Bomb for Brown

[Guest David Guyatt]

I do not believe that the religious factor was a factor in Nationalism/Republicanism throughout the 20th Century.

Clearly not the only factor I'd agree.

However the point I was trying to make is that there is no such thing as moderate religion. Religious faith requires the believer to suspend rational thought and is therefore in itself an open invitation to the sort of fundamentalism which allows the believer to bully, kill and maim with impunity. This is just as true of the Born Again nutters who appear to have such an influence over the Bush administration as it is of the Taliban.

As it is clear that no one else is even remotely interested in discussing this point and given that the very suggestion that religion may be a dangerous problem seems to lead to the relatively thoughtful descending into a disturbing and offensive rage (maybe I touched a nerve), and the less informed hurling the racist label in my direction, I shall from now on detach myself from this thread.

I for one am quite willing to discuss this topic with you Andy, although I agree it should be on a separate thread.

Richard Dawkins' forum, as one might expect, has many members with views such as yours. There's plenty of discussion about his book, The God Delusion, here.

I put one condition on my participation, however.

If religion - and the nexus between religion and politics - is to be discussed, let it be a full and open discussion.

By all means let's cast a critical eye over the Koran and the Bible.

Let's look at the Talmud too.

Similarly, let's review religious extremism in ALL its manifestations.

If we are to discuss the complex relationship between religious affiliation and political/economic power, let's do it holistically and in full, without bars or restrictions that betoken bias, whether explicit or implicit.

Let's also include all those noble things that religious people do not only for the sake of their religion but becuase their religion creates in them a deep sense of community and compassion for others. I am no churchgoer nor even religious, so I am not sparking off out of a desire to protect my faith. But to categorically belittle, demean and demonise religion on the scale I have seen here is, in my view, unbalanced, unreasonable, lacking in objectivity and not at all dissimilar to outright zealotry itself.

In saying this I am fully cognisant of the role religion has played in the history of the world. More wars are started out of religious differences than I can shake a stick at. Millions upon untold millions have died a bloody and cruel death because of religion. I am also aware how easy it has been for the religiously inclined to be hoodwinked and manipulated -- albeit some are catching on. Some have even caught on.

And why stick to just the three mentioned? The history of mankind is a history of religion of all sorts. Spinning Dervishers, Taoism, Buddhism, the beliefs of those bloodily razed by the church. We could even include the Alchemists of the middle ages who protected their beliefs from a jealous church by hiding them behind a bewildering array of symbolism hinting at earthly treaures like gold. There are any number of them.

David

[Sid Walker]

I do not believe that the religious factor was a factor in Nationalism/Republicanism throughout the 20th Century.

Clearly not the only factor I'd agree.

However the point I was trying to make is that there is no such thing as moderate religion. Religious faith requires the believer to suspend rational thought and is therefore in itself an open invitation to the sort of fundamentalism which allows the believer to bully, kill and maim with impunity. This is just as true of the Born Again nutters who appear to have such an influence over the Bush administration as it is of the Taliban.

As it is clear that no one else is even remotely interested in discussing this point and given that the very suggestion that religion may be a dangerous problem seems to lead to the relatively thoughtful descending into a disturbing and offensive rage (maybe I touched a nerve), and the less informed hurling the racist label in my direction, I shall from now on detach myself from this thread.

I for one am quite willing to discuss this topic with you Andy, although I agree it should be on a separate thread.

Richard Dawkins' forum, as one might expect, has many members with views such as yours. There's plenty of discussion about his book, The God Delusion, here.

I put one condition on my participation, however.

If religion - and the nexus between religion and politics - is to be discussed, let it be a full and open discussion.

By all means let's cast a critical eye over the Koran and the Bible.

Let's look at the Talmud too.

Similarly, let's review religious extremism in ALL its manifestations.

If we are to discuss the complex relationship between religious affiliation and political/economic power, let's do it holistically and in full, without bars or restrictions that betoken bias, whether explicit or implicit.

