Monday, July 7, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

[UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

by Richard Dawkins

In 2006, I was one of tens of thousands of academic scientists all around the world who received, unsolicited and completely free, a huge and lavishly illustrated book called Atlas of Creation by the Turkish Muslim apologist Harun Yahya. The thesis of the book, which was published in eleven languages, is that evolution is false. The main 'evidence' consists of page after page of beautiful photographs of fossil animals, each one accompanied by a modern counterpart that is said to have changed not at all since the time of the fossil. It is a large-format book, a thick coffee-table book with more than 700 high-gloss colour pages. The cost of production of such a book must have been extremely high, and one is bound to wonder where the money came from to produce it and then distribute it gratis in so many copies and so many languages.

sea snake

Given that the entire message of the book depends upon the alleged resemblance between modern animals and their fossil counterparts, I was amused, when I began flicking through at random, to find page 468 devoted to "eels", one fossil and one modern. The caption says,

There are more than 400 species of eels in the order Anguilliformes. That they have not undergone any change in millions of years once again reveals the invalidity of the theory of evolution.

The fossil eel shown may well be an eel, I cannot tell. But the modern "eel" that Yahya pictures (see left) is undoubtedly not an eel but a sea snake, probably of the highly venomous genus Laticauda (an eel is, of course, not a snake at all but a teleost fish). I have not scanned the book for other inaccuracies of this kind. But given that this was almost the first page I looked at . . . what price the main thesis of the book that modern animals are unchanged since the time of their fossil counterparts?

Incidentally, in May 2008 Harun Yahya, whose real name is Adnan Oktar, was sentenced in a Turkish court to a three-year prison sentence "for creating an illegal organization for personal gain."

Postscript added 8th July

I have now looked at some more pages of this preposterous book. The double page spreads on page 54-55, 368-369, and 414-415 are all labelled 'Crinoid', and all purport to show how similar ancient fossil crinoids are to modern ones. Crinoids are stalked relatives of starfish, members of the phylum Echinodermata. The three spreads have almost identical captions. Here's the one on page 54:

The 345-million-year-old crinoid fossil, identical to its living counterparts, invalidates the theory of evolution. Crinoids that have remained unchanged for 345 million years refute the theory of evolution, manifesting the creation of God as a fact.

And all three spreads show a beautiful colour photograph of modern crinoids to illustrate the point. Except that, in all three cases, the modern animal pictured is not a crinoid. It isn't even an echinoderm. It isn't even a deuterostome (the sub-kingdom to which the echinoderms, and we, belong). Zoologist readers will recognize it as a tube-dwelling annelid worm, a sabellid.

On page 402, there are four fossil pictures, correctly labelled Britttlestar. The brittlestars are one of the major classes of echinoderms, others being starfish, sea urchins and crinoids. Once again, we have the standard-issue creationist caption:

This 180-million—year-old fossil reveals that brittlestars have been the same for 200 million years. These animals, no different to those living today, once again reveal the invalidity of evolution.

Here we have not one but two photographs of living animals to illustrate the lack of change since the fossils. One of these modern animals is indeed a brittlestar. The other is a starfish! Member of a completely different class of echinoderms and obviously very different to even the meanest glance.

Finally, PZ has already called attention to this on Pharyngula, but I include a picture for completeness. On page 244, Yahya wishes to say that caddis flies have not changed since some 25-million-year-old insects preserved in amber. Once again, the caption:

These living things have survived for millions of years without the slightest change in their structures. The fact that these insects never changed is a sign that they never evolved.

By now, we have come to expect something pretty good when we look at the photograph of the modern animal. What will the modern 'caddis fly' be? A minnow, perhaps? A garden slug? A king prawn? No, in a way is better than any of these: A fishing lure, complete with prominent steel hook!

I am at a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the "breathtaking inanity" of the content . Is it really inanity, or is it just plain laziness — or perhaps cynical awareness of the ignorance and stupidity of the target audience — mostly Muslim creationists. And where does the money come from?

Written especially for RichardDawkins.net

Also see:
'Forbidden Music' post on Yahya
Fishing lure photos taken from Graham Owen Fly Tying

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, July 7, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1251 - 1300 of 2828 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1251. Comment #209386 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 5:02 am

To paraphrase Jesus, the market exists for the people, not the other way around.

