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

jez999's Profile

jez999's Avatar Joined over 3 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by jez999

Stewart Lee: What's Wrong With Blasphemy? - last commented 06 February 2011 09:40 PM

Christian theme park to open in Spain - last commented 30 September 2010 09:36 PM

More Discussions by jez999

Latest Comments by jez999

Go to: [Update] How Christian fundamentalists plan to teach genocide to schoolchildren

jez999's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by jez999

Comment 6 by brighterstill :

the Good News Club, an after-school program sponsored by a group called the Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF). The aim of the CEF is to convert young children to a fundamentalist form of the Christian faith and recruit their peers to the club.

How is this legal?

It's not; but a majority of the US Supreme Court are FUBAR religious pricks who would really quite like to do away with the 1st Amendment, so they make an absurd decision that teaching religious morality doesn't count as religion. There's not much protection against this - the founding fathers presumably never envisaged a Supreme Court so full of people who are so vehemently against the fundamentals of the Constitution.

Wed, 30 May 2012 21:51:57 UTC | #944633

Go to: Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss Tribute to Christopher Hitchens - 2012 Global Atheist Convention

jez999's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by jez999

I just had a thought - Christopher means "bearer of Christ". Pretty ironic name. ;-)

Tue, 29 May 2012 13:34:56 UTC | #944216

Go to: UPDATED: Why I want all our children to read the King James Bible

jez999's Avatar Jump to comment 71 by jez999

Ugh, this is fucking bullshit. I don't care if the KJB is a great work of literature; would RDF waste valuable funds paying for Shakespeare to be distributed to all kids in the UK? Dawkins' obsession with the KJB is the kind of thing that puts me off donating. I sure wouldn't want to see a penny of my money wasted on Gove's harebrained scheme.

Sun, 20 May 2012 11:11:06 UTC | #942411

Go to: R. Elisabeth Cornwell at the Reason Rally

jez999's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by jez999

Comment 6 by Elisabeth Cornwell :

While Christopher and I might have disagreed about some aspects of abortion (not all if you read his writings), we still agreed on the majority of the issues regarding the War on the Womb. The denial of contraceptives and scientifically proven methods of family planning to women (and their partners), and that a woman's life is not less valuable than that of a foetus are all relevant issues to the War on the Womb - and on these Christopher did agree were immoral.

For the purposes of this discussion, though, let's focus on the abortion issue, as I agree that he did indeed support contraception.

Christopher's views on abortion, while I would disagree, were not 'stupid' or 'unjustified'. This is not a cut and dry issue - but it is not an issue that I believe should be left up to the state or to religious leaders. However, the religious right and people like Ben Stein tried to latch on to Christopher's statements about defining a foetus as an indication that he was agreeing with the position of The Church and other fundamentalist religious institutions. And that, indeed, was not what he was saying,

Honestly, I thought that that was pretty much what he was saying. When he said he thought abortion was 'abhorrent', he did not qualify that by saying that it was only abhorrent after, say, 20 weeks of pregnancy. If you can cite him saying something like this I'd be interested to see it.

My interpretation of what he was saying was that he was saying something frankly pretty close to fundamentalist Catholicism - every zygote is sacred. In other words, the second the egg is fertilized by the sperm, suddenly any abortion of that is abhorrent, even if it's a zygote of 100 cells with almost certainly no sentience. He called these 'candidate members of the human race'. But... they're not even remotely close to humans. They're a clump of cells that have no sentience.

Now if he were religious and believed that every zygote immediately got a soul upon conception, I could actually have more respect for his opinion (as much as I might think that it has no evidence to back it up). But Hitchens would never have claimed that a clump of cells would have a 'soul'. So what he was basically saying was that a clump of cells, which weren't even remotely close to human, should be afforded human rights (or something close) because they could one day becoome human. This is as asinine as saying that a wheelbarrow full of dirt should be given human rights, because if its particles were rearranged in the right way it could one day become human. The fact is that right now, IT IS NOT HUMAN - not even close - and it does not deserve human rights. It is a 'candidate member of the human race' just as much as a clump of a few hundred zygote cells are.

This opinion does indeed seem to me to be stupid and unjustified. Why hold a clump of non-sentient cells to having human rights when they're not even remotely human? Where's the jusfitication?

Fri, 18 May 2012 21:24:16 UTC | #942233

Go to: R. Elisabeth Cornwell at the Reason Rally

jez999's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by jez999

Ironically Christopher Hitchens wouldn't have liked her message - he professed anti-abortionism several times publically - one of the few positions he held that I thought was totally stupid and unjustified.

Fri, 18 May 2012 14:14:20 UTC | #942185

More Comments by jez999