Apathy Sketchpad

Since you are reading an internet site, I’m going to assume you know that Facebook recently changed its look a bit. It did so for several good reasons, and generally the site is better for it. That, of course, has utterly failed to stop loads of idiots crying about it purely because they think nothing should ever change. Here, for example, is a TechCrunch post claiming, falsely, that 94% of users dislike the changes. This is based on a survey Facebook did. There are a number of reasons why it’s not interesting or useful information. The most interesting is probably that polling users is actually a massively unhelpful way of finding out what they like. People will report one behaviour and actually exhibit another, or they will report one belief or preference but act on an entirely different one. The only way to test these things is to run both options and see which is most successful. A less interesting reason that the 94% figure is nonsense is the survey’s response: 800,000 people voted, but Facebook claims to have over 175,000,000 users, so it would be more accurate to say that 0.3% of users hate the new look and 99.7% of users don’t care enough to register an opinion. Certainly I didn’t vote, and I rather like the new look. Also, people have only had a few days to get used to the new design, so it’s like asking someone from Sheffield if they’d rather use chopsticks or a fork.

This, in case you have forgotten, is what is now known as ‘The Old Facebook’ (source):

This is what the angry shouting Facebook Luddites are demanding be restored, despite the fact that when it was new, the same people hated it and demanded the return of the previous one. I don’t even remember what that one looked like.

Now that I’m used to the new look, I find the above rather cluttered. There’s a pointless separate feed for status updates, and the feed prioritises information like ‘Cassandra wrote on Dan’s wall’ when the real information is the message itself. The New Facebook prioritises that instead (unfortunately, there’s nothing particularly good to demonstrate this with on my feed at the moment):

This is, of course, just stolen wholesale from Twitter, and in some aspects too obviously so. (See also, the results page of Yahoo! Search, which looks offensively Google-like.) But it’s clean, and clear, and simple, which are important. It’s basically fine. That’s why 99.7% of people don’t apparently care about the change. But as with the last redesign, there’s a subtler change under the hood that goes along with it. Facebook was getting massively complicated. It needed simplifying, so now it’s almost like a richer version of Twitter (although the differences in implementation mean that in practice the two sites are really not much like each other).

The problem is that that’s not finished. It has to change more. The status updates are basically gone — I found that there’s now no distinction between updating your status and writing on your wall — but this means that while you can write long treatises on other peoples’ walls, you’re limited to Twitter-style bullet-points on your own. You’re expected to write a Note if you want more space, and the whole thing doesn’t feel coherent. Similarly, the ‘wall-to-wall’ thing (which has never worked in any real sense) still needs work. You can’t post the same thing to multiple walls, and while you can ‘comment’ on someone’s post on their own wall, the standard reply to their posting on your wall is to post on theirs, and that results in a limited one-to-one semi-public conversation with no clear links to tie it together. They’ve actually stolen some of Twitter’s most annoying flaws. They need to tie the whole thing together, remove the vestigal traces of the old ’status’ line (which frankly never made any sense), allow the same post to appear on multiple walls, and build a real wall-’reply’ feature. As part of that, they also need to deprecate the status-’comments’ system and tie up the ‘notifications’ thing, because I get annoyed at having two separate feeds.

Also, if Facebook are still intent on having ‘groups’, they need to make them more prominent: group discussions should appear in your home feed. Otherwise, it takes too long to check them all and conversation dies. It’s meant to be a social network — the groups are really not social. People use it as a way of endorsing statements, and there are far better ways of doing that. Lastly, the emails they send out when you get a message or a wall post are currently ‘from’ Facebook ‘re:’ John sent you a message, when they should be ‘from’ John ‘re:’ do you want to go to the cinema. This would integrate with Thunderbird and GMail’s threading features and be generally faster and easier to use. It would also blur the line slightly between email and Facebook messages — if I could reply to a Facebook message by replying to the message in GMail, that would be great. (If that happened, I’d also like to be able to have Facebook send me my own messages so that GMail would have a copy.)

The philosophy behind this design seems to be similar to a ‘rich-media Twitter’, and if they pursue that idea then Facebook could become a very friendly and easy site to use. Simple, clean, and consistent. And basically, nothing like this fucking stupid suggestion from Holy Taco:

This is a cutting satire of Facebook’s increasing clutter, which would perhaps be pretty clever were it not for the fact that there is now less stuff on the Facebook home page than there ever has been. It looks more consistent and coherent, and has clearly made steps in the direction diametrically opposite to what this alleged spoof version is attempting to parody.

In summary, if you prefer the old Facebook then that’s very probably reasonable. But if your reasons for holding it are sufficiently dumb then it absolutely is possible for an opinion to be flat out wrong. Whoever designed the above image, for example, hates the new Facebook for reasons that demonstrably make no sense, and while he (I presume he is a he) is quite entitled to do so, we would be well advised to ignore him until he starts talking sense.

This bus is slowly accumulating adjectives.
photo credit: Base on Mars

I’m going to assume you already know about the “atheist bus” campaign. I for one like it. It will get people talking, and doing so hopefully from a starting point of skepticism, which is the healthy way of doing things. But mostly I like it because the reaction to it has been comical and served to make religious people look foolish (which is pretty easy) and that always makes me smile. The funniest one I’ve put right at the end to force you to read the whole post. (I certainly can’t see how you could possibly read the end without reading the start and middle first.

For example, Theos have responded by pretending that it is in fact the best thing to happen to religious belief since the crucifixion was retconned out of the Bible. First, they donated £50. Then they started firing off soundbites almost at random, apparently in the hope that if they said something silly enough a newspaper might print it.

We’ve donated the money because we think the campaign is a brilliant way to get people thinking about God.

– Paul Woolley, Director of Theos

Fifty quid? That’ll pay for rather less than one third of one advert. That was entirely worth the bother.

Telling someone “there’s probably no God” is a bit like telling them they’ve probably remembered to lock their door. It creates the doubt that they might not have.

– Paul Woolley

That’s really quite a poor analogy, although it’s quite telling if Theos think that “skeptical but afraid of what might happen if they’re wrong” counts as belief.

The poster is very weak - where does ‘probably’ come from? Richard Dawkins doesn’t ‘probably’ believe there is no God! - and telling people to ‘Stop worrying’ is hardly going to comfort for those who are concerned about losing jobs or homes in the recession, but the posters will still prompt people to think about life’s big questions.

– Paul Woolley

That’s right, Richard Dawkins doesn’t ‘probably’ believe there is no God. Richard Dawkins believes there is probably no God. How can you not understand what adverbs are for?

Let’s leave aside the adverts’ basic proposition, “There’s probably no God”. Where did that “probably” come from? It doesn’t suggest the sales staff is overly confident about its product. If my pilot told me “This flight to Paris probably won’t crash,” I’d think about taking the train.

– Nick Spencer, Director of Studies, Theos

Like (seemingly) almost all religious people, they don’t get the point of this. Atheism isn’t about believing there is no god, it’s about not believing that there is. (Apparently this adverb problem is common in Theos.) It’s about not accepting patent nonsense for which there is not one shred of evidence. It’s about thinking about whether or not there is a god rather than believing just for the sake of it. It just so happens that everyone who does so comes to the conclusion that God is just a made-up person. (That link is what YouTube was like in 1996.) That’s the nature of correct answers.

And let’s leave aside the advice, “Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”. You would have to go a long way to find a slogan less suited to our New Year, recession-looming, mass-unemployment gloom.

– Nick Spencer

I don’t think “leave aside” means what Nick Spencer thinks it means. He’s right though: what people need in the midst of recession-looming, mass-unemployment gloom is a book full of contradictory and insane rules which must be followed to the mistranslated letter on pain of unimaginably awful everlasting torture.

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking “who cares what Theos think? Get to the point! Tell me what eminent British philosopher Bill Oddie thinks!” Okay. But you’re crazy.

What they are doing is dangerous. In doing something like that they’re speaking straight to extremists. I’d like to know how they sleep the night after one of those buses gets blown up. I’ve put that point to their head office and you know what she said? That’s why they put the word ‘probably’ in. It’s pathetic.

That is a danger.

The problem is that they’ve aligned themselves with Richard Dawkins. I would happily design dozens of alternative slogans for them. There are so many good things that they could advertise and instead they’ve chosen to go with Dawkins.

Yeah, I hates them ‘militant atheists’ who constantly go on about how there’s probably no god and how they reckon, on balance, that the Bible is more than likely fiction. They’re fundamentalists. Why can’t they advertise something good, like the West Wing box set, or innocent smoothies?

Interlude: 10 Jokes About Atheist Buses: #

1. Atheist buses don’t go anywhere when they die.
2. Christian traindrivers have warned that atheist buses might go off the rails.
3. Why did the bus turn atheist? Because it had a breakdown.
4. English buses let people know there is no god. Then atheists hire advertising space on them.
5. The Atheist Bus is a direct response to the Christian Bandwagon.
6. Why did the atheist cross the road? Because it was a bus.
7. The Atheist Bus was built by a freak tornado in a junkyard.
8. Atheist Buses don’t believe in guidance from above, except sat-nav.
9. Where did Richard Dawkins install his graphics card? The atheist bus.
10. Atheist buses come in threes. Christian buses also come in threes, but they’re all aspects of the same bushead.