It is perverted to suggest that people should conform to the harsh and absolute logic of the market and they have only themselves to blame if they don't measure up to the dollar God's expectations.

The freest economy with the fastest growth means nothing if it doesn't serve the people.

Paraphrasing Jesus is probably not the most popular thing to do here. But I would rather hang out with Christians who have a social conscience than the market fundamentalist zombies.

Steve

I am not in the slightest bit serious. I think it would be a terrible thing to do with our beautiful solar system.

I know you weren't, you are too decency to really suggest something so horrendous. I was just taking it up as a talking point.

Other Comments by Bonzai

1252. Comment #209392 by Vinelectric on July 12, 2008 at 5:34 am

Fanusi,mordacious, Goldy, Bonzai and epeeist.

On the Capitalism vs Socialism discussion.

The way I see it, what makes life in first world countries so attractive (especially to immigrants from the Middle East) is because they have the wealth to fund social security establishments. Ask any random British person how the NHS has transformed the lives of the working class in the last 60 years. The system is costly and far from perfect but is still financially sustainable and any party that threatens to abandon it knows that it would be committing political suicide.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

1253. Comment #209400 by AllanW on July 12, 2008 at 5:56 am

Interesting development of this thread into a discussion about capitalism. Also interesting that many responses broaden the debate into consideration of social and political issues and away from the strict economic points. I'm siding with the broader analysis/capitalism-isn't-the-only-answer side. And here are a few of the reasons why.

Economics as a discipline has proven over the last thirty years (some would say longer) to be theoretically and practically unable to model, predict and proscribe for mass social behaviour. Keynesian economic theories gave way to Friedman's monetarist ideas and they in turn are now being deserted. The results? Boom and bust economic management was replaced by serial market failures; the latest of which is more widespread and damaging than anything for seventy years. The reason? Economic theories are so far removed from reality by their assumptions and simplifying structures as to make them useless for predictive purposes.

It is therefore unfortunate that political leaders have placed so much emphasis at such a high level on economic thinking as a panacea for society. Economic theory and its various fashionable gurus have proven time and time again that they lack the intellectual and factual rigour to be considered anything more than interesting theology. The reason? They fail to make the fundamental connection that all markets are constructed and operate within, all economic decisions are taken and influenced by, all participants live and occupy positions within social and political structures.

I repeat, all markets are social and political constructs relying for their creation and sustenance on societies decisions. Corporations have their existence granted to them within not superior to the societies in which they exist. Economic participants do not exercise economic decisions from within an abstract, fully informed and carefully delineated model but within a complex, irrational, uninformed social landscape. All economic models assume these realities away and therefore suffer from inapplicability, an inability to be predictive in useful ways.

Discussions on this thread reveal most peoples' misconception of these facts; the 'choice' argument from free-market/capitalist supporters, as an example. The argument goes 'but capitalism is great because it gives everyone the same opportunity to progress and achieve'. As epeeist started to point out, in many ways this makes the assumption that everyone starts from the same position (competitively) and it is only motivation and energy that differentiates people and their economic outcomes. This is plainly inaccurate. Only one example of where this theory departs from reality would be to point out, as a famous economist said once, some people start at third base in the baseball-game of life (inherited wealth, innate personal abilities, accidents of geography, education etc). And that's without moving on to arguments that people do not have perfect market information, do not have access to the full range of the economic tools for competition.

My personal illustration is strikingly similar to epeeists; my grandparents came from the four corners of the British Isles and Ireland. None stayed in school past the age of fourteen. They all worked throughout their lives in manual industries at the bottom of the social scale. None of my extended family of the subsequent generation before me even went to University. I have no doubt whatsoever that the two social conditions that enabled me to achieve more of my potential as a human being than my forebears were the establishment of the National Health Service and reforms to education. Neither of which were created as the result of strictly economic decisions and both of which (see the thread where this was debated between Star Spangled Eagle and myself) are possible within a dominant capitalist economy. Without these conditions I have no doubt that my life would resemble my grandparents' to a remarkable degree.

So the 'wider society' side of this debate is where I stand while giving full credit to what capitalism has and can achieve. No economic structure that man has envisaged has delivered economic returns to compare to it yet it needs to be seen not as an end in itself but as one tool to be managed WITHIN a social and political landscape aimed at the greater good for the most people, in my opinion, as that is the real goal to enable us all as a race to progress.