Let's also include all those noble things that religious people do not only for the sake of their religion but becuase their religion creates in them a deep sense of community and compassion for others. I am no churchgoer nor even religious, so I am not sparking off out of a desire to protect my faith. But to categorically belittle, demean and demonise religion on the scale I have seen here is, in my view, unbalanced, unreasonable, lacking in objectivity and not at all dissimilar to outright zealotry itself.

In saying this I am fully cognisant of the role religion has played in the history of the world. More wars are started out of religious differences than I can shake a stick at. Millions upon untold millions have died a bloody and cruel death because of religion. I am also aware how easy it has been for the religiously inclined to be hoodwinked and manipulated -- albeit some are catching on. Some have even caught on.

And why stick to just the three mentioned? The history of mankind is a history of religion of all sorts. Spinning Dervishers, Taoism, Buddhism, the beliefs of those bloodily razed by the church. We could even include the Alchemists of the middle ages who protected their beliefs from a jealous church by hiding them behind a bewildering array of symbolism hinting at earthly treaures like gold. There are any number of them.

David

I agree with you David. The facile rubbishing of religion calls for some resistance, even on the part of secular folk like you and me, lest we discard the baby with the bathwater.

I also agree that no religion should be exempt from scrutiny and criticism in a really satisfactory discussion.

The reason I mentioned the Jewish religion in particular is three-fold.

First, in my opinion, it IS effectively shielded from open scrutiny in modern western society.

Second, there's some evidence that extremist adherents to the Jewish religion have achieved positions of enormous power within western society (largely undiscussed in the mainstream media).

Third, there's some evidence that extremists adherents to the Jewish religion collude in efforts to vilify and weaken others religions, most notably (in recent times) Islam.

I'll refer to my home turf, although I believe similar comments can be made of Britain, Canada the USA and most of continental Europe.

In Australia, religious affairs programming on our national broadcaster appears dominated by Jewish extremists. Rachael Kohn, for instance, refused to voice even a word of criticism about the behaviour of any Jewish settlers in the occupied territories during an interview on Late Night Live some years ago!

ABC religious shows regularly discuss Christianity in unflattering terms. Discussions about why Islam promotes extremism are staple fare. Judaism, by contrast, is only mentioned in a grovelling, wholly positive manner.

This is not open rational debate.

I presume that an egalitarian socialist with secularist leanings such as Andy Walker, who is deeply committed to the principles of the Enlightenment and regularly quotes from Voltaire, would be shocked if he knew about this egregious one-eyed approach to discussing religion and power.

That's why truly open discussion is so important, if we are to discuss the topic at all.

Most people are simply unaware of this bias in contemporary western culture.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Guest]

The reason I mentioned the Jewish religion in particular is three-fold.

First, in my opinion, it IS effectively shielded from open scrutiny in modern western society.

Second, there's some evidence that extremist adherents to the Jewish religion have achieved positions of enormous power within western society (largely undiscussed in the mainstream media).

Third, there's some evidence that extremists adherents to the Jewish religion collude in efforts to vilify and weaken others religions, most notably (in recent times) Islam.

Gosh you are transparent Sidney :lol:

Let's hope that tommorrow some of us might have the time to move on to the "facile rubbishing" of sad australian neo nazis

[Guest]

But to categorically belittle, demean and demonise religion on the scale I have seen here is, in my view, unbalanced, unreasonable, lacking in objectivity and not at all dissimilar to outright zealotry itself.

Good Gracious David why don't you just tell me to "xxxx off" like you did in that appallingly self obsessed whingeing personal message you sent me last night. I am sure that you would feel better for it and we would all appreciate your special qualities the more.

You are of course wrong about zealotry - if you were to provide me with the smallest smidgeon of a scintilla of evidence that my atheist world view is incorrect then I would consider altering it ... this is an important difference between a faith head and a rational human being

[Sid Walker]

But to categorically belittle, demean and demonise religion on the scale I have seen here is, in my view, unbalanced, unreasonable, lacking in objectivity and not at all dissimilar to outright zealotry itself.

You are of course wrong about zealotry - if you were to provide me with the smallest smidgeon of a scintilla of evidence that my atheist world view is incorrect then I would consider altering it ... this is an important difference between a faith head and a rational human being

Challenge accepted.