Number four is a rephrasing of a Charlie Brooker line. The rest are mine. Any more, if you have them, in the comments.

The best reaction this campaign has sparked is the one from Christian Voice, who have, presumably on purpose, complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, saying

There is plenty of evidence for God, from peoples’ personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world. But there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it.

Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large.

I’ve sought advice from some of our key people here, but I’m afraid all I’ve got out of them so far is peals of laughter. I am sure that Stephen Green really does think there is a great deal of evidence for a God (though presumably only the one that he believes in), but I pity the ASA if they are going to be expected to rule on the probability of God’s existence.

The US has roughly 270 prisoners held in Guantánamo Bay. None of these have had a trial and most have been there for months or years. While there, they are tortured, apparently as a matter of routine. Clearly this is immoral and illegal, and so there is obviously pressure to close the place down and either release the inmates or actually charge them with something. The question then arises of what to do with the inmates. Many of them would not be accepted by their home countries for various reasons, and the US says they are too dangerous to release in America. Defense Secretary Robert Gates estimated there were 50-70 such prisoners. The options appear to be either releasing them in the US or finding another country who will take them. Since these are people against whom no criminal case can be constructed, either of those should be pretty easy, right?

So, either to help out an ally, or to get in with Obama early on, or just to try to do something good for the world and hasten the release of illegally held torture subjects beyond those we’re legally obliged to accept, the Foreign Office has indicated that Britain might be willing to accept some of these people. This article has a comments box. That was never going to end well.

Quite simply the message from the Conservatives should be clear and unequivocal :

Britain must not accept any of these people.

The fact that some people who were originally held in Guantanamo and released went on to be come suicide bombers.

The risks are too high and Britian must now put its citizens first and not indulge itself in vague concepts of Human trights about non British citizens

POSTED BY: STRAIGHT TALK, SOUTH YORKSHIRE, BRITAIN | 1 JAN 2009 13:42:33

Someone on the site pointed out that in this context “some” was actually some figure between “not many” and “one”, but even without that, this guy’s argument could equally be used to execute all schoolteachers, since at least one of those has also committed a terror attack in this country.

We must not accept these people with the extended families they will bring with them remember if they come here we the taxpayers will have to pay for them also our soldiers which they tried to kill will have to pay for them this country is in a form of MADNESS it must stop

POSTED BY: DEE | 1 JAN 2009 14:40:27

It’s not even worth picking that run-on nonsense apart.

 this is george bush’s mess and he has to take responsibility for it. if brown accepts any people from it there will be a huge backlash. we haven’t forgot the london bombings.

POSTED BY: TONE | 1 JAN 2009 15:19:08
 

And if he can’t fix it in the next couple of weeks, then what? Sweep it under the rug?

 Why cant the US simply dump these folks back where they were originaly picked up? I’m sure they will find a ready welcome in Afghanistan, Iraq etc.

POSTED BY: DAVID | 1 JAN 2009 15:50:15
 

Because they’ll be killed and it’s illegal to deport people under those conditions.

 So hold on a minute….
The UK is not allowed to expel Islamic terrorists but we have to allow them in?
We have around 4+ million(not 1.8million as the government predicts) Muslims in the UK. At least 60% of them want Islamisation of the UK and are sympathetic to the Islamist cause.

I vaguely wonder where he’s pulling these numbers from.

Our government is allowing 5k Pakistani Halal butchers into the UK with their families even though we are supposed to have changed to a points based entry scheme that they do not pass.
We are importing Saudi Arabian Wahabism and the government does nothing. And now we are going to allow terrorists into the UK from Guantanamo Bay?

The point, you see, is that if they were terrorists, they would by now have been charged with something.

Who really British wants to live here anymore? I certainly don’t. Is this all part of the government’s plan to remove British people from the UK and build a new multicultural paradise doomed to all out future war as cultures start fighting one another for supremacy(No doubt Islam will be winner there).

I see.

This is madness. 
Then again our society deserves the government they vote in. If the UK is to fall unto a quagmire of Islamic terrorism and chaos, then you have yourselves to blame and not the government. Why? You voted them in to reap this destruction of your culture. Do something about it and vote them out. And I suggest also not voting for the Conservatives or the Liberals. They are no different to NuLabour and will continue the destruction of the UK. There will be only one benefit and that will be to the newly elected government members whose wages and perks will go up drastically.

POSTED BY: WINSTON SMITH | 1 JAN 2009 16:08:14

Well clearly he has thought this through.

You can be absolutely sure that they will be better treated by the British Government than our own servicemen.Thats Labour.

POSTED BY: ERICA | 1 JAN 2009 17:57:50

That sounds both true and relevant.

there should be the biggest mass demonstration on the streets of this country against allowing these people into this country thats ever been before, This should happen sooner rather then later before they become a burden to the british taxpayer.

POSTED BY: PAUL NOSWORTHY | 1 JAN 2009 19:29:53

I notice you have no security concerns: you’re just worried about immigration.

never ever thought I would say it ,but I cant wait until we have a BNP government.
just to end this lunancy.

POSTED BY: CARLYLE | 1 JAN 2009 20:10:13

The solution is clear: different lunacy.

No uk or non uk nationals caught fighting UK forces should be returned here. To accept such individuals constitutes a threat to our security and is a gross and blatant infringement of my human rights

POSTED BY: DAVE | 1 JAN 2009 20:42:37

Yes, but do you have an opinion about this story?

Carlyle,

I think you are not alone in your views. I think the UK is about to get a shock come next election. I also do not think that Conservatives will get the votes they are hoping for from disgruntled inhabitants of the UK. Many are realising that it will be the same old, same old with the tories, who incidentally set the ball rolling in the destruction of the UK.

POSTED BY: WINSTON SMITH | 1 JAN 2009 20:59:31

Presumably, then, you’re predicting a Lib Dem win, yes? That being the only possible outcome other than Labour, Conservative and a tie.

They should be allowed in to become investment advisors to the Church of England. They look like enviromentalists and the Archbisop needs advice.

POSTED BY: ROBERTO | 1 JAN 2009 21:35:03

What?

Has this loathsome Government any regard whatsoever for us?

POSTED BY: STEVEN | 1 JAN 2009 21:43:48

Let’s remind ourselves that they are the ones trying to stop illegal torture and you are the one arguing with them.

Suggest we house em on HMP Rockall

POSTED BY: DAVE | 2 JAN 2009 17:58:43

Suggest we don’t let you talk any more.

An immigrant, even an illegal immigrant can claim a jobseekers allowance and family allowance and housing benefit far in excess of my 80% war disability pension. Where is the logic in that?

POSTED BY: M WILSON | 4 JAN 2009 02:46:28

I imagine it’s the same logic that links this factoid to a discussion about Guantanamo.

This is what happens if you point out that they’re talking nonsense:

mattbramall - Are you living on cloud cuckoo land like Labour, have you forgotten about the innocent people who lost their lives in the suicide bombings in London.

I imagine he remembers them but correctly considers them irrelevant.

Do you really think these inmates are not Islamic extremists.

Yes?

UK security is a priority then suspected terrorists.

The Netherlands has made a stance, ruling out accepting any Guantanamo inmates. Also Dutch Immigration Service has expelled 1,475 people in 2008, the authorities expel foreign residents who have been sentenced to 1 month in prison or community work. The Dutch put their country & citizens first and if the Conservatives want my vote then they should be clear on putting British citizens first for security and welfare and tightening the Human Rights act to make it easier to expel suspected terrorists and foreigners declared persona non-grata. 

POSTED BY: QUIN WILLIAMS | 4 JAN 2009 10:03:24

I notice you keep using the word ’suspected’. If you replaced it with ‘convicted’ you would have a point, but then that point would be irrelevant. The point about suspected terrorists is that they might not have done it. Innocent until proven guilty and so on. I wonder with how much grace Quin Williams would accept his own deportation, detention and torture if there was suspicion that he might be a terrorist.

Answers to ‘Why Did You Vote For Bush?’:

You may not like our president but you’d better thank God he’s in office. My world - your world -is much safer because President Bush understands the need to seek out and punish those who have and would continue to harm us. … Just remember that you sleep in safety tonight because Americans, led by our president, are willing to die for your safety.
Gary Williams, Granbury, Texas

Only because the UK doesn’t have any oil.

Bush has turned the recession into a growing economy… That’s worth my vote any day.
Joe Brassard, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

How’s that working out for you?

I voted for Bush because he is an honourable man who makes decisions based on principles, not polls and a man who can be taken at his word. Unfortunately, this seems to be a rarity among politicians.
Cathy Jones, Bayonet Point, Florida

He panders to his conservative base rather than doing what the public want.

President Bush may be polarizing in his international policies, but at least I can be certain that he will not allow terrorist actions to go unpunished…
Hayley, Dallas, Texas, USA

…whether they did it or not.

I voted for Bush to usher in the complete and utter destruction of the United States. Sometimes, you just have to tear it all down and start over again. No one will destroy America faster than Bush. Go Bush!
Tim, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Fair enough.