Sorry for banging on at length; please feel free to disagree now :)

Other Comments by AllanW

1254. Comment #209410 by epeeist on July 12, 2008 at 6:26 am

Comment #209400 by AllanW

So the 'wider society' side of this debate is where I stand while giving full credit to what capitalism has and can achieve. No economic structure that man has envisaged has delivered economic returns to compare to it yet it needs to be seen not as an end in itself but as one tool to be managed WITHIN a social and political landscape aimed at the greater good for the most people, in my opinion, as that is the real goal to enable us all as a race to progress.

It seems you, I and Bonzai have reasonably similar views, pithily précised by Bonzai as the market being the servant of the people, not the other way around.

To be fair to Al-Rawandi I don't think he has an extreme a view as a number of Americans, he refers to the libertarians as "financial authoritarians". I disagree with what I see as largely black and white thinking in the way he expresses some things.

The problem with economics seems to be the scientism that it prides itself on without it taking on board the rest of the methodology of science, i.e. the testing and falsification. You might classify it as a research programme, but certainly no more than that.

Other Comments by epeeist

1255. Comment #209417 by Jiten on July 12, 2008 at 6:39 am

epeeist wrote:

It seems you, I and Bonzai have reasonably similar views

I think you can add Goldy, Laurie, mordacious and me too.

Other Comments by Jiten

1256. Comment #209427 by decius on July 12, 2008 at 7:29 am

Comment #209426 by Joe Morreale

I swear by God this time that this is definately my last comment.

A false statement sworn on a false deity by a true charlatan.

Other Comments by decius

1257. Comment #209428 by DamnDirtyApe on July 12, 2008 at 7:33 am

Sorry Joe, we're far more interested in economics now. :)

Agree absolutely AllanW. The decisions to fund education, welfare and health of the public in my mind is the modern equivelent of the Romans building public bathhouses and ampitheatres. It's great. Raising quality of life of its citizens is in my humble opinion the key indicator of a successful state.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

1258. Comment #209429 by Tezcatlipoca on July 12, 2008 at 7:37 am

Obviously doesn't read replies otherwise would have learned how to make pastes into CAPS...

I was around some fundies at my work. It was amazing how a seemingly normal person would transform when spreading the "word" and shift from a conversational voice into SPREADING THE WORD OF THE LORD! YEAH! BROTHERS AND SISTERS I SAY UNTO YOU LISTEN TO ME BECAUSE VOLUME MAKES MY DRIVEL RIGHT!

So, ma'am, do you want your usual grilled swiss and chips (crisps)? Or do you really want to work up an appetite first?

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

1259. Comment #209431 by epeeist on July 12, 2008 at 7:40 am

Yes, blown completely out of the water. No alternative theory for evolution, no proof for the existence of god or whether a medieval camel herder had anything more than an epileptic fit. In any case unable to defend said camel herder against paedophilia. Unable to show that the Muslims of the middle ages did anything more than transmit knowledge that they acquired from Latin and Greek sources. Unable to defend against the fact that Muslim countries are in the main theocracies or dictatorships with poor health, wealth and education. Unable to argue against the fact that secular nations have much better civil rights and better economic prospects. Unable to defend the person whose bitch he is from the fact that he is a rapist and blackmailer.

Worst of all, singularly unable to switch his caps lock button off.

I would say you are completely done here.

UK 07877826329

Hmm. should I post your phone number on a BNP or evangelical Christian list? You might get some phone calls you don't expect.

Shall we add the crass stupidity of posting your phone number on a public Internet forum.

Other Comments by epeeist

1260. Comment #209432 by epeeist on July 12, 2008 at 7:43 am

Comment #209429 by Tezcatlipoca

Obviously doesn't read replies otherwise would have learned how to make pastes into CAPS...

Shall we add to the list of his inanities the fact that he doesn't know who Tezcatlipoca is or the fate that he might be risking?

Other Comments by epeeist

1261. Comment #209433 by AllanW on July 12, 2008 at 7:52 am

DamnDirtyApe;

'Raising quality of life of its citizens is in my humble opinion the key indicator of a successful state.' Agree but the devil is in the detail as always. The corollary is 'Decisions and the results of decisions that diminish the quality of life of citizens need to be reversed, learned from and not made again.' I would, just as an example, use this as a rule of thumb to assess the activities of corporations. They have their charters, terms of existence, rights and opportunities granted to them by society; should their activities cause widespread harm all of their conditions of existence should be reviewed.

