This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Militant atheists: too clever for their own good - Comments

Dutch_labrat's Avatar Comment 1 by Dutch_labrat

Or maybe:

Faith Heads: Too Deluded for Their Own Good.

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:10:00 UTC | #27707

eggplantbren's Avatar Comment 2 by eggplantbren

So intelligence has nothing to do with being able to assess the truth value of claims?

This is just another "atheists have no heart" rant. Completely false and missing the point.



>>It therefore matters not only how we reason, but how we feel, how we act towards others, how we speak, sing, dance, laugh, cry, eat and wash, how we die, how we pray and how we love.<<

This is correct. Unfortunately it has no relevance whatsoever to the question of whether a man 2000 years ago came back from the dead and flew into space.

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:25:00 UTC | #27708

Roland Deschain's Avatar Comment 3 by Roland Deschain

What a fucking asshole.

To follow his reasoning: atheists make very strong and forceful arguments --> they are not afraid to say that the arguments of the opposition are nigh to non-existent --> therefore, atheists are elitist who assume that the rest of the population are sniveling idiots.

"It therefore matters not only how we reason, but how we feel, how we act towards others, how we speak, sing, dance, laugh, cry, eat and wash, how we die, how we pray and how we love. Does anything in our actual human experience tell us that clever people do these things better than anyone else?"

Of course not, you fucking asshole. I know people that have barely finished high school that are kind and loving. I know people with three doctorates who are utter emotionless assholes. But that people "speak, sing, dance, laugh, cry, eat and wash, ... die, and love" gives no credence to their argument that God exists. The ability to cry does not qualify you to be a doctor without training, why should it qualify you to state that God exists.

And the final insult (and the reason for all the swearing): "The Crucifixion and the Resurrection are just as distasteful for Richard Dawkins as for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, because they subvert the idea that man is at his greatest when he is most strong, masterful and clever". Dear sir, with all due respect, fuck you. Fuck you and your seedy, insulting and childish taunts.

I do apologize for the language, but very rarely do I see such utter trash bubble up to the light.

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:26:00 UTC | #27709

derwent's Avatar Comment 4 by derwent

"What begins to emerge - and it lurked strongly behind the anti-religion side of the Intelligence Squared debate - is the idea that atheism is an elite state, a superior order of being, a plane of enlightenment denied to thickoes."

This is not the case at all. Being "clever", educated, intelligent etc. simply better defends a person against religious brainwashing. The more a person learns - especially if they study a scientific discipline - the better they understand the way the world (indeed the universe) really works, and the less need they have to appeal to superstition or the supernatural.

@Roland: While I'm sure many of us share your frustration, excessive swearing will just get you labeled an "angry atheist"! ;-)

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:41:00 UTC | #27712

briancoughlanworldcitizen's Avatar Comment 5 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

And what sort of a belief system is it that asserts the superiority of Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, over the woman who toils in paddy fields, or the child who begs in the dirt, or the prisoner in his chains?

A sensible one. What could a dirt poor peasant in a paddy field know about anything? This is the same assault on intelligence we've seen a thousand times from the rabid fundies, albeit marginally more subtle. I might also add that superior intelligence is an objective reality, intrinsic worth is something quite different, and should be extended to everyone. Would that religion would get out of the goddam way and let us get on with it!!! But I digress.

The statistical aggregate for intelligent people shows a clear negative correlation with faith. If God is real we can conclude that either he hates clever people and wants them to burn in hell for eternity or go poof at death or whatever your particular brand of mythology claims, or that clever people are inatley more evil than stupid people. The first cannot be examined (as usual), the 2nd is not born out by other sets of statistics. At worst, clever people are just as flawed (from a culturally based good/bad morality) as stupid people. So you'll need to play the "mystery" card for that one.

If God does not exist, then this correlation makes total sense. Religion is mostly bullshit, and while there are outliers, on both sides, clever people are less amenable to bullshit that stupid people. Case closed.

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 22:42:00 UTC | #27714

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 6 by Steven Mading

Why did so many more people participate in the second poll after the debate than participated in the first poll preceeding the debate? Did a bunch of people show up late and miss the first one? Or does that show a sort of meta-effect of the debate - that in addition to changing some people's minds about religion it also changed some people's minds about whether or not it was important to participate in the poll?