Your average European needs to watch the movie “Open Range” to better understand their American cousins. We all must defend Western Civilization before it is subsumed by the barbarians. The Europeans are going to (not) breed themselves out of existence and only the US will be left to carry on the civilization that has come to us all from the Greeks, through the Romans and brought into the modern age by the Europeans.
Mark Salas, Boswell, OK

You voted for Bush because you’re a crazy person. Okay.

He makes me feel safe.
Danielle, Illinois, USA

Well, he would. ‘Danielle’ is not a very Islamic-sounding name.

Bush is against abortion and that is all that matters to me. That is the only issue I consider and there are a lot of Americans who feel the same way. Some people say it is ignorant to disregard the other issues, and maybe it is, but that is how I feel.
Bertha, Upstate NY

As long as we’re clear.

If he had been president in the 90’s UBL [Usama bin Laden?] would not have gotten away with everything he has done. He will be caught by President Bush, that most American believe, even if the liberal media doesn’t want to report what Americans really feel. President Bush is Great!
Rebecca Saunders, Houston Texas

Certainly bin Laden never managed any major terrorist attacks durng Bush’s presidency. Unless us Democrats are forgetting something, as Hayley seems to think.

I voted for Bush because I am a Bible-thumping right-wing gun lunatic who hates gays, isn’t that right? That’s not actually true, but it doesn’t matter what the reality is, because that’s how the European media will depict it. According to them, if I don’t agree with pacifism and appeasement, I must be an inbred redneck idiot. So I suppose that’s why I voted for Bush: I am an idiot.
Gonzalo Rodriguez, London, UK

As long as we’re clear.

I voted for George Bush (to the disapproving consternation of my European cousins) because an election is a choice, and the two candidates offered two different approaches to leadership.

I think they wanted more than “because there was an election”.

Ever since an attempt was made in the 1770s to tax our favourite breakfast beverage, Americans have never liked being told what we should do, or how we should do it.

From what I have read, I expect the majority of the European populace, most of whom I assume were born post-war, not to approve of the American people’s decision. For insight, however, I suggest that holidays or other visits to the US not be limited to Boston, New York and Los Angeles.
Arthur Xanthos, New York City, USA

Anyone?

Because he doesn’t believe that our foreign policy needs a global test. Europe needs to get on board with us or get left behind!
Ben Rice, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania

Do you know what foreign policy is?

Staunch supporter of economic freedom for all Americans and freedom for all nations 
Miek Kondracki, American in Poland

Except Iraq. And Afghanistan. And parts of Cuba.

And America.

I voted for George because: 
1. He is intelligent. He graduated from Harvard Business School. They don’t give out free passes there. 

Yeah…

2. He has character. I grew up in backwoods Texas where bank loans were granted upon a handshake. Your word was your bond.
Warren, Salisbury, NC, USA

How’s that working out for you?

I voted for Bush because I will not have Bruce Springsteen, Gerhard Schroeder, Osama Bin Laden and Michael Moore telling me who to vote for.
Peter Sosniak, New York

Except for bin Laden.

The US was founded on Judeo-Christian values and a majority of Americans still hold close to these. Some may want to deny this, some may be deceived by what they see on the television, and some actually may not know this. This is hard to comprehend for a lot Europeans who have discarded these values and embraced secularism.
Michael, Texas

You voted Bush because you don’t understand the way your country works. Makes sense.

Jesus Christ, the American flag, the Ten Commandments, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are as sacred as the Bill of Rights.

So, not sacred, then.

Only President Bush and the Republicans have consistently stood up for these ideals.
David Belland, USA

Liberty? Really?

And Bush has shown the heart to bring democracy to two of the worst places on earth - Afghanistan and Iraq.
John, Boston, Mass, USA

Heart, maybe. Competence would have been a useful ally.

Bush is our president, we elected him, we care about religion, and Europe better get used to it because we’re not about to let you vote!
John, Stockholm, Sweden

Hang on, didn’t John from Boston just say… oh, forget it.

I voted for Mr Bush because he stands for the values as defined by the word of God.
Mike McF, Frisco, Texas, USA

Such as slavery.

I hope his second term will bring peace and democracy to the troubled regions of the world and domestically bring greater prosperity not only to America but also to the Third world.
Ben, New York

That would have been nice.

To the rest of the world, whose comments have been nothing but disparaging: You simply do not understand Americans! You never have, and I doubt that you will ever fully understand our thought process…
Leah, Richmond, VA

I expect so.

I voted for President Bush, because what others saw as stubbornness and arrogance… I saw as strength and perseverance.
Laura, USA

As long as we’re clear.

I voted for Bush because I could not stand the elitist media and the pundits telling me that he was a fool. I was tired of people like Michael Moore trying to influence my decision by making movies that had only one purpose - tear down the president. I disagree with many of his policies and would not have voted for him except for the fact that I am sick and tired of these people telling me that I am not smart enough to figure out for myself what is right and what is wrong. The Republicans should thank Moore and give him a prominent table at the inauguration!
Michael C, NY, USA

It just got on my nerves so much that people who only get a sliver of heavily bias coverage about America could hold such closed-minded opinions about our elections. Maybe four more years will give you a chance to open your minds to new ideas and consider that there are Americans who have a right to believe differently than you.
Andrew, Washington, DC

So you won’t be voting for a black liberal in four years, then?

I voted for Bush, so that he can clean up all his mess during his second term. No-one else should be made responsible for all his folly and self-disillusioned war on terror. The only war that the world needs to fight is to eradicate poverty, diseases, genocide, atrocity and many unjust situations in many parts of the world. These are the real terrors that breeds human terrorists. Go to the roots of the cause. Don’t try to be a fool to treat symptoms of these terrors.
Jaime Stuart

He’s not an unruly child, you twat, he’s the President! While you’re teaching him a lesson which he won’t get, other people are being tortured horribly to death. You twat.

He needs to win the heart of the world by fighting this war more broadly and involving every one with a freedom flag. We hail Bush. 
Saurabh K, Santa Cruz, CA

And, by Godwin’s Law, that is the end.

Since I’ve been working on But Sir…, I’ve seen a lot of petitions asking for a total ban on swearing on TV. To those people I say ‘fuck off’.

The problem I have with it is that there’s no difference between a word that is swearing and a word that is not other than how people react to it. I’ve been over this before. The actual meaning of the word is irrelevant, as demonstrated by the relative offensiveness of ‘poo’, ‘crap’ and ’shit’. So if the words aren’t offensive because of what they mean then why is it? It’s arbitrary. It’s made up. Someone decided ‘fuck’ was offensive, so you started taking offence at it. So now it’s offensive because you take offence rather than the other way around. That’s self-reinforcing nonsense. It’s basically a religion. So if you want to legislate based on some arbitrary list of words you’ve decided you don’t want to hear, I see no reason to listen to you.

Here’s one:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make urgent representation to the Broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, the broadcasting institutions operating in the UK and film regulators, asking them to stop the use of unnecessary swearing and bad language in their productions (including those available for downloading from websites) and to urge providers of user-generated content to take similar action.

…

 

In May 2008 the Radio Times conducted an opinion poll, which found that 69% of people believed there is too much swearing on TV. In November 2008 the Sunday Express launched a Clean Up TV Crusade focusing on the excessive use of swearing and the Sunday Telegraph conducted a poll which found that 56% of people thought the f*** word should never be used on TV. The Office of Communications (Ofcom) in its Communications Market reports for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 found that the majority of people believe there is too much swearing on TV.

…

John Beyer of mediawatch-uk

 

Haha, ‘the f*** word’. You won’t even use the word in its correct context. Even when there’s ambiguity. You might mean ‘fart’. Or ‘feet’. And let’s leave out the question of what percentage of Radio Times readers are grannies. Of course they’ll say there’s too much swearing.

But that’s a sensible one — reduce swearing. Fair enough. This one is madder:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Ban swearing on TV and Radio.

Too many ‘F’ words. Why? Whats the point? Get back to good pubic standards of decency. Stop the Ross-dross and promote proper use of the English language. Stop swearing on the Radio and TV!

Chris K

It’s saddening that people genuinely think that this is appropriate language in which to petition the Prime Minister. It’s also a bit of a worry that they equate ‘talking like I do’ with ‘proper use of the English language’.

And this one is even madder:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Ban all Swearing in public places .

Ban all swearing in public places and especially on the British Broadcasting Corporation, to bring back a standard of decency and set an example to the younger generation.

Mrs Margaret Elward of housewife

This has six signatories, including a ‘Mister Why on earh is the PM being petitioned for this?’ and someone claiming to be called ‘because we care about standards in our Country, you obviously don’t’. Well, they have a definition of ’standards’ which means arbitrarily excluding certain words from our vocabularies (but not ‘knowing how petitons work’), and I’m sorry but I have bigger things to worry about than that, and that’s before we get onto the bigger issues with allowing the government to ban words they disapprove of.

Really, who are these people? “Set an example to the younger generation”? Do you really think that the biggest problem with young people is that they (we?) swear too much? It just doesn’t make any sense. Even if someone stops us swearing, we’ll just make up some other words and shout those in exactly the same context, and then presumably half of them will try to get the new words added to the list and the other half will say ‘well, that’s not the f-star-star-star word, so that’s okay by me,’ and go back to watching Father Ted.

