1. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #181201 by D'Arcy on May 16, 2008 at 3:49 pm

For Jiten, PM for you.

2. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #181200 by D'Arcy on May 16, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Al says

You never mentioned what you do for a living?

Al, if I told you I was the person who answered the telephone in Buckingham Palace, would that make my posts any better or worse? Yes, I do work full time for my living. No, I am not employed by any political party, let alone the Communist Party.

Al says:

The facts are clear, socialism will require the following:

1) A massive state apparatus.
2) A massive bureacracy to micro manage people's lives.
3) Suppression of opposing ideas.
4) Suppression of liberty.

Wrong on all counts. If Al can be bothered to read Engels' "Socialism Utopian and Scientific" he will see that once established socialism will entail the "withering away of the state". If Al would like to look at the Communist Manifesto again, he might find the description of the state as "the executive committee of the bourgeoisie". To put it bluntly, the state, whether it be in Cuba, Russia, USA, UK or any other country is the representative of the owning class in that particular country. Again if Al looks at the Communist Manifesto, he will see that countries are political constructions. The state is the representative of the local capitalists.

Calling Marx an idiot and full of hate doesn't actually add to anything, quite apart from being untrue. Al, surely, is not resorting to ad hominins?

3. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #181176 by D'Arcy on May 16, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Al Rawandi seems to have an almost religious belief in what will be, and what will not be. In his view capitalism is the best of all possible worlds, socialism is impossible , utopian, and where it's been tried has failed. He still talks about socialist countries, as if socialism was ever possible in one country. He still equates state interference in the economy as socialism, in which case the Conservative Party in Britain were the first socialists because of their nationalisation of the Post Office, back in the 1800's.

The incentive to create profit, as Marx explained depends upon the existence of both workers (wage labour) and capital, (previously created wealth) owned by the employing class. Without both wage labour and capital, capitalism could not exist. The point is in the present world most people are forced to work for wages or a salary, precisely because they have no or little ownership in the companies they work for. So the incentive to work under capitalism is force. Swim or sink, is, I think, Al's message. Human society hasn't actually worked that way. Historically capitalism is a relatively new system which has proved enormously useful in increasing the potential of producing wealth. Marx's point was that it is a system which has outlived its usefuleness and is positively harmful to the majority. Just look around the world. Production is one thing, ownership is another.

4. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #180320 by D'Arcy on May 14, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Einstein also didn't accept "spooky action at a distance", otherwise known as "entanglement", where two entangled particles are sent in different directions and interference with one immediately affects the other, (faster than light). As a non scientist, I also find problems with the experimental results, but they seem to work. Quantum computing awaits the reliable production and storage of qubits.

5. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #180296 by D'Arcy on May 14, 2008 at 2:04 pm

In one of my earlier posts I mistakenly said that Stalin had had his enforcer Beria bumped off. I was wrong. It was Stalin's successor, Kruschev, who had that done. Thanks to NMcC.

I'm glad that Al has got through the Communist Manifesto and at least acquainted himself with the ideas of Marx and Engels as written in 1847.

I disagree with a lot of Al's conclusions, but without boring everyone else, I would say that the main message of the Communist Manifesto is "Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains. You have world to gain!"

Nothing that Al has said to date has persuaded me away from that position. But I'm willing to listen.

6. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #178161 by D'Arcy on May 10, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Al says:

Capitalism is competition. Humans are social animals that remain competitive.

Yes Al, I do know that competition is what drives the quest for profits. The weakest go to the wall as in the case of Pan Am, Enron or TWA, and countless others. The people who work for those particular companies will suddenly be out of work. Capitalists have to be competetive, because otherwise their rival producers would undercut them in the market place and take a greater market share. That is why the capitalists introduce labour saving machinery, because, (they hope), it will reduce the costs of production and give them a favourable edge at the point of sale. Such labour saving machinery is bound to include computers and software, and wouldn't Microsoft just love to have the complete monopoly of that!