Epeeist;

'The problem with economics seems to be the scientism that it prides itself on without it taking on board the rest of the methodology of science, i.e. the testing and falsification.' That was exactly my point; there are some encouraging tendencies lately for economists to adopt the scientific method in order to fulfil these objectives but the striking thing about them is that they are entirely micro-economic in nature so far. They can provide useful models for limited circumstances but no one so far has got close to this standard of rigour for generally or widely applicable models; I think that's telling about the pseudo-scientific nature of economics.

Other Comments by AllanW

1262. Comment #209435 by Tezcatlipoca on July 12, 2008 at 8:16 am

I should have manifested as Xipetotec. Dancing around in his flayed skin would be an odious and yet somewhat satisfying task.

edit-of course Quetz, as stated in the past, has dibs on the heart.

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

1263. Comment #209451 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 10:01 am

Joe

UK 07877826329

That way i can perhaps arrange to send my little nephew over with that bag of marbles i was talking about!

It seems that you have lost quite a few marbles. maybe you'll find them in the bag.

epeeist

Hmm. should I post your [Joe's]phone number on a BNP or evangelical Christian list? You might get some phone calls you don't expect.

Nah, maybe some lurker reading this would scrawl it on the bath room wall along with an invitation.. :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

1264. Comment #209462 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 12, 2008 at 10:41 am

I lived in London, mate, when Irish nationalists were dropping the odd bomb around

Oh cry me a river. The IRA killed, what, a hundred, two hundred people during its mainland campaign? (I'm using Wikipedia as my source). I've lived in places where that's the death toll of a brisk weekend.

You mention your mother being bombed by the Americans. I'll remind you that my Father is german, and I have heard far worse from the time of the Reich's fall (for which I hold no grudge, mind you).

This is all irrelevant. You tried to draw some sort of parallel between the hideous state of continuous warfare in tribal societies and life in capitalist societies. You ask me 'not to insult you'. Well, I didn't. You insulted yourself, your own intelligence and reasoning by that cretinous comparison.

epeeist the Scandanavian countries are in hock up to their eyeballs, and, as with the rest of Europe, are about to run out of cash. This is like saying the guy down the road with a morgage on his house and nothing but red in the bank, who drives a flashy car and throws big parties is successfull.

In any case, where's the contribution of these countries? Where did things like software, MRI scanners, silicon chips etc. come from? Uh-huh. They're just hitching a ride.

Just to clear something up- I do have a "fucking clue" what I'm talking about. I do applaud your most eloquent but rather accusing presumptions of what I have and have not read.

*gloomily* Get used to it, twp. This sort of thing passes for dialogue amongst the commies.

As regards these comments about colonialism, my point, which, as usual, hasn't been addressed, is as follows: the GDP of the entire world increased by orders of magnitude during the Industrial Revolution. Get it? That wealth was made, not stolen. Or do you think differently? Tell me, where was the internal combustion engine stolen from? The spinning jenny? The mechanical loom? The steam engine? The generator? The electric light bulb? The clock?

I'll close on a simple observation: when I denounce communism everyone scrambles to justify it by reference to some fantasy world that has never existed and never will. When I praise capitalism, people try to denounce it by its failing, real or not (usually not), in fact and reality.

This. is. piffle.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

1265. Comment #209465 by decius on July 12, 2008 at 10:50 am

A lot of poor argumentation on both sides.

Who's got the most bombs thrown at won't be made an authority in Comparative Economic Systems, by any stretch of imagination.

Other Comments by decius

1266. Comment #209469 by phil rimmer on July 12, 2008 at 11:07 am

Fanusi.

where's the contribution of these countries? Where did things like software, MRI scanners, silicon chips etc. come from? Uh-huh. They're just hitching a ride.

Ignorant bollocks!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_tec_ach-economy-technological-achievement

Other Comments by phil rimmer

1267. Comment #209472 by epeeist on July 12, 2008 at 11:30 am

Comment #209462 by Fanusi Khiyal

In any case, where's the contribution of these countries? Where did things like software, MRI scanners, silicon chips etc. come from? Uh-huh. They're just hitching a ride.

