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

Comments by scoobie

Go to: Russell Blackford interview on YouTube

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by scoobie

The mic's too far away from the speakers and is picking up too much room boom. If you select a "Rock" profile for your sound while listening to this it clears it up considerably.
Oh, and Russell doesn't speak very clearly.
Didn't notice the accent ;-)

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:00:00 UTC | #442098

Go to: Atheists are wrong to claim science and religion are incompatible, Church of England says

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 87 by scoobie

He said that belief in the invisible subatomic particles of quantum physics requires just as great a leap of faith as belief in God.

“If believing that isn’t faith I don’t know what is and I don’t think that we need to be defensive about ours,” the bishop said.

Looks like they 'get' quantum physics just as much as they 'get' evolution.

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:57:00 UTC | #441140

Go to: Chris Hallquist debunks the resurrection

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 38 by scoobie

Peeps may be interested in this thread in the forums in which the existence of a historical Jesus has been discussed for hundreds of pages. Some of the contributors have been very learned.

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:52:00 UTC | #441137

Go to: Secular society upset by Judge Cherie decision

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 42 by scoobie

Cherie Blair made one of the films in Channel 4's first series about Christianity last year ("The Future of Christianity"). It was practically incoherent. I remember thinking at the time how shocked I was that someone in the legal profession could present such a bad case for their argument. I guess it comes from being devout.

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:40:00 UTC | #438701

Go to: The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by scoobie

I'm reminded of a paint I recently saw that boasted that it could *obliterate* any color it was painted over. This is Dawkins in obliterating form. They should name such a paint after him. Impeccable article. An absolute pleasure to read.

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:48:00 UTC | #438224

Go to: Ray Comfort's Darwin Comic,

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 46 by scoobie

Why do the bad guys get the flashiest web sites?

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:11:00 UTC | #437256

Go to: The Bible : A History - Creation

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 80 by scoobie

There are going to be further programmes ... and Anne Widdecombe arch christian (who is entertaining in her own twisted way).

Noooooooooooooo! As entertaining as scraping your fingernails down a blackboard. Not only does she spout startlingly vapid bollocks for one so self important, but she has to do it in that grating cartoon voice. I've got til then to discover how to get subtitles working!

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:12:00 UTC | #435122

Go to: The Bible : A History - Creation

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by scoobie

Yes, Jacobsen is obviously suffering from some sort of mid/late-life crisis in which he's desparate to come to terms with the meaning of his own existence. Or something.

He is unmistakeably of the impression that atheists cannot appreciate art, music or literature. He also evidently has almost no scientific knowledge on the subject (though admittedly more than that nutter preacher who obviously gets his from answers-in-genesis), otherwise he'd be well aware of the majesty and beauty of the scienfic explanation of creation and how much that outclasses the crappy little Genesis version.

Quite a lot of what he said simply didn't add up and I spent a lot of the time yelling at the TV.

But he's obviously not an idiot either and some of it was quite piercing. He would totally cut the crap in one segment then wax lyrical and barmy the next. Very strange!

Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:22:00 UTC | #434837

Go to: [UPDATE 21-Jan - Video Added] Richard Live on 'The Daily Politics' Today

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 86 by scoobie

Can I just ask where all this "labelling" is going on? I don't see it happening in any walk of life. Children "are" brought up in certain ways. But they don't get labels stuck on them.

Doctors don't give a blood transfusion because the child has a "label"? I don't think so - more likely because the parents prevent them. Where do labels come into it?

Describing a child as christian is just shorthand. If it's used at all. Personally I have never heard or seen the description "a christian child" or "a muslim child". It's really not very common. And if I did see the phrase, I would simply assume it meant a child brought up by christian/muslim parents. So bleeding obvious. So bleeding what?

If the parents are christian, then the children are most likely brought up as christians. If the parents are keynesian, the children will be brought up as keynesian. Which puts the lie to your fatuous analogy. It's a simple family-based process. Parents bring up their children according to their beliefs and backgrounds. That's what they do. And bears shit in the woods.

If there really is an argument to be had here, you're going to have to change all the words, because it's not only Norman Tebbit who doesn't get it. Please, enough with the talk about *labels*. If you're talking about indoctrination and divisiveness, then fine, please start using those words so everybody can know what you're talking about. Of course that is an important issue.

Banging on with this label business is about as relevant as anecdotes about PG Woodhouse. It just makes you look stupid. Because even if you do have a valid point to make and even if you are right, if the everybody else in the room is looking at you as if you are stupid, then you will be regarded as stupid. And that's what happened on this show, despite your good showing at the end.

We want to be on your side, but we have no idea what these labels are that you're going on about. Change the script!!

Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:57:00 UTC | #434815

Go to: Nerdstock: 9 Lessons and Carols for Godless People

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by scoobie

Am I the only one who found it to be a bit of a damp squib? I could tell that a lot had been edited out, but much of what was left in was a bit too ... I don't know... earnest.