It’s ridiculous. Why do people insist on acting stupid?

Oh, wait. I think I know the answer to that one.

Twitter have, for the US election, launched a sub-site which constantly feeds you the latest tweets from or about the candidates. It’s pretty good, but by far the most entertaining thing is the horde of Republican trolls who appeared out of nowhere with absurd opinions when the McCain mob realised that every single post was pro-Obama. Here are a few from around now:

moms4prezpalin Looks like Obama is an anti-semite, just like Buchanan http://tinyurl.com/4fl7e8 #

wataboutRONPAUL Obama winning in polls by morons who play Second Life who are too lazy to vote anyway. Who cares. McCain will still win. #

Yes, what about Ron Paul? Since that’s the question literally nobody is asking.

captured1 because you don’t think clearly enough to vote. Media lies constantly, Banks have OUR MONEY-not theirs - Whats right? McCain is ONLY choice #

I have literally no idea what this one is about.

omgiamgoingnuts The only way obama wins - he cheats. Period. ACORN #

McCain’s supporters do seem to love using the word ‘acorn’. None of them ever feel the need to explain what it might mean. Don’t they know about confirmation bias? Obama supporters aren’t going to look it up if it might make Obama look bad. I have looked it up, but I don’t understand what the problem is.

mjelli01 McCain has one powerful thing on his side - people that pray!!! Good Night #

Please rely on that.

NObama4thisMama Obama sued Citicorp (a bank) on behalf of ACORN to give out loans to the underdeserving. They foreclosed which led to the downturn. FACT! #

It’s nice to know economics is so simple. FACT!

jdbegg I am a real vet, disabled for that matter and Obama/Biden won’t do squat for this country. #

Essentially, you’re argument is that you understand politics because you were patriotic or stupid enough to get yourself badly injured in a war?

teddyroosevelt I’M NOT ANGRY. I BELIEVE SENATOR OBAMA IS A GOOD MAN, JUST NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. DOES THAT MAKE ME AN ANGRY MAN? #

No, the fact you shout all the time makes you an angry man. teddy is a bit of a single-issue troll: every one of his tweets is about what he calls the “THE LONG UNANSWERED QUESTION, WHAT HAS OBAMA DONE TO QUALIFY HIM FOR PRESIDENT?”. (A real smart tack when your VP pick is Sarah Palin.) It remains unanswered because he cannot read, only write. I suspect his computer has a keyboard but no screen. Similarly,

ogerme Name one significant Barack Obama accomplishment, since being appointed to the U.S. Senate. #

I replied to this to say “He put the Federal Checkbook online — which Palin promised to do not knowing Obama already had.” Ogerme hasn’t tweeted since. This was about two weeks ago.

zettytwine is an interesting case because they’ve protected their updates but have no followers and follow nobody, so nobody can read anything they write. Presumably it still appears on the election feed, though.

mylittlehadji Does Obama support Sharia laws in the US??? Think about it folks #

No?

letstalkchange McCain’s idea for withdrawing troops was to do it after winning. Obama voted to lose a war. And this is good judgment? #

You really think that Iraq is something you win or lose, don’t you? You’d rather ‘win’ a war than ‘lose’ it, even if winning is actually worse?

…and so on. There’s so many of them out there, and many of the dumbest have had their accounts suspended already. They’re good fun though.

I just read a brilliant article on the Times’ website:

That the world was created by an invisible deity, that He later impregnated a virgin who then bore a son who was His own father, that we have immortal souls and will live for ever in Heaven if we are good and love Jesus - how can anyone who has even attended high school believe such things? … It defies belief. … And if something defies belief, a good starting position is not to believe it. That is my position. I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. … The real test for genuine belief is not what people say, but what they do. To believe something is to be disposed to act upon it. The vast majority of Western Christians fail this test.

I’m not convinced I buy the argument (nor that the author does) — applying logic to the actions of idiots rarely has much predictive value — but it’s certainly worth raising for discussion. As with everything written about religion or atheism on high-traffic websites, though, the actual discussion that follows is moronic. The very first comment is this:

The liberals’ belief in man-made ‘global warming’ is just as ‘irrational’ as the traditional religious beliefs that the author decries. There is the same lack of evidence, the high priests like Al Gore, faith over science, proselytization, tithing, scorn of non-believers, etc.

Kevin Finnerty, Atlanta, USA

Relevance is a sin.

I’m a Catholic. My election vote always goes to the candidate most likely to vote for policies that will save unborn lives. Issues such as health care, education and housing are of little significance if the right to life is not accorded to all human beings at all stages of development.

Julia, Manchester, UK

I would say you have issues, but that would be to miscount.

First, just because someone calls themself a Christian, does not mean that they are in fact a Christian…

John, USA,

That’s not a counter-argument; that’s paraphrasing. Those are the first three comments. I find myself wanting to just post all of them. That would take ages, so trust me that the ones I’m ignoring are also great. I mean — just look for Paul from Dallas and also London… For reference, Pauls’ logic seems to go like this: assuming A and B leads to a contradcition, therefore the contradiction is true.

But it’s not just Christians who don’t follow through. Determinists continue to talk as if they were “free” to judge the validity of an argument. And atheists aren’t always the self-interested hedonists one might expect from believers in a meaningless universe with only a darwinian moral compass!

JS, Glasgow, UK

JS has failed to get drunk and start a fight, so I’m forced to conclude that he hasn’t followed through on his claim to be from Glasgow. And one might argue that it’s wrong to mock the determinists, because they don’t have a choice but to behave that way.

Fundamentalism and political correctness are pretty much the same thing, dressed up from the same wardrobe as the emperor’s new clothes.

Rick Hepner, Salt Lake City, USA

I have literally no idea what this is supposed to mean.

… Would Mr Whyte still hold to his argument if state and church rejoined and gave him ‘heavenly’ policies with ‘heavenly’ consequences? I doubt it.

Ali, Colchester, Essex

How amazing is that? “Yes, but would you think so if the evidence pointed the other way? Ha, then you can’t really believe it!”. That’s about the most Religion idea I’ve ever heard.

I don’t believe many atheists really believe what they claim to believe. …

Paul, Nottingham,

I wasn’t aware we claimed to believe anything. I thought that was the point.

Surely this line of argument applies just as surely to atheists. What about the weight of living without a God? Your line of reasoning exposes you as one who does not believe either

David , London,

Oh crap, he’s right. I don’t go to church or recklessly shag prostitutes, so I guess I neither believe in God nor not believe in God. Great, now I’m in an existential quandary. Thanks a lot.

I’m curious - Mr Whyte - what would be your position on all the atheists and agnostics who celebrate Christmas… send cards, give presents, and put up Xmas trees? Are they self-delusional too? Or just cheerfully hypocritical?

Jay, Aberystwyth, Wales

Yeah, and what about the infidels who watch soaps but don’t write to the characters? Hypocrites!

What we truly believe can be politically inexpedient, personally challenging, socially isolating, painfulful or even meaningless, and we are free to ignore it when convenient and profess it when advantageous. And we do. It depends on who we are, where we are and when and who with.

Lars Torders, lowestoft, 

“The truth can be inconvenient, so it’s okay to just ignore it.” Do you work for the McCain campaign?

This country has struggled for many years with the issue of Tolerance. We’ve moved slowly and painfully towards racial, sexual and cultural tolerance; Because we are an increasingly multicultural society. Yet this article is filled with religious intolerance. Embrace love, not hate. Jesus is love.
Chris, Coventry,

Ooh, you almost had it there, but you just had to blow it at the last minute…

Mr. Whyte, your “arguments” seem to me like a poor copy of Richard Dawkins’. The question to ask is not … ”do foetuses have an ‘immortal soul’ since conception?” … but … ’if a foetus is a ‘project’ of human person, do we have the right to dispose of it as though it was a mere ‘thing’?”

Miguel de Servet, Villanueva de Sijena, Spain

These issues are always easier when you phrase them so they don’t make sense.

And as for “if something defies belief, a good starting position is not to believe it,” - well that’s patently ludicrous. If Scientists failed to believe what begin as abstract theories how would it progress? …

Matt, Birmingham, UK

We prove things, you moron. After we’ve done that it’s okay to believe them. “If we didn’t just make shit up, how would we ever progress?”

It’s sad isn’t it.I agree, surely if Christians lived by the Bible,a book promoting peace&hating wrong-doing, then this world would be a very different place.Christians are failures,I think most, including me, would admit that. That’s why Jesus came on the scene…please investigate his life!

Amy, West Bromwich,

We have done and it’s made up. Also, you have clearly never read the Bible.

“The real test for genuine belief is not what people say, but what they do”. This applies to atheists just as much as to religious believers and the new atheists, clinging to the morality of the Sermon on the Mount , and not the morality of the survival of the fittest , abysmally fail the test.

Jamie, London, UK

You know who I hate? It’s those hypocrite mathematicians who don’t base their morality on set theory. Them and Abraham Fleury, San Diego, USA, who can’t tell the word ‘ludicrous’ from the rapper Ludacris.

What “lack of evidence for the central tenets of Christianity”? The conversion of untold numbers of previous “avowed atheists” to Christianity is pretty good evidence. …

Mike T., Roseville, CA, USA

I used to be Catholic. Discuss.