You are joking about software I presume.

The operating system that probably runs on your mobile phone is more than likely to be Symbian or Linux. The first was developed in the UK and is now owned by Nokia. The second was developed by a Finn, runs on everything from the smallest embedded systems up to over 90% of the world's most powerful computers (and is the major reason why Microsoft can no longer make any money on operating systems).

Semi-conductors were the product of a whole stack of people (http://www.semi1source.com/shof). You might want to look at a typical company and see where it does its research and manufacturing - http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_502,00.html

This sort of thing passes for dialogue amongst the commies.

I'll close on a simple observation: when I denounce communism everyone scrambles to justify it by reference to some fantasy world that has never existed and never will. When I praise capitalism, people try to denounce it by its failing, real or not (usually not), in fact and reality.

So which "commies" are these? All of the posters who have argued against you seem to be for a mixed economy. None of them seem to have argued that a Marxist system should or could be implemented.

EDIT: To add some information on debt by country in the same sort of vein as Phil Rimmer

http://indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=100&v=94

Other Comments by epeeist

1268. Comment #209473 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 12, 2008 at 11:41 am

epeeist thank you for being one of the few who at least tries to provide me with some solid facts. Before I address them, let me comment on the following:

So which "commies" are these?

Jiten, for a start.

Now, on to your comments. Okay, I'll grant you mobile telephones. But where was the phone invented? Well, at AT&T labs.

That list of semiconductor inventors is excellent - but it all dates from the nineteen-thirties or earlier, when the world was far more capitalist than it is now. The other link goes to a company website. So, you are citing a company website as a way of arguing against capitalism?

All of this is concedes my basic point: even partially-capitalist, or semi-capitalist societies are light years ahead of the non-capitalist ones.

phil rimmer what standards were used to measure that graph? Because when I hop over to the Nobel Prize website, I see a stream of Americans.

Note, once again, that in an attempt to argue against capitalism you cannot cite the achievements of non-capitalist societies, because these are non-existant. The defence rests.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

1269. Comment #209474 by phil rimmer on July 12, 2008 at 11:43 am

epeeist

Thanks, saved me the trouble on the debt issue.

Fanusi,

I have come to depend on you and Al for real FACTS about Islam and middle eastern politics. Don't make me doubt your rigor in these matters.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

1270. Comment #209475 by mordacious1 on July 12, 2008 at 11:50 am

Gee, I've spent 20 years in the military, ASA, CI, DIA, then NSA and CIA. I've been called a lot of things in my life, but never a commie. I don't think any of those agencies would have hired me if I was.

As far as moving to N. Korea or Cuba, I think I've paid my dues to live where I do. Have you Fanusi? By the way, I don't live in a capitalist nation, I live in a mixed capitalist/socialist nation. It is called the USA.

[edit] Now that I think of it I have been called a commie before, and a Nazi...some people just have to fling labels around, like the Republicans calling anyone who disagrees with them a
L I B E R A L, oh horrors, anything but that.

Other Comments by mordacious1

1271. Comment #209478 by phil rimmer on July 12, 2008 at 11:55 am

Fanusi

A 10 to 1 population ratio makes something as singular as a Nobel prize award a poor measure of your argument.

FYI

"The Nordic Mobile Telephone (NMT) system went online in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden in 1981.[56] NMT was the first mobile phone system that enabled international use of the phone, or "roaming" on other networks in other countries. This was followed by a boom in mobile phone usage, particularly in Northern Europe.[citation needed]

In 1983, Motorola DynaTAC was the first approved mobile phone by FCC in the United States."

"Initially (circa 1996-1997) the technology later known as Bluetooth was an Ericsson-internal project named multi-communicator link or short MC link. Cooperation with Intel was initiated in 1997"

Is your argument about science or technology?

Note, once again, that in an attempt to argue against capitalism you cannot cite the achievements of non-capitalist societies, because these are non-existant. The defence rests.

As an unapologetic capitalist, I'm not arguing against capitalism. Its just not the only game in town for every single societal requirement.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

1272. Comment #209479 by AllanW on July 12, 2008 at 11:56 am

Good grief, Fanusi, buy a pause. I don't see many people here arguing that capitalism is crap at creating goods and financial returns. I for one am happy to admit (as I did earlier) that it is effective at addressing some economic resourse-allocation issues effetively and does so in part because it is the most effective system man has so far designed at tapping into some of the most basic human urges. It's not going away any time soon.

