201. Comment #76804 by chauvinj on October 7, 2007 at 10:22 am

That was the most bullshit debate ever....I found myself getting frusterated just listening to it. How on earth could RD put up with it?

Other Comments by chauvinj

202. Comment #76813 by theistocrat on October 7, 2007 at 11:00 am

This part of the blurb is funny:

Dawkins, voted by Europe's Prospect Magazine as one of the world's most important intellectuals, is regarded by many as the spokesman for the "New Atheism."

Because the the same magazine wrote this:


October 2006 | 127 » Reviews » Dawkins the dogmatist

It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works.

Other Comments by theistocrat

203. Comment #76823 by devolved on October 7, 2007 at 11:40 am

Comment #76688 by Robert Maynard

devolved It's not a question of whether you believe in an absolute standard; rather does one exist (because it exists regardless of our beliefs).
EDIT: I took this as you saying "by the way, it totally does exist", but I see what you're saying now, and yes, an absolute standard either does exist or it doesn't. How do we answer that question, in your opinion?

The answer is that none of us can be certain at this point in history. There is no scientific way of proving or disproving God's existence and his existence (or non-existence) is independent of our beliefs or scientific methodology.

It's hard to know why anyone should dogmatically claim that our ability to have moral thoughts must have evolved or must have been given us by God. Either view is an expression of faith.

I can understand why cooperation with others would have survival value and therefore becomes a repeated pattern of behaviour. But given the opportunity to commit the 'perfect crime' why do we still feel guilt? Why do we even regard it as a crime? If survival is the driving force doesn't it make sense to cooperate when its expedient and look after #1 when it isn't.

jbblack The sweetness of sugar is a chemical property, so it wasn't the best example to use.

Of course it's possible to construct a scenario in which sugar isn't perceived as sweet but that entirely misses the point. The reaction we normally have to sugar is a chemical reaction to the chemicals in glucose or sucrose.

By contrast our moral reactions have nothing to do with our chemistry. I appreciate the argument that morals might have evolved but there's nothing within the span of man's recorded history to support the idea that we have become better behaved over time.

Comment #76609 by Dr Benway

The distinction between scientific and non-scientific methods of discovery is not useful.

Really!

Misunderstanding of science is widespread and will throw a spanner in the works everytime (I've heard this notion that science can't study the past; someone ought to alert the cosmologists, geologists, and paleontologists).

I think you should talk about scientists studying the past (or not). When scientists do examine rocks, fossils etc they are working in the present and interpreting data according their framework of beliefs. One geologist looking at the Grand Canyon may conclude that it was the result of water erosion over a very long period of time, and another that it was created over a very short time span by water (of a different magnitude). Both will be looking at the same evidence but drawing quite different conclusions.

184. Comment #76635 by BillySands on October 6, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Take some syrup and saturate it with sugar, then eat it and wash it down with mars bar ice cream, then drink a cup of tea with two sugars. Suddenly that sugar does not taste so sweet

Billy you strain at gnats and swallow a camel. God bless you.

Other Comments by devolved

204. Comment #76827 by steve99 on October 7, 2007 at 11:47 am

But given the opportunity to commit the 'perfect crime' why do we still feel guilt? Why do we even regard it as a crime? If survival is the driving force doesn't it make sense to cooperate when its expedient and look after #1 when it isn't.

This is easy to answer. Our conscience has evolved based on what has been shown to work over millions of years of apes interacting with other apes. The opportunities for 'perfect crimes' in the small wandering groups we used to live in were not very likely. Also, it did not make genetic sense to significantly disadvangate other members of that group, as they were likely to be related in some way.

Much of our behaviour seems to be explained by the likelihood that we used to live in small related groups.

Other Comments by steve99

205. Comment #76830 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 12:14 pm

One geologist looking at the Grand Canyon may conclude that it was the result of water erosion over a very long period of time, and another that it was created over a very short time span by water ...

There is not a single geologist, that is not also an outspoken creationist, that would endorse this latter view. Their "conclusions" are based on ideology, not science. Feel free to cite some names and studies that don't qualify. I prepare to be amazed.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of geologists, of all religious, and non religious types that agree on the former position. You are willfully deluding yourself by selecting the evidence of the manifestly biased, vanishingly small minority of "experts", over the megatons of evidence and neutral experts pointing in the other direction.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

206. Comment #76836 by Vinelectric on October 7, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Thanks for your reply, but I think you're addressing a point I never made.


I am in total agreement with you and Sam Harris on the apparently peaceful nature of the Amish community. I specifically boxed your second comment (on the greed for power) instead. Then I gave two examples on how the community organizes itself in a manner that serves nothing but its own interests. Of course I forgot to mention the racial segregation.

I would even suggest that denying their children full education and the backwardly ways in which they raise them amounts to child abuse. However that's much more subtle than murderous tendencies but you seem only impressed when the damage gets to that level.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

207. Comment #76837 by Deep13 on October 7, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Responding to Comment #76655 by Teratornis:

I'm not going to go tit-for-tat here, but some general observations.

First you seem to be focusing on the religion and morality of the supreme leaders of the world. Stalin can do nothing unless there is a nation to obey him. The authoritarian culture of Russia allowed him be be what he was. Plenty of people have the capacity to become Stalin, but are never given the opportunity.

Second a note about the Amish. Their passivity may be why they are such a dominant for in the world today. I'm sorry, that's right, most people in the world today have never heard of them. There seems to be a Darwinism among religions. To survive in anything more than token form they need to be aggressively authoritarian.

And least you suppose they are some kind of model of virtue, they have the same problems as any other cult (including a real problem with sex offenses within their community).

Other Comments by Deep13

208. Comment #76840 by steve99 on October 7, 2007 at 12:49 pm

When scientists do examine rocks, fossils etc they are working in the present and interpreting data according their framework of beliefs. One geologist looking at the Grand Canyon may conclude that it was the result of water erosion over a very long period of time, and another that it was created over a very short time span by water (of a different magnitude)

I agree - I mean, some meteorologists hear thunder and consider it to be Thor banging his hammer, and some astrophysicists think the Sun is big dragon in the sky. And all from the save evidence. Science is just such fun!

Other Comments by steve99

209. Comment #76853 by epeeist on October 7, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Comment #76823 by devolved

I think you should talk about scientists studying the past (or not). When scientists do examine rocks, fossils etc they are working in the present and interpreting data according their framework of beliefs. One geologist looking at the Grand Canyon may conclude that it was the result of water erosion over a very long period of time, and another that it was created over a very short time span by water (of a different magnitude).