Me too.
A few bits were funny and genuinely good entertainment, such as Brian Cox's bit. In fact his "act" was superb, but then he's a gifted old pro at this sort of thing. A few bits were earnestly cringeworthy, such as the guitarist singing his ode to evolution. I'm afraid the band looked and sounded as if it consisted of volunteers who'd brought an instrument along that night (though the trumpeter sounded like he knew what he was doing). On the other hand it was heartening to see so many nerds in one place on and off stage being together and having a good time.

Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:33:00 UTC | #434782

Go to: Mr. Deity and the Hard Wire

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by scoobie

Overall one of their better efforts, I thought. With 10 times the manpower I guess they could have taken what felt a little like a first draft and given it more depth and layering. Some of the jokes were interesting enough to warrant more study like that. But they're just a shoe string company so they're doing pretty well considering.

Alternative carpark, I don't think I laughed out loud at the episode, but you sound like the type I'd be happy to avoid for the rest of your life.

Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:39:00 UTC | #431477

Go to: Fern Britton Meets Tony Blair

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by scoobie

It transpires he's just an ordinary shmoe who is under the impression that god approves of what he does. Except when he doesn't sometimes. Not that he can ever really tell. But that's the anglican god for you.

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:07:00 UTC | #423243

Go to: With Chanukah Approaching, My Knee Hurts

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by scoobie

More drivel from someone who has never thought about anything, let alone designed anything.

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:14:00 UTC | #422155

Go to: Book Review: The Greatest Show on Earth

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by scoobie

I too was agnostic when I read the Blind Watchmaker and it cleared up the issue for me like a blazing sword of truth. However it's not all plain sailing in that book and it leaves a lot unexplained - hence all the books published since. But if you're looking for one single nutcracker it has as good a chance as any of breaching the hull. - but success is by no means guaranteed and you may end up disappointed in the reasoning powers of the reader you gave it to!!

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:27:00 UTC | #421702

Go to: The Anti-God Squad

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 50 by scoobie

Is this the same Robert Wright as on that podcast a few weeks ago with Hitchins, Harris, Boteach etc? I couldn't discern anything of any value that he said on that either.

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:41:00 UTC | #421412

Go to: Religion, evolution can live side by side

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by scoobie

Perhaps Bill Maher should write him an open letter pointing out the error of his ways?

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:17:00 UTC | #417267

Go to: Children who front Richard Dawkins' atheist ads are evangelicals

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 99 by scoobie

Useless ad deservedly torpedoed.

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:35:00 UTC | #415682

Go to: Richard Dawkins on Jeremy Vine Show

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 50 by scoobie

Not sure this is a useful campaign. More like something a bunch of nerds cooked up without reference to the real world. It's about so narrow a figure of speech that even its supporters trip themselves up when trying to explain it, as Richard himself did during the interview.

Firstly, if a child very likely adopts the religion of their parents, then labelling them as such (if the need arises) is useful shorthand. Children are part of the family team until they get old enough to start rebelling away from it, so labelling them as such is natural. Yes I know we shouldn't label people but we do and this particular kind of labelling really isn't that important.

Secondly, that campaign poster talks about labelling the child in the first line and the child making its own choice in the second. That's a non-sequitur. For it to make sense it has to use the word indoctrination in the first line.

Indoctrination is what the campaign should be about, but perhaps that was too long a word to fit on the posters? Indoctrination is what everyone initially assumes the campaign is about (eg Jeremy Vine), but Richard shot both his feet off when he made it abundantly clear that it is not and that he has no problem with parents teaching their children religious nonsense.

Even if he was being strictly accurate by saying that for the purposes of this campaign he has no problem with indoctrination because this campaign isn't about indoctrination, then that just adds another layer of confusing nerdism.

Please get some advertising advice next time!!

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:47:00 UTC | #415014

Go to: Faith groups to be key policy advisers

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by scoobie

For no reason I'm prepared to defend much, I consider Johhn Denham to be one of the good guys in a cabal of useless losers (though I used to consider Alan Johnson a good guy too). I've read his speech and to be honest I can't tell whether he's pro or anti religion. You wouldn't have to change many words at all to make it a speech that clearly told religion that it is something that will be tolerated but it should remember its place. He says he's secularist, so I'm happy with that. If only he didn't keep saying that "faith" is something that needs to be respected. I hope he means that he has to respect the fact that there are lots of people of faith. Which as a politician, he does.

Cameron on the other hand, plainly states that he is a Christian who should go to church more often. What's better, a secularist who listens to faith groups or a Christian who claims he doesn't do god?

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:21:00 UTC | #413757

Go to: Darwinopterus v Dawkins

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by scoobie

All the evidence points to us having been made by the baby jebus sticking us together in modules. (no really, he actually claims this).

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:00:00 UTC | #412738

Go to: Islam's Darwin problem

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 23 by scoobie

Drake Bennett's was a well written and informative article. Thanks!

