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

Comments by Incredulous

Go to: A secular world is a sane world

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by Incredulous

I like Pat Condell. If he is a racist then I am a member of the ku klux klan. I'm a healthy black guy with no suicidal tendencies but a healthy respect for what is evidenced, by the way. I also need no primer on the effects and nature of racism thank you very much. Experience has taught me much about this, and you?

When clearthinker finally grows up and acknowledges that atheism is not a religion and therefore pretends only to a healthy skepticism about the existence of gods, the accuracy and validity of religious claims and the moral value it purports to demonstrate, then we should take notice of his desperate comments. Til then ...

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:09:00 UTC | #190567

Go to: Richard Dawkins Public Lecture - Liverpool 08

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by Incredulous

This lecture can never be given too many times. He seems to give it better every time: more clearly, more concisely and more confidently.

Richard is not only a wonderful contributor to the public understanding of science, he is also the main man when it comes to clearing the fog on the public understanding of religion.

Surely, TGD has to already be one of the most influential books of the 21st century and there is no doubt its clear and honestly articulated message the single most powerful call to arms against our own inhumanity and dishonesty since Bertrand Russell and Albert Einsteins poignant call to remember our humanity in the 20th Century.

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:35:00 UTC | #189032

Go to: The Expelled Evolutionist

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 39 by Incredulous

Comment #189187 by Steve Zara

I do feel an increasing need to get away from the same old arguments.


Especially when those argument show no sign of being resolved and simply further entrench the major protagonists further into their polarised views. I can see no meeting place between atheism and theism. As much as I would wish it was possible for the two positions to meet somewhere, it cannot happen for me to remain intellectually honest.

Exploration, truth and evidence based discussion is not within the remit of the theist and whoever suggested that most people are cultural makes sense to me.

Pathfinder's refreshing personal honesty shows me that it is not the soundness of the atheist position that is threatening, but the fragility of the theist belief system which needs to be loudly and constantly re-iterated, as if still clinging on to childhood fantasies.

Ah well, back to work.

Nice to hear from you Steve.

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 05:36:00 UTC | #179870

Go to: Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 266 by Incredulous

Comment #183802 by clearmind
Comment #183868 by clearmind
Comment #183869 by clearmind

Typical! Shithead actually believes he is using logic when the evidence shows he is using nothing of the kind. Typical!

Over the past few months it has become painfully clear it is impossible to have any kind of dialogue or conversation with someone who can only relate with those who believe the same nonsense he believes.

Shithead is merely an extreme and inarticulate example of what we face out in the real world. The denial of reality, the denigration of reason, the humiliation of human achievement; all to be replaced by the hallelujah chorus, to respect that which should never be respected: lies, distortions, incompetent rubbish.

These people do believe they have the answers to issues which it is obvious religion or dogma has caused.

A girl is starved to death in Birmingham and I have heard it postulated this has happened because we have no faith. England has long been a mainly secular country and this has not happened to my recollection for many, many years. Communities normally would know if someone was being mistreated or something was wrong and the authorities would be called. Maybe I'm being nostalgic but maybe nosey neighbours rather than faithful abusers should come back in vogue.

There are heavy rains and some cleric decides it's because God is punishing our tolerance of homosexuality amongst other 'evils'.

And yet another muslim convert blows something up ?quot; this time in Exeter - because he feels sorry about the way muslims are being treated, apparently.

Yet nowhere have the faithful stopped to think about the sensible and rational ways of ensuring these problems are addressed and solved.

Irrespective of what we may want to believe, religion has contributed nothing to the development of mankind. It is only the intelligent and creative exploits of man which has done so, not an absurd obsession with the notion that an intelligent and creative imaginary figure is responsible for everything. Scientific, medical, organisational innovations abound and still the faithhead believes his dubious contribution entitles him to control, dominate and bully.

Yes, this is what we are up against. I don't see any way of stopping them from destroying everything mankind has achieved.

People with nothing to add to any conversation about anything want to add their two pence worth to discussions without even attempting to throw off the mental chains and limitations which accompany a mindless acceptance of fairy tales as life skills.

No, they simply want to impose that same set of fantasies and when competently challenged run away and hide behind the lunacy of the ancient texts they mistake for truth.