You don't mean that some people might see it as evidence of "The FLOOD". I thought you didn't want to talk about that.

No, let's rephrase that. You couldn't answer all the questions that I raised so you decided to attempt to dismiss it as beneath you. In a similar way to the questions you have ignored from other people on the site such as Billy Sands.

So here's a question for you. Geologists and dendrochronologicists can determine the age of all sorts of things by simple counting. Tree rings, ice cores and varves in lakes like Suigetsu. All of them are consilient. To me this shows an observation of historical events, in that not only can they count they years they can also correlate with things like volcanic eruptions.

Of course, this actually shows that the earth is older than 6000 years...

Other Comments by epeeist

210. Comment #76871 by BillySands on October 7, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Billy you strain at gnats and swallow a camel. God bless you.

I'm sure that makes sense in the privacy of your own mind

the chemicals in glucose or sucrose.

Would these chemicals be glucose and sucrose?

When scientists do examine rocks, fossils etc they are working in the present and interpreting data according their framework of beliefs

Erm, no, proper ones look at evidence and make testable predictions like - if evolution is false, we will find cambrian rabbits - truth is there are not even any cambrian vertebrates. Your move devolved. Why do you not like the principle of uniformitarianism? please cite evidence.

One geologist looking at the Grand Canyon may conclude that it was the result of water erosion over a very long period of time, and another that it was created over a very short time span by water (of a different magnitude).

So lets get this right, the flood lays down all these neat sediments (with no rabbits, whales or eagles), then a deluge comes along and carves out the canyon - how? its already under water.

But given the opportunity to commit the 'perfect crime' why do we still feel guilt?

. I'm guessing you interviewed exactly zero criminal masterminds here. I met quite a few folk when I did some work with homeless people, and let me tell you, guilt doesn't come in to it that often. I met people who had no problem with the use of violence or sending their girlfriend out to work as a prostitute while they went shop lifting. One of my friends who works in the Strathclyde police forensic lab can give you some even worse stories. Accuracy is not your strong point, is it?

By contrast our moral reactions have nothing to do with our chemistry.

Really? Heard of Phineas Gague? He dammaged part of his brain and changed completely. Ther is plenty of evidence out there showing that brain lesions affect moral behaviour. Why dont you use some facts instead of making ignorant claims. Is neuroscience you specialist field? If not, why make claims that chemistry cant explain behaviour?
I'm guessing it is becaus ignoring facts allows you to carry on believing your wierd views.

Other Comments by BillySands

211. Comment #76897 by eXcommunicate on October 7, 2007 at 4:25 pm

I appreciate the argument that morals might have evolved but there's nothing within the span of man's recorded history to support the idea that we have become better behaved over time.

You do understand that your understanding of the phrase "better behaved" is a product of that same evolution?

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

212. Comment #76903 by devolved on October 7, 2007 at 4:56 pm

209. Comment #76853 by epeeist on October 7, 2007 at 1:31 pm

"The FLOOD". I thought you didn't want to talk about that.

You thought wrong. The problem is that on previous posts you wanted me to talk about it without reference to either the Bible or creationist websites and that would be like asking me to cross a busy road blindfolded.

Just in case we can debate on a level playing field I'll suggest you look at this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-grand-canyon.asp

So here's a question for you. Geologists and dendrochronologicists can determine the age of all sorts of things by simple counting. Tree rings, ice cores and varves in lakes like Suigetsu. All of them are consilient.

I hate to disagree but we're back to evidence and its interpretation. Varves are given as reliable examples for establishing ages but are they?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative7-20-2000.asp

210. Comment #76871 by BillySands

… if evolution is false, we will find cambrian rabbits - truth is there are not even any cambrian vertebrates.

I don't pretend to understand this. Perhaps you could be a little clearer?

So lets get this right, the flood lays down all these neat sediments (with no rabbits, whales or eagles), then a deluge comes along and carves out the canyon - how? its already under water.

You might like to consider that the Grand Canyon was carved out after the flood.
If you're that interested in whales read the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/whales.asp

But given the opportunity to commit the 'perfect crime' why do we still feel guilt? . I'm guessing you interviewed exactly zero criminal masterminds here. I met quite a few folk when I did some work with homeless people, and let me tell you, guilt doesn't come in to it that often. I met people who had no problem with the use of violence or sending their girlfriend out to work as a prostitute while they went shop lifting. One of my friends who works in the Strathclyde police forensic lab can give you some even worse stories. Accuracy is not your strong point, is it?

Your comments entirely miss the point. I've had sufficient experience of life to know that people become hardened and consciences deadened. Notwithstanding that, it is still true that presented with the chance of doing wrong without being caught many people do experience a pang of conscience. My question is how does evolution explain that? Perhaps you can explain.

By contrast our moral reactions have nothing to do with our chemistry.
Really? Heard of Phineas Gague? He dammaged (sic) part of his brain and changed completely. Ther (sic) is plenty of evidence out there showing that brain lesions affect moral behaviour. Why dont you use some facts instead of making ignorant claims. Is neuroscience you specialist field? If not, why make claims that chemistry cant (sic) explain behaviour? I'm guessing it is becaus (sic) ignoring facts allows you to carry on believing your wierd (sic) views.

You confuse morality and behaviour.

Other Comments by devolved

213. Comment #76906 by devolved on October 7, 2007 at 5:04 pm

211. Comment #76897 by eXcommunicate

I appreciate the argument that morals might have evolved but there's nothing within the span of man's recorded history to support the idea that we have become better behaved over time.


You do understand that your understanding of the phrase "better behaved" is a product of that same evolution?

No. I understand that goo-to-you evolution is a product of faulty interpretation of past events.

Other Comments by devolved

214. Comment #76908 by steve99 on October 7, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Notwithstanding that, it is still true that presented with the chance of doing wrong without being caught many people do experience a pang of conscience. My question is how does evolution explain that? Perhaps you can explain.

Please see comment 204.

Other Comments by steve99

215. Comment #76919 by captain underpants on October 7, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Devolved,

If you feel unable to answer even the simplest questions without help from the bible, then you are a very sad case indeed.

Someone whose knowledge of science is so limited that he doesn't even know what the Cambrian was is not qualified to comment on any scientific question, in particular such questions as the age of the earth, whether snakes can talk, and whether virgin birth is possible.

