1. Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

Comment #88549 by Anonymous on November 17, 2007 at 6:38 pm

I seem to be called Anonymous, but I assure you I am prettygoodformonkeys.

And my avatar has been revoked.
Perhaps it is a glitch, or perhaps I have pissed someone off.

I don't even know what to hope for anymore!

2. Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

Comment #88546 by Anonymous on November 17, 2007 at 6:31 pm

This is from a previous post, but seems fitting:

Verily, I say unto you that it shall come to pass that when the Antipasto has reigned for 1,000 years, and mankind has simmered in its own juices for all that time, then will the Cheeses return to earth "trailing clouds of Glorious Sauce", adorned by Precious Raymond, and attended by a host of exceedingly heavenly condiments, and He will judge us all, finding us either al dente or not al dente.

And it shall come to pass that the most succulent of us shall drift skyward, along with one-half of every chair, each after its own kind, and they shall be guided by the two angels, Fusilli and Linguini, to gaze finally upon the noodly countenance of the FSM.

It has been said of old that "No man can serve two pastas", and yet, lo, I say unto you that side salads shall be served, with Caesar dressing rendered unto those salads that are Caesars, and Romano spears of Brochetti shall cause the tomato sauce to flow from their sides.

Those not chosen shall be simmered much longer, and must sit on the remaining half-chairs, with their Left Behinds. And there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Anyone who adds a word to this, or takes away a word, shall be in danger of the Judgement: sent off without supper.

3. Mind your manners

Comment #88545 by Anonymous on November 17, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Finally I can log on! Thanks Josh.

22. Comment #88484 by NMcC on November 17, 2007 at 2:43 am

I am in complete agreement; anyway, if MuNky82 can string a thought together I am sure we will listen to it, but it hasn't happened yet.

Right wing BS is no different from left wing BS.

4. Our Teapot, which art in heaven

Comment #11432 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 2:45 pm

I've seen the self-reinforcing God Meme/Gene proposal before, and it's appealing. But not, I think, sufficient to explain the ability of so much of humanity to throw off the God Meme at will.

I have another proposal. I also must preface it with the statement that I haven't read every one of Mr. Dawkins' books, nor every book written by every atheist, so possibly this has been proposed before.

I think a vulnerability to the God meme is an unavoidable side effect of one of the principle qualities of sapience. Sapient beings have the apparently unique characteristic of being able to conceive of something which does not exist, and then work to achieve that thing, in the face of overwhelming odds, for up to a lifetime. When this ability is applied to the real world, the result is the wheel and forged iron and ocean-going vessels and computers and the myriad other devices and conveniences we're so familiar with.

Civilization as we know it, and science, is predicated on the sapient ability to believe in the possibility of something that, on the face of it, is highly improbable. Was there anything more improbable than the electron, 200 years ago? Possibly the gene. Yet someone, somewhere, chose to believe, against all the opinions of those around them, that there must be a reason why creatures reproduce as they do, and pursued the idea, despite the skeptics, until we today can point to the gene as the actual thing responsible for what we see.

Compare this to the dog. Each time a bowl of food is set down in front of the dog, the dog is suprised. The dog can not believe in something, and so does not believe that food will be forthcoming. Dogs have such difficulty in believing in things that some no longer believe the food bag still exists after the cabinet door is closed. Some do, and are called bad dogs, because they pursue their belief and attempt to get at the food bag on their own.

We can see some variety in the ability of various species to believe, and of course that ability is not the sole characteristic of sapience. However, I think it is the characteristic that makes us vulnerable. Belief in a god or gods is simply taking the belief in the continued existence of the bag of kibble to extremes. The dog ability to believe is fairly limited, for lack of memory and abstract reasoning abilities. The human ability to believe is entirely unlimited, with abstract reasoning giving us the power to believe in things for which we have no evidence whatsoever. Would we be better off if our belief stopped with the kibble? No, for then we would only be dogs.

I fear Mr. Dawkins' stated goal is impossible. Religion can not be stamped out, for it is rooted in the basic qualities of our minds that allow us to call ourselves Homo Sapiens. We can only be innoculated against it.