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:03:00 UTC | #27715

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 7 by Steven Mading

To be more explicit about what I said in the above comment:

The pre-poll's numbers were: 826 for + 681 against + 364 dont-know = 1871 participants.
The post-poll's categories were: 1205 for + 778 against + 103 dont-know = 2086 participants.

There were 215 more participants in the second poll.

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:06:00 UTC | #27718

Robert Maynard's Avatar Comment 8 by Robert Maynard

What's worse is that by saying atheism is "an elite state" of intelligence, he's basically arguing that intelligence of the sort that leads to atheism is not only inaccessable to certain people, it is BEYOND their cognitive capabilities. That's pretty arrogant..
It's well within the capacities of anyone on the planet to learn and understand the basics of evolutionary theory, and even physics. Of course the most indoctrinated minds may have lost some of their plasticity, but this doesn't mean it's BEYOND them, it's just harder to break through. I think Sam Harris had the best way to describe it - "Reason is contagious".

Does Moore seriously deny that the average intelligence of people will increase within the next decade? As it has century after century up until now?

If he grants this, does he deny that at some point in the future, even the dullest "peasant" boy will have access to educational curricula that allows him to equal or exceed the faculties of scientists alive today? Just as anyone today can exceed the capabilities of Darwin in the course of their high school education, does he doubt that children even just fifty years from now might be graduating with knowledge in biology that exceeds that of Mayr, or Maynard Smith, or Dawkins? (Does he doubt that this is probably happening right now?)

If he grants this, does he really deny that as education relentlessly enlightens more and more people, that atheism and the philosophies of reason enjoyed by the best scientists today, will not be well within the grasp of anyone? Does he really maintain his assertion that atheism is elitist, when it is so strongly tied to an expanding wealth of human knowledge which is available to more and more people?

..
Oh, and by the way Moore, nice subtle connection drawn between militant islam and atheism, you fucking fish.

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:06:00 UTC | #27719

fonex_86's Avatar Comment 9 by fonex_86


When you hear or read people like Richard Dawkins, you have to admit the force of many of their arguments. Religious people do often say extraordinarily indefensible things about their faith, and can be astonishingly evasive or confused. Very few of us (certainly not I) can competently maintain the standard arguments for the existence of God against a determined onslaught.


Mr. Moore, the most astonishing thing about Prof. Dawkins is how well he maintains his composure against a determined, irrational, frothing-at-the-mouth defense of the existence of god provided by some half-assed pseudo-philosopher. I would have either slammed their head against the pavement or made them eat my shoe.


You probably know some people with high IQs. You may even have met members of the Royal Society. Does it strike you, brilliant though they are, that they have a deeper understanding of truth, beauty and all that you need to know about life than the rest of us?


Yes, it does strike me so. Have you ever watched Cosmos, Mr. Moore?


The Victorian Prime Minister Lord Salisbury once criticised Roman Catholicism for being "an excellent religion for peasants and women". But what sort of a religion would it be which was not excellent for peasants or women (who made up about 90 per cent of the world's population in Salisbury's day)?

And what sort of a belief system is it that asserts the superiority of Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, over the woman who toils in paddy fields, or the child who begs in the dirt, or the prisoner in his chains?


And what sort of dim-witted numbskull would assert that the beggar child is superior in evolutionary knowledge to the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford?

This article reeks of "just because he's educated doesn't mean he's smarter than me!" While I have my own doubts and reservations when it comes to the effectiveness of current educational/academic systems, only someone with an arse for a head and shit for brains would make such a blasted comparison.

Mr. Moore, I do agree with you on one point, though: Atheism does not warrant intellect -- as you are a brilliant example of an imbecile.

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:09:00 UTC | #27720

WilliamP's Avatar Comment 10 by WilliamP

I feel that atheism may be acquiring precisely those characteristics that atheists so dislike about religion - intolerance, dogmatism, righteousness, moral contempt for one's opponents.

I really resent hearing this. Francis Collins (the Genome Project leader) has said something similar about atheist dogma in a recent CNN interview and he used to be an atheist. I think most atheists don't accept things on authority, but are atheists because they have actually thought long and hard about whether or not god exists. Most atheists would be willing to change their minds if Christ, Mithras, Cthullu, Allah, Apollo, or any other god descended from the sky and started performing miracles.

