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

Comments by Adrian Bartholomew

Go to: The Sound of Science

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by Adrian Bartholomew

Apologies for the me too post but... Me too. Great little song!

Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:26:54 UTC | #528522

Go to: Fight Back Against Islamic Death Threats

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by Adrian Bartholomew

Comment 13 by Mechelle :

You can't go around making fun of other people or their beliefs, and when they fire back, act like a victim.

For the life of me I can't work out why not when "fire back" really means threats of violence.

Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:53:15 UTC | #526387

Go to: John Sweeney revisits Church of Scientology

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by Adrian Bartholomew

Comment 14 by TobySaunders :

Oooh, I like films about fighting...ooh schizophrenia is so entertaining...

I wish this site had an ignore button next to people's names. I mean seriously...

On topic: I'm looking forward to this program. It will make a change from the Catholic scandal if nothing else.

Sun, 26 Sep 2010 17:03:54 UTC | #525244

Go to: Jon Stewart Announces DC 'Rally to Restore Sanity'

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by Adrian Bartholomew

Sorry, Videos are not currently unavailable in your country.

I'm in the UK. Other links available?

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:19:39 UTC | #520438

Go to: 50 Atheist Billboards Go Up in Atlanta

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by Adrian Bartholomew

Comment 10 by FractalShift :

It's a referrence to John Lennon's Imagine; being a slight paraphrase of the first line.

Possibly, but not definitely. John Lennon does not have a patent on the word 'imagine'.

It DEFINITELY is referring to the Lennon song. Listen to the FFRF podcast called Freethought Radio (search for it in iTunes or on Google). The song is their intro song and they make numerous references to it and have stated outright that is where they got the idea for that particular design.

As a side note the point of the less "shocking" of the designs is to make the inevitable over reaction of the other side appear ridiculous to anyone who is in the middle ground.

Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:36:05 UTC | #516918

Go to: Drunk on religion

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by Adrian Bartholomew

Comment 26 by fortiter in re :

However, the point about circular arguments is precisely why I don't even bother to argue with religious people any more. It's their problem so they must solve it themselves.

Don't stop arguing! I had a conversation with a Muslim not too long ago and although I didn't change his mind at all he did mention that no one had ever challenged his position before! Maybe if more people challenged him he would have the chance to change.

On topic: I am so glad to see Pat back to being funny. Even when I don't agree with him I'd rather disagree with a smile on my face (I do agree with him in this case I hasten to add).

Updated: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:49:45 UTC | #512924

Go to: How bleak is the future for Catholicism?

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by Adrian Bartholomew

Comment 36 by spmccullagh :

Further, whilst no-one has come out and said it, statements like "ulterior motive" suggest that providing aid to third world countries is somehow wrong. If this isn't what was intended I invite anyone on here to clarify their position on Catholic aid agencies providing such help.

When those people convert to Catholicism (which is understandable given their circumstances) what does the church then tell them? "Hey don't use condoms because it makes the Aids epidemic worse".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

Seriously if you want to GENUINELY help these people give to charities that help without the stupid dogma that can kill if people believe it.

Updated: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:42:41 UTC | #512460

Go to: Michael, we hardly knew ye

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 36 by Adrian Bartholomew

Comment 35 by Roedy :

  • ensuring OTHERS get roughly what others are getting.
  • Actually the thing that stood out most about that monkey experiment was that the only monkey that cared about fairness was the one getting screwed. The monkey getting the nice grape wasn't bothered that he was getting a better deal. My suspicion is that the monkey getting screwed would have eventually started taking the poorer alternative food once it got hungry and eventually would have just accepted his misfortune had they continued the experiment.

    What does THAT say about a system where the unions have been utterly demolished (at least in the UK)?

    Like I said above, I think Shermer is cherry picking his evidence...

    Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:02:04 UTC | #509309

    Go to: Michael, we hardly knew ye

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 31 by KJinAsia :

    Agreed that mistreatment occurs, but it is way too cynical and not reflective of commercial reality to claim that mistreatment will automatically occur if one can get away with it. Would you act that way?

    I may actually if you convince me that the people to whom I am doing harm are anonymous enough or the amount of harm is spread over enough people that I thought they wouldn't notice. That is the reality of anyone that has ever made a fraudulent insurance claim for instance or behaved badly on the Stock Exchange. Doing harm to individuals FEELS worlds apart from doing harm to a software company by pirating their products for instance.