I don’t believe that atheists such as Jamie Whyte really are atheists. He doesn’t live acccording to his beliefs as an atheist. If he did he would not live as if there is right and wrong or that he loves his family or friends or delights in beauty or that his reasoning has any validity.

Kenneth Brownell, London,

I’ve heard “God = Morality” before, and “Jesus = Love”, but I’ve never heard “God = Valid Reasoning”.

Jesus and God are real. Of this I have no doubt. Look at the universe.Look at the trees. Look at the insects. Look at DNA. My word to believe that all of this could possibly spring up from nothing and on its own takes way more faith to believe than believing in God. Search your hearts. God is real.

Buddy, Springfield, United States

I had my DNA sequenced. It went like this: “GTACACAGATTACAGTCTHEREISNOGODTTGACTA”. Personally, I think it’s a message from aliens.

That article truly breaks my heart! how can someone say these things so bluntly, and as if the were all true! Looking into a true Christians heart, you would find SO many wonderful things: love, joy, passion, authenticity, respect, honor. I just do not understand why you would disclaim that!

Allison, Oklahoma City, USA

As an atheist, my heart is just a muscley pump and I am forced to keep that stuff in my brain.

I noticed today that one of my Facebook friends has joined a group called “If no other country will take Gary Glitter, why the F**K should we!!!!”. It’s one of those irritating sentences intended as a rhetorical question but which in fact has a simple answer, which totally undermines the point. Its wall makes for depressing reading, but it is at least polite of these morons to line up near a wall — it will save everyone a job when the revolution comes. The group is full of the same irony-resistant people who demand all foreign criminals be deported.

Sharon Welham-Jones Was Stocker (London) wrote
It makes me so damn angry why the hell do we want that monster back in our country???????? argggggg makes me so angry

It makes me angry that nobody on Facebook knows the word “née”.

There are a disturbing number of people advocating torturing him — sometimes I worry that people would welcome an Orwellian dystopia, which rather defeats the point — but these are I think the most graphic:

Mellissa Salvage (Bristol) wrote
if i had my way, i would take him somewhere in the middle of nowhere-tie him up and everyday, stick pins in his dick and singe his pubes-i hateeeeeeeeeeeee this man and all other evil paedophiles-they are scum, set his head on fire with petrol and let him suffer a long slowwwwwww death, but then killing him is far too good for him!!!!!!!! Just let him ROT!!!!!

(Evil paedophiles are the worst kind.)

Ed Bear wrote

You lot are all TOO KIND !! , slowly peel off the sick fucks skin inch by inch then apply salt , i think that over the course of a week he’d be skinless but still alive , THEN let the mothers have a go at whats left !! .

Dave Oldman wrote

vile nonce needs putting down,like the rest of them.

take him down the shed,put his prick in the vise and remove the t.bar.
put a blunt knife on the bench.
set fire to the shed.

then sit back,pour yourself a beer and wait.

…and this is the craziest:

Tom Sta (Wales) wrote

i agree with becky he needs his throat cut and the rest of his body cut into lil pieces and buried in different parts of the uk like william wallace just to make sure the lil bugger being polite aint alive

There are also a lot of comments suggesting paedophiles be visibly branded in various ways (my favourite being dipping them in orange dye — bad news for them but great news for the sales of Tango), a practice as undesirable as it is pointless in the case of a man who’s been in every newspaper for a month.

I mean, steady on. It seems to me perfectly plausible that he was born how he is, same as gay people can’t become straight and vice versa. How many people could honestly go their whole lives without indulging their sexual desires even once? Surely any humane society will at least try an understanding approach first?

Offering paedophiles libido inhibiting drugs seems smart to me. It’s more a medical intervention, and apparently it works. The act should be punished; the condition should be understood. And if this stupid country could get over its collective pantomime-villain complex about paedophiles then maybe they could discreetly get the drugs without molesting any children, but of course that wouldn’t be barbaric enough.

Ironically, the wingnuts calling for him to be castrated may have stumbled by chance onto a relatively sensible idea. Like this guy:

Dave Smith (London) wrote

Paedophiles are fucking immature arseholes.

Well of course they are — that’s what paedophiles do.

Sadly this one missed that idea by a few anatomically significant feet:

Rebecca Jones wrote

Paedophiles should have their eyes gouged out and their hands chopped off. Lets see how much beastliness they can get up to then!

When faced with the answer “because he’s British, you morons” (I’m paraphrasing) they hide behind this kind of thing:

Matthew Brown (Belvidere Secondary School) wrote

im sorry… i dont give a fukin shit if hes british u try tellin tht 2 a group of mothers and see if deyu care, he shudnt be allowed in our country cuz hes sick, he shud be punished sevealy and i 4 1 would love 2 help kick his puny little ass

So what’s your idea? Fly him around the world until he dies and invite idiots to hurt him? This point was raised…

Paul Gregson wrote

I hate Gary Glitter and paedophiles in general but this group is stupid and pointless. He was born here and is an English citizen, that is why we should take him back. Simple as that. We can’t just dump all of the UK’s paedophiles on other countries, he is english so it is our responsibilty to deal with him. Seeing as though this group has over 700 members, lets see if anyone can answer the following question without being rude or aggressive. Afterall we are all adults and paedophilia is very serious, so lets discuss this seriously like adults. If you don’t believe that we should let Gary Glitter (an English citizen who has travelled to another country and sexually abused children there) back into this country then what country do you believe we should send him to? Bear in mind when answering this question that “Capital Punishment” doesn’t take place in the UK and he can’t sent to the US to face “Capital Punishment” either.

…and this was the answer, or at least the reply:

Rebecca Hawkesford-Whelan (West Midlands) wrote

In answer to Pauls question, I dont believe we should let him into any other country, why make any other country deal with him, I hasten to add that if I were able to make the decision about where he and other paedophiles were to go then I like the idea of a rocket, a couple of engines and a few days travel to mars, that would be a lovely place for them all to live along side rapists, murderers, people who harm animals and also those lovely people who clobber old men and ladies over the head for their last couple of quid. Is that an adult enough answer to your question?? <TAKES A BOW>

<TAKES A BOW> is almost as good as “end of”, isn’t it?

Paul Gregson has some great replies in there:

To be honest Rebecca that isn’t an adult enough answer to my question. Sending humans to Mars is estimated to cost between $20 Billion and $450 Billion which of course isn’t finacially viable. So in conclusion your suggestion is null and void and you have no reason whatsoever to be taking a bow.

He should burn in hell and he is a complete cunt but while he is actually on earth and not being tortured in a mythical realm what do you suggest we do with him?

I don’t think ‘conflict of interests’ means what Damian Trump thinks it means…

Damian Trump (London) wrote

There is a serious confict of interests between our gov and us the people. 99.9 % would say fuckoff and die you arse fiddling goat shaggin life wrecker- and our gov who say yes ofcourse Sir come in oh and how much did you say you would contribute !
Why when our steets are already unsafe-espeacialy so for our children !
We really should do something dont you agree ?
But thts the problam with brits we say and dont do.

I like that you say and don’t do. Apart from the bit where you say.

Michelle Pearson (Nottingham) wrote
he should b fukin killed not let into this country.. every parent will be worried about their children now.. shouldnt this country do whts rite by us not a paedo.. we should do what every other country has dne n not let him in our society

Yes, one frail old man who everyone recognises is a serious threat.

Stephen Cook wrote

he has no right to to call himself glitter it should be shitter

Yeah! Or “Gritter”! That’ll show him!

Steph Bell (West Midlands) wrote

nobody wants the dirty old bastard we should have just dropped him in the sea with a brick!

What is the brick for in that? There’s a pretty narrow band of sea where he could make it back to shore as long as he didn’t have a brick.

Courtney Spellacy (London) wrote

its not just glitter though is it
whats worse is that registered sex offenders/paedophiles are also allowed to access these sites
someone i know phoned up facebook complaining that a known paedophile was using the site but facebook wouldn’t do anything because he wasn’t put in prison for downloading child porn, its not just living near or around them, they are on here!
and its absolutely sickening

In many ways, there should be an age limit on the Rape Me application.

Phil Middleton (West Midlands) wrote

2 words: Scum bag!

Two words: more on.

I just tell myself these people are the minority, over and over again. I never dare check if it’s true.

Here are some of the comments from a recent Times Online article about Richard Dawkins. I have no idea what this one is even about:

Darwin on Dawkins would be preferable - evolutionary thinking would be divided overnight - DAWKINS -v- the rest of us !!!!

Ian Payne, walsall,

Leon from Melbourne very nearly understands the phrase “mathematical precision”, but not quite.

The mathematical precision of space, galaxies and ourselves (DNA etc) is no more than chance; formed from a big bang lie in a nano second 1000 billion years ago.

This is an insult to intelligence.The only worship today is material gain. Sell more Books Richard.

God forgive us.

leon, melbourne,

J Geraci has a defective irony gland.

Dr. Dawkins’ arrogance is astounding. I can imagine how wonderful it must feel to know, without any doubt, that his view is the only correct one. Apparently he has a “curious ambivalence towards Christians who accept” evolution. That is, of course, the majority - including my Catholic Church.