These people are not intereste in engaging. They merely want you to believe what they believe and if challenged for evidence simply quote one of their many lunatic texts or ask you to 'respect' what they want you to believe without question.

Respect is something that must be earned and the religious do not feel they have any need to earn it. Really??

The west has had a tradition of tolerance for many centuries. It is as transparent and as accountable as anything that has ever existed. Formal and informal education, information and entertainment has been available en masse for over a century and with further technical and product innovation will become a boon to everyone's life.

The faithful want to take us back to the days even before yore. It is frightening to think we can have people like this making decisions for the public given their complete dread of dealing with reality.

The more I read this site and read the views of many others, the clearer it is becoming that this relationship between faith and reason will not work. The more I believe we are on the losing end in spite of the fact that all the reason, all the evidence and all of the productive, creative intelligence and experience is with us.

Reason needs evidence and faith is afraid of facts the way it is afraid of everything else. Empiricism and logic lay faith to waste. Faith does not want to leave centre stage just yet.

Next time, it may not be a café in Exeter that gets blown up. Next time it could be Birmingham city centre or the middle of London or Edinburgh with something a little more powerful.

Convincing these people that acceptance of reality is the only way forward seems as elusive as getting evidence for their beliefs. We all know how difficult that is.

Fri, 23 May 2008 03:28:00 UTC | #174524

Go to: Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 231 by Incredulous

Shithead,

Take a hint. You are so thick headed and thick skinned that you can't see that your brand of nonsense is simply not wanted here.

You make no sense and I mean no sense at all. Show some self respect and simply stop posting until you can hold a simple conversation or even understand the most basic ideas. Ideas so basic, my six year old niece has no problems understanding them.

You're a 24-carat madman! I can't believe you are allowed out on your own.

Thu, 22 May 2008 04:30:00 UTC | #174091

Go to: Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 191 by Incredulous

Comment #183088 by MaxD

You flatter shithead by communicating with him as though his neurotransmitters were actually transmitting normally. More even that he even cares a jot about what happens to young children.

He has religion, since when have people with religion given a toss what children or anyone other than their favourite totem pole substitute thinks or feels about anything?

Wed, 21 May 2008 10:38:00 UTC | #173789

Go to: Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 180 by Incredulous

Comment #183028 by clearmind
You are shithead to me, buddy and never forget it!

I'm aware of the muslim prophet's sexual behaviour and am even more aware of a muslim's indignation when you bring his attention to it. As Al-rawandi has pointed out many muslim texts are available online.

Maybe if these people didn't think we were idiots and were going to swallow their nonsense complete with shiny fairy lights, they would understand we know what we are reading.

Maybe if they understood the guy they revere as the wisest man ever, wouldn't last two weeks in prison for his 'tastes' in the modern world, they would understand the considerable constraint the rest of the world show when engaging with them.


Comment #183029 by epeeist

Spot on as usual. It's not just muslims, it seems many of the other 'people of the book' could do with being put on medication from qualified people.

I thought you were simply as mad as a balloon before, shithead, but now I simply think you are a despicable excuse for a human.

Wed, 21 May 2008 08:11:00 UTC | #173740

Go to: Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 170 by Incredulous

DO YOU DO THE SAME AFTER YOU ARE DONE WITH ANNA BANANA SO YOU KNOW IT AS THE BLIND MEN ANALOGY REFERS.


What does this mean shithead?

Wed, 21 May 2008 07:47:00 UTC | #173723

Go to: In God's Name

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by Incredulous

I saw this when it came out in Britain and my reaction was similar to many of those espoused by many already.

Comment #182763 by DavidSJA

While I appreciate most of what DavidSJA said in this interesting comment, I am not sure I can hold to what he is saying here:

And I've got bad news: you cannot fight that type of conviction and belief.


I am slowly turning - though not turned yet - to the opinion that we have no alternative but to fight this fight.

My reason? Sam Harris said it for me in his End of Faith when he astutely notes that while it has always been easy to meet your maker, it is now even easier to ensure you take many others to meet him when you decide to pay a visit.

While I'm not one that believes in false consequences, I have to admit to a purely emotional concern that the kind of attitude I saw on this programme morphs all too easily into something a little even less - if that is possible - attractive.