But you seem to conduct your part in this debate in the same intransigent, monopole manner as other debates. I have great respect for your views, insights and attitude with regards to Islam but here you just seem to see monsters where few or none exist and glory where there is only tarnished reality.

Other Comments by AllanW

1273. Comment #209483 by epeeist on July 12, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Comment #209473 by Fanusi Khiyal

Jiten, for a start.

So that would be a commie then? Even though he seems to agree with my position - http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2833,UPDATED-Venomous-Snakes-Slippery-Eels-and-Harun-Yahya,Richard-Dawkins,page26#209417 and, while I was a member of a Trotskyist party in my youth I would definitely count myself as a social democrat.

I don't think anyone is condemning capitalism out of hand, except possibly the laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century.

What I think is being argued for is the best use of social capital and for that you need a healthy and well educated populace.

Other Comments by epeeist

1274. Comment #209485 by Sciros on July 12, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Fanusi, so far the social system with the best track record all around is a socialist democracy coupled with rather *impure* capitalism.

(We break up monopolies, we have some services offered by the government rather than private corporations, etc.)

The US, Canada, Japan, etc. are countries that implement that system with modifications here and there.

Other Comments by Sciros

1275. Comment #209522 by 8teist on July 12, 2008 at 2:04 pm

GO JOE, KEEP THE DELUSION ALIVE.

Other Comments by 8teist

1276. Comment #209529 by alovrin on July 12, 2008 at 2:25 pm

REPULSIVE ATHEISTS

OOO I think that will be my new nom-de-plume.

Now I must excuse myself I have a phone call to make.
I'll be ringing collect Joe, I just have to find the most expensive place to call from..

Now let me think.....mmmm

Other Comments by alovrin

1277. Comment #209532 by 8teist on July 12, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Surely thats not his real Ph number is it ?

Joe how much too call collect from NZ?

Other Comments by 8teist

1278. Comment #209534 by phil rimmer on July 12, 2008 at 2:31 pm

GO JOE, KEEP THE DELUSION ALIVE.

Not altogether kind to say about someone so clearly badly damaged.

8teist, would you not consider Joe capable of some form of repair, at least?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

1279. Comment #209537 by 8teist on July 12, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Phil, I think think he is a goner,no hope no how.

Other Comments by 8teist

1280. Comment #209538 by AllanW on July 12, 2008 at 2:42 pm

phil rimmer
'would you not consider Joe capable of some form of repair, at least? '

I know the question was not directed at me but I'll venture a reply. Yes he is, in my opinion. A person so plainly willing himself to shut-out the reality around him is placing his mind under terrible and continual stress; either he will collapse under the strain or a self-preservation instinct will cut-in at some point and small parts of his brain will begin to construct a route out of his current mania.

I'd hope for his sake that this latter option happens so he has some chance of becoming a functioning member of society. At the very least under the first option I hope he injures no-one else before his collapse into complete dysfunction.

Other Comments by AllanW

1281. Comment #209541 by phil rimmer on July 12, 2008 at 2:54 pm

8teist, Allan,

I am truly shamed by your thoughtful and concerned posts.

My post was merely a callous feed for 8teist to reply-

No he's fucked.

*gets cloak*

Other Comments by phil rimmer

1282. Comment #209542 by mordacious1 on July 12, 2008 at 2:54 pm

A good show of progress would be if he knocked it off with the CAPS.

Other Comments by mordacious1

1283. Comment #209544 by 8teist on July 12, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Apologies Phil, I am just out of bed and not up to speed.

Edit; NO ... HE`S FUCKED

Other Comments by 8teist

1284. Comment #209548 by AllanW on July 12, 2008 at 3:08 pm

That's a kind thought, phil, but I fear you mistake 'concern' for my brand of Englishness. I personally feel no more concern for Joes mental and physical health than for anyone else I have no real contact with; that is to say a general neutrality and reserve until further information is available. I suffer from being English (which in my mind necessitates a reserve from prying into other peoples' private lives) and from being liberal/tolerant (which, again for me, fits my natural inclinations to respect other peoples privacy so they will reciprocate).