Here's to the continued success of The God Delusion. Just because our biology betrays us doesn't mean we have to sit still for it. Viruses succeed by colonizing us, but we don't stand idly by while tuberculosis or the flu kills us all. (Unless we're deluded.) We shouldn't sit still while the memetic virus that is the god delusion makes similar attempts.

5. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11425 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 2:09 pm

Or should I say, is a bacterium a plant or an animal!

6. A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

Comment #11408 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 1:01 pm

i did not know that doctors without borders was a religious organization working to give medical assistance to underdeveloped countries

7. Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special

Comment #11343 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 8:38 am

At #18

My dear Katie,
Number of questions are still not answered. It would be foolish to claim knowledge of everything.
We know what we know - and this is sufficient to draw certain conclusions (in probabilistic sense).
I am sorry that your ego had to suffer, but we all believe you are very clever person. :)

8. Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special

Comment #11337 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 8:02 am

Yorker,

Actually I was mostly joking. But since you mention it, asking a basic science question would exclude nobody. At worst it would force them to educate themselves just a tiny bit each time they wished to post. It isn't like basic science is a secret kept by a small circle of elite academics -- Wikipedia provides more than adequate coverage of the basics of evolutionary biology.

9. A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

Comment #11333 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 7:42 am

Billy,

If God sat on your face I doubt whether you'd believe in him! You would no doubt interpret the sight of a vast cosmic arsehole descending from the heavens as a warning to smoke fewer funny cigarettes in future, not as evidence of His existence. I agree that a God who deliberately designed Ebola must be a bit of a wanker but I'd rather use arguments like that to win the argument than crowing about how stupid the other side is. It has often been said that the ichneumon wasp, which parasitises other insects, helped Darwin to lose his own faith. 'I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars', he wrote in a letter to Asa Gray. If it persuaded Darwin, who was once a committed Christian, there's hope that it'll persuade others. I'm all for robust argument, all against slanging matches.

Tom

10. Reading of The God Delusion in Lynchburg, VA

Comment #11262 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 2:41 am

"That received thunderous applause, so that I almost began to feel slightly sorry for the Liberty people."

I agree with screaming mimi, shouldn't we feel sorry for RD since he SHOULD be able to out-debate these young, inexperienced non-graduates? I can win any debate against a 5 year old, I wouldn't go around bragging about it though.

I once lost an argument that I'm real. Debates are just words, they don't really prove anything.

11. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11260 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 2:35 am

Shaunboy. The main trinitarian verse in the bible is actually a late insert. All other verses are triadic

12. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11258 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 2:33 am

Ugghh. Here I go again.

God exists.

Wow, now I REALLY feel bad for pwning this whole site twice in one day!!! I feel so bad pwning all your beliefs with a snap of my fingers. OMG!!

Anyways guys, toodles. See you in church on Wednesday night.

13. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11251 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 1:57 am

To break the spell of ignorance, education is the key. At my school we never had the need to invoke a God hypothesis copout. I'm not suggesting that we knew everything, but for what we didn't know, we knew that in time other scientists would have the answer.

14. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11243 by Anonymous on December 4, 2006 at 12:03 am

These words are not from crazy Bible believers, but men of rational thought, as you might perhaps describe them.

Rubbish. These are not "quotes" you have sourced yourself, or conclusions you have personally come to. They are crass misquotes of people whose intent was the opposite of what is being claimed, there is a perfect avalanche of similar crap posted on creationists sites. We've caught you at this before, on this very thread ... tsk, tsk .... BAD christian:-)

I see none of you religious types can explain why the creator of the universe has so singularly failed to make his case? Yeah, it's a tough one:-)

15. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11227 by Anonymous on December 3, 2006 at 9:28 pm

I personally stopped praying when I realised I was talking to myself and making an absolute are out of me.

16. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11225 by Anonymous on December 3, 2006 at 9:25 pm

I enjoy the videos at God Is Imaginary, but again, it seems that they're mainly directed to the moderate or liberal Christian, who is really pseudo-atheist already. I just wonder if ANY form of logic or proof could mean anything to a Christian fundamentalist.