If there are any atheists that accept atheism on authority or faith, then perhaps we could call them "faith-based atheists" and catagorize them with religious people.

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:11:00 UTC | #27721

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 12 by scottishgeologist

briancoughlanworldcitizen's comment that "Religion is mostly bullshit" is spot on.

Dawkins' article here:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-09time_to_stand_up.shtml

talks about, and I quote: "Then there was the even more nauseating prayer-meeting in the New York stadium, where prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonation and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place."

"Mutually incompatible faiths" In other words Islam is BS as far as Christians go. Judaism is BS t Muslims. Christianity is BS to both. Charismatic premillenial dispesationalism is BS to the cessasionist 5 point Calvinist. And so it goes on and on and on...

The obvious answer of course is that they are ALL BS.


BTW, that Dawkins article is the one where he makes a reference to "God not giving a flying f*ck" It is well worth reading

Roland, dont worry about colorful language. More of it please, its cathartic, I know. After all Dawkins himself says: "It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam."

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:25:00 UTC | #27724

Chrysippus_Maximus's Avatar Comment 11 by Chrysippus_Maximus

To be perfectly honest,... one of the issues I have had with Dawkins (though I LOVE the guy's work for a great many reasons) and many of his followers is that they want to "win" people over to the right side (the atheist side)...

But I don't want that... I WANT atheism to be an elitist position.. I want it to REMAIN true that most of the most intelligent people on earth are atheists, and most of the least intelligent are theists...

I hate it when there are stupid atheists... And there are (let's not lie to ourselves)... It really makes me angry... because they ARE damaging the integrity the atheist position has always held (that of regarding logic, consistency, and truth higher than blind faith and allegiance to tradition).

I am starting to wonder if the recent movement to gain more people to the atheist "cause"... the fence-sitters, as it were, is going to irreparably damage the virtuousness of the intellectual atheist position...

I don't want people to blindly follow Dawkins, or Dennett, or Harris, to just repeat their arguments over and over and over, and scream and shout at the "stupid theists"... to hate religion, and to glorify themselves as righteous upholders of the absolute truth...

And it's starting to scare me that more and more DUMB atheists are crawling out of the woodwork to follow the POPULAR trend that these pop-philosophy books have started...

WilliamP, I think we are already starting to see those "faith-based atheists" abound... and it is making me sick.

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:25:00 UTC | #27723

Veronique's Avatar Comment 13 by Veronique

OK, I'll bite. Who is Charles Moore? Be kind, I live in the antipodes, have not heard of him and I don't read the Telegraph.

I can't say I blame Matthew Parris for his apoplectic fit. I read that story about John Paul II, dismissed it as utter hogwash and kept on going.

Moore aligns religion's intolerance, dogmatism, righteousness and moral contempt for anything that doesn't adhere to its beliefs with the scientists, philosophers and other rationalists involved in the increasing number of public debates, talks and/or discussions about religion.

He gives a token appreciation of the rational arguments and then goes on to denigrate the arguments by stating that such arguments are "dry and unnourishing...they think that the highest quality is to be clever."

What unbounded rubbish. If Moore's intellect is incapable of understanding what is argued (in normal, publicly accessible content and delivery) then it is he that 'feels' he is not clever (or he is merely playing to his readership "I am with you here, these guys are just too clever by half. But I'll bet they can't put up a straight fence"). Nothing to do with debated reasoning by the rationalists.

RD, Grayling, Hitchens et al do not think that cleverness is what human quality is about. Moore is so subsersive in this article.

He is also insulting in the extreme. I am getting cross just reading this article. It reminds me of the suspicion exhibited by those without specific education towards those who have some education in that specific area.

I learnt early on, when I came to Mullumbimby - a mainly agricultural town - not to talk about myself because of the dismissiveness on the part of the 'locals' toward anyone who had been to higher educational facilities.

On reflection it appeared to me that this suspicious dismissiveness had to do with fear of the unknown. No one knows what goes on inside anyone else's head; the suspicion came from not knowing what someone else might know. I don't know how many of you understand what I am trying to express or whether you have encountered the phenomenon.