Al, I agree, all animals have to compete. One of the reasons that Darwin came to his theory of evolution was that he realised that too many organisms could not be sustained. The ones that died would provide food for the others.

In the case of humans, we have managed to exercise a large degree of control over our food sources through social processes, like agriculutre.

I don't think that the prevailing capitalist system in the world is something that has always existed since the time of the Flinstones and will last till the time of Judgment Day. Capitalism has been essential in vastly increasing humaniy's ability to produce wealth. As far as most of humanity is concerned, capitalism is past its "sell by" date.

7. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178140 by D'Arcy on May 10, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Frankus 1122 asks:

Why is the nonsense of the cardinal afforded such respect?

If a person talks nonsense, including cardinals, then that person's views have no respect from me. I listened to both interviews live and was struck by the cardinal's view that reason is sort of okay, but that faith is something which goes beyond it. In his view too much reason is dangerous because it leads to Hitler......yuk.

The old bhoy doesn't even seem to realise that Hitler was a Catholic for his formative years at least, and, for as long as it suited him as a politician. As for Stalin, that Russian Orthodox heretic, the bully boys did a good job on him, and he learnt the lessons very well. To that extent he was "reasonable".

8. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177732 by D'Arcy on May 9, 2008 at 3:05 pm

If the man's rhetorical style is the same as Hitler's, Richard is quite right to point it out. These religios are quick to point to their persecution, but slow to offer any evidence for their pathetic viewpoints.

Mark Twain used the word "nigger" throughout Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, and the PC brigade said he was a racist because of that. They obviously never read the books, and ignored the historical context.

If you're afraid of offending someone because of what you have say, then maybe you're just a "timorous wee beastie", and behave accordingly. If you have something to say, just say it. Richard did, and did it well.

9. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #177694 by D'Arcy on May 9, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Alex writes:

By managed you presumably refer to our ugly, short-lived, highly restricted, cult-obsessed, violence-based, pathetic and pitiable ancestors, living when people survived about 25 years (if they survived childhood) and spent 7 days a week at back breaking labour?

Yes, I do mean exactly that. Are you seriously arguing Alex, that it takes the wages system to advance humanity? Where do the employers get the money to pay the wages from if it is not from the benefits of previous labour which they happen to own? Does your textbook on economics show that capitalism is built into our genes?

10. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177685 by D'Arcy on May 9, 2008 at 1:25 pm

I must first admit to being a lifelong atheist, and also to have heard both interviews this morning. Is it just coincidence that the cardinal's time was approximately twice that of Dawkins? Probably yes. Just the logistics of making a running programme like Today, when Gordon Brown's latest utterance could interrupt the most interesting discussion, mean equal time is not possible.

The Cardinal's vision of a "God free zone" is just fine with me as I have lived all of my life so far inside it. It's a great place to live.

As for his almost incoherent mumble about "reason" being dangerous because of people like Hitler and Stalin, the man shows himself to be an ignoramus. Hitler was a Catholic and Stalin was raised in the Russian church and trained to be a priest for 5 years. Stalin probably was an atheist, but he was well trained in the oppressive nature that religion holds over people's minds, and used that knowledge to strengthen his own hold of power in state-capitalist Russia. Priests, generals, peasants, intellectuals..... Stalin didn't discriminate, anyone, who he felt, was a threat, including Trotsky fellow Bolshevik, Beria his enforcer for many years, was eliminated, to bolster his grip of political power. Suddenly the name "Mugabe" springs to mind. A "Catholic" and a "Marxist", surely a contradiction in terms.

As Dawkins said the Cardinal spent over 5000 words saying nothing.

11. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176988 by D'Arcy on May 8, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Al says:

I am going to visit Anna this weekend, and I am going to read the Communist Manifesto on the plane. I will comment when I return, more edified.