I find it objectionable when a semi-educated pig-ignorant prick pontificates on subjects of which he clearly understands nothing.

Please refrain from making further comments on this site until such time as you can cite credible evidence to substantiate your claims.

Other Comments by captain underpants

216. Comment #76920 by Goldy on October 7, 2007 at 6:56 pm

… if evolution is false, we will find cambrian rabbits - truth is there are not even any cambrian vertebrates.

I don't pretend to understand this. Perhaps you could be a little clearer?

Well, the case is truly rested here! How on earth can this not be understood. Tell us you are joking!

Other Comments by Goldy

217. Comment #76921 by Goldy on October 7, 2007 at 7:00 pm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/whales.asp

I had a quick read. I dunno, but I would have thought, after the Boxing Day tsunami, that the answer was more prosaic than a flood. But hey, who am I to argue with deluded folk....

Other Comments by Goldy

218. Comment #76923 by Goldy on October 7, 2007 at 7:04 pm

You like floods, Dev. Here...
http://geology.about.com/od/flooding/a/aa_041397jokul.htm
Just a wee idea for you. Now, you do accept the Ice Age theory? Hope so, or this reference will not work for you. Mind you, as the last major one was a few millenia before the beginning of Earth, I guess I could be wrong...

Other Comments by Goldy

219. Comment #76927 by notsobad on October 7, 2007 at 8:13 pm

The Wee Flea

As regards Korea – 200 years ago there were no Christians in Korea – now there are 45%. How does this square with RD's oft repeated assertion (which he worked out when he was 9!) that your religion is determined by your birth. If that were true then surely the Koreas would all still be Buddhist?

The number 45% is completely made up since the last official census from 1995 says 26.3%.
Now about the difference made during the last 200 years. Maybe, just maybe, it's because of colonization of Asia and all the missionaries? Or how about that major conflict, which brought many Christians for a few years of whom many stayed after it? And Christianity has always been quite an aggressive religion when it comes gaining new victims.
By the way, Korea, despite its heavy industrialization and modernization after the war, has had a widespread problem with corruption (one of the highest rates in the industrialized world). That must be all those non-believers (about 50% of the country) participating in it..

Other Comments by notsobad

220. Comment #76929 by zenmite on October 7, 2007 at 8:40 pm

"Now about the difference made during the last 200 years. Maybe, just maybe, it's because of colonization of Asia and all the missionaries? Or how about that major conflict, which brought many Christians for a few years of whom many stayed after it?"

Another possible explanation I read years ago from a Korean buddhist is that before WWII the Japanese imperial army invaded and occupied Korea for a number of years. Most Koreans naturally resented this occupation. This resentment lingered long after the Japanese withdrew. This created a sort of disillusionment with Buddhism itself since many of the Japanese invaders were also Buddhist. To the Koreans, the white Christians were seen as the liberators and the Asian (japanese) buddhists were their oppressors. This pov was probably reinforced during the Korean conflict as primarily christian westerners pushed the northern communists back and again liberated the Koreans. This time from the threat of communism. Thus, South Koreans tend to see Christians as 'the good guys'. At least that was the hypothesis of the article.

Other Comments by zenmite

221. Comment #76949 by epeeist on October 7, 2007 at 11:42 pm

Comment #76903 by devolved

You thought wrong. The problem is that on previous posts you wanted me to talk about it without reference to either the Bible or creationist websites and that would be like asking me to cross a busy road blindfolded.

Lying for Jesus again.

I didn't ask you to not to quote the bible, I asked you for evidence that one can go and look at.

Got to agree with Capt. Underpants

I find it objectionable when a semi-educated pig-ignorant prick pontificates on subjects of which he clearly understands nothing.

Please refrain from making further comments on this site until such time as you can cite credible evidence to substantiate your claims.

Let's give you one to start with - have a look at Meert's site, specifically http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/northrup.htm and come back with some arguments and evidence as to why he is wrong. A citation in a non-vanity published journal or web page would be acceptable.

Other Comments by epeeist

222. Comment #76975 by epeeist on October 8, 2007 at 2:20 am

Comment #76903 by devolved

So here's a question for you. Geologists and dendrochronologicists can determine the age of all sorts of things by simple counting. Tree rings, ice cores and varves in lakes like Suigetsu. All of them are consilient.

I hate to disagree but we're back to evidence and its interpretation. Varves are given as reliable examples for establishing ages but are they?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative7-20-2000.asp

I'm sorry - what is the link meant to show? All it offers is some vague references to other types of layering where hydrological sorting took place. Nothing to do with varves.

You also missed the word consilience. The varves weren't looked at in isolation. Mass spectroscopic measurements have also been obtained which are consilient with the layers.

Try searching with Google Scholar, rather than just looking at the AiG site.

Other Comments by epeeist

223. Comment #76976 by BillySands on October 8, 2007 at 2:25 am

I don't pretend to understand this. Perhaps you could be a little clearer?

The Cambrian period was roughly 500 million years ago. There are fossils recorded in the rocks, but no veretebrates. If you find a vertebrate fossil in these rocks, evolution is screwed. It is so easily refuted, but in 150+ years of looking, nobody has.

You might like to consider that the Grand Canyon was carved out after the flood.

You might like to present some real evidece to back up that claim otherwise we can just as easily claim a bunch of space monkeys did it.

Your whale article was of its usual low standard - nothing on taphonomy and sufficiently vague to mislead.

Your comments entirely miss the point. I've had sufficient experience of life to know that people become hardened and consciences deadened. Notwithstanding that, it is still true that presented with the chance of doing wrong without being caught many people do experience a pang of conscience. My question is how does evolution explain that? Perhaps you can explain.

Amazingly, this paragraph argues againt itself here. If some folk dont, then the claim of a moral absolute is false. How about reciprocation as a mechanism - go look it up if you are interested - I generally find you are not.
Why do you think evolution can't explain it?

You confuse morality and behaviour.

No, morally he was different. Why do drugs and alcohol make people behave differently?

Other Comments by BillySands

224. Comment #76979 by devolved on October 8, 2007 at 2:34 am

218. Comment #76923 by Goldy

You like floods, Dev. Here...
http://geology.about.com/od/flooding/a/aa_041397jokul.htm
Just a wee idea for you. Now, you do accept the Ice Age theory? Hope so, or this reference will not work for you. Mind you, as the last major one was a few millenia before the beginning of Earth, I guess I could be wrong...