I think if Allah came down from the heavens and landed in Kansas, and declared to two million watchers (and to everyone watching on tv,) that HE is the only real god, and the biblical god is complete fiction, evangelicals would immediately claim that God sent Allah to test their faith.

17. The delusion of Christianity: Fairy tales that changed the world

Comment #11201 by Anonymous on December 3, 2006 at 5:18 pm

Here's the answer's to that amazing web site! :D
1. God is not a genie who answers wishes.
2. God gave man free will, therefore if man wishes to hurt another man and amputate his arm through war or what have you, God doesn't like it, but He allows it, because to take away that right would make God a liar.

Sorry for making your entire web site obsolete with one post. You've been pwned. sorry bout that.

18. Lawrence, Kansas : Speech

Comment #11174 by Anonymous on December 3, 2006 at 2:02 pm

This video link has been broken for at least a month for me. it will not work on any computer I have tried.

in fact, ALL of the Real Player videos on this website do not work. all of them. not a single one. why has this gone unfixed for so long?

19. A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

Comment #11168 by Anonymous on December 3, 2006 at 1:15 pm

Others have already responded to this, but I felt the need to do so again, for emphasis if nothing else.


"Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars, "

What???

20. Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

Comment #11114 by Anonymous on December 3, 2006 at 7:07 am

michal, nothing happens. Gosh, you are soooo original, we haven't heard that one before. You better hope islam is false, or you will be in hell, and if we are wrong, we'll see you there!

21. A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion

Comment #11112 by Anonymous on December 3, 2006 at 7:00 am

WHY SHOULD WE TOLERATE DUMB ASS IDEOLOGY AT ALL

22. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #11072 by Anonymous on December 3, 2006 at 3:33 am

Has phil heard of galileo and the dark ages?

23. Justices to Decide if Citizens May Challenge White House's Religion-Based Initiative

Comment #11054 by Anonymous on December 3, 2006 at 1:14 am

VIVA LA MIKESISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CLICK ON MY NAME FOR REVOLUTION

24. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #10998 by Anonymous on December 2, 2006 at 1:07 pm

164 "Why should anyone believe any random set of unsubstantiated claims".

This is just 'poisoning the well' though isn't it Brian? You really should substantiate such lazy statements.

25. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10991 by Anonymous on December 2, 2006 at 12:05 pm

157. Thanks for that dude. However, if you follow the thread you'll notice that Russ had claimed that supernatural;ism hasn't benefited mankind in the least. Now, even if we accept your point that theism was cultural at that time it doesn't alter the fact that those who founded the empirical method like Bacon as well were theists.You have to concede surely that the notion that if Newton had existed today he would have been an atheist is purely hypothetical. Theres no evidence for it. What we do know is that he was a theist and the greatest scientist (probably) ever. And it was as a theist that he and others founded and developed science.
It was because they believe that the universe was created by a rational God that they could believe it could be understood.
One could argue that the belief that the universe is the result of a explosion and a series of chance events undermines the possibility of science.

26. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #10983 by Anonymous on December 2, 2006 at 11:00 am

Correction: find it on www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm

27. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #10982 by Anonymous on December 2, 2006 at 10:55 am

160

"devise a cogent hypothesis of design, make your predictions, test them, and present your results"

Something similar has already been done in The Biotic Message by Walter ReMine which you can get off Amazon secondhand.
Alternatively search for St Paul Science on Yahoo/Google and find info' there.

28. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10979 by Anonymous on December 2, 2006 at 8:23 am

Russ 152

The anticreationist Entomologist Stanley Beck wrote, "scientific premises define and limit the scientific mode of thought. It should be pointed out however that each of these postulates had its origin in or was consistent with christian theology"

29. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10978 by Anonymous on December 2, 2006 at 8:21 am

Russ 152

"supernaturalism has never shown itself able to help us tease out even the slightest benefit to mankind"

Sorry Russ but thats just intellectually lazy polemic. What you fail to mention is that the modern scientific worldview was developed by THEISTS.

