homeopathic remedy.

329. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #109112 by PJG on January 8, 2008 at 11:16 am

BAEOZ

I've had the same problem on https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14398630&postID=8076859066371691438

Some comments were posted but when I tried to defend against the "atheist evangelist" accusation, they were not posted. I was very polite so maybe my argument was too good!!!! :o)

330. Changing my Mind

Comment #109102 by PJG on January 8, 2008 at 10:32 am

I sometimes wonder if doctors would LIKE to prescribe a sugar pill but know they would be sued if they did and it didn't work... and the patient found out it was a sugar pill. By throwing the problem onto the homeopath, they might be saving themselves the trouble.

Maybe the way to deal with this would be that people can only go to a homeopath if they are referred by a medically trained doctor. That way, the patients who may benefit from a placebo would not be a drain on the NHS but the NHS could not be sued for prescribing a placebo. A win/ win situation. It would also mean that anyone gullible enough to seek homeopathic treatment rather than through conventional medicine (or reiki or whatever) for illnesses like cancer and AIDS could be nominated for the Darwin Awards. :o)

331. Changing my Mind

Comment #109099 by PJG on January 8, 2008 at 10:20 am

Of course homeopathy/reiki etc. only work as placebos. However, placebos can, and do, work. As so many physical ailments are psychological in origin, a lot of money could be saved if everyone with a dubious or mild "illness" was given a placebo first and then the ones that came back got the REAL medicine! :o)

Two things to consider...

i) "real" medicines can have nasty side effects (and yes, placebos can also have negative "side" effects but I believe they are less likely and not so nasty)so it is worth giving a placebo a go

ii) placebos only work if people BELIEVE they are going to work so maybe we shouldn't try to educate the gullible out of believing in homeopathy and the like.

Before I get hounded for saying this and likened to those who say that religion may act as a placebo and should therefore not be ridiculed, I can only say that a few people taking a sugar pill is not going to harm anyone else in the way some religion can. Of course, I don't think homeopathy should be allowed for children, it should only be used if the person THEMSELF believes it will help and should never be inflicted on others... like religion!

332. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #109086 by PJG on January 8, 2008 at 9:51 am

Re comments about why an atheist would not want there to be a God.

I would love there to be a God that conformed to my idea of what a God should be. However, I very much hope there is not a God if it is the one that is supposed to exist who appears to be, at best, incompetent and, at worst, a really, really nasty piece of work.

333. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108594 by PJG on January 7, 2008 at 10:09 am

robotaholic

I am sorry to hear about your problems with your father. I know it has already been said, but I would like to reiterate... Your father's anger is almost certainly directed at himself, not you. If he truly believes that his beloved son is heading towards an eternity of torture and he feels powerless to prevent it - or even feels he has, in some way, caused it, then he will initially turn that anger towards you but that is very likely to pass.

Maybe you could write to him? Whereas people will sometimes refuse to hear someone out, in person or on the phone, they can be almost guaranteed to read a letter.

If you can understand his frustration and sorrow, maybe you could try to explain yours. You certainly write eloquently and if you can make him understand that believing in God is not a choice (any more than loving someone is a choice), he may realise that allowing this to cause a rift between you is a loss to both of you, not a way of convincing you to "mend your ways".

334. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108394 by PJG on January 6, 2008 at 5:55 pm

One reason to believe there is no God (all other reasons follow from this)

The existence of a God (or gods) poses more questions than it answers.

It starts with the statement, "There is a creator God"
First question: "Who/what created the creator?"

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

Comment #107074 by PJG on January 4, 2008 at 3:20 am

Quill

That is the way I read it too.

This is all very worrying - even living in England is no consolation.

If this is the way things are going in America, it is only a matter of time before some fundamentalist nut gets into power over there and then... give us a few years and we could have one here. For the first time in my life, I find myself being grateful for the Royal Family!! ;o)

336. Changing my Mind

Comment #106658 by PJG on January 3, 2008 at 8:25 am

One for the British here - have you seen this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2233423,00.html

and this

http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/cn/08/080102a.htm

I've skimmed through the actual document (it's 68 pages so I can't say I've studied it) but it is pretty scary...

http://www.lancasterrcdiocese.org.uk/mission%20review/school-report.pdf

337. Changing my Mind

Comment #106653 by PJG on January 3, 2008 at 8:20 am

I'd like to suggest that we don't waste time learning verses of religious texts to out-quote theists ("no matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney" comes to mind), but spend the time instead to improve our scientific understanding in order to eloquently describe the reality of where we came from to people lacking, or denying, the truth.

338. Changing my Mind

Comment #106634 by PJG on January 3, 2008 at 8:06 am

I agree that there is little point in trying to give ourselves a name (my interest in renaming Brights as NTGs was tongue-in-cheek and mainly because I don't like the term "Brights"). The ONLY thing atheists have in common is that they don't believe in God. We may all like to think we are reasonable, intelligent and kind people with more than our fair share of integrity and intellectual honesty but that is what EVERYONE thinks... about themselves and any group they ally themselves with.

Simply reading these threads shows that we often have little in common with each other except our lack of belief in God (and being reasonable, intelligent and kind people with more than our fair share of integrity of course!)

We don't really need a single word to explain why we don't believe, any more than a theist has a single word to explain why they do believe.