Joe is plainly young, naive, indoctrinated (either by others or himself) and under the powerful delusion that he has access to some great spiritual truth. I wish him well on his journey to conquer all of these afflictions but I'll do very little to actively help him in this regard without being acquainted with him personally and that is unlikely.

Other Comments by AllanW

1285. Comment #209551 by phil rimmer on July 12, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Allan

My own feeling is that his position is fully sustainable because he most likely is surrounded, socially, by like minds. The only chance for change is to be compelled to be surrounded by active dissenters from his views.

We seem to happily endure the presence of irrational thoughts in our heads, courtesy of a myriad seamless and unseen acts of self-deception, but social pressures of disapproval and rejection wear us down......

EDIT I suffer from being English too, and in the same way. I must say I rather like it.

EDIT

NO ... HE`S FUCKED

Thnx, 8teist. Can go to bed happy now.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

1286. Comment #209568 by SPS on July 12, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Here's a recent article about capitalism from washingtonpost.com:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002264.html

Other Comments by SPS

1287. Comment #209571 by Goldy on July 12, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Fanusi, you're riding high on one good comment ages ago. Why are you trying hard to become a prick again?

Other Comments by Goldy

1288. Comment #209585 by Laurie Fraser on July 12, 2008 at 5:19 pm

My dog, I love this forum! Get out of bed and the same argument is going on, with modifications, plus a couple of grenades hurled in by Joe; isn't the internet a wonderful thing?

Seems we're always going to have an impasses on this one; Fanusi, Al, whitepearl et.al. on varying themes of "capitalism is best", epeeist, Jiten, Bonzai, Phil, DDA, myself, Mord etc. on the other.

Hmm... I think the numbers say it all. We win! The evil capitalists are vanquished; end of debate.

Now, back to fighting christians & muslims...

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

1289. Comment #209592 by mordacious1 on July 12, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Laurie

The capitalist Al only posts when he is supposed to be working, so we won't hear from him until Monday A.M. (would grab hat and leave, but it's only Saturday).

Other Comments by mordacious1

1290. Comment #209594 by Laurie Fraser on July 12, 2008 at 5:51 pm

No wonder your nom de plume is "Mordacious." :)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

1291. Comment #209607 by Goldy on July 12, 2008 at 7:19 pm

TWP

But that's the beauty in it. People should be able to choose.

People chose poverty?

As sad as poverty is, I don't believe that we should give the government the right to interfere with that. It just leads the government to areas of control that individually we really don't want.

While I must admit to grumbling about my taxes funding workshy KFC eating inhabitants of South Auckland (stereotyping here...sorry), I think governments like to make sure things don't get too bad for these poor people. Keeping on the Chinese theme, there is a bit of history of social insurrection and rebellion when the poor had to rely on the generosity of the rich.
Laurie, it is great coming here and seeing where I can get a thread back to waaay back when by answering questions and commenting on things written ages ago.
What is Guiseppe saying? Something about the Koran and sayings. Odd...

Other Comments by Goldy

1292. Comment #209610 by Laurie Fraser on July 12, 2008 at 7:32 pm

More on TWP's commment - if we understand government as a "them" that is an alienating and controlling force, then it is fair enough to be suspicious of it. But if we understand government as a body representative of people's interests, then we expect government to act in those interests. And the only way we can get that sort of government is through participatory democracy, where we take ownership of government. I don't think that's a utopian vision at all, BTW; it is a reasonable expectation in an informed society. Hence, education is the key. Ergo, we need government to provide the educational resources needed for the development of critical thinking - philosophy and science in schools should be mandatory and well-funded.

Hmmm...circular argument?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

1293. Comment #209611 by SPS on July 12, 2008 at 7:50 pm

As I understand it, economies and trade depend on representation of assigned value.
The fact that so many of us live and die, prosper and dwindle by this is a bit of an absurdity. Economic systems of all kinds that put the priority of the system before the people are all lacking. I would like someone to point out to me the part of the capitalism handbook where altruistic largesse is part of the formula. Can't buy food for your kids? It's because you don't have enough of those paper things we like in your wallet. Can't send a manned mission to Mars? Not enough paper. How about deflecting those asteroids headed towards earth? Nope. Not enough paper. Should we also measure which is the 'true' religion by how many people have benefited by it? Or maybe the winner will be declared by how many scientists were christian or muslim or whatever. Or maybe by how many believe it, agree with it. Surely, that would make it true? Then we can dedicate ourselves to it for all eternity with unbiased attention and devotion, and not worry about what is a better way to arrive at truth. Surely, there is nothing better.