Moore is playing on this to his readership; this is a new type of attempt to discredit anyone who has a different point of view and can explain his reasoning in well constructed argument.

This attempt is despicable. I gather Moore is not silly; he certainly doesn't sound it. This is a deliberate ploy to marginalise anyone who thinks differently from him. And Moore is so smarmy that it will work on his readership.

I'm sorry, I have just made an assumption about the Telegraph and its readership. In Australia, we have several state Telegraphs that are broadsheets and not worth reading for their prurient content and extreme right wing views. They are, however, popularist magazines and sell well.

Poor old Parris. I can imagine his frustration with the Pope story and his maybe intemperate remarks. They have certainly been highlighted by Moore.

".. big, bulging brains and I share 'their' admiration for them. They are the mental equivalent of bronzed body-builders on the beach, kicking sand in the face of us seven-stone weaklings." Shit!!! This makes me furious. Logicel, I now need to know how to bold words instead of merely putting them in inverted commas.

This article takes the denigration of rationalism to a different level. This one is hard to argue, simply because any retort or response appears to be on the back foot. This is terrible and effective dirty tactics.

It is all very well to understand that curiosity and the slaking of that curiosity by finding answers is what propels science and reason. To couch it in terms of 'bulging brains' is to denigrate everything that moves towards understanding of us, our world and the universe we are growing up in.

I am getting tongue-tied in angry frustration. I should stop now. Reading back over what I have written, I can see my mood change. I can't even make comments on a lot of the stuff that Moore says.

Someone else needs to pick this up before I explode.

RD how do you combat dirty tricks? You are more able than most of us here to respond to articles like this one. Do you bother, or just let it go? Forgive my anger please.

My immediacy often gets me into trouble. I will have a wine and calm down, contemplate and, hopefully, come back with a better ripost. Don't bank on it though. I feel pretty impotent in the face of this stuff.

Crossly
V

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:35:00 UTC | #27726

pauliej's Avatar Comment 14 by pauliej

It is strange that the Koran, which explicitly accepts the virgin birth of Jesus, fastens on the most historical bit of the New Testament as being untrue.

The most historical bit?? What?? The crucifixion?? There is not one shred of primary evidence that the crucifixion ever happened (or even that the NT Jesus actually existed).

This seems to me to present certain problems. A religious faith is not, primarily, a set of propositions, although it will contain such propositions and must use all human intellectual resources to understand and explain them. It is a belief about what governs the whole of life, indeed the whole existence of everything.

Isn't a claim about "what govens the whole of life...." a proposition? It doesn't cease to be one just because it is labelled "belief".

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:48:00 UTC | #27728

briancoughlanworldcitizen's Avatar Comment 15 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Actually case not completely closed. The meme that on average, atheists are more intelligent than those professing a religion is a powerful one.

It acts in the positive as the "heaven" meme, and in the negative as the "hell" meme. At once pushing and pulling people toward the rational position. It also has the value of being true (with a small t) and verifiable.

I don't think that this can be said often enough frankly.

As regards stupid atheists, as the "movement" (thats what they are calling it on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5JMb3x43X8) becomes broader, less intelligent people are coming on board. Lets think about this, they are coming to a large extent from the pool of theists. If it is true that more intelligent and reflective people embrace atheism (and this observations is fairly uncontroversial) then those leaving faith, for atheism, are on average more intelligent than those remaining.

Thus on average the relative ratio of intelligence theist to atheist remains static, even though our overall average may be sinking. Am I overthinking this? Probably, but you guys are smart, you get the idea:-)

Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:56:00 UTC | #27730

ridelo's Avatar Comment 16 by ridelo

Spinoza:
Almost everybody can tell you that the earth revolves around the sun. But if you ask: "Prove it!", how many can?
So maybe in the future we will have a kind of atheists who on authority will know that there is no god. At least they will not blow themselves up.

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:00:00 UTC | #27732

kieron's Avatar Comment 17 by kieron

You can download the audio of the event here:
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/event_past.php?d=20070327
(Podcast link)

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:09:00 UTC | #27734

Corylus's Avatar Comment 18 by Corylus

No-one has picked this up yet:


In fact, in all this I hear the voices of a university high table - and almost invariably male voices at that - proving something to their own satisfaction while other people cook the lunch.