It is expected that there will be some kind of conflict between believers in imaginary gods in this green and pleasant land. Who ever would have that it could happen here?

Not a pleasant thought when you can imagine someone popping into a large supermarket and coming out with a large loaf and meat and enough stuff to create merry havoc anywhere you please.

This may seem hysterical, but I am sure the hatreds, wars, conflicts and prejudices that have constantly cast shadows on our human time in the sun, can easily wreak the kind of havoc we have seen over the past few centuries.

We all know science, rationality, logic, medicine philosophy, technology, mathematics, etc, have helped enoble human existence.

And yes it is probable that religion has offered nothing but primitive explanations, superstition and a kind of childish devotion to dogma.

I am not sure, though, that to believe we can do nothing about it is the right approach; to couch it in a social framework is not enough.

To heed the warning and plan our way out of the possible nightmare has to be considered.

Wed, 21 May 2008 01:27:00 UTC | #173536

Go to: Geeks and Guinness: the formula for sexy science

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Incredulous

De Grey gives more than 30 such talks a year and believes that people are excited by the humanitarian potential of science, rather than the theory.


This strikes me as being the tack that scientists have to take. I had my first computer techie job 30 years ago and it was definitely seen as a nerdy occupation.

Ten years later I was an Microsoft student as a result of spending a year there whilst doing my degree. The idea was that windows would make computing accessible. It was still a geek's pastime, though.

Now, everyone I know has a pretty good understanding of computing generally, admittedly this doesn't make everyone a software engineer or electronics expert.

I see no reason why Science cannot become just as interesting and just as accessible as computing has become. Making science part of a popular lifestyle choice surely has to be welcomed.

Obviously, we do have to make science more attractive to the young so they keep up our traditions of exploding myths and understanding the world around us alive.

I've been going through Penrose's Road to Reality for the last 9 months and it is easy for me to see why people stay away from Physics at A level and beyond.

Especially when you can do Media Studies and be chatting to women all day. Bliss for us guys, maybe not so good for the girls.

Tue, 20 May 2008 01:09:00 UTC | #173144

Go to: Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Incredulous

I think I may have seen this before. Nonetheless, it was an extremely competent performance from Richard.

The conversation between the theists afterwards was simply the usual nauseous fallacies of verbosity, straw men, ad hominem. You all should know the drill by now.

Fri, 16 May 2008 08:06:00 UTC | #171811

Go to: The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by Incredulous

Quetz

I know what you mean, I think everyone else knows what you mean, but Artful Dodger sees only the opportunity to mystify what to us is a plain as the neurons in our heads.

You and he are acknowledging the existence of a sphere which is "above" nature


What's the point?

Thu, 15 May 2008 05:31:00 UTC | #171340

Go to: The Neural Buddhists

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 155 by Incredulous

Comment #180462 by Peacebeuponme
Comment #180500 by al-rawandi

It's reassuring to hear that I'm not alone in seeing Mr Morgan's appearance here as nauseous and egocentric.

He must be aware that most of the contributors and readers here are aware of all of the logical errors and emotional and psychological tricks played on us and we're not immune. Even I feel armed intellectually and experientially to deal with much of the false reasoning perpetrated by our theist friends.

I would be very surprised if engaging with Mr Morgan will add anything to any debate between rational evidence-based reasoning and superstitious, overbearing faith based-unreasoning.

[Edit]I have to confess I have editted some of my comments without stating so in the past. Is this something I have to do? The edits tend to be to alter spelling mistakes or obvious grammatical errors I spot.[/Edit]

[Edit] I spelt edited wrong [/Edit]

Thu, 15 May 2008 05:10:00 UTC | #171330

Go to: 'Spiritual' dentist fined $10,000

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by Incredulous

If this is the kind of thing expelled is purported to be deeming unfair then let's have more of it. If this dentist feels he is being made to choose between his spirituality and his profession then it should simply be a question at what angle he falls on his sword

How a trained health worker can sincerely believe that a disease as sad as schizophrenia can be caused by evil spirits is beyond comprehension.

He's been given another chance and should take it or go.