You could do worse than listen to the BBC's "In Our Time" programme about Marx, see link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20050714.shtml

The Communist Manifesto was written in 1847/8 by Marx and Engels at a time when Europe was going through major upheavals. Marx and Engels were both young and hopelessly over optimistic about the imminent demise of capitalism. In a Preface to the 1872 edition some 30 odd years later, the authors said:

However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm

Also I would reccommend "Wage Labour and Capital" as a short readily understandable pamphlet of Marx's position.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm

Al asks about the incentive driving people without a profit motive. Let's just say that homo sapiens managed without wages and profits for most of its ?100,000 year existence. By the way what's the incentive for watching baseball? Worse than cricket IMO.

12. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176557 by D'Arcy on May 7, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Al, apologies for not being here to answer your questions 24/7, but like you I have a life elsewhere. (Incidentally I hope the game went well for you).

In message 418 above you write:

D'Aracy,


Priceless. Yes Cuba exports goods, it has to. Like I said before, there seems to be a couple of people here who advocate a wageless society. I will say it again, it is impossible.

Let's say you want to go away to the wilderness every weekend for fun. You will consume more reseources for the trip. How does that play in. What happens if I want to vacation more. Do I have a right to more resources, or will the government get to tell me how to spend my leisure time? Currency allows people to adjust to their lifestyles, and adjust their lifestyles to an amount of profit they make. Take this discretion away from people, and only a government institution can determine what people can use resources for. And if this is a democracy, only the majority will have absolute say in what this is, thus the libierty of the minority will be absolutely infringed. I am sorry, I am not ready to have government bureaucrats dictate my life to me.

By saying that Cuba exports goods, you are including it into the world wide system of capitalism. Cuba also imports goods. Within capitalism goods are produced by human labour together with nature given materials, and the reason for their production is the realisation of profit. The workers in Cuba work for wages because they have to, just like elsewhere. If, Al, you are really worried about some people free loading off your efforts, I suggest looking a bit closer to home.

Can I summarise my posts so far:

Marxism is not a dogma, Marx's ideas require some thought.

Marx's ideas were misrepresented even in his own lifetime, and later by people like Lenin who seized on expressions like "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a justification for his own grab of political power.

Socialism / communism has not been, nor can it be, established in any single country. Capitalism exists in all the world's countries including the "socialist" ones.

State ownership does not equal socialism.

Al asks for a definition of socialism, and that is good sign, otherwise the word becomes meaningless and means all things to all people. I gave a definition somewhere above but I will repeat it.

To me socialism is a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life and distribution, by and in the interests of the whole community. At this time it exists nowhere and is therefore "utopian". But is the idea worth anything? Judging by the state of this world I would say yes.

13. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #176515 by D'Arcy on May 7, 2008 at 2:22 pm

I have done all 4. I just wonder if the electronic survey measures the time it took to answer the questions. Some were quite strange to me, like (from memory) "All Olympic athletes have the same body fitness". A runner is in a different state of fitness from a shot putter, but I did answer yes, assuming the amount of fitness is related to the event in which it is needed. Sprinters are different from marathon runners physically.

As to whether everyone likes looking at me and whether I want to be dictator of the world, well we'll have to see what the survey results produce.

14. Life after Jehovah's Witnesses: website offers help to followers who lose their faith

Comment #176505 by D'Arcy on May 7, 2008 at 2:01 pm

When JWs knock on my door, (assuming I'm not in the middle of something else), I regard them as fair game for a debate. Part of my equation is that every minute spent with me is one less minute spent with someone else, upon whom they may have some influence, unlike yours truly. Topics have included such monumental issues as "Who did Cain marry?" (his own sister); "When the lamb lies down with the lion, what happens to the lion's digestive system?", (evolution to vegetarian diet), and so on.

I have unfailingly found them to be polite, well spoken, and well versed in biblical quotes. I hadn't realised that they didn't believe in Hell. That used to be one of my cut offs: "Sorry mate, but I'm going to the hot dark place when I die." But then didn't Jesus threaten Hell on non-believers?

15. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #175112 by D'Arcy on May 4, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I love Diacanu's diplomatic approach:

kjmastaw-

Take Pascal's Wager, and blow it our your fuckin' ass.

One definition of a diplomat, that I've heard, is someone who tells you to go to hell, and makes you feel good about the journey.

See you in hell Diacanu!

16. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #175107 by D'Arcy on May 4, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Having read the article and all the comments up to 50, in general it must be a good thing if mainstream media in the US, in this case, Wall Street Journal, are highlighting the issue. No not evolution v ID. But the issue of attempts by Christians to get the various state and federal laws changed in their favour. To me, an outsider, it shows that there are at least some in the USA who have their finger on the pulse and are resisting creeping Christianity.

The cat crept into the crypt, crapped and crept out.

17. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174790 by D'Arcy on May 3, 2008 at 2:12 pm

I hadn't realised how many contributors to this site were politically correct puritans. I've watched many of Condell's rants and on average he gets 7.5 out of 10. OK, humour is a serious business and different to all people. I happen to like Monty Python, and the Goons among many others. Humour is needed at the darkest times, as the grave digger scene in Hamlet shows.

Worse than being accused of being without belief in God, is being accused of being humourless.

18. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174536 by D'Arcy on May 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm

I get paid less than the next person (if he is a man) no matter what and I still manage to motivate myself to work hard. ;)

FWIW my attitude is do the best you can, and insist on the best wage in return.

In Russia there used to be a saying which was something like: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

19. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174519 by D'Arcy on May 2, 2008 at 2:49 pm

I don't have time to define socialism.

Perhaps I can help. In my mind socialism is a society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution, by and, in the interests of the whole community.

Common ownership, of course means exactly that. We all "own" the atmosphere that we breathe without (so far) arguments about how many breaths a person is allowed as opposed to some other person. The atmosphere is currently not rationed.

Unlike most of the other resources on the Earth.

20. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174511 by D'Arcy on May 2, 2008 at 2:22 pm

I should have added that profit is apart from the driving force of capitalist production, the source of income for the owners, the capitalists. And if they can retain enough of profit to plough back into future production then it becomes capital, and the process continues.

21. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174509 by D'Arcy on May 2, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Al writes:

NO Cuba isn't (pure) socialist, but it is socialist.

Sorry Al, but you just don't get it. If your economic position means that you don't own enough capital, (land, factories, money, mines, railways etc.), to be able to live off the income they provide, then you are forced onto the labour market as a worker. Even most so-called self employed people are workers. Most of the people in Cuba and in the USA (and everywhere else) are workers. They are dependent upon working for someone else for their livelihoods. This is capitalism. The motivation for capitalism is profit. If Cuba couldn't sell its sugar, tobacco, tourism and whatever else at a profit, then those working in those industries would be out of a job right away. Whatever the terminology the regime uses, "Castro says this" or "Castro brother says that", the reality remains that profit is the underlying motivation for capitalist production. Human needs are an afterthought.

22. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174482 by D'Arcy on May 2, 2008 at 1:42 pm

One of the other "great minds" to have "proved" Marx's ideas wrong was of course John Maynard Keynes, who described "Capital" as an "erroneous, and obsolete text book". He didn't actually bother to argue the point though. Beneath his contempt.

23. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174470 by D'Arcy on May 2, 2008 at 1:23 pm

I do not have a problem with a desire to better peoples' lives, none whatsoever. I have a problem with dogmatic allegiance to failed ideologies.

I agree entirely with Al's comment. Most of us on this board can agree that dogma are thoughts accepted without question. It is something the religions of the world excel in, in fact the word dogma has become very much attached to religion and its beliefs.

That said, I know that Al is referring not to religion, but to the "failed ideology" of socialism. When the Berlin Wall came down, the popular conception was that socialism had failed and that Marx was an irrelevant historical trouble maker. After all, hadn't the great minds like Bernstein, Bohm-Bawerk, Berling, Popper and others proved him wrong in words, plus the collapse of the Soviet Empire in reality, meant the man really had nothing of interest to say.