The Victorian Prime Minister Lord Salisbury once criticised Roman Catholicism for being "an excellent religion for peasants and women". But what sort of a religion would it be which was not excellent for peasants or women (who made up about 90 per cent of the world's population in Salisbury's day)?


Nice correlation with atheism and sexism Mr MooreÂ… Trouble with this theory though is I happen to be atheist and last time I checked I had tits. The reason that there are less female than male atheists worldwide is because of discrimination in terms of providing education. What is a common rationale for this? You guessed it religion: for what is the point of educating someone that God says is, by definition, intellectually, morally and physically inferior?

I also try not to swear (it is not ladylike after all!) However I have to say to Mr Moore "Sir, you are a complete and utter fuckwit".

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:14:00 UTC | #27736

pauliej's Avatar Comment 19 by pauliej

Corylus wrote:
The reason that there are less female than male atheists worldwide is because of discrimination in terms of providing education.

Actually, I think the evidence shows higher religiosity among females across the spectrum, even where educational opportunity and attainment is pretty much equal.

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:27:00 UTC | #27738

Eamonn Shute's Avatar Comment 20 by Eamonn Shute

"The reason that there are less female than male atheists worldwide is because of discrimination in terms of providing education."
That might be ONE reason, but in the UK, for example, females have the same level of education as males, but women are still less likely to be atheist than men. I think differences in the psychological make-up of the two sexes also plays a part.

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:28:00 UTC | #27739

Logicel's Avatar Comment 21 by Logicel

Veronique, I hope you have enjoyed a nice glass of wine by the time you read this.

The directions needed for doing boldface, underlining, italics, and blockquotes are given if you click on Comment Posting Guidelines at the top of your comment window.

You can also press these two keys on your keyboard simultaneously: Ctrl and u to see the HTML code being used to generate italics, boldface, etc. Select find in this page from your browser's edit menu to find the words which are boldfaced, etc, then copy and paste them into your window including the HTML code preceding and ending the words. Then replace the words with your own.

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:41:00 UTC | #27740

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 22 by Richard Dawkins

Charles Moore is a well-known British journalist, a former Editor of the Daily Telegraph and of The Spectator.

Mr Moore (if you should happen to find your way here) you do understand, don't you, how these websites work? There is normally no Ediitorial selection or control of the Comments that are sent in. The contributors are remarkably uninhibited, perhaps protected by the strange but widespread convention of writing under a pseudonym. But if you pick your way carefully around the insults, I think you may find that some good points are being made too.
Yours courteously
Richard Dawkins

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:48:00 UTC | #27741

Corylus's Avatar Comment 23 by Corylus

Eamonn

Gender defined personality differences affecting religiousity? My first reaction would be to go 'no!'

But, if the figures bear this out, then is an interesting point, and needs to be investigated coldly and calmly.

I would suggest that while, as you rightly point out, there is equal educational opportunities for males and female in the UK, there still remains a difference in terms of social conditioning.

Women are still told that they are more kind and polite than males and that is a virtue.

So it might well be that some women (not me: I consider honesty a bigger virtue than politenes!) do not explicitly reject religion when questioned because they do not want to appear arrogant and mean.

It is possible that women are not more naturally inclined to religion, there may just be a confounding variable at work in relation to the answers given when questioned.

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:49:00 UTC | #27743

Veronique's Avatar Comment 24 by Veronique

Eamonn Shute,

What the hell do you think you are saying? Your proposition has absolutely zilch to do with males and females. Psychological make-up? Where do you get off?

It has to do with society's understanding of who has to be the breadwinner based on male dominated ego-understanding. Men in positions of power, women as the the help meets. It's archaic, but the residual bumpf is still there.

"Have the kids, honey, I'll look after you and them; stay home and you will be reliant on me and my ability to play hunter-gatherer in the modern world. Whoops, the mortgage rate interest has just gone through the roof. I can't do it all by myself. Will you get a job as a check-out chick (nothing too taxing!) to help? Thanks, sweetheart, just give the kids a latch key; yeah, I know we live in a housing estate and it can be dangerous, but golly, darling, we have no choice."