    Worse still you don't need many people behaving badly to bring the entire system down. It didn't take that many people, in proportion to the worlds population, to bring about the last financial crisis.

    Then add a system so complicated that very few people actually understand it or are capable of seeing serious problems before they manifest and you have a recipe for disaster.

    Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:08:56 UTC | #508996

    Go to: Michael, we hardly knew ye

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by Adrian Bartholomew

    I’ve been saying it a long time but Shermer always seems a bit of the “pick the evidence to fit my conclusions,” kind of guy to me.

    Evidence FIRST then Ideology folks… Not the other way around.

    Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:17:39 UTC | #508190

    Go to: Atheist Declares Congressional Run

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 6 by Paine :

    I think this is silly and recommend you don't vote for this guy. The last thing that freethinkers want to be is to become another 'voting bloc' marching lock-step for any candidate who parrots their 'faith and values'. It just encourages opportunists and frauds of the worst kind.

    Anyone that parrots my appreciation for rational thought and reliance on evidence and actually MEANS it would have my support (if not my vote depending on policies...). You have a point but to discard politicians that agree with you purely because you think they might lie to you seems an odd position to hold. Anyone you vote for is probably lying but I'd rather vote for the guy that is pretending to be on my side over the guy actively against me. :-)

    Updated: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 08:44:31 UTC | #506896

    Go to: Atheist Declares Congressional Run

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment Removed by Author

    Sat, 28 Aug 2010 08:26:51 UTC | #506893

    Go to: SPEECH Act now a law: big win for libel reform!

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by Adrian Bartholomew

    The McKinnon case really gets my goat. What were we thinking allowing that to get as far as it has.

    Comment 7 by Stevehill :

    P.S. For "jihadists", would "fundamentalists" do?

    Not really no. Still a bit silly. Lets face it, the reality of the people you are referring to are the big media conglomerates that want the ability to lie and destroy people they don't like with no repercussions. Lumping me, who almost certainly wants more free speech than you would think reasonable, with the media giants and labeling us all as "jihadists" or "fundamentalists" seems a bit comical.

    On the issue at hand, it is such a shame we didn't do something about our, UK, system which was also out of step with the world norms so that this law would not have even been proposed.

    Updated: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 08:17:19 UTC | #506890

    Go to: SPEECH Act now a law: big win for libel reform!

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 5 by Stevehill :

    free speech jihadists

    I beg your pardon? I actually agree with a lot of your points but I think you might be wise to avoid phrases like that because that just made me chuckle which I suspect was not your aim.

    Sat, 28 Aug 2010 07:55:49 UTC | #506882

    Go to: I'm an atheist but . . .

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment Removed by Author

    Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:29:21 UTC | #504398

    Go to: I'm an atheist but . . .

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 11 by greenwich :

    Comment 9 by Daniel Schealler :

    At the very least, we have Ben's signature on the documents.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7093936.ece

    But more to the point - the cover-ups effort has been across the whole institution. The buck stops with Ben.

    Comment #7 was my duplicate comment which I deleted. Your link doesn't work for me and I don't know who Ben is. So I can't say anything in response. If you were intending to provide a link to some actual evidence, then thank you and please try again.

    His link is fine (use copy and paste).

    Ben = Benedict = THE POPE!

    Personally I'm not too keen to rehash all the evidence yet again but I guess here is another link for you authored by Richard (Dawkins in case you wondered who I meant) that has plenty of links for you to click through to get yourself up to speed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/13/pope-prosecution-dawkins

    (again use copy and paste)

    Updated: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:56:24 UTC | #503731

    Go to: I'm an atheist but . . .

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by Adrian Bartholomew

    I think if I were to sum up this entire article I would let his very own last sentence damn him:

    It is the structure of the church that should be challenged, not the beliefs of Catholics.

    Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:02:03 UTC | #503708

    Go to: BHA calls for inquiry as documentary reveals creationism in 'faith' schools

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 8 by Rich Wiltshir :

    There's nothing tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic when I say that we should applaud the school for it's warm, open and honest welcome to Richard Dawkins and his camera crew.

    With almost certain knowledge that they'd be criticised, they were nevertheless true to their spirit of welcome. This is a more constructive stance than the other institutions took; we should reciprocate that with good feeling.

    I'm of the opinion that they are just very confident and that they know the only people viewing that matter to them, other Muslims that already agree with them, would view this brazenness as a good thing. I've noticed a lot of Muslims will not claim to "believe" but that they "know". I think this gives them a great deal of confidence about coming out with exactly what they think with very little concern about criticism.