Wed, 14 May 2008 08:57:00 UTC | #170997

Go to: 85% of Americans Want a Presidential Debate on Science

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by Incredulous

Lies, damn lies and statistics! However, I think it would be a welcome change for an American debate to focus on Science and its place in delivering quality of life than to listen to them continually rant on about the imaginary effects of imaginary conversations with imaginary gods. Maybe this kind of thing does signal a ray of light appearing over the horizon.

Wed, 14 May 2008 01:40:00 UTC | #170775

Go to: Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by Incredulous

Comment #179794 by Styrer

Richard's answers here quite nicely reflect this, though I am not sure that we can forgive Richard for presenting himself for such an interview without intimating even once that religion is a stinking load of fuck-eyed piss juice drained from the scrotums of faithoholics, spunked over by elderly perverted and grinning virgins, and served in kids' lunches the world over.


Styrer, you really need to come out of your shell and state more clearly what you mean. :)

Wed, 14 May 2008 01:31:00 UTC | #170772

Go to: Fleabytes

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 7579 by Incredulous

Steve,

Read the rebuttal. I am impressed. Wonderfully written - I understood every word, clearly, and found the content relevant not only to the discussion but to my computer science and neural network background.

My hat off to you sir.

Tue, 13 May 2008 07:40:00 UTC | #170281

Go to: Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by Incredulous

I don't know if anyone has read the comment associated with this article in the guardian. If you want an example of murky and strange thinking read this.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2008/05/faithless_einstein.html

Tue, 13 May 2008 02:34:00 UTC | #170138

Go to: Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 148 by Incredulous

Poor Artful Dodger. Still confused between the subjective and objective. At least Epeeist has helped me name another logical fallacy - the fallacy of bifurcation.

I like the TS Eliot quote - Burnt Norton?. The problem is that Eliot's defensive of his theistic beliefs were ripped up in his face by my latest hero, Bertrand Russell. And boy Bertie left Ts's arguments in a mess!

I love Eliot's poetry, but as a statement of truth, get with the evidence based game. Learn more science and math and philosophy, etc and leave all this belief and metaphorical reality(?) stuff behind.

Maturity is ok you know, Artful. Understanding reality is good as well and the imagination is all good when you see it for what it is.

Mon, 12 May 2008 04:25:00 UTC | #169680

Go to: Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 48 by Incredulous

Comment #177503 by irate_atheist

I'm having problems helping myself. Staying sane and healthy is difficult when your eyes and mind are insulted by this stuff. I think I need a break from the site for a few months.

Anyway, there's a couple of books MPhil has suggested reading and my take on moral philosophy is a little homespun and needs beefing up a bit, so maybe it's a good time to leave off arguing with nutters, I prefer fucktards - says it all really.

Fri, 09 May 2008 07:46:00 UTC | #168437

Go to: Faith in Britain today

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 150 by Incredulous

I couldn't resist any longer. I can't see the point of talking to these people - at all.

Listen to this:

Christ is the Lord of human time, active in all of human history. With great humility, I feel that I stand in an unbroken line of teaching and holiness that goes back to the first apostles who knew Christ


So human history started 2000 years ago? He can feel whatever he likes but it's all in his head and has absolutely no merit at all. Truth and this nonsense in the same sentence is simply bad grammar!

De Lubac says that this bitter reflection was true because 'he has left the home, outside which there will never be anything but exile and solitude'.


Psychobabble!! I bet this guy interprets dreams and believes in astrology. If he feels that there will never anything but exile and solitude without the catholic faith well stuff him.

I'm sure there are many people who have drawn a conclusion about the non-existence of god and have found human warmth, friendship and compassion instead. For every one of this De Lubac knob there are many others who would report feeling the exact opposite.

That home, of course, is the Church which, according to de Lubac, 'is the only completely "open" society'

So open it has a catholics only sign on the door and ensures your one of its ingroup before it allows you access. Do these people think before they write/speak?

religion comes to be treated as a matter of personal need rather than as a truth that makes an unavoidable claim on us.


I'll spell this out. What the fuck! When this person finally gets round to showing me ANY truth value associated with religion then I will treat what he says with more respect.

but the tradition of Catholicism is that Christianity is profoundly social.