Women are still told that an education for them is a waste of time and money because they will get married, have children, be homemakers and mummies and, of course, good marital partners and will not be able to use that wasted education.

God, man you live in a different world from mine.

Show me your psychological make-up profiles (you had better have some good parameters and non-biased questions in your surveys that are properly and statistically accounted for in the results). I can tell you now you won't find them.

Get a grip.
V

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:52:00 UTC | #27744

Logicel's Avatar Comment 25 by Logicel

As RD pointed out so clearly in TGD such an attitude on part of Moore is akin to elitism of the worst sort--the kind that says forget about it, you can never rise above your station in life, whether it is your gender, your skin color, your sexual preference, your economic class, your educational status, etc.

Moore is doing the exact thing he is accusing clever atheists of doing. Having and encouraging others to follow high standards is not elitism, it is elitism when you prevent others to climb out of their various ruts.

Is Moore implying that poor peasants be given only the crumbs that they can now recognize and that they should be encouraged to pretend such crumbs are joyous, fulfilling ones?

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:56:00 UTC | #27746

Traytheist's Avatar Comment 26 by Traytheist

@Spinoza:

I can see exactly where you're coming from. I find that I engage in discussions with certain people, and realize that they cannot keep up with me or follow any of the arguments that I lay out there, and I suddenly drop it, because I don't want them "on my team", so to speak. I only continue to try and sway if it's worth my time. It's a judgement call, but if I think someone is wasting their intellect because of their childhood indoctrination, of course I'm going to argue more vociferously, as I'm sure they'll "get it".

I'll be the first to admit that while I have plenty of my own arguments to use against religion, I have cribbed from Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, and others, including many of the fine folks that post here. But the one thing we all have in common, aside from lack of belief in the supernatural, is that we all think independently, and rarely are we all on the same page on every issue. This is the main problem with trying to organize atheists. We are far too non-conforming to , well, conform to a wide-reaching platform, shall we say.

If our detractors wish to call us intellectual elitists, so be it. I'd much rather be an intellectual elitist than a populist moron.

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:59:00 UTC | #27747

Eamonn Shute's Avatar Comment 27 by Eamonn Shute

Corylus, while I agree that social conditioning is probably a factor, it is also true that the two sexes are mentally different - a woman is not a man's brain in a different body (despite what Veronique seems to think)! So the cause of any difference in religiosity may well have several causes, and it is not obvious to me what they are.

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 01:01:00 UTC | #27749

Logicel's Avatar Comment 28 by Logicel

Though women can be educated, society is still geared towards recognizing and rewarding the accomplishments of men over the accomplishments of women. Some women greet this inequality with combativeness, others find niches where the combative stress is less, and others just cave in.

Though I am not familiar with psychological/sociological studies supporting my opinion, I would put forth that the reality which I have experienced in part forms a basis of why women are drawn to the comforts of religion despite the paradoxical truth that Yaweh is a male bastard of the highest order. Life on earth can be tough for both sexes, but it is often tougher for women, so it is comforting to focus on a better life after this one.

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 01:04:00 UTC | #27750

bitbutter's Avatar Comment 29 by bitbutter

Really snide, underhand stuff this. Just one of the less blatant examples:

The anti-God party was represented by Professor Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. Christopher Hitchens, the English polemicist who has long made his living in America, and Professor A. C. Grayling, who has that big mane of swept-back hair which says "philosopher" just as clearly as a pinstripe suit used until recently to say "Tory".

Against the motion were the archaeologist Nigel Spivey, Rabbi Julia Neuberger, and Professor Roger Scruton.

Careful poisoning of the well with his introductions of the 'anti-god' party; equivalent introductions are notably absent from the other three.

Charles Moore ought to be ashamed of himself.

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 01:07:00 UTC | #27751

Veronique's Avatar Comment 30 by Veronique

Thank you Logicel oh you of the pseudonym. I will use your instructions in posting. Thank you so much. Maybe we should post by our 'given' names? Who cares.

I have now consumed several glasses of Shiraz and am listening to the news, such as it is.

Thank you RD for you comment to Moore. Without the second 'o' he seems similar to the sainted More in his ability to take whatever he likes (or is told in More's case) and paste it into a history. Pity that it has so much currency.

Cheers
V

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 01:18:00 UTC | #27754