To pray or to think?

Dawkins and Fry on Hitchens' Penchant for the... by FORAtv

Sack Maria Miller: Essential Resources

She may only have to pay back £5,800 but the capital gain and the dodgy bit where she benefits her parents clearly show that she is just another snout in the trough.

See updates on the saga here.

This is frequently updated and the best place to go. After all, the saga must be nearing its inevitable close.

Listen to the blatant attempt at blackmailing the Telegraph:



Sign the Petition here.

This is a modest petition letting her off with a £45,000 payback.

Attempts to launch a petition on the government website are in the dozens but all attempts so far have been rejected. Go here.

Listening to Grayling

If my previous post did not convince you to read The God Argument this will; unless you believe in god. In that case, you dare not either listen or learn.

If you believe in a god , this may be your best shot:



Or if you like some moving pictures with your debate or like to watch obvious flim-flam nonsense advanced with confidence watch this:




Or read this:

Grayling: Messiah to Dawkins's John the Baptist?

I bring The Good News. Professor Grayling's The God Argument:The Case Against Religion and for Humanism is better than The God Delusion. I write as a Dawkins fan but this is calmer, more philosophical (as one might expect), and might appeal to other sections of the audience. Underlying the calmness is, however, a ruthless logic and rationality - you will even understand the difference between those two descriptors when you have read part one.

This is not a review but a preliminary impression because I only downloaded the book very recently and am only just about to read part two. Part two embarks on different territory to that covered by Dawkins; if I attempt a review it will be after I have read that.

I have read various responses to Dawkins, most recently The Dawkins Delusion by McGrath (whose delusional self-belief manifests itself, and whose disreputable rhetorical devices manifest themselves, on virtually every page). Professor Grayling's less fire and brimstone approach may render him less susceptible to such pathetic attempts at refutation but, in the end, our religionist bretheren will find his text no more consoling; and no less contemptuous of their incapacity for rational thought.

Read this book.