Other Comments by SPS

1294. Comment #209658 by epeeist on July 13, 2008 at 12:17 am

Comment #209610 by Laurie Fraser

Ergo, we need government to provide the educational resources needed for the development of critical thinking - philosophy and science in schools should be mandatory and well-funded.

Hmmm...circular argument?

Replace "government" by "disinterested party" and I think you get closer.

The trouble then is the "disinterested party" and where they get their funding. Industry might fund it but they aren't disinterested, their approach would be training and not education. And they prefer to poach rather than train if they can.

The churches used to do it and still do it now, but they couple it with indoctrination.

The state does do it, but here in the UK they are not disinterested and they try to micro-manage (just about everything really).

The other thing of course is that education is not valued, but that's a debate for another time.

Other Comments by epeeist

1295. Comment #210160 by irate_atheist on July 14, 2008 at 3:15 am

1303. Comment #210153 by clearmind -

You really are a cockwad.

I'm looking forward to the day when you're dead and I can piss on your grave.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

1296. Comment #210162 by 8teist on July 14, 2008 at 3:17 am

Irate , Why wait for it to die?

Other Comments by 8teist

1297. Comment #210164 by hungarianelephant on July 14, 2008 at 3:23 am

The louder he talked of his honour,
The faster we counted our spoons.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

1298. Comment #210168 by alovrin on July 14, 2008 at 3:36 am

He's back using the schools computer again.
My guess he's still bitter about this ...

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

but whatever wish he'd just f-u-c-k-o-f-f

Other Comments by alovrin

1299. Comment #210170 by Laurie Fraser on July 14, 2008 at 3:39 am

Ah, Clearmind - how delightful to have you back on our pages.

How does it feel to be devoted to the imaginary?
How does it feel to be devoid of reason?
How does it feel to be on your own?
With no direction home?
Like a complete unknown?
Just like a rolling stone?

...er, excuse me, I've had several glasses of a beautiful Hunter Valley semillon - it's a shame you can't join me; it would probably be against your religion to indulge in something that makes you feel good.

You poor, unimaginative, miserable sod. You are devoted to a paedophile whose claim to civility was not to rape his six-year old wife until she turned nine.

You parade eight points as though they are cardinal truths:

Let's say I become an atheist, I give up

1. Censorship the ideas without giving any reason
2. Drink anything and use any drugs
3. Had nightmares that I came from the worm
4. Greeting the monkeys and respect them whenever I see them
5. Sleeping with women men and have all twisted mind things since there is no judgment day for me.
6. making wife beater headlines in the USA because I am DRUNK.
7. writing books, giving speeches, making interviwes day and night
to prove that the LETTERS THE BOOK WROTE THE BOOK.
8. I WOULD BE A TOPIC IN STAND UP COMEDIANS.

Disregarding your confused syntax (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because your are NESB), let's have a little look at some of these statements.

You reckon that we atheists drink anything and use any drugs. And your point is?

We have nightmares because we came from a worm. Er, no - I, for one, find it remarkable, intriguing and, especially, inspiring that I am a member of a species that has been able to work out the truth of my origins. I celebrate the fact that I came from "the worm". I really pity you that you are incapable of grasping this beautiful fact.

Don't you respect monkeys? Clearmind - all life is beautiful and fascinating in its own way. Why are we humans in some special position to pass judgement on the rest of the living world? You're really mixed up on this one, kiddo. Do we "evolutionists" respect monkeys simply because we share many evolutionary similarities? No, we respect monkeys because they are part of the great fabric of life, revealed to us because of the damn fine work done by all of those scientists who helped us to understand what life is and how it developed.

Actually, the rest of your points escape me entirely, so I won't bother responding to them, apart from saying that they are the products of a seriously deranged mind.

You need some help, boy - get yourself to a decent psychiatrist who can, at the very least, provide you with some drugs that will mitigate your desire to worship a rapist paedophile.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

1300. Comment #210171 by 8teist on July 14, 2008 at 3:41 am

Don`t know if its his schools computer, I think it gets online when the psych ward nurse leaves her work station for a coffee break.

Other Comments by 8teist

Reload Comments | Back to Top