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:47:00 UTC | #409265

Go to: Richard Dawkins in conversation with James Harding, Editor of The Times

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by scoobie

Thanks for the FLV Jos. It's so tiresome having to play stuff on a proprietary player, especially one that doesn't even let you skip.

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:42:00 UTC | #398604

Go to: Kirk Cameron has gone too far! But we can stop him.

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by scoobie

That's a pretty clever stunt they're pulling there. Deeply offensive, amusing and guaranteed to create publicity however well or badly it goes down.

Ripping out the intro is one thing, but perhaps another way to win this battle would be to make it impossible for them to unload their product; to make their efforts so laughable that they won't even be able to give the books away.

They've shot their bolt now and are locked into going through with it. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of the non-nutters to think of a suitable riposte and course of action over the next two months that shoots them down in flames and leaves them with tons of ignored product.

Maybe something which shows how only a dickhead could possibly believe that god exists because bananas fit in our hands? I know, coming up with something that makes that pair look more ridiculous than they already are is going to be a challenge!

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:33:00 UTC | #398112

Go to: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by scoobie

I too read the article right to the end, completely mystified why the journo was elevating himself into some wierd position of Mr important know-all. I just assumed he was making an unfunny in-joke. It never occurred to me that he was meant to be satirising Dawkins until I read Richard's comment. He was so off target I didn't even realise there *was* a target. And that's even after reading his skit on Armstrong's book, which at least raised a smile.

I guess something like this is in order: *FAIL*

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 08:22:00 UTC | #398019

Go to: AC Grayling: Derren Brown's Lotto stunt was a trick too far

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by scoobie

Dunno what AC Grayling is rambling on about. I get the feeling he had 12" to fill and needed something zeitgeisty to fill it with. His instructions about the basketball video are so casual as to be almost counter-productive. He omits to mention that you should pay *very close attention* to the number of passes they make and to whom, as if there's going to be a quiz at the end, and then after the video, i.e. lower down on the page, he should mention that maybe you missed something while you were watching. When I first saw this video years ago I was watching so closely that it wasn't until the third or fourth time that I noticed what I'd missed.

Anyway, with Derren Brown there seems to be a lot of grumbling about a magician who didn't reveal his trick, while ignoring the real tricks he had evidently pulled earlier by inducing 24 people into believing they could predict lottery results and successfully predicting which polystyrene cups that bloke would not step on. Unless of course he is a complete fake as Adrian Bartholomew believes. Personally I think he's got to the point where he likes to toy with the more gullible amongst us while showing the more intelligent how he might be doing it (e.g. the snowflake clue). On top of that he normally manages to baffle the intelligent people too. So he's keeping it real. Just.

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:11:00 UTC | #397544

Go to: This much I know - AC Grayling, philosopher, 60, London

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 48 by scoobie

A thousand months? Shit... better get doing something!

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:04:00 UTC | #376338

Go to: Light sensors cause religious row

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 65 by scoobie

Firstly, electricity isn't fire, so they don't need to worry.
Secondly, if you're childish enough to consider sparks as a kind of fire, then turning stuff *off* is generally what causes sparks, not turning stuff on.

Given the hypocrisy involved in getting someone else to press elevator buttons, surely their rabbi can advise that all they need to do is get a gentile to go into the hallway ahead of them, so by the time they enter it they are merely allowing the system to keep running.

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:48:00 UTC | #371907

Go to: Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at the Oxford University Museum

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 360 by scoobie

Sorry not read all the thread but just wanted to add: Lennox is just another liar for jesus. He presents his fatuous arguments in a smug, patronising manner. His arguments nearly always boil down to "I believe", and he says the word "believe" in such an affected, practised way that is truly annoying, as if he thinks that swinging on the last syllable lends it any credence. He can't string together a logical argument (something is complicated therefore goddidit) and apparently he doesn't understand how evolution works. For a man in his position, that makes him a liar.

Edit: OK, listened through to the end now, and perhaps calling him a liar is a bit strong. Given the way he can't string together a sentence containing fewer than 2 non-sequiturs or resist going off into some long irrelevant ramble, I think it's more a case of him liking the sound of his own voice and just not being very bright.

Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:10:00 UTC | #368269

Go to: Christians battle each other over evolution

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 64 by scoobie

I was just reading an interesting piece about Genesis on Francis Collin's site where he uses textual analysis and historical/geological evidence to show that Genesis cannot be taken literally. Without warning he slips in the sentence:

And Jesus, of course, is clearly a historical figure — both the biblical texts and considerable extrabiblical evidence corroborate that.

Oh dear. He was doing quite well until then. I guess that's compartmentalisation for you.

Fri, 29 May 2009 00:00:00 UTC | #365674

Go to: US space tourist blasts off to space station

scoobie's Avatar Jump to comment 76 by scoobie

Apparently he used to work for Microsoft? That's pretty bad...


Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:18:00 UTC | #340327