Well even in his own lifetime, Marx is quoted as saying "if these people are Marxists, then I am not a Marxist", (Marx died in 1883). Al has responded to my specific posts about what Marx actually wrote with his own "free market" interpretation of the "failed ideology" and ignored such questions as to whether socialism actually exists in places like Cuba, and whether the workers there actually work for wages or not? In case there is any doubt, let me answer my own questions. No! Socialism does not exist in Cuba. Yes! The workers there work for wages. And, Al, perhaps you can explain all that "socialist" gold in Fort Knox.

24. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174091 by D'Arcy on May 1, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Well, I kind of have to believe on progress,

Yep! Me too.

25. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174073 by D'Arcy on May 1, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Al writes:

D'Arcy,





As I said. Your model is so obviously not viable as to preclude further discussion until you either show me why it would work to remove all personal incentive or you abandon the position.

I can't spend a day telling someone that Harry Potter isn't real.

Al, if humanity ever decides that capitalism is not the best of all possible worlds and the peak of human achievement, then it will not not be for me to provide motivation. Evolution has shown that homo sapiens is a very resourceful animal. Individually we are weak, but socially we are strong. No two humans are equal, that is a fact. All human societies, including those pre-capitalism, have managed, to some extent, to look after those less able: young, old, infirm. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

The motivation for work in a classless society? Survival.

26. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174061 by D'Arcy on May 1, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Al writes:

To be honest, you are being ridiculous. Seriously.

Apart from being a "hypocrite" and "ridiculous", I do actually stand by what I have posted so far on this site.

"Never" is a word to be cautious of, especially as this is a site for rational discussion.

27. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174048 by D'Arcy on May 1, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Your class revolution remains laughable. A dictatorship of the proletariat. As long as you get paid in capitalist currency, you are a hypocrite.

No need to get personal Al. So Cuba represents socialism in your mind? So people in Cuba don't work for wages there and there is no privileged class?

28. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174040 by D'Arcy on May 1, 2008 at 1:18 pm

D'Arcy,



State ownership of resources and capital. That is a pretty simple equation. Marx denying that he is for state control does not constitute evidence that his writings did not say this.

If state ownership is the hallmark of socialism then the US military must be one of the biggest "socialist" organisations in the world. And feel free to help yourself to all that "socialist" gold in Fort Knox. Bismark in Germany, whose government passed anti-socialist laws, must also be a "socialist" on account of all the nationalisation of various industries under his rule. I would like to know where Marx advocated nationalisation as the solution to the problems suffered by the working class.

Are you one of the "Well Communism has never really been tried"....

Yes.

If the classless society of socialism / communism is ever to be achieved, it cannot be imposed from above by a vanguard party, as Lenin claimed to have done. The achievement of the classless society must be the conscious work of the majority of the world's working class (most of us), actively seeking to take political action to bring it about.

All the so-called communist countries were and are thoroughly capitalist, and yes, include Cuba. The workers there work for wages on behalf of a privileged class who own the means of living and reap the benefits of the labour of others.

29. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173196 by D'Arcy on April 30, 2008 at 1:51 pm

For anyone who thinks that Marxism = blind acceptance of what he/she is told by a "greater power" read what Marx wrote in the first German Preface to Capital:

With the exception of the section of value-form, therefore, this volume cannot stand accused on the score of difficulty. I pre-suppose, of course, a reader who is willing to learn something new and therefore to think for himself.

Someone who is willing to think for himself and learn something new sounds like the kind of contributor we need more of.

30. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173153 by D'Arcy on April 30, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Al writes:

I am always touched by the Socialists who somehow think everyone from trashman to fisherman to store clerk could and should get a CEO salary.