Of course, it all depends what one means by atheism - or theism, for that matter. Words are just signifiers. Different people use them to signify different meanings.

I lifted these quotes from a Christian website, as I know that'll put you in an attentive frame of mind

* Hoyle and Wickramasinghe:

"Life cannot have had a random beginning The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court. The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly. There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."

[Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24, 150, 30, 31 (emphasis added).]"The notion that not only the biopolymers, but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order Quite a few of my astronomical friends are considerable mathematicians, and once they become interested enough to calculate for themselves, instead of relying on hearsay argument, they can quickly see this point."

[Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280 (November 19, 1981), p. 527.]

"True, the problem is not discussed openly in the main stream of biological literature, but one comes on small fragments published in obscure corners by writers who have evidently perceived the problem and been acutely worried by it. Having made their protest against current dogma, such writers seem always to have been prepared to let the matter drop, as no doubt they encountered the same kind of opposition that Chandra Wickramasinghe and I have run into My impression is that most biologists really know in their hearts the issue is there, but are so appalled by its implications that they are prepared to swallow any line of thought to avoid it. if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterialists with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture."

[Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space (The Omni Lecture): And Other Papers on the Origin of Life (Hillside, New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1982), pp. 27-28 (emphasis added).]

* Sir Fred Hoyle believes that life could not have originated on Earth and could not have originated elsewhere without some intelligence having directed it.

[Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), and "Where Microbes Boldly Went," New Scientist, Vol. 91, No. 1266 (August 13, 1981), pp. 412-415.]

I think that constitutes more than a 'smidgeon of a scintilla of evidence', on any fair-minded and rational assessment.

Now I'd like to claim the prize.

Please consider altering your "atheist world view".

While we're at it, how about reconsidering some of your other views on history and current affairs?

The truly rational mind cannot be chained. It must be free to consider - and reconsider - all topics.

I'm sure, deep down, as a fellow enthusiast for the wit and wisdom of Voltaire, you agree with me on this Andy.

In which case, I suggest you reconsider calling me a 'neo-Nazi' without even a scintilla of provocation.

I'm sure it wouldn't be good for your reputation to be seen agreeing with 'neo-Nazis', real or imaginary.

Edited July 4, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Guest]

Now I'd like to claim the prize.

Please consider altering your "atheist world view".

While we're at it, how about reconsidering some of your other views on history and current affairs?

The truly rational mind cannot be chained. It must be free to consider - and reconsider - all topics.

I am afraid the only prize Sidney is likely to win is if we put one up for gullibility. He clearly has a problem with the concept of "evidence". Quoting a religious astronomer does not constitute evidence for the existence of god. It would of course take us down the road of a discussion about natural selection - as neither of us is a biologist that could be at most amusing.

It is my considered impression however that Hoyle's views are pretty much blown out the water by biologists such as Dawkins.

Just as a quote from a religious astronomer lacks rigour when cited as evidence for the existence of god so does quoting discredited American execution technicians and Canadian Nazis when trying to dispute the testimony of tens of thousands of holocaust victims. Sidney you have a problem with evidence.

We can agree Sidney that "the truly rational mind cannot be chained. It must be free to consider and reconsider all topics". However there is a very real danger of leaving one's mind so open that one's brain plops out.

Having said this I am glad that Sidney has decided he wishes to discuss these matters with me. With this is mind I will be starting a thread on the role of religion in education later today after I have indoctrinated some more children.

For now and for here perhaps we should return to the original topic of this particular thread as I see there have been interesting developments overnight - not content with killing you with superbugs the NHS appears to be widening its approach

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgo...est/6265608.stm

[Guest David Guyatt]

But to categorically belittle, demean and demonise religion on the scale I have seen here is, in my view, unbalanced, unreasonable, lacking in objectivity and not at all dissimilar to outright zealotry itself.

Good Gracious David why don't you just tell me to "xxxx off" like you did in that appallingly self obsessed whingeing personal message you sent me last night. I am sure that you would feel better for it and we would all appreciate your special qualities the more.