I guess you could, after all it is a question of interpretation of past events. Thanks for the link though it's very interesting.
Let me return the favour:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/nature.asp

221. Comment #76949 by epeeist
Comment #76903 by devolved

Let's give you one to start with - have a look at Meert's site, specifically http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/northrup.htm and come back with some arguments and evidence as to why he is wrong. A citation in a non-vanity published journal or web page would be acceptable.

Why on earth would I want to defend the utterly bizarre ideas of the Rev. Bernard Northrup? His thesis was built upon the "gap theory"(a worldwide flood before the worldwide flood of the Bible). This is a straw man if ever I saw one! (A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. The position can be oversimplified, overstated, or else distorted. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted).

I didn't ask you to not to quote the bible, I asked you for evidence that one can go and look at.

Yes you did "Quotes from the bible or AiG don't count." Remember that? And if you want evidence read up on the work of D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

214. Comment #76908 by steve99 on October 7, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Please see comment 204.

I read it. It's your opinion. That's fine but where's the evidence to support what you believe?

Other Comments by devolved

225. Comment #76981 by BaronOchs on October 8, 2007 at 2:39 am

devolved

You might like to consider that the Grand Canyon was carved out after the flood.

Has anyone worked out precisely what force would be required to carve out the Grand Canyon in just one flood, and what quantity of water this would require? And also how 40 days of indiscriminate rainfall manage to produce so precise a result?

And where is this water supposed to have come from? And how long would it take to evaporate?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

226. Comment #76982 by steve99 on October 8, 2007 at 2:45 am

I read it. It's your opinion. That's fine but where's the evidence to support what you believe?

Its not 'my opinion'. It is a widely held view. I see you are now moving the goalposts. You wanted an explanation. You now want evidence. OK. I suggest you look up the books of Matt Ridley. Especially "The Origins of Virtue". You will find it is based on considerable research.

Other Comments by steve99

227. Comment #76987 by BillySands on October 8, 2007 at 3:09 am

I guess you could, after all it is a question of interpretation of past events

Erm No, as I said, it's about testing - just repeating your mantra doesnt make it true.

I'm still waiting for an example of a moral absolute here as well as comments on opsin genes, dinosaurs etc.

Do you believe Blasphemy and homosexuality are immoral? Do you think it is ever right to indulge in genocide?

Well, the case is truly rested here! How on earth can this not be understood. Tell us you are joking!

He clearly didnt understand natural selection the last time he was here, but we were apparently still wrong. To quote him:

"Natural selection involves merely the shuffling, rearrangement and degeneration of existing genetic information, whereas evolution requires encyclopaedic quantities of new information to be produced by unintelligent, natural processes—information coding for new types of organs, limbs, physiologies, etc."
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1672,Row-Brews-Over-DUP-Call-for-Schools-to-Teach-Creationism,Ulster-Star#73194

Other Comments by BillySands

228. Comment #77032 by The Wee Flea on October 8, 2007 at 8:48 am

Other things being equal, people stay in the religion of their birth (and it was really smart of RD to figure that out at 9), but other things are not equal.

So the whole theory is blown apart but as you correctly point out – all things are not equal and there are a host of complicating and different factors. So the rather simplistic point made by RD and many others, that birth is the key factor is simply wrong. Thank you.

That Stalin was atheist is one claim, that his barbarism was motivated by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, or the scientific Enlightenment in general, is quite another.

Agreed. Nothing is that simple. But Stalin became an atheist through reading Darwin. Something which I believe the Believers here would applaud. Arguing that this atheism was THE cause of his brutality would be a step too far (although again quite logical if one followed the logic of this website) – however it is at least clear that his atheist beliefs did nothing to stop his brutality. And he did set up an avowedly atheist society.

even if he was not well known in Oxford

Richard, was this intended as a putdown (along the line of the flea comment) or are you really saying that you are so enclosed in your own wee world that you are not aware of a Professor in your own University, who has written a book criticizing your own position, and one who is himself seriously interested in your own discipline 'the Public Understanding of Science'? And why, O why do you not take the time to remind your followers not to use such language as 'clown' when referring to your opponents? It does not do your cause any good.

You are on record as having stated that you believe natural disasters to be God's punishment for sin. This view is no less disgusting than the one that you cite.

Captain Underpants. No I am not. I am on record as having stated that the view that the Tsunami was God's punishment for sin is theological ignorance at best, and downright stupidity at worse. Please get your facts right and do not misrepresent me. You can find enough to criticize without lying!

Anybody interested in seeing what Bill Hamilton really said, rather than Wee Flea's wicked lies ,
can look at page 456 of Narrow Roads of Gene Land Vol. 2 (which Wee Flea calls an 'autobiography' with his usual carefree attitude to the truth)
Hamilton was claiming that modern medicine was wrong to tinker with human embyros, and that we might end up with a generation of people dependent upon medicine to stay alive.

Oh dear Steve. Please get your facts right before you accuse me of lying. Are you saying that the comments I made about Bill Hamilton are lies? All of them were taken from a review/obituary in The Times – none of this was disputed. No-one sued. No one wrote in saying that it was all lies. Bill Hamilton's views were extreme and racist. The same review stated that he once declared that genocide was the result of overbreeding and that he would grieve more for the death of one giant panda than he would for a 'hundred unknown Chinese'. By the way- given your take on it does this mean that Hamilton was opposed to embryo experimentation?

Checking back again, I note that Lennox was pushing the argument that atheism was behind Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc..
This is standard fundamentalist boilerplate and the argument has arisen sley because the Discovery Institute funded a book on the subject a few years back.

Paranoid nonsense. Stalin's atheism and Pol Pot's (and to a lesser extent Hitler's) has been clear for decades. It has nothing to do with the Discovery Institute. It is simple fact.

Lennox has done damage to my opinion of Oxford.

Of course he has. Because unless people agree with your point of view they should not be in a prestigious academic institution. But don't worry RD is running his campaign to get theology out of Oxford and soon we can all head to the Brave New World where only the doctrinally orthodox can get places in academic institutions.

Lennox clearly either has not read "God Delusion" or he does not remember a thing about what he did read.