Where does this idea come from? Certainly not Marx. In Value Price and Profit (sometimes called Wages Price and Profit), Marx states near the end when talking about the trade unions "Instead of the slogan 'A Fair Day's Pay for a Fair Day's Work', they should instead inscribe the slogan 'Abolition of the Wages System'." Those who think that Marx advocated equal wages for all, don't understand what he was getting at: the need for the majority part of the population (working class) to be emancipate themselves from the need to be subjegated to working for wages on behalf of the owning (capitalist) class. Whilst profit is the driving motivation of capitalist production, the satisfaction of human needs would be the driving force of socialist production.

Needless to say, Marx's ideas have not been brought to fruition by the world's working class yet.

Marx's ideas were attacked in his own lifetime and he gives a very good reason from the Preface to the first German edition of Capital:

In the domain of Political Economy, free scientific inquiry meets not merely the same enemies as in all other domains. The peculiar nature of the materials it deals with, summons as foes into the field of battle the most violent, mean and malignant passions of the human breast, the Furies of private interest. The English Established Church, e.g., will more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles than on 1/39 of its income. Now-a-days atheism is culpa levis [a relatively slight sin, c.f. mortal sin], as compared with criticism of existing property relations.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm

31. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172169 by D'Arcy on April 29, 2008 at 9:42 am

But he offers that perhaps it's because Marxism itself acts something like a religion in its appeal to a higher power -- the Party, rather than God.

Is Dawkins referring to the Soviet Union, China and other supposedly "Marxist" regimes?

Since when did these countries base themselves upon the "absence of buying and selling", "the abolition of the wages system," "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", "Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains. You have a world to gain", (Religion) "is the sigh of the oppressed. It is the opium of the people"? Never.

These countries were never based upon Marx's or socialist ideas at all. They were and are thoroughly capitalist in nature, if not in jargon. Marx would have been horrified, and probably one of the first against the wall.

32. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171503 by D'Arcy on April 28, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Well, surprise, surprise! You have to be able to imagine things that aren't there to believe in gods!

Now if Big G were to show Himself in an unambiguous way, then there would be a very good reason to believe, but as this is highly unlikely to happen before the sun's conversion to a red giant star, atheists can continue to have a more focussed view of reality.

33. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170123 by D'Arcy on April 27, 2008 at 12:17 pm

"Does science make belief in God obsolete?"

Yes indeedy!

No need for any such concept. The philosophers and theologians can argue about the nature of the supposed supernatural, but they're wasting their time, and mine, in a futile exercise.

Now how many angels danced upon the rich man's head as he rode the camel through the eye of the needle?

34. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170077 by D'Arcy on April 27, 2008 at 10:44 am

24 hours without TTID? Has my prediction of the future proved true? Am I really the Prophet that has been awaited?

I've got to go and meet Zarquon, but watch this space!

35. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169629 by D'Arcy on April 26, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I do tend to shake my head in wonderment, though, at the (apparent) lack of any media interest in things such as peak oil, food price increases, house price increases (in the UK) and the absurd levels of credit being doled out to people.

I hereby nominate clearmind as a "sub prime" Christian. Any seconders?

36. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #168922 by D'Arcy on April 25, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Oh mighty Mudmind, when will you condescend to talk in English, and express ideas clearly, so that we know what you are talking about?

I do not object if we have to wait an eternity for your response, but please keep it brief!

37. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168861 by D'Arcy on April 25, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Too much time has been spent here dealing with the annoying messages of TTID. Not because he/she asks questions, but because of the obvious intent to snipe, whilst not expressing any counter view.

In a week or month's time TTID will be gone forever, having seen pastures new elsewhere. TTID is a heckler, not interested in the substance, but only in the effect he/she has on others.

If TTID has some real evidence of a 6004 year old Earth, I would be very very happy to read it. It just ain't gonna happen. Just more sniping.

38. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166941 by D'Arcy on April 23, 2008 at 1:57 pm

TTID 658 above says:

Lipson, H.S., "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol. 31 (May 1980), p. 138

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being?... I think, however, that we must...admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.