J. Geraci, Austin, Texas

Robin here has scientifically proven the existence of Sauron.

Atheist Supremacist Richard Dawkins displays plenty of ignorance and foolhardiness himself in his attacks on God, theists and religion. . . I invite Richard Dawkins to look skywards on August 1st and explain why the total solar eclipse so distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of an “Eye of God”.

Robin Edgar, Montreal, Canada

SD Goh is mounting an Appeal to Long-Winded Authority

Atheists can be so arrogant that they only believe what they want to believe. Augustine Ong with a PHD from King’s Cllge.in Organic Chemistry, a Fulbright-Hays scholar at MIT, was Visiting Prof. at the Dysons-Perrin Lab,Oxford University, Pres.of the Malaysian Scientists Ass. is a staunch Catholic.

SD Goh, PJ, Malaysia

I can’t work out if Dennis is arguing for an old Earth or against dinosaurs:

The Catholic Church were the first to work out he age of the Earth using the Bible (A continuous story that runs from creation to Christ) They concluded that the Earth was created in 4004 BC. So, Dinosaurs came into existence, lived, became extinct and fossilized all within 6000 years. Believe it ??

Dennis, Gaithersburg, USA

Greg, who we will meet again later, tries his best to promote creationism, but then remembers that he doesn’t believe in it.

Scott:”Creationism/ID is not science.”

In part science is the observation of nature. If nature has been influenced by intelligent forces (God in the first place, us latterly) then that is part of science also, else our observations will not be comprehensible.

Catholics can accept evolution.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

I think Richard is more used to questions about immigration. He gets confused easily. But he tries ever so hard, bless him.

The subjects of science and maths etc are meant to educate and train students in the scientific method, analytical thinking, logic, not to contrast beliefs and viewpoints. I can assure you, most people in the UK taking postgraduate technical phds and the like are not english. WAKE UP.

Richard, Newcastle,

Kurt is ignorant of many things, notably “how to safely contain snakes”.

Humans create things all the time, including habitats for animals that have no concept of our existence, from bee hives to python cages at the zoo. Our fiction is rife with “superior aliens”. Why is it so hard in science to AT LEAST CONSIDER that our habitat was designed by an architect, God?

Kurt Heckman, Hagerstown, USA

The imaginary version of Expelled in Chucks Own Little World is much better than the real one. I imagine.

Too bad he gets owned by Ben Stein in “expelled”. So much so that he files a lawsuit to stop the release of the movie in hopes that people won’t see that he became a creationist for a few minutes. People reject God because they WANT to… very simple. “They did not LIKE to retain God in their minds”

Chuck, Grand Blanc,

I think JL may be attempting sarcasm here.

WOW! This is exciting news! Now we can all have no hope in the future and all embrace the fact that nothing happens once we die! This is fantastic. I can’t wait to ruin everyone’s lives and shatter little childrens dreams with this news!

JL, Deadwood,

Simone has been talking to JL.

I can imagine a primary school class in evolutionary theory based on Dawkins’ book: “kids, to start with, there is no hope in the universe and when people die they just rot, no matter what mum or dad say about going to Heaven. And now let’s talk about this fluffy chimpanzee…”

Simone, derby,

Robin isn’t going to shut up without a fight.

What ignorance Linnet? It is a fact that total solar eclipses distinctly resemble a gigantic “eye in thy sky”. The odds against this *purely symbolic* “Eye of God” occurring by random chance “coincidence” are astronomically high. Do the math. Intelligent Design *is* a plausible explanation here. . .

Robin Edgar, Montreal , Canada

rustan has invented a new argument, which I shall call “Pascal’s Personal Ad”.

B.R.R. There are two ways and two outcomes.Outcome 1 (There is no God); Outcome 2(There is God); Way1: Believer, Way2: Disbeliever; Assumption: life after death is for keeps, then the LOSS of a disbiliever in the Outcome 2 is infinitely larger than the LOSS of believer in the Outcome 1. U decide!

rustam, Stuttgart, Germany

I don’t know if the quote in this one it right, but it sounds like something Jesus might say.

I have read Dawkins and admit it is a most readable book. But it has done nothing to shake my faith. He has become a millionaire based on a lie that God does not exist. I am surprised that so many gullible readers have swallowed Dawkins completely.”Be a believer and not an unbeliever” (Jesus)
John

J.M.Job, LLanfairpwllgwyngyll , Anglesey

A Don supports the downgrading of religion to the Class C Narcotic of the Masses.

Many people love living life in a structure that resolves difficult questions and also creates a community space to interact with others. As my tennis coach says to me “You play tennis better when you don’t think” Religion may be the drug of the masses but what’s wrong with that? Leave them alone.

a don, Sydney, Australia

I have literally no idea what Guy is trying to say.

I wish people would leave Christians, Muslims and Jews alone. People who have deep cultural beliefs should be supported by others. When they are gone we will miss them. It’s a shame for their children, but who are we to judge others beliefs? Religious faith should be encouraged as far as possible.

Guy Smith, Bexley, UK

DM sets a challenge: spot as many different foodstuffs in his comment as you can. I can see four.

Ok so evolution is how we arrived where we are now , just one thing ..which evolved from the soup first ..the chicken or the egg?.. or should that be the egg or the chicken ?
One day we`ll all find out ..roll on that day .

DM, Craigavon,

Jessica considers all researchers arrogant:

The only “stupidity” here is for anyone to assume they can answer a question of faith which has existed for thousands of years.
Do you truly think you know more than anyone else who ever lived? Now that is arrogant.
As to stupidity being proven by a belief in God..someone should warn my patients.

Dr Jessica S, Wrexham,

Michael Walsh makes up any bits of the world he doesn’t know about.

Mark, Brisbane, Australia:
i hate to put it so bluntly, but: why not believe in god? god is impossible to prove and impossible to disprove, so basically: why not? faith in something greater than yourself & a sense of duty towards others has much to reccommend it, as does something to pray to, no?

michael walsh, Manchester,

Peter really fucking hates his dog.

My dog is an intelligent creature, he believes in food and being loyal to me his master, but I don’t think he believes in God (I’ve never heard him pray)
Frankly I don’t care, he’ll be dead in a few years and I’ll get another dog, he’ll be just a memory
People want to be like dogs, no more no less

Peter B, Lincoln,

Matt from Omaha is making a stand for the silent majority of Christians who don’t believe in any of that “god” nonsense.

You know what I hate most? It’s people that judge Christians as a whole group saying we are ignorant for belief in God. I believe that people who continually bash on groups with differing views than their own (both Christians and Atheists) are inherently ignorant.

Matt, Omaha,

HT has not read the Qu’ran lately.

Surely, billions of Christians, Muslims, Jews can’t be wrong saying something else each one of them for thousand years. Surely, God exists, Jesus is his son, Mohamed is his prophet, their land is promised, etc. All of them are right, all in the mind, all in the barrel of the gun.

HT, Geneva,

“EO” writes under a pseudonym so that her friends don’t realise what kind of weird shit she believes. She’s not very good at it, though. I appreciate her typing like she’s one of the Wurzels, though.

There is absolutely no reason why a refusal to believe in a God for whom there is not the slightest shred of evidence should also mean that the theory that we continue, after the body dies, in some other doimension, should be thrown overboard. And DO learn how to use the adverb ‘hopefully’.
EO

Eileen O Conor, Cordoba, Spain

Greg’s back, having carefully calculated the exact chances of God existing.

“to believe in a God…not the slightest shred of evidence”

Even discounting people’s personal experience of God (which *is* evidence): the probabilities of an orderly universe are so extreme that atheist scientists are desperately inventing multi-universe theories. So right now it is 50/50.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

He could have worked it out for sure, though, as there are 6 billion humans and only 1 god, and as we all know, minorities do not exist.

“Religions could have adopted evolution as another evidence of the work of God ”

The only formal creationists are protestant biblical literialists. By far the majority of Christians are not literalists, and are open to Biblical interpretation. Dawkins is using strawmen: he is a hypocrite.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

In fact, nothing outside Tyler’s apartment exists.

I am sick and tired of people shielding evolution behind the term “science” and believing that it settles it. There is about as much “scientific evidence” in support of evolution as there is in support of midichlorines being the catalyst for the force in Star Wars. Its “science fiction”

Tyler, Greenfield, USA

Carmine invites Dawkins to kill her. She also cites her sources, in case people don’t believe that Jesus was crucified.

I believe in d Big Bang 2: God spoke and “BANG” there it was!

I believe in God b/c Jesus walked d Earth 2000 yrs ago n there r witnesses 2 attest that.

Mr Dawkins, u can criticize n laugh at Christians, no biggie, people criticized n laughed at Jesus 2, infact they even killed him. 1Cor 1:21

carmine cicchiello, adelaide, australia

Hindu philosophy apparently isn’t up to much.

@ Adam: all of them? As a Hindu philosopher once put it, the various religions are like the spokes of a wheel.

As you move towards the centre of the wheel on your particular spoke, you also get closer to all the other spokes.

Richard Flynn, Huntingdon, UK

Chris has missed one very small logical step.

Every book has an author.

Chris, London,

Alan Eric worships the Zimbabwean Dollar.