It is this kind of comment which is really disturbing. Lennox has read and studied TGD – he knows what he read and in his book 'God's Undertaker – Has Science Buried God?' – he deals brilliantly with many of the points in it. I have noticed that this often occurs – an atheist comes on and says the critic of TGD 'has not really understood' or has forgotten and misrepresented TGD. It would be very helpful if you could say where this has occurred – rather than just giving blanket statements.

Either way, the Scientific method is clearly superior to these because its results are not subjective. Emotions and revelations happen only to those "specially chosen" few. This is not so with empirical evidence--it is laid out for all to see, to examine, and to draw conclusions about.

But the people who use that method and interpret it are subjective – and so they will all too often see what they want to see.

What worries me about the debate is that some of the Christian pundits will frame this as Dr. Lennox striking down Darwin.

Only if they are really stupid. Dr Lennox did not attach Darwin or his theory.

just tuned out Lennox when he was preaching.

Yep – I can see why you traveled four states to hear your hero. But do you really need to be so explicit that you refused even to hear, never mind consider the opposite point of view. To my mind this is yet another example of the atheistic fundamentalist mindset – which some (not the word) atheists have, and which you go mad about if I ever dare suggest it exists.

Isn't it our adherence to secular humanistic values that clearly and consistently defines our moral standards?

No. Because what are those secular humanistic values? Who defines them? Are they absolute? It does not appear to me that they are clear and consistent at all.

Stalinism was an abolutist doctrine. It made no appeal to the supernatural (as far as I know), and thus it was not a religion per se. But Stalinism did claim to have all the answers, and thus it allowed for no dissent. It also relied on logical waterproofing in the form of social constructivism, and declaring anyone who questioned it to be mentally ill.

Atheism is an absolutist doctrine. It makes no appeal to the supernatural as far as I know and thus is not a religion per se. But Atheism does claim to have all the answers, and thus it allows for no dissent. It also relies on logical waterproofing in the form of materialistic naturalism, and declares anyone who questions it to be deluded.

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

229. Comment #77041 by island on October 8, 2007 at 9:24 am

Aiteer said:
If you have suggestions for how physicists, cosmologists especially, can help explain our origins to more people please do make suggestions.

lol... That would be wonderful, except that cosmological dogma is no more valid than any other kind.

How are investigations into the most apparent implication of the WMAP anomalies coming?

What a joke...

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy!!! We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
-Lawrence Krauss

Crazy, Lawrence???... or isn't this hard supporting observational evidence for a very strong anthropic constraint on the forces?

What the heck kind of crap is that?

Now, if I were to press anyone on this, they would say something like, "we have had **SOME** success at "explaining away" the evidence"...

But if I asked, "What success have you had with investigations into the most apparent implications of the evidence, then the reply would, "in-effect" be...

'What investigation?... Why should we give equal time to the most apparent implications of the evidence?'

That's pure, unadulterated, non-scientific, "anticentrist dogma", at its finest.

~

Speaking of dogma... Anybody seen the higgs?... I didn' think so...

Other Comments by island

230. Comment #77043 by BillySands on October 8, 2007 at 9:29 am

From Fleas article on the Tsunami again

He makes one big mistake – he assumes that the world as it is now is the world as God created it. But that is not the case. When you read Genesis One notice the repeated refrain, 'And God say that it was good'. God did not create the world to have natural disasters, cancer and death. Something came into the world which has upset the natural order of things and polluted the whole environment. That is why, as Paul tells us in Romans 8, the whole creation 'groans as in the pangs of childbirth'. We are faced with two choices – either the world is as it is because that is the way things are, or things are the way things are because sin came in and corrupted a good and perfect creation.

Care to explain this? I've been waiting a very long time to hear you explain this in light of the fact natural disasters happened long before mankind appeared and brought "sin" into creation. Bet you ignore this serious chalenge.

Where does the origin of species say to kill people?
Does the bible glory in killing people?
Did god say to kill people who do not share your beliefs?
Were the crusades and inquisitions not a result of christianity etc?
Does calling the pope the antichrist lead to hatred?

Atheism is an absolutist doctrine. It makes no appeal to the supernatural as far as I know and thus is not a religion per se. But Atheism does claim to have all the answers, and thus it allows for no dissent. It also relies on logical waterproofing in the form of materialistic naturalism, and declares anyone who questions it to be deluded.

News to us. Go on give us one tiny little bit of evidence, go on - pretty please.

Christianity has no answers because it is a belief system that is based in absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

When the Cristians first arrived in the Americas to kill and exploit the natives (oh no, more capitalism), why did they not find Christian natives? Surely you would expect this if christianity is not a meme. personally, I think Paul lied when he wrote Romans 10:18 "But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world"
Wonder how many Korean christians have christian families - its not as if they suddenly became christian with out inheriting it from another culture.

Other Comments by BillySands

231. Comment #77059 by captain underpants on October 8, 2007 at 10:26 am

228. Comment by Reverend WeeWee

It seems I misunderstood the article (http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm) and must therefore take my remark back. Nonetheless there is much in the article and much about you that is thoroughly objectionable.


And generally our religious leaders had nothing to say.
Religious leaders generally have nothing to say on any issue that matters.


Although I would also say that it is because of such events that I believe in God
That is downright bizarre.

It was only as I considered the question of suffering that I realised that secular materialism not only offered no adequate explanation but also little practical help.
Secular geology provides a very good explanation, and very many kind, compassionate secular humans donated generously.


... using Darwin's old argument ""There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the parasitic wasp with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that the cat should play with mice".
A common and cogent argument against the thesis of divine creation. The counter-argument put forward by you and other religionists is both ludicrous and repugnant.


Now we before we answer this let us consider its implications. If there is no God and no creator then what we are saying is that this is just the way things are. 'Mother Nature' is cruel and vicious.

Not cruel, simply indifferent.


There is no answer - only despair, death and destruction.
A large part of which has been wreaked in the name of a putative supernatural deity.


We are faced with two choices - either the world is as it is because that is the way things are, or things are the way things are because sin came in and corrupted a good and perfect creation.
Would you not agree that the latter implies a causal connection between homosexuality, premarital sex and natural disasters? You also write Of course there is a judgemental aspect


The Bible's worldview and answer is both far more coherent and far more practical than ...

The Bible is an incoherent collection of fairy stories that is riddled with internal contradictions.


The world has been corrupted by sin.
The same disgusting nonsense again.

In dying on the cross Christ bore our sins.
Evidence, please.