Pasteur, Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Cuvier, Maxwell, Faraday, Fleming, Kelvin, Mendel, da Vinci, Pacal were all Bible believing scientists

30. The real reasons to hate the Pope

Comment #10946 by Anonymous on December 1, 2006 at 4:44 pm

Notice the tight close-up shots of the Vatican's latest production of 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' which was on location in Turkiye this week. The reporters couldn't show the long shots of the scenes as no crowds turned up and this pretty much was a non-event and truth can't ever be revealed to the gullible public. It's really clever how the Vatican can weasel ten billion dollars worth of free publicity for itself by sending the pope on the road. Thanks to this pope who still is head of the Inquisition dept. most people in Africa have Aids. WTG you mean, wicked person.

31. The faithful have departed

Comment #10935 by Anonymous on December 1, 2006 at 12:36 pm

http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Noam_Chomsky

Seeing through religious nonsense isn't exactly rocket science. Seeing through political nonsense is a bit more complicated - if only chomsky got half the attention that dawkins gets. Check out his lectures on youtube

32. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and E.O. Wilson on the gospel of science

Comment #10919 by Anonymous on December 1, 2006 at 10:30 am

33. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comment #10846 by Anonymous on November 29, 2006 at 12:24 pm

"Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the name of their creed"

Seems that someone is viewing their religion with blinders on.

34. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #10832 by Anonymous on November 29, 2006 at 11:04 am

Is "Lack of belief in any god" equivalent to "Belief that there is no god"? If not, how so? Do you reject the idea of belief?

------------------

No, it is not, nor are the statements logically or semantically equivalent. There are plenty of gods in which most people do not believe, that is, it is a very rare person who believes in all gods. So you, for example, might not have a belief in the Jade Empororer, or in Kali, or whatever. There are likely some god or gods that you believe in and worship, and other gods that you don't believe in, and don't worship.

I'm just like you, except the number of gods that I believe in and worship is 0.

As for your second point, there is nothing hypocritical about multi-verse conjectures. No scientist that I am aware of thinks that multiverse conjectures are on firm observational ground, they don't claim to be, and they are not meant to avoid the anthropic principle but to explain it.

Hypocritical would be to take the anthropic principle as evidence of design, because THAT would be to assert falsely that you had reached an edge of human knowledge, an act of unbridled hubris based on the flimsiest of evidence, claimed not as a conjecture (after all, it would explain nothing) but as a statement of absolute truth.

35. Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

Comment #10807 by Anonymous on November 29, 2006 at 9:12 am

hi,
all i can write is thank you. Thank you Dr. Dawkins and all of you that labor in this noble effort of expanding humanities awarness.

As an African American male that is merely a observer in your efforts, i must write that I feel empowered with the information you convey. I advise my children and all those I know w/our information.

All of you inspire me. Thank you.

36. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #10791 by Anonymous on November 29, 2006 at 8:25 am

The Flying Spagetti Monster is not a myth he is a conscious invention, I think there is a difference but I'm not sure how it is defined.

37. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #10781 by Anonymous on November 29, 2006 at 6:49 am

Back on page 11, Paul creber asked for evidence of the virgin birth.
What evidence did David Robertson come up with?
"The testimony of the bible"
Well if he thinks that is evidence, I think It's futile to try and debate with him.
If every time he gets a question he can't handle he's gooing to say "but it's in the bible".