    I must admit it can be very refreshing. Arguing with people from the Church of England can be very much like wrestling a soapy fish but arguing with a Muslim is very straight forward. Unfortunately both groups are intractable.

    Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:56:10 UTC | #502485

    Go to: Dawkins denounces religious education as ‘wicked practice’

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 2 by jac12358 :

    Just remember that victory of abolishing faith schools is through education, not force. People do still have the right to spend their money sending their children to hear fairy tales.

    No actually, in my opinion, they do not. Not when those fairy tales are being passed off as true. People do NOT have the right to abuse their children. That includes physical and mental abuse and I would classify filling a child's head with crap as mental abuse.

    We seem to have this really TERRIBLE idea that parents have rights! And yet we forget the CHILD'S rights in doing so. I would say parents have NO RIGHTS beyond the very simple one that their ability to give their child the best upbringing they can should not be impinged. We need to change from this dumb idea of "parent rights" and move to the idea of "parent responsibilities".

    Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:07:56 UTC | #501663

    Go to: Faith School Menace? (Now visible in US)

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 83 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 83 by alphcat :

    Can you see any government having the political will to tackle the problem efficiently, least of all the current one. Faith schools are far from ideal but they survive for one reason only and that is that in some areas they're the best and option.

    Not this government even with its mania for cost cutting. However it is a problem that has been building up over many years so any solution to the problem is likely to take many years too. The gradual conversion of those faith schools to secular ones doesn't seem unreasonably unachievable to me.

    Updated: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:34:11 UTC | #501021

    Go to: Faith School Menace? (Now visible in US)

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 72 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 72 by alphcat :

    I'm not a fan of faith schools but a good education inoculates a child against indoctrination be it from parents or teachers more than a bad one in a secular school.

    False dichotomy. How about not wasting a ton of cash on faith schools. Then give the money to secular schools so that everyone gets a good education with no state sponsored indoctrination at all...

    Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:41:02 UTC | #500951

    Go to: Faith School Menace? (Now visible in US)

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 68 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 55 by jpgj :

    I didn't mention Muslim schools, but how about forcing the place you visited for the servers to recruit 20% of their students from "unbeliever" "infidel" families and strictly forbid them to indoctrinate them or to discriminate against them or to bully them, and to treat them like anybody else ( no egregious dress code of course) under threat of closure by the police and courts?

    Wouldn't they go just a bit more mainstream?

    Maybe. Although it feels like sticking your finger in a hole to stop the damn bursting to me.

    Anyway there are practical problems that would probably render it impossible. For instance some of the schools I went to are in entirely Muslim areas so to get those 20% of infidels you'd have to bus them in from other areas. Not to mention that the parents of those 20% would be very unlikely to want their kids going to a Muslim school in the first place.

    Then there is enforcement of the indoctrination and discrimination policies. Good luck with that given the current government is running around smashing and destroying government departments like petulant children given socks for Christmas.

    Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:25:25 UTC | #500910

    Go to: Faith School Menace? (Now visible in US)

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Wow this thread has really generated some trolls. I notice everyone is going on and on about Roman Catholic schools and no mention of the hardcore Islamic schools. I remember a few years ago having to be sneaked into one, out of hours, by my employer in order to fix the servers on site. I am male and it was an all girl Islamic school where the mere presence of a male on campus would get complaints from parents.

    Not all single faith schools are the same. Some are considerably worse than others.

    Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:28:48 UTC | #500774

    Go to: Faith School Menace? (Now visible in US)

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 11 by pollracker :

    I disagree with small children going to church schools and all that, but i don't think they are all horrible for one specific reason; It is because of church schools that I am an atheist. I also have a few atheist friends who received the conversion in the same manner.

    And I bet you've met a few people that got more religious as a result of going to church schools. Frankly I think it is a slightly unwise to use personal experience like this and ascribe too much value to it. After all if faith schools made atheists more than religious people then religion would have gone away a long time ago.

    Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:22:37 UTC | #500545

    Go to: Faith School Menace? (Now visible in US)

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 2 by -TheCodeCrack- :

    The above post is an example of why I've been constantly asking for this website to set a minimum IQ level, in which people must pass in order to be able to post on here.

    Bad test. Smart people can have dumb beliefs and stupid people can hold rational beliefs. In my opinion the best way to get a smart person to have dumb beliefs is to get them early in life and send them to a faith school...