You are of course wrong about zealotry - if you were to provide me with the smallest smidgeon of a scintilla of evidence that my atheist world view is incorrect then I would consider altering it ... this is an important difference between a faith head and a rational human being

Andy, I unreservedly apologise for telling you to "xxxx off". I intended to say this privately anyway, so I might just as well say it publicly now that you have raised the subject. I shall endeavour not to say it again, but with your bombastic style it quite likely that I will, I think.

But for now I wish to withdraw the xxxx (as the actress said to the bishop).

The point I was making above and in my message to you on this subject is, as Sid says, not to throw the baby out with the bath water. As I also said in my message, religion is important, if not vital, as an anchor for untold millions of people. Without that psychological restraint in place I dread to think what would happen.

In saying this I am coming from a Jungian perspective. What you may so cavalierly care to disbelieve about the collective and personal shadow does not, for one moment, change the nature and ominous direction of the shadow. It is already puffed up like Michelin man in the movie Ghost Hunters and is getting set to explode. Jung has been very clear about this and since he has been one of the great thinkers on the "psyche of religion" then I think his views are on topic here. For those who are able to take on their own shadows, that is the challenge. For those who cannot, religion can become an important factor in their lives where their energies can be positively directed and focused.

Somewhat naturally, thousands of years of religious conditioning has left it mark on civilisation. Well, it's left several marks, in fact. We are all to familiar with some of the more negative effects. But I also do think there is a tendency to forget how our thinking and attitudes has changed over the millennia until today some religious doctrine is second nature. I am sure you would not run out and engage in pillage, rape and murder (except on Fridays after school) on the spur of the moment. The civilising effect of our religious heritage has influenced and modified our way of life and our way of thinking and most of us now understand that it is wrong to randomly kill someone simply because you've had a hard day at the office. Mos of us don't engage in cannibalism anymore or consort with our brothers or sisters, as used to be common [particularly in Egyptian times :-) ]. These are sensible taboos. I'm sure you get the general point I am making here.

Also, while it has become popular to decry religion thanks to a number of thinkers (I am thinking of Goethe for no particular reason), the yearning for a religious connection or spark is universal. This appears to have been set as the default position of manking stretching back through the mists of time. I would even hazard a guess that the obvious passion of your counter arguments are, in fact, a religious irruption.

Be that as it may, it is as well to consider that even the great thinkers of the past, like Goethe and Rene Descartes et al had their own psyche's driving them from the deepest recesses. And like all men and women, imperfection and imbalance accompany us always and whereever we go and whatever we do they are there quietly influencing us from behind the curtain of our consciousness (just like the Japanese plays portray it, in fact).

You might think you can think away these unconscious impulses (Jung termed them Archetypal Complexes) but you cannot.

That's my view on it, anyway.

David

Edited July 4, 2007 by David Guyatt

[Guest]

Andy, I unreservedly apologise for telling you to "xxxx off".

But for now I wish to withdraw the xxxx.

David

Thank you. .......I knew we'd get around to Roman Catholicism eventually

To the surprise of many who know me, I have also had the good grace to apologise to David for my earlier sledgehammer rudeness.

[Sid Walker]

Now I'd like to claim the prize.

Please consider altering your "atheist world view".

While we're at it, how about reconsidering some of your other views on history and current affairs?

The truly rational mind cannot be chained. It must be free to consider - and reconsider - all topics.

I am afraid the only prize Sidney is likely to win is if we put one up for gullibility. He clearly has a problem with the concept of "evidence". Quoting a religious astronomer does not constitute evidence for the existence of god. It would of course take us down the road of a discussion about natural selection - as neither of us is a biologist that could be at most amusing.

It is my considered impression however that Hoyle's views are pretty much blown out the water by biologists such as Dawkins.

Just as a quote from a religious astronomer lacks rigour when cited as evidence for the existence of god so does quoting discredited American execution technicians and Canadian Nazis when trying to dispute the testimony of tens of thousands of holocaust victims. Sidney you have a problem with evidence.

We can agree Sidney that "the truly rational mind cannot be chained. It must be free to consider and reconsider all topics". However there is a very real danger of leaving one's mind so open that one's brain plops out.