So social that it excludes everyone that doesn't believe its own particular brand of mythical madness.

Those two arch catholics, Bliar and Bust, have done so much to heal the world's wounds, that everyone views everyone else with complete mistrust everywhere you go. The only thing that is profound here is the confusion in this guy's mind.

That's as much as I can read without throwing up.

Ok, this belief gives him comfort or community or whatever, but it has no evidence whatsoever to support him.

Arrogantly hanging on to a belief for which you have no support does not show humility. The fact that it may all be bollocks has not even entered his silly head.

Underlying this article are easily identifiable and satisfiable human needs: needs which all humans know all too well. They're human not god given.

What do we need a man in fancy dress speaking about death cults for? We can take responsibility and we can do all of the compassion and empathy things without this!

Fri, 09 May 2008 05:34:00 UTC | #168381

Go to: Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Incredulous

Mr. Bush's faith is well known; he credits his acceptance of Jesus with turning his life around by helping him to quit drinking at age 40.


Well, I guess he feels it is good to replace one unhealthy addiction with another.

There are numerous alcoholics in various hostels who say stuff like this. Luckily, they don't get to lead the most powerful entity that has ever existed into battle.

How do you convince someone who is so sure that god is using him as some kind of truth conductor, that his effect is not a productive one and his actions need to be based on more than the catastrophic idea that his god is always right.

The problem is I don't see any future leader of USA being any less credulous and therefore any less arrpgant or dogmatic.

Why?

Thu, 08 May 2008 10:04:00 UTC | #167878

Go to: Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 244 by Incredulous

Comment #176894 by clearmind

Clearmind, you don't have to copy stuff when you can simply reference the comment. That is what most of us do on this site.

Lastgeekstanding's comments have a ring of political and historical truth in them. One or two of the comments he made I might take issue with, but that isn't the point.

The point is that there is never any justification for taking the lives of innocent people, full stop.

Religion is the obvious catalyst in ensuring that perceived miscreants are arbitrarily murdered with a holy sanction and divine inspired gusto.

When a jihad is called because someone writes a book; a woman is jailed because she named a teddy bear Mohammed; if a cartoon can make a host of European based religious people bay for blood, we cannot call this a political or act of retribution. This is not about respecting tradition this is about giving vent to religious fervour.

There are more reasonable ways of conducting rebellion and seeking justified reparation.

These acts are not carried out as retribution for real life misdemeanours and if they are it is the false promises of religion which has certified the murder of equally innocent people.

There is no doubt that Africa has been raped and its people are still suffering from the personal, economic and political effects.

No rational or sane person would deny this. But it is not the African that is blowing himself or others up in righteous indignation.

The people blowing up everything in sight are young men and women convinced by religious zealots that they are paying the ultimate price in order to reap the ultimate reward. It is religion that has removed the normal constraints on natural human behaviour.

Whether we like it or not, it is religion that has removed the fear of death and fueled the hatred of those who do not agree with you.

The fact that many of the people religious zealots takes with them would ordinarily never sanction what has happened to black people over the years and would never knowingly take part in anything which would jeopardise the lives and dreams of the so-called other does not matter to the religiously drunk.

No, clearmind, this is neither about reparation or revenge. This is about the effects of religion on a susceptible few and condoned by a complacent many.

Religion is the problem in the end, no matter how you look at it.

Thu, 08 May 2008 09:17:00 UTC | #167852

Go to: An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 74 by Incredulous

MPhil

Thanks for the reply. You'll have to bear with me as I don't have as much time as I would like to get involved in discussions as I would like.

Thanks for correcting my understanding of your post. I'm not disagreeing with what you say, simply wondering about the method of liberating people from unreason.

I am assuming that we have a calling or even a right to do this, but I think most of us on this site would agree that we do need to promote evidence based reason over superstitious faith.

A doctor should deal with his patient as honestly as possible unless the patient states otherwise and even then I'm not so sure.

So all that is needed is some responsiveness to reason, which is there in almost all cases.

Of course there are the pathological cases, the seriously fucked up minds, and it will be necessary to just keep them from doing harm to others, but these are by far a small minority.


This is wise and fits with my experience. Of all the people I have met who have religious experience very few really, really believe.