In being raised from the dead he is 'declared with power' to be the Son of God who takes away the sin of the world. Death and destruction are defeated by Christ. There will be renewal of the heavens and earth where humans can experience life without tears, pain and destruction. There will be an environment where there is 'no more sea' (aka Revelation 21). All the striving and groaning of the Creation will not be vain because the children of God will be revealed
To an outside observer, this would sound like a drug-induced fantasy.

Atheism is an absolutist doctrine

You evidently believe that a falsehood can become true if it is repeated often enough. Atheism is not a doctrine, or a belief system, or even a worldview. It is nothing more than the refusal to take something as given that is not supported by any evidence.

Other Comments by captain underpants

232. Comment #77074 by Robert Maynard on October 8, 2007 at 11:30 am

The Wee Flea,

Atheism does claim to have all the answers

I think the only reason you've gotten this impression is because you have a habit of frequently making incorrect claims here, and we correct you. Please note that these are not answers from an atheist doctrine we all have access to, they're answers from our own knowledge. Saying "atheism claims to have all the answers" ignorantly avoids mentioning where answers come from. If the answer atheists gave to questions came from "revelation", you'd have an argument. Instead what you're doing is akin to saying "Wikipedia is an absolutist doctrine - it claims to have the answers", without mentioning that its articles are built on independent references.

Stalin became an atheist through reading Darwin. Something which I believe the Believers here would applaud. Arguing that this atheism was THE cause of his brutality would be a step too far (although again quite logical if one followed the logic of this website)

The Believers? Is that you, Stan Lee? *sigh*
I applaud Josef Stalin for reading important scientific literature, especially a text as important as The Origin of Species, just as I applaud Jeff Skilling, the infamous CEO of Enron, for reading The Selfish Gene.
But both of these books have clear and unambiguous scientific arguments, intended for specific contexts, and if we're to draw a connection between their reading and their actions, it must be demonstrated that their actions are consistent with the books positions.

This is why we have ample reason to draw connections between religious misdeeds and their sacred texts, because these texts are full of explicit endorsements for these actions. Likewise, it's why we can dispute retaliatory accusations regarding the misappropriation of scientific arguments in misguided social philosophies, because they contain no such endorsements.

I assume "by the logic of this site" you're referring to the connection between beliefs and actions, which would mean that Stalin's beliefs lead to his actions. Except, as we've been over, repeatedly, atheism is specifically a non-belief. In reality, his behaviour and actions are most parsimoniously explained in the framework of totalitarianism.

It is at least clear that [Stalin's] atheist beliefs did nothing to stop his brutality. And he did set up an avowedly atheist society.

It's almost as though disbelief in deities is an uncomplicated position with carries no instructions on how to live and which doesn't automatically guarantee strong moral judgment - precisely contradicting your previous charge that atheism is a doctrine which claims to have all the answers.
So, what's your lesson here?

Totalitarian atheists are bad?

It's definitely sound. I don't disagree, at least. But this lesson feels a little rough, like it could do with a shave. Do you see any unnecessary terms here, Occam's Razor?

Occam's Razor: Totalitarians are bad. Like, all of them.

Thanks. And are all atheists totalitarians?

Occam's Razor: No.

Uh huh, and uh.. are most of the atheists here secular humanists who value democracy, and not murdering people we dislike?

Occam's Razor: Well I don't know about that, I'm not much of a conversationalist. I'm just a philosophical judgment criteria, you see..

Huh..

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

233. Comment #77082 by Stuart Paul Wood on October 8, 2007 at 11:56 am

Acleron,

The quote of me you used was actually me quoting blackhaw.

I would never say such a thing!

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

234. Comment #77096 by epeeist on October 8, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Comment #76981 by BaronOchs

Has anyone worked out precisely what force would be required to carve out the Grand Canyon in just one flood, and what quantity of water this would require? And also how 40 days of indiscriminate rainfall manage to produce so precise a result?

And where is this water supposed to have come from? And how long would it take to evaporate?

I pointed devolved at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html, lots of information there that might raise other queries.

Other Comments by epeeist

235. Comment #77153 by sent2null on October 8, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Indeed it was frustrating even listening to Dawkins attempts at trying to rebut the rather loquacious yet vacuous expositions of Lennox. The format was set up to have Lennox have the last word unless Dawkins objected which he did when he felt the need to respond.

I have a comment about one of Lennox's statements concerning the futility of finding a TOE as he indicated was put forward by Hawking in 2004. He is referring to an idea that comes from an understanding of the incompleteness theorems of Kurt Godel derived in the first half of the last century. Godel proved mathematically, that formal mathematical logical systems are not necessarily consistent, the contingency of consistency resting on the idea that questions can be posed within those systems which are un-answerable using the system itself. Hawking took this conception of the Godel theorems and attached it to the idea of a TOE which purports to describe all physical processes in our Universe. The simple idea being, that if mathematics, the ultimate basis upon which scientific physical theories are derived and proven has the potential to lack complete explanatory power about all possible "questions" that can be asked within the framework of the mathematics system employed, then it is pointless to believe in a TOE, since by necessity of Godel's proof..the "E" in TOE is impossible.

However, where Lennox and Hawking make an assumption, is in believing that the explanations or questions required to achieve TOE status necessarily explain *important things* beyond our experience, nor does it mean that the interesting "questions" that we ask in order to find a TOE are among the unanswerable ones. This is a huge assumption, the basis of which should not preclude an attempt to understand as much of the Universe that we see as our explanatory logical mathematical systems allow us to before encountering important questions that **maybe** unanswerable in the Godelian sense. Note, Godel didn't prove that the particular logical systems of explanation we build (such as the standard model or string theories) are inconsistent, only that all such systems contain unanswerable questions. There is no reason to conclude that the questions we find interesting will **ever** be among the unanswerable ones.