Having said this I am glad that Sidney has decided he wishes to discuss these matters with me. With this is mind I will be starting a thread on the role of religion in education later today after I have indoctrinated some more children.

For now and for here perhaps we should return to the original topic of this particular thread as I see there have been interesting developments overnight - not content with killing you with superbugs the NHS appears to be widening its approach

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgo...est/6265608.stm

Perhaps when you start the new thread Andy, you could provide at least one of the exact Dawkins references that persuaded you he has "pretty much blown (Hoyle) out the water". I've been looking myself for a detailed refutation of Hoyle by Dawkins. Thanks in anticipation.

Please speak for yourself regarding lack of biological education, Mr Walker. Not for both of us.

If you feel like a booster, I suggest a look at this review on Gert Korthof's excellent website. Another smidgen to add to your collection.

Your snide remark about the NHS finding new ways of killing its clients is noted.

I guess you're looking for a private hospital with a 'No Arabs, No Muslims' sign over the door?

FWIW, the official version of the latest Anglo-Australian bomb saga, as evolve, continues to strike me as implausible in the extreme.

I'd like to say "we shall see"... but with the recent gutting of the judicial system aka new 'terrorism' laws, it's not at all clear whether we ever shall.

Especially when so many people like you - supposedly left wing with concern for civil liberties - still serve as apologists for the growing police state, instead of vocal and potentially influential opponents.

Edited July 4, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Guest Stephen Turner]

developments overnight - not content with killing you with superbugs the NHS appears to be widening its approach

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgo...est/6265608.stm

For Gods sake Andy(pun intended) dont give the game away, leastwise not until I have come into my well deserved, and overly generous NHS pension. Diazepam anyone?

[Sid Walker]

But I do think it's unfair to continue to lump Sid in with the Australians. After all, when the very first thing one thinks of to tell about one's self is "I am in Australia," this sounds more like the wistful, homesick declaration of a man-in-exile than any strong nationalistic identification

I see you're another one who moonlights as a psychoanalyst, Daniel.

It seems like a popular hobby.

Back to the terror front.

Yesterday evening and through to this morning, the Australian airwaves were filled with the chatter of experts, discussing the meaning and significance of the latest arrestee in this truly global terror scare. A doctor! In Australia! What did this mean? What lessons can we learn? Whatever next!!!?

Patients who watched the telly from their hospital beds must have spent an uneasy night...

What a difference a day makes!

"I'm no terror bomb plotter" says Dr Mohammed Asif Ali, released without charge by Australian police after questioning in connection with attempted attacks on London and Glasgow.

As a consequence of this new information, is this evening's news in Australia filled with the chatter of remorseful talking heads, humbled by their premature babble the night before?

Not even a smidgen of it!

One thing these folk do not have is shame.

On to the next terror-alert-panic-scare-paranoia-piffle-nonsense...

Edited July 4, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Guest David Guyatt]

On to the next terror-alert-panic-scare-paranoia-piffle-nonsense...

[/quot]

The Oz connection is just to keep the plan on the right course and everyone singing from the same hymn sheet.

David

[Sid Walker]

I am afraid the only prize Sidney is likely to win is if we put one up for gullibility. He clearly has a problem with the concept of "evidence". Quoting a religious astronomer does not constitute evidence for the existence of god. It would of course take us down the road of a discussion about natural selection - as neither of us is a biologist that could be at most amusing.

It is my considered impression however that Hoyle's views are pretty much blown out the water by biologists such as Dawkins.

Just as a quote from a religious astronomer lacks rigour when cited as evidence for the existence of god so does quoting discredited American execution technicians and Canadian Nazis when trying to dispute the testimony of tens of thousands of holocaust victims. Sidney you have a problem with evidence.

We can agree Sidney that "the truly rational mind cannot be chained. It must be free to consider and reconsider all topics". However there is a very real danger of leaving one's mind so open that one's brain plops out.

Having said this I am glad that Sidney has decided he wishes to discuss these matters with me. With this is mind I will be starting a thread on the role of religion in education later today after I have indoctrinated some more children.