Very few are fundamentalists - for me these people really do believe the theist crap. Whether this is a symptom of a psychopathology I am not qualified, intelligent or experienced enough to say.

I've watched many members of my parents extended family slowly loose the chains of unreason as they became integrated into English/European society from the West Indies.

This, I am sure, is linked to a growing sense of personal, political(with a small p) and economic security and freedom. The fear is gone and the hate dealt with: what need for god or faith now.

The interesting thing for me is overcoming the emotional barriers - the fear and sometimes the latent hate - which prevent people from letting go of their erroneous beliefs and accepting reason and rationality as the true and more fulfilling driver for action in our lives.

I noticed Steve Zara has a very happy knack of rubbing people(whether we like it or not theists are people) up the right way.

He can create the right emotional background to engage with people who perhaps should feel their cognitive supports are under threat. Even when he is destroying their arguments they still respond to him. This is encouraging.

For me, it is important to understand people's concerns before asking them to take anything alternative or different on board.

It is well known a change imposed is a change opposed.

Don't get me wrong the wooter's and DR's of this world should get short shrift, and they do. The important thing is that it becomes evident that evidence is what should drive beliefs and hence actions.

Many cases are very hard to crack... but the responsiveness is there. The psychological barriers are just extremely strong... and they can be torn down over time.


And not just over time. With support, understanding and patience. But mostly by being prepared to accept that all habits are hard to break and that relapses are common.

Encouraging independence and intelligent thought is not the easiest thing to do in those who complacently allow wrong beliefs to take refuge and hence do harm.

Better education - especially science and maths, better economic circumstances and leaders who show moral fortitude as a human drive and not as an illusion from an illusion.

Every day of every week of every year of every decade science and reason shows its value to our daily lives whilst faith stands by trying to thumb a lift and then hijack the vehicle.

This will continue to be the case; but as long as we get better at recognising the road kills and alleviating the fear motivating the followers then rationality will continue to produce and the species will continue to survive on earth or in space.

There are people who do believe that bad weather is all to do with god and nothing to do with systems and fronts. There are people that god is waving a torchlight through the stars.

The more rational and better educated among us believe no such thing but then we're not the problem.

Thu, 08 May 2008 04:25:00 UTC | #167765

Go to: An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 71 by Incredulous

Mphil,

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that people are either duped, seduced or browbeaten whilst vulnerable into believing?

If so does this mean that evidence and rationality will win over as long as a reasoning process is shown to be false?

Either way, I think you are mistaken.

Most people have a strong emotional tie with religion. Indeed this indoctrination appears to work by adopting emotionally effective techniques.

As Spinoza himself suggests it could be that the only way to break a strong emotional tie is to create a stronger one.

Are you seriously suggesting that reason can overcome emotion. Try telling a young girl in love that the object of her affections is not right for her.

Reason can only win over if a mind has been sensitised enough to accept that rationality should be considered. This I believe needs perceptual tools.

I could be mistaken though.

Thu, 08 May 2008 02:22:00 UTC | #167748

Go to: An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 62 by Incredulous

Comment #176754 by Philip1978

I know this feeling.

I bumped into an old schoolfriend whilst visiting my parents. This person had found god and we chatted because I wanted to know where he had been hiding all these years as he had a few things to explain.

I gave her the usual arguments against her new found belief and almost pleaded with her not to forget that evidence really matters.

Whilst she was obviously upset that I was not only refuting and rebutting her favourite habit, she remained civil and appeared to accept much of what I was saying.

As a favour for old time's sake I went along to a play she was acting in. Naively I went along - I had said to her I have no interest in religion except to debunk it and I may come across as rude if someone thinks I will sit there quietly and let them spout nonsense.

The long and short of it was that the play was one of those plays with a quasi-spiritual message which made no sense, though you could see it had created an emotional event in some.

Surprisingly a pastor then appeared and started to speak some of the most abusive nonsense I have ever heard.

Naturally, there was the obligatory denigrating of the people who attended - sinners, worthless, guilty, etc - followed by this tirade against homosexuality, adultery.