    Sun, 15 Aug 2010 09:31:37 UTC | #500524

    Go to: Just a picture

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 27 by Thoughtful Ape :

    Why are we so quick to accept that the burden of proof is on us? What I mean is: Why isn't the burden of proof on Islamists to show that women are doing it out of their own choices and that it is not harmful?

    Because we have a long history of letting people pretty much what they want (nudity excepted)... If anyone wants to change that then they have to demonstrate very good reasons for that change whether it be banning the burka or requiring the burka to be worn.

    For instance tomorrow I am going to go out in a particularly horrible hat that I know my friends will think is awful. And I am not keen on having to prove it is not harmful. I mean it really is that bad a hat.

    Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:33:10 UTC | #500062

    Go to: Fury over Richard Dawkins's burka jibe as atheist tells of his 'visceral revulsion' at Muslim dress

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 185 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment Removed by Author

    Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:54:55 UTC | #498815

    Go to: Fury over Richard Dawkins's burka jibe as atheist tells of his 'visceral revulsion' at Muslim dress

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 148 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 137 by david1111 :

    Comment 81 by Adrian Bartholomew :

    Comment 71 by Steve Zara :

    Try imagining you are a member of a culture that feels isolated from the mainstream, and believes that it is good for women to be covered in public. Imagine your response if a law was passed against that. Would your response be to accept that law graciously, and take it as a persuasive that your culture was in error?

    http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/majorityopinion.htm

    I would say, if the study is correct, that is pretty strong evidence to support your primary assertion.

    Adrian Bartholomew apparently endorses this misplaced emphasis on the feelings and behaviour of the very people who despise him.

    I am not sure if I endorse it actually. The primary assertion that Zara made was that a ban would not change the minds of those that supported wearing them. I think the research I cited would support that conclusion.

    To be clear: i'm not here endorsing a ban on the Burqa (personally i'm against a ban, but i'm very much for making life as uncomfortable as possible for its supporters in a variety of ways). My point is that the "sensitivities", "hurt feelings", and "righteous indignation" of our Burqa endorsing bigots should in no way whatsoever be our primary concern.

    I'm not sure "making life uncomfortable as possible" achieves anything more than making me feel better. My primary concerns are that no woman be forced to wear a face covering and that the power and influence of all religions be reduced as much as possible. If your method is more likely to succeed I would happily go with it. In fact I would prefer your method because it would make me feel better. However I would like to first know that your method is genuinely more effective and for me to know that I want to see some research papers. I look forward to you presenting some links to that effect and I honestly hope you can because I really don't the position I feel myself forced into here by the evidence I currently have.

    Updated: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:35:02 UTC | #498646

    Go to: Fury over Richard Dawkins's burka jibe as atheist tells of his 'visceral revulsion' at Muslim dress

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 80 by Adrian Bartholomew

    Comment 71 by Steve Zara :

    Try imagining you are a member of a culture that feels isolated from the mainstream, and believes that it is good for women to be covered in public. Imagine your response if a law was passed against that. Would your response be to accept that law graciously, and take it as a persuasive that your culture was in error?

    I was listening to "The Skeptics Guide to the Universe" today and they had a bit in their 'science or fiction' section of the show where they mention a study done on people with a deeply held belief vs popular opinion. The upshot was that people with a deeply held belief would indeed dig their heels in more when they discovered that their position was against popular opinion.

    http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/majorityopinion.htm

    I would say, if the study is correct, that is pretty strong evidence to support your primary assertion.

    Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:28:52 UTC | #498431

    Go to: Fury over Richard Dawkins's burka jibe as atheist tells of his 'visceral revulsion' at Muslim dress

    Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by Adrian Bartholomew

    From the article: Seyyed Ferjani, of the Muslim Association of Britain, said --snip-- ‘It is a woman’s choice if she wishes to wear a burka, a niqab or not. Why does it matter to this man what a woman is wearing?

    The hypocrisy of that statement boggles the mind. How far would that argument go with Mr Ferjani if it were used against him? Not far methinks.

    I think it is time we pulled the "offense" card just like they do. I see a niqab or burqa worn by someone who chose it as a kick in the teeth for every woman that would choose not to wear one but can't for fear of violent retribution.

    PS. I STILL don't like seeing them in my local bank (which I see regularly up here) or airport (http://tinyurl.com/32z3shj).

    Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:28:49 UTC | #498289