38. Creation vs. Darwin takes Muslim twist in Turkey

Comment #10738 by Anonymous on November 29, 2006 at 4:14 am

Dear Sirs,

First of all, while keeping informing all about the recent facts about the once-upon-a-time-evidence of evolution theory put forward due to the lack of knowledge of scientific facts during those years (Darwin's period), all the examples are scientific. Because you could be a believer or an unbeliever: No one could press on someone for his/her beliefs. But if "evolution theory" is kept being claimed as a "scientific fact", infact it is absolutely NOT!
Please do note,
-"irreducible complexity ":in what step the eye organ is, if it is not "full" "at the same time", it can not work properly.
-"Second Law of Thermodynamics": Systems decay through time. Nothing left is going better.
-"mutations": it is ineffectual or harmful like mongolism, cancer or Down syndrome resulted.
-"no transitional forms" :coelacanth reality: it is a fish and pls consider carrying of weight,retention of heat, the use of water,kidneys and respiratory system.
-"birds like archaeopteryx which had teeth" :these kinds of birds had teeth with flat top surfaces and large roots, but theropod dinosaurs had saw-shape-teeth and narrow roots.
-"Cambrian period" :all of them appeared suddenly.
-"In 1980 Field Museum of Natural History Chicago, 150 evolutions ACCEPTED that there is NO ground for fossil ground and evolutionary process observed in horse"
-Piltdown: an orangutan jaw and human skull specially arranged!!!This forgery was revealed to public in 1953.
-Nebraska Man: A single pig tooth.
-Homo Rudolfensis: The face wrongly joined and many other forgeries.
-"FALLACY of vestigal organs:tonsils to protect throat for infections,coccyx to support the bones around pelvis,thymus to activate T cells,appandix to fith with infection and etc.
-"Confession of Haeckel in Francis Hitching book": he CONFESSED himself all the drawings are just not real!
Well,evolution theory was born death!

39. The end of one law for all?

Comment #10721 by Anonymous on November 29, 2006 at 3:00 am

A lot of comments here seem not to distinguish between civil and criminal law and the fact that English law appears to legislate for external civil courts therefore these courts are by definition under the jurisdiction of English law. (If they see criminal cases then they are guilty of obstruction of justice or some such thing...)

I think everyone would rather see disagreements handled between the people that disagree rather than burdening the courts with extra nonsense. It is therefore a very good idea to encourage external arbitration.

No?

40. The end of one law for all?

Comment #10711 by Anonymous on November 29, 2006 at 2:29 am

For FUCK's sake. What is HAPPENING to this country?!?

41. The end of one law for all?

Comment #10654 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 7:14 pm

"Parents fly in African village elders to circumcise their young daughters"

"Despite the dangers, many African Muslim communities prize the ritual and ostracise women who are not circumcised.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2416783.html

42. The end of one law for all?

Comment #10638 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 4:57 pm

We put a stop to that sort of thing in Canada:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4236762.stm

43. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #10629 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 4:23 pm

Heard the one about the sane wee free?

Nah, me neither

44. Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

Comment #10564 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 11:46 am

TimeLord is so convincing. I think I'll become religous. Actually I think I'll become a mormon. Any good wives out there?

45. A Dissent: The Case Against Faith

Comment #10563 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 11:46 am

If we had delayed the production of the automobile for a few decades, would your assertion that the importance of looking both ways is greater than the importance of crossing the street still be true?

46. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10534 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 10:25 am

1) God is all good
2) Good is all powerful
3) Evil exists

All three statements cannot be simultaneously true.

However, there is the "freewill" argument, that humans are free to commit evil deeds.

However, this still begs the question of unbelief. There are people who do not believe in God.

If God was all powerful, He could prove to us all that he exists, and we would all be believers and do his bidding.

Therefore, either

1)God is not all powerful or
2)God does not want us to believe in Him.

47. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10533 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 10:23 am

Private business is different, of course. Bill O'Reilly (yuk) is up in arms that Crate&Barrel policy is "we won't say Merry Christmas!"(Happy Holidays instead). A local fast food joint's policy is "not open on Sunday, that's God's day"; OK, at least we have the choice not to frequent them.

Everytime I see Dave Matthew's name I think of how the band got in trouble for dumping a load of s--- into Chicago River. Hmm, wonder why I think this? Please go haunt somebody else, and let the intellects continue their discussions!!

48. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10529 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 10:09 am

.

49. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10527 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 10:06 am

50. Let us test Darwin, teacher says

Comment #10484 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 7:55 am

i saw a religion textbook aimed at 11 year olds the other day which gave the various (usual and predicatable) arguments for god existing. there was a source from 'a student' (clearly made up) which said something like 'DNA's a clever idea- surely god must've come up with it.' the only concession to the other side was 'in a group, discuss why some people might feel the ontological argument isn't true' and this was aimed at eleven year olds! so, let's remember that ID isn't a new thing- it's already there.