Whether the physicist Lipson actually argued for creation as an explanation for living matter, or not is immaterial. TTID seems to be arguing from authority, as if that settles anything. Even if Lipson is "one of your kind", he still might be right or wrong depending on what he/ she says.

Dawkins was frank in admitting , 28 years after Lipson's quoted statement, that scientists still don't know how life started on Earth. In fact there is a lively debate about what is the definition of life.

Knowing how the creationists "quote mine", and judging by the many .... and ... in the above Lipson quote, I suspect a bit of doctoring to suit creationist purposes, but then I could be wrong.

Even if a physicist believes that the only acceptable explanation for life is creation, this does not make the idea correct. Einstein got loads of things wrong, but is still the most famous scientist in the popular mind.

39. Judge orders La. school district to stop Bible giveaways

Comment #166772 by D'Arcy on April 23, 2008 at 12:24 pm

If I was a school kid in Louisiana, I would take the free Bible and bugger off. When I was a student, I was given a free modern version of the New Testament, which I still have.

If US school kids are scared of accepting free stuff which they may or may not disagree with, then it doesn't say much for their "freedom of speech".
I know the Christians can be, and are, bullying in their attitude, but school kids are also quite reslient in their own way.

40. Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

Comment #166732 by D'Arcy on April 23, 2008 at 11:59 am

Personally, I don't give a toss how intelligent a person is. Creationists could all have IQs of 200 for all I care. The point is what people's ideas are. If the creationists are seriously arguing for ... er... er .... belief in the Bible and therefore a 6004 year old universe, which is scientific nonsense, then I have no respect for their views however high the IQ.

A wise man like the late pope, who spoke many languages, still spoke the same nonsense in all of them.

41. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165906 by D'Arcy on April 22, 2008 at 3:03 pm

chewmanfoo (427 above) says:

I also believe that God has set about creation through the laws of physics, through natural selection, through DNA replication and mutation.

I know god is supposed to work in mysterious ways, but can you, as a human being, explain why your god (I am assuming the Christian variety) waited some 13.7 billion years before putting the crown of His creation onto the Earth? Maybe being omnipresent, your God has no sense of time?

42. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #164680 by D'Arcy on April 20, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Pollsters asked 3,500 people what they considered to be the worst blights on modern society, updating a list drawn up by Rowntree, a Quaker, 104 years ago.

The responses may well have dismayed him. The researchers found that the "dominant opinion" was that religion was a "social evil".

Rowntree may have been dismayed, but I am not. Mind you this was only 3,500 people out of a population of some 60 million, and probably most of those in cities where the pace of life is generally not conducive to religious contemplation. All those recent Eastern Euoropean immigrants from Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria etc. (essentially peasant Christians), probably didn't speak enough good English to be interviewed.

Plenty of ignorance to be combatted yet!

43. The Child Preachers

Comment #164505 by D'Arcy on April 20, 2008 at 10:49 am

Well at least I did what I consider the right thing with my own offspring, who are now all over 18. There was no church going, apart from a couple of family funerals, no "valley of death", no grace, and they were sent to a non-denominational school, (no prayers there either).

If God came up in family conversation, the offspring were left in no doubt about my complete disbelief in God or anything else supernatural. I was occasionally told off by fair weather Christians that we were not giving our kids "the chance to make their minds up"! It seems to me that we were doing exactly that.

So far, the offspring seem to have their heads screwed on. One even bought me TGD as a Christmas present Dec 06, and another does visit this site from time to time. The third one bought me Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything", which was a great read, and from which I learnt more than all the religious bumpf I've ever read.

44. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164066 by D'Arcy on April 19, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Remnant (2653 above) contradicts itself in two adjoining sentences:

I am a creationist friend. True science is the search for causes wherever that many lead.

Creationism can never lead to "true science" because the creationists already "know" the answers. "These are the conclusions upon which I shall base my facts" is their method.