For now and for here perhaps we should return to the original topic of this particular thread as I see there have been interesting developments overnight - not content with killing you with superbugs the NHS appears to be widening its approach

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgo...est/6265608.stm

Perhaps when you start the new thread Andy, you could provide at least one of the exact Dawkins references that persuaded you he has "pretty much blown (Hoyle) out the water". I've been looking myself for a detailed refutation of Hoyle by Dawkins. Thanks in anticipation.

Please speak for yourself regarding lack of biological education, Mr Walker. Not for both of us.

If you feel like a booster, I suggest a look at this review on Gert Korthof's excellent website. Another smidgen to add to your collection.

Your snide remark about the NHS finding new ways of killing its clients is noted.

I guess you're looking for a private hospital with a 'No Arabs, No Muslims' sign over the door?

FWIW, the official version of the latest Anglo-Australian bomb saga, as evolve, continues to strike me as implausible in the extreme.

I'd like to say "we shall see"... but with the recent gutting of the judicial system aka new 'terrorism' laws, it's not at all clear whether we ever shall.

Especially when so many people like you - supposedly left wing with concern for civil liberties - still serve as apologists for the growing police state, instead of vocal and potentially influential opponents.

While waiting for the new thread to be set up, Andy - and eagerly awaiting the citation from Dawkins that in your "considered opinion" demolishes Hoyle's arguments, I came across this entry on Richard Dawkins in "A Who's Who of Media Skeptics"

Richard Dawkins Ph.D.

a CSICOP Fellow, was the winner of the CSICOP “In Praise Of Reason” Award in 1992. He is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, and a strong supporter of the skeptical conjurer James Randi.

Dawkins is a talented writer with a great gift for metaphor, and is best known for his books on evolutionary theory and in particular for his theory of the selfish gene. Some have compared him to T.H. Huxley, who was known as “Darwin’s bulldog” for his active defence of Darwinism; others call him “Darwin’s pitbull” for his aggressive and uncompromising propagation of materialistic view of evolution. He has also been described as a scientific fundamentalist and a born-again Darwinian. He is one of the most zealous opponents of religion in Britain and strives for its eradication. In his acceptance speech for his 1996 "Humanist of the Year" award, he said, "I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." He is uncompromising in his attitude towards those with whom he disagrees. At a literary festival in Oxford, he was the only featured author not to sign the promotional poster because it also bore the name of Uri Geller. “‘I’m not joking’, said Dawkins sharply, “I will not sign on the same piece of paper’” (The Guardian, Dec. 8, 1998).

He refuses to take part in debates with advocates of "intelligent design" in evolution. "The question of who would 'win' such a debate is not at issue. Winning is not what these people realistically aspire to. The coup they seek is simply the recognition of being able to share a platform with a real scientist in the first place. This will suggest to innocent bystanders that there is something that is genuinely worth debating, on something like equal terms" (A Devil's Chaplain, 2003, section 5.5).

More seriously, he sometimes succeeds in censoring publication of views with which he disagrees. In March 1995, the Times Higher Educational Supplement commissioned a critique of Darwinism by the writer Richard Milton. Dawkins contacted the editor and lobbied against the publication of the article, which he had not seen. "She caved in to this unscientific bullying and suppressed the piece” (Fortean Times, April 2002). He habitually dismisses psychic phenomena as illusory, for example: “The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it are fakes and charlatans” (Sunday Mirror, Feb 8, 1998).

Nevertheless, Dawkins concedes that an interest in the subject could have a positive side: “The popularity of the paranormal, oddly enough, might even be grounds for encouragement. I think that the appetite for mystery, the enthusiasm for that which we don’t understand, are healthy and to be fostered. It’s the same appetite which drives the best of true science, and it’s an appetite which true science is best qualified to satisfy.” (1996 BBC Dimbleby Lecture).

Web site: www.world-of-dawkins.com

Now, for me this is disappointing. I hope it's not an accurate account of Richard Dawkins' behaviour. If so, my esteem for his intellect is much diminished.

I thought you might agree about that, Andy. What's a rationalist up to, refusing rational debate?

Then recalled some of our earlier disucssions.