Another observation with regards to a statement made by Lennox revolves around the idea of what I call pre-revelation. Let us assume out right that anyone who seriously contends that the age of the Planet , or the approximate dates for the origins of Man are in dispute are based on pure ignorance of the vast amount of multi disciplinary research that supports the fact. That said, even if the Earth is only 25,000 years old (and note this is an assumption for which we have so much evidence it simply is not worth doubting further) we are confronted with the problem of Pre-revelation. We know from archaeological evidence, that modern Man had reached all the large land masses by this time. We also know from similar evidence that Man had been engaged in acts such as burial of the dead and cave painting long before this time. The problem though is, if a one supreme "God" exists and has existed, why did this God not reveal itself to Man prior to the 3-5,000 year span for which we have any archaeological, historical or cultural evidence for the idea of a Mono-theistic deity??? Why did the "eternal" God, supposedly in existence at the creation of the planet not reveal himself to Man as the "true" God until so late in the cultural history of humanity? I think this question poses a serious problem to those that believe that an "eternal" God exists, in attempting to answer it they must explain why "God" was apparently absent from the scene of human culture for the approximate 140,000 years prior to the 3-5k year period (lets stick with Homo-Sapiens alone and not even address the cultural ideas of Erectus which are known and evidence indicates goes back to a million years). What we do have data for though, is prior to this 5k year period evidence exists for cultures worshiping things (river, tree, land, sky) to the concepts of polytheim or many Gods, many of them consisting of pantheons of minor and major Gods not surprisingly associated with the previously worshiped "things". Culminating finally, in the concept of "one true God" which was brand new and arose in the Levantine region no sooner than 5,000 years ago and itself not unique at the time as Zoroastrianism shares a similar founding concept. Now, believers in such a God must answer the question of what happens to the pre-revealed "souls" of all the generations of Man that lived, died, hunted, cried, fought and killed up to the emergence of the idea of the "one God" only 5k years ago? What punishment can an absent God rightfully place on individuals who had no idea that they should have been recognizing his existence, since all historical data indicates they had no idea of his very concept as he had not revealed himself to them since all we have evidence for up to that time is multi God systems??

So, the conundrum is not so much as to ask the question was God on vacation but rather to show that the real conclusions that God concepts themselves *evolved* with the development of the culture of Man from necessary and expedient forms in materialism, animism and polytheism tied to the early hunter gatherer bands that comprised early human societies as amply evidenced by the scientific data, to more "simple" (from a categorical view) systems involving major and minor Gods, to the most recent view of a single "one God" concept which originated in the Levant, in a place and at a time when the confluence of cultures, religions and limited resources came together to inspire new ideas in the peoples that derived from the continuing flow of culture and ideas that passed through the region since the migrations of early Man from the African continent. The search for "simplicity" then, in explanation of the human concept of Gods explains why the "one God" appeared to be on vacation while at the same time providing a conundrum for the religious that do believe in the concept of a "one God" in the form of the pre-revelation problem. The simplest answer from the evidence is that the idea of "one God" is so new to the world simply because at the time it was "discovered" in the levant, it was the only God system that had not been tried(my apologies to the Zoroastrians who blazed the trail), so in a very real sense the idea that "God always was" itself evolved as religious thought evolved through human history within increased interaction of previous religious systems, "God" in a very real sense does have a simple beginning but it is not in the sky, it is here on Earth and is traced out in the paths of our ancestors as they created systems to explain away their success over the elements and their fellow brethren while competing for survival in environments of limited resource.

I find a happy satisfaction in the irony of the apparent fact, that Man created God(s) first, and then Man coupled with cultures tied to these God(s), created God as the many Gods mutual existence forced Man to seek newer previously untried "God" based belief system. Apparently "God" did evolve. ;)

Related Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godels_incompleteness_theorem (can be dense if you aren't mathematically inclined but does a good job providing summarizing examples)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism (ok, but reference the sources..does a good job introducing the idea of the evolution of monotheism from monist concepts like Zoroastrianisms to the fully monotheistic ideas of the Hebrew Bible which not surprisingly mirrored this evolution within the scriptures itself)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

[As usual with references to Wikipedia, reference the sources to ensure their contents or consistent with the writings in the main text.]

Regards,

sent2null

Other Comments by sent2null

236. Comment #77163 by Goldy on October 8, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Let me return the favour:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/nature.asp

thanks Dev. So what does it mean? Big rocks at the bottom, little rocks at the top? Fine. Now, we are talking about compressed rock, mind. 6 thousand years do that? I'm not so sure... Mt Toba debris can be found and it, so I am told, is a tad crumbly even after, well, let me check...71,500 ± 4000 years ago. Hmmm, OK, probably didn't happen according to AiG ;-) Anyway, we have a volcano that erupted at about 65000 years before the Earth was formed, was covered in water and....some of the sediment is still crumbly (at least, it looked it on the doco I watched. Must've been athiest propaganda).
How fast do mountains shoot up? I mean, by the Earth pushing them up? You have seen the twisted formations there, haven't you? Formations that look like flat ones that have been deformed into wavy shapes? How'd they happen after a flood setting down the sediment in nice flat layers?
AiG articles are an amusing read - I have a few books like that :-) In the esoteric shelves at home.

Other Comments by Goldy

237. Comment #77175 by island on October 8, 2007 at 4:34 pm

sent2null,
However, where Lennox and Hawking make an assumption, is in believing that the explanations or questions required to achieve TOE status necessarily explain *important things* beyond our experience, nor does it mean that the interesting "questions" that we ask in order to find a TOE are among the unanswerable ones. This is a huge assumption, the basis of which should not preclude an attempt to understand as much of the Universe that we see as our explanatory logical mathematical systems allow us to before encountering important questions that **maybe** unanswerable in the Godelian sense. Note, Godel didn't prove that the particular logical systems of explanation we build (such as the standard model or string theories) are inconsistent, only that all such systems contain unanswerable questions. There is no reason to conclude that the questions we find interesting will **ever** be among the unanswerable ones.

I very much like your train of thought here. Hawking and others who make such strong statements typically get their ideas from extensions of their personal pet theories about the true nature of the universe, but these theories don't pan-out so well against the measured reality on many critical fronts, so their typically confident front is not even close to being justified.

String theory has been unsuccessful for as many years as Einstein is alleged to have wasted trying to unify the forces, except he didn't have the same army of theorists working for him as Lenny Susskind and others do.

How we got from the point of "knowing" that the universe was going to be comprehensible, to the ludicrous state that the field is in today, is incomprehensible.

It's time to give Dr. E. a helping hand, and get back to reality, which isn't nearly as complicated as it's made out to be by the absurdities that fall from crackpot extensions of the inherently flawed theories of the "cutting-edge".

Other Comments by island

238. Comment #77185 by Styrer- on October 8, 2007 at 5:30 pm

While Poe's law was not in my mind when I assumed the identity of a tentative convert to the House of War requesting an answer to non-killing, I have been supplied with several responses which confirm my worst fears.