If Darwin’s therory of evolution were true, the fossil record would be exploding with intermediates! I mean real differences, not the kind of changes found WITHIN species, but BETWEEN species. AND we would find intermediates alive today!
Hawkins god is Father Time. He gets bigger when you add 0’s.

Alan Eric, san antonio, texas

Carmine is reading a lot into 1 Corinthians 1:21.

I believe in d Big Bang 2: God spoke and “BANG” it happened!

I believe in God b/c Jesus walked d Earth 2000 yrs ago, he died n resurrected 3 days later. There were many witnesses 2 attest those events , not one of them was taken to court 4 spreading lies, either under Jewish law or Roman (there were 2 many living witnesses)!

Mr Dawkins n company, u can criticize Christians all u want, but u r disregarding truth to ur eternal peril ! 1Cor1:21

carmine cicchiello, adelaide, australia

I have it on good authority that Dawkins will never debate against an invisible talking giraffe either.

Dawkins assumes that all creationists know nothing about the origin of species, that’s why he won’t share a stage with them. However surely he would share a debating platform with a creationist who also happens to be emimently qualified in appropriate fields of science. Interestly, no he won’t.

Russ, Nth Lincs.,

Al Bloom has found the three least-unanswerable questions in the world.

I know this probably won’t change the fortress of ignorance that is the religious person’s mind but how do you all answer these questions:
Why did God create Dinosaurs?
Why did he decide to make horses run faster, birds fly. etc.
Why did he cover 2/3 of the Earth with water?
You get the picture

al bloom, london, united kingdom

Simon has been talking to JL as well, I think.

But it is not debated by anyone who knows anything about it.

How ridiculous. One of so many reasons why Dawkins is so lamentably comic. He is destined to be forgotten; his lifes work crumbling into an empty nothing.

Simon, Birmingham,

The answer to David’s question is “because he was making a show about creationism, genius.”

I am frustrated by Dawkins’ refusal to engage with the idea that God works at a higher level than physically tinkering with His creation. He chooses to ignore approaches to religion that don’t conflict with science. Why?

The original Bible was written and edited by the Catholic Church btw.

David Burke, Manchester, UK

I like to think the exclamation mark in Barry’s post is there because he is posting from an aeroplane and has just realised something is amiss.

where are the wings??!

Barry Bethel, Tamworth,

Gary just made one small error in this post.

scientists keep saying how much ‘evidence’ they have for religion, but i’ve yet to see any. even if i did it wouldnt change my mind about it. as far as im concerned the bible is the exact words of God and any ‘evidence’ which contradicts it has to be, by definition, wrong.

gary, cheam,

Charles doesn’t credit Muslims with much practicality.

“I said something about Islam, but not as much…”
” I know more about Christianity, so I emphasised it.” He doesnt know much about it at all except that Christians wont saw his head off for mocking them. Dawkins is a coward.

Charles, Columbia, USA

David credits Noah with lots, though.

Noah’s Ark: 2 by 2 or just the DNA? How you look at it doesn’t have to be dark-aged.

David Smith, Stourbridge, UK

Robin keeps defending God by talking about eyes and hasn’t yet mentioned how they couldn’t possibly have evolved.

Leon, most people who believe in God are monotheists these days. This is certainly true of Christians, Jews and Muslims. They just have differing beliefs about God aka YHWH aka Allah. No atheist can authoritatively assert that, “There is no God.” There IS evidence of God for those with eyes to see.

Robin Edgar, Montreal, Canada

Greg’s back for yet more, and hasn’t read the Papal Bull lately.

“any semblance of intellect religion doesnt withstand the most basic of scrutiny”

That may be true of protestant christianity, which is riddled with nonsense (like justification by faith alone), but not of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. ie. a Catholic priest invented the Big Bang theory.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Guy has discovered two new planets.

Dawkins is as ignorant and arrogant as those he mocks. How can a tiny organic speck, on an irrelevant planet -1planet of 10, part of 100 billion stars in 100 billion galaxies presume to understand the whole of creation. Atheism/ religion - 2 sides of the same galactically irrelevent human viewpoint.

guy , london,

Edward is not satisfied with arguing creationism, and wants something sillier to defend.

How can a scientist of such brilliance write so much sense and then totally destroy his credibility by exposing factual ignorance of the simplest kind.eg his piece on Dowsing was simply a joke I imagine.The desert peoples have been very happily dowsing for water for centuries!

EDWARD SYNGE, TISBURY, UK

The important thing is that Mark was wearing an onion, which was the style at the time.

In old communist times, in Moscow a young party activist walks in into the old church. He spots an old women praying in a dark corner. “How can you believe in this nonsens?” he asks her. “Some people believe He exists, some people believe He does not” is her answer.(nothing to do with evolution).

Mark, York, UK

Andrea provides not only an analogy, but a demonstration.

“A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.”

CS Lewis

Andrea B, Canterbury, UK

As a scientist, Dan knows all about different kinds of space.

Is intellectualism being ignorant of someones beliefs as well, as dawkins is when he will not give oxygen space to creationists. Nothing, science or religion, an be totally proved. Why “attack” those with beliefs. Wouldn’t leaving them be more “intellectual”. Hypoctritical. And i am a scientist.

Dan, Mitcheldean,

I wonder if “Leatherhead” is Greg’s hometown or occupation. (The link here is my addition to his post.)

“Amazing in this day and age that some people still actually believe in stories of invisible god-creatures and magic heavens”

That’s because you’ve been fooled by Dawkins in to thinking that the concept of a supreme being/God is equivalent to fairies and unicorns. Silly you.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Before you read this post, a quick Bible lesson. Order of creation events in Genesis: light, water, plantlife, the sun, fish, birds, animals, people.

Science and God are not necessarily opposites to be pitted against one another. It is quite possible that God could have created science and evolution. The order of events in Genesis is exactly the same as in evolutionary theory, it is only the timescale which differs.

NM, Bristol, UK

Chris Nel does not own a calendar.

So his book has sold 1,5 million copies and translated into 31 languages. The Bible has been around for over 3000 years, is translated in most languages of the world, continues to sell millions each year. It will be loved and read when Dawkins is long forgotten & Jesus will still be changing lives!

Chris Nel, Ripon, England

I actually met Jeff Richmond once. Nice guy. Made entirely from straw.

It’s been scientifically proven that organisms control there own evolution. A hundred million years ago after several generations of fish staring up at the shore a fish grew legs. Other fish saw this and they grew legs to. Was God involved? that is the question to answer

Jeff Richmond, Vancouver, Canada

I guess I must just not be smart enough to understand Drew’s strange, self-referential meta-proverbs.

Scourge? More someone who is flogging a horse that is deader than the proverbial. Next he’ll declare that artists/poets can’t possibly have a basis for their views of the world as science disproves their notions of beauty and aesthetic. His philosophy is bankrupt!

Drew, Los Angeles, USA

For balance, a dumb post in favour of evolution.

If God exists and was truly supreme he would have devised evolution as a neat way for life to self-regulate and adapt without constant intervention or design. Only a stupid god would not do such a thing. Seems many religions think their god is stupid.

Roger Thornhill, London, UK

Too noisy, is the problem with the Big Bang.

Many Christians are comfortable with Darwin. No atheists are comfortable with the Big Bang.

Kevin Dunn, Perth, Australia

Martin would make a really crap lawyer.

“Creationists never come up with any proof, evidence.”
Evidence is not proof but facts to be interpreted which is why Dawkins does not have proof either.
To interpret evidence requires belief about what the evidence shows. Belief therefore affects the conclusion. Dawkins has faith in his beliefs.

Martin, Skye,

Greg has run out of things to say, but is going to keep posting anyway, dammit.

“..what created God?”

God would be existence itself: your question is a nonsense. You are attempting to reason from nothingness, the perverted reasoning of the atheist, but it’s not possible. There is no such thing as nothingness: the default is existence. The question is does it have personhood?

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

I’m pretty sure I can mock whatever the hell I like.

good grief - look at yourselves. Everyone of us has the right to believe in whatever we want and no one has the right to mock or deride what anyone else believes. If you believe in God then live your life accordingly. If you don’t then don’t worry about it.

David, London, UK

I really hope RW is joking.

If the universe is infinite, every possible event has happened, or will happen somewhere in the universe. The existence of God is a possible event, ergo God exists.

RW, Sta Eulalia, Spain

G P is Helping!

“…people still actually believe in stories of invisible god-creatures and magic heavens, made up by stoned hippies living in the desert a few thousand years ago. I want some of whatever it is that they’re on!”

Alastair, you can find it on any given day day; the Holy Spirit

G P, Milton Keynes,

Let’s watch Greg get progressively dumber.

” please stop taking the moral high ground when neither side of the argument can successfully be proven.”

A true atheist is irrational, and an agnostic who doesn’t give the benefit of the doubt is likewise.

Since a God could prove His own existence religious do have an advantage.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Yeah! Naleen really told those creationists who’s boss: they are!

I love to put a creationist in his/her place. How can you ignore the scientific work behind evolution and its evidences. But on the other hand, how did it all began? Evolution only shows what happened once a single cell got here but not how it got here. God made Earth billions of years ago.