To these people anything to do with sex or the 'conceit' of scientific knowledge was the cause of all human issues. Somewhere I've heard people say or read that inferiority complexes are somehow linked to a strange belief that sex is dirty.

At this point, an involuntary 'bollocks' was whispered to myself and I got up and walked out. Needless to say, relations between me and my old school friend have cooled.

I found myself having nothing but contempt for the people who perpetrate this evil - and evil is the right word.

But more worryingly, I felt even less esteem for those who wanted to believe and encouraged the process to start in the first place.

Yes, I was being harsh but that was the way I felt.

Thu, 08 May 2008 01:17:00 UTC | #167730

Go to: Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 201 by Incredulous

Bonzai

You say some very interesting things about multiculturalism in the UK, something I feel very strongly about and something I believe contributes to the perceived threat of Islam.

What you say fits with my social experience here in the UK. There are many moderate muslims who could easily be pushed into supporting a fundamentalism they abhor and fear as much as we do.

Allegedly, there are muslim no-go areas which have raised a few eyebrows and seem to bear out what you say about this subtle scourge of multiculturalism.

It is this sense of otherness which causes me most concern when questions about where there priorities would lie in terms of conflict.

I have to go so can't comment further.

Wed, 07 May 2008 10:42:00 UTC | #167459

Go to: Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 955 by Incredulous

That's no way to live life if you ask me. What I fear is intolerance, not someone's fantasy life.


On the face of it this is a reasonable thing to say. Dig a little deeper and it becomes difficult for me, and others I have read, to equate religion and tolerance.

Most people I know here in Birmingham accept plurality. Seems reasonable, until that is you speak to someone, anyone, with a religious belief, moderate or fanatic.

A Catholic could be sitting next to a muslim on the 79 bus going to Wolverhampton and they appear to be getting on great except that the Catholic knows he is going to heaven while he is simply convinced the Muslim will need a fireproof vest for eternity. The reverse is also assumed.

Now, if this belief in mutually assured damnation, belies a feeling of respect and tolerance, I'm missing the point.

Religion does not encourage tolerance.

I happen to believe most so-called moderates don't actually believe anything at all and are simply cultural believers: people who simply can't be bothered to go the extra yard and admit they don't believe the basic tenets of their faith, but that's for another day.

There are enough 'true' believers out there to make religious tolerance a fantasy.

Wed, 07 May 2008 07:02:00 UTC | #167373

Go to: Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 858 by Incredulous

Your heathy comes first. I still pray for you.


If I've interpreted wooterese correctly I assume he means health here. This is a very nice gesture but I think wooter is the one who needs a health check.

Only the irrecoverably conceited could possibly believe that they are so in with god that he will listen to their puny prayers. Why would a superdeity bother with the empty gestures of a mere bloke? How can something so perfect actually be influenced by something so obviously imperfect to act on his head wank?

You're incredible, wooter. No I mean it, I don't believe a word of your crap. Give it up, son.

Tue, 06 May 2008 08:13:00 UTC | #166973

Go to: Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Incredulous's Avatar Jump to comment 1642 by Incredulous

A big, dramatic exit along with a conversion seemed to do the trick as we are all still sitting here pondering the situation.


It's this that I find unpleasant about Mr Morgan. I just think all the angst and all the drama and overblown emotion is simply not necessary. Also, it is obvious to me people get attached to other people, animals and things.

People show interest in people they have grown to like and I don't think he really appreciated this pretty obvious fact.

I have nothing to say about the sexual abuse thing but only hope the people concerned were direct, straightforward and honest in their disapproval of his behaviour.

Unwanted attention is usually best dealt with by simply stating that you're not interested in that behaviour from that person.

If that person values you and your opinion, problem solved. If not well it becomes obvious this person doesn't particularly like you, so bye.

I only hope that people would let me know if ever I acted 'inappropriately'. Honesty can be painful but how else can you deal with any reality if you are not being dealt in an honest and tactful manner.

Unlike MPhil I sensed a genuine feeling of warmth towards Mr Morgan and a frustration towards him because he is kind of being offensive by proselytising when he knows his old friends don't like it.

We all like attention; I'm just not impressed with the way he seeks it. But that's the believer for you.

Fri, 02 May 2008 05:10:00 UTC | #165449