No-one here has a decent rebuttal to the proposition that we should all, if Sam Harris is correct about the imminent and growing threat of Islam, be put to death. My own fake offering is exposed for its insincerity by its questioning: the real thing would not question: it would simply do, with absolute conviction.

My fake Allah convert received abuse (I rather liked the bloke who said his wife was an equal shot to him) but I found nothing in this rather parochial forum to make me hopeful that this 'herding of cats' will achieve a damn thing.

Still hoping for that clear-thinking oasis.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

239. Comment #77189 by Acoldcube on October 8, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Interesting though, how the commentators from Fixed Point Foundation finally made some sense, actually a lot of sense in one of their concluding remarks, when they said "Amen" (1:54:47) to RD's belief that the one gift we should give our children should be a sense of skepticism (1:07:38): "I don't think anyone should accept a truth claim simply because they have been told it, no matter who it was that told them the truth claim. I think that we must first start with an honest open mind, skepticism and then seek and search for truth." Nicely put, I'd say.

Other Comments by Acoldcube

240. Comment #77195 by Styrer- on October 8, 2007 at 6:06 pm

As for Dr. John Lennox, as a graduate of Oxford, I fear for its future academic reputation when it employs academics spouting credulous, specious nonsense such as this shoddy excuse of a scientist.
They employ him as a mathematician. Or perhaps more correctly Green College employ him as a mathematician. I wasn't aware of him as a mathematician until this debate came up but checking the usual places he seems to have a very good publication record in group theory. It's not my area so I can't judge the detail but he publishes in the right kinds of places and with people I know so I would assume he perfectly capable of doing the job he is employed for. I don't see any reason to regard him as a `shoddy excuse of a scientist'.

Michael


He may be, Michael, as you say, very good at maths. He may have a mind which takes him beyond normal levels of cognition. I submit to you, however, that the scientific outlook relies above all on a refusal to accept a supernatural answer in place of one based on nature, on the here, on the now. Richard Dawkins himself has been a little equivocal about this - he has stated both that scientists are not impugned by their supernatural belief; and that they are poorer scientists because of their belief. Dawkins' notion of a decompartmentalisation of the mind may impress: but it does not help.

The scientific world view is encouraged, I think, by an obsession with fact and evidence. That Lennox has submitted so much of his life to a non-scientific explication of the world confirms to me his lack of scientific credibility. Such leads me, without equivocation, to the idea of a shoddy, a poor and a short-sighted 'scientist.'

Other Comments by Styrer-

241. Comment #77203 by Robert Maynard on October 8, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Styrer-,

No-one here has a decent rebuttal to the proposition that we should all ... be put to death. My own fake offering is exposed for its insincerity by its questioning: the real thing would not question: it would simply do, with absolute conviction.

So the question is, if you're admitting that 'the real thing' would simply do, and is not amenable to reasoning, why then is it a 'failure' on our behalf to come up with a rebuttal? Are you suggesting there is in principle some rebuttal which is so amazing that it would stop any fanatic in his tracks?
The rebuttal is "You really shouldn't kill people," and a chat establishing that. The problem with your challenge is that you admitted at the end that there is no conversation to be had, there is only action.
How then were you expecting us to respond, using words, to an anonymous threat on a website from someone that seemed harmless as a potential terrorist precisely because he couldn't keep his mouth shut?
We had no rebuttal, to a challenge which would not have been expressed in the first place. Outstanding work, sir - I can tell you, we're all pretty red-faced. That's like pitting us against a killer robot, and scolding us for not having any guns, while musing on the fact that killer robots are bulletproof.
Spare us the drill sergeant routine.

Gunnery Sgt. Styrer-"That was pathetic, you cocksucking maggots. If that had been a real Muslim, he would have reached through all of your screens and skullfucked you, where you sat, on your ass, drinking cola - because Muslims can do that now, apparently."

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

242. Comment #77206 by Styrer- on October 8, 2007 at 7:10 pm

Comment #76150 by macros_man on

Why, my friend, will you not step up to the mark yourself here?

You seem eminently qualified to make contributions of some value.

What will not do, I submit, is a whiney, whingy gobshite complaint that you are not prepared to stand over, but which you are happy to throw over to DH. You appear to have no problem complaining for 7 paragraphs before signing off: 'I'm not complaining or anything'. May I call you a fuckwit or is it beyond the terms of use?

Other Comments by Styrer-

243. Comment #77233 by Styrer- on October 8, 2007 at 8:07 pm

Robert Maynard

Thanks for your reply.

No red faces intended, may I make clear now.

First, I do not recall citing the word 'failure' either openly or in the 'scare quotes' you seem to wish to attribute to my comments.

This forum takes pride, it seems to me, in mutual admiration over its conclusions about Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett. When faced with a real threat (and may I remind you that my fake Allah convertee was rather lukewarm) no-one here was able to point things in a positive direction. That may be, as you say, entirely predictable and unavoidable.

I had hoped that in such an illustrious forum I might receive telling comments to properly denounce and convince my fake Allah- convertee.

This was not to be.

Though an apparent waste of time to you, I have at least enjoyed a moment of re-confirmation that our pleasant encounters here are nothing but a continuous masturbatory endeavour to spout our opinions without any obvious recourse to a change in direction outside in the big bad world.

While you would seem to enjoy, Mr. Maynard, putting a pretentious ingenu like me in his place, I wonder if you could spare a thought to my real intention here?

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

244. Comment #77242 by Goldy on October 8, 2007 at 8:26 pm

When faced with a real threat (and may I remind you that my fake Allah convertee was rather lukewarm) no-one here was able to point things in a positive direction.

Had a read - didn't seem to real. Anyway, what can any muslim convert to here? Harangue us to death? Insult us to oblivion? Plenty Christ following fundies trying their best on both of those scores... :-D

Other Comments by Goldy

245. Comment #77245 by Robert Maynard on October 8, 2007 at 8:38 pm

Styrer-

our pleasant encounters here are nothing but a continuous masturbatory endeavour to spout our opinions without any obvious recourse to a change in direction outside in the big bad world.

But this is what it comes down to ..this a comments section of a news feed.
Would you not concede that the ramblings of a crazy Muslim in the comments section of an article on an atheist website would be precisely as effective, and equally 'masturbatory', with regards to real world intentions and actions? Isn't it all simply talk? Could we not criticise your character of the same posturing?
I still can't grasp why you'd expect to find anything but diffident bemusement in a comments section, when anonymous threats are made against vague, d