Naleen Lal, Northern California,

Simon is not crazy. Don’t say he’s crazy.

“Dawkins slaps creationists into … soup”
… NO!!!

All you people probably don’t realise that the single cell evolution to man is still a theory - not proven! It’s just easily accepted by the ignorant. So darwinism is also a faith, yes?

PS. Dawkins is the devils work, who also exists

Simon Chung, Edinburgh, UK

Virginia thinks people were designed and robots evolved.

Zim of Wolverhampton, you have just proven that evolution is rubbish by admiting that this is a stupid age! If evolution is true, we would not evolve to be stupid and no one will have the concept of God. We will all just behave like robots and react predictably. The evidence is crystal clear.

virginia, Brisbane , Australia

There are many ways to state the first law of thermodynamics. This is none of them.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states matter & energy need no creator, they simply always existed. The second applies only to closed systems where we are gaining energy from nothing - in our universe we have the sun. Both are arguments FOR evolution, and AGAINST the existence of an intelligent god.

Isabel, Bournemouth, UK

Greg has moved the bar of “evidence” yet lower. By now he has buried it in his yard.

“the Athiest stance is that there is no evidence for god, nothing, not a jot”

Nonsense. Just 1 believer *is* evidence. My Uncle was a nuclear phycisist and said that he saw “the finger prints of God everywhere”. Atheist multi-universe theories exist to avoid the otherwise inevitable conclusion.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

Ah, but where does the Bible address that episode of The Next Generation with Locutus of Borg in it?

Belief in God is more that an intellectual exercise - it’s lifestyle changing event. Where does Dawkins world view address the 20+ teenagers killed by knives in London? Living true to your faith changes people and would give these kids an alternative hope in their lives. Dawkin’s worldview doesn’t.

Pete B, London, UK

I don’t think “hypocrite” means what Anne thinks it means.

The religious can publically talk against gay people, athiests and those of other religions. But the moment someone believes in something other than creationism, they are fiercely attacked. The word hypocrites comes to mind.

Anne, Nottingham,

Andy has a pretty dystopian view of comfort.

Religion is psychological comfort by forcing groups of people to think and act the same. Have your religions I dont mind them . . . . but at least stop hurting other people.

andy, London,

Reto kills people who work weekends.

Mr Darwin introduced the theory of evolution but also scientifically “proved” the intrinsic inferiority of Africans and other “dark” peoples as well as the superiority of the NW Europeans over other whites. Evolutionists cannot pick and choose what they like–have some intellectual integrity man!

Reto, Cape Town, South Africa

Theodore Shulman has not quite got the hang of this.

If there is a god of comedy, PG Wodehouse is it.

Theodore Shulman, NYC, USA

Ika is scary.

Dawkins can believe what he wants now, but the time will come when wishes he didn’t believe in what he believes now..the end is near…

ika, Darwin, Australia

Greg clearly has not actually bothered to read The God Delusion.

David:”we don’t believe in a god or gods.”

…which is not the definiton of an atheist; it is a form of agnostic. Go and join your chums at dawkin’s website, where they will confirm that you have made a mistake on the definition of ‘atheist’. And stop reading wikipedia.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

I have no idea. Anyone?

Dawkins is wrong to espouse atheism. Religious belief is no more than another theory with a claim to verification, just as scientific theory is. Science is the winner because it can come up with its verifications in the here and now.

Kevin Straw, Leicester,

Greg promises to do the world a favour, although only because Jesus made him sign an NDA.

David”Merging with the holy spirit…god module installed. ”

I appreciate the effort, but no. I can’t say more without inappropriately giving positive clues to something you don’t deserve to know, and I am not permitted to tell you:Matt7:6″Do not cast your pearls before swine”. Time to clam up.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

I was going to mock David Jones for thinking there were Christians in 1CE, but then I remembered that of course the Bible had been around at least 1000 years by then.

Presumably for 1CE Christians, the notion of the trinity and sacraments like holy communion were dangerous in a strictly montheistic society. However, hiding behind a ‘pearls before swine’ injunction now to create a woo factor when the details are published by the church anyway is mere flamboyance.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

One thing I’m growing to like more and more about the internet is how easy stuff like Blogger or WordPress make it to start a website for any old pointless reason, and there’s very little to stop that website expanding to silly proportions. This means that there are a growing number of websites dedicated to documenting rather specific things, and with a whole world to send in submissions, there are lots of examples of them all. Here are a few I know well:

Language

• The “Blog” of “Unnecessary” Quotation Marks: signs, shops, and the odd cake wreck or passive-aggressive note, with “scare quotes” or just plain “wrong quotes”.
• Engrish: badly translated English-language signs and products from Japan.
• Literally, A Web Log: tracking misuse of the word ‘literally’.
• Red Pen, Inc.: Mocking bad punctuation and grammar on the internet. See also barrelfishhunting.wordpress.com.
• That’s Punny!: Puns. Mostly bad ones, but that’s like saying “basketball players; mostly tall ones”.
• Apostrophe Abuse: A home for misplaced apostrophes.
• Apostrophe Catastrophe: More of the same. Including a delightfully ironic “student’s for McCain” pen.

Signage

• Signs that Fascinate and Intruige: a Facebook group with thousands of photos of dumb signs. Has a strict rule about it having to be something the submitter found, so no internet virals. Still a scary number of things.
• Say What?: A blog along similarly signatory lines. Pretty good hit rate in a field where that’s unusual.
• Crummy Church Signs: I always approve of mocking churches.
• Hairdressers With Funny Names: Technically a Flickr group but I’m including it anyway.
• A page with daft park bench plaques.

Notage

• Passive-Aggressive Notes: notes and signs, and emails, left by housemates, co-workers, employees, and so on. There’s some shocking stuff in there.
• Postcards From Yo Mamma: emails and web-chats sent by mothers to their grown-up children.
• Stall Wall Poetry: A compendium of toilet graffiti.

Stupiditage

• Not Always Right: collecting stories of daft and unreasonable requests made by customers to put-upon retail staff.
• spEak You’re bRanes: a collection of dumb comments written by idiots, mostly from the BBC’s singularly awful Have Your Say section, where right-wing morons make bad suggestions, jokes that don’t work, and unreasonable demands. That’s probably why it’s at ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com.
• Readers’ Letters: a similar site aimed at primarily-offline media such as newspapers and magazines. Annoyingly LiveJournal-based, but I think we have to forgive that if only because [nja]’s current userpic looks so delightfully like Elvis Costello cover-art.
• This Is Photobomb: photos that bad people have ruined.
• Texts From Last Night: drunken SMS messages.
• Overheard In The Office: well obviously this is things overheard in offices.
• Local Jacko: local newspaper reports of Michael Jackson’s death, which suddenly has become a Cambridge-specific event (or wherever).
• Lamebook: ensuring that not just your friends see the dumb shit you do on Facebook.

Failage

• Cake Wrecks: a blog showing photos of bad cakes. Professional ones only: no mocking your family. It started when the author got this cake back from the rather dim bakers.
• The FAIL Blog: photos of stupid things, ruined by the application of large block letters saying “FAIL”, all of which were added in Paint Shop Pro. You can tell because Photoshop does letter corners correctly.
• Photoshop Disasters: pictures from newspapers, websites, magazines and the like, which have obviously been edited by morons. There are a few on here that I disagree with, though — at least one where they’ve highlighted a wrist and said “look at the unnatural way that wrist is bent, did they think we wouldn’t notice”, and I can bend that way.
• It’s Lovely! I’ll Take It!: badly chosen photos from house adverts. And here’s a similar one in Probably German.
• Bad Parking: I’m sure you can figure this one out…
• Self Published Books: …which it is obvious why nobody else published.
• Unfortunate Names: This is pretty self-explanatory. Which is kind of ironic.
• Picture Is Unrelated: Like the FAIL Blog, only better.
• LOLTATZ: dreadful tattoos.

Miscellanage

• Things Younger Than John McCain: a blog which lists things which we all take for granted but that are younger than Republican presidential pipedream and probable next host of Countdown, John McCain.
• Patently Silly: rarely updates any more, but lists a lot of strange patents issued in America.
• Sexy People: Old photos. (It seemed harsh to class it as Failage.)
• But Sir…: Me and Ben mock dumb petitions. See also, We The Undersigned.
• Lunch Bag Art: A guy who paints on paper bags for his kids and shows the internet the results.
• Awkward Family Photos: Fairly self-explanitory.
• Dateline: Silver Age: Newspaper headlines from comics.
• Paint My Album: Album covers in MS Paint.
• Awkward Boners: er… yeah.
• Don’t Even Reply: In which a man sends timewasting letters to people who post classified ads. Good fun, but inexplicably has no RSS feed.

Slightly Rubbish Ones

• Graph Jam: a not-as-good version of this Facebook group which has also gone downhill.
• Apostophe Abuse In Everyday Life: complete with nerdy URL, insofar as any other type of URL exists. Also does other kinds of grammar. Hit and miss, mind.
• Man Babies: Photos of fathers and sons with the heads swapped round. Why? Who knows.
• You Thought We Wouldn’t Notice: Blatant rip-offs on the internet. A kind of mob-rule copyright law.

Those are all the ones I know. Anyone know any others?