339. Changing my Mind

Comment #106522 by PJG on January 3, 2008 at 4:35 am

Steve, I think we agree. I don't like the term "atheist" - for the same reasons as Sam Harris. However, we are stuck with it. Like you, I do wish there was a word that encompassed a set of values (like honesty, reason, etc) PLUS a belief that there is no God. "Not THAT gullible" is good - cumbersome, but good!!! Maybe "NTG" could replace "Bright"???!!! :o)

Next time I am asked my religion on an official form, instead of putting "None", I will put NTG - that'll fix 'em!

340. Changing my Mind

Comment #106496 by PJG on January 3, 2008 at 3:35 am

Steve Zara. It would be nice to have a word that meant that.

What you describe is a person of intelligence, integrity and education who is open-minded and polite but who does not believe in God. How about.... er... erm... "Atheist"!!!!

OK, the word doesn't describe ALL atheists any more than "Catholic" covers all Catholics. I loved the comment I saw - maybe on this site - where someone suggested to someone who stated that Hitler was not a Catholic - "well he was at least as much a Catholic as Mother Teresa was"!

341. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106490 by PJG on January 3, 2008 at 3:26 am

Unless I mis-read the article, I don't think it says anything about the priest abusing boys. The allegation is of paedophilia, not homosexuality.

342. The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply

Comment #106485 by PJG on January 3, 2008 at 3:12 am

Mitt Romney is worried about religious intolerance. He fears that religious and nonreligious people will unite to punish him because of his Mormon faith. He thinks it would be much more in keeping with America's noblest traditions if Mormons and other believers joined together to punish people of no faith.

343. Changing my Mind

Comment #106473 by PJG on January 3, 2008 at 2:25 am

I know what you are saying Steve Zara, but I think we are stuck with it in the sense that it describes someone who has no belief in God. I don't like "Brights" (it seems unnecessarily derogatory to the others - we may think of them as "dim" but we don't want to seem arrogant - not that I'm siding with Ted Haggard of course!)) and I have often said I am a humanist but it isn't really an interchangeable term with atheist - you don't have to be an atheist to be a humanist, or vice versa. On the other hand, most people think that a humanist is also an atheist and it does have the advantage that no-one has ever said to me that Stalin or Pol Pot were humanists!

344. Changing my Mind

Comment #106457 by PJG on January 3, 2008 at 1:42 am

Paula Kirby is right about the pointlessness of changing the word "atheist". We've all seen it happen in the PC brigade... a word becomes a term of abuse, the word is deleted and another one is put in its place... new word becomes term of abuse. It isn't the word that is the problem, it is the context/intent which gives it meaning, good, bad or indifferent.

Regarding the JW's (and Mormons). Personally (if I have time) I thoroughly enjoy talking to them. There is normally an experienced "campaigner" and a novice. On several occasions, the novice has started to question the experienced campaigner in a way that gave me a glimmer of hope, and certainly evidence, that minds can be changed. RD has done it with some (look at "Converts' Corner) If each of us did talk on the doorstep (only when they come to us, I'm not advocating atheists going door to door!!!) it is better than nothing.

Mind you, you do need to know the Bible better than they do - not difficult, they are amazingly selective in their quotes/understanding. It also helps to have a bit of knowledge on the history of the Bible - Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman is really good. The last time the JWs came to my door, the novice took a note of the book and said she would read it - I doubt she will, but having come to the door denying there were any inconsistencies or errors in the Bible, it is a start.

345. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105916 by PJG on January 2, 2008 at 6:17 am

....if good hearted utopianists like yourself were in charge of it, I wouldn't bat an eye.

But, we live in the real world, full of greedy little control freaks, and arrogant fevered egos.

Gives me legitimate cause for worry.

346. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105866 by PJG on January 2, 2008 at 2:12 am

The problem, it seems to me, is that any "choice" made by humans is subjective and, more often than not, based on emotional, rather than realistic, logical motives. If it is true (and it seems to be so at every level... personal, political, etc.,) that "we create what we fear", then making what we THINK will be good choices about human genetic modifications for the future, could be putting far too much faith in our own abilities and foresight. Humans themselves are probably the biggest threat to humans - especially those who think they have the answers, ability and the right, to make decisions for others.

Whilst Mother Nature may not be our friend, she is not our worst enemy either.

347. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #105022 by PJG on December 30, 2007 at 11:09 am

Might I just highlight the fact that it's the National Secular Society - again - that seems to be taking the lead in the UK in speaking out against the influence of religion in public life. I am more and more impressed with them.

348. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #105014 by PJG on December 30, 2007 at 10:31 am

The Catholics are really getting their knickers in a twist at the moment aren't they.....?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2233423,00.html

This just takes the biscuit....

O'Donoghue said it was 'absolute rubbish' that what he was advocating was indoctrination.

349. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #105008 by PJG on December 30, 2007 at 10:23 am

Re: The Life-Raft

I think it would be most reasonable to point out to the religious survivors that, as atheists believe they only have this life, it is clearly more important to him/her than to those who only see Earth as a waiting-room for the real stuff. It would only be fair, therefore, for those who were looking forward to their eternal life to sacrifice themselves so that others might live. Even if death is inevitable, at least those relishing a meal of "long pig" might enjoy just one last sunset.

350. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104750 by PJG on December 29, 2007 at 10:50 am

The Church has always denounced greed .... they have been rumbled by everyone who hasn't been caught up in the con.

In the words of Monty Python's Vice-Pope Eric, "... Of course people accuse us sometimes of not practising what we preach, but you must remember that if you are trying to propagate a creed of poverty, gentleness and tolerance, you need a very rich, powerful, authoritarian organisation to do it."