Perhaps it's precisely these 'qualities' in Dawkins that you find so appealing?

Back to the terror-bombs-Muslims-Australia-doctors-Glasgow-fear-and-loathing front.

Not much to report from down-under. One dark-skinned doctor released. One still interned. If he's talking, we don't know, because no-one's talking about what he's talking about. So the Australian mass media stays on target, relatively unbothered by facts, and does what it does best: assume and lie.

This evening, ABC Lateline intereviewed an Muslim ex-Islamist from Britain (geddit?)

He claimed that once upon a time he was a dangerous extremist - but then he saw the light.

We were told he has a book out, exposing British Islamism from the inside. I'll discover his name tomorrow when the transcript appears on the ABC website and provide a link.

Presumably he's also been let loose on the British mass media?

A very articulate and plausible young man, I thought, on first hearing. But I couldn't help but reflect, as the interview progressed, that he seemed the epitome of a tutored turncoat. His comments on the terror-medicine nexus were frankly ridiculous...

Of course, I speak as someone who doesn't credit the official conspiracy story about 9-11. I don't believe in auto-collapsing steel-framed towerblocks that turn into dust after a fuel fire. Bin Laden scares me as much as Emmanuel Goldstein.

So I am biased.

Perhaps the nutcases who develop these absurd typologies classify people like me as islamized non-Muslims?

Pink-skins who eschew prayer mats and don't believe in state-sponsored fairy-tales.

A dreadful threat to global security!

Edited July 5, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Guest]

While waiting for the new thread to be set up, Andy - and eagerly awaiting the citation from Dawkins that in your "considered opinion" demolishes Hoyle's arguments, I came across this entry on Richard Dawkins in "A Who's Who of Media Skeptics"

Now, for me this is disappointing. I hope it's not an accurate account of Richard Dawkins' behaviour. If so, my esteem for his intellect is much diminished.

I thought you might agree about that, Andy. What's a rationalist up to, refusing rational debate?

Then recalled some of our earlier disucssions.

Some of us do work for living Sidney please be patient... I will start a thread on religion and education in the RE section of this teacher's forum in the next few days .

The rationalist in me is not sure of the validity of the source you quote criticising Dawkins and I guess you didn't bother to ask any questions about it. Any man who can lend credence to the "work" of characters like Leuchter and Zundel hasn't a very good track record when it comes to basic historical skills.

Do you know anything of its origins? Who wrote it? What was their motivation ? What was the quality of the evidence on which they based their assessments? Can such evidence be corroborated? There is a little guide I did for my younger students who like you have a tendency to believe anything they read here. It might help you in your other areas of obsession/"research".

Do you have any actual evidence that the recent terrorist attacks in Glasgow and London are part of an British/US intelligence disinformation campaign or are you just wasting everyone's time with idle random speculation?

If you are desperate to read some Dawkins in the meantime I'd recommend The Blind Watchmaker which can be purchased here .

[Paul Rigby]

Here then is a picture of someone parking their car at Glasgow airport?

Maybe we can summon up enough speculative and critical thought to conclude that the similar devices found in London were also intended to have targets. Or maybe its just more fun to blame the spooks.

Your facile attempts at abuse make you look weak and foolish Mr Rigby..

I admire your steadfast refusal to consider the rich history of agent provocateur and false flag ops. Er, why? Why the disposition to see it from the establishment's point of view? The great lesson history teaches us is that we should start from the assumption that the terrorist activity has state sponsorship - until proven otherwise.

Relatedly, what the rubes think they are doing, and what their masters really intend, have a tendency to be poles apart. In the case of 9/11, for example, the FBI early went on record as believing that the hijackers in among the passengers thought they were taking part in an old fashioned skyjacking, not a suicide mission.

And of the men in the cockpit, was Mohammad Atta, for example, really a devout Muslim, with a head full of virgins? Or just not in nightclubs when knocking back the vodka?

A final thought: Given that every time a bomb explodes the spooks' budgets increase significantly, what countervailing incentives are there for them to do better? After all, whoever heard of a spook sacked or disciplined for failing to prevent a bombing?