They don't actually have anything useful or insightful to say about the real world.

So Remnant, when you wake up, please tell us what you think is the age of the Earth, age of the Sun, age of the universe. If the answer is "All made on the same day", I'm glad you're not my doctor. (Ihope!).

45. Flea of the week

Comment #164036 by D'Arcy on April 19, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Fleas, mosquitoes, midges, tsetse flies, lice, bed bugs, vampire bats and hosts of other critters suck blood and can spread diseases, e.g. malaria, sleeping sickness, west Nile fever. If I was a Dalek I would be saying "Eliminate, eliminate!"

Paula being in Inverness, probably only has to deal with the midges, although as they say, if you kill one a thousand turn up for the funeral.

In the case of these religious parasites, certainly the Abrahamic religions seem to have a fascination with blood. Muslims and Jews demand halal meat, i.e. killed by throat cutting. The Catholic Christians have the flesh and blood of Christ at mass. The protestants are too mean minded to have blood flow through their veins, they only have holy spirit. I believe the Gaelic meaning of "whisky" is "water of life", and it is at least one way to anaesthetise yourself against the midges.

What blood suckers await Paula in Hawaii?

46. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163972 by D'Arcy on April 19, 2008 at 11:43 am

What WOULD it take to convince me that a god exists?

How about next week's racing results for all races and positions, published in all of today's papers and broadcast in the media and written in the sky a week ahead. That would take some explaining, but then it ain't gonna happen, anymore than Lazarus will rise from the dead again.

47. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163501 by D'Arcy on April 18, 2008 at 12:27 pm

As usual, Richard has his finger on the pulse. IF life did not originate on Earth, there is a possibility that it originated elsewhere in the universe and has subsequently been brought to Earth by comets or even aliens "seeding" the cosmos. This is all Richard said. The theory of panspermia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia was given more scientific basis by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe: http://www.space.com/searchforlife/aliens_all_001027-1.html

As Richard said we don't know how life started, but we know a hell of a lot more about life than we did even 50 years ago.

If the creationists wrote a whodunnit, the conventional final chapter revealing who the villain was, would be the first chapter in their version. All subsequent chapters would be justifications of the opening one. Much like the Bible in fact!

48. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163478 by D'Arcy on April 18, 2008 at 11:52 am

Clearly no-one made the stork! What a stupid idea! This is the entire point; the stork is not OF the physical World and hence isn't subject to its laws. Yes, of course, it must be IN the physical World to actually deliver babies, but its also very much OUTSIDE the physical World and in the physical World at the same time.

The great Stork is clearly irreducibly complex. If mankind sins He sends us messages through his winged underlings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/24/usa.edpilkington

49. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162283 by D'Arcy on April 16, 2008 at 1:48 pm

John Frum! I'm lucky. I never had any gods in my life, although I did love my mum reading me the Greek myths as a kid, gory bits and all. I must admit that I learnt a lot of stuff about religion from this site, since I became aware of it about a year ago. If you had asked me about Pascal's Wager 2 years ago, I would have ventured a guess that it was on a horse running in the Derby. At least we know the Derby is a real event every year.

I will now have a drink to Darwin's Law of Evolution!

50. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162260 by D'Arcy on April 16, 2008 at 1:02 pm

How depressing in the 21st century that we still have these ignoramuses in positions of power where they can influence education.

Well, they will have to take on not just Darwin's Law of evolution, (good point IanG), but also astronomy, geology, cosmology, physics, chemistry and mathematics (pi = 3), among all the other ...ologies, whose research points to a very old Earth and older Sun and older universe. I wonder how people like sponsor Ronda Storms can explain how light from our near neighbour galaxy Andromeda, approx 2.5 million light years away, can reach us now if the universe is only 6004 years old.

Teach the controversy, God speeded up the light so it could get to us now!

Oh for John Frum's sake, what nonsense.

Help me Ronda ,

